Thomas Mulcair

[Marijuana, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of all talk no action, the Prime Minister promised to immediately legalize marijuana, but at the same time, he is blocking our attempts to ensure that people no longer get criminal records for simple possession. That just seems like common sense to us, but the Liberals are celebrating the recreational use of marijuana on one hand and handing out criminal records on the other. Some 15,000 people have already been arrested, since the Prime Minister took office. How many other criminal records is he going to hand out before marijuana is finally legalized?

[Foreign Affairs, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is so Orwellian.

Canada voted last August against nuclear disarmament. We refused to take part in March. Those talks are starting again at the United Nations in a couple of weeks. Will we be there or are we going to get talking points that contradict the bare reality that the Liberal government is doing nothing on nuclear disarmament?

[Foreign Affairs, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Setsuko Thurlow is in Parliament today. She has been a Canadian citizen for 60 years, but when she was a 13-year-old girl, on August 6, 1945, in Hiroshima, an atomic bomb wiped most of her city and most of her family. She has made it her life's work to fight against nuclear arms.

Canada is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, article VI of which mandates that we must fight to avoid nuclear proliferation in the world. Last August, to our great shame, the Liberals voted against nuclear disarmament, and last March we were absent from these talks in New York.

It is not too late. The talks are starting again. Will we be there?

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 6th, 2017]

What arrogance, Mr. Speaker.

If Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia wanted to discuss the fishery or if British Columbia wanted to discuss issues facing indigenous people in Canada, would the government have slammed the door like that? No. Its contempt is reserved for Quebec.

How can this Prime Minister slam the door on Quebeckers without even having read the document in question? Is that his way of respecting Quebeckers?

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would say “highly Liberal”.

The Prime Minister of Canada has the duty to seriously and calmly consider the recommendations of all the provinces. However, rather than considering Quebec's request to open a discussion, the Prime Minister acted impulsively and irresponsibly. He slammed the door on Quebeckers. That does not seem like a party that represents and respects Quebeckers to me.

How can the Prime Minister refuse a request to open a discussion without even listening to what the province had to say?

[Government Appointments, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians would trust him more if he would answer a simple question like which one of them was lying.

I would like to quote exactly what the minister said: “Ms. Telford and Mr. Butts never discussed with Ms. Meilleur the possibility that she could become the Commissioner of Official Languages. That was never discussed.”

The thing is, on two occasions, once in committee and again yesterday before the Senate, Ms. Meilleur clearly stated that she did discuss the commissioner position with Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford.

The Prime Minister is accountable for this appointment. In light of this flagrant contradiction, will he take Madeleine Meilleur's name off the list?

[Government Appointments, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to government nominations, the Prime Minister now pretends that he is partisan blind. He does not know what that means, so let me describe what partisanship looks like. It is when we donate to a politician's campaign and then get appointed by that politician to high office. It is when we get special access to the PM's top advisers—just friends, of course—when no one else gets that benefit.

Madeleine Meilleur confirmed again yesterday that the position of commissioner did indeed come up in discussions with Gerry Butts and Katie Telford, but the minister has denied this in the House.

Can the Prime Minister please tell us which one is lying?

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we also found out today that when Madame Meilleur was interested in becoming an Ontario Liberal candidate, she bypassed the standard candidate nomination process. Who pulled the strings so she could be parachuted into a riding? It was none other than Gerry Butts. No wonder they are such good friends.

Does the minister not understand that the more she defends the partisan appointment made by the Prime Minister, the more she loses credibility? Will she do the right thing and recommend that Madame Meilleur be now removed from consideration as commissioner?

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Gerry Butts and Katie Telford were also not officially part of the process, but they were indeed involved.

Will the minister answer the question or not? Did the minister contact those employees in some way during Ms. Meilleur's appointment process? Answer the question for once.

[Government Appointments, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is duly noted that the minister has just said that Madeleine Meilleur intentionally misled this Parliament. That makes her ineligible to named to a high office like commissioner of official languages.

The minister led the process to appoint Ms. Meilleur and is claiming that it was neutral and independent. However, we just learned that two staff members working under the Minister of Canadian Heritage used to work for Ms. Meilleur.

I would like to give the minister a chance to give us a clear and honest answer, and if she does not, she will be misleading Parliament. Is the minister ready?

Did the minister speak to her two staff members regarding the appointment of the official languages commissioner?