Thomas Mulclair

What a crock of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Madame Meilleur told the committee that she did not know if she would be able to recuse herself from future investigations of the Prime Minister to whom she directly donated. Well, we have just learned that the interim commissioner has had to recuse herself from investigating whether the Prime Minister violated the law during the appointment of Madame Meilleur.How can the Liberals explain appointing a commissioner who cannot even investigate the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, are we talking about people “facing the death penalty” or people “in countries that use the death penalty”? The Prime Minister is trying to fudge the language.On climate change, Canada has been left wearing the dunce cap. Canadians have had to bear the burden of both the Conservative and the Liberal governments' failure to address this very real global threat.There was a glimmer of hope that things would finally change, but this government got on board with Stephen Harper's targets. Can the government explain why it is betraying future generations like this? I repeat: the Liberals are on board with the Conservatives' targets.What is behind this betrayal?

Mr. Speaker, she should never have been there.Canadians who follow the rules and pay their taxes find the Panama papers scandal disgusting. This week we learned that a former senior Revenue Canada official left the agency and went to work for KPMG when the firm was being investigated by Revenue Canada for using tax havens.Will the Prime Minister finally conduct an investigation and lock the revolving door at Revenue Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the question was this. How many cases have been thrown out in the time she has been Minister of Justice? She knows the answer, but she refuses to give it to Canadians.The government continues to prosecute kids who smoke pot, but the guy charged with killing his wife is as free as a bird because the government did not appoint a judge to hear that case. That is negligence. That is incompetence, but most of all it is a danger to the public.Why do we have these delays?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, appearing at committee today, said that the Liberals' approach to legalization would “ensure that we decriminalize the use of marijuana”. Once again, these are mixed signals from the government, while thousands of mostly young Canadians are still getting criminal records for personal use of marijuana.If the government is, indeed, willing to decriminalize, our question is simple. What the hell are they waiting for?

Mr. Speaker, it is not pursuing this matter before the courts and that is the problem. It is letting them off the hook with no fine, no penalty, and no interest to pay.Canadians are sick of this flim-flammery that allows multi-millionaires to avoid paying taxes and to be coddled by the government.Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not even tell us whether he disagreed with this deal.I have a very specific question for the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that this is the one and only time that the government has offered this kind of sweetheart deal to millionaires? Yes or no? Are there other similar agreements?

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals took office, thousands of young people have been convicted and will have a criminal record for the rest of their lives. What are the Liberals waiting for? When will they decriminalize marijuana? Even Jean Chrétien is calling for it, for heaven's sake. When he was a member of the opposition, the Prime Minister strode, swaggered, and strutted before the Parliament Buildings with Aveos workers. He chanted “solidarity” into a megaphone saying that these jobs were so important and that this was ridiculous.Why is he now cutting off debate on something that he—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect a prime minister with the courage to stand up against a racist executive order.Today, we learned that another Canadian born in Canada was turned away at the American border. She was detained for six hours. She was told that she needed a visa, which is not true. Why was she turned away? The answer is obvious.How can the Prime Minister abstain from taking a stand against the United States' racist policy when it is obviously affecting Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson made a stark admission that there are racists in the RCMP. What specifically is the government doing to combat this racism? Will the government make the mandate of the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women broad enough to include issues like systemic racism in judicial and police institutions in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the government is proud of exporting thousands of good Canadian jobs.With closure, stacking committees, and whipping votes, whatever happened to real change and sunny ways? Liberals are retroactively stripping thousands of good jobs from Canada. He stood in front of Parliament with the workers of Aveos, screamed solidarity into a microphone, and now he is letting those jobs go elsewhere.What is the excuse?

Mr. Speaker, 2,600 Aveos workers feel betrayed. When the Prime Minister was in opposition in 2012, he was by their side armed with a megaphone and chanting “So-so-so-solidarity!” He said: It is such a shame that we have to demonstrate to ask the government...to obey the law. He even lamented the broken promises. Now that he is in power, he wants to take away those same workers' rights vis-à-vis Air Canada. What changed for the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just said today that he is never going to get turned back at the U.S. border, even though he admitted smoking marijuana while he was a member of Parliament. We just want to make sure the same rule applies to all Canadians.Legalized marijuana will soon be a reality. It is a very important change, but we have to get it right. The NDP supports this legalization, but the Liberals' bill will not legalize edible forms of cannabis, which is a far healthier option than smoking it. The black market, of course, will continue to thrive under the new rules. If one of the key purposes is to eliminate the black market, why will the Liberals not fix this problem in their legislation?

Cyber-attacks? What about attacks on truth, Mr. Speaker?The Prime Minister is always bemoaning the fact that cynicism is the biggest problem in politics today. Promising democratic reform to get elected and then breaking that promise once in office is crass cynicism.Is he not ashamed of himself?

Mr. Speaker, I have a solution to suggest to the government to help the dairy industry: enforce the law.Dominique Anglade, the Quebec minister for economy, science and innovation, has been asking the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount not to hurt the Quebec economy with his bill, Bill C-10.Would the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount be kind enough to listen to the Quebec government and give up on his ridiculous plan to let Air Canada off the hook retroactively? Will he show some respect for the Quebec economy?

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?

Mr. Speaker, the minister just forgot to say that following those rules is important too. Quite a few Canadians were under the impression that the advent of a Liberal government meant an end to criminal records for simple possession of marijuana. The Liberals have been in power for over a year now, and they are still handing out criminal records by the thousand, especially to young people. The Prime Minister just urged the police to continue enforcing these archaic laws. This is causing young Canadians a lot of problems, so why does the government not put an end to that by decriminalizing marijuana right away?

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister told a group of young Canadians that his father had used his connections to ensure that possession charges against his brother would “go away”. Now that the Prime Minister has had a chance to ensure that the arrests and criminal records stop for all families, he refuses to do so. The Prime Minister himself has admitted to smoking pot while he was a member of Parliament, so why the double standard? Why is there one set of rules for the Trudeau family and another for thousands of young and racialized Canadians who are still receiving criminal records for pot possession in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, when they were in opposition, the Liberals called for a public inquiry into the shameful Afghan detainee scandal. Why did the Prime Minister tell his defence minister to block just such an inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, most people learn that it is important to tell the truth before they turn 50. I am sure that many parents would like to wipe out their children's criminal record, like the Trudeau family did. However, most Canadians are not as well-heeled or connected as the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister could have offered pardons in his bill, but he did not. He could have decriminalized marijuana, but he refused. Why the double standard? Why is there one system for rich, well-heeled, well-connected families, and another for regular families?

Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that while he liked the idea of getting rid of our unfair first past the post system, now that he has been able to get elected using that very system, it might not be so bad after all. Canadians have been clear that in 2019, every vote should count. A year ago, the Prime Minister said he agreed with them. Instead of inventing excuses and backing away from his solemn promise to Canadians, will he work with us in good faith to deliver the fair proportional electoral system voters deserve?

