Debates of Oct. 24th, 2018

Record Suspension Program

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 161, which calls for a study of the impacts on people with a criminal past who seek a record suspension, formerly known as a pardon. It is a term perhaps more familiar to those who are watching the debate at home, but a term that the previous Conservative government removed to reflect that this was not a purging of their past, but rather a recognition of their efforts to change and live productive lives within our communities.

More specific, the motion, if passed, will instruct the public safety committee to undertake an examination of how record suspensions can help those reintegrate into society, to look at the fees associated with the application for record suspensions and whether they should be changed and, finally, a catch-all directive to identify any improvements to better support applicants through this process.

lt is interesting that the motion is being debated in the House rather than being simply moved to the committee itself, which could be a much quicker option.

lt is also interesting that this comes on the heels of the debate on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

While Bill C-83 and the motion we are discussing today are different in substance, at the heart of these two items is the watering down or perhaps the repeal of the previous Conservative government's Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Bill C-10 enhanced victim's rights and enhanced the safety of Canadians, which lengthened the crime-free waiting period to 10 years before a serious offender could apply to suspend indictable convictions and to five years from three for summary offences. It disqualified anyone with more than three convictions for an indictable offence from ever being able to apply and disqualified those convicted of child sex offences from ever being able to apply.

A review of the fees associated with the applications for record suspensions is in order, particularly if the fees are hindering the rehabilitation of individuals back into their community, as the hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay has indicated. However, if this is another attempt by the Liberal government to prioritize the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims, that is something Canada's Conservatives will not accept.

Motion No. 161 instructs the public safety committee to look at how suspending a criminal's record would assist in the reintegration into society. The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay included this in his speech. He also included references to people convicted of minor offences, like theft under. The member mentioned that these people were having difficulty finding jobs because of their criminal records and that they could not afford to apply for record suspensions. This in effect hindered their ability to reintegrate into their community and effectively raise themselves out of poverty.

As I indicated earlier, a review in this narrow context at committee I feel is more appropriate. However, I say narrow because the examples used by the hon. member in his speech are narrow in scope as well. The motion does not say those convicted of minor offences, as we might believe from the examples the member for Saint John—Rothesay has used in his speech.

I refer to the speech by my hon. colleague, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, which he gave in the House a short time ago. He said, “Record suspensions should not be something that anyone with a criminal past can get. Some crimes can and should remain forever on someone's record.” He continued, “serious criminals and repeat offenders that are generally the concern, not one-time shoplifters. The fact is that one-time shoplifters are usually dealt with by means of alternative measures.”

Let me be clear. Canada's Conservatives do not want criminals like Terri-Lynne McClintic getting their records suspended for their heinous crimes. We must enure that those who commit crimes against children will never be able to volunteer at a children's day care centre, for example. The shocking indifference for victims and a disturbing compassion for criminals that the Liberal government has demonstrated over the past weeks needs to be re-examined by the Prime Minister.

As I mentioned earlier, it is interesting that the member chose to raise this matter through a motion in the House, rather than the more expeditious route of presenting a motion to a committee, for example. Obviously, I am not a member of that standing committee. I sit on the natural resources committee. I do not know the public safety committee's agenda, what studies are being conducted and what studies it plans on doing in the future. The committee members themselves are best placed to determine how the study fits within the current pressing public safety or national security issues of, say, gang violence, illegal border crossers, cybersecurity, threats by foreign states or extremist attacks, and yet we are being asked to set the agenda for this committee.

Also, considering this draw, not every MP in this House will have the opportunity to bring forward such legislation. for the benefit of those watching at home, I am referring to the procedure by which we choose the order in which private members can bring private members' business to this House. While I recognize that this motion would impact the hon. member's constituents, it could, as I have said earlier, more appropriately have been dealt with at committee, which would have allowed the member to raise another substantive legislative concern for his constituents.

While it may raise questions for the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay, the member is perfectly within his right to do so. As a result, I have some recommendations for the committee during any review that it may have down the road.

