Brigitte Sansoucy

[Journalistic Sources Protection Act, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak about and defend freedom of the press. I thank the sponsor of the bill, which I will support.

Canada has dropped 14 points in the World Press Freedom Index in two years, since the Liberals took office. This is alarming, and it is time to act.

Protecting the freedom of the press, particularly a journalist’s confidential sources, is vitally important, which is why I am standing in support of the intentions of this bill. However, I do have a few regrets about certain aspects of it.

Today we live in a connected world, in an era with a variety of platforms and social networks. The concept of media must evolve with the new information distribution channels and new journalistic practices. We should go with a broad definition of what a journalist is. We need to leave it up to judges to decide whether an individual was acting as a journalist or not when a disclosure request is received.

I am concerned to see that the Senate committee narrowly limited the definition, since it is unacceptable that protection of journalistic sources be given only to the traditional media. I am certain that many journalists are doing a tremendous job outside of conventional media. The NDP will therefore be submitting an amendment in committee to restore the definition of “journalist” that was in the original version of the bill.

The NDP has always been on the side of the media against attacks on their independence and has always defended press freedom. The NDP was there, on November 16, at a press conference with major Canadian media organizations to condemn the wiretapping of journalists and to defend press freedom in this country. I would like to thank my colleague from the riding of Beloeil—Chambly, who is standing up for press freedom and the protection of journalistic sources.

Where are the Liberals? The situation is troubling. The Liberal government is always shirking its responsibilities. Internationally, we see that nothing is being done to bring home Raif Badawi, who has been confined and mistreated since 2012 in Saudi prisons. Nothing is happening here at home either. Once again, Canadian citizens cannot count on their government to take the appropriate action.

Considering how often the Prime Minister makes grand pronouncements about freedom of the press, I would like to know why this bill came from the Senate, not from the government. Protecting people takes more than just good intentions. Our journalists and their sources risk their jobs and sometimes their lives to supply us with reliable information on matters of public interest. This is a serious issue that calls for serious action now.

Media in my riding are doing outstanding work. Our newspapers, Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe, Le Clairon, Journal Mobiles, and La Pensée de Bagot, and our radio stations, Boom Montérégie and Radio Acton, as well as our television stations, CogecoTV Saint-Hyacinthe, Maskatel, and Cooptel, are doing great work. I know them all well, I have worked with them, and I know they do top-notch work on the ground that our entire region is proud of. Every day, women and men across Canada work to keep us informed about what is going on in Quebec, Canada, and the world. That includes journalists, but it also includes sources, who often reveal vital information on matters of public interest.

Unfortunately, this reporting could be threatened if nothing is done to maintain the bonds of trust between journalists and their sources and to protect the confidentiality of these sources. Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe, in print since 1853, is the oldest French newspaper in America. Many residents of Saint-Hyacinthe read it, and they recognize the quality and reliability of the information in that newspaper and other local media. How can media consumers feel confident that they are well informed, knowing that print journalists are possibly being spied on by their own government? It is time we legislate to protect journalists' confidential sources and to change the way surveillance warrants are issued.

Under this bill, a justice of the peace will no longer have the authority to issue search warrants to investigate a journalist. Only a Superior Court judge would be authorized to do so, under certain conditions. This represents major progress that will provide journalists with assurances that a search warrant really is the last resort.

I would also like the Minister of Public Safety to call a public inquiry as soon as possible to get to the bottom of the issue of journalists under surveillance by the RCMP and other federal security agencies. There have been repeated incidents for many years now.

In 2007, La Presse journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance was under surveillance by the RCMP, which is completely unacceptable, and his is not the only one. In October 2016, La Presse revealed that journalist Patrick Lagacé had also been under surveillance, this time by the Montreal police. That came as no surprise given that 98% of applications for a warrant to investigate a journalist submitted by the police to a justice of the peace were granted. I think these repeated scandals raise some very serious questions about the state of freedom of the press and democracy in this country.

On November 4, 2016, after the attacks on the freedom of the press in Quebec had come to light, I asked the Minister of Public Safety in the House to tell us exactly how many journalists are being spied on. At that time, the minister said that this was not happening at the federal level.

