Brigitte Sansoucy

[Employment Insurance, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same old answer. There has been no progress for months. Eighteen months of consultation is starting to feel long. The government needs to change its tune and start taking immediate action. It is time for the government to keep its promises and truly address the spring gap problem.

Seasonal workers across Canada are fed up with having to continue this fight. Many workers believed the Liberals' promises during the electoral campaign, but their situation has not improved since then. Once again, come spring, they are going to end up without any income for several weeks or months.

This proves yet again that we cannot trust these promises. It is sad to see that after two years in government, the Liberals still have not listened to seasonal workers and what they are asking for.

I will ask my question again: when will the government finally take the necessary measures to help seasonal workers and prevent the spring gap? All they are asking for is five extra weeks.

[Employment Insurance, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on June 7, I rose in the House to ask a question about the spring gap problem that affects seasonal workers.

The Liberal government promised to restore the extra five weeks pilot project. Even though promises were made, many seasonal workers will again have no income next spring. It is unacceptable that the government cannot find a real solution to help families who are in a precarious position because of its failure to act. The government does not seem to realize that the situation is urgent.

More than 16,000 seasonal workers are grappling with the spring gap, and almost 40% of them are Quebeckers. The majority of these seasonal workers will run out of employment insurance benefits up to four months before they are to return to work. These workers in the agriculture, forestry, tourism, and fishery industry will have difficulty finding another job to make up for the lack of income.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to reform the employment insurance regime and solve the spring gap problem. Some organizations, such as the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, are still waiting for the government to keep its promise. The CNC is asking the government to establish a program that would take into consideration the situation of seasonal workers. However, after two years, nothing has been done. What is the government waiting for to take action?

Every year, these workers and their families experience terrible hardships. There are so many examples. Last June, workers in the shrimp industry in the Gaspé region were deprived of at least six weeks of work. As a result, the number of weeks of EI benefits they are entitled to after their contract will go down. Shrimp industry workers could therefore be left without any income next spring before being rehired.

This is not only a problem in the Gaspé. According to the group Action Chômage Haute-Côte-Nord, the spring gap can result in anywhere between five and 15 weeks of extreme poverty for certain families. We are talking about people who earn less than $20,000 a year and are going into debt. Imagine living for three or four months without any income. It is impossible. This is also the case in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, where we have a lot of seasonal workers in the agrifood industry.

Many seasonal workers in New Brunswick will no longer have access to employment insurance next spring. The explanation given illustrates how serious the situation is: the unemployment rate in their region has dropped over the past year, so that is to blame. It dropped from 15% to 11%, and this changes the employment insurance formula used. An individual who accumulated 420 hours of work last year could receive 30 weeks of EI benefits. Now, 490 hours of work are needed to be eligible for 23 weeks of EI benefits. It makes no sense.

When the unemployment rate is low, seasonal workers have to accumulate more hours of work but receive fewer weeks of benefits. Seasonal workers in New Brunswick will now have to work two more weeks, yet they will end up with seven weeks less of employment insurance benefits.

However, the government insists that everything is fine and that the solution is to wait for the unemployment rate to rise. What a joke. This is totally unacceptable. Seasonal workers are essential to the Canadian economy. The government ought to fulfill the promises it made them, starting with reinstating the extra five weeks program. Employment insurance is important for everyone, especially seasonal workers.

When will the government finally take the necessary steps to help seasonal workers and prevent the recurring spring gap problem?

[Environment, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the answers are always the same. It is not enough to just listen. Nothing has changed in months. This government needs to change its tune and make a decision to act now. It is time for the government to uphold its commitments and reinstate the necessary measures to protect all our lakes and rivers. The situation is becoming increasingly critical for our waterways and the ecosystems they support. We need to act and fix the problem caused by the previous Conservative government's Bill C-45. Despite their election promise to reinstate the protections that had been taken away, the Liberals are showing yet again that, sadly, their word cannot be trusted.

It is disappointing that the government is ignoring the advice of the environmental assessment expert panel. There is a fundamental and urgent need to protect our waterways. These lakes and rivers are valuable, and water is a precious resource.

I will ask the same question one last time: when will the government finally reinstate the necessary measures to protect all our lakes and rivers?

[Environment, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, 2017, I rose in the House to ask a question regarding the measures needed to protect all of our lakes and rivers.

As we know, the Liberals promised to reinstate the measures to protect our navigable waters that were eliminated by the Conservative government. I felt that the answer given by the Minister of Transport was too vague, and the government still has not kept that promise. Our waterways and lakes have been left vulnerable to environmental attacks for too long. It is high time the government reinstated the protective measures eliminated by the Conservatives. By refusing to act, the minister continues to deprive 99% of Canada's navigable waters of environmental and regulatory protections. That does not make any sense. In my riding, the Yamaska, Noire, and Le Renne rivers have been left unprotected, and this has had devastating consequences, particularly for the ecosystems those rivers support.

The former government's two omnibus bills have had obvious consequences. According to an article published in La Voix de l'Est last February, the North Yamaska and Le Renne rivers in Acton Vale contain a number of contaminants that have rarely been seen to date. The presence of these contaminants is affecting the water quality and fish health.

If the Liberals are so concerned about the environment, why are they not taking action? I would remind the House that there are currently no regulations for development projects that will affect Canadian waterways. In the decision-making process for granting building permits, only factors related to navigation are taken into account. Environmental impacts are summarily dismissed. It is unacceptable that proponents are no longer required to inform the government when a project will negatively affect navigation. It is unacceptable that citizens and advocacy groups are the ones who have to shoulder the responsibility of taking project proponents to court when their navigation rights are threatened.