I would encourage the members of the public safety committee to remember that they are the public safety committee, when reviewing this motion.

I recommend that the committee consider the difference between someone who steals a pair of jeans and someone with a record of a serious crime, like sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, homicide and other violent crimes. It may come as a shock to some of my Liberal colleagues, but there is a difference.

I also recommend that the committee consider the concept that deterrence is also an important factor that could be considered in the prevention of crime. The last message we want to send is that when people steal a pair of jeans and get caught, all they need to do is pay a pittance and there will be no record of their crime. Having a record creates a deterrent and reminds us that crime is not welcome in our communities.

Let us not forget that with every crime there are also multiple victims. I strongly urge the committee not to recommend a reversal of important provisions found in Bill C-10 that put community safety first, and were grounded in a philosophy that victims matter. I recommend not allowing criminals like child predators and repeat offenders with three or more indictable offences to be eligible to receive record suspension. I recommend not altering the required number of years that people with serious criminal convictions, like violent and sexual crimes, have to demonstrate their rehabilitation, before they can apply.

I ask the committee to consider the balance Bill C-10 struck between recognizing the role record suspensions play in facilitating reintegration, ensuring the protection of our communities, particularly the most vulnerable, and placing victims rights at the forefront. We need to ensure that record suspensions do not become a right for criminals. We need to ensure that criminals cannot buy a pass on their criminal behaviour. We need to ensure that a record means something, and we need to ensure that rehabilitation is still the overarching factor in the record suspension process.

The Liberals have demonstrated, in the past few weeks, a concerning preference to coddle criminals rather than champion the safety of the public and respond to the victims. Whether it was giving a convicted cop killer Chris Garnier veterans benefits, despite spending not one second in the Canadian Armed Forces and, something Chris Garnier openly claims, despite the fact that he contracted post-traumatic stress disorder in the process of committing his crime when he murdered a female police officer; whether it was deciding to move a child killer from behind bars to a healing lodge with no fence and with children living inside; or whether it is a lack of transparency in the Liberals' plan on dealing with returning ISIS terrorists, the trend must stop there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay has a five-minute right of reply.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight with great pride on behalf of my beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay to cap off the second hour of debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 161.

I can say as the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay, a riding that is on the front lines of the war on poverty, that we need to do everything we can to advance polices that will help us tackle poverty reduction in my riding and across the country. It is my number one priority. That is why I used my opportunity to introduce Motion No. 161, a motion that will allow me to move us as close as I can as a member of the House to my goal of eradicating poverty and creating a more just society.

As I stated at the outset of this debate, we have all made mistakes in our lives. I believe in second chances when they are deserved. I would like to believe we live in a society that can forgive past transgressions when such forgiveness is shown to be merited.

Sometimes mistakes that happen early in life can lead to a criminal record. When a mistake is properly addressed, it is best for everyone, both the offender and society, to move on. As a society, we need to be able to give deserving citizens a second chance.

I know the vast majority of my colleagues across the aisle agree with me on this. Indeed, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asserted that they do when he said in the first hour of debate of this motion, “We recognize the important role that record suspension plays in allowing people to move on from that phase of their life if there is clear indication of rehabilitation”.

As we have heard over the course of this debate, it is unfortunately the case that the criminal justice system often fails to provide this second chance for many deserving Canadians, especially those in low-income situations.

Approximately 3.8 million Canadians have a criminal record, but very few eligible Canadians apply for a record suspension, and less than 11% of those convicted of crimes have been granted a pardon or record suspension.

In addition, over 17,000 fewer Canadians have been able to successfully reintegrate into society and join the workforce as a direct result of the changes made to the pardon system by the previous government, including the quadrupling of the application fee. This represents a 57% drop in applications since the previous government's changes came into effect. Is this fair? Does this show compassion? I think not. It also represents thousands of Canadians who are unable to secure employment and successfully reintegrate into society.

