Pierre Poilievre

[Canada Labour Code, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, unions typically cite the famous Rand decision as the basis for the very favourable arrangement they have in our country through mandatory union dues. The Rand decision of January 29, 1946 on the dispute between Ford Motors and the UAW-CIO sets up the system that we have today, which leads to mandatory representation of all members in a bargaining unit that has been certified.

In that important ruling, Justice Ivan Rand said the following:

But unguarded power cannot be trusted and the maintenance of social balance demands that the use or exercise of power be subject to controls. Politically this resides in alert public opinion and the secret ballot.

The member across has used rhetoric to attack the secret ballot, which would make many third-world, tin-pot dictators proud. She has said that the secret ballot is too expensive, that it is too costly to allow workers to vote on their own destinies, that it is too much hassle for labour boards, too much work for bureaucrats to administer secret ballots, and therefore, we should go back to a simpler system that forces workers to state their position on union certification in front of all of their colleagues and their employer.

She has further said that it is easier to unionize a workplace when there is no secret ballot. Surely, it is easier for a government to take power when it does not have to be subjected to a secret ballot. I am sure that there are many dictators around the world who would make the very same argument as to why there should be no vote on the powers they command in their respective jurisdictions.

Therefore, if the hon. member is of the view that a secret ballot is too costly, too much work, and too distracting, is she suggesting also that governments and Parliaments in Canada could be elected without a secret ballot?

[Finance, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the approach of the previous Conservative government was to set up the parliamentary budget officer in a fashion that was independent, one of the reasons of which was to allow him or her to examine political party platforms before elections were called to determine if they were in fact costed properly.

We know there has been a very severe problem with the Liberal costing in its last platform. In fact, it is about a $25 billion problem. Could it be that the Liberals are trying to shut down the independence of the parliamentary budget officer before their next political platform can be costed?

[Finance, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve this greater independence from the parliamentary budget officer, the Liberals have given the Speaker of the Senate veto power over his work plan. Who appoints the Speaker of the Senate? According to section 34 of the Constitution, it is the Prime Minister. Therefore, by independence, the Prime Minister means that the parliamentary budget officer will have to get prior approval to do his work from someone who is hand-picked by the Prime Minister. Is that the member's definition of independence?

[Finance, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when most people get insurance, they pay a premium. If they have a claim, they pay a deductible. However, CMHC offers banks full insurance against losses. While homebuyers pay the premium and taxpayers pay the deductible, the banks pay neither. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at risk as a result.

Has the government calculated how much taxpayers could lose if a market correction causes home prices to go down, or higher interest rates cause mortgage defaults to go up?

[The Environment, April 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so concerned about climate change, why is she so pleased to have emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from transporting produce from Mexico to Ottawa rather than from Ottawa to Ottawa? That is exactly the effect of her new carbon tax. She says that she wants more innovation. SunTech Greenhouses is innovative. It makes tomatoes in Canada in January. That is innovation.

Why is the government so determined to tax our farmers and our innovators out of jobs?

[The Environment, April 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I visited SunTech, a green technology farm in Ottawa, which produces tomatoes for customers in Ottawa.

In January, the farm paid $6,000 in Liberal carbon taxes. Its Mexican competitors do not pay these taxes or Liberal electricity bills, so they get their tomatoes to Canadian grocers for a third of the price. That means more greenhouse gases from shipping the produce across the continent.

Why is the government raising taxes on green technology farms and sending our jobs to Mexico?

[Situation in Syria, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what exactly is the government's position? It seems to change with the wind. It seems that the position was one thing yesterday in New York and the opposite this morning here in Ottawa.

Contrary to the Prime Minister's statements yesterday, the United Nations Security Council has proven itself woefully ineffective when it comes to resolving this dispute. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have been completely out of the loop when it comes to the actions of our closest ally, even though the Prime Minister was in New York meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations just yesterday.

There does come a point where action is required, and it is when diplomacy fails time and time again.

Canada's foreign policy must always be based on the principles of democracy, liberty, human rights, and the rule of law. We support the action our allies have taken to ensure that the Syrian government is made to answer for what it has done. We are calling on the Prime Minister to recognize and respect the traditional role Canada has played in facing down evil and fighting tyranny wherever they exist.

[Situation in Syria, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's foreign policy must always be based on the principles of freedom—

[Situation in Syria, April 7th, 2017]

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a matter of importance that would justify this.

[Situation in Syria, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government for agreeing to give opposition MPs an opportunity to respond on this pressing matter. I thank the minister for his remarks.

The chemical attacks that occurred this week in northern Syria were nothing short of horrific. The images of suffocating and paralyzed children have shocked all Canadians. The story of one man who lost 25 members of his family, including his twin baby girls, is something I will never forget.

Officials from the United States, Britain, and Israel, as well as numerous witnesses on the ground, have confirmed that it was the Syrian government and its fighter jets that deployed a deadly nerve toxin on the civilian population. This is a crime against humanity, and it must not go unpunished.

We cannot allow crimes of this magnitude to go unpunished. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, has to be held accountable. To that end, the Conservative Party strongly supports the United States' efforts to prevent Syrian military forces from further launching chemical attacks.

The global community cannot stand idly by when deadly neurotoxins are being used on innocent civilians.

We cannot allow crimes of this scale to go unpunished. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be held accountable. To that end, the Conservative Party of Canada strongly supports the United States' actions to prevent Syria's military from launching further chemical weapons attacks. The global community cannot sit by idly while deadly nerve toxins are unleashed on innocent civilians.

It must be said that the United Nations Security Council has been completely ineffective in dealing with this developing crisis. Part of the problem has been that the Russian Federation has deployed repeatedly its veto power at the UN Security Council, preventing actions to hold the Assad regime accountable. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister has said one thing yesterday and something completely different today. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister said in New York that there are “still questions to be answered around who is responsible” for these attacks. The Prime Minister also said the solution was for the Security Council to pass a resolution that would allow an investigation to “determine...who was responsible”. That was after the whole world knew precisely who was responsible for these crimes.

Less than 12 hours later, however, the Prime Minister changed his position. He now says he fully supports the U.S. unilateral missile strikes against the Assad regime.

What is the position of the Government of Canada? It seems to keep changing. It is precisely this type of laisser-faire attitude that the Conservative Party rejects.

The Prime Minister has yet to take concrete steps to hold the Syrian government to account, as well as that of Russia, which supports Bashar al-Assad.

Just what is the position of the Government of Canada? It seems to change with the wind. That is exactly the type of “go along to get along” thinking that the Conservative Party wholeheartedly rejects. In addition, to date, the Prime Minister has done little to hold the Russian—