Pierre Poilievre

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The Liberals claim that this budget is all about the middle class and those working hard to join it. Let us talk about precisely that subject and examine some of the systematic wealth transfers the government is undertaking, to move money from the middle class and those working to join it to the most wealthy and well-connected people in Canada.

Let us start with the carbon tax, which will charge $30 a tonne at the beginning and rise to $50 a tonne of emitted CO2 by the time it is fully implemented. That will undisputedly increase the cost of almost everything. According to finance department documents, it will increase the cost of gas, home heating, and groceries, and create a “cascade” of higher prices throughout the economy.

Who will that affect? According to Statistics Canada, poor families spend a third more of their household income on the things that tax applies to than do rich households. That is because many of the costs I just laid out are fixed for families. It does not matter if people are rich or poor, they have to heat their homes and turn on the lights, and they have to eat.

The more discretionary products that people enjoy, like going on long vacations or enjoying a luxurious time with their family at a fancy resort, would not consume nearly as great a percentage of the resources that are taxed under this regime, so the percentage impact on the incomes of poor families is much higher than on the incomes of rich families, the very definition of a regressive tax.

Who will get the money? We know that in none of the provinces across the country will this tax be revenue neutral. Even British Columbia, which has the least damaging regime, is taking more in taxes than it is giving back in tax relief. Other provinces have convoluted schemes that require lobbyists, consultants, and political influence for anyone to get that money back.

For example, in Ontario, people can get some of their carbon tax money back if they apply for a rebate on a $150,000 electric car. Now, that is going to be great for the millionaires and billionaires who drive Teslas, but not so great for minimum wage-earning secretaries or hairstylists struggling to pay for their kids' basic needs.

We know that those who are well lobbied for, well organized, well connected, and just plain wealthy will get the lion's share of the proceeds of this tax. It is a wealth transfer from the middle class and those working to join it to the wealthiest one per cent.

Then let us move to the national debt. This budget adds $25 billion to the national debt. What does that bring? It brings interest. To whom does it bring interest? It brings interest to those who can afford to buy government bonds. Who are those people? Are minimum wage-earning people buying governments bonds? Are single mothers struggling to pay for their groceries setting aside money to buy government bonds? No, of course they are not.

In fact, the budget gets rid of the Canada savings bond, which used to be a vehicle of savings for Canadians, and that is an acknowledgement that it is not everyday Canadians who lend to the government anymore; it is wealthy institutional investors who like the risk-free return that government bonds offer, because they are backed up by a taxpayer guarantee.

Therefore the higher-income people will necessarily benefit more from the billions of dollars in interest payments taxpayers will fund on this year's $25 billion deficit.

Then there is the infrastructure bank. The Liberals have proposed an infrastructure bank that would offer loan guarantees and subordinated equity to large institutional investors building public infrastructure in Canada.

I have no problem with the private sector building public infrastructure. I do not even have a problem with the idea that it might benefit from the value it adds to the economy. However, profit cannot come without risk. At the end of the day, the profit-maker must be the risk-taker. However, the infrastructure bank is designed to lift the risk off the balance sheets of the wealthy investors and put it on to the backs of taxpayers. That is what loan guarantees do. If the project fails and it cannot repay its funds, there is a guarantee from the taxpayers to pay it back. A subordinated equity position would ensure that the taxpayer contribution to an infrastructure project would be the first dollar lost and the last dollar to get a return on.

For example, if the infrastructure bank led to the construction of a toll bridge and that toll bridge made money, the private investors would get the profit of that money. However, if that bridge lost money by going over budget or coming in under revenue, then the taxpayer would take the loss. That is what subordinate equity means. It means the taxpayer would be subordinate to the wealthy interests that profit from this program.

Then there is all this talk about innovative, accelerated, synergistic, supercluster, all the science fiction in the budget. They give as an example of that the $372 million taxpayer funded loan to Bombardier that was supposed to be really innovative, create lots of innovative jobs. In fact, 4,500 Bombardier's Canadian employees have lost or will be losing their jobs, while six executives are sharing $32 million in current and deferred compensation.

If the government had required that the executives only make $200,000 a year, which the is the Liberal definition of “rich” out of its platform, then there would have been enough money to hire hundreds of additional employees at the median income rate that is defined by the budget to which I am speaking right now.