However, this is not only about giving those who have atoned for their past mistakes an opportunity to escape poverty; it is also about keeping our streets and communities safe. When those with criminal records are unable to secure employment because they are unable to overcome the barriers to securing a suspension of their record, they are far more likely to repeat the mistakes of their past than they would be if they were able to acquire gainful employment.

Breaking down these barriers to reintegration erected by the previous government is not just the right thing to do from a moral and public safety perspective, it is the right thing to do from an economic perspective. It costs taxpayers over $117,000 a year to incarcerate an individual, not to mention the hit our economy takes as a result of lost productivity.

In order to be tough on crime, we must be tough on poverty. In this sense, a vote in favour of this motion is a vote for addressing the root causes of poverty and crime. A vote against it represents nothing more than a partisan virtue signalling that does nothing to address poverty or crime.

It is time to put partisanship aside. We must all roll up our sleeves and work across the aisle to tackle the scourge of crime and poverty head-on.

I truly hope my colleagues across the way will vote with their conscience on this. If they truly care about getting tough on crime, they will.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 31, 2018, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister makes the decision to bankroll a Texas oil company and purchase its 65-year-old leaky pipeline for $4.5 billion despite indigenous opposition, he has made a choice. He has decisively picked a side. The Prime Minister has picked corporate welfare over representing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. It is a very clear message from the Prime Minister and the farce of the rhetoric about the new nation-to-nation relationship that the Prime Minister claims is the most important relationship for his government.

In May, 230 international organizations wrote to the government criticizing it for treating free, prior and informed consent of impacted indigenous communities as a mere afterthought in this process. We know that criticism was absolutely correct.

On August 31, the Federal Court of Appeal nullified the certificate approving construction and operation of the Trans Mountain expansion project, putting a halt to further construction and operation of this project. The Federal Court of Appeal found that the National Energy Board's review failed to include the increase in tanker traffic and the negative impact that would have for endangered killer whales and failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with first nations before giving the green light to the project. It said the NEB's review was so flawed that the government cannot rely on it as a basis to approve the project.

Incredibly, the Prime Minister is still saying firmly that he will approve the project, that it is a fait accompli, but with the decision made, he will still manage to somehow meaningfully consult with indigenous peoples. He is blind to this double-talk.

What is clear is that he is announcing to indigenous peoples that their opinion does not matter and he does not care about what their views are. What is equally concerning is that the Prime Minister does not seem to get why indigenous groups are opposed to this pipeline. It is about our duty to care for our planet as stewards for our grandchildren's grandchildren.

The IPCC report was clear. Without serious action right now, we will not achieve the emissions reductions necessary to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°. The carbon tax alone will not do it either.

We need serious investments and action now. The Prime Minister can take action on energy efficient housing and buildings in our northern communities and the territories. He can put forward stricter emissions standards and regulations for large vehicles. He can put in stronger regulations for controlling methane. We can aim higher for emissions targets than those brought forward by the Harper government and apply pressure to put measures in place to achieve them.

All of these initiatives need to be done now and they need to be done with investments in ensuring just transitions for Canadians impacted. That means programs and training for impacted energy workers to move into the clean energy sector. It means helping small businesses to go green and to contribute to the green economy. It means investing in Canada to build a green economy.

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the question. Unfortunately, I disagree with the premise of her question for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I disagree with the member's claim that our government has picked a side on the Trans Mountain expansion project, unless she is suggesting that she is against creating good jobs, opening new markets for Canadian resources, and ensuring that Canada receives a fair price for them, because that is the opportunity we support.

Nor do I agree with any suggestion that respecting indigenous rights is just a formality. Our government has been very clear: no relationship is more important to Canada, and this government, than the one with indigenous people. The Prime Minister has said it countless times. It was a central tenet in our throne speech. It has informed and inspired everything we have done since, including our consultations on a framework for respecting and implementing indigenous rights that would fundamentally redefine that relationship, replacing confrontation with collaboration.

That is why we also implemented an interim approach for reviewing resource projects that includes supporting meaningful indigenous engagement and taking indigenous knowledge into proper account.

