Brigitte Sansoucy

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, economic analyses show that the different carbon tax measures in Canada are having a positive impact on the environment without hurting the economy. In Quebec, the people I represent have always valued the opinions of Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada economist who came to the following conclusion:

In principle, carbon pricing should generate extra revenue for the government, create changes in consumer behaviour, and encourage smart investments to promote sustainable development. Carbon pricing is a long-term commitment, and its short-term repercussions should not stop us from thinking about future generations.

My constituents in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot are very concerned about climate change; why then scare them about one of the proposed solutions, carbon pricing?

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds now represents a majority, and we know for sure that one-third of the people need more than 15 weeks. The problem is that those people do not have access to other income. I said it before, and I will say it again, the Prime Minister himself made this promise on Montreal's Téléjournal, and people believed he would extend the 15 weeks. Those people are hopeful, and they are still waiting.

The government keeps marketing itself as progressive. Now it is time to prove it and do everything it can to make life better for sick workers once and for all. Marie-Hélène Dubé is still collecting signatures.

My question again is this: when will the government keep these promises?

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on November 27, 2017, I rose in the House to ask a question about employment insurance sickness benefits. Right now, when workers become ill, they are entitled to 15 weeks of EI benefits. As I pointed out on November 27, 15 weeks is not enough, especially for someone is struggling with serious health problems.

More than one-third of claimants could use more than the 15 weeks provided under this program. At the end of 2016, the Prime Minister himself and the minister responsible for this file seemed to agree that this period should be extended. However, more than one year later, nothing has changed. This is unacceptable. The government must keep its promise and get started on this reform, which is widely supported by Canadians.

I want to acknowledge the hundreds of my constituents in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who wrote me to demand an extended EI sickness benefits period. Unfortunately, the NDP is not the government party. The Liberal Party is, and it does not seem prepared to take action to help sick workers face their illnesses with dignity. It is 2018, and it is no longer acceptable that in a country like ours, workers are short of solutions and money when their illnesses and treatments keep them off work for more than the current 15-week period. This 15-week limit on EI sickness benefits dates back to 1971 and in no way reflects the realities of today's society.

People with cancer have greater chances of surviving than they did nearly 50 years ago. Therefore, it is time we changed the legislation to reflect today's reality. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the five-year survival rates for cancer have improved, going from 25% in the 1940s to 60% today. It is unconscionable and unacceptable for this government to stand by as people who are sick struggle to make ends meet while coping with a personal tragedy.

Since 2009, there have been seven different bills to extend EI sickness benefits beyond the 15-week period, and some of these bills made it to second reading. However, no government has followed through on this essential reform. This makes no sense, especially since, under the existing legislation, caregivers have access to up to 26 weeks, or even as much as 35 weeks, of benefits to care for a sick child. Meanwhile, the patients themselves get just 15 weeks of benefits.

Last year, about 345,000 Canadian workers required these emergency benefits. Employment insurance covers just 55% of a person's wages. For men, the average benefit is $438 a week, and for women, the average benefit paid is just $368 a week. This is less than minimum wage, and we will not take it anymore. Now is the time to completely overhaul EI sickness benefits, as the NDP called for during the last federal election campaign.

We believe that sickness benefits should urgently be extended from 15 weeks to 45 weeks. The benefits should also be more accessible, so that sick workers never end up struggling with both financial problems and unbearable stress. In conclusion, I repeat that all Canadians are in agreement on this.

When will the federal government do something?

[Infant Loss, April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Motion No. 110. The purpose of this motion is to consider ways to improve the level of compassion and support for parents who have gone through one of the worst tragedies imaginable, the death of an infant.

Losing a very young child is a terrible emotional shock to parents. That is why Motion No. 110 would ensure that parents do not suffer any financial hardship on top of being struck by personal tragedy.

As a New Democrat, I believe that compassion and solidarity are essential values. This motion is the right thing to do, and there is no question that I will wholeheartedly support it. I would just like to remind the House that my NDP colleagues have put forward a number of similar bills, including two bills recently introduced by my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. This motion gives us an excellent opportunity to be responsive to the needs of families after they have lost a child to sudden infant death syndrome.

The NDP believes that the federal government has a duty to ensure the well-being of all our constituents. That is why the NDP promised in the last campaign to extend eligibility for the compassionate care benefit. The NDP knows that many of our constituents care for a sick family member while also having to meet their professional and family obligations. That is why the NDP is more determined than ever to improve compassionate care leave, which is related to my colleague's motion.

I think we can all agree that losing a child is certainly one of the worst tragedies there could ever be. That is why we need to take all necessary means to ensure that parents who experience such tragedy get as much support as possible through such trying times.