If this corporate welfare were really about jobs and not about lining the pockets of well organized, well lobbied for, well lawyered, and well connected insiders, then there would have been guarantees for that public money to translate into real jobs for middle-class workers. There were no such guarantees. In fact, precisely the opposite occurred. The 1% of the 1% of the 1% made off like bandits. The billionaire Bombardier-Beaudoin family got reinforced with the taxpayer dollars funded by middle-class people in our country.

These are but four examples of how this big and growing government has created a feeding frenzy with those who have the influence and the money to benefit from all the proceeds that are going out the door.

We know that if we want to help the middle class and those working to join it, we do it by lowering taxes, opening up free enterprise, getting rid of all the favours, and allowing people to achieve great things based on their merits

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 3rd, 2017]

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits received between December 1, 2015, and January 31, 2017, and Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIA) granted after November 5, 2015: (a) how many individuals in Atlantic Canada, with previous work experience in fish and seafood processing plants, were receiving EI regular benefits, broken down by month; (b) how many Canadians at any point received EI regular benefits at the same time as one of their former employers employed temporary foreign workers, broken down by month; (c) how many Temporary Foreign Workers did the Department grant positive LMIA decisions in National Occupation Classification positions in which EI regular beneficiary recipients in the same EI Economic Region had prior work experience; (d) how many LMIA did Employment and Social Development Canada grant for Temporary Foreign Workers in fish and seafood processing positions, broken down by (i) month, from December 1, 2015, to January 31, 2017, (ii) name of Fish and Seafood Processing Plant, (iii) number of Temporary Foreign Worker positions, (iv) number of EI regular benefit recipients with previous fish plant experience living within a one-hour commute (one-way) of the Fish and Seafood Processing Plant; (e) which organizations were granted LMIA after November 5, 2015, broken down by (i) month, from December 1, 2015, to January 31, 2017, (ii) name of Fish and Seafood Processing Plant, (iii) number of Temporary Foreign Worker positions, (iv) number of EI recipients living within a 40 kilometre distance of the Fish and Seafood Processing Plant; and (f) how many Temporary Foreign Workers were employed in National Occupation Classifications that were formerly held by EI recipients in the same Employment Insurance Economic Region, broken down by (i) Employment Insurance Economic Region, (ii) month, from December 1, 2015, to January 31, 2017; (iii) National Occupation Classification, including occupation name, (iv) number of EI recipients formerly employed in that National Occupation Classification, (v) number of Temporary Foreign Workers Employed in that National Occupation Classification whose LMIA were approved, (vi) cumulative totals for each column?

[Aerospace Industry, April 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have forced middle-class taxpayers to loan $400 million to Bombardier, which then axed 14,000 middle-class jobs and gave a 50% pay hike to executives. Now these billionaires have generously offered to defer these pay hikes, which means they will still get their millions before taxpayers get repaid. Will the government force Bombardier to cancel all pay hikes and bonuses until middle-class taxpayers get their money back?

[Taxation, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is interested in super catalystic venture capitalistic innovation projects, it might look no further than SunTech Tomato Greenhouses in my riding, which has actually learned how to produce tomatoes in Canada in the winter. In fact, it just installed LED lights over an acre of its greenhouses, costing a million dollars.

Unfortunately, after the $40,000 one-month hydro bill, it had to turn the lights out for the rest of the winter. The carbon tax in that month cost $6,200. That is a lot of innovation that will go dark as a result of high taxes and high Liberal hydro fees that are being used to subsidize innovative Liberal friends.

If the government wants more innovation, it should stop taxing innovators, or else it risks this whole thing turning into a gigantic cluster something.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned earlier that certain members of the House were given privileged access to sensitive budgetary information. There are historical and procedural reasons why all members of Parliament are given equal access to this sensitive information, but there is also a very important economic reason, and that is, any individual having advance access to this sensitive information could potentially profit from it. We do recall that roughly a decade ago, an RCMP investigation was launched into a previous budget measure because certain individuals were given an advance view of a decision with respect to income trusts. That RCMP investigation led to charges.

We have no evidence at this point that anything of that nature has occurred here. However, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to broaden the investigation that the hon. member has asked you to carry out to ensure that none of the sensitive information contained in the budget was shared by members of the government who had advance access to it, prior to its public and parliamentary release.

