Pierre Poilievre

[Gasoline Prices, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Due to a lot of noise at the back of the chamber, I accidentally voted in favour of the motion. If the distinguished Chair would allow it, I would like to be recorded as proudly opposed to this motion.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of the traditional definition of marriage. I am also rising in support of the values and the interests that my constituents have communicated to me.

On this critical subject that will define our times, my constituents have told me overwhelmingly that they would like to see their member of Parliament take a balanced position on the question of marriage. They would like to see non-traditional relationships given equal spousal rights through civil unions. They believe that those couples should have the same financial, property and other forms of rights as married couples, but that the meaning of the term “marriage” ought to be preserved as a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I start by making an observation. Had the people of Nepean--Carleton chosen to elect my predecessor, to send him back to the floor of this House of Commons, while he personally supports the traditional definition of marriage and while he has conceded that the people of his former riding support the traditional definition of marriage, he, as a member of Prime Minister's cabinet, would have been forced to vote against his constituents, against his conscience and in favour of the Prime Minister's gay marriage bill. That is a violation not only of one man's conscience but of an entire community's trust.

Thankfully, he was not re-elected, and people sent to Parliament Hill someone who has the conviction to represent the interests of his constituents but who also has a leader who will permit him to do so. That is why I am fortunate to stand here today to defend both my constituents and my conscience.

Our Prime Minister, our Liberal Prime Minister, has made gay marriage the top priority of his first year in office. That means we will ultimately be voting on whether or not to preserve the traditional family. I believe in approaching this subject in a manner that is respectful of both sides of the debate. That is why I am so disappointed with the meanspirited and intolerant approach that our Prime Minister and his Liberal Party have taken.

Let us be blunt. Our Prime Minister and his Liberal Party have divided Canadians with their obsession with imposing gay marriage. The Prime Minister has made it clear that anyone who supports the traditional definition of marriage is not welcome in the Liberal Party. He has said that the traditional definition of marriage is against the law, according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Fortunately I do not sit in the Prime Minister's caucus, so I will have the right to represent the will of my constituents.

To begin with, our Conservative Party leader is the only national leader in this House of Commons who is allowing a totally free vote. As such, we have members of our caucus and members of our shadow cabinet who will be voting differently than the leader will, but they all have the right to hold their convictions because we in this party support their democratic right and we support their right to the freedom of conscience. That is not a right that is respected on the other side of the House.

The Prime Minister's behaviour on this issue in the House of Commons tells us a lot about his intentions, for he is willing to turn his guns against those in his own party, his Liberal friends, with whom he disagrees. If he is willing to coerce them with pressure and threats of demotion and force them to vote against their conscience and their constituents, if he is willing to do all of that, if he is willing to attack the independent conscience of his own members of Parliament, how can he as Prime Minister be expected to defend the freedom of conscience of the Canadian people? He will not.

We have already seen examples of where freedom of religion is under attack. Numerous marriage commissioners across the country have been fired for refusing to perform gay weddings. A pro-family bishop, Bishop Henry, has faced threats that his diocese may lose its charitable tax status if he continues to speak out against the Prime Minister on the subject of gay marriage. At their recent policy convention, Liberal delegates proudly donned pins that called supporters of traditional marriage “stupid”.

That is not the Canadian way. Frankly, I find the use of the word “stupid” rather interesting given that the definition of marriage for which our party stands happens to be the same definition that is held by every civilization on planet earth. Perhaps the Liberal youth think that every other civilization is stupid as well. Perhaps they think that every religion in the world is stupid. Perhaps they think that the vast majority of Canadians who would prefer to give spousal rights to non-traditional couples through civil unions are stupid too.

On this side of the House we will not engage in those types of insults. I have members in my caucus who disagree with me on this subject, members who are with us in this House today. I want to send a message to them and to all people who may take a different point of view on this subject: that I deeply respect their point of view and I respect the way in which they have arrived at it.

That is the Canadian way: respect and tolerance. We should respect people who are in relationships that are non-traditional and we should give them the same rights, but that need not require us to change the meaning of the most quintessential social relationship in the history of civilization. We can have both at once. We can protect rights while at the same time preserving tradition.