Mr. Speaker, in fact it is federal government money. The infrastructure minister's office announced just last month that Saskatchewan will get millions more in fast-track federal infrastructure spending. Therefore, despite the fact that the Treasury Board president claims it is not a problem, actually it is a federal issue, and the people in Saskatchewan want to know what happened to the money spent by Ottawa in Saskatchewan. Will the government immediately call in the RCMP to look at how Canadian tax dollars were spent in the Global Transportation Hub land scam?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians thought that the Liberals were going to change the marijuana laws as soon as they came to power. Why did everyone think that? It is because it was clearly stated in their election platform and because the Prime Minister said so himself about 100 times.Since the campaign, however, the Liberals have encouraged the police to continue arresting Canadians for simple possession of marijuana.Why would the government rather give tens of thousands of Canadians criminal records instead of decriminalizing marijuana now?

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?

Mr. Speaker, we have this little custom in Montreal. It is called winter. This project at the University of Montreal is going to miss a full year. The university calculates it will lose $12 million. This is the number one project on the list of the Government of Quebec. Liberals are incapable of giving any indication of when this project will actually be able to begin. That is incompetence. They have talked about infrastructure for months. They are doing nothing. Talk is cheap. When are they going to start acting?

Mr. Speaker, four months later, in response to 7,000 job losses, all he has to say is that he is looking into the problem. That is shameful.Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs at Bombardier, adding to the 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservatives. The Prime Minister has already said he thinks manufacturing is a thing of the past, but this is people's livelihoods we are talking about. It is about good jobs, their children's future. How many jobs have to be lost before the Prime Minister will finally act?

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?

Mr. Speaker, the report released by StatsCan confirms that sexual misconduct is widespread in our military: 1,000 reports in the last year alone. Eighty per cent of all forces members saw, heard, or personally experienced “inappropriate sexualized behaviour”. We are not talking about the 1950s here; we are talking about 2015. This report is only the tip of the iceberg.The government cannot just wash its hands of it and call the situation unfortunate.What concrete action will be taken to fight sexual assault within our military?

Let us talk about messes they promised to clean up, Mr. Speaker.For more than three years, they promised to legalize marijuana, yet thousands and thousands of Canadians will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because they will not even decriminalize it, something that could have been done overnight. The simple question for the Prime Minister is this. His minister was in New York, of all places, instead of here today, announcing that maybe in 2017 they will be presenting legislation to finally do something about it. In the meantime, will the Prime Minister at least promise that there will be legislation to remove the criminal records?

Mr. Speaker, what a disgrace.Five weeks after KPMG was ordered to maintain all records during an ongoing investigation, a group of offshore shell companies set up by KPMG went ahead and shredded documents related to that probe. This is the very definition of obstruction of justice.Then the Liberals blocked the investigation into KPMG. It must be another independent parliamentary committee of the Liberals.I am curious. Is there any way the Liberal front bench can twist obstruction of justice and sweetheart deals for crooked billionaires into support for the middle class?

Mr. Speaker, promises, promises. It is not what they say they will do, it is what they did not do on Monday.On Monday, I visited Yassine Aber, who was turned back at the U.S. border. He is a brilliant young man and also an athlete. He was turned back, but not because he committed a crime or did anything wrong. No, he was turned back because his parents are from Morocco. It is a disgrace to have a Liberal government that refuses to condemn this blatant discrimination.Why are the Liberals doing nothing to address—

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is always the role of a Canadian prime minister to stand up to racism and hatred.The Prime Minister expects to meet with the President of the United States sometime in the next few days. Canadians have been clear: the order against Muslims is completely unacceptable.Will the Prime Minister speak out on behalf of Canadians and denounce the anti-Muslim order when he meets with the American president, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister really not understand the difference between a contract to manufacture and his responsibility to sign the export permits? That is what this is about. Canada has a rule under international law that we will not export to countries that are using arms manufactured in our country to attack civilians. That is what is happening in Saudi Arabia, a country with a horrible human rights record. The Prime Minister loves to talk a good game. We are increasing our greenhouse gases every year. He talks about the environment. We are exporting to Saudi Arabia to kill civilians.When is the Prime Minister going to stop talking and start acting?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he was concerned about favouritism within the Canada Revenue Agency. Millions of Canadians have just filed their taxes and paid their fair share. If they make a mistake, they are going to be hit with audits and penalties, but when at least 15 multi-millionaires were caught stashing money in a KPMG offshore tax scam, they were let off with no penalty.Is this KPMG sweetheart deal the type of favouritism the Prime Minister was talking about, and if so, why is he continuing to protect KPMG?

Mr. Speaker, when reports of gay men being violently persecuted in Chechnya first surfaced, there was barely a peep from the government. While the Prime Minister hides from criticizing Trump, yesterday we saw what leadership actually looks like when German Chancellor Angela Merkel called out Putin while standing right beside him. Canadians deserve bold leadership from their Prime Minister. Will he stand up for the LGBT community and personally call on Putin to end these despicable atrocities?

Mr. Speaker, we need only to look at article 4 of the Paris agreement to see that they have yet to do anything to fulfill our international obligations and they know it.It was the same thing with the Kyoto protocol. The Liberals did nothing and we had one of the worst records in the world on greenhouse gases. They were forced to admit that they had no plan to respect the Kyoto protocol. It was an exercise in public relations.Why can the minister not admit that it is the same thing in this case? For the Liberals it was pretence. The Liberals were a bunch of phonies when they signed the agreement in Paris. They had no real intention of reducing greenhouse gases. For the Liberals, this is just another public relations exercise.

Mr. Speaker, what arrogance. They are breaking their promise. They are attacking the very foundation of democracy in Canada.After promising a real discussion on medical assistance in dying, this government is shutting down debate at every stage. The Alberta Court of Appeal just warned us that the government's proposal is unconstitutional.How will the Prime Minister explain that he has broken his promise to the people who need this law?

Mr. Speaker, actually, decriminalizing would make sure that young people do not drag criminal records with them for the rest of their lives when we are about to legalize. The government has just created massive confusion in the justice system. Judges are calling the situation absurd. While the government is talking legalization, the courts are being forced to convict. Even the Conservative Party now calls for marijuana possession to be removed from the Criminal Code. Why will the Liberal government continue to hand out criminal records to tens of thousands of mostly young Canadians instead of decriminalizing marijuana now?

Mr. Speaker, just a quarter of the requests were answered within the normal 30-day time limit, and a third of all the requests included in the audit received no response. When journalists do get answers, the documents are totally redacted, pages and pages of black ink.Open by default is what we were promised. Will the Prime Minister admit that he messed this up?

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has violated the Official Languages Act and must apologize.The problem is that he has not learned his lesson. First of all, appointing someone from his inner circle to this position is a clear conflict of interest. Second, this undermines the authority and the credibility of the commissioner of official languages as an institution. Lastly, it is an insult to all Canadians who strongly believe in the importance of official languages.Will the Prime Minister withdraw that appointment, which defies all logic?

Mr. Liu is not a western canola farmer, Mr. Speaker.The Prime Minister himself regularly participates in fundraising activities that give people privileged access to him and his ministers.The parliamentary secretary responsible for legalizing marijuana also participated in an event that gave privileged access to marijuana industry representatives and lobbyists. The Liberals have strict rules but weak ethics.Does the Prime Minister really not understand that they are breaking his own rules?

Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. There is a difference between pretending that one believes in accountability and actually practising it. The Prime Minister is great at pretending. He gets an A plus. There was a question from my colleague. The Prime Minister takes all the questions he wants, but he does not answer any of them. He is in the process of unilaterally changing the rules of Parliament to suit his own purpose so he can duck out whenever he wants. What is to stop any other future prime minister from doing the same thing now that he has broken with parliamentary tradition and set that sad precedent?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' broken promise to our veterans is shameful. After serving our country and making such sacrifices, veterans are still being forced to fight in court to recognize their rights. We have also learned that the Liberals have just denied care to a 94-year-old veteran on a technicality, when there are empty beds ready to be used. It is a new government but the same disgraceful behaviour.When will the Prime Minister stop fighting veterans in court, and when will he provide them with the services that he promised?

Mr. Speaker, he says that torture is poison, but he is not shy about using the fruits of that poisonous tree.Earlier this year, in this place, the Minister of Public Safety stated that torture was contrary to the charter. He also said, “torture is found to be abhorrent by Canadians, and we reject it.” They cannot claim to stand up for human rights on the one hand and be complicit in torture on the other. How can the Prime Minister stand in this place and defend the use of information obtained by torture?

Mr. Speaker, how bad does it have to get for him to say yes?Saskatchewan's farmers want answers also. The Conservative government dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board through Bill C-18.

Mr. Speaker, government monies were used to produce those ads. They should stop playing games.After the secret deal to protect the scammers in the KPMG tax fraud, today we learn that the RCMP is investigating corruption, collusion, breach of trust, and fraud at the Canada Revenue Agency, a parallel system within a government agency that has seen three senior executives fired. Canadians have a right to know how this happened. When will the Prime Minister call an inquiry into the shadowy system at the CRA?

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is not very reassuring for our bilingualism bonus.Obviously Canada is moving toward legalizing marijuana, and the NDP supports that, but the Liberals have left enormous gaps, and the bulk of the work is being left to the provinces. We know that Canadians are often turned back at the U.S. border when they admit to having smoked marijuana—everyone except the Prime Minister it would seem—even if they have never been convicted.What is the government doing to reach an agreement with the Americans to ensure that Canadians will not be denied entry into the United States for things that will soon be legal in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, he is not prohibiting the use of the fruits of torture. That is what is wrong here.What do the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner have in common? All three investigated the Prime Minister and all three are looking for a new job.The government has spent more than $2 million looking for a new commissioner. All we got was the botched nomination of a partisan Liberal. That cost $2 million. What is really going on? Could it be that the Liberals want lapdogs instead of watchdogs?

Mr. Speaker, the TPP was secretly negotiated in the dying days of the Conservative government.Independent studies say tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose their jobs. Those are not just numbers; they are people's livelihoods; they are Canadian families. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both come out against this deal.The Liberals are not only willing to accept a worse deal than the U.S., but they admit that they have no studies of its impact on Canadians. Will the Liberals commit to completing a thorough impact assessment and then making the study public?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's explanation of his now infamous vacation is so full of holes and contradictions it is starting to sound like a White House press briefing. Let me recap. The Prime Minister broke the law by taking a private helicopter to the island. He defended this by saying that it was simply a family vacation with a family friend, along with a few senior Liberals. However, now we learn that the island does not actually belong to the family friend.Will the Prime Minister finally own up to this entire mess and admit that he should never have taken that exclusive holiday?

Mr. Speaker, true reconciliation requires true consultations. True reconciliation also means not taking first nations to court needlessly.A Manitoba judge has struck down a pernicious requirement that residential school survivors must somehow prove the perpetrator's intent in cases of sexual assault of children.Will the Prime Minister withdraw this despicable appeal that is making it even harder for residential school survivors to receive long overdue compensation?

Mr. Speaker, how bad does it have to get for him to say yes?Saskatchewan's farmers want answers also. The Conservative government dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board through Bill C-18.

Mr. Speaker, does her mandate letter allow her to leave a system in place that allows the richest Canadians to avoid paying their taxes? We need an answer for those taxpayers who pay their taxes.Important projects are going to lose millions of dollars because of the government's infrastructure mismanagement. The Université de Montréal is waiting. They have been talking about infrastructure for months. A $350-million project may have to be postponed for a year.Why are the Liberals unable to implement a system to—

Mr. Speaker, let me read a statement dated November 24, just two weeks ago, from the minister for fishy fundraisers: ...at events like this, government business is not discussed He was talking about a cash for access event involving the Prime Minister. We are now told that the Prime Minister did indeed discuss government business. How do we know this? It is because the host of the fundraiser himself said it was discussed.Does the minister wish to correct the record with regard to his November 24 statement, which we now know to be false?

Mr. Speaker, the platform also promised to increase benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans, but once in government, the Liberals are walking away from their pledge to Canadians hoping to retire in dignity.The Premier of Ontario said she would scrap her separate pension plan if the feds moved on the CPP, but instead she has now announced that she is moving ahead with it. Did the Prime Minister tell the Premier that he will break his promise even before he has told Canadians about this broken promise?

Mr. Speaker, Liberals have repeated across the country how much they hate Stephen Harper's targets on greenhouse gases. They even warned, in their platform, of the “catastrophic” impact of the Conservative plan.We agree. It was inadequate. The Conservative plan was, as the minister said, “fake”, so why are the Liberals copying it?

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police illegally spied on two Canadian journalists for nine days.The commissioner of the RCMP said that he never authorized the illegal surveillance. This is serious. Freedom of the press, one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy, is under attack.Will the Prime Minister agree to hold a public inquiry into the RCMP's illegal actions, as called for by our party and journalists?

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”?

Mr. Speaker, given that answer, is the Prime Minister willing to tell the RCMP to drop its court case against a Vice journalist that it is now pursuing? The Prime Minister should be protecting the privacy of reporters and all Canadians, but instead, he has refused to amend Bill C-51.The Prime Minister voted for Bill C-51 because he was afraid of Stephen Harper, but the Liberals have been in office for 18 months. What are they afraid of now?Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians when his government is going to make the promised changes to Bill C-51?

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?

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is bad for workers, bad for farmers, and bad for creators.The economy is already in bad shape, and now nearly 60,000 good jobs are on the line if the trans-Pacific partnership is signed.For someone who was elected on a campaign promise of transparency and change, the Prime Minister apparently has no problem signing an agreement negotiated behind closed doors.Canadians know that signing an agreement signals our intention to abide by it. Does the Prime Minister often sign deals that he does not fully agree with?

Mr. Speaker, with that lack of an answer, we are going to have to follow up on this with you. The government created this privatization scheme during secret meetings with corporations, never revealed this during the election, and never revealed that Canadians would be forced to pay tolls and user fees so that their buddies in the corporations can get their cut. Now he is headhunting for this bank that has not even been authorized by Parliament. Does the Prime Minister really not understand the problem here?