Why then did the government not immediately launch a public inquiry in order to shed some light on the RCMP's practices regarding journalists? After all of the attacks on the freedom of the press that have occurred in recent years, Canadians have the right to call the government to account.

We need to determine the extent of the problem and establish new safeguards to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I would also like to talk about Ben Makuch, a journalist for VICE, who could go to prison because he is refusing to reveal his sources to the RCMP. In the bill that we are examining today, there is a provision that allows journalists to refuse to disclose information if they believe that the confidentiality of their source would be threatened. This represents some progress toward stronger protections for our journalists and their sources.

We can no longer keep count of the scandals that have been uncovered here in Canada and around the world because of anonymous yet highly credible sources. For journalists to be able to investigate freely, they have to be allowed to gain the trust of their sources. Establishing this trust becomes impossible for journalists if they are forced to disclose information that might jeopardize the confidentiality of their sources.

Freedom of the press is everyone's business. It is a non-partisan issue because it is a pillar of our democracy. To ensure this freedom, journalists working coast to coast to provide quality information to the public need assurances that they will not be under surveillance. This means that their confidential sources have to be protected.

Every journalist needs to be able to investigate without fear of being watched or wiretapped. Bill S-231 is an improvement, but does not quite go as far as I had initially hoped, including in providing a broader definition of media.

This bill has the support of journalists associations across the country, of Canada's major media outlets, and lawyers who specialize in media law, as well as the Barreau du Québec. The government cannot vote against this bill. For far too long, it has been avoiding the issue and trying to shirk its responsibilities. Soon we will see whether the Liberals are the valiant defenders of freedom of the press that they claim to be or whether this was just more rhetoric.

As I said, my region is home to the oldest French-language newspaper in America, and we are very proud of it. I have been in office for several years now, first as a municipal councillor and now as an MP. I appreciate the fact that our local media can be critical of our work. I appreciate how they act as watchdogs and keep abreast of the issues.

Much of their work is in the public interest. They make sure that we spend public money appropriately and that the people's interests are properly represented. Their questions might make us squirm sometimes, but they are important for our democracy. As I often said to my fellow municipal councillors, those looking for subservient media should move to a dictatorship.

Protecting our journalists is important.

[Government Appointments, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Prime Minister extended the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's and the Lobbying Commissioner's terms.

After the Madeleine Meilleur appointment fiasco, this is a clear indication that we not only need a new consultation process, we also need time to set that process up.

Will the Liberal government agree to develop an appointment process for high-level appointees to ensure that these vitally important positions are not tainted by partisanship?

[Foreign Investment, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this week the problem is that the Liberals took a shortcut instead of conducting a full national security review.

Instead of explaining why they did not do this comprehensive review, the minister rose several times yesterday to falsely claim that he had indeed conducted one.

Will the Liberal government take responsibility for refusing to conduct this review and will it stop misleading Canadians?

[No. 1 Saint-Hyacinthe Cadet Corps, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the No. 1 Saint-Hyacinthe Cadet Corps, the first and oldest in Canada, which is celebrating its 185th anniversary.

This organization is very active and well-rooted in the past and the present. It represents nothing less than Canada's history. Many well-known individuals were cadets under this banner. The 20th and 21st premiers of Quebec, Daniel Johnson Sr. and Jean-Jacques Bertrand, were members of No. 1 Saint-Hyacinthe Cadet Corps.

This historic organization is the pride of my region. I thank all the volunteers who instill a sense of respect, discipline, and service in our young people. By focusing on leadership, physical fitness, and civics, this program helps young people become engaged and involved in their community. The motto of No. 1 Saint-Hyacinthe Cadet Corps is love, honour, and glory.

I thank No. 1 Saint-Hyacinthe Cadet Corps.

[National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act, June 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as the critic for families, children, and social development and for employment and workforce development, I recommend that my NDP colleagues vote in favour of this bill. However, there are still several aspects of this bill that concern us, as New Democrats.

Clearly, we appreciate the spirit of the bill. However, what ultimately happens with this bill will depend on the consultations conducted by the government.

Even if the government passes this bill, it will be too early to determine whether the government will implement an adequate and serious strategy, especially considering that at second reading, it voted against this bill. Furthermore, it was essentially gutted when clauses 6 and 7 were removed in committee. All that is left is consultation.

