Thomas Mulcair

[Ethics, October 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last week the finance minister took a break from drafting the next budget to host a private fundraiser in Halifax with wealthy developers, bankers, and mining executives. Each paid $1,500, the maximum allowed, for the privilege of access to the minister. When it comes to getting the ear of the person overseeing billions of dollars in public spending, that is quite a bargain.

The Prime Minister knows that this sort of cash-for-access fundraising is wrong, so the question is: Why does the Prime Minister continue to allow it, and when will they repay the money?

[Health, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather interesting, because yesterday, the Prime Minister himself said that, in Canada, health care falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Meanwhile, he is refusing to sit down with his provincial counterparts who have been asking for a meeting on health since June.

Will the government finally commit to meeting with the provincial premiers to discuss health care funding? I am asking for a simple yes or no answer.

[Health, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there has been talk about expertise and jurisdiction in this debate on health.

The federal government provides health care to the armed forces, indigenous people living on reserves, and inmates. With regard to expertise, the federal government has none. With regard to jurisdiction, health care for the general population falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

What right does the federal government have to lecture Quebec on health care when it has no expertise or jurisdiction?

[Health, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals committed to a different relationship with the provinces, but the Prime Minister refuses to even be in the same room with the premiers to negotiate the new health care deal. He promised he would never reduce health care funding without good faith negotiations, but he decided to move forward with Harper's cuts anyway.

How can the provinces be expected to provide people better health care while their funding is being cut?

[Health, October 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims shortages in health care funding can be fixed by dictating to the provinces how they must spend their health care dollars. The numbers tell a different story.

By adopting Harper's cuts to health care transfers, the government will see the federal share of health care spending drop to just 18% over the next 10 years, when the initial deal was fifty-fifty. Does the government not understand the only real problem here is its cuts to health care?

[National Strategy on Advertising to Children Act, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be seeking unanimous consent for an important motion based on the e-petition sponsored by the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard that asks that we, the House of Commons, condemn all forms of Islamophobia.

It is a non-partisan petition signed by more than 66,000 Canadians.

Following discussions, with all parties in the House, I believe you would find consent, Mr. Speaker, for the following motion that the House join the more than 66,000 Canadian supporters of House of Commons petition e-411 in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.

[Health, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, he did not say it, but he does not have to imitate it.

The provinces and territories were surprised to learn that the Prime Minister refused to even respond to their request to meet and discuss the health transfers. They are now making a simple request: delay the Harper cuts by one year and retain the 6% increase for one more year.

Will the Prime Minister agree, yes or no? The question is simple, and we want a straight answer for once.

[Health, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that was a yes. The Liberal platform mentions working with provinces 35 times, and that approach was appealing to Canadians after a decade of the antagonistic Stephen Harper form of federalism, but without even sitting down with the provinces, the Liberal government adopted Stephen Harper's cuts to health care transfers.

Before the election, whenever the Prime Minister was specifically asked about Harper's health care cuts, he said he would not make any changes without first talking to the provinces.

What happened to that promise?

[The Environment, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more tangible than targets and goals and that is exactly what is required by the Paris agreement and what is missing from the Liberals' motion.

The government motion to ratify the Paris agreement does not mention anything about working with or consulting with indigenous communities. If it is a mistake, let us fix it together.

Will the Prime Minister accept our amendment to include working with indigenous communities in our efforts to fight climate change?

[The Environment, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister could not deny having broken his promise to present new targets, opting instead to adopt Stephen Harper's targets, which he once described as catastrophic.

Today we are voting to ratify the Paris agreement, but the government's motion is missing a key requirement of the agreement, which is to set economy-wide emissions targets in absolute terms.

Will the Prime Minister agree to add this key component?