Brigitte Sansoucy

[Women's Shelters, October 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, a recent study showed that more than one-third of women who use shelters have suffered a brain injury as a result of domestic violence. Unfortunately, no one ever talks about that.

All too often, victims of domestic violence are women with disabilities. No one ever talks about that either. I would like to thank the DisAbled Women's Network Canada for the work it does on this issue.

While we are examining the accessibility legislation, we should ensure that women's shelters get more resources. The government promised that victims fleeing domestic violence would not be left without support and that it would increase funding for shelters and safe houses.

It is therefore high time the government took action to give them all the resources they need and ensure that all women always have somewhere to go no matter where they are in this country.

[Employment Insurance, October 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just explained what EI provides, but the problem is what it does not provide. Fifteen weeks is not enough. If my colleague wants to talk about employment insurance in general, I can tell her about the six in 10 workers who do not have access to employment insurance.

She talked about seasonal workers. I would like her to listen to fishery workers from New Brunswick, workers from eastern Quebec, seasonal workers from the north shore and those from Charlevoix who end up in increasingly longer spring gaps.

However, I wanted to talk about employment insurance sickness benefits. I now have doctors in my riding contacting me to say that it makes no sense that their patients are being forced to go back to work. This should be an issue that brings us all together in the interest of claimants and their families.

When does the government plan to take real action and improve employment insurance sickness benefits so that people do not end up—

[Employment Insurance, October 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 2018, I asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in the House when he and his Prime Minister would keep their word and increase the 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits.

The Liberals once again demonstrated their lack of interest in our most vulnerable citizens by ignoring a motion that I moved before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to review the EI sickness benefits program, which currently provides for 15 weeks of benefits.

Had the committee conducted a study and heard from experts, sick workers, and unemployed workers, the government would have seen that this outdated legislation needs to be updated. This study would have led to a comprehensive report being tabled in the House with practical recommendations regarding the usefulness of the statutory 15 weeks of sickness benefits.

I am astonished that the Liberals rejected this request for consultation out of hand, considering how much they like to consult. I am especially disappointed because hundreds of thousands of people need those benefits. What are the Liberals so afraid of?

They repeatedly promised to review the Employment Insurance Act, which was last changed nearly 50 years ago. The act is way out of step with what today's society needs. The sickness benefits program still lasts only 15 weeks, and thousands of families and sick people find it hard to make ends meet as a result. How can a low-income patient get by financially under such conditions? As I have repeatedly told the House, a seriously ill person cannot get better by the time their 15-week benefit period ends. That is deplorable.

This law has remained unchanged since 1971 and is causing financial insecurity for thousands. Over one-third of current beneficiaries need much more than the 15 weeks provided for under the program. People recovering from cancer need 52 weeks on average to get better.

The government should make this issue a top priority and update the law to ensure that it reflects what Canadians need at this point in time, now that one in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lives, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. The time to act is now.

Inspired by her own experience, Marie-Hélène Dubé has been taking on the federal government over its inaction on this file for nearly 10 years. Ms. Dubé created an online petition called “15 weeks to heal is not enough!”, which has been signed by 600,000 Canadians who are calling on the government to extend sickness benefits to offer the best possible conditions for recovery.

I will be holding a town hall meeting on the theme of “15 weeks to heal is not enough”. I invite the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton to come meet their neighbour, Mélanie Pelletier, who, like hundreds of thousands of people, exhausted her EI sickness benefits. I was deeply moved by Mélanie's story, and I invite all of my constituents to come support our neighbour Mélanie and the thousands of people like her who need more than 15 weeks to heal. I hope to see many of my constituents there.

Once again, the government has failed to keep its promises. The 15-week sickness benefit system has been around for 47 years now and is completely outdated.

This should not be a partisan issue.

[Health, October 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in March, the Minister of Health promised Alain Gervais that the government would do something about sweetened alcoholic beverages, which of course caused the death of Athena Gervais. The answer provided by the minister on Monday is quite different. She is still holding consultations. It is shocking. The committee's 15 recommendations were quite clear. The government has to take action immediately to protect our children.

