Thomas Mulcair

[Indigenous Affairs, December 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the government's plan to usher in a new era in its relations with indigenous peoples.

However, the government should realize that after years of disappointment and broken promises, it has an obligation to produce results. The Prime Minister has promised to put an end to boiled water advisories in all reserves in Canada.

Can the Prime Minister tell us when his government will present a plan with specific timelines for fulfilling this commitment during his term of office as promised?

[Indigenous Affairs, December 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson made a stark admission that there are racists in the RCMP. What specifically is the government doing to combat this racism?

Will the government make the mandate of the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women broad enough to include issues like systemic racism in judicial and police institutions in Canada?

[Taxation, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, he made a solemn commitment to restore the service. Now he is going back on his word.

Let us look at another promise he made. Once again, I am quoting the leader of the Liberal Party. In a speech to the Montreal chamber of commerce, he promised to immediately reinstate the Fonds de solidarité tax credit in full.

We have just learned that instead of fully reinstating it by January 1, he plans to reduce it.

Why is he once again going back on his word?

[Canada Post, December 9th, 2015]

Actually, what the Liberals are doing, Mr. Speaker, is giving a tax break to people who earn $200,000 a year and leaving out a family with two kids earning $45,000. They are the middle class. They are the ones who should have help. The rest is a chimera.

I have a quote to read to the Prime Minister about Canada Post. He promised to, and I quote, “save home mail delivery”.

Yesterday he told us to visit his website. His website was not elected. He was.

Will he restore home mail delivery, yes or no?

[Taxation, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that his so-called middle-class tax cut is actually excluding 70% of Canadians. That is not a middle-class tax cut. It gives the maximum benefit to an executive earning $190,000 a year, though.

The real question is, why are the most needy in Canada left off his Christmas list? Why do they get a lump of coal when he gives the maximum benefit to CEOs?

[Taxation, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's tax cut is leaving out millions of Canadians. The Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, who earns $184,000 a year, will get the maximum tax cut. A single senior earning $30,000 a year will not get one cent. The NDP put forward a proposal to give the tax break to the first level of income earners in Canada. That would have helped millions of more Canadians.

Why did the Prime Minister vote against helping the most needy?

[Canada Post, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign to restore home mail delivery, there were no ifs, ands, or buts. I would like to give the Prime Minister another chance because yesterday we could not get a straight answer. The Prime Minister has made a solemn promise to Canadians to restore home mail delivery. Will the Liberal government be restoring home mail delivery? Yes or no.

[Taxation, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about what we are doing in Parliament this week.

The Prime Minister is talking about a tax cut for the middle class. Then why will a family with two children, earning $45,000 a year, receive precisely nothing from this tax cut while any of his 35 parliamentary secretaries earning $184,000 a year will get the full benefit?

Where is the fairness for the middle class when the rich receive the full amount and everything else is just empty promises for the spring, maybe?

[Taxation, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous response, the Prime Minister just said that the former government had a tendency to “help the wealthiest”. The Prime Minister now claims that he is helping the middle class, but perhaps he can help us with his definition.

Here we go.

A family with two children, earning $45,000 a year, would receive precisely nothing from the middle-class tax cut. One of the Prime Minister's 35 parliamentary secretaries earning $184,000 would get the full benefit. How does he define “middle class”?

[Indigenous Affairs, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP commends the process to examine the serious national problem of murdered or missing indigenous women, a problem that was ignored by the previous government for far too long.

Canadians are indeed heartened to see that the new government is moving ahead on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. However, the question is this. Given the urgency of this national crisis, can the Prime Minister provide Canadians with a timeline for real action? Can we expect a report by the end of 2016?