It is my position that this social relationship, adhered to throughout the ages, handed down to people from above, is a basic building block of any healthy society. The government should not only tolerate it but encourage it. Therefore, being that I am in the company of members of the House of Commons on the other side who use terminology like “charter” and “equality” as a blanket in order to smother tradition, I want to question their commitment to equality.

Why is it that their government imposes tax penalties on those families that make the sacrifice of keeping one parent in the home? If they believe in equality, why is it that the family that lives in one house and earns $50,000 a year with a single income while keeping one parent in the home pays a much higher rate of taxation than the family next door with two different incomes of $25,000? They have the same family income, yet one is penalized.

Do the Liberals really believe in equality when they attack the right of families to make their own independent decisions? Evidently not.

I am proud to stand in this House and in this chamber not only to defend tradition, but to defend my constituents on the very basis of responsible democracy, which sees us, the members of this House of commoners, as employees of the people, as the servants, not the masters, who take the word of the people and exercise it in this highest democratic chamber in the land. I am proud to stand for my constituents on this day.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The Liberals are reverting to the same argument that Jean Chrétien made to defend the massive theft of Canadian tax dollars. Jean Chrétien stood and said, “Yes, a few million went missing, but we saved the country”. Now the Liberals are saying that anyone who criticizes their party for having stolen our money is undermining national unity.

There is a difference between the fortunes of the Liberal Party and the fortunes of Canadian federalism. I am happy to be on the side of federalists.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my work is done. This party clearly stated that there had been an audit. Those were the words that were used. Now we find out that there was no audit, only a review.

That gentleman, who purports to be an accountant, is attempting to tell us that a review is the same as an audit, if not even more rigorous. He is using the word “forensic”.

When we form the government, we will put an end to that scandalous reign. We will put it out of its misery and Canadians will be given the opportunity to really open the books of the Liberal Party and all of these scandalous programs. We will do a full forensic autopsy on all of the scandal that occurred under the Liberal Party. That is the real reason the Liberals do not want a spring election. The Liberals do not want Canadians to have a full opportunity to get to the bottom of what actually has been going on under their reign.

It is not only the Liberal ad scam. It is Technology Partnerships Canada where $2 billion was lent out and only 5% was recovered. It is the $1 billion mismanaged by HRDC, according to the Auditor General. It is the gun registry with $2 billion in overspending. That is the overall financial record.

Before someone on the Liberal side of the floor stands up in this House and tries to lecture us on various aspects of financial accounting, I suggest that the Liberals start minding the affairs of the nation to ensure that our dollars are no longer stolen and no longer wasted.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that this is a very touchy subject for the Liberal member. He is not happy to hear the truth about his party. I will repeat so that all Canadians who follow our debate get a good idea of the real extent of the scandal. The Liberals stole the taxpayers' money to finance their activities. That is the reality. The party must face that fact.

We cannot seriously believe that the Liberal Party will return that money one day. That is the reason an account must be created right now for the Liberal Party to begin to reimburse the money. We cannot wait because it is not possible to expect that the party will return the money on its own.

As an example, this week or last, the Prime Minister told us that he never met Claude Boulay. However, the Prime Minister did meet him. According to public testimony, they even had lunch together. And today, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions amount that meeting. He said that he had never talked about sponsorships with Mr. Boulay, but that was not the question. The question was whether they had lunch together. That was a very simple question, but the Prime Minister refused to answer. That is what we saw today.

Two or three days ago, our Minister of Public Works and Government Services wanted us to believe that an audit had been done of the Liberal Party's finances. He said so two or three times right here in this House. We learned yesterday, though, that no audit was done; there was a review. In addition, the companies that did the review said that the Liberal Party did not provide all the facts that were needed for it. This shows that the Liberal Party is hiding something. It does not really want to pay taxpayers back for the money that it stole.

A motion is needed, therefore, that says specifically that the money must be paid back starting now, because we have no confidence that this party will reimburse the money. I am proud to be working today with Quebeckers, Ontarians, Albertans and British Columbians to defend the principles of honour and honesty and thus to support this motion.

The motion states what taxpayers want to hear, which is that the dollars that that party stole to finance at least two election campaigns, if not three, must be paid back immediately.

