Thomas Mulcair

[Indigenous Affairs, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also promised a nation-to-nation relationship. He promised to stop taking first nations children to court. He vowed to end boiled water advisories. He swore that he would conduct some consultations. So far he has failed on all fronts.

Could the Prime Minister explain why his government, not the Conservative government of Mr. Harper, has spent almost $1 million fighting first nations children in court. I ask him to please spare us the talking points. These kids deserve better.

[The Environment, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, a Prime Minister who will not even meet the Harper targets that he used to ridicule is not a leader on climate change.

What would be wrong with simply striking all mentions of the Paris agreement from the planned G20 statement on climate, the Prime Minister asked Merkel.

Did he make that ask, yes or no? Any more equivocation is simply confirmation.

[The Environment, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, according to Der Spiegel the Prime Minister encouraged members of the G20 to remove all references to the Paris agreement from the joint statement. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that report?

The question is about the joint statement, nothing else.

[Points of Order, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Standing Orders, a member of the House cannot intentionally mislead Parliament. Sometimes it is an honest mistake and that is why I wanted to give the minister of industry a chance to correct himself.

In a press release from Norsat on June 2, it said, “the Minister responsible for the Investment Canada Act...has served notice that there will be no order for review of the transaction under subsection 25.3(1) of the Act.”

There is a difference between a screening and a systematic, real national security review that has to be ordered by the minister. He knows that because he is the one who chose not to order a national security review.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the answers that we had from the minister, which contradict the facts, and make sure that our rights as parliamentarians to get true answers in the House are respected.

[Foreign Affairs, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, in August in fact, the Liberals voted for the first time in our history against nuclear disarmament.

In the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “Political leaders will decide whether or not a nuclear war actually takes place, yet politicians act as if peace is too complicated for them.”

Those words are all the more meaningful as the Liberals and Conservatives attack the NDP's motion on nuclear disarmament.

Do the Liberals not understand that what the current Prime Minister is saying is a direct insult to over 120 countries?

[Foreign Affairs, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I asked yesterday about the UN nuclear disarmament negotiations that included over 120 countries. The Prime Minister said, “There can be all sorts of people talking about nuclear disarmament, but if they do not actually have nuclear arms, it is sort of useless...”

The 1997 Ottawa treaty on landmines was initiated by Canada under a Liberal government and signed by over 100 countries that did not use landmines. Could the government now explain how that treaty was also “useless”?

[Foreign Takeovers, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I expect the minister would have no problem sharing the national security agencies' verdicts on this deal.

In March, the Prime Minister overturned a decision that Stephen Harper made and allowed China to take over the high-tech company we are talking about. Barely three months later, he is at it again. He is refusing to subject this takeover to a national security review even though Canada uses the company's technology for its own military purposes.

My question to the Liberals is this: Why are you selling our military secrets to China?

[Foreign Takeovers, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for all Canadians and for our security.

I know the minister, and I know him to be an honourable gentleman, so I want to give him a chance to correct something he has just said.

In his first answers, he was particularly prudent. In his first of five answers he talked about a screening. However, he knows, and we all know, that a screening is not a national security review. He then said, “procedures were followed”, which can mean anything and nothing. At the very end, the minister started saying that there was a national security review, which had a definition.

I would like him to clarify that. Was there or was there not a full national security—

[Cannabis Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to power the new Liberal government has not been shy about imposing time allocation to shut down debate, even on very important topics.

We are talking about a major change in our society. We are talking about legalizing marijuana. We would have liked possession of marijuana to be decriminalized immediately because we know that 15,000 Canadians, mostly young people, will have a criminal record for their entire life because the Liberals botched things. What a mess.

I have here several pages of quotes on this mechanism for cutting debate short. I would like to read one.

One quote from the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party just before the last election:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians. It continues to try to prevent members of Parliament from being engaged and representing their constituents on the floor of the House of Commons.

I listened to the good words of the government House Leader a few moments ago. She talked about the diversity of our country. Not everyone in Canada agrees with the legalization of marijuana, even if we know that it is a reflection of a change in our society. It has to be done right. That is why we are so upset to see the government once again cutting off debate. A guillotine is not used to cure a problem. Debate is continued because these are complex issues. We in the NDP know we are heading to legalization, and we support that, but we also support the rights of parliamentarians to a full debate. Canadians expect no less.

Legalizing marijuana will require quite a bit of work. We saw how the Liberals behaved toward Quebec on the constitutional file. Quebec was only asking to open a dialogue, but the Liberal Party slammed the door in its face.

It is doing the same thing here. Many families are worried about what we are doing. They want us to take our time and propose real solutions. They do not want the half measures we keep getting from the Liberal government.

[Marijuana, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the law is the law, unless someone is the son of a prime minister, of course. The Prime Minister admitted to smoking marijuana after he became a member of Parliament, and now he is telling all other Canadians that they have put their pot down.

Fifteen thousand Canadians have been arrested for possession under the Prime Minister. Will he at least grant pardons for those criminal records, or is there one rule for him and his family and another rule for everybody else in Canada?