Mr. Speaker, the billionaire class and those hoping to join the billionaire class. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance's economic advisory panel suggested increasing the retirement age.When the minister was asked about this recommendation, he said that the government would, and I quote, “take that into consideration”. Increasing the retirement age when seniors are already suffering is a bad idea.Can the Prime Minister reject this recommendation and confirm that Canada will not increase the retirement age?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which the Conservatives negotiated in secret, without conducting an economic impact study. Canadian innovators and creators are afraid of losing billions of dollars by giving the United States the upper hand on intellectual property. The founder of BlackBerry even called the agreement “the worst thing in policy that Canada's ever done”.Why is the Prime Minister bent on signing an agreement that we know will hurt jobs and innovation in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of parliamentary procedure, in committee today, the Liberals had a chance to vote with us to require KPMG to give the names. Do members know what they did? They used parliamentary procedure to avoid that.Let us talk about the Liberals avoiding their responsibility in another key area, which is climate change. They signed Kyoto the last time they were in power and went on to have one of the worst records in the world. This time they went to Paris and said that Canada was back. Unfortunately, Canada was back with the Conservative plan. Why is there no plan to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada? Canadians want to know.

Mr. Speaker, she should never have been there.Canadians who follow the rules and pay their taxes find the Panama papers scandal disgusting. This week we learned that a former senior Revenue Canada official left the agency and went to work for KPMG when the firm was being investigated by Revenue Canada for using tax havens.Will the Prime Minister finally conduct an investigation and lock the revolving door at Revenue Canada?

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Prime Minister implied that it was Quebec's fault that the federal Liberals did not live up to their Kyoto commitments. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table a document that shows Quebec decreased GHG emissions every year while I was environment minister and prove that they went up—

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Liberals have not and they have broken the law.It is a matter of ethics. Canadians rejected a Liberal government and its sponsorship scandal, and then they rejected a Conservative government and its Senate scandal.Do the Liberals really believe that, if they continue to deny the evidence of their turpitude, in the end, Canadians will believe them? That is highly unlikely.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Federal Court ruled that withholding health care from refugees was “cruel and unusual” and it ordered the federal government to reinstate the federal health program.During the campaign the Liberals promised to fully restore health care for all refugees, but yesterday we learned that the Liberal government is restoring federal health benefits for refugees from only one country. Ignoring the courts is not real change; it is what we had before the election.Why is the Liberal leader picking and choosing which vulnerable people can get help?

Speaking of dodging, Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister is dodging the question. I will repeat my very simple question. The Prime Minister talks about going after those who cheat on their taxes and hide their money illegally in tax havens. Today, the Canada Revenue Agency said that there is no immunity from criminal charges.The question is quite simple: Will the Liberals do everything possible under the law, including the Criminal Code, to go after KPMG and these multimillionaires who have defrauded the system?

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal government adopted Stephen Harper's deplorable greenhouse gas reduction targets. This week, the government is adopting Stephen Harper's draconian health care cuts even though, before the election, the Minister of Foreign Affairs criticized the Conservative government because it “unilaterally refused to extend the funding agreement”.Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about real change?

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.

Mr. Speaker, when 2,600 aerospace jobs were threatened under the Conservative government, the Liberal leader protested with the workers about how dishonest and unfair it all was.Now in government, he is abandoning those same Canadian workers and there is no deal and no guarantee for any future jobs.Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting with these workers, in Montreal, in Mississauga, and in Winnipeg, to explain why he has changed his mind and why he no longer supports their rights?

Mr. Speaker, from the Liberal platform, “We will make Parliament open by default. We will ensure that access to information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ offices.” From an audit released today on how open the government truly is, “...even worse than in the latter years of the former Stephen Harper government.” Yesterday, the Access to Information Commissioner said she was “very disappointed” with the government. As a former teacher, what grade would the Prime Minister give his government's performance on access to information?

A little money on the side, Mr. Speaker?The government used complex mathematical formulas to deprive thousands of people of their employment insurance. Saskatchewan's unemployment rate has increased by 40% in the past year, whereas in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean the number of unemployed has increased by 7,000. Even with the budget, 800,000 unemployed workers are not eligible for employment insurance.Will the Prime Minister keep his promise and help all unemployed workers in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand the answer given by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and what it has to do with the question, which is not very reassuring. He refused to say whether or not they are going to do so.The chair of Impératif français believes that the recommendation represents an anglophone vision of bilingualism. The public service employees' union is just as skeptical. We know that the Liberal government does not usually consult. We do not even have a Commissioner of Official Languages at this time.Could he at least promise to consult parliamentarians, linguistic minorities, and the unions about the bilingualism bonus before scrapping it?

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?

Mr. Speaker, the questions that Canadians are asking are about their Prime Minister who has broken the law again.The Prime Minister promised to usher in a new era of transparency and ethics, but the Prime Minister himself is now under investigation for not one but two separate incidents.Let us try a different tack to see if we can get the Liberals to stop spouting their talking points.What would the Liberals have said if Stephen Harper had broken the law not once but twice?

Mr. Speaker, we have a Minister of Justice attending a sketchy fundraiser, a Minister of Finance with companies registered in tax havens like the Bahamas, and a Minister of National Revenue who is defending sweetheart deals for millionaire tax cheats. The Liberals swore they would be different, but they keep finding novel ways of being the Liberals.Will the Prime Minister show he is serious about cracking down on tax havens by ordering an investigation into KPMG's secret deal? He just talked about what is in the budget. Let us see some action now.

Mr. Speaker, what part of this does the Prime Minister not understand? Members from two of those committees are being denied the right to vote. He has to change that.Canadians have a hard time believing that the process is not rigged. The government will have a majority on the committee, and we know that the Liberal Party has already decided on the so-called preferential voting system, which is to the party's advantage.Can the Prime Minister reassure Canadians and guarantee that his government will not act unilaterally without the support of all the other parties?

That would be from the heart out, Mr. Speaker. Federal infrastructure money flowed to Saskatchewan for the Global Transportation Hub, where there are serious allegations of massive overspending on shady land purchases that benefited the ruling party's bagmen. When asked yesterday if he would look into whether federal tax dollars were wasted, the Treasury Board president was arrogant and dismissive; so let us try again.Why is the Liberal government protecting the Saskatchewan Party?

Mr. Speaker, we need only to look at article 4 of the Paris agreement to see that they have yet to do anything to fulfill our international obligations and they know it.It was the same thing with the Kyoto protocol. The Liberals did nothing and we had one of the worst records in the world on greenhouse gases. They were forced to admit that they had no plan to respect the Kyoto protocol. It was an exercise in public relations.Why can the minister not admit that it is the same thing in this case? For the Liberals it was pretence. The Liberals were a bunch of phonies when they signed the agreement in Paris. They had no real intention of reducing greenhouse gases. For the Liberals, this is just another public relations exercise.

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?

Mr. Speaker, the reason the Liberal House leader is forced to stand and defend the Prime Minister day after day is that there is no minister for ethics on the government side. That is why we have an Ethics Commissioner. The independence of the Ethics Commissioner is of paramount importance, no matter the political party. What would the Liberals have said if Stephen Harper, as prime minister, had named Paul Calandra to choose the ethics commissioner during the Senate scandal?

