Thomas Mulcair

[The Budget, May 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are slashing public services, gutting environmental protections and dismantling their own accountability act, all this thrown into a budget bill in the hope that Canadians will not notice. How can the Prime Minister justify trying to slip these policies past Canadians without a proper debate?

When he was sitting in opposition, the Prime Minister felt quite differently about that sort of thing. He said, “I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles”.

What happened to those principles?

[Auditor General, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is giving us another history lesson. Actually, we voted for the accountability act.

Back in the days of the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister had great respect for the Auditor General. The Prime Minister campaigned on expanding the Auditor General's powers and increasing the Auditor General's budget,. However, buried in the 421 pages of his budget bill, the Prime Minister is taking away the power of the Auditor General to monitor 12 separate agencies.

What kind of budget act slashes oversight of the budget? Is that why he does not want anybody paying too close attention to his budget bill?

[Public Appointments Commission, May 9th, 2012]

Project dismantle, Mr. Speaker.

It is not only environmental assessments that the government wants to scrap. During the 2006 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to establish a new Public Appointments Commission. He said that such a commission would “establish merit-based criteria” and “ensure that competitions are widely publicized and equitably administered”. The Prime Minister has not kept his word and is now dismantling this commission.

Why is the Prime Minister hiding the fact that he is breaking a promise on accountability in a budget bill?

[The Environment, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one-third of the Conservative budget bill is dedicated to dismantling environmental protection. Canadians will no longer have the right to participate in public hearings. Key independent agencies will be cut out of the process. Ministers will be given the power to ignore the facts, ignore the science and reverse any decision they do not agree with.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to sneak through these changes in a 421 page budget bill?

[The Environment, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the environment tells us that the Conservatives have no real plan to protect Canada's health and environment. He tells us that it is too late for the government to meet even its inadequate climate change targets for 2020.

Already future generations are going to be responsible for $7.7 billion in environmental liabilities, and that is only the contaminated sites we know about, not the ones that continue to be created today. Why are the Conservatives compounding their environmental failures with a budget bill that would further gut environmental protection?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to start putting the interests of the country and respect for institutions ahead of his own partisan interests.

The NDP's suggestion to split the budget implementation bill was made in good faith. Members of Parliament are elected to carefully examine bills. That is the work that needs to be done, and we all share this responsibility.

Why not let members do their job properly?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP made a common-sense proposal that would allow the budget implementation bill to be studied properly. This would allow members of Parliament to do the jobs we were all elected to do. It would respect the number one role of this institution, to hold the government accountable on behalf of Canadians.

Will the government do the right thing and agree to split the bill?

[Ethics, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this matter is symptomatic of a government that is burnt out and tired. Their golden rule is friends first. A $16 glass of orange juice, an army helicopter used as a personal taxi to go fishing, partisan appointments—it is one scandal after another, just like in the good old Mulroney days. The Conservatives have been caught with both hands in the cookie jar.

Most recently, they have wasted $600,000 on overtime for their limousines. At a time when they are cutting services, when they are telling everyone else to tighten their belts, they cannot even manage their own limousines.

When will the government members finally realize that the party is over?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 2nd, 2012]

Just so, Mr. Speaker. The very foundation of our society is the rule of law, that all of us are equal under the law. Conrad Black is a British citizen. He is still in a U.S. jail. He was convicted of serious crimes in the United States. Why is he being given special treatment?

The fact of the matter is that no one else has ever been in the situation of being still in jail, having his dossier marched around all the offices of the minister, and getting his approval before even getting out of the slammer. The only exceptional circumstance in this case is he is a friend of the Conservatives.

Why is the Prime Minister affording special treatment to his insider friends? Why is he not tough on crime when it comes to his Conservative cronies?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after one year in power, the Conservatives' record shows that their friends and powerful people take priority over everyone else, even though they campaigned on a promise of accountability.

Their latest exploit? Thousands of people follow the rules and wait their turn to be allowed into Canada, yet the Conservative government gave preferential treatment to Conrad Black, a British criminal rotting in an American jail. This is an important matter that the Prime Minister must take seriously.

Why do the friends of those in power not have to follow the same rules as everyone else?