Thomas Mulcair

[Democratic Reform, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has signalled that he may also break his promise on changing the electoral system. The reason he gave is that the Liberals won the last election with the current system. That is actually what he said.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister about his own private town hall on electoral reform. Can he tell everyone here today, among those attending, which electoral system had the most support?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, cash for access fundraisers do affect the impartiality of his ministers, and yet, the Liberals keep defending themselves as the Prime Minister just did because they are in technical compliance with the law. That is not what he promised.

Cash for access fundraising is a form of corruption, and this country has had it with Liberal corruption.

The Prime Minister must choose: either he can claim they are adhering to standards that are even stricter than the law or he can assert that they have done nothing wrong because, technically, they are complying with the law. Which is it?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wrote in the mandate letter to every one of his ministers the following:

...you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality...This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

What did the Prime Minister mean by that?

[Ethics, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, is the member really unaware that the Prime Minister put in the finance minister's mandate letter that he has obligations that go beyond the law, or is she now admitting that when the Prime Minister put that in the mandate letter it was a fraud on the Canadian public, because they were not—

[Ethics, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, defending that freedom means doing something when we learn that a journalist here in Ottawa like Joel-Denis Bellavance is under police surveillance, and that minister did nothing in the Joel-Denis Bellavance case. That is the reality.

There was recently another cash for access fundraiser involving the Minister of Finance. It was a Liberal Party appreciation night at an elite law firm. The Prime Minister said that they have to uphold the highest standards and that this obligation is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

Does the finance minister honestly believe he is in compliance with what the Prime Minister put in his letter?

[Freedom of the Press, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of the press is not something that a government can just claim to support, because as the minister himself has just pointed out, it is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Yesterday, the minister said that “The utmost care must be taken by law enforcement when criminal investigations and journalism intersect”. We are not talking about police stumbling into journalists. We are talking about police surveillance of the media in Canada in the 21st century.

How can we believe that the government respects press freedom when the minister refuses to say whether or not other journalists are currently under surveillance?

[Freedom of the Press, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the police spied on journalist Patrick Lagacé for months. A total of 24 warrants were issued, which is absolutely unacceptable, even shocking, as one of my colleagues said.

When we learned that the RCMP had spied on journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance, here in Ottawa, the Prime Minister refused to hold an inquiry.

Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell us outright whether other journalists are currently under surveillance by the RCMP or CSIS?

[Multiculturalism, October 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, following discussions with all parties in the House, I hope you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition (e-411) in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.

[Indigenous Affairs, October 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to comply with the law.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has issued a historic ruling that the government discriminates against first nations children in its delivery of child welfare services on reserves. Since that ruling, the tribunal has issued two further compliance orders to force the Liberals to act.

Instead of continuing to fight first nations children in court will the Prime Minister support our motion to put an end to this discrimination?

[Indigenous Affairs, October 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister proclaims that no relationship is as important as that with indigenous peoples, yet he is refusing to hand over the court-ordered $155 million to end the discrimination that indigenous children have faced for far too long.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House that his government will support our motion to end discrimination against indigenous children, yes or no?