Pierre Poilievre

[Department of Social Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what we are really discussing here is people. That is why I want to address a number of important questions that affect real people in my riding as they relate to this sort of legislation

For example, I would like to hear what the hon. member thinks about the way in which people with dystonia are treated in this country. It is a debilitating disease and it is one about which there is not a lot of public knowledge. We learned this week that people will not be covered through public health insurance when seeking treatment for their children who are suffering with autism, an equally debilitating condition.

We have heard from the immigrant communities in our country that they are suffering with the reality that their foreign credentials are not being recognized by the government.

While the government has put its members forward today to defend its record and promote its legislation, Bill C-22, I wonder if the government could expound upon its commitment to these sorts of issues that affect real people, people who are suffering from diseases like dystonia, children who are not covered for their autism treatment, or in another area not related to health so much, immigrants whose very hard-earned foreign credentials are not recognized here in Canada. Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Chair, what an astounding example of a failure to address the question posed to the member. In fact, he was stuck on the last scandal. I was talking about the next scandal which is the government's refusal to come clean on its plans with respect to the location of the Department of National Defence.

Instead of answering that question, the member went straight into a pre-written document clearly prepared for him by backroom Liberal strategists, whose job it is to defend the reputation and enhance the political interests of the Liberal Party.

I return to the question that I posed. What studies have been done to assess the financial liability, the strategic security, and the overall practicality of moving the Department of National Defence or any other government department to the JDS Uniphase building in south Nepean?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

There were many actions, that is true.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rose in the House of Commons some days ago to pose a question to the government with respect to the Prime Minister's direct involvement in the sponsorship scandal. It is now clear, with the evidence that has come out, that the Prime Minister was intimately involved in securing contracts and other rewards for his very close friends and supporters. The evidence is just astounding. It is ongoing. I have page after page that indicates the Prime Minister was clearly implicated in this program.

When I asked that question, the public works minister stood in the House and told us that he could not answer any questions because the Gomery commission was looking into it. The last time I checked, there was no such rule indicating that the Prime Minister could not reveal his involvement in awarding contracts to his friends merely because a commission happened to be studying the question at the very same time. As a result, I submitted an application for an intervention during adjournment proceedings.

The problem is that the government engages in a degree of secrecy that is really unprecedented in Canadian history. I can give another example. Located in my constituency is a major building that would be well suited, according to former ministers in the Liberal government, to house the Department of National Defence. It is the JDS Uniphase building which is largely vacated by that company. The idea of moving DND to that location was discussed and supported by numerous members on that side of the House of Commons before the last election. It was a promise, effectively, that the Liberals made to the constituents in my area.

I asked the Minister of Public Works of the status of that very issue in committee the other day. He refused to answer what his government's plan was with respect to the future location of the Department of National Defence. This is the ongoing secrecy that we see on the other side of the floor.

I have been advocating that the JDS Uniphase building would be a perfect location to consolidate the disparate groups that form the Department of National Defence here in the National Capital Region. It is only fair that we get clear answers on where those deliberations are, and what studies have been done to ascertain the overall effectiveness of such a move both in cost and practicality, but also in security.

These are important questions that the government has failed time and time again to answer. Just as with the sponsorship scandal, Liberals have resorted to their old tactics of secrecy and a failure to be transparent with the voting and tax paying public.

I wonder if the hon. Minister of Public Works would stand and answer my question directly, or perhaps he will call on one of his subordinates to do so for him, and tell us clearly right here and now, have there been any cost effectiveness studies on the concept of moving the Department of National Defence to the JDS Uniphase building in south Nepean?

[The Environment, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has definitely removed the Bellechasse site from consideration for the new hospital because of its poor location, contaminated soil and the movement of dangerous goods nearby.

How does the minister explain that he is ready to spend $25 million to locate it 500 metres away, along the same tracks, in his riding?

[The Environment, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government likes to play politics in provincial jurisdictions and neglect its own responsibilities. The Minister of Transport himself has made this clear. Today he is the one endangering the main rail access to the port of Montreal by encouraging construction of a hospital next to the tracks.

Is the minister attempting to change the decision already announced by the Quebec health department—yes or no?

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. He talked about provincial jurisdictions. I wonder if he is as concerned about the individual's role.

In economics, there are several schools of thought. I believe individuals create opportunities through their business activities. I want to ask the member the following question. Who will reduce unemployment, improve the economy and create jobs, the government or the businesses and the individuals?

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The people did read this party correctly and that is why 64% of Canadians voted against the Liberal Party in the last election.

The Canadian people understand that their money is just that; it is their money. They can invest and spend their money more intelligently than a politician or a bureaucrat can. That is the philosophy of this party. We believe that a dollar in the hands of the person who earned it will always be better spent than the dollar in the hands of the bureaucrat or the politician who taxed it.

That is the essential difference between that party and this one. It is a big philosophical difference. I am not surprised that she does not recognize that change, because she is part of a political tradition that says people are not smart enough to spend and invest their own money; that the wise state ought to step in and slide its hand surreptitiously into the pockets of the taxpayers and spend that money for them. That is the essential difference between that side and this side.

Why does the hon. member not now admit that she does not trust any investors or entrepreneurs to take care of their own affairs? Why does she not just admit it?

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech.

In that we are talking about enterprise and innovation I would like to quote one of Canada's greatest entrepreneurs. Frank Stronach once said that the government cannot give us anything without first taking it away. It is impossible for government to create economic activity on the one hand without taking away economic activity on the other.

For these dollars to flow into the regional development programs that the hon. member supports, those dollars first have to be taken out of someone's pocket. In so doing, it kills jobs just as much as it creates them.

It is impossible to deny. When more tax burden is forced on small businesses by taxing them to pay for these kinds of programs, the government is in fact killing jobs at that small business.

If the government were really interested in creating economic wealth, if it were really interested in promoting innovation and technology, why would the government not eliminate the capital gains tax and let investors invest their dollars in the way they want to create real wealth in the economy? Why not make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and therefore create jobs?

Instead the government raises roughly $4 billion a year off the backs of entrepreneurs, kills investment, shuts people out of the marketplace, makes it more difficult for small firms that are issuing IPOs to raise capital, just so it can take that $4 billion and have 100% control over the way in which it is spent. That is what we are really talking about here today.

The question is why would the government do such a thing? The answer is the government wants to have control over where money flows. The government wants to reward its friends. The government wants to pick winners over losers, punish success, reward failure and waste a lot of tax dollars at the same time.

Why not just cut the capital gains tax so that investors can create real wealth with their own money instead of having government intervene on their behalf?

[Petitions, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise in the House to introduce a widely supported petition on the subject of whistleblower protection in the public service.

Being an Ottawa area MP, I, of course, have thousands of constituents who work in the public service and have been denied this kind of protection by the government for many years.

The petition calls for the government to finally pass meaningful whistleblower legislation that will protect those who expose scandal and waste such as the kind we saw with the sponsorship scandal, the gun registry, HRDC and the list goes on.

The residents of Canada call upon the Prime Minister to enact legislation that will protect employees of the public service who have either voiced concerns or made allegations of wrongful acts or omissions in the workplace.