Mr. Speaker, it is completely false to say that this matter is before the courts because, if it were, it would be public. One thing about our courts is that the cases are public. You are hiding the names. KPMG was ordered to provide a list of names 30 days ago and it has refused to do so. Why protect people who are breaking the law?The F-35 is another example of a broken promise.After saying that the Conservatives were wrong on the F-35, they were the ones who started the program, the Liberals said they would cancel it. Now they would sole source the next jet fighter.Will they please explain to us the difference between the F-35 and the new jet fighter if the problem is sole-sourcing? Why the contradiction?

Mr. Speaker, the video of him promising to restore door-to-door mail delivery, September 3, is online as well. After campaigning on a black and white promise to end the Conservative court case against veterans, the Liberals are now taking veterans back to court with the same lawyers and the same arguments to try to block them from getting the benefits they deserve and the Liberals promised. It is disgusting. The reaction from veterans is “It's a betrayal” and “They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie”. Will the Prime Minister show a shred of decency and stop taking our veterans to court?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke the law on conflict of interest during his exclusive vacation for him and a few friends. When the Prime Minister was forced to admit this fact, he said, “we don't see an issue on that”.My question for the Prime Minister is this. Has he personally met with the Ethics Commissioner, and what excuse did he provide her for breaking the law?

Mr. Speaker, the same Liberals who regularly attacked Stephen Harper for his use of the gag are now flat out resorting to the guillotine to shut down debate. Amending the rules that govern how our democracy works should never be done by just one party, no matter the party.Thus, will the Liberal government commit, here and now, to not changing the rules unilaterally, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, hunger strikers and their supporters travelled all the way from Labrador to bring concerns about Muskrat Falls to the Prime Minister here in Ottawa. All they got in return was a flippant, insulting comment from a Liberal backbencher that shows how out of the touch the government really is when it comes to the realities in Labrador. These are fundamental issues of indigenous rights and health.What is the Prime Minister doing, specifically, to address the concerns raised by Inuit and Innu about the poisoning of their fishery with methyl mercury? What is he doing?

Mr. Speaker, sunny ways are indeed gone. They have been replaced by an attempt to unilaterally and quietly ram through changes to the rules that govern our democracy. This is nothing less than a massive government power grab, which is only meant to help the Prime Minister avoid accountability.Is there anyone on the Liberal benches with the courage to stand up and tell the Prime Minister that this is not why they came to Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker, the three elements of today's motion are directly in their campaign proposals. Will they vote with us, yes or no? That is what Canadians will find out today.The softwood lumber agreement is about to expire. The industry and forestry workers are worried that the Americans are going to once again reduce imports into the U.S. Things have evolved since the botched agreement in 2006. For example, Quebec has revised its forestry regime, thereby responding to American claims of unfair competition. During his trip to Washington, will the Prime Minister stand up for our forestry industry for once?

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Prime Minister, along with all of his Liberal colleagues, voted in the House never to repeat the mistakes of the Conservatives, to respect the rights of our veterans, and that is another broken promise.That is shameful. Not only has the government broken its promise by taking our veterans to court, but today we learned that the Liberal government is refusing care to a 94-year-old veteran. Will the Prime Minister explain to us why he is refusing to provide this veteran with well-deserved care, care that he promised veterans?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister committed in Paris to restoring Canada's credibility on climate change. He cannot download that. He cannot subcontract it to the provinces. Canada signed. His platform says that Stephen Harper's targets are catastrophic. Hmm, no applause. Now, suddenly, Canadians are expected to look the other way while he hits copy-paste on the Conservative climate plan.Could the Prime Minister please explain whether his environment minister just got it wrong, or is he offering no other climate change targets than those of Stephen Harper?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister left the door open to joining American ballistic missile defence, just one month after saying the Liberals would not change their position against such a system. The system is dangerously unreliable, exorbitantly expensive, and it may well just spur a nuclear arms race. Just last week the Canadian Deputy Commander of NORAD warned clearly, “The extant U.S. policy is not to defend Canada.”How has Trump convinced the Liberal government to keep this one on the table nonetheless?

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals took office, thousands of young people have been convicted and will have a criminal record for the rest of their lives. What are the Liberals waiting for? When will they decriminalize marijuana? Even Jean Chrétien is calling for it, for heaven's sake. When he was a member of the opposition, the Prime Minister strode, swaggered, and strutted before the Parliament Buildings with Aveos workers. He chanted “solidarity” into a megaphone saying that these jobs were so important and that this was ridiculous.Why is he now cutting off debate on something that he—

Mr. Speaker, as we have just seen, the Liberals have repeated time and time again that the current electoral system is “unfair” and that it produces false majorities, that is until they got elected.The facts are that over 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister seemed to acknowledge the problem, but then he stacked the committee so Liberals could, alone, impose the next voting system on everyone.Will the Prime Minister reverse his undemocratic decision and allow for a fully representative committee, where each member has the right to vote? Is that not the essence of democracy?

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?

Mr. Speaker, are we talking about people “facing the death penalty” or people “in countries that use the death penalty”? The Prime Minister is trying to fudge the language.On climate change, Canada has been left wearing the dunce cap. Canadians have had to bear the burden of both the Conservative and the Liberal governments' failure to address this very real global threat.There was a glimmer of hope that things would finally change, but this government got on board with Stephen Harper's targets. Can the government explain why it is betraying future generations like this? I repeat: the Liberals are on board with the Conservatives' targets.What is behind this betrayal?

Mr. Speaker, for the past two days, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Transport have been saying that Air Canada, and I quote, “...committed to establishing a C Series maintenance centre here”.That is not true. There is no firm commitment to build a centre. All we have is Air Canada's vague intention to subcontract maintenance. The Prime Minister is obviously misinformed.Can he tell us why he released Air Canada from what were very clear obligations under the law, thereby reneging on his promise to help the 2,600 Aveos workers?

Mr. Speaker, he says that torture is poison, but he is not shy about using the fruits of that poisonous tree.Earlier this year, in this place, the Minister of Public Safety stated that torture was contrary to the charter. He also said, “torture is found to be abhorrent by Canadians, and we reject it.” They cannot claim to stand up for human rights on the one hand and be complicit in torture on the other. How can the Prime Minister stand in this place and defend the use of information obtained by torture?

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister really not understand the difference between a contract to manufacture and his responsibility to sign the export permits? That is what this is about. Canada has a rule under international law that we will not export to countries that are using arms manufactured in our country to attack civilians. That is what is happening in Saudi Arabia, a country with a horrible human rights record. The Prime Minister loves to talk a good game. We are increasing our greenhouse gases every year. He talks about the environment. We are exporting to Saudi Arabia to kill civilians.When is the Prime Minister going to stop talking and start acting?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' bill removes rights from women. How can they be proud of that?In the wake of Stephen Harper's decade-long reign, Canadians have lost faith in our pipeline review process.The Liberals set up a panel to fix the review process, but most of the members of that panel are from the oil and gas industry.Would the minister like to share with us his definition of “conflict of interest”?