[Taxation, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of news, Bloomberg news quoted the following: “Feelings Are Worth Spending For”—finance minister on the eve of budget. The Prime Minister would agree. He was feeling pretty good when he spent $127,000 in tax dollars on his visit to billionaire island. That was a real middle-class adventure, by his definition. Do the Liberals know who is not feeling good, though? It is the tomato farmer in my riding, who had to pay $6,200 in one month for a carbon tax. When will the government realize that its feelings are not worth hammering taxpayers with more costs?

[The Budget, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, how about a riddle? According to Finance Canada, the federal government had a balanced budget in 2015. Now, Finance Canada says we will have deficits until 2055. In just one Liberal budget, we added four decades of deficits. After a second Liberal budget, in approximately what century will we be projected to balance?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, March 20th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s transfer of land to the Ottawa Hospital for the future site of the Civic Campus, known as the Sir John Carling Site or site #11 by the National Capital Commission: (a) what analysis did the departments of Public Services and Procurement Canada (formerly Public Works and Government Services Canada), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the National Capital Commission, and Canadian Heritage, conduct at each of the 12 sites; (b) what did the National Capital Commission estimate the total land preparation costs of each of the 12 sites would be; (c) what concerns did the National Capital Commission raise regarding potential contamination of each of the 12 sites; (d) what are the boundaries of the Sir John Carling Site which will be leased to the Ottawa Hospital; (e) are the metal piles that were used for the foundation of the former Sir John Carling Building still present at the site; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, will they have to be removed in order to accommodate the new Ottawa Hospital; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what will be the cost of removing the piles; (h) if the answer to (f) is negative, what is the government’s plan to accommodate the new Ottawa Hospital around the existing piles; (i) what is the estimated cost of preparing the site for the Ottawa Hospital to be built, and which level of government or organization will pay for them; (j) what contamination currently exists at the Sir John Carling Site, and how will it be mitigated or removed prior to the hospital’s construction; (k) what is the estimated cost of remediating any contamination, and which level of government or organization will pay for this; and (l) does the government foresee any other factors specific to the Sir John Carling Site that would increase costs or delay construction of the new hospital, and if so, what are they?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, March 20th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s Ottawa Hospital Site Review, which concluded with a National Capital Commission recommendation to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on November 24, 2016: (a) when did the Environment Minister decide that she would order this review; (b) when did the Environment Minister ask that the Heritage Minister take over this review; (c) did the government estimate the cost of delaying the construction of the new hospital by at least a year, and if so, what were the costs; (d) what was the total cost of the review as of November 24, 2016, broken down by (i) employees’ salaries, (ii) contractors, (iii) consultants, (iv) land use surveys or studies, (v) other expenses incurred; (e) what will be the total cost of this review, broken down by (i) employees’ salaries, (ii) contractors, (iii) consultants, (iv) land use surveys or studies, (v) other expenses; (f) what are the precise boundaries of the property to be leased to the Ottawa Hospital, known as the Sir John Carling Site or site #11 by the National Capital Commission; (g) what price does the government plan to charge the Ottawa Hospital as rent for the Sir John Carling Site, known as site #11 by the National Capital Commission; (h) how much payment in lieu of taxes does the federal government pay the City of Ottawa for the Sir John Carling Site, known as site #11 by the National Capital Commission; and (i) what will be the costs of preparing the site for the Ottawa Hospital to be built, and which level of government or organization will pay for them?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 20th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s response to Q-575: (a) did the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns (OCPR) at the Privy Council Office (PCO) assign part (b) of Q-575 regarding analysis conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, why was a response not provided by the Minister; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, (i) why was that decision made, (ii) what is the title of the individual who made the decision, (iii) on what date was the decision made; (d) did OCPR assign part (h) of Q-575 regarding analysis conducted by the Department of Finance Canada to the Minister of Finance; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why was a response not provided by the Minister; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, (i) why was that decision made, (ii) what is the title of the individual who made the decision, (iii) on what date was the decision made; (g) if the answers to either (a) or (d) are negative, did any official from either ESDC or the Department of Finance Canada contact or email PCO regarding the non-assignment to their department and, if so, what are the details of these communications; (h) did anyone from either the Prime Minister’s Office or the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons provide any advice or instruction to the PCO regarding the decision to have the response to Q-575 only come from Environment and Climate Change Canada and, if so, what are the specific details of these communications including the titles of the individuals who provided the advice or instruction and what specific advice or instructions were given; and (i) did anyone at Environment and Climate Change Canada question the PCO decision to only have Environment and Climate Change Canada provide a response?