We are also concerned by another amendment brought forward by the Liberals in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, HUMA. The report calls for the consultation findings to be provided to the House not in two years, as was originally stated, but in three years, after the bill takes effect, that is, after the next election. If the Liberals seem to be in no rush to hear the findings of these consultations, there is cause for concern about what comes next.

If the Liberals want a real maternity assistance strategy and want to make it a priority, why are they extending the consultations?

Canada has no global strategy that allows women to continue to support themselves during pregnancy. Federally regulated employees are of particular concern to us. We need to think about how we can create a real social safety net for them.

Quebec's safe maternity experience program was introduced in 1981 following a Supreme Court ruling that unequivocally found that the work environment was at issue in the case of a preventive withdrawal, and not the pregnancy itself. That is why Quebec's program is funded entirely by employers. They cover the cost, because they are the ones who control the working conditions.

I will give a concrete example. I was the executive director of a community organization for troubled youth for quite some time. We had a lot of young female staff members, and there were a lot of pregnancies. It was considered a high-risk occupation because of the contact staff had with troubled youth, so pregnant workers usually took preventive withdrawal at around week 14 or 16 of their pregnancy.

We have to understand what that actually means in Quebec. For the first five business days after she stopped working the employer paid the worker her regular salary. For the next 14 days, the employer paid 90% of her salary, which was ultimately reimbursed by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. Accordingly, there was continuity in the employee's pay. Then the commission paid the employee 90% of her net income until the risk subsided.

In some workplaces the workers return to work when the risk period is over. As soon as the worker gives birth, she receives maternity benefits that are not affected by the preventive withdrawal.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Roch Lafrance from Union des travailleuses et travailleurs accidentés ou malades delivered very informative testimony.

In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, there are two organizations that help workers on preventive withdrawal, namely Mouvement action chômage de Saint-Hyacinthe and Regroupement des accidentés de la Montérégie, which is part of the organization that testified before the HUMA committee. That organization has a solid 36 years of experience, since the safe maternity experience program has been available in Quebec since 1981.

They have seen different situations over 36 years. This program is quite popular in Quebec, both with employers and with employees who have benefited from preventive withdrawal.

Based on this experience, they presented us with three recommendations, which I would like to share with the House.

First, they stressed that the pregnant worker’s right to preventive withdrawal is not a right to maternity leave. When preventive withdrawal is included in employment insurance, it displaces maternity leave. This is an issue because preventive withdrawal is not maternity leave. The reason for preventive withdrawal is the working conditions that pose a danger to the pregnancy or the unborn child, rather than the pregnancy itself. This is an important point. This is why the matter pertains to working conditions. As I was saying earlier, the costs of such a system in Quebec are fully covered by employers, because they are the ones who set working conditions and decide whether the worker can or cannot keep working.

The employment insurance program is not the right vehicle for such a program that truly helps pregnant workers. The employment insurance program is a communal fund that employers and employees pay into. The government has not contributed a penny to it since the 1990s. It is an insurance program that protects against job loss. The more the scope of the employment insurance program is expanded, the more the program’s very foundations are distorted.

Furthermore, the bill is completely silent about the process for administering such a program. In Quebec, when an employer makes a preventive withdrawal request because the pregnant worker is deemed to be at risk, the CLSC physicians are the ones who study the request. It is truly a medical issue, and the risks have to be assessed from a medical perspective. What will happen when a medical certificate is challenged, for example? Will employment insurance officials analyze the challenge to the medical certificate?

Regarding preventive withdrawal, it is really important to have a specific process that falls within the medical field. This requires special expertise that the employment insurance program administrators do not really have.

What is more, there is really not much point in granting preventive withdrawal just 12 or 15 weeks before the woman gives birth. From Quebec's 36 years of experience in this regard, 94% of preventive withdrawals are granted before the 23rd week of pregnancy. In many occupations, preventive withdrawal is granted at the beginning of the pregnancy because the pregnant woman is vulnerable to certain viruses at that point.

I talked earlier about the advantages of Quebec's preventive withdrawal program, where workers receive 90% of their salary. Obviously, if preventive withdrawal benefits are allocated under the EI program, pregnant workers will be financially penalized because they will receive only 55% of their salary. What is more, since they are starting their EI maternity benefits earlier, they will have to return to work sooner.