Mr. Speaker, he says that studies need to be done. He admits that they have no study and yet they are signing the agreement today. The economy is faltering. The Liberals also made a lot of promises about employment insurance, and they have yet to make good on those promises.The Prime Minister will arrive in Alberta where thousands of workers have lost their jobs. I sure hope he arrives with something more than “hang in there”, which we heard him say recently.Will the government ensure these workers and their families get the support they need by getting rid of the Conservative restrictions and extending employment insurance benefits, and will this be done immediately?

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the government is proud of exporting thousands of good Canadian jobs.With closure, stacking committees, and whipping votes, whatever happened to real change and sunny ways? Liberals are retroactively stripping thousands of good jobs from Canada. He stood in front of Parliament with the workers of Aveos, screamed solidarity into a microphone, and now he is letting those jobs go elsewhere.What is the excuse?

Mr. Speaker, the question was this. How many cases have been thrown out in the time she has been Minister of Justice? She knows the answer, but she refuses to give it to Canadians.The government continues to prosecute kids who smoke pot, but the guy charged with killing his wife is as free as a bird because the government did not appoint a judge to hear that case. That is negligence. That is incompetence, but most of all it is a danger to the public.Why do we have these delays?

Mr. Speaker, today we learn that Bombardier is planning to move another 200 good Canadian jobs abroad.This is in addition to the 2,400 Canadian families who lost their livelihood at Bombardier last month. Our aerospace industry needs help, but not at the expense of our workers and their families.Does the Prime Minister intend to protect good Canadian jobs in any assistance agreement he might sign with Bombardier?

Mr. Speaker, the minister of heritage made a significant claim in the House yesterday. She stated that Gerry Butts and Katie Telford did not discuss the position of commissioner with Madeleine Meilleur. This contradicts Meilleur's own testimony at committee. My question for the minister is straightforward. Would she like to withdraw or correct her statement, or is she accusing Madame Meilleur of intentionally misleading this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of my colleagues, I would like to say that we are all so happy to see you in the Chair today.Last week, the member for Ottawa—Vanier was congratulated for his work supporting francophone minority communities in Ottawa. The NDP shares his belief that we must protect and celebrate our official languages all across this country.Nearly one out of seven francophones lives outside Quebec. We must do more to ensure that all Canadians have access to services in the official language of their choice, regardless of where they live.How is the Prime Minister planning to continue and build on the excellent work done by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier? How will he improve services and support linguistic minority communities in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal bill on pensions will penalize women who take time out of the workforce to raise kids, a protection that has existed since 1977.The Liberal government insists that it is proud of the new Canada pension plan. How can it be proud of a plan that penalizes women? My question is simple. Was this an oversight in the drafting of this legislation, and if so, when will the government fix it?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening in Quebec City, several members of the Muslim community were murdered while at prayer in the Great Mosque. We offer our condolences, prayers, and love to the victims' families and loved ones.What does the Prime Minister intend to do to keep religious institutions across Canada safe?

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?

Mr. Speaker, the problem is of course that the UN talks are taking place without Canada. The Prime Minister talks a very good game when it comes to world peace, but he refuses to be at the table where we could be playing a role.It is a good thing Lloyd Axworthy did not act this way.As a Canadian, I am very proud that the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines has the word “Ottawa” in its title. Even if Canada was not planting the mines, we saved hundreds of thousands of lives.Let me come back to the question instead of the non-answer that is really about something else: why are we not at the negotiating table for nuclear disarmament? That is my question.

Mr. Speaker, job losses are mounting elsewhere in Canada as well. Workers need help, but fewer than four out of 10 people who need employment insurance have access to it.The Liberals voted against our motion to force them to honour their own commitments on employment insurance. The budget will be tabled tomorrow.Will the Prime Minister finally honour his own commitments on employment insurance, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the Prime Minister, really. I feel kind of lucky because I did not have to pay $1,500 to get in here. On behalf of all of those Canadians who do not have $1,500 to get access to the Prime Minister, I have a very simple question. Will he now admit that he has used his official position to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada?

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.

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?

Mr. Speaker, the question is obvious. If the Prime Minister believes in his own rules, why does he say nothing when his ministers break them?Let us be clear. We are not talking about spaghetti dinners in a church basement. That is not what this is about. We are talking about selling preferential access to ministers to the wealthiest Canadians.If he does not feel like enforcing his own fundraising rules, will he give the Ethics Commissioner the power to do so in his place?

Mr. Speaker, let me read what the Liberals have said about cash for access fundraising: “at events like this, government business is not discussed”, from his minister; any individual “who wishes to initiate a policy discussion is immediately redirected to instead make an appointment”, from the Liberal Party; and finally, from himself, “[I] listen broadly...and [I] make the right decisions based on what's best for Canada”.One of these quotes is not like the others. Can the Prime Minister tell us who is telling the truth?

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like he is running for House leader.With Bill C-29, the Prime Minister is trying to take away the protections that the Quebec law offers families who are already among the most indebted in the G20. The Prime Minister is attacking the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.Why? Is he trying to help the banks?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries said that no government business was discussed during these exclusive fundraisers, but that turned out not to be true. I have a quote here that says, “There are questions about the inconsistencies in his own stories, his own contradictory statements, there are inconsistencies in what ministers of the Crown have been told to say to Parliament.” Do you know who said that? The Prime Minister himself, about the Conservatives' Senate scandal.How can the Prime Minister justify becoming what he once criticized?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's tax cut is leaving out millions of Canadians. The Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, who earns $184,000 a year, will get the maximum tax cut. A single senior earning $30,000 a year will not get one cent. The NDP put forward a proposal to give the tax break to the first level of income earners in Canada. That would have helped millions of more Canadians. Why did the Prime Minister vote against helping the most needy?

