Brigitte Sansoucy

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I certainly do not have the legal knowledge that he does, however, what really struck me with respect to Bill C-7 was the report that the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP released on May 15 concerning workplace harassment in the RCMP.

According to the report, the RCMP does not have an appropriate appeals policy. Unlike public service employees, who have the right to appeal a decision on a harassment complaint in accordance with the procedure established in their collective agreement, RCMP members still do not have access to an impartial and independent appeal body.

The motion being studied would reject a Senate amendment making all grievances subject to the Public Service Labour Relations Act rather than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Does the member disagree with the commission's findings?

[International Trade, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals keep repeating that they are strongly committed to fully protecting the supply management system, today's report from the Auditor General suggests otherwise. He illustrates the government's failure to protect the supply management system for milk, eggs, and poultry.

Supply management concerns all of us. When will the government put words into action and take concrete measures to protect a system that works and that provides sufficient, reasonably priced, quality local products that we consume every day?

[Petitions, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix fiasco has been dragging on for a year and a half, and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for thousands of workers. For hard-working members of our public service, the nightmare never ends. That is why representatives of those workers came to my riding office with a petition signed by several hundred people who disagree with 340 Public Services and Procurement Canada managers being paid $4.8 million in bonuses.

They are asking the House of Commons to ensure that these performance bonuses are paid back in consideration of the Phoenix debacle and without undue delay.

The nightmare has to end for these workers.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the government still does not seem to have grasped the urgency of the situation.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is simply not efficient enough to handle the backlog of nearly 24,000 cases.

I have a simple question. Will the government do something for these 24,000 people and announce additional funding to deal with this unacceptable backlog?

[Health, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding and elsewhere, the population is aging. The latest statistics show that a quarter of us are 65 or older. Going forward, more and more seniors will need care regardless of GDP growth and inflation. Seniors make a tremendous contribution to the vitality of our communities. They are active in countless associations, they organize events, and they advocate for causes they believe in. They pursue their passions and share their experience with future generations.

The RCMs of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton are proud of their seniors, who enhance their communities immeasurably. That is why I feel that these agreements are a reckless gamble with the future on the part of the Minister of Health and the government. Cutting health transfers jeopardizes the health and independence of our seniors and future generations. It denies them the right to enjoy their retirement under optimum conditions and compromises their active involvement in the community. Since we now have more seniors than young people, I would like to know if the government is aware of how challenging the aging population and the well-being of our seniors will be for Canada's future. Does the government understand how important it is to ensure that health transfers are sizeable enough for the provinces to take care of our seniors' health?

[Health, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, I asked the Minister of Health if the federal government would be giving the provinces the necessary funding to provide people with the services they need.

In recent months, the federal government has pressured the provinces and territories to accept agreements that slash health transfers from 6% to 3%. This measure is clearly a holdover from the Harper government's austerity policies and forces the provinces to absorb the predictable burden of rising health care costs over the next 10 years.

This will have a major impact in Quebec. Whereas 23% of Quebec's health care spending has been covered by federal transfers until now, only 20% of it will be in the future. Researchers say that Quebec is looking at a shortfall of almost $7.5 billion over 10 years.

The upshot for the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, and for all Canadians, is longer wait times and fewer services. Quebec's health minister says that this agreement will have serious consequences well into the future. The cuts will compromise patient care quality and overload our professionals. The provinces have a major problem to solve here.

By putting the budgets of provincial governments at risk, the Liberals are opting for a dangerous short-term strategy that ignores growing challenges in the field, such as our aging population.

In addition, we regret the federal government's decision to resort to something much resembling blackmail to get these agreements signed. In fact, the $11.5 billion promised by the Liberal government was made available only to the provinces and territories that signed an agreement. There are two particularly troubling points here.

On the one hand, the government is reducing transfers to the provinces and disengaging financially from health care concerns. On the other hand, the lump sum it is offering is conditional on the provinces agreeing to certain priorities and meeting certain performance requirements.

