Pierre Poilievre

[Sponsorship Program, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, even the transport minister said that those dollars should be paid back to taxpayers before the sponsorship commission is finished its study. Why is it that the government is now contradicting the original position of the transport minister?

Finally, the Prime Minister says he knew nothing, but now two of his senior Quebec organizers are directly implicated. His patriotism is now in question. He has to decide whether it will be Canadian taxpayers or the Liberal war chest. Why will he not pay Canadian taxpayers back and pay them back now?

[Sponsorship Program, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since he became the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party has consistently denied having known anything about the sponsorship racket. But his friend and long-time organizer was caught red-handed. It is now well known that Jacques Roy illegally received thousands of dollars for his work during election campaigns.

Will the Prime Minister order that legal action be taken against the Liberal Party just as it has been against all the other cheats?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

So why do you want to take that away?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member extolled the virtues of the great government babysitting bureaucracy that her government is proposing at the expense of the choices of women and families. I am wondering why the government feels it has the right to take the choice away from women and families on how to raise their own children.

Let us face it. This new babysitting bureaucracy is going to involve massive new costs well beyond the $5 billion laid out in the budget. Those new costs are going to be picked up in the long term through higher taxes for middle class working families. This means those families will have even less capacity to make their own child care decisions. They will have fewer dollars in their pockets and will be required to work longer hours. It will force them into a system of child care that they do not want.

The Vanier Institute conducted a comprehensive study. The Vanier Institute by the way supports the government's child care initiative. In that study, 70% of the parents questioned, and this is especially true of women, said that they would rather have the option of keeping one parent in the home with the children instead of having a government bureaucracy raise their kids for them. In fact government day care was the second last option, the fifth out of six, for the vast majority of Canadian parents.

The minister responsible has said that the decision and the sacrifice of keeping one parent in the home is nothing more than a frivolous luxury akin to having ice cream once a week or chocolate twice a day. In light of that fact, how does the member feel about her colleague and this initiative which will take choice away from women and families and put it in the hands of government bureaucrats and politicians?

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to make very quickly and hopefully hear some response from the hon. member.

The first is the issue of the extended closing of the border. We expected this week would bring good news of an opened border. However, one week ago the government decided to make a political announcement in opposition to the missile defence system of the United States. It is arguable whether there is a direct linkage between that decision and the supplementary decision to oppose opening the border that came first from a court, but I would remind the government, second from the U.S. senate.

I have spoken to officials in this country who have large vested interests in the industry. They indicate that they were in contact with the administration two days before the vote in the senate. They were told that not only would the motion not pass the senate but there was not enough signatures for the motion to come to the floor of the senate. However, after the decision made by this government to oppose missile defence, all of a sudden there was massive support in the senate to pass the motion, and it eventually passed. That is the reality. Whether there is a linkage or not, one has to acknowledge that the timing of the decision was not in the nation's interest.

The government stood in the House again and again and said that it would call a decision on missile defence when it was in the national interest. Instead it did it just one week before the borders were scheduled to open and put at peril, or at least at potential peril, the interests of this vital industry, which is prominent in my constituency. There is no explanation as to why the government made that decision.

Would the member across the way be willing to make some explanation as to why the government chose that time to take that decision?

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Jean Lafleur received contracts worth $30 million. Today we learn that he contributed $47,000 to the Liberal Party fund. Add to that the numerous gifts he gave his Liberal friends courtesy of the taxpayer.

When is the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party going to return the tens of thousands of dollars improperly received by his party from Jean Lafleur?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my distinguished colleague spent very little time talking about the agricultural commitments in this past budget and in particular, support for our cattle farmers, both dairy and beef, many of whom live in my constituency. It would be impossible to discuss that subject without acknowledging the very obvious linkage between security and trade.

I want to ask the member a question with respect to his government's decision not to support the ballistic missile defence system.

The government stood up time and time again in the House and said repeatedly that its decision would be taken at a time when it was in the Canadian national interest. However, the government chose seven days before the border was meant to be opened to Canadian live cattle as the time to make its very provocative announcement.

How could it possibly have been in the Canadian national interest to announce our opposition, to a major strategic defensive initiative of the United States, seven days before the predicted resolution of one of our biggest trade disputes in history? How could that possibly have been the most timely occasion to make that policy announcement?

