Thomas Mulcair

[CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, on its 25th anniversary. In 1992, several cable companies joined forces to ensure that Canadians would have access to full coverage of their representatives' work in the House of Commons.

This was and remains the core of the channel, but it has since grown to provide Canadians with a window on a vast array of political and public affairs events, from party and leadership conventions, to grassroots federal election coverage, to town hall debates about the issues that truly matter to Canadians.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I want to congratulate CPAC and thank the CPAC team for helping all political parties talk to all Canadians from coast to coast. It is a wonderful example of service to the public.

Happy anniversary, CPAC.

[Persons with Disabilities, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that, unlike Stephen Harper, he would work with all parties to get good things done. However, when a member of this place moved a non-partisan initiative to create a Canadian autism partnership, the Prime Minister and his party voted against it.

This is about removing the challenges facing individuals with autism and facing their families. It is about unlocking the tremendous potential of these Canadians.

Why can the Prime Minister not move beyond partisan politics and support this important autism initiative?

[Ethics, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to believe that because the Liberals got 40% of the vote, it is okay if they only keep 40% of their promises. It is not okay.

The Prime Minister has been illegally lobbied during his cash-for-access events, and instead of ending this scheme, he tries to attack the opposition.

My question for the Prime Minister is, does he understand the problem with exchanging access to government—that is right, government—with payments to the government's political party? Please spare us the strongest-laws-in-Canada talking point for once.

[Infrastructure, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says over and over again that he is helping the middle class, but his infrastructure bank will impose tolls and fees on the middle class. Why? This will be so private companies can make money from public infrastructure. The government’s priority should be to add bridges and roads, not add profits for wealthy investors.

Where did the Prime Minister get the mandate to pass these costs on to the middle class, after hiding it all during the election campaign?

[Ethics, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister claimed to be a champion of democratic reform, but that was before he won a majority government with only 39% of the votes. The Prime Minister also claimed to be an access-to-information advocate—even I believed him—but that was before his government discovered all the benefits of hiding information from the public and the media.

How can we believe this Prime Minister when he talks about principles and values?

[Indigenous Affairs, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister used to attack Stephen Harper for taking indigenous people to court, but he is contemptuously picking up exactly where Harper left off, fighting first nations' kids in court.

The Prime Minister used to say that with a Liberal government, boil water advisories would be a thing of the past, but that has not happened either.

He once said that we must implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law, but then he betrayed that commitment as well.

How can he be proud of that record?

[Ethics, June 20th, 2017]

“Follow suite”, Mr. Speaker?

The Prime Minister himself said that the problem with their fundraising activities was the secrecy surrounding them. We think that selling access to the minister for partisan gain is the problem. Who would have thought?

Let us focus for a moment on the Liberals' smokescreen. How can the Liberals claim to have done away with secrecy and to have nothing to hide, when they keep the media out of their fundraisers? It does not add up.

[Ethics, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is a term for someone who commits to something in writing and then reneges on that commitment. It is called a con job.

When the Prime Minister got caught selling access to himself and his ministers in exchange for donations to his political party, he decided to let the media attend rather than put an end to the sketchy practice. However, last night, he kicked the media out.

Will there be any consequences for the Liberal Party after it broke the Prime Minister's rule on cash for access fundraisers?

[Access to Information, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely possible that the Prime Minister does not understand some of the things he says, but is he actually telling us today that he did not understand his own electoral platform? Here is the wording of the promise again, “We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices...”, #RealChange.

When the Prime Minister broke his promise on changing the voting system, he blamed the opposition. What is his excuse this time?

[Access to Information, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are waiting for accountability and clear answers, but I think it is too much to hope from the Liberals.

Let us instead look at a document that does not spin as freely as the Prime Minister can. The Liberals' election platform states, “We will ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister's and Ministers' Offices”.

Can the Prime Minister explain which part of his own promise he failed to understand?