Brigitte Sansoucy

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, the issue of arms exports goes far beyond the current mandate of all existing House of Commons committees. Since this debate began, we have been hearing that there is no need because we already have committees.

The issue currently before the House overlaps with the work of many committees, including the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There is an expression that says everybody's business is nobody's business. Would my colleague agree that that seems to be the case here?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what I find unfortunate today is that all too often the debate is drifting from the motion that we are debating.

We are not here to question the fact that military procurement for the Canadian army or its allies is done by Canadian companies. We are not here to lament the fact that exports of Canadian arms have almost doubled in the past 10 years.

No, what is worrisome is that Canada used to export arms mainly to NATO countries. However, during the past 10 years, under the Conservatives, Canada's arms exports have changed and now we export to many countries with a troubling human rights record.

In fact, today, Canada is the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East. If existing controls were actually functional, we would not be debating this motion. Clearly, they are not.

Does the member not agree that part of our work as MPs is to look into the government's activities, which include Canadian arms sales? Does the member not support greater transparency on this matter?

[Health, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is saying one thing and doing another. All of the provinces, particularly Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia, denounced the government's approach to health care accords. The people of those provinces are having déjà vu. They are very familiar with that attitude. It is exactly the same as the Conservatives'.

How many provinces will it take for the government to listen to reason and cancel its cuts?

[Health, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are on board with Stephen Harper's health care cuts, and the provinces are furious. The Liberals said they wanted good-faith negotiations with the provinces, but now that they are in power, they are unilaterally cutting $36 billion and trying to impose a list of conditions on Quebec.

Does the minister understand that people wanted to do away with Stephen Harper and his policies?

[Health, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' decision to maintain the Conservatives' cuts to health was not especially well received. According to Quebec's health minister, these cuts are going to make it hard for Quebeckers and Canadians to access good quality health care. Many provinces are opposed to the government's proposed plan.

Will the Liberals scrap these cuts and keep their promise to negotiate in good faith with the provinces to ensure quality care?

[Health, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were elected on a promise to renegotiate the health transfers with the provinces. However, this weekend, the Minister of Health confirmed that her government is adopting the Conservatives' formula for health transfers.

Can the minister confirm whether the provinces agree with maintaining the $36 billion in cuts imposed by Stephen Harper?

[Health, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for over six years, the provinces have been calling on the federal government to abandon the cuts that the Conservative government planned to make to health transfers. Unfortunately, the new Minister of Health confirmed that the Liberal government is going to go ahead with the Conservative cuts.

Can she explain to the provinces and Canadians why her government is going to maintain the $36 billion in cuts imposed by Stephen Harper?

[Health, June 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in a little more than nine months, the new formula for health transfers will come into force, and it will deprive the provinces of $36 billion. During the election campaign, the Liberals said that they would renegotiate the transfers. Now is the time to take action.

The premiers of Quebec and Saskatchewan have even said publicly that this takes time and have called for an increase to the transfers.

When will the Liberals take this seriously? The future of our health care system is at stake.

[Citizenship Act, June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I do not understand why the member insists on defending provisions that, according to the testimony of many experts from various groups, likely violate the charter, do not comply with international law, and will result in many constitutional challenges. Those groups include the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Barreau du Québec, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and UNICEF. How can he defend these provisions?

[Veterans, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to take a different approach when it comes to their relationship with our veterans. However, what the Liberals are calling “real change”, we would call “more of the same”.

Not only is the Liberal government carrying on with the court case against our veterans, but now we have learned that too many veterans are finding it hard to access long-term care facilities, when those facilities are not being threatened with closure.

Will the government promise to reinvest in order to ensure that all veterans have access to long-term care when they need it?