Thomas Mulcair

[Taxation, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, here is something that did appear in the Liberal campaign platform: “set a cap on how much can be claimed through the stock option deduction”. We know a little about that, because it was actually in our platform long before the Liberals discovered it. Tomorrow the Liberals have an opportunity to put the interests of every Canadian above those of wealthy insiders. Last week they actually voted for it and said they were going to do it.

Will the Liberals keep their promise to close the stock option loophole, yes or no?

[Infrastructure, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister conveniently forgot to mention that his platform promise does not look anything like the privatization bank he is now proposing. In fact, the word “privatization” does not ever appear in the Liberal campaign platform. Neither do “user fees”, “tolls”, or “private profit on public property”.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he never campaigned on privatizing infrastructure?

[Small Business, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister really likes slogans and sound bites, such as the one about 2015 being the last election under the current system.

I see this is still a sore point for the Prime Minister, but what happened to his promise to cut small business taxes? Well, in committee, his minister responsible for small business said that this promise was, and I quote, a sound bite to get elected.

Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on his promise and at the same time going ahead with a privatization bank that he never mentioned during the campaign?

[Finance, March 20th, 2017]

The truth is that he is fighting first nations children in court, Mr. Speaker. That is what he is doing.

The Liberals also promised that they would put an end to the tax loophole involving stock options for CEOs, which benefits only the rich.

Two weeks ago, the Liberals voted for an NDP motion that specifically called for that loophole to be ended. If the Liberals are refusing to do so now, they will have misled the public and the House.

Can the Prime Minister therefore guarantee that, in this budget, he will put an end to this tax loophole that benefits only the wealthiest in our society?

[Indigenous Affairs, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true and he knows it. We voted for that.

The Prime Minister also committed to a nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples and to right historic wrongs. The term “nation-to-nation” is not a political slogan. It must mean dealing as equals and an awareness of past betrayals. However, the Liberals argue that they are not even bound by the decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

How can the Prime Minister claim to believe in a nation-to-nation relationship when he refuses to end discrimination against first nations children and when he continues to fight them in court?

[Infrastructure, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered the question because he cannot do so. He does not know where to find this answer in his election promises.

Where in their platform did the Liberals promise to privatize airports? Nowhere. They never talked about it. Airport privatization is no small detail. It will increase fees for airline passengers across Canada.

Either the Prime Minister is making it up as he goes or he always intended to privatize airports. Which one is it?

[Infrastructure, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' plan for infrastructure includes a massive privatization bank that could double the cost of infrastructure to Canadian taxpayers. Their plan also seems to include the privatization of Canadian airports. I am wondering if the Prime Minister could show Canadians exactly where in the Liberal election platform this was ever mentioned.

Since he has no mandate to do so, will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not privatize Canadian airports?

[Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to move a very important motion on this International Women's Day.

It is, indeed, very rare in the House for leaders of political parties to support each other's private member's bills, but when the issue is how our judicial system handles cases of sexual assault, we all have to come together and say that we believe survivors.

It is with sincere respect for the Leader of the Opposition that I move the following motion seeking the unanimous consent of the House. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-337, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, requiring sexual assault training for judges, be deemed debated at second reading, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and that the name of the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland be withdrawn from the list of private members' business.

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, not one criminal case, and he knows it.

Let me raise another related issue. At a time when the term “fake news” is bandied about, when accusations of media bias risk confidence of the public in a free and independent press, we all have to stand up against interference with the media.

Does the Prime Minister believe that it is right for Revenue Canada to pay for government ads in newspapers and disguise them to look like real news articles? Does the Prime Minister find this acceptable, yes or no?

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, again, no action on criminal action and charges.

Canadians want more than lip service. Tax fairness means that nobody is ever above the law no matter who they are or how much they earn.

If the Prime Minister really wants to ensure tax fairness, will he ask the Minister of Justice to lay criminal charges against the people involved in the KPMG scheme, or is it all just talk?