Thomas Mulcair

[National Defence, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the question is whether we are going to get it through before the end of term, and we do not have an answer to that.

The Prime Minister said he stood by his defence minister's account of the role he played in Afghanistan and that there was no conflict when he blocked an inquiry into the detainee scandal. The Ethics Commissioner has just reported that the defence minister “downplayed” his role in the transfer of detainees.

What consequences will the minister face for having misled the Ethics Commissioner, or is the Prime Minister just fine with hiding things from Mary Dawson?

[Freedom of the Press, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is an easy way to clarify all this, because the Prime Minister could very simply release the text of his part of that conversation with Merkel, but of course, he will not do that, because he knows that it is a fact that he and his government are a fraud when it comes to climate change.

Speaking of journalists, will the Prime Minister do what needs to be done to pass the bill to protect journalistic sources before the end of the session?

Will the government ensure that the protection of journalistic sources--

[The Environment, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested to Angela Merkel that all references to the Paris agreement be removed from the G20 declaration, and this is a fact, not simply because the German newspaper Der Spiegel confirmed it and then yesterday reconfirmed it but also because the Prime Minister has not denied this specific fact. What is less clear is why. Why did the Prime Minister do this?

[Government Appointments, June 14th, 2017]

Now it is an assessment, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we introduced a motion to remove partisanship from the appointment of officers of Parliament. The Liberals said they welcomed it but had a structural problem with our motion. To show our sincerity, we amended our own motion to address their stated concern.

Will the Prime Minister accept this reasonable, amended proposal, or is he just physically incapable of putting an end to partisan appointments?

[Persecution of Roma, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in Italy last month, three young Roma sisters were burned to death while they slept. Graffiti celebrating “3 fewer Roma” subsequently appeared on the walls of the capital.

This is only one example, and certainly a serious one, of the violence, the hatred, and the persecution that the Roma are still enduring today, all over Europe.

Canada still applies policies that turn back Roma travellers when other people from the same home countries are allowed into ours with no constraints.

The Canadian Roma community has made repeated appeals to the Prime Minister to stand up against the normalization of hate against Roma, to honour Canada's commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and to follow the example of the European Parliament in recognizing August 2 as Roma genocide remembrance day.

Let us hope that happens.

[Government Appointments, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is responsible for the fiasco surrounding Madeleine Meilleur's appointment. If he calls that a success, then I would hate to see what he considers a failure. He has an opportunity to ensure that future nominations are not stained by his attempt to make a partisan appointment.

The NDP has made a proposal to ensure that partisanship is taken out of the equation.

Will the Prime Minister accept our proposal for future appointments or not?

[Government Appointments, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine the Prime Minister will have no trouble making public what the Americans did say in this case.

The Prime Minister attempted a partisan appointment that led to scandal. The nomination was removed, and now we are proposing a way forward, not to benefit our own party but to increase accountability for all Canadians. We have even offered to amend our proposal in order to address the Liberals' stated concern.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to improve the nomination process, because it is important for this House and for all Canadians?

[Foreign Investment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister just said is demonstrably false. There has not been a national security review. That has to be ordered by the minister, who never ordered it, and we know that because the company put it out in an official statement to try to reassure investors. That is why the Americans are concerned now, because there has never been a national security review.

Does the Prime Minister understand that this is why the Americans are starting to look into this situation? There was no national security review in accordance with the law.

[Foreign Investment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister claim that there were no national security concerns when there has been no national security review? That review only takes place when the minister responsible for the statute orders it, and there has been no such order.

Now the Prime Minister is trying to invent a new category of “careful assessment”. Can he please tell us the legal distinction between the national security review provided by statute and a careful assessment that is provided nowhere?

[Indigenous Affairs, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of his solemn promises was that there would be an institutional change. The Liberals promised to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and confirm his support for the NDP's bill to fully enshrine the UN Declaration in federal law or not?