Pierre Poilievre

[Ethics, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's office told John Ivison that he sold 680,000 Morneau Shepell shares. At 10:25 on November 30, 2015, someone sold 680,000 Morneau Shepell shares. That someone saved a half a million dollars by avoiding the drop in the stock market that followed the minister's introduction of tax measures in this House of Commons. Was it just a coincidence that those two transactions lined up so carefully, or did in fact the minister jump the gun and sell his shares before he introduced his tax measures?

[Ethics, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2015, the Minister of Finance introduced a motion in the House of Commons to raise taxes effective January 1 of the forthcoming year. The stock market dropped, and so did Morneau Shepell, by five percentage points, but not before someone could sell $10 million in Morneau Shepell shares one week before that drop, and one week before that bill was introduced. Can the minister tell us who sold those shares?

[Taxation, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the focus of many in the stock market was to sell their shares after the December 7 announcement this minister made in order to realize any capital gains in the 2015 year, before the tax rate went up. As a result, the stock market in Canada dropped 5% subsequent to the minister's announcement on December 7.

I ask again, did the finance minister anticipate that the markets would react in this way to his December 7 announcement?

[Taxation, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, on December 7, 2015, the markets learned that at the end of that year, the rate of taxation on the highest earners would go up to 33%. As a result, many started to sell their shares before the rate went up so that their capital gains would be realized before the change in the tax rate. As a result, in the week following that December 7 announcement, the stock market dropped by 5%.

Did the finance minister anticipate this reaction?

[Taxation, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised in the last election that if they became the government, the rich would pay more. In fact, a financial report provided by the government for the 2016-17 tax year shows that the wealthiest Canadians paid $1.2 billion less in income tax as a result of the measures the government instituted. In fact, it says that high-income individuals aimed to recognize income in the 2015 tax year, before the new 33% tax rate came into effect.

What kind of tax strategies did these wealthy Canadians use to declare that income a year earlier?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for assurance here. Will the minister assure Canadians that neither she nor the Prime Minister will stand in the way of an investigation by her department into Mr. Bronfman.

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not retracted her comment. She seemed to suggest in her earlier answer that the allegations were completely ridiculous. Well, those allegations have not even been investigated yet by her department.

We have new revelations from the paradise papers, suggesting a link between Mr. Bronfman and this potentially illegal tax haven. How can the minister possibly think it appropriate for her to stand and exonerate him before her department has even had a chance to conduct its investigation?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the minister say that the allegations were completely ridiculous. Her job is to ensure that her department conducts these investigations totally objectively, but she has now predetermined the outcome by declaring that the allegations are ridiculous.

How can Canadians have any assurance that there will be an honest investigation into Mr. Bronfman when both the Prime Minister and the minister have declared him not guilty?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when the original revelations about Stephen Bronfman's connections to a Cayman Islands tax haven came to light earlier this month, the Prime Minister said, “We have received assurances that all rules were followed...and we are satisfied with those assurances.”

Is the Prime Minister still satisfied with the assurances that his top fundraiser followed all the rules?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, after the paradise papers revealed the top Liberal fundraiser's connection to a Cayman Islands tax evasion scheme, he said “Stephen Bronfman had no other direct or indirect involvement whatsoever in the Kolber Trust”, that trust being located in the Cayman Islands. We now know that connection came in the form of a $7 million loan that was still in place as of 2005.

Does the Prime Minister still believe Mr. Bronfman has no connection to this trust?