Brigitte Sansoucy

[Infrastructure, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure investments were needed three years ago, not after the next election.

Canadians have gotten used to simply avoiding the potholes and driving over bridges that are crumbling. Where do our tax dollars go? Canadians do not want it going to Liberal cronies, to Wall Street and Bay Street millionaires.

What is the money in the infrastructure bank being used for? The municipalities in my riding want to know.

[Infrastructure, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that the purpose of the infrastructure bank is to do more. However, the bank has asked the government for nearly $6 million this year to cover operating expenses and there is only one infrastructure project on the books. Where is the taxpayer's money going? After three years of inaction, the municipalities, especially the small ones, are calling for the investments to come immediately.

How does the government justify these expenses?

[Employment Insurance, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfair that employment insurance provides only 15 weeks of sickness benefits. Johanne, one of our constituents, had to go back to work while still in poor health, just three months after a tough battle with breast cancer. What can happen when someone is forced to go back to work before they are fully recovered? They can suffer a relapse.

Johanne and her family have lost everything: their house, their life savings, everything. What are the Liberals doing about it? Nothing. For hundreds of thousands of people, 15 weeks is not enough time to recover.

When is this government finally going to take action?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on another planet. We know that we need agreements. That said, we are not sure how this one will protect Canada's industries. I represent a very agricultural riding, and I believe that this agreement will hurt the people and businesses that I represent, which is unacceptable.

I will continue to say loudly and clearly that we cannot sign an agreement that will kill businesses and sacrifice jobs here in Canada. There are also concerns about food security. We must never forget that we cannot rely on other countries for our basic food needs. That is a fundamental issue that we need to concern ourselves with.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we built a collective system. The farmers that I represent refer to this as our collective wealth. It is a supply management system that relies on a collective organization and that allows farmers to work together and agree on how to do things.

I can understand that some people might find it tiresome to organize collectively, but we should be proud of this system. It works. In my riding, there are all sorts of farms. Beef, pork, and maple syrup producers would certainly be better off with this agreement in place, but they tell me that they do not want an agreement that would benefit them to the detriment of their colleagues, neighbours, and friends. That is what will happen if we abandon some of our agricultural sectors, and farmers are opposed to that.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

I rise in the House today to reiterate to farmers that we will always stand by them and that we will continue to fight for them. For years, the Conservative and Liberal governments have conceded significant parts of Canada's dairy market to international partners. We need only look at the agreement with Europe, the TPP, the diafiltered milk file, and so on. Canada always makes concessions on the backs of farmers.

The Producteurs de lait du Québec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, and UPA Montérégie put their trust in this government, which keeps telling them that everything will be fine. When the Prime Minister was in Saguenay he told them that he would not make any concessions on supply management. Today, we are hearing a different story. It is not just one industry that is under threat today. Supply management is a pillar of our regional way of life, the safety net of our farms and our entire local and regional economy. Supply management is not just a way of protecting our farmers. It is also something that concerns each and every one of us, including Canadian consumers.

I have said all summer long that in Canada we cannot just open our refrigerators and not find milk, eggs or poultry. Supply management is the guarantee of the quality of our products, the assurance that Canadians consume products that have been tested and inspected and that meet strict standards in order to give our fellow citizens the very best of what we produce. In fact, more than 75% of Canadians support the supply management system. Is the government going to turn its back on three-quarters of the population?

I rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the farmers I met throughout the summer who shared their concerns with me. I held a press conference this summer with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé as part of the Saint-Hyacinthe farm Expo to reiterate our support for farmers, who keep wondering whether they will once again have to pay the price for this government's mismanagement. Dozens of farmers reached out to us to thank us for our tireless work on supply management.

On behalf of everyone in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, but also on behalf of the 13,000 supply-managed farms across the country, I want to reiterate the NDP's request: Canada cannot make any concessions at the expense of farmers. If supply management falls apart, there will be immediate consequences for them and for thousands of farmers and agricultural producers. Does this government realize that that would shut down thousands of farms in Quebec and Canada, and cause the loss of thousands of direct and indirect jobs on our farms and in the food processing sector?

The government must not cave in to American pressure, for our farmers cannot give any more without putting their farms, their plans, and their families at risk. On their behalf, I call on the government to show real leadership.

In my riding, in Upton, more specifically, Martin Joubert and his wife, Émilie Courchesne, from Ferme de la Carrière, told me how important supply management is to the survival of their farm. If supply management breaks down then they will simply lose their farm. Producers like Martin are worried and rightly so. Everything rides on supply management because it is a system that works. The Prime Minister himself told farmers in 2017 that he would not make any concessions on supply management. It is time for him to put his money where his mouth is.

The NDP is the only party that has always defended supply management in its entirety as a way of ensuring our food sovereignty. It is people like Martin and his family that I stand up for every day in Ottawa, here in the House, and knowing how important supply management is to them I will continue to stand up for them. There are roughly 7,000 people like Martin Joubert and his family in Canada. In Quebec, nearly 4,000 farms need this government to show leadership and this Prime Minister to keep his promises not to make any concessions.