Mr. Speaker, thank you and I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to address you one last time before leaving this place for good this summer. What an honour it has been to serve here, the cradle of our democracy, and to represent the people of Outremont who honoured me by electing me four times.Those who know me will not be surprised to hear me say that my first words are for my wife Catherine, who is here today with our son Matthew, his wife Jasmyne, and our grandchildren Juliette and Raphaël. Our son Greg and his wife Catherine are with their new baby, Leonard, the new light in our lives.Catherine and I made a pact when we decided together that I would accept the invitation to go into politics. We promised that our relationship and our family would always come first, and we kept that promise.Catherine advised and helped me and was by my side throughout my career in public service. Her strong values of generosity, respect for others, and kindness in the face of adversity have always inspired and guided me, even though I did not always manage to live by those values as well as she does.Catherine has her own very demanding career as a psychologist in palliative and long-term care. She also works as a clinician in the private sector. Like many spouses of politicians, she did my work in addition to her own.I want to share a real example of a long weekend we spent together. On the Friday, we left Montreal, picked up staff in Ottawa, went to the Festival du Voyageur in Winnipeg, went on to Chinese New Year in Vancouver, switched out staff because they were tired, visited Yellowknife, gave a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, then I returned to Ottawa and Catherine returned to Montreal, and it was just Monday.The Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition are familiar with this kind of schedule, but there are not many people, aside from our loved ones, who understand the sacrifices our noble profession demands.Still, what memories. Our granddaughter Juliette hand-made buttons for my leadership race, our three-year-old grandson Raphaël discovered that Stornoway was a great place for building forts, Greg built and maintained the best leadership campaign website, and Matt and Jasmyne would regularly summarize the news for me because I did not have enough time to read it all.I owe so much to my family, including my sisters and brothers, Colleen, Peter, Jeannie, Daniel, Deborah, Sheylagh, Maureen, Kelly, and Sean, not to mention my unconditional supporter, my mother, Jeanne Honorine. We are truly blessed to live in Canada, and we in this place are truly fortunate to be given the chance to try to make it an even better place for all. I have been so lucky to live so many unforgettable experiences in this role. I remember being on board former AFN national chief Shawn Atleo's boat near his home in Ahousaht when we spotted a pod of whales. Catherine and I were overwhelmed as we saw Shawn go to the side and begin to intone a beautiful song. We quietly asked what he was doing, and he said he was calling the whales with a song of his people. We watched in silent awe as the whale swam right to him. We do have a lot to learn from those who were here first, in particular our obligation to leave things better for generations to come. My career in government began exactly 40 years ago. It was in Quebec City in the legislation branch of the justice department. It was there that I first learned the inspiring lesson my political mentor Claude Ryan would drive home time and again. Politics is an amazing way to help make people's lives better, and we should never allow anything to supercede that priority. Here in this place there are so many wonderful people who dedicate themselves to making our lives easier. I want to thank all of the staff. The superb professionals at the table, the delightful pages, the brilliant library personnel, the support staff, and our incredible interpreters who somehow make sense of it all even when we are talking a mile a minute.I have a special word of thanks for two people.I want to thank Marguerite, from our restaurant, who always managed to find us a place, even whether there were none left, and she did it with a smile.Samearn Son of our Parliamentary Protective Service, who courageously stood between a deranged man's bullet and us, represented the best of the best of a service that deserves all of our respect.Politics is a contact sport, but our incredible colleagues and employees are always there to support and to advise, and to soften the blows. I had the good fortune to serve under two extraordinary leaders prior to the arrival of our new chief, the exceptional Jagmeet Singh. Jack Layton was in a class apart. He contacted me in early 2006, a full year before I was to become his Quebec lieutenant. I had just left cabinet on a question of principle, having refused to sign an order in council transferring land in Mont-Orford Provincial Park to private developers. Jack was amazing, sans pareil, when it came to connecting with people and he proposed a supper with his wife, the extraordinary Olivia Chow, and Catherine and me at a restaurant in his old hometown of Hudson, Quebec.As a Quebecker, he knew the progressive side of politics there. He also knew how tough it was for the NDP, but he was so sure that working together we could break through in our home province. Catherine was convinced, so was I, and an unlikely, hopeful, slightly mad political adventure began.Many will recall the orange wave of May 2011, but fewer people will remember that it was preceded by five years of organized and relentless hard work from Lac-Saint-Jean to Trois-Rivières, from Rimouski to Gatineau, and from Sept-Îles to Montreal. Recruiting party supporters was not easy, but together, Layton and Mulcair, as we were often called, worked as a team that did not so much recruit candidates as it hunted them down. We were good. We recruited people like the extraordinary Nycole Turmel, who so brilliantly replaced Jack at a moment's notice upon his departure.Jack knew that a breakthrough in Quebec was key to the NDP being considered a national party worthy of the name, and Jack would be so proud to know that we currently have such a strong and experienced team of 16 NDP members from Quebec here in the House. It is true that our goal of forming a progressive NDP government eluded us in 2015, but let us never forget that the 44 seats won by the outstanding members during the previous election was our second-best result in 18 federal elections since the NDP was created in 1961.As I prepare to leave this place this summer, I look back with pride and try to keep only the happier memories in addition to our miraculous breakthrough in Quebec, such as zip lining with Rick Mercer or tailgate parties with the Rider Nation in Regina.I remember the beers I had with Jack and Rebecca Blaikie on a beautiful patio in Trois-Rivières, with the nicest people ever. I remember a long journey by dogsled in Whitehorse, Yukon, where my great-grandparents Mercier were married.There was also the annual regatta in St. John's and the evening on George Street that always followed, and knocking on then Supreme Court Chief Justice, and neighbour, Beverley McLachlin's door with my grandchildren on Halloween wearing my Angry Bird costume.Mark Critch, bless his soul, called me right after the 2015 election, telling me he decided he was going to cheer me up. He brought me into a studio, dressed me up as Canadian music star Drake, and had me dance to Hotline Bling. Yes, that really was me lip-synching “You used to call me on my cell phone”. How appropriate.I also had the good fortune to travel abroad with colleagues of all parties and to learn their stories. We have a lot more in common than anything that divides us. The world around us has changed a great deal since I entered this place. While we can and should celebrate and cherish our democracy, our liberties, our rights, and our institutions, we are all keenly aware that no one can take anything for granted in today's world. Democracy needs champions, and Canada should be one of those champions.Here, within these halls, we have the privilege and the duty to enact positive change. I will continue to try making a positive contribution after I leave this place. I will be teaching sustainable development in the most important research university in Quebec, the University of Montreal. Since civil society also makes a remarkable contribution to progress, I will once again be very active in charitable organizations. I recently agreed to become the chair of the board of directors of Earth Day. There are so many different ways to contribute to the well-being of Canada, but the goal remains the same: to work together not only for the promise of a better society, but also to make it a reality for all.

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?

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is sincerely concerned about what he just called potential favouritism at the Canada Revenue Agency, will he agree with the NDP to hold an investigation into the KPMG scandal? Canadians do not accept that there is one law for the rich and well connected and one law for everybody else. Here we have a clear example, just like the Air Canada case: “You broke the law. No problem. The Liberals will change it for you retroactively if you're rich and well connected”.Canadians want the law to apply to everyone. Are we going to have an investigation into KPMG, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we were proud to see the Government of Canada take measures to offer temporary residency permits to those stranded by the United States' recently announced Muslim ban. However, the government must now commit to taking the next step.What does the Prime Minister intend to do to provide ongoing assistance to the thousands of refugees who are now banned from the United States?

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?

The industry minister, Mr. Speaker, really?As Canada marks the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, we are all reminded of the sacred duty of those who often sacrifice their lives and health in the service of our country. Here at home, the Liberal government has taken no action to live up to its campaign commitment to restore a fair system of lifetime pensions for injured veterans. Does the government think that it is honourable to fight veterans in court here in Canada while the Prime Minister lauds their heroism in France?

Mr. Speaker, except that there is a safe third country rule that says that, if they are coming from the United States, they are coming from a safe country and they cannot be treated as pure refugees as they normally would. That is the problem. Why does the government not see it?With President Trump's order, the number of people seeking refuge here in Canada continues to grow, particularly because of the smuggling ring at the border, in Montérégie.What practical measures will this government take to help these people and to support the communities that are taking them in?