When will the government finally put its money where its mouth is and protect our children?

[Employment Insurance, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Liberals calls for a complete overhaul of the EI system. What a surprise. The Liberals and Conservatives ransacked the EI program, leaving holes in the social safety net for people who are unemployed or sick.

Now that their own report has confirmed what we have been saying for years, when will the minister finally do a complete overhaul of the EI program?

[Municipalities in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to welcome the municipal elected representatives, city managers and staff from my riding who have come here to participate in a series of sessions to learn more about resources and programs for municipalities.

There are two RCMs in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, namely Maskoutains and Acton. Between them, they have 25 municipalities, most of which are represented here today. I am very proud of that.

I would like to thank the mayors, reeves, councillors and city managers for spending two days here to learn about various federal programs and visit our wonderful Parliament.

I would like to thank all of the municipal elected representatives and organization leaders in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for their dedication to our residents. Having held such positions myself, I know what it involves and what it takes. I am proud to speak on their behalf in the House.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I come from an area that fought against shale gas production.

At the time, our intent was not just to oppose it, but also to change how we do things. That is why we got involved in a renewable energy project, and that is also why my riding was very much against the pipeline and decided not to support it.

My riding is clearly opposed to investing in fossil fuels for another 50 years. My constituents talk to me about this issue, and they do not understand why the federal government decided to buy a pipeline. It is extremely clear: not only are they against it, but, as I have conclusively demonstrated, they are saying yes to renewable energy.

We can do things differently, and that is the clear message they have sent me to give to you today.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which allows me to remain optimistic because the Liberals have a majority.

This report was written by scientists who are suggesting solutions, describing the problem and telling us what to do. During the three years I have been in the House, I have heard the government say that we must make evidence-based decisions. We have the evidence. The IPCC report gave us the evidence last week.

This past week, we have been hearing that we need to take this report seriously. I am being realistic when I say we need to do more and do it faster. I think that, as a government, we can take this leadership role. We can change course, develop an ambitious plan, and involve all departments.

Quebec has adopted a sustainable development strategy that involves every department. Every time the government or a department does something, it must consider whether the action supports sustainable development. If the answer is no, it cannot move forward.

The government could show this political courage, and I think this is completely realistic.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are having this debate this evening because the IPCC report tells us that we need to do twice as much and fast. We are here this evening to say that we have to have political courage. We are not here this evening to say that we are doing enough. We are here this evening to say that we have to change course.

My NDP colleagues know that I am an eternal optimist. I will tell a story, that of elected members who had political courage. Before becoming an MP, I was a municipal councillor at the City of Saint-Hyacinthe for six years. I was the chair of the advisory committee on the environment. I had a front row seat as a municipality made the decision to face climate change with political courage.

I arrived at the municipal council in 2009. The previous municipal council had decided to invest $10 million. For a municipality of 50,000 people, investing $10 million without subsidies takes political courage. The municipal council decided to invest in a bio-digester to convert sewage sludge into biogas.

I had just been elected and toured the inside of a bio-digester to see how it works. The process is quite simple. The City of Saint-Hyacinthe decided to transform organic matter into biogas. Organic waste is placed in a silo with water. The biogas produced heats the hot water pipes around the silo, which heats the entire plant. Then, the bacteria does its job.

Saint-Hyacinthe is an agri-food technopole. It has had a triple stream waste collection system for more than 10 years. People were already used to collecting organic matter. However, the municipality noticed that we also had several industries that produced organic matter. Cheese and yogourt manufacturers produce whey and slaughterhouses produce animal fat. The municipality had a lot of raw materials and could do much more, so municipal officials toured biomethanation plants in Germany. The town designed its own plant. It obviously had help from the provincial and federal governments, but it was an $80-million project for a municipality with a population of 56,000. That takes political courage.