Dairy and agricultural production are key sectors of our economy, and keeping supply management is essential for them. Not only are local production and our ability to feed Canadians at risk, but thousands of jobs and family businesses across Quebec and Canada may well disappear.

Canada's government must vigorously defend supply management during NAFTA negotiations. It is all well and good to talk about another agreement today. We know that these negotiations are part of the bigger picture.

During the last two trade negotiations concerning the European Union agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we are debating today, Canada was already weakened by U.S. demands and gave up some market share of supply-managed sectors.

These concessions of 2% of our dairy market in the Canada-European Union trade agreement and 3.1% in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership translate into total losses of $260 million for dairy producers alone. To date producers have not been adequately compensated.

This summer, agricultural producers in my riding were asking me at what point would the system collapse. We have reached 16%. Will it be 17% or 18%? Was it 15% before the supply and demand system collapsed?

We must not say that it is only 1%, 2%, or 3%. That would cause major breaches that could destroy the system.

The fact is, the Canadian market is already one of the most open markets in the world because of those concessions. Canada imports 10% of its dairy needs, primarily from the United States, while the Americans import only 3% of their needs. I think they know what food security is all about. The same is true in the poultry sector, where Canadian imports surpass production by 16%, while the United States imports less than 1% of its production from Canada. We cannot concede any more without jeopardizing the viability of the sectors in question.

Supply-managed farmers should not have to pay the price for every round of trade negotiations, so I have the following questions. When will the government learn from its past mistakes? When will it finally show some leadership and refuse the Americans' conditions? How many losses and new obstacles do our farmers have to face before the Liberal government will finally take action for them, rather than against them?

As I mentioned, I spent the summer meeting with agricultural producers. In a riding like Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, our summer includes the Saint-Hyacinthe agricultural fair, where I spent five whole days, the corn festival, the Saint-Nazaire d'Acton pork festival, the Expo-champs farm show, and the Salon de l'agriculture trade show in January. Expo-champs is held on the side of the highway, in a field set up to showcase equipment and innovations. This summer, there was a lot of talk about smart agriculture. Farmers told me that given the uncertainty surrounding NAFTA and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, they are holding off on investing in their businesses. The next generation of farmers are very worried and have a lot of questions. Will they want to take over the family business under these conditions?

In Upton, in my riding, there are still two country roads where every lot is a dairy farm, which is extremely rare today in Canada. If we concede too much market share and the supply management system falls apart, the landscape of our regions is going to change. Right now, my riding is full of family farms. If the system falls apart, they would be replaced by farms raising thousands of animals. Is that what we want to see?

At the agricultural fair, people were very concerned about animal health and welfare and the quality of the foods we eat.

I learned from producers that Wisconsin's surplus exceeds Canada's total output. Our job here in the House is to protect the family farms that are emblematic of agriculture in this country. We have to make sure those businesses survive. We are here on their behalf, and we will continue to defend them.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I represent a very agricultural riding, a riding where agriculture is very diverse. I am well aware that some sectors fare better than others when an agreement is signed. What I am hearing in my riding is that the farmers in sectors that might benefit from the agreement do not want to do so at the expense of other sectors. They are certainly not prepared to benefit at the expense of industries that produce staples such as milk and eggs.

Should we not be asking questions about food security when we sign international trade agreements like this one?

Will this agreement jeopardize some of our industries, making us dependent on other countries for our basic food needs?

To me, food security should be a central consideration in these discussions, but that does not seem to be the case so far.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am really worried about the impact of this agreement on the riding that I represent.

There are more than 2,000 farms in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Supply management is a pillar of our economy, not just for dairy producers, but also for processors, schools, laboratories, and research centres. The owner of a downtown clothing store even told me that half his customers are people who work in supply-managed sectors. The entire economy of my riding is affected by every percentage point that is given up. With this agreement, more than 3% is being given up by the dairy sector alone. This will have a direct impact.

I have the following question for my colleague: what do I say to the people who will lose their farms or jobs because of these kinds of international agreements?

[International Trade, September 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, supply management is a system that works. Martin Joubert and Émilie Courchesne, owners of the Ferme de la Carrière in Upton, told me how vital supply management is to the survival of their farm. If supply management breaks down, they will lose their farm. Farmers like Martin are worried, and with good reason. People like Martin and his family are the reason that the NDP is going to keep fighting. The Prime Minister has told farmers that he is not making any concessions on supply management.

When is he going to put his money where his mouth is?

[Child Health Protection Act, September 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as the critic for families, children and social development, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill S-228 and to speak about this issue that is so important for the health of our young people.

