Brigitte Sansoucy

[Poverty, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, even so, I am not completely satisfied with the parliamentary secretary's answer. The measures taken by the Liberal government are woefully inadequate. We need a large-scale plan to fight poverty. By voting against the NDP's bill, Bill C-245, the Liberals deprived all those who are living in poverty of a much-needed plan.

When I asked my question, the minister answered that the government was committed to reducing poverty, but proposing consultations and studies rather than addressing the root causes of poverty is not a viable option. The means and opportunities are there. The only things that are missing now are the Liberals' will and political courage.

Will we finally have the opportunity to get to work and eliminate poverty once and for all, or will we have to once again settle for the half measures proposed by the Liberals, which, in my opinion, are just smoke and mirrors?

When will the government propose real solutions to finally get to the root of the problem?

[Poverty, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, on November 15, I asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development if the Liberal majority would support Bill C-245, which I introduced in the House to develop a poverty reduction strategy. The bill responded in every respect to the mandate letter that the minister received from the Prime Minister.

The minister told me that the government was in the process of creating a poverty reduction strategy in Canada. What we did not realize is that the Liberals were going to vote against Bill C-245, shutting down what could have been a real policy to fight poverty, one that would help us avoid delays and improve quality of life for the less fortunate in our society more swiftly.

In that question, I also talked about the report from Canada's food banks. They had just tabled their report stating that one million people in Canada needed to use food banks. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently studying poverty. The study began in September and will wrap up in June. Representatives from Canada's food banks came to committee and told us that they would like to see a poverty reduction strategy by October 2017.

With the protracted consultations, I am not sure we will meet that deadline. However, adopting Bill C-245 would have made it easier. When we say one million people in Canada, we are talking about one in eight families. That is a lot of people who often have to choose between eating or paying rent.

As part of this study on poverty, we went to Medicine Hat, in Alberta. Two directors of a food bank told us that they were working every day to ensure that one day their food bank would not be needed. We all want a society where we no longer need food banks to feed families.

We will also remember that Statistics Canada just told us that the two richest men are as wealthy as 30% of all Canadians combined. As the gap between rich and poor grows, it is high time to establish a real poverty reduction strategy.

When I go back to my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I meet with organizations that do excellent work such as La Chaudronnée sponsored by the Centre de bénévolat d'Acton Vale, the Accueil fraternel of the Centre de bénévolat de Saint-Hyacinthe, and the Comptoir-partage La Mie or the Moisson maskoutaine, which are our food banks. I see people who are working very hard, but they alone will not be able to alleviate poverty.

In a country as rich as ours, we cannot tolerate the fact that people suffer every day because of the government's ongoing lack of action on this file. A few months ago, this chamber had the opportunity to get down to work on attacking the problem of poverty, but the Liberals seem to have decided that this issue is not a priority. The Liberals have been in power for 17 months, but nothing has been done outside of consultations.

The days that I am in my riding, I can talk to the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and it is at these times that I can really see that the fight against poverty must be a priority and that it is high time that the government wait no longer and that it take action.

My question is simple. Will the fight against poverty become a government priority and, most importantly, when?

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear him say that he will be supporting our motion that calls for pay equity immediately.

As we all know, action is much more important than good intentions. My question is quite simple: can the Prime Minister tell us when he intends to present his plan to put an end to penalty-free amnesty deals and renegotiate tax treaties with countries that are known tax havens?

[Status of Women, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister goes on and on about being a proud feminist. He even voted in favour of a motion stating that pay equity is a basic right. Unfortunately, the government wants Canadian women to wait yet another year. Canadian women have waited long enough for the respect they deserve. The working group on pay equity released its report 12 years ago.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to recognize that basic right by demanding pay equity now?

[Freedom of the Press, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, it is our duty in this House to protect democracy. We have a duty to represent the people of our respective ridings here today, as well as to ensure that there is nowhere in Canada, whether in Quebec or anywhere else, where Canadians are not protected and their fundamental rights are not respected.

Freedom of the press is not a partisan issue, but rather everyone's concern. My hon. colleagues of the House should all be outraged by this government's action, just as I am.

The parliamentary secretary's response is nowhere near sufficient. While strong evidence brought forward by journalists proves that some of their colleagues have been spied upon in order to identify their sources, the government is once again asking us to blindly trust it.

The safeguards are far from adequate, and the parliamentary secretary cannot guarantee us here this evening that journalists have full freedom of the press and that their sources are fully protected. The Liberals are once again shirking their responsibilities and are not fulfilling their duties as the government in power.

