House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 50% of the vote.
Taxation May 18th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, in its 26-page technical report on the federal carbon tax, the government has thought of every single way to wring every single dime out of taxpayers in the relevant jurisdictions. There is talk of registered fuel importers, registered fuel distributors, surplus credit, and special bringing-in rules. There is all of this detail, except one detail. How much will it cost for the average family to pay the damn tax?
Taxation May 18th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the government has told the provinces that if they refuse to impose a carbon tax, the Liberals will impose it for them.
Today, a technical document showed that the federal carbon tax will cost at least 11ยข a litre for consumers at the pumps, and of course thousands more for home heating, electricity, and groceries. Now the government claims that it is considering giving some of that money back to the people who will pay it. How will it be possible, though, for those people to know if they are actually getting their money's worth, when the government continues to hide the real cost to the average family of the federal carbon tax?
Canada Labour Code May 17th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, we just heard a member of the House of Commons say that the right to vote is an attack on democracy. She said that giving workers the right to vote will allow them to be intimidated.
What she should learn about the right to vote is that if executed properly, it happens through a secret ballot, which means neither the employer nor the would-be union would know how the worker voted. Therefore, it would be impossible for the worker to be intimidated. In fact, that is how elections work. That is how all of us were elected. No member of this House can intimidate a voter, because none of us actually knows for sure how an individual voted. A person walking into a voting booth does so in privacy. The previous government enshrined this principle in the Canada Labour Code to allow workers the same democratic protections.
If the member is so worried about employers intimidating workers, why does she not allow those workers to make their decisions in private, out of view, without the employer looking over the shoulder of the worker, the same way every other democratic country in the world operates? Could it be that her party and the party across the way want to give interest groups the ability to look over the shoulders of workers when they are deciding whether or not they want to vote?
The member said, as the government has, that there was no tripartite consultation when we gave workers the right to vote, tripartite being government, business, and unions. Those are the last three powers that should be consulted, because this is about workers' rights, not the rights of big government, big business, and big unions. It is the right of everyday workers to chart their own course, mark their own destiny, and make their own decisions without intimidation from any of those three powers.
Infrastructure May 17th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, these companies already invest billions of dollars in electricity infrastructure. According to J.P. Morgan, they expect, on average, 20% rates of return. Now they want taxpayers to take any losses.
The Liberals' paid lobbyist, Sergio Marchi, has lobbied the government 40 times on infrastructure. He represents the same crony capitalists that Kathleen Wynne has enriched by forcing Ontarians to pay through the nose for electricity.
Why is the Liberal government forcing taxpayers to backstop the profits of Liberal wealthy elites?
Infrastructure May 17th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, businesses accept that risk goes with making a profit. Risk is a real thing, but not for electricity company lobbyist and former Liberal cabinet minister Sergio Marchi, though, who told the transport committee yesterday that the infrastructure bank will de-risk his clients' electricity investments through loan guarantees from taxpayers.
Imagine: the risk disappears. Will taxpayers' money disappear along with it?
Infrastructure May 15th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, when ConCreate USL went bankrupt building a bridge in south Ottawa, taxpayers had no extra cost. That is because the builder was forced to hire a private sector guarantor to finish the job. Thank God there was no infrastructure bank at the time, because it would offer investors a government loan guarantee, putting taxpayers on the hook.
Why is the government taking billions of dollars of risk off the shoulders of wealthy billionaires and putting it onto the backs of Canadian taxpayers?
Infrastructure May 15th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the budget bill empowers the finance minister to lend investors tens of billions of tax dollars to build infrastructure. I asked him 10 times in committee today who will repay taxpayers if those builders go bankrupt, and 10 times he refused to answer. If the minister who is responsible for making these risky taxpayer-funded loans does not know how they will be repaid, who does?
Public Service Labour Relations Act May 12th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary across the way revealed just now why we need to give workers the right to vote. She said that there is a report that was in the possession of the Department of Employment and Social Development, under the previous Conservative government, that showed that when workers have a chance to vote, they are less likely to choose unionization of their workplaces, and that is proof that we need to get rid of the right to vote, according to her.
The Liberal philosophy on this is that because workers do not make the choice Liberals want them to, they should not be entitled to make the choice at all. That is why the Liberals want to take away the right to vote from workers and force them to unionize through an intimidating card check petition that allows unions, or even employers, to look over workers' shoulders when they are deciding whether they want a unionized workplace, instead of letting those workers go into the privacy of a voting booth to mark their X, yea or nay, as they wish.
Does the member agree that this is about defending the right to vote for Canada's workers?
Infrastructure May 12th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, imagine infrastructure were ice cream, and a wealthy aristocrat wanted to make money selling ice cream cones. If he made a profit from his sales, he could put it in his pocket, but in order to avoid losses, he has the Liberals set up the ice cream cone bank to ensure that taxpayers pay the price if he makes a loss.
Why will the government not admit that this is a gigantic, $35-billion self-licking ice cream cone for the wealthy elite?
Infrastructure May 12th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, at the Davos billionaires convention, at meetings in New York and closed door Shangri-La meetings in Toronto, and in talks with officials and ministers ever since, the richest people on earth have been directing the government on how the tax-funded infrastructure bank should work. Their instructions: they get all the profits from risky megaprojects, and taxpayers get all the losses.
Why is the government giving a $35-billion bank to the world's wealthiest elite?