We introduced Bill C-69 so that good projects go ahead in Canada. It is legislation that would create new partnerships by recognizing indigenous rights up front and confirming the government's duty to consult. It is legislation that would not only require the consideration of indigenous knowledge but respect the need to properly protect it. It is legislation that would consider the impact of resource development on indigenous rights and culture in the decision-making process. It is legislation that would build capacity and enhance funding for indigenous participation, and it is legislation that would aim to secure free, prior and informed consent. That is is our record.

Now we are building on it by respecting the Federal Court of Appeal's decision on the TMX project and following its direction for enhancing indigenous consultations. That way forward includes relaunching phase 3 consultations with all 117 indigenous groups affected by the project. It also includes working with first nation and Métis communities and seeking their views on how to get phase 3 right; doubling the capacity of our consultation teams; ensuring that our government representatives on the ground have a clear mandate to conduct meaningful consultations and empowering them to discuss reasonable accommodations with indigenous groups on issues important to them; and, of course, appointing the former Supreme Court Justice, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, as the federal representative to oversee the consultation process.

The evidence is overwhelming. We are committed to moving forward in the right way.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, when will the government finally realize that the duty to consult with indigenous communities is not just a box to check off in the process? The government just does not get it.

Climate leaders do not spend $4.5 billion purchasing pipelines to cover bonuses for executives. Governments should take their duties to indigenous communities seriously. They should not announce that they have already made a decision before engaging in consultations.

Two hundred and thirty international organizations got it. The Federal Court of Appeal got it. Indigenous communities impacted by the proposed pipeline get it.

Will the government recognize the consequences of its statements and actions and not proceed with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion?

[Paul Lefebvre]

Madam Speaker, I think that Canadians know our government's position on indigenous rights and reconciliation. They know that our position starts at the top, with the Prime Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister wrote out our position in the mandate letter of each cabinet member:

It is time for [Canada to renew its] nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Our government has committed to leaving the old paternalistic relationship behind in favour of a fundamentally new approach based on partnership and shared responsibility. That is what we are doing.

Automotive Industry

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to continue debate on auto policy in the House of Commons. The member for Essex and I raised the issue in the House, and I am eager to hear the parliamentary secretary's response with regard to the second largest manufacturing capacity in Canada. It used to be the largest, but has shrunk over the last number of decades because of trade agreements and policies that have not addressed what Liberal and Conservative governments have called for, because supports for the industry have not been delivered. What I am talking about is an auto policy.

The auto manufacturing sector in North America is certainly part of the industrial development of Canada. In fact, out of Windsor we see a legacy from the past that has led to the production of vehicles of the future. It is not only the technology that has changed, but also the people. There have also been a number of different work-related changes in ingenuity, workplace safety and benefits, and in employment that have affected all sectors of the Canadian economy.

To this day, even in my own office, my one staffer Melanie and her children Toby and Lucie, are part of an extended auto family who see the benefits of their heritage coming from the auto sector in the Windsor area. Its footprint carries all the way up Highway 401 and Highway 417 into this region.

What we asked about were the issues related to the Trump tariffs and the NAFTA negotiations, and how in the past our lack of preparedness has cost us. Prior to the original NAFTA, we had the Auto Pact, which was a trading agreement between the Canadian and U.S. governments. In fact, it was a favoured agreement that Canada did very well under. However, when we signed onto the original Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the Liberals did not backstop the program and it was lost through a trade challenge at the WTO.

Ironically, at that time this country did not even have the guts or wherewithal to take this to the final chapter of negotiations. We backed down and folded like a cheap tent and lost our Auto Pact trade agreement, which cost us. We went from number two and number three in the world in auto assembly to number eight and number nine. Subsequent governments have not followed through with a national auto strategy, despite several reports calling for targeted measures to make sure we do not slide any further.

I would like to hear a specific response to my question. The largest support for auto manufacturing by way of a loan went to Volkswagen in the United States, through EDC. How can we make loans to auto companies in the United States when we have not provided the same supports here in Canada?

