Brigitte Sansoucy

[Health, March 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, during question period on January 27, I asked the minister what action she was planning to take to ensure compliance with the Canada Health Act.

Quebec has legalized ancillary fees for public health services even though this practice violates the Canada Health Act. It is unacceptable that people's finances should determine their access to health care.

In November, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wrote to the minister to inform her about this situation, and I have risen twice in the House to ask the minister what the federal government is going to do to put a stop to this practice.

The minister did reply to the letter, but she did not say a word about ancillary health fees even though her mandate letter clearly states that her “...overarching goal will be to strengthen our publicly-funded universal health care system”. To me, strengthening a universal health care system does not mean forcing patients to pay $500 for the use of instruments involved in performing a colonoscopy. Allowing ancillary fees results in unequal access to medical services, and the federal government should intervene to stop this.

If we take a look at some of the ancillary fees that are being charged, we can see some alarming figures: $40 for the application of a four-square-centimetre bandage following a minor surgery, $200 for the insertion of an IUD, $500 for the use of instruments. One need only take a quick glance at the Canada Health Act to know that such practices are against the law.

The law specifically states that provincial and territorial health insurance plans must provide coverage for all medical and hospital services that are medically necessary. Charging ancillary fees for health care services clearly violates the principle of fair and universal health care coverage. In this specific case, the Canada Health Act is not being enforced.

What is more, this system has encouraged health processionals to adopt practices that go against the principles of equity and universality. For example, some doctors' offices charge $300 for $20 eye drops, or $150 just to create a file.

In some cases, the legalization of ancillary fees has led some doctors to violate their code of ethics. This measure violates the principle of equity and is misleading for Quebeckers. We need to stand up for the principle of a free, accessible, and universal health care system.

Allow me to recap. Quebeckers are becoming poorer as a result of the legalization of ancillary fees. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada ranks second in pharmaceutical expenditures per capita. This affects everyone.

This measure affects the quality of life and the health of citizens. In this case, there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor. No one should have to choose between getting treatment and paying rent.

In addition, there is a risk that other provinces could adopt this plan, which would lead to interprovincial medical tourism.

This measure is helping create a two-tier health care system. I ask my colleague once again: what will the minister do to ensure that the public health care system is accessible from coast to coast to coast?

[Status of Women, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, hundreds of women have had the courage to speak out against the harassment and violence they have suffered.

These are systemic problems that require a political solution. For years, women's groups have been calling for a national action plan and investment in more shelter spaces.

Can the minister tell us when, and I mean when, the government will listen to these women and come up with an action plan to finally stop this scourge?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech, and I wish to inform him that the riding I represent is called Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I have had the opportunity to sit with my colleague on a committee where he went on and on about the importance of non-partisan work in committee. In that vein, we have chosen to support the bill so that we can try to improve it in committee, determine at third reading whether it meets the needs of the people we represent, and then decide whether we will support it or not.

Will my colleague also adopt this attitude and support this bill to try to improve it for the people we represent?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I think that a graduated tax rate, in other words a tax rate based on annual income, is the best way to redistribute wealth in our society. A consumption tax certainly hinges our on consumption, which in turn depends on our income. However, we all know that there are some purchases that have to be made for many of our basic needs regardless of whether we have a low income or a high income.

In my opinion, changing the tax rate in a way that is equitable to people with different incomes is a better way to distribute wealth in our society.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We do support this bill, and we hope to improve it in committee.

We all spent the past week in our ridings. During the week, constituents contacted me to say that they were happy they would benefit from the tax cut because they belong to the middle class. Then I asked them what their household income was. Each time, I had to tell them that the so-called middle-class tax cut was not for them and that it would benefit people who are richer than they are.

We are here to represent our constituents. We have to respond to their disappointment. In the 2015 election, people had high expectations in connection with Liberal promises, but they have been let down over and over.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-2, which was introduced in December and is now being debated in the House.

Middle-class families are losing ground even though they are working harder than ever. What these families need is a government that is concerned about their situation and will fight against growing inequality. Unfortunately, we see that this government is doing the opposite. Liberals have repeated for months and months that they have a plan for the middle class. They promised quick, urgent and positive change. However, we see today that we know very little about how these major changes will happen and even less about when they will happen.

Bill C-2 was a golden opportunity to make good on these promises and to put words into action. Unfortunately, the Liberals' plan is quite disappointing.

The Liberals' proposed tax plan does nothing for 60% of Canadians, six out of 10 Canadians. Once again, the wealthy are the ones who will benefit. The NDP put forward solutions that would benefit a large number of Canadians and would allow a fairer distribution of tax cuts: boosting the national child benefit supplement, increasing the guaranteed income supplement, creating a $15-a-day national child care program for all Canadian families, and restoring the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. These realistic, progressive measures would provide real help for the middle class.

The Liberals campaigned on a platform focused on the middle class. As my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques mentioned in his speech in the House, we want to know how the Liberal Party defines the middle class. This is a legitimate and important question. This government keeps promising tax cuts for the middle class. However, as the parliamentary budget officer explained very clearly in his report, the real middle class will not benefit from this government's promised tax cut. A tax cut for the middle class should benefit the middle class.

When we really look at the Liberal plan, it is quite clear that unfortunately, it does not make sense. The median income in Canada is about $31,000 a year. Obviously, this means that half of Canadians earn less than $31,000 a year and the other half earns more than $31,000 a year.

