Brigitte Sansoucy

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Like her, I believe that the government could be helping seniors who are retired now. Among all seniors, 30% of women who currently live alone live in poverty. That number has tripled over the past 20 years.

Could my colleague elaborate specifically on the situation of retired women living in poverty and how this bill is only going to make matters worse for them?

[Petitions, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in the House today to table a petition signed by many Canadians who support Bill C-245, so that we can immediately implement a poverty reduction strategy.

I have collected so many signatures from people across Canada because Canadians can see just by looking around them that 1.3 million children in this country are living in poverty, that one in eight families need the help of a food bank to put food on the table each month, and that 35,000 Canadians are homeless.

I think that, when they go back to their ridings, all MPs in the House will see just how many people are living in poverty.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a scathing report was published this past week in Quebec. According to that report, 50% of children aged six and under have experienced various types of violence. One of the reasons for this could be the fact that too many of the families in question have to spend over 30% of their income on housing. That is why we need to take immediate action.

I am very proud to table, again today, petitions from Canadians who support Bill C-245. By voting in favour of this bill on November 30, we can immediately begin working on a poverty reduction strategy. With 1.3 million Canadian children living in poverty, we must act now.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 18th, 2016]

With regard to the government’s claims that the new Canada Child Benefit will lift 60 000 Quebec children out of poverty: (a) what specific methods and projections did the government use to make that claim; (b) how many children in Quebec were living in poverty as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016; (c) using the government’s studies and projection methods, how many children will there be living in poverty in Quebec as of (i) January 1, 2017, (ii) January 1, 2018, (iii) January 1, 2019?

[Petitions, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Food Banks Canada published a report that showed that, in March alone, nearly one million people received food from a food bank and one-third of them were children.

This report recommends that the government adopt a poverty reduction strategy before October 1, 2017. It is possible to meet that deadline, which is why, today, I am very proud to again submit petitions from Canadians who support Bill C-245, an act concerning the development of a national poverty reduction strategy in Canada.

By voting in favour of this bill on November 30, we can meet that deadline and follow the recommendations that have been made by those working on the ground and people who are directly affected by poverty.

[Health, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians have died and too many lives are in danger because of opioid addiction.

Over the past two decades, more than 10,000 Canadians have died from opioid use and an untold number of people now suffer from addictions. The consensus is clear: we need effective leadership and coordination at the federal level to reduce the number of overdoses in Canada.

Is the minister ready to show leadership and declare a national public health emergency?

[Health, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when dealing with an issue as important as health, we should not be playing with words. When the promised 6% increase turns into a 3% increase, that is a reduction.

This government keeps saying that it wants to negotiate in good faith and that it is listening to the provinces. However, I do not believe that this is borne out by the facts. When the government says that it has set the priorities together with the provinces, that does not mean that it can make decisions about provincial programs. That is not how you come to an agreement about the priorities.

Is the government thinking of its citizens and voters who are going to see a substantial decline in their health care system and proposed services? This type of decision by the Liberal government threatens the universality of the health care system and access to care.

The government must abandon this policy, honour its promises, and not renege on its commitments. We must not forget that the goal is to strive to ensure the sustainability of the Canadian health care system across the country without exception.

Can the Liberal government keep the promises it made to Canadians?

[Health, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on September 26, I asked the Minister of Health to explain why the federal government intended to move ahead with the $36 billion in cuts imposed by Stephen Harper.

Two days later, on September 28, the Minister of Health officially announced that the health transfer increases would be cut by half from 6% to 3% a year. The Liberals unilaterally decided to cut the health transfer increases.

The government is applying the cuts proposed by the Conservatives. It likely does not realize that, by so doing, it is jeopardizing the future of the provinces' health care systems.

What is more, it is people who are sick who are going to pay for the government's decision to slash health transfers. After promising Canadians that they would invest billions of dollars in health care, the Liberals are instead moving forward with the Conservative cuts and imposing conditions on the health transfers. The health care system will lose $1.1 billion in the first year alone and $36 billion in the long term as a result of this decision. We call that a broken promise.

Let us not forget that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister sent the following message to his Quebec counterpart, the Premier of Quebec:

Unlike Mr. Harper, I do not intend to deal with [transfers] unilaterally. My party is aware of the challenges that increasing health care costs...represent....

I get the impression that this government does not really understand the impact of these cuts. I will explain that impact. The cuts mean longer wait times, fewer doctors and fewer nurses for people. They will open the door to powerful interests that want to privatize Canada's health care system. Let us not forget that the federal government covers only 20% of health care spending, and that percentage is declining.

The quality of health care that Canadian families receive should not be determined by how much money they make. That is one of our values, but it is under threat. In Quebec alone, health care costs are growing by about 5% per year. Rising costs will outpace federal transfers.

This fiscal imbalance prompted the parliamentary budget officer to paint a worrisome picture of public finances in his work on Quebec. He found that reduced federal transfers, mainly health transfers, would make the provinces non-viable, or in other words, bankrupt.

The federal government cannot continue to ignore this issue considering our aging population and the two major challenges facing the provinces when it comes to health: developing home support services and providing better mental health care.

Furthermore, the provinces expect Canada's aging population to be taken into account in the calculation of the transfer amount and they all agree on that. This is not a partisan issue; it concerns the health care provided to all Canadians.

In closing, the NDP is calling on the government to not adopt the cuts Stephen Harper had planned for this year and to negotiate in good faith with the provinces.

Can the government commit to that?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague praised what the Conservatives did. However, the creation of pooled registered pension plans did not lead to the expected outcome of Canadians saving more for retirement.

I am very concerned. When the member is in his riding, I am sure that, like me, he meets with seniors living in poverty. The latest numbers show that 30% of single senior women live below the poverty line, and that number has tripled in the last 20 years.

What are the member's thoughts on that? What does he think we can do to lift those women out of poverty?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Since we work together on a committee that studies poverty, my question will not surprise him. I want to ask him about the indexing of the Canada child benefit, or rather the fact that it will not be indexed until 2020. That decreases the value of the benefit for families until 2020. For low-income families, it could mean the loss of $500. The Liberal government is giving low-income families $6.50 more a month in child benefit money than the Conservatives did.

How do the Liberals expect to lift low-income families out of poverty with $6.50 a month? In my opinion, this real change is not helping low-income families at all.

When my colleague talks about the families in his riding, which families is he talking about?