I will review some of the occasions when we have been misled by the government on the subject of the ad scam just in the past week.

The Minister of Public Works claimed there had been an audit. We now learn there was no audit at all. There was merely a review conducted by two firms which now reveal that they were blocked access to key information. They were blocked access to the Liberal riding associations in the province of Quebec to which the money was initially funnelled through Liberal ad scamsters. That is the first contradiction that we have seen.

The second contradiction we should point out is that the Prime Minister originally said he did not meet Claude Boulay, one of the chief ad scamsters. Now he is admitting that there had been certain social occasions at which they had met. Two testimonies under oath by two separate individuals revealed that they actually had lunch to discuss federal government contracts. He still will not answer the question as to whether that lunch occurred, even though he has been asked in the House of Commons on roughly a dozen occasions.

These two examples that have occurred just in the last five or six days demonstrate that that party cannot be trusted to repay the money that it stole from taxpayers. That is why we must put in place an account immediately to see that those funds are eventually repaid.

We are not talking about a small amount of money. We are talking about $2 million or more. That is an enormous sum of money in a political campaign.

In my campaign we relied on the dollars of voluntary contributors, middle class people who wanted to see a change in the democratic process. They made financial sacrifices to support accountability at election time.

At the same time, the party across the way was financing its campaigns by funnelling money through the sponsorship programs into the pockets of Liberal friendly advertising firms which then kicked the money back to the ultimate destination, the Liberal Party of Canada. That is the reality.

It puts right into question the actual election results of the last three elections. Elections Canada ought to consider reviewing this, because electoral financing is a key part of the democratic process. If a party had stolen votes to win an election, we would consider it a massive undertaking of fraud, and it would be. That party has stolen money to win elections. What do we call that? It is fraud. It is electoral fraud. It is theft, Liberal theft, the very worst kind.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today and to support the motion introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which says:

That the House call on the government to immediately establish a trust account into which the Liberal Party of Canada can deposit all funds received from companies and individuals tied to the sponsorship scandal and identified in testimony before the Gomery commission.

It is essential that this House supports this motion, because it deals with the integrity of our democracy. The Liberal Party has won two elections after stealing and using the money that was stolen from taxpayers.

Even the legitimacy of these victories is now questioned, because the Liberal Party decided to steal the money from my constituents, from all constituents and citizens of this country. This money was stolen.

[Petitions, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition by Canadians across the country who come together and ask that the House take all steps to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on equalization and the fiscal imbalance, the Bloc members and the Liberals lost sight of what is most important. The Bloc members say there is not enough money in the pockets of the Government of Quebec. The Liberals say there is not enough money in the pockets of the federal government.

However, both parties forget that the money does not belong to the Quebec government, nor does it belong to the Canadian government. The money belongs to taxpayers, families, parents and people who work for a living. It is their money and it is for the independence of individuals and families. That is who the Conservatives are fighting for. We want the money to go back into the pockets of the people who work for it.

For example, when it comes to child care, the Liberals think it is up to the federal government to decide how children should live and how their care should be delivered. The Bloc members think the Government of Quebec should have this responsibility. However, the Conservatives realize that the issue of child care is neither a federal nor provincial jurisdiction, it is a family matter.

I would like our Conservative member to comment on this.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the importance of fairness. I would like to build on that theme.

We have a government that drives a financial wedge between parents and their children by imposing financial penalties on those families that have a stay at home parent. This issue was addressed this past weekend at the Conservative convention.

We proposed, and it was accepted, that there ought to be a system of income splitting, allowing parents who have a single income to split their income, thus pushing them both into a lower tax bracket. That would create real equality for those families who have one parent in the home taking care of the children. In fact it would return the right to choose to young mothers and it would create real equality between families. That is what fairness is all about.

Instead the government is pursuing a national day care bureaucracy which will impose higher taxes on working families to pay for it and will take choices away from young women and families. How is that fair? Working families in Barrhaven in my riding are discriminated against because they make the sacrifice to keep one parent in the home.

I wonder what the hon. member, along with his other Conservative colleagues, would do to end this financial discrimination, to remove the wedge that the government has driven between parents and their children and restore fairness to the Canadian family

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Violating the Constitution.