Mr. Speaker, there it is. The Liberal government will actually be increasing greenhouse gas emissions.The Prime Minister is fond of lecturing everyone else, but he is the process of following Stephen Harper's plan, on Stephen Harper's timeline, using Stephen Harper's targets. However, he will never be able to meet them, because he has no plan for reducing greenhouse gases. If we do not reduce greenhouse gases, anything else we do will be pointless.When is the Prime Minister going to be able to look Canadians in the eye and say, “Yes, we are going to reduce GHGs in this country”?That is the question. He needs to stop dodging.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to establish a genuine nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples. He also signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That means extensive consultations and accommodations are a must.How can the Prime Minister clear the way for the Site C project when the indigenous rights issue is before the courts? Is that what he calls a respectful relationship?

Mr. Speaker, that is no reason to do away with Quebec's consumer protection legislation. This Prime Minister seems perfectly comfortable in not keeping his word, whether it is on forming the most ethical government on the planet, or his solemn promise to change the electoral system—and he has been in power for only one year.My question for the Prime Minister is very simple. Does he think it is important to attend question period?

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. In the Prime Minister's opinion, what would be an appropriate penalty for ministers who violate the Conflict of Interest Act?

Legitimate preoccupations of Canadians that obviously the Prime Minister does not share, Mr. Speaker.Are Canadians to understand that the Prime Minister signed an agreement with Bombardier that did not provide any guarantee that jobs would be protected but that allowed company executives to pocket $32.6 million U.S. in taxpayer money?Canadians want a government that acts in their interests, not a government that lines the pockets of wealthy CEOs.Why does the Prime Minister continue to defend Bombardier's senior executives?

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister truly believes in the importance of question period, if he sincerely believes in transparency and accountability, he is going to have to find it somewhere inside himself to answer this very basic question, because it only concerns him and he knows the answer.He is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. How many times has the Prime Minister communicated with the Ethics Commissioner? Answer the question.

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?

Mr. Speaker, most people learn that it is important to tell the truth before they turn 50. I am sure that many parents would like to wipe out their children's criminal record, like the Trudeau family did. However, most Canadians are not as well-heeled or connected as the Trudeau family. The Prime Minister could have offered pardons in his bill, but he did not. He could have decriminalized marijuana, but he refused. Why the double standard? Why is there one system for rich, well-heeled, well-connected families, and another for regular families?

Mr. Speaker, therefore there is no plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions next year.Canadians are proud to see a change in tone on climate change, but they are also hoping that the change of tone will bring about a concrete change of direction. Once it finally decides on Canada's targets, will the government make them binding by enshrining them into a climate change accountability law here at home?

They waited until April before introducing their bill. We all agree on that. After the Liberals refused calls from the NDP to refer Bill C-14 to the Supreme Court, the Alberta Court of Appeal called out the Liberals for pushing a bill that flies in the face of the Carter decision. Now the Ontario courts are raising concerns about whether the bill respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How many court decisions will it take before the Liberals finally admit they have made mistakes? Why would the Prime Minister prefer that suffering Canadians spend years in court fighting for their rights instead of getting his new law right the first time?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government issued new directives on torture. Those directives still allow the use of information obtained through torture. To the NDP, there is no context in which torturing a human being is defensible.How can this Prime Minister, who brags about being a great defender of human rights, approve the use of the fruits of torture?

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the minister should have listened to those quotes. It is quite clear that the Liberals have a preference. They admit that but they will not tell Canadians what it is. That is the problem. They continue to claim they are being transparent. Yeah, sure.Will the minister acknowledge that it is their own statements that are indeed undermining the committee's work?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of appointments, we see that the government is ready to fill positions on the board of directors of the infrastructure bank. The only problem is that the infrastructure bank has not been created yet. Can the Prime Minister explain how he thinks it is appropriate to try to fill positions for something that does not exist?

Mr. Speaker, there is no explanation for the fact that multi-millionaires, in collusion with KPMG, can hide money in a tax haven and face no consequences.As we just heard, the Prime Minister says that he wants to fight tax evasion. It is time for him to walk the talk.The NDP moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Finance to obtain the names of the people involved in this scandal. For six months, the Liberals have been harping on about how they are more open and transparent. This is their opportunity to prove it.Will the Liberals support our motion to obtain these names, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, they are on stock options.In the KPMG agreement we saw that there are certain rules for the rich and the friends of the government and other rules for everyone else. Good luck to any owners of a family business who make a mistake on their tax return, because the government will be on their heels. If a millionaire decides not to pay his taxes, there is no problem. The government will protect him.Can the Prime Minister assure us that his government will never offer this type of deal to white collar criminals again?

Mr. Speaker, as this case illustrates, the problem is that the rich are not paying their fair share and are let off the hook by the Canada Revenue Agency. The question was this. Is the Prime Minister going to order an investigation to figure out how this happened? He cannot hide behind the fact that it was a previous administration. Canadians have a right to know that the tax system is equal for all Canadians. This case proves just the opposite. There is one set of rules for the rich and another for everyone else. What is the Prime Minister going to do about investigating this case so that Canadians know there is tax fairness in this country? Stop protecting the rich. Start protecting a tax system that is fair for all.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has just signed a new executive order banning immigrants and refugees from six Muslim majority countries.The Prime Minister has refused to denounce these racist policies. The Prime Minister has refused to suspend the safe third country agreement with the United States.Could the Prime Minister please answer this one specific question. Does he believe the U.S. remains a safe country for refugees, yes or no?

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?

Mr. Speaker, when 90% of people are in favour of a more proportional system, I think we can begin to call that a consensus.The Prime Minister made this promise hundreds of times during the election. He wrote it in his party's platform. He put it in his very first throne speech. The government promised it 1,813 times since it got elected. That is the real number.How can Canadians trust anything the Prime Minister has to say after he has so blatantly and intentionally betrayed his own word?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence concocted a tall tale. He fancies himself the architect of one of the most important battles of the entire war in Afghanistan. The quandary for the Liberal government is that the minister played no such role.Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has called on his minister to explain this trumped up story? We want to know whether the Prime Minister has talked to him about this.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has written a letter to Elections Canada asking for an investigation into the Liberal Party accepting donations that would violate elections law. Once again, there are ethical questions swirling around the governing party that promised to be the most ethical government Canada has ever seen. My question for the Liberal government is simply this. Under the law, what is the maximum donation they can legally accept?

Mr. Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots.The Liberals promised real change for health care, but today they are resorting to their favourite strategy from the past, a good fight with Quebec. Instead of attacking Quebec on a file the province has already taken care of, will the government deal with the underlying problem of the $36 billion in cuts made by Stephen Harper?

Mr. Speaker, consultation means much more than informing indigenous communities that a project has already been approved. Six local first nations have opposed this LNG project. How was this decision announced? The Prime Minister sent three ministers to the Vancouver airport, 1,000 kilometres away from the people and territory that will be directly affected by their decision.Does the Prime Minister really consider this to be respect for first nations?