Thomas Mulcair

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, they are on stock options.

In the KPMG agreement we saw that there are certain rules for the rich and the friends of the government and other rules for everyone else. Good luck to any owners of a family business who make a mistake on their tax return, because the government will be on their heels. If a millionaire decides not to pay his taxes, there is no problem. The government will protect him.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that his government will never offer this type of deal to white collar criminals again?

[Taxation, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister loves to claim that he wants tax fairness, but one of the first decisions the Liberal government made was to flip-flop on a clear promise to close the CEO stock option tax loophole.

Will the Prime Minister and his Liberals vote in favour of the NDP motion and will they “flop-flip” to finally close the CEO stock option tax loophole, take aggressive action to tackle tax havens, renegotiate treaties that currently help tax evaders, and end penalty-free amnesty deals for tax evasion? Will they do that in the budget and, by the way, when is the budget?

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 6th, 2017]

The American Congress managed to investigate KPMG but we cannot. That is pretty weak, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister talks about how much he wants to go after tax fraud, but how are Canadians expected to believe him when he refuses to investigate this scandalous deal made by Revenue Canada? How are Canadians expected to believe him when it was the Liberals who blocked these KPMG documents from being revealed in the first place? How are Canadians expected to believe the Prime Minister is serious about going after tax evasion when he refuses to go after tax evaders?

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about goods and services. We are talking about a Canadian citizen born in Canada who was illegally turned back at the U.S. border, and we want a prime minister with a backbone.

We all saw the damning CBC and Enquête reports on the Canada Revenue Agency and the KPMG tax evasion scheme. The Prime Minister refused to investigate the sweet deal the agency gave KPMG, which was not penalized.

If the Prime Minister ever wants to do more than just talk, will he vote for the NDP motion to end special treatment for wealthy fraudsters, yes or no?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect a prime minister with the courage to stand up against a racist executive order.

Today, we learned that another Canadian born in Canada was turned away at the American border. She was detained for six hours. She was told that she needed a visa, which is not true. Why was she turned away? The answer is obvious.

How can the Prime Minister abstain from taking a stand against the United States' racist policy when it is obviously affecting Canadians?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has just signed a new executive order banning immigrants and refugees from six Muslim majority countries.

The Prime Minister has refused to denounce these racist policies. The Prime Minister has refused to suspend the safe third country agreement with the United States.

Could the Prime Minister please answer this one specific question. Does he believe the U.S. remains a safe country for refugees, yes or no?

[Ethics, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Liberals have not and they have broken the law.

It is a matter of ethics. Canadians rejected a Liberal government and its sponsorship scandal, and then they rejected a Conservative government and its Senate scandal.

Do the Liberals really believe that, if they continue to deny the evidence of their turpitude, in the end, Canadians will believe them? That is highly unlikely.

[Ethics, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has written a letter to Elections Canada asking for an investigation into the Liberal Party accepting donations that would violate elections law. Once again, there are ethical questions swirling around the governing party that promised to be the most ethical government Canada has ever seen. My question for the Liberal government is simply this. Under the law, what is the maximum donation they can legally accept?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, except that there is a safe third country rule that says that, if they are coming from the United States, they are coming from a safe country and they cannot be treated as pure refugees as they normally would. That is the problem. Why does the government not see it?

With President Trump's order, the number of people seeking refuge here in Canada continues to grow, particularly because of the smuggling ring at the border, in Montérégie.

What practical measures will this government take to help these people and to support the communities that are taking them in?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, every day there are more stories about refugees trying to cross the border into Canada from the U.S. These individuals are desperate, fleeing a country that is no longer safe for refugees. They know that the world has changed since the election of Donald Trump, and they are willing to risk their lives for a more secure future here in Canada. In these circumstances, why does the Liberal government insist that it is business as usual?