In 2012, hundreds of Canadians signed the petition calling for the protection of public navigation rights. They were also calling on the government to restore the environmental assessment process for proposed development projects on and near bodies of water. Nothing has changed since 2012. The Liberals still refuse to reinstate the automatic triggering of environmental assessments, despite their election promises. Many will recall the comments of the current President of the Treasury Board on the Conservatives' policy. He described the changes as catastrophic and said that the Conservatives were endangering the health of our lakes and rivers, and yet, nothing has been done. The Liberals are shirking their responsibilities in this area.

In his response to my question last June, the Minister of Transport said he wanted to restore important navigable waters protection measures as recommended by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but the Liberals' response is once again unsatisfactory. We are disappointed that the Liberal members are recommending that the federal government maintain the schedule that excludes 99% of lakes and rivers from the necessary protection. By making that choice, the Liberals are not basing their recommendation on the evidence heard in committee.

Is the minister aware that the conclusions in this report conflict with the opinions of the expert panel on environmental assessment?

That is why, in January, the NDP highlighted the situation in its dissenting opinion. The Navigable Waters Protection Act safeguards our natural heritage and our landscapes.

To conclude, my question—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We have talked a lot about spending today. My question is about the income we are depriving ourselves of. The member ended her speech by talking about the Paradise Papers.

Does she believe that the government should be much more aggressive in combatting tax evasion? The people in my riding talk to me about this. They do not believe that everyone is paying their fair share.

One Thursday evening in January, 70 people came to my office to watch a one and a half hour documentary on tax havens called The Price We Pay, which, by the way, is an excellent Quebec documentary. We should be proud of Brigitte Alepin, Harold Crooks, and Alain Deneault, who have been documenting the situation with tax havens for so many years.

We need to do something. Right now, we are leaving billions of dollars in other countries because we do not have any real measures to combat tax havens. The government may well have voted in favour of the motion the NDP moved in the spring, but a month later, it was signing a new agreement with another tax haven.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Do we need to ask the government to be more aggressive in combatting tax evasion? The answer we have been given by the Minister of National Revenue is that the investigators are looking into the situation and that the government has allocated $1 billion to combat tax evasion. Today, with the Paradise Papers, we see that they will tell us that what is happening is completely legal.

The laws need to be changed. That is what needs to be done. Does my colleague agree?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, by way of information, the riding of Shefford, which my colleague represents, is next door to Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which means that we share some realities. For example, the agrifood sector is important to the economic development of both our ridings.

As it has been said several times since the beginning of this debate, the problem with this budget is what is missing from it. Since I was elected, people in the agrifood industry have been asking me why there is nothing for them in the budget and why the government is not thinking of them. The only mention of the agrifood industry in the last budget was when the Minister of Finance said that he discovered during the consultations that the agrifood industry was an important economic sector. At least he recognized that.

For their part, milk producers ask me why they are not getting any real compensation for the losses they will incur when 17.7 tonnes of European cheese appears on the market. They are asking me why the export permits were shared among processors and distributors. They want to know why they only got a small innovation program which was used up in a week. People from supply-managed sectors constantly ask me why the budget does not contain any strong measure which would show that their sector will really be protected and that the government is not only paying lip service to supply management. That is what I am worried about.

The fact is that the member mentioned not a single measure in his speech. We would have known if he had, because we would have heard him promote it to his riding's agrifood sector. Why did he not do so?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague said he liked about the budget. My question concerns something that, surprisingly, is not in the budget. During the last two election campaigns in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals were very firm in their promise to cap the amount that can be claimed through the stock option deduction. Tax fairness is actually quite important to the middle class everyone keeps talking about. The Liberals repeatedly promised to address this perceived iniquity, and yet, they went back on their promise as soon as they came to power.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Why did the government decide to renege on its promise to close a tax loophole that only benefits wealthy CEOs?

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

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

I believe that this bill is a first step. There are still many questions that we do not have answers to. A lot more independent research must be done because we still do not know much about the health effects of e-cigarettes and related devices. The impact that the introduction of these nicotine products is having on young people and the efforts being made by prevention organizations are not yet sufficiently well documented.

Are their efforts making a difference? Are they taking the right approach? Are there better ways of doing things?

I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier if the government plans to provide more funding for independent research projects that will help us answer these questions and do more in the way of prevention.

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this bill sends a clear message to young people that e-cigarettes and other vaping products are not a better way to consume nicotine. They are tools to stop smoking. This needs to be clear to young people. They must not think that smoking an e-cigarette or a vaping product is better than smoking a cigarette. Our message must be clear: smoking an e-cigarette must be considered just as harmful as smoking a cigarette.

The other aspect is plain packaging. Studies have shown that attractive packaging is more enticing to young people. They are attracted to the products because the packaging is pretty or it highlights the different flavours.

There are a number of elements of this bill that will directly lower use among young people, or at least we hope so. Young people start to use these products when they are young, during adolescence, and that is when we need to act.

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Before I became an MP, I spent 10 years as the executive director of a community organization that provides housing for troubled youth. We helped youth ranging in age from 12 to 23. Living shoulder to shoulder with these youth, I saw and spoke with them every day. I came to realize that addictions, whether to cigarettes, alcohol or drugs, should not be taken lightly. I certainly think we need to make sure the marijuana legalization bill the Liberals want to pass does not normalize marijuana consumption.

Today's debate on this bill clearly shows that the use of such substances has harmful effects and leads to serious problems, even death. We need to send a consistent message with all of our measures. As MPs, our goal should be to improve the health and quality of life of our fellow Canadians. With every decision we make and every law we pass, we should be doing everything we can to achieve that goal.