I would like to point out the hard work and resilience of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot's many organizations that help parents in need after the birth of their first child or because they are traumatized by the loss of a child, especially in cases of sudden infant death syndrome. I am thinking of such organizations as Les Amis du Crépuscule, Centre de la Famille St-Pie, Urgence Vie, Maison de la Famille des Maskoutains, Fédération de la famille Richelieu-Yamaska, and many others.

Every day, these organizations help people in need and improve lives in the communities of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale. I would like to congratulate and thank them for their incredible work giving these families in need a little bit of comfort and helping them to cope with situations that are often very difficult.

I strongly believe that the federal government should be paying more attention to these community organizations, which play a very important role in all our ridings. Their hard work should set the example for government action and open the Liberal government's eyes to the many reforms still needed in this country.

The NDP is committed to a comprehensive employment insurance reform to help all Canadians and end the many injustices that still exist in this country. It is all well and good to talk about improving certain aspects of the EI system, but let us not forget that six out of 10 workers are not eligible for EI even though they pay into it every week. The four out of 10 workers who are eligible get benefit rates of just 55%.

What is more, in recent months, 16,000 more workers have had to go without an income for a number of months because of bad EI reforms. The first major reform that slashed the EI system occurred in 1996, when the Liberals completely perverted the system.

Then the Conservative government came along and consolidated that reform. That is what needs to change if we want to help the parents who are dealing with the situation outlined in Motion No. 110.

During the last campaign, the Prime Minister himself promised to scrap the Conservatives' reform, which penalizes many workers and their families. Nearly two and a half years later, it is obvious that the Liberals have not taken enough meaningful action to back up their promises and truly change the reality of employment insurance.

It is time to take action. Hundreds of families across the country go without income, often for a number of weeks. We need to do more to help them. The NPD, its partners, unions, and unemployed workers' groups have been calling for a much-needed, comprehensive employment insurance reform for far too long. We keep warning the government that this reform is needed to better take into account the new realities of the labour market and the realities faced by parents who lose an infant. To date, the government has failed to listen.

Our country needs major legislative changes to ensure that 60% of workers and their families no longer have to live in precarious situations. I remind members that workers and unions continue to call on the Liberal government to bring in real reform. The NDP is calling for better access to employment insurance. A simple way to do so is to create a universal eligibility threshold of 360 hours for all workers. The government must restore the five-week supplement for seasonal workers.

This issue seriously affects a number of regions, and it is even worse when they go through tragedies like the ones highlighted in Motion No. 110. This is really a time when lip service is no longer enough. Now is the time for action. The problems with EI are on several levels. One, for example, has to do with the length of sickness benefits awarded to individuals who are sick. Often, the parents that are addressed by Motion No. 110 have just one opportunity to extend their benefits when their parental benefits are cut, and that is sickness benefits. However, I remind members that sickness benefits last just 15 weeks. This is not enough, especially for people who have serious health problems or for parents who have just lost a child.

Incidentally, I want to remind this government that more than one-third of claimants today need far more than the 15 weeks granted by this program. That is a far cry from the small minority that the parliamentary secretary hinted at in response to my late show question.

In late 2016, the Prime Minister himself and the minister said that they would extend the benefits period. However, more than a year and a half later, nothing has changed. That is unacceptable. It is high time that this government kept its promise to make this change, which so many of our constituents have been calling for.

Again, I want to acknowledge Marie-Hélène Dubé, from Rivière-du-Loup, and Christine Roussel, from Quebec City, both of whom are fighting to get the EI sickness benefits period extended. Now more than ever, I salute the courage of these two amazing women and the thousands of other people fighting to allow sick workers to recover with dignity.

Improving EI sickness benefits would help parents who are coping with the loss of a child. I think it is time for this government to make sure that EI works for all Canadians and that every person in this country can live in the best conditions possible.

I strongly believe that motion No. 110 is a step in the right direction, towards solidarity and compassion, and that it shows the Liberal government what true progress looks like.

[Infant Loss, April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his kind words.

I must admit that I had an easy enough time selling this motion to my NDP colleagues and getting their support. It is hard to oppose compassion and solidarity. In 2009, 2015, and more recently in 2016, some of my NDP colleagues—the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue in the last two cases—introduced what I would call related legislation seeking to establish a national perinatal bereavement awareness day.

Can my colleague explain why he is asking for five meetings of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of People with Disabilities? We know that this committee has a full schedule and might not get to this motion for some time.

Why five meetings and would it be just as effective to have fewer meetings?