According to Ms. Francine Forget-Marin, director of health promotion and research at the Heart and Stroke Foundation, “children are very vulnerable to advertising because they cannot distinguish between good food and bad.... We are now seeing trademarks being used in video games and advertising permeating social media.” This statement precisely and clearly identifies the challenge that this bill addresses. The situation is worrisome and requires that we take action.

Among industrialized countries, Canada ranks sixth for the highest obesity rates for children. The childhood obesity rate in Canada has almost tripled in the past 30 years, according to the 2016 study by the Senate committee. Obesity leads to health problems such as hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, bone and joint problems, and mental health issues such as low self-esteem, poor body image, bullying, depression, and so forth—all of which are affecting younger and younger people.

The annual economic burden of obesity is reported to be in the billions of dollars. However, according to the senate committee's 2016 study, obesity costs Canada between $4.6 billion and $7.1 billion annually in health care and lost productivity. The use of captivating advertisements that encourage our children to consume unhealthy food and beverages contribute to the obesity problem.

The World Health Organization found that the marketing of unhealthy foods was one of the main risk factors for obesity, especially since children are much more easily swayed by advertising than adults. Children who are more exposed to advertising have a tendency to ask for products that feature a character or logo they recognize. Research by the Heart and Stroke Foundation found that kids see more than 25 million food and beverage ads a year on their favourite websites. These figures are as impressive as they are troubling.

We also know that childhood obesity does not disappear as soon as a child becomes an adult. Children with weight problems are more likely to experience weight problems throughout their adult lives. This is a long-term problem that requires a long-term solution.

That is what Bill S-228 does. It eliminates the problem at the source by prohibiting certain types of marketing. That is why I think Bill S-228 is necessary.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what people in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot are doing to fight obesity. I am thinking here of the Heart and Stroke Foundation volunteers in Montérégie. I would like to commend Linda Jodoin, Stéphane Martin, Jérémy Ménard, and others for the work they do to help our community. These volunteers are helping to save lives by working to fight heart disease and stroke. I thank them once again for their contributions and for the incredible work they do to help people in our community.

As an MP from Quebec, I also want to mention how proud I am of my province, which is the only one that already has legislation in place in this regard. The Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which has been in effect since 1980, has had a very positive impact on the health of our children. According to a 2011 study, Quebec has the lowest rate of obesity among children aged 6 to 11, and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables. This shows how important and useful legislation is. I would therefore like to once again commend Quebec for being a leader on this.

The NDP has always cared about this issue. In 2012, my extraordinary colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby introduced Bill C-430.

The bill sought to amend the Competition Act and the Food and Drugs Act to expressly restrict advertising and promotion, for commercial purposes, of products, food, drugs, cosmetics, or devices directly to children under 13 years of age.

The NDP supports this bill because we believe in reducing children's exposure to ads promoting unhealthy food and beverages that can cause obesity and mental or physical health problems.

The two main factors linked to obesity are eating habits and physical activity. By banning the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children, Bill S-228 tackles the issue of eating habits in a fundamental way, because it forces all of Canadian society to rethink what we teach our children about food.

As we have seen, ads targeting children influence not only their eating preferences and behaviours, but also their nutrition knowledge. As a result, ads play an active role in teaching children about food.

This bill would also close certain loopholes in the 1980 Quebec act that inspired it. That is another reason I support it.

Under Quebec law, kids can still see packaging, storefront advertising, and products on supermarket shelves. When I discussed this with people from Quebec's Weight Coalition, they told me that exceptions to the legislation are an ongoing problem.

This bill would ban food and beverage marketing directed at children, and that includes how products are labelled and packaged, of course.

By supporting this bill, we are also signalling to parents that we understand their concerns. We support them because we know that navigating the aggressive marketing techniques we have been talking about alone is not easy.

Nevertheless, as a New Democrat, I think we have to respect provincial jurisdiction. This bill has to be consistent with and informed by the Quebec law.

This bill must not result in a total ban on food and beverage advertising to children under 17 years of age. It needs to be consistent with Quebec's legislation, which defines children as being 13 years of age or under.

The restaurant and food services sectors are affected by this bill, and they feel the same way we do. They support the idea of strengthening measures to prevent obesity in children under 13. At the same time, however, they think it is unfortunate that the age associated with the term “child” in this bill is 17, whereas the age limit in Quebec's act is 13.

I also want to make sure that we all understand the legal and economic ramifications of this bill before we pass it. I am not convinced that the views of the affected sectors, such as the restaurant and food services sectors, were adequately taken into consideration in committee.

Restaurants Canada told us that Health Canada's definition of a healthy food is too restrictive. It excludes any food that provides less than 5% or 15% of the daily value of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium.

In conclusion, I believe that by supporting this bill, we are making the right choice. If we take action today to help our children eat better, we can create the healthier adults of tomorrow and guarantee a healthier society. The example of Quebec, which tackled this issue successfully almost 30 years ago, should encourage the federal government to take this path for the sake of our constituents' health and well-being.