We know the real reason, do we not? We know the real reason that his leader put the interests of our cattle farmers behind his own narrow leadership interests by making that announcement only days before his Liberal convention to avoid embarrassing divisions and to avoid the attacks of the loony left in his party, especially among the little Liberals in the youth wing.

Let us acknowledge that this decision had nothing to do with the national interest of the country and nothing to do with the interests of Canadian cattle farmers. However, it had everything to do with the interest of his leader. Why will the member not explain the timing of this very inopportune decision?

[Thomas Torokvei, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Torokvei was a proud Canadian. Last February 24, the chairman of IPEX Inc., a leading Canadian philanthropist, businessman, husband and father, passed away, but his legacy lives on.

Today I rise to carve permanently into the records of the House a tribute to this great man and the life that he lived.

When the people of Walkerton, Ontario, lost seven lives from tainted water, Tom quietly donated four kilometres of pipe so that water could be restored as quickly as possible.

This spirit of giving and generosity was nurtured from a long line of Estonian freedom fighters, including his beloved late father, who escaped communism in a small two-oar dory.

It is out of this long struggle for freedom and the triumph of finding it here in Canada that Tom and his family constructed a business that brings jobs to thousands and hope to us all.

Our hearts go out to his family and their friends as they continue to build on this legacy.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his answer. He deserves our congratulations because he really does work very hard for his constituents. And that is why I congratulate him now.

The hon. member misses the point. It is true that his government raised ever so slightly the basic personal exemption, which means that the average taxpayer will save a whopping $16 this year. This means that Canadians can buy a doughnut once a month. If they want to have a doughnut once a week, they can carve it into four pieces. They can have a quarter of a doughnut once a week with the money that has been saved for them by this tax relief. What an insult to the working families in his constituency.

Furthermore, he is right about one thing, working families do not have the choices. They do not have the options. This system will take even more options away.

What I propose is a refundable tax credit that would go into the pockets of every family, regardless of their income and would be refundable. Would that not be the way to give real choice to working families in his own riding?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was originally going to pose a query here in adjournment proceedings resulting from the Treasury Board President's insult against Canada's youth when he said that I was too young to serve in the House of Commons even though 30,488 constituents in my riding decided to replace the existing defence minister with me. However I have decided to take this discussion one step further and deal with an issue that is important to many young families that I represent in the constituency of Nepean—Carleton.

In particular, in places like Nepean, Greely and Riverside South we have thousands of young families with toddlers running around. The government will be interested to know that Nepean has 23 hockey teams in the same age group, which is why it is so important for me to represent the interests of young families.

Further to that point, the government has announced $5 billion for a national babysitting bureaucracy over the next five years. I find it difficult to understand why those dollars should be taken out of the pockets of hardworking taxpayers, hardworking women and families, so that the government can send those dollars to a bureaucracy and ultimately to a group of unionized staff to set up a brand new babysitting bureaucracy, a brand new day care administration run by the government.

In representing the views of my constituents, I would rather see those dollars go directly into the pockets of parents to deal with child care needs directly. We could cut the bureaucracy out of the process by just giving those child care dollars directly to the people who care and know most about the interests of their children, those of course being the parents. We have millions of child care experts all across the country who already exist. They are called moms and dads.

I wonder why the government refuses to trust parents. Why does it continue to take billions of tax dollars out of the pockets of middle class working families and force on them a national babysitting bureaucracy which those parents did not choose and do not want? Why will the government not put the child care dollars directly into the pockets of parents? Some might choose to use those dollars for day care. Others might decide to keep one parent in the home. Still others might hire a neighbour, a family member or a community based option to deal with their child care needs while they are at work. However that should be a choice for parents. It is not the right of the government to take that choice away.

Why would the government want to take away a fundamental right of parents to decide what is best for their children by forcing on them a day care system that is not universal, excludes stay at home mothers and fathers, excludes community based care, excludes faith based care, excludes family based care and excludes 90% of options? It only provides funding for a small minority who will end up choosing a government run facility to institutionalize their children. Why would the government want to take away choices from women and families?