Pierre Poilievre

[Ethics, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is an honourable man, but he did not answer the question of the House leader. He committed in writing that, to prevent a conflict of interest situation from arising and to avoid the perception of preferential treatment, he would abstain from any matters relating to Morneau Shepell. Today we had two witnesses who testified under oath that his tax changes will lead to a large increase in the number of people who put money into individual pension plans, plans that are offered fairly uniquely by Morneau Shepell. Why did he not abstain from this conversation?

[Taxation, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Andrew Lovell is a farmer from New Brunswick who is looking forward to passing his farm on to his kids. Today he testified before the finance committee that the minister's amendments to section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act would double the tax that his family would pay on that transaction. Meanwhile, there would be no tax if he sold the farm to McCain Foods. That means that farms like Andrew's will be taken over by big corporate giants.

Will the minister announce today that he is backing down on the draft legislation that would take Andrew's farm out of his family?

[Request for Emergency Debate, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I wrote you requesting an emergency debate, in accordance with Standing Order 52. The finance minister's unfair tax changes will lead to dire consequences for our local businesses and family farmers. The government has allotted exactly zero hours to debate them before the end of the consultation period on October 2.

Parliament, and not the government, is the final authority on taxation. The government cannot tax what Parliament does not approve. Despite this, the government has not even given the opportunity to members of the House, the House of the common people, who will pay the bill for this tax increase, to hold a debate on the costs. In the spirit of non-partisanship and co-operation, our House leader, the member for Portage—Lisgar, asked for the government's consent for a take-note debate on this subject. Unfortunately, the government refused. Therefore, we are appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to schedule an emergency debate.

These consultations were announced in the middle of the summer, with just 75 days of feedback from Canadians, including during a time period when our farmers were in their fields harvesting their crops, unable to defend themselves against a tax change that will give major advantages to large international corporations seeking to take over the family farm.

Every day the House has heard statements from affected Canadians, delivered through members of the opposition: from farmers who plan to hand down their farms to their sons and daughters but who now will face a much larger tax bill for doing so and whose kids may therefore be turned into tenants of foreign corporate landlords; from the local grocer, who saved for his retirement and protected himself against a downturn in his business; and from small-business owners, who played by the rules while the government referred to them as tax cheats.

Canadians are concerned, and they deserve answers. This matter is urgent, not only because of the consultation period closing just next week but also because the minister plans to impose this taxation retroactively to when the consultation was released on July 18. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow the government to impose retroactive taxation without any debate or scrutiny in the House.

To conclude, these proposed changes have been subject to intense media and opposition scrutiny for almost two months outside of this chamber. They deserve to have the same kind of scrutiny inside the chamber, where the final decision on them will be made. Therefore, I ask you to schedule an emergency debate on this subject, to take place prior to the October 2, 2017, consultation deadline.

[Petitions, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition is from some constituents requesting changes to the electoral system.

[Petitions, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from hundreds of Canadians who are outraged by the government's unfair tax changes.

The petitioners call on the government to cancel these tax increases and lower the small business tax rate.

[Petitions, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce petitions.

The first petition is from almost 2,000 Canadians who demand an end to the carbon tax cover-up and ask for simple, straightforward answers on what the carbon tax will cost them.

[Aerospace Industry, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is standard practice that whenever members make reference to government documents in the House of Commons, they table them. Earlier on during the debate, I made reference to the “Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada”, which showed that the wealthiest Canadians paid less tax in the government's first full fiscal year in office, revenues from that group falling by roughly $1 billion. I quoted directly from page 16 of that document.

The Prime Minister said that was all false. I am here today to table the document in question, and trust I will have unanimous and enthusiastic consent from the government.

[Taxation, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister please point to the section or the clause in his proposed legislation, or the sentence in his consultation paper, in which it clearly states that no one earning less than $150,000 a year will pay any of these new taxes?

[Taxation, September 27th, 2017]

Actually, I did not vote against that, Mr. Speaker; I voted against a plan that has seen the wealthiest Canadians pay less and the average middle-class Canadian pay $800 more.

What I voted in favour of was the previous government's plan to lift a million people off the tax rolls altogether and to reduce the tax rate on people earning $30,000 a year by 80%. That is what I voted for.

The Prime Minister is imposing a plan that will apply to every single person who owns a private business, including those with low income. It does not apply to the wealthiest shareholders, including those in his cabinet. Why not?

[Taxation, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in raising taxes on anyone. The member across the way believes in raising them on middle-class small business owners, putting them at a comparative disadvantage versus the wealthiest multinational corporations that trade on Bay Street, companies like Morneau Shepell. Those companies will now be able to outbid our middle-class small business owners and farmers for assets in the marketplace. Why is the Prime Minister creating distortions that favour the wealthiest elite at the expense of the middle class?