We need to opt for renewable energy. As others said earlier, we need to change our habits. The people of Saint-Hyacinthe have changed their habits by diverting organic materials. Businesses have changed their habits by setting up procedures to separate organic waste from other waste and take those organics to the biomethanation plant. Municipal employees have changed their habits.

Yes, governments need an integrated approach to tackling climate change. In Saint-Hyacinthe, people across many sectors, from finance and the environment to public works and urban planning, all worked together to bring this project to fruition. Our municipality of 56,000 is now home to the world's fifth largest biomethanation plant. Saint-Hyacinthe is the first municipality in North America to have one. That is the definition of political courage: working together to make something happen that seemed impossible at first. That is what it means to have political courage, and that is how we can change people's habits.

I am not suggesting that all municipalities should do what Saint-Hyacinthe did. Earlier, people were talking about how other countries are doing this or that, but that is not the point. We need to figure out what we can do better because of who we are and what we have.

Saint-Hyacinthe took this approach because, as an agri-food technopole, it has a larger supply of organic material than most municipalities. Everyone—every government, every individual, every business—needs to figure out what it can do because of what it is, what it has, and how much it wants to take action.

The NDP made a clear choice to make the environment its priority. On Saturday, I was at our Quebec section convention, where we confirmed that the environment is a top priority. That was the theme that day. We talked about Saint-Hyacinthe and its biomethanation project because we want other municipalities to know that they can take on similar projects and opt for renewable energy. Now is the time to think about that.

It is often said that we cannot move straight to renewable energy because of all the cars on our roads. That is yesterday's way of thinking. If we want to begin the transition immediately, we need to think about when there will be fewer cars and when they will be able to run on biogas. The biogas produced in Saint-Hyacinthe is used to run the municipal government's vehicle fleet. Biogas heats municipal buildings. Eventually, all buses in the region will run on biogas. What is more, we have a surplus, which we sell to natural gas vendors. Something that originally cost the City of Saint-Hyacinthe money, namely, disposing of sewage sludge, will in time become a significant source of revenue that will allow the city to go even further in its use of renewable energy and come up with other projects. That is how we need to think, and that is what we need to consider when determining whether something is possible or not.

That is the point we are at, and that is the reason for tonight's debate. It saddens me to hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change say that what the government is doing is extraordinary. No, it is not. Instead, I wish I had heard her say this evening that, after reading that report, she now wants to do even more.

She said she had heard from groups and met with organizations. That is all well and good, but I would have liked to hear her say that she was shaken by the report, that she wanted to do more and take things further. That is what I would have liked to hear this evening.

We have to leave this debate saying yes, we will go further and yes, that is what we want to do. The NDP is clear on the fact that we want to make the environment our priority and will stand with a government that wants to be bold.

We will ask what we can do to help and to sit down with the provinces and what we can do to keep this going at the riding level. We will ask how we can rally the public, help them and convince them to change their habits. It is a lot of little things combined that will get us much further.

This desire to do more did not really come across this evening. I would like to hear even more of that. The debate is not over. I will give my colleagues a chance. We still have time, and we can continue. We have to have political courage. The NDP has it in spades, because we are making the environment a priority and we will present a plan to transition to a greener economy.

We really have to think about how our society works as a whole. Earlier my colleague, whom I admire very much, talked about a societal undertaking. I am an eternal optimist, as I said at the outset. I think people really want to have a societal project that gets them excited. I think people really want to hear from politicians who have a vision. That is why I got into politics, because I was sick of people's cynicism towards our democracy and our politicians.

I think that if we have a vision, if we have a societal project and if we can inspire our constituents, they will support us in making bold choices in order to meet our obligations and tackle climate change.

[Dairy Industry, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, across the country, people are not happy with the agreement signed by the Liberals.

Yvon Boucher, the president of the Producteurs de lait de la Montérégie-Est, told me how angry dairy farmers are at being betrayed by a government that broke another promise.

This bad agreement and the previous breaches will cost dairy farmers one month's salary every year.

Could the Prime Minister, a member of the government, or anyone else say that they had signed a good agreement if it cost them a month's salary?