In closing, it is important not to give women the impression that they will be off work longer under such a program. If we want to help women, we really need to support the provinces in implementing a real preventive withdrawal program. These consultations need to be done as quickly as possible.

Since Quebec has a program that has been working for 36 years, there will be no need for extensive consultation. The government just needs to look at it to see that it is working. Why should these women have to wait three years?

The NDP is concerned about that fact that the government is addressing a health and safety issue under the EI program.

[National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act, June 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill.

We have never doubted his conviction on this. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities, it was a pleasure to hear from Melodie Ballard, who is the person behind this bill.

My colleague talked about a national strategy for all women. We know very well that, here in the House, we can only legislate for women whose jobs are under federal jurisdiction, so it is clear that this bill will apply only to certain specific job categories.

My colleague himself told the committee that he sees this as merely a first step. Is his underlying goal to provide real leadership as a way to help the provinces introduce their own preventive withdrawal programs?

[Employment Insurance, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, because of a labour dispute, shrimp workers in the Gaspé have been deprived of at least six weeks of work.

They could find themselves without any income for several weeks next spring if the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development keeps talking about consultation rather than taking action. He has been consulting for 18 months. Urgent action is needed to resolve the problem of the spring gap, the black hole.

When will the Liberals keep their promise and restore the extra five weeks pilot project for seasonal workers?

[June 5th, 2017]

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

As I said, this is another fine example of the government being all talk and no action. It takes more than fine speeches. There are great needs in health and the government must invest in it. A few decades ago, the federal government covered 50% of provincial health expenditures. In the most recent accord, there was talk of 20% and that percentage will only decrease because the 10-year agreement does not account for increased costs.

As we know, more and more families are grappling with problems such as autism. The population is getting older. Health care needs are great and the federal government has to be there to support families and individuals when it comes to health. I totally agree with my colleague.

[June 5th, 2017]

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

Indeed, I am very proud to represent an agrifood technopole. Microbreweries are getting more and more of their ingredients from local producers. In my riding, I am thinking of the award-winning Bilboquet and Brasseurs du monde microbreweries.

We are seeing microbreweries pop up all over Quebec and Canada. They are everywhere you go these days. These microbreweries are important to our communities. Indeed, they are getting their ingredients from local producers and are very proud to do so.

The city of Saint-Hyacinthe is home to Barry Callebaut, a major chocolate maker. There is even a microbrewery that used chocolate shavings to make a really nice beer. The output of one company becomes the raw materials of another. When these small businesses are attacked, an entire supply chain is attacked.

The Liberal government needs to think about our regions' economies, which are important, rather than only looking after large corporations and thinking of the interests of the wealthiest among them.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in the House today to speak to budget 2017.

More and more people are telling me about the fine promises made during the election campaign and the string of disappointments and disillusionment once the party that got voted in formed government. This is what I have heard about the Liberals for over a year and a half. The 2017 budget is no different, and there are many areas where the investment is inadequate, if not inexistent.

How can this government justify to the six out of 10 unemployed workers who do not have access to employment insurance that it is not planning to invest anything in improving access? The lack of access to these benefits deprives many workers of the resources they need to survive.

The government keeps telling us that it is creating jobs, but it is unacceptable to leave people unable to support themselves without assistance. Employment insurance is paid for through employee and employer contributions and it needs to help those who need it, when they need it.

The employment insurance system needs to be changed so that those who have been left behind can access these benefits. Many workers are in several precarious jobs, which is why they are unable to access these benefits. This is especially the case for seasonal workers, and I want to remind this government once again that each year 15,000 people are in this situation, close to 40% of them in Quebec. It is also the case for young people, since 40% of the jobs worked by 18- to 34-year-olds are precarious.

How can our small businesses create good jobs when they do not have adequate infrastructure? Internet access is a fundamental issue for rural residents and businesses. However, nowhere in the budget does the government announce new investment to allow rural communities to have access to high-speed Internet.

In the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which I represent, we are among those left out of high-speed Internet. It is an impediment to our community, particularly our small businesses. I have pledged to bring fibre optic throughout the riding, and I will continue to fight for that. The government needs to invest in public infrastructure to make new technologies accessible to everyone, everywhere.