[April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think the tobacco companies will continue to react to what we want to do to curb their sales. I would answer that, yes, the packs are hidden; at least, they are when you buy them. After working with young people for nearly 20 years, I can say that once they purchase a pack, they have it on them. I do believe that plain packaging and packaging with prevention messages does send them a message. Then, on a daily basis or every time they have a pack in their hands, they see the message that the product it is harmful to their health. Plain packaging sends the message that what they have in their hands is not appealing and not good for them. I think plain packaging is crucial, which is why Bill S-5 talks about it. I think every tool we can use to help people quit smoking is crucial. We need to use all of these tools combined if we want to tackle smoking.

[April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I spent a couple of decades working closely with high schools in my region, so I know how important it is to support prevention programs in our schools. In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, an organization called Jeunes en santé is doing amazing work in youth health promotion. It is helping schools and organizations teach healthy life habits. Unfortunately, funding for organizations like Jeunes en santé tends to be precarious. We have to support organizations that work on the front lines.

My colleague mentioned stakeholders. Stakeholders played a major role in drafting Bill S-5, which will soon become law; they indicated what kind of amendments were needed. They were the ones who insisted that social media advertising targeting young people should be prohibited. The federal government must ensure that our laws protect people who are targeted and who are more likely to start using tobacco. We have to listen to front-line stakeholders. In my speech, I mentioned organizations such as the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Canadian Public Health Association. Every one of those organizations is prepared to show us the way and tell us what needs to be done.

[April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In my speech, I said that the NDP has been involved in the fight against smoking for a long time. My colleague backed that up by saying that we have been taking action on this issue for over 40 years.

If we want to promote healthy lifestyles, the same strict rules must be applied to the use of all these products.

As I said in my speech, vaping must not be seen as a safe alternative to smoking. We must therefore have the same strict rules in place for vaping or the use of any other such products.

The rules we have established for tobacco must be applied to the use of other products as well, whether it is vaping or marijuana. It is important that the government show leadership to set the tone for and support other levels of government in enforcing all these rules.

[April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is true in many areas. I got into federal politics because of the six years I worked as a city councillor. I have been a member of the NDP for 10 years. What brought me in was the NDP's core value of working together.

All levels of government must work together to combat smoking and vaping. The provincial and territorial governments have an important role to play in health. They must invest in prevention. Public health organizations in every province are important in the work to prevent smoking and the fight against tobacco. At the municipal level, rules must be enforced, such as those regarding places where smoking is permitted or prohibited. That is important. Every level of government must work together toward the goal of a society that is smoke free and a better place to live.

[April 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, to conclude my speech I will recap what I said before question period.

In a bill like Bill S-5, it is important to strike a balance between protecting non-smokers and helping smokers to quit smoking. It is important to develop prevention tools and invest in preventing people from smoking in the first place. If a person starts smoking, then one day they will want to quit, and we know how hard that can be. We have to invest in prevention to ensure that we have everything we need to make people aware of the risks of using tobacco.

I also mentioned the importance of targeting groups that are more likely to smoke. Again, 40% of first nations people smoke, as do 37% of people who are divorced or separated. Young people are also a target group. Often people start smoking when they are teenagers. I would add that troubled youth are particularly targeted. What is more, people with mental health issues, whether it be a minor depression or a more serious problem, represent 20% of the Canadian public who will be affected at some point, and some statistics point to an even higher rate.

Therefore, it is important to focus on these groups and to help the organizations that support these people in particular. We should help organizations such as Satellite, in Saint-Hyacinthe, and Horizon Soleil, in Acton Vale, which work on prevention with elementary school children, their parents, and teachers so that they know how to handle a situation where they might start consuming. Earlier, I spoke about Maison l'Alcôve, a well-regarded organization that does excellent work when it comes to treating all addictions. It treats its clients in the enchanting surroundings of an old monastery, which is ideal for treating addictions.

I am also thinking of several organizations that are affected. I was the long-time director of a community housing organization, Auberge du coeur Le Baluchon. We provided housing for troubled youth, and most of them were users and also smokers. They were only allowed to smoke outside the house, and so the balcony became their meeting place. This organization's mission is not to help prevent smoking, but that is still a concern.

I am also thinking of all the mental health organizations. I worked for the Contact Richelieu-Yamaska crisis centre, where most of the people with mental health issues were also smokers. Then there is MADH, Maison alternative de développement humain, and Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska, which do the same kind of work.

As the federal government we are responsible for providing the funding to promote healthy living to Canadians. Whether we are talking about nutrition or physical exercise, a healthy lifestyle can help prevent people from smoking, which is the purpose of Bill S-5.