This is a way for the government to increase its power and control over the provinces. We in the NDP condemn the Liberal government's desire to direct health policies without having to assume the costs. Who is better positioned than the provinces themselves to determine their own needs?

I would add that, by forcing these agreements, the Minister of Health set off a real tug-of-war between provincial and federal institutions. For instance, mental health and home care are already priorities for many provinces, such as Quebec, because they are familiar with the needs on the ground and did not need the federal government to tell them to make those things the priority.

In my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, health institutions work in partnership with countless community organizations and have an intimate knowledge of what our constituents need.

When I think about mental health community agencies, I think about the Centre psychosocial Richelieu-Yamaska, Contact Richelieu-Yamaska, and Collectif de défense des droits de la Montérégie. When I think about home care, I think about the volunteer centres in Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, and the Aux P'tits soins co-operative.

All these organizations already do extraordinary work in mental health and home care. The government's initiative is positively absurd. Is the government establishing trusting relationships with the provinces and the territories when it comes to health? I do not think so.

In closing, I would like to know if the government plans to keep interfering in the provincial jurisdiction of health and impose its own will.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we already have tools to assist municipalities without diverting public money to a private bank that is totally outside the decision-making power of elected officials. Let us be clear: it is the bank that will have the power to decide on priorities, even for projects of $100 million and more. The big cities will not even be well served by this model, since it does not meet the needs of municipalities of any kind.

We have to adopt genuine programs that provide assistance to municipalities, but above all we must allow the communities the power to decide on their priorities themselves.

At present, we have a model in Quebec that ensures that it is the province, in collaboration with the municipalities, that prioritizes projects, and that is how we must continue to operate.

With this tool, we are giving the opportunity to set priorities to those who want to make the profits. It is they who will decide which projects will be most cost-effective, even if the communities have not prioritized those projects. That is unacceptable.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear and obvious that the Liberals have had this bank project in mind since the election campaign. They have already advertised the board of directors positions of the infrastructure bank. They have already begun filling those positions, and they already know the friends from private corporations they want to place on the board; there are no representatives of public companies.

To me, it shows a total lack of respect for the House to move forward even before the House has voted on this infrastructure bank. The government is showing great arrogance and a total lack of respect for the parliamentarians in the House.

It is clear that there are crony corporations that have a huge amount of money to make with this bank.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House in order to demonstrate to many of my colleagues how important this motion is to the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and certainly to the vast majority of the ridings we represent. This motion is important because the Liberals are creating an infrastructure privatization program that will not meet the needs of the communities we represent.

The priority of the corporations within the infrastructure privatization bank is not to build infrastructure, but to make a profit. Furthermore, the government has handed over control of planning and implementing the privatization bank to private investors and multinationals. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised infrastructure investment that would benefit all Canadians. Now we are in a situation where the government has just put the interests of big corporations first.

I represent 25 municipalities that believed the Liberals’ promises about infrastructure investment. In the riding I represent, the largest municipality, the major city, is the 18th largest in Quebec. The next one has almost 10 times fewer residents, as does the third. After that we have villages with populations ranging from 3,000 to 500. Even for the largest municipality in the riding I represent, the infrastructure privatization bank will not be there. In fact, projects over $100 million that provide long-term returns of 10% to 12% do not exist in my riding and do not exist in the vast majority of ridings that we represent in the House.

It is understandable that, for electoral reasons, the focus would be on the major urban centres, where most Canadians are concentrated, but our country is being developed keeping land use in mind. We occupy, through our different ridings, a vast country outside the major urban centres. The very large majority of the municipalities we represent will therefore not have access to this infrastructure bank.

I can say that these communities have certain needs. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a municipal councillor for six years. The district I represented faced numerous infrastructure needs. Part of the sewer system of the district was 100 years old. Part of it was still made of brick. The year after I was elected, there was a great deal of rainfall. This is indeed the time to talk about this, now that so many communities are experiencing this flooding. After an abundant rainfall, many houses had backed-up sewers.

