House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 50% of the vote.
Ethics December 4th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Minister of Finance was asked yet again if he sold his shares in Morneau Shepell on November 30, 2015. Here is what he said, “ I do not know on what exact date those shares were sold.” He has also said in the House that he gave the transaction records to a journalist.
How is it possible that a journalist knows the date on which he sold the shares but he does not?
Canada Revenue Agency December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this famous tax policy. The minister made sure to sell his shares before his tax increases took effect so he would not have to pay any of the taxes he was imposing on others.
However, who is paying more now? People suffering with diabetes. Now we learn that people suffering with autism are losing the disability tax credit, a tax increase of $1,500 for families that are suffering with great hardship. Whenever Liberals raise taxes, why do they always target those with the least?
Ethics December 1st, 2017
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the platform the Liberals put out said that the tax measure would come in place April 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year.
Nothing is certain until it is actually tabled on the floor of the House of Commons. However, even if it were widely predicted, when corporate earnings are widely predicted, and even forecasted by the company itself, the leaders of those companies, officers and directors, are forbidden from selling shares in the immediate lead up to the release of those formal documents. That is a basic corporate standard.
All I am asking is why the minister would not hold himself to that same standard in this office.
Ethics December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, public companies have something called a blackout period on the sale of shares by officers and directors. Those decision makers are forbidden from selling shares in in their own company in the immediate lead up to quarterly earnings result, even when analysts, or even the company itself, have widely and accurately predicted what those results will be.
In light of that corporate standard, which the minister should know, would it not have been more appropriate for him to wait until after the introduction of his tax measures before he sold his shares in Morneau Shepell?
Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of people are looking back on those quaint old times in the previous government when people had to resign because they spent $16 on a glass of orange juice, or because they, on behalf of a constituent, called a quasi-judicial body in order to try to help a constituent with a problem. Those were the days when ministers held themselves to the highest possible ethical standards. Now we live in an era where a minister can own shares secretly in a company that he regulates, introduce a bill on pensions when he owns a pension company, and where that minister can actually tell us that it is illegitimate to question his sale of shares right before introducing a tax measure. Times have changed for the worse.
Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the minister is in fact trying to use his prodigious wealth to silence his critics. There is no question about that. I have stated facts and asked questions on the floor of the House of Commons, which I have repeated outside the House. However, the minister, instead of just answering them here, has said that he wants to sue people who ask those questions.
In the House, we are equal regardless of the wealth that we inherited or brought to this place. We are all equal in our ability to conduct debate, to ask questions, and demand accountability, and that is all that we have sought from the minister. Unfortunately, he has made problems so much worse for himself through his absolute unwillingness to answer the most basic questions on the floor of the House of Commons or anywhere else. He has had all week to do it, he fails to do it, and instead he goes around using the Bay Street tactic of threatening lawsuits against anybody who disagrees with him.
Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support private sector investment in infrastructure in a way that puts the risk on the investor, and that is exactly what Conservatives did in government. We created infrastructure deals that ensured that the investor would suffer the losses in the event that the project went over budget or revenue came in below expectations. That is exactly how public-private partnerships should work. In fact, the only real benefit to having a public-private partnership is to shift risk off the taxpayer and onto the private sector investor. What, in fact, the government is doing is exactly the opposite. It is shifting the risk off the investor and onto the taxpayer, and that is what we oppose.
Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, we will not stop asking the relevant and important questions that are the duty of an official opposition to ask. Our job is to hold the government to account to ensure that not only its policies but its conduct are appropriate. In so doing, I have stated facts, asked questions, and played my role as an opposition critic, and I will keep doing so.
Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, it is a very strange course of events when the government is using words about an allegation relating to its own minister that the opposition is not using. He almost wants us to make those allegations. We have not.
Second, the Minister of Finance told me go outside. I said, “Come with me. Let's go together. I will repeat the same facts and questions out there as I did in here”, but he was like the schoolboy who challenged someone to fight and then did not show up at the bike racks. I went outside, I repeated my questions and my facts, and stated the same things out there as I did in here, which are questions and facts.
These are legitimate questions and legitimate facts, and the finance minister could have done a lot better job of dealing with these problems if he had just answered basic, simple questions, to which he would obviously have answers, like when did he sell his shares. We asked it literally dozens of times this week and as late as yesterday, he was claiming not to have any knowledge. That was an obvious question, to which he could have given an obvious answer, and he would have done himself a great service if he had. If he starts to answer questions, he will do himself a great service.
Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 December 1st, 2017
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the member just used a bunch of words that I have never used. He used the words “jail” and “criminal”, and others. I have never used such words. Never have I used such words. Never have I used such words.
The member—