Thomas Mulcair

[Indigenous Affairs, February 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to going to La Loche yesterday and visiting with our extraordinary colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

The pain in the community following the tragic shootings runs deep, but so do the scars of centuries of colonialism, racism, and indifference. I was told by elders how important it is to promote and protect their language and culture in the community, to provide hope, and instill pride in young people.

Since the Prime Minister committed to implementing every one of the truth and reconciliation recommendations, will the upcoming budget include funding to make good on this important commitment for aboriginal languages?

[Social Development, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, here is the fact: in the first 100 days since the election, it was tax breaks for the rich that made the list of urgent priorities, because if they make $200,000 a year, they got the maximum benefit. A family earning $45,000 got nothing.

However, low-income seniors have also been left struggling with their rent and rising grocery bills. This, in spite of Liberal campaign promises to boost the guaranteed income supplement "immediately".

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development warns, "There will be things that will have to wait”. So the question is clear: is it immediately, or tough luck this time?

[Social Development, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadian families are struggling. They do not have jobs, do not qualify for employment insurance, and do not have adequate housing.

However, according to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, these Canadians may be forced to wait. Inequality is rising in our society, but the government chose to make tax cuts for the wealthy a priority.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his minister that many people will simply have to wait?

[International Trade, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is bad for workers, bad for farmers, and bad for creators.

The economy is already in bad shape, and now nearly 60,000 good jobs are on the line if the trans-Pacific partnership is signed.

For someone who was elected on a campaign promise of transparency and change, the Prime Minister apparently has no problem signing an agreement negotiated behind closed doors.

Canadians know that signing an agreement signals our intention to abide by it. Does the Prime Minister often sign deals that he does not fully agree with?

[International Trade, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, next week the Prime Minister intends to sign a Conservative trade deal that was negotiated in secret. However, in spite of calling for transparency before the election, the Liberals still have not released any economic impact study on the deal. In fact, according to recent reports, the Liberals are saying that they cannot find any economic impact study on the TPP. Meanwhile, independent studies have suggested that the TPP could cost Canada as many as 60,000 good jobs.

Can the Prime Minister explain why he is willing to sign this deal without having seen an economic impact statement, when tens of thousands of good Canadian jobs are at risk?

[Pensions, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the platform also promised to increase benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans, but once in government, the Liberals are walking away from their pledge to Canadians hoping to retire in dignity.

The Premier of Ontario said she would scrap her separate pension plan if the feds moved on the CPP, but instead she has now announced that she is moving ahead with it. Did the Prime Minister tell the Premier that he will break his promise even before he has told Canadians about this broken promise?

[Pensions, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals promised to take action to ensure that Canadians can retire with dignity. Too many Canadian seniors are living in poverty. The retirement age was increased to 67, and that will only make things worse and create greater inequalities in the future. I will try again, since he promised to do this right away. When will the Prime Minister fix the Conservatives' mistake and drop the retirement age to 65 for the future, as he promised to do? Will he do so, yes or no?

[Pensions, January 27th, 2016]

It is a little bit like selfies, Mr. Speaker, there are cameras everywhere. We have got a clear tape of that Prime Minister making that promise and not the one he just talked about.

Just for the fun of it, let us read the Liberal Party's platform with regard to another Liberal campaign promise, “A Liberal government will restore the eligibility age to 65 for old age security”. The only problem is, the Liberals said they would do that immediately. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian seniors living in poverty. The government must send a strong signal that it is serious about tackling this unacceptable inequality in Canada.

A simple question for the Prime Minister: When does he plan to keep this promise to restore OAS to age 65?

[Canada Post, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Liberals have been in power for 100 days, Canadians are starting to ask themselves some questions. They are wondering why they are not seeing any of the concrete action promised during the election. Take for example the Liberals' very clear promise about Canada Post. The Prime Minister promised to, and I quote, “save home mail delivery”.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to repeat that promise today or will he admit that he has already broken his word?

[Employment Insurance, January 26th, 2016]

They are trying to change the subject again.

The promise made during the election campaign was that the environmental assessments for Kinder Morgan and energy east would be redone. The government is also backing away from that.

Another commitment made was to help those people most in need. Do my colleagues know that only one-third of Canadians are eligible for employment insurance when they lose their jobs? Conservatives failed to reduce the threshold to 360 hours.

Will the Liberals address this critical situation and guarantee access to employment insurance?