On the topic of small businesses, microbreweries and small wine producers are a vital part of our economy. Small businesses create 80% of good-paying jobs. Increasing the excise tax would impose added costs on microbreweries and small wine producers. Breweries pay to the federal government the same excise duties on each litre of beer, regardless of volume, and this is unfair to the microbreweries unable to compete with the major breweries.

The federal government should instead help microbreweries, microdistilleries, and vintners market their products. It needs to eliminate the excise tax hike on microbreweries and small wine producers.

This government has said time and again that it wants to help the hard-working middle class. Again, there is a big disconnect between what the Liberals say and what they actually do. Child care costs have gone up more than 8% over the last two years. This strong middle class that the government wants to build is paying very high child care costs, while the budget does not include one extra penny for new child care spaces this year, and the amounts to be provided later are mostly inadequate for the needs of parents.

During the election campaign, the Liberals criticized the NDP plan saying that it was too slow. Under our plan, there was more more money for the first year than the government plans to invest during the fifth year. Some families pay up to $1,600 a month per child for child care. No matter how hard you work, that is a gaping hole in the household budget.

The Liberals are also cutting the public transit tax credit that helped many people save up to $200 a year. Families expect this government to work for them, but clearly it prefers to gift $725 million annually to Canada's wealthiest CEOs. Is that what the Liberals mean by building a strong middle class?

To the long list of those who have been cheated, we must add dairy farmers. In November, the government promised to invest $350 million to help dairy farmers cope with the repercussions of the comprehensive economic trade agreement signed with the European Union, but there is not a single line item in the budget for such an investment. Like many Liberal promises, this one seems to have vanished. Many dairy farmers in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and in Quebec and Canada in fact, were expecting support from the federal government. It is high time that a government protected our farmers and truly helped them.

People do not seem to be able to count on this government when it comes to health care costs. Despite all of the requests that have been made by the provinces, the Liberals have once again chosen not to make the disability tax credit refundable. Low-income Canadians therefore have to deal with the double sentence of living with functional limitations and being trapped in a precarious situation by a government that ignores them because it would rather give tax credits to the wealthy.

There are inequalities in health when it comes to the price of prescription drugs. Canada has the second highest drug prices in the world, but the government turns a deaf ear to the suffering of those who cannot get the drugs they need. Some people do not take all of their medication and some do not take any at all because they cannot afford it. Others have to choose between health care and eating. Unfortunately, the existing system can kill, and it costs $7 billion a year more than necessary because we do not have a national pharmacare program.

This year, we celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary, and the government is constantly sending out its messages to remind us. However it should keep in mind some other figures. Nine hundred and ninety thousand is the number of children living in poverty in Canada in 2017. These 990,00 children among 4.5 million men and women in Canada living in poverty are the reality we must strive to change. People have less and less money. The household debt amounts to 167% of their revenues on average.

However, when discussing people getting poorer, I am obviously talking about the majority of them. A small minority of people, the richest in our society, keep acquiring more and more wealth. Whereas all hard-working wage earners have to pay income tax, only half of the revenues from selling shares is taxed. Just in case the government is unaware, let me remind them that selling shares is not a major source of income for the middle class and it is even less so for the most vulnerable.

The tax rate for big corporations has been constantly declining for the past 15 years, and that rate is applied only on taxable revenues. In spite of the ever-decreasing rate, big corporations still engage in tax evasion, a scourge that deprives the state of revenues worth 7 billion dollars a year.

That said, it really becomes indecent when the government itself allows the richest to evade income tax. The stock options tax break for big corporation CEOs represents a net loss of 800 million dollars a year for us. The government wants to promote hard-working men and women, but even by pushing themselves to the limit, most people cannot earn as much as a single one of the richest Canadians can earn from his shares. Owning shares that generate millions of dollars cannot be called work.

We can therefore see how negligent the government is. While it forfeits large sums of money in the form of tax credits for the wealthiest and fails to crack down on tax cheats, some people are hurting because they are poor.

Let us not forget that more than 800,000 people use food banks every month. This represents a 28% increase since 2008, and 36% of those people are children. Reforms could solve that problem, and it is high time the government took action.