Thomas Mulcair

[Aerospace Industry, April 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked last week to find out that after receiving hundreds of millions in government funding, Bombardier executives were ready to pocket $32.6 million in bonuses, $32.6 million U.S. What was the Prime Minister's reaction to all this? Well, he said he “respects the free market and the choices that companies make..”. So much for the Prime Minister and the little class and the middle class.

Why did the Liberal government commit to a $400 million loan without getting any clear commitments on keeping jobs in Canada while allowing that money to be funnelled into their pockets?

[The Budget, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, closing the CEO stock option tax loophole would have generated $725 million every year, and as a bonus it would have helped the Liberals keep one of their promises. What a concept that is. Instead, what the Liberals are doing is they are refusing to give $155 million to finally end discrimination against first nations children.

The question is simple, and please can the Liberals deliver the response for once without their pre-written talking points. Why protect rich CEOs instead of protecting first nations children?

[The Budget, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the budget has clearly laid bare the Liberal government’s choices.

While, exactly two weeks ago, the Liberals voted to close the tax loophole for CEOs, they did not do so in their budget. No, instead they scrapped the public transit tax credit and cut $1.25 billion from the fund to combat climate change.

Here is a simple question: why have the Liberals chosen to protect wealthy CEOs instead of the environment?

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the same Liberals who regularly attacked Stephen Harper for his use of the gag are now flat out resorting to the guillotine to shut down debate.

Amending the rules that govern how our democracy works should never be done by just one party, no matter the party.

Thus, will the Liberal government commit, here and now, to not changing the rules unilaterally, yes or no?

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, sunny ways are indeed gone. They have been replaced by an attempt to unilaterally and quietly ram through changes to the rules that govern our democracy. This is nothing less than a massive government power grab, which is only meant to help the Prime Minister avoid accountability.

Is there anyone on the Liberal benches with the courage to stand up and tell the Prime Minister that this is not why they came to Ottawa?

[Ethics, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when a minister breaches that trust, what is the penalty? Instead of going around in circles, the Prime Minister would do well to respond soon.

To be clear, Canadians believe that there is no problem with the Prime Minister taking a vacation, but Canadians do have a problem with the Prime Minister accepting illegal gifts, breaking the law, and then charging the taxpayers over $125,000.

Does the Prime Minister honestly believe that paying back a mere $4,000 is enough when he blew over $125,000 of hard-earned taxpayers' money?

[Ethics, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. In the Prime Minister's opinion, what would be an appropriate penalty for ministers who violate the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, we really could replace him with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery would never notice the difference.

If the Prime Minister was serious when he said that he wanted to work with the other parties, will he agree to set up a proportional committee where no party can impose changes solely to their own advantage?

If he is worried about the reaction of the students who are here today, will he act democratically for once in his life?

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, we did not actually get an answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is going further than Stephen Harper would have ever dared to do in telling Canadians he only wants to show up in question period once a week.

I am going to ask the question again. What would the Prime Minister's reaction have been if Stephen Harper had dared to propose what he is proposing?

[Justice, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP voted for increasing taxes on the wealthiest Canadians, but he is right, we did oppose a plan that did nothing to help the middle class.

This morning, the government dropped gangsterism, trafficking, importation of narcotics, weapons possession, kidnapping and other charges against 36 individuals arrested during a major anti-Mafia sweep.

My question for the Prime Minister is as follows: why?