House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 50% of the vote.
Ethics February 14th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, once again I merely quoted sections out of the Criminal Code without referring to the Prime Minister. He instantaneously assumed that I was making a personal attack against him.
This is a Prime Minister who accepted a gift that is worth approximately $200,000 from someone who was seeking a $15 million grant from the Government of Canada. Does he dispute these facts?
Ethics February 14th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code says it is an offence for a government official “to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person”.
If the Prime Minister learned that one of his ministers had accepted a benefit from someone who had dealings with the government, what would he do about it?
Ethics February 14th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the cost of the transportation and security. I am talking about the commercial value of a gift. I never actually mentioned the Prime Minister, by the way. I just described some conduct and he immediately attributed it to himself. It is funny.
An island like the one on which he vacationed is advertised for, and they cost a lot of money, approximately $200,000 for the amount of time and the number of people the Prime Minister had vacationing as part of this gift.
Does he believe that a minister, any minister, should repay an improper gift of that size?
Ethics February 14th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, we are just trying to help Liberal cabinet ministers understand what the rules are. That is why I am asking the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's cabinet is here and they are listening. He has an opportunity to inform them. If a minister, for example, got a $200,000 gift from someone who is lobbying that minister, would the Prime Minister take action? What action would he take? Would he fire the minister? Would he force them to give the gift back? Would he refer the matter to the RCMP, or just shrug?
Ethics February 14th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister mentioned the Ethics Commissioner, because his vice-chair asked the Ethics Commissioner if he agreed that a minister should return any improperly received gifts. The commissioner said, “Of course it would be—”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Ethics Commissioner on that?
Ethics February 14th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of ministers receiving valuable and improper gifts, the Liberal vice-chair of the ethics committee, a Liberal member of the Prime Minister's caucus said, “I do think repayment of the reasonable value of an improper gift that one receives is prudent and reasonable under the act.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Liberal vice-chair of the ethics committee that ministers should return the commercial value of any improper gift they receive?
Persons with Disabilities February 9th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, there are over one million Canadians with disabilities who have jobs and contribute to our economy, and 300,000 of them have severe disabilities. However, Stats Canada reports that tens of thousands of people with disabilities are effectively banned from working, because clawbacks and taxes make them poorer when they do.
My opportunity act would impose one simple rule that governments must respect: that workers with disabilities must always be able to gain more from wages than they lose to clawbacks and taxes. Does the government support that principle?
Canada Elections Act February 9th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, we already have very strict rules governing donations to political parties and candidates. I do not feel we need to give Elections Canada officials more powers. They have lots of powers already.
The combination of money and power in politics is a problem because the government is now so big that it controls who gets what. Of course interest groups are going to invest in political power to grow their own personal wealth. If we want to reduce the amount of money in politics, we have to reduce state control of the economy.
Canada Elections Act February 9th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, one of the false allegations levelled at parties on the left is that they are against people getting rich. In fact, they are not against people getting rich. They work very hard to make themselves very rich. We have a millionaire Prime Minister and a gazillionaire finance minister.
The Liberals are not against rich people. They just have a different idea of how people get rich. They believe that people should get rich off the government through corporate subsidies, through complicated loan-guaranteed schemes, through inflated electrical contracts for so-called green wind and solar energy, etc. These policies have made a small number of people spectacularly rich, but when one is getting rich off the government, one is getting rich by making everyone else poorer.
In a free market economy, one can get ahead only by selling people things they actually want to buy with their own money. They are, by definition, better off, or they would not be spending their own money to buy these things. When a teenage high school student who makes his money mowing lawns goes to an Apple store to buy an iPad, he may have a net worth of $1,000. He is negotiating with a nearly trillion-dollar enterprise, yet in that one moment that high school student has just as much power as the biggest company the world has ever known, because it cannot get his money unless it gives him something that is worth more to him than what he has to part with to get it. That is the genius of the free market. Everybody must necessarily win in every single transaction for it to occur.
If the government wants to democratize our economy, it will reinstate the free market system and put an end to the excessive controls of the government and the elites that the Liberals have instilled since they took office.
Canada Elections Act February 9th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, it would do nothing. It would require that politicians file another report to reveal information that is already necessarily revealed. Donors are already public. However, there are multiple ways people give donations.
The Aga Khan gave tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations to the personal well-being and luxury of the Prime Minister while he was simultaneously seeking a $15-million grant for his foundation. In other jurisdictions, decision-makers in the government receiving that kind of luxury benefit has led to resignations, police investigations, and even charges. With time, I can give many examples of politicians around the world whose careers have been ended by doing much less.
The point I am making here is that this is a government that has rendered itself open and susceptible to all kinds of gift receiving and favouritism from those who are seeking something from the government. The fact that we have a sitting Prime Minister who would think it appropriate to receive tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of free luxury from someone who had personally asked him for 15 million dollars' worth of government money is an astonishing fact, indeed.