At that time, the city manager told me not to worry, that it was an exceptional situation that did not happen often, maybe every 10 years. However, there was a problem, because in the following year there were more heavy rains; the whole thing started over again, as it did the year after that. Today we are in a situation where events like this are happening more and more regularly, like the one we are now facing. All the experts and scientists agree that we are going to experience situations like this with increasing frequency.

Our municipalities have major infrastructure needs, as old infrastructures are in need of upgrading. The district I represented had a combined sewer system, that is, the same system had sanitary sewers and storm sewers. We know that today this is no longer the norm. At one time, the goal was to send the water to the river as quickly as possible, in both urban centres and rural communities.

In the 1980s in Quebec, we had a vast land drainage program. There are great benefits to land drainage, but it also takes the water to our rivers very quickly, and in communities like mine, 10 or 12 hours after a rainfall, the river level rises substantially, causing a lot of problems.

All municipalities are grappling with these kinds of infrastructure issues. The needs are great, and not all of the smaller communities can meet them. As I was saying earlier, the infrastructure bank targets projects of over $100 million. However, there is a problem with respect to all the other programs as well.

This government does not seem to realize that not all the municipalities have thousands of employees. The largest municipality I represent has 250 employees, the second-largest 10 times fewer, and 22 of the 25 municipalities I represent average two and a half employees. We are then asking two and a half employees to deal with these issues and these infrastructure programs, which are in no way adapted to their reality. What is more, I am going to have to tell them that the billions of dollars the government will be investing in an infrastructure bank are not for them.

Regarding the waste-water treatment program I was talking about earlier, I was not surprised to find that the projects approved in my riding were those of the only three cities. The mayors of the towns told me that when they could have been ready to submit their project, they were told that they might just as well forget about it, that there was nothing more available, that it was “first come, first served” and their turn had come and gone. These communities have to be kept in mind.

When it comes to infrastructure, most of the communities I represent are barely keeping their heads above water financially, and this is certainly the week for that imagery. The tiniest wave can make them go under, because they do not have the resources to maintain roads or their drinking water and waste-water treatment systems. This is important.

When I was a municipal councillor, I represented an urban district, and in my last year in office I had to go door to door to explain to the citizens of my district that the sidewalks would be removed from their street when the street was redone. At one time, when a street was built, a sidewalk would be built too, but we no longer have the resources to maintain this kind of infrastructure. It is important for the government to understand that it cannot go off in this direction. It is better to stop working with these private investors, whose only aim is to make big profits.

Ottawa has the capacity to reduce costs for Canadians by financing projects at far lower rates. If the Liberals think that their privatization program offers real benefits for Canadians, they should not be afraid to support today’s motion and withdraw their legislative measures for the infrastructure bank from the omnibus budget bill, so that those measures can be studied and given genuine debate.

I have just explained the needs of the riding I represent. We must take the time to talk about issues concerning the infrastructure of all of our communities. The infrastructure bank must be removed from the omnibus bill so that time can be taken to discuss it. We must explain to the government what the communities we represent are experiencing.

I represent 25 mayors who are counting on me to support them on the infrastructure issue. I must be up to that challenge. To do so, I must have the opportunity to discuss this. The Liberals have to abandon this infrastructure bank, stop rushing through the issues in their omnibus bill, and allow us the time to discuss them.

[Public Services and Procurement, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix fiasco has been dragging on for a year and a half now, and thousands of workers still do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. This week the Public Service Alliance of Canada had to file a grievance for the 60,000 employees it represents.

Why? Because the longer this fiasco drags on, the fewer answers they get from the Liberals. All of these hard-working public service employees need to know when their nightmare is finally going to end.

Does the government at least have a date to give them, or has it simply given up?