If we imagine a pizzeria worker in my riding who earns $20,000 a year, will he benefit from this tax cut? Unfortunately, no. Will a social worker who earns $43,000 a year benefit from this tax cut? The answer is still no. The reality is that someone who works hard and earns $50,000 a year will probably receive only $20 or $30. Is that real change?

One has to wonder who is really going to benefit from this change. Who is really going to benefit from these cuts? Who could benefit? When we look closely at the figures, we see that this will benefit people who earn more than $90,000 a year. What is more, someone who earns $200,000 a year will get the most out of this tax cut. Saying that this will benefit the middle class is not entirely true.

I hope I did not lose too many of my colleagues with all those figures, but they are important in understanding just how much hard-working families, our seniors who often live in poverty, and the real middle class will unfortunately not benefit from these measures.

If we take the median income, people will receive nothing. If we take the income that everyone associates with the middle class, in other words, $45,000, people will receive nothing. Those who will receive the biggest slice of the tax-cut pie are the top 20% income earners. That is not the middle class. The Liberals' proposed tax cuts will help the rich, not students or young families.

When I talk to groups in my riding and my constituents about this, they are disappointed. Like me, and like most Canadians, they expected the tax cuts to help those who need it most and to benefit the real middle class.

During the election campaign, people who believed they were part of the middle class were told over and over again, for nearly 80 days, that they would finally have room to breathe and that they would be given tax breaks. Today, they are realizing that that is not the case.

Unfortunately, the middle class will not benefit from these measures; only the richest 20% will. That is what the figures say. When middle-class Canadians file their income tax returns, they will be surprised, and not in a good way.

In fact, most Canadians will see that they cannot benefit from the tax cuts that this government promised them. Only 20% of the population will be eligible for the tax cuts, even though they were supposed to give the middle class some breathing room.

The fact that the tax breaks will benefit those who earn $200,00 a year and not those who earn $39,000 shows just how inequitable the proposed tax breaks make the tax system. That is really unfortunate.

After the bill to amend the Income Tax Act was introduced, I read with interest what Luc Godbout, an eminent tax expert in Quebec, had to say about it. When looking at how this would affect couples, he determined that, if a couple had a combined income of $250,000 a year, they could receive a tax break of up to $1,120. However, a hardworking couple in my riding with a combined income of $75,000 a year, who sometimes has trouble making ends meet, would receive an average of zero to four dollars. That is really disappointing.

The NDP developed a plan to fix the Liberals' tax plan, to ensure that the government's measures truly reflect its campaign promises. Our plan would reduce the tax burden on middle-class and lower-class workers. We urge the Liberals to take our suggestions so that we can help those who truly need it.

Our plan is simple. The NDP calls on the government to lower the tax rate for Canadians in the first tax bracket from 15% to 14%, instead of lowering the tax rate for Canadians in the second tax bracket. This way, eight out of ten taxpayers would see a change in the amount of tax they pay. This solution would benefit many more taxpayers. Under our proposal, people earning the median income could see a reduction of up to $250 a year, but these people get nothing under the existing plan.

Our concrete proposal could really help the middle class. That is what the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the 337 other ridings want.

[Richelieu-Yamaska FADOQ Regional Games, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the 40th annual Richelieu-Yamaska FADOQ regional games are being held from March 3 to May 19. A host of sporting, social, and cultural activities enable people 50 and over to push themselves to excel and have fun. The Richelieu-Yamaska FADOQ has more than 31,000 members across 56 clubs. More than 600 volunteers are involved in this association, a dynamic force in the Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot community.

I would like to acknowledge the dedication of the president, André Lussier, the executive director, Claude Leblanc, and the members of their team. In addition to advocating for seniors' rights, they also help the less fortunate and work every day on improving the quality of life of people 50 and over to ensure that this stage of life is full of health and fulfilment.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, six out of 10 Canadians will get nothing under the Liberal plan. Seniors who are waiting for an increased pension are being told to hang on. Families are still waiting to find out how much they will get under the Canada child benefit. However, my colleague talked about this child benefit using the conditional tense and said that it should begin this summer. We are asking questions, but we are not getting any answers.

My colleague talked about the most vulnerable members of our society. Why are Canadians who are living in poverty, the vulnerable people he is talking about, still not getting anything under this bill?

[Poverty Reduction Act, February 26th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act concerning the development of a national poverty reduction strategy in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my great honour to introduce my first bill, a bill to reduce poverty.

I have done community work my whole life, and my goal has always been to help build a more just and inclusive society. That is why I am introducing this bill to develop a national poverty reduction strategy.

As the progressive opposition party, we care about reducing social inequality and building stronger communities. It is high time the federal government showed some leadership, which it can do by passing this bill for a comprehensive strategy to reduce and fight poverty. We must act now.

I invite all of my colleagues from all parties here in the House to pass my bill at second reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, people need help now. They have no use for evasive answers. Workers remember to this day that the Liberals under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien helped themselves shamelessly to the employment insurance fund in order to balance the budget. More than $50 billion was taken from the benefits to which workers were entitled.

We are all aware of the size of the Liberals' projected deficits. Could they at least answer a very simple question? Does the government plan to dip into the employment insurance fund once again, yes or no?