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, our government is taking concrete steps through several key policy initiatives to secure and strengthen the automotive sector in Canada, in particular by securing its footprint, supporting technology development, and building the ecosystem for Canada to lead in the design and manufacture of the car of the future. We have a plan that builds on and leverages the experience in the industry and the expertise in technologies shaping the industry's future.

Our innovation and skills plan helps position Canada as a leader in the global economy, with our commitments to grow Canada's automotive footprint, support digital innovation and invest in clean technology. The strategic innovation fund, a $1.26-billion program, has provided funding to support innovative projects in the automotive sector. For example, we provided $49 million to create 1,500 new jobs and to maintain another 8,000 jobs, and to help Linamar launch a new innovation centre in Guelph, Ontario, dedicated entirely to research and development. We provided $110 million for Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada in Cambridge, which will help retain 8,000 jobs, create 450 new jobs and provide 1,000 more co-op placements, making Toyota's Canadian plants the largest producers of Toyota hybrid vehicles in North America.

As part of the innovation superclusters initiative announced earlier this year, as much as $950 million will be invested in supporting superclusters led by businesses that are most likely to stimulate the economy and drive growth. Our global skills strategy makes it easier for businesses to recruit the talent they need across Canada.

We launched a new agency called Invest in Canada to attract international investments and make it easier for businesses to set up shop in Canada.

We are working closely with our partners, namely industry, the provinces, municipalities, unions and all other stakeholders, to protect and grow Canada's auto industry.

As the second largest manufacturing sector in Canada, the auto industry generates roughly 130,000 jobs and contributes $18.1 billion to the GDP.

As technology is rapidly transforming the future of mobility to one that is connected, automated, zero-emission and shared, our government continues to amplify Canada's automotive manufacturing strengths, innovative research capabilities, technological expertise and talent. Together with a robust supply chain comprised largely of small and medium-sized enterprises, these strengths contribute to the ecosystem that makes Canada a location of choice for the design, development and manufacturing of the car of the future. The measures we are taking increase our economic prosperity and the opportunity for well-paying, quality jobs for the middle class.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not get a response. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned certain measures, I guess from notes provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, who did not show up tonight to debate something that is very industrially important in Ontario.

We are at a crossing point with regards to the industry. I mentioned before the family of Melanie, who is on my staff, and her children, who have a grandfather in the auto industry. They may be the one of the last families to continue in the industry, because with the recent agreement with the United States and the lack of auto policy, our footprint is shrinking and the sun is setting on the industry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is not allowed to indicate who is not in the House.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Madam Speaker, we remain committed to increasing our economic prosperity and the opportunity for good-paying jobs for Canadians by taking measures that address the new realities facing Canada while upholding Canadian interests and values.

We are seeing results. Since 2015, Canada's auto sector has received major investments totalling more than $5.6 billion, including recent investments from Toyota and Linamar, which I mentioned earlier. It seems my colleague was not really listening, because there are plenty of great jobs and great things happening in the industry.

Our measures are helping us ensure that the right people, technologies and businesses are positioned just right to design and build the cars of today and tomorrow right here in Canada.

Employment Insurance

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the “black hole”, or spring gap, problem still has not been fixed. Like a broken record, the Liberals keep assuring me that a pilot project is under way. However, this pilot project only involves 13 of the 62 regions. Such a measure is unacceptable.

Case in point, the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale do not have access to any such measure.

It frustrates me that the government has only half measures to offer, because seasonal workers need help right now, today, to deal with the EI spring gap. The government is suggesting training, qualifications, pilot projects, targeted economic regions, short-term measures and all kinds of other ideas, when all seasonal workers want is to be able to feed their families.

By choosing training over funding, the Liberals are deliberately failing to recognize the value of a sector that is actually a driver of our economy.

As the member representing the agrifood technopole of Saint-Hyacinthe, I understand how important these workers are to our regional economy.