I must ask once again: can the parliamentary secretary explain to us how his government is protecting freedom of the press and how it is ensuring that the self-interest of our leaders does not take precedence over our rights?

[Freedom of the Press, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness exactly how many journalists were under surveillance following revelations about attacks on freedom of the press in Quebec.

At the time, the minister said that was not happening at the federal level. The reply was surprising to say the least because we know that two journalists working for La Presse were in fact spied on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2007 and that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was able to illegally collect data.

We also know that on many occasions the Department of Public Safety authorized these same services to use devices to spy on Canadians' communications, as reported by the CBC/Radio-Canada in September.

Freedom of the press is one of Canadians' fundamental rights. Without freedom of the press there can be no freedom of conscience, and without freedom of conscience there can be no democracy.

We cannot accept that journalists are spied on to identify their sources. Freedom of information allows each one of us to form an opinion about the decisions made by those who govern us. To threaten that right is to abandon all the principles on which we have built our democracy.

How can the government justify breaking the bond of trust between journalists and their sources, who supply information of interest to the public in exchange for guaranteed anonymity?

I would like to remind the government that protection of sources was recognized and confirmed by the Supreme Court in a 2010 ruling relating to the sponsorship scandal. Are the Liberals making a habit of choosing surveillance and manipulation over democracy?

Right now, I am thinking of the people of my riding, where I have studied, lived, and worked almost my whole life. Like me, many of them read our local papers, such as the Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe and La Pensée de Bagot. How are they supposed to feel well-informed knowing that the journalists who write the articles in the papers they read every day can be under surveillance by their own government?

Every day, men and women from coast to coast 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 reveal vital information of interest to the public. How can these men and women, many of whom risk their careers and even their lives to keep us informed, feel safe and secure if their anonymity is threatened by the very government that is supposed to protect them?

Enough with the broken promises and half-truths. I want to know when this government is going to start respecting our democracy. After backing away from electoral reform, championed by the NDP and then promised by the Liberals, and having the press under surveillance, what will the government do next?

The government also claims that safeguards for protecting the freedom of the press were still in place. However, investigators can spy on journalists for nine days without their supervisors realizing it. How much are these so-called safeguards really worth? Are we to still bank on the Liberals' promises and assurances? Unfortunately, we learned all about their values the hard way.

No, the uncertain assurances and empty promises will not cut it this time. Quebeckers and Canadians need proof and clear and precise answers. This Parliament should no longer tolerate the government's half-truths. I expect answers.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House agrees that the free flow of goods and people across our border with the United States is important. That is why debate on this bill is so important.

Since this debate is happening under a time allocation motion, time is very precious. My colleague should be ashamed of himself for wasting our precious time electioneering.

I was elected to represent the people of Saint-Hyacinth—Bagot, who are very concerned about this bill. On February 19, people came out to join me for coffee and talk about Bill C-23. They have concerns about their rights and respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is not hypothetical stuff. There have been very real cases of discrimination against transgender people and religious and ethnic discrimination. We must therefore ensure that this bill contains the proper guarantees to make sure people's rights are respected.

All my colleague did in his speech was talk about a by-election. He offered no guarantees regarding rights. What are his thoughts on that?

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, despite my colleague's enthusiasm for this bill, I still have a question to ask him.

I know that he is also very enthusiastic about justice issues. I feel that he did not clearly explain how the government will ensure, when there is pre-clearance in Canada, that Canadian laws will be respected, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first term in the House, and I am disappointed at the Liberal government's repeated use of time allocation, as are the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whom I represent. I think time allocation is a tool to be used sparingly.

I voted in favour of it on the opioid issue because lives are at stake, but I will not vote in favour of time allocation in this case, and I do not find referral to committee all that reassuring. Having been a member of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying and the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, I have little faith in the committee part of the process.

On February 19, I invited people to my riding office for coffee, and they made an effort to come out and talk to me about their concerns related to Bill C-23. Because I represent them, it is important to me that we have time to speak in the House so we can express our views and convey our constituents' concerns about Bill C-23. That speaking time in the House is critical, and sending the bill to committee is not going to make it happen.

[Health, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, many cases have demonstrated that applying the criterion of naturally foreseeable death is not effective. There has been another tragic case in Quebec. We cannot stand by and wait for judicial rulings. The Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying recommended the use of advance directives. Madam minister, action is urgently needed. We cannot let people suffer.

Will the minister insist that the study on advance directives be completed before December 2018?