I want to remind the Liberal government about one thing. Jobs may be seasonal, but workers are not. We need action, meaningful, definitive action, to help the thousands of workers who will be struggling to get by this winter, facing long stretches without a job or income.

Landscaping and lawn maintenance business owners in my riding are worried. If you can believe it, some of them have had to give their employees personal loans, while this government boasts about having solved the spring gap problem.

The eligibility threshold needs to be returned to 360 hours immediately and at least 35 weeks of benefits must be provided for all manufacturing workers in order to fix the EI spring gap.

Seasonal workers are taking action. In September workers from Quebec and Acadia came together to take a united stand against the EI “black hole”, or spring gap. Some 400 seasonal workers gathered in Inkerman on the Acadian peninsula.

Pierre Céré, a spokesperson for the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, or CNC, attended the meeting and called for seasonal workers be protected as well.

His call echoes our own. We in the NDP are calling for better eligibility and a minimum of 35 weeks of benefits, so that these workers do not have to face the spring gap year after year.

He also wants the regions affected by the spring gap to receive a special designation to help them get by.

Mr. Céré reminded the government that seasonal workers in the Gaspé, on the north shore and in Charlevoix, in Quebec, face the same realities as those in Acadia.

In August, following repeated calls from the NDP, the government announced a pilot project that will give workers an additional five weeks of benefits. However, this does not meet the needs of seasonal workers. Advocacy groups for the unemployed are saying that this government appears to be indifferent to the demands of workers.

On their behalf, I will ask the question once more. When will the government solve the problem of the EI spring gap once and for all?

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's important question.

Our government understands the concerns of seasonal workers who find themselves without any source of income after exhausting their regular EI benefits before they go back to work.

Earlier this year, people in some regions across Canada were hit hard by this income gap, referred to as the “trou noir”. Faced with this challenging and stressful situation, seasonal workers needed our help, and with the help of the provincial governments involved, we responded. First, we provided immediate support by reallocating $10 million from existing resources to the most affected provinces: Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

It should be noted that the provinces will determine how to distribute these funds based on their needs. They are in the best position to do that.

Also, in August, we announced that we would be investing approximately $189 million to implement a new pilot project to provide up to five additional weeks of EI regular benefits to eligible seasonal claimants in 13 EI regions. It is estimated that 51,500 seasonal claimants will benefit from these extra weeks of EI each year.

Finally, they are also making available an additional $41 million over two years for all provinces and territories through their labour market development agreements. This funding will enable provinces and territories to provide skills training and employment supports for workers in seasonal industries.

We believe that skills development and training are also important. This is not because our seasonal workers are not skilled, far from it. Our workers are already trained for the industries they work in. It is not because they are leaving seasonal industries. We need seasonal workers in these industries.

However, that is because training aims to strengthen seasonal workers' ability to support seasonal businesses.

We are doing this because we are committed to reducing the difficulties that too many families and workers in seasonal employment are facing.

While working with stakeholders and the provinces affected, we will continue to look for solutions to the challenges faced by workers in seasonal industries.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem with working with the provinces. We are always the first to say, “Let's work together”.

I would like to remind the House of what I said earlier. It is not the workers who are seasonal; it is the work. However, it is the workers who are penalized. I am not the one who said that. It was the Prime Minister himself who said it during the last election campaign.

In spite of the Liberal government's actions, seasonal workers are angry because they know that, in a few months, despite the training they have received, they will still have to go without income for several weeks. Imagine what it is like to be without income in a region where there is only seasonal work.

I am speaking out on behalf of those workers who have no money to feed their children for several weeks or even several months.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Madam Speaker, we all know that the spring gap remains a big problem for seasonal workers across Canada. That is why we will continue working with our partners to find sustainable solutions.

Our investments will have a positive impact on workers in seasonal industries, and they will bring us one step closer to solving the spring gap problem.

We are reviewing and updating the employment insurance system to make sure more workers have a safety net should they become unemployed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, October.

(The House adjourned at 7:41 p.m.)