Brigitte Sansoucy

[Health, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the government is breaking yet another promise. It promised to negotiate a long-term health care agreement with the provinces.

Five provinces, including Quebec, are still without an agreement. The government promised to treat the provinces as partners, but apparently it would rather divide and conquer. The offer on the table is not good enough; it will not enable the provinces to maintain current service levels.

Will the government finally listen to the provinces and negotiate a long-term agreement that will enable them to provide people with the services they need?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

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

He talked about our accountability as the people's representatives. That is why I rise today: I speak for the disappointed people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. They are disappointed because many of them participated in the consultation. The vast majority of them said they want a system in which every vote counts.

They are also disappointed because, even though they chose me, in the weeks and months following the election, they were happy to have a government that prided itself on its new way of governing and doing politics. I rise today to tell the House that they are disappointed about the broken promises and the throne speech commitments that have been cast aside.

When my colleague talks about our accountability to voters, does that extend to apologizing for breaking promises and dishonouring commitments?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech and his participation in the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I had the privilege on several occasions to replace my colleagues from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Skeena—Bulkley Valley. At one meeting, I was surprised to find myself listening to a witness who told us he represented several hundred thousand Canadians. A second witness said the same thing, and then a third. I suddenly realized that at a single meeting, I was looking at three witnesses who represented more than a million people. Because they believed the Prime Minister’s promise, because they believed the commitment he made in the Speech from the Throne, they had taken very exhaustive measures to consult each of their members and to come before us to say that these millions of people wanted a system where every vote counts.

After breaking his promise, after reneging on his commitment, the Prime Minister said he did not want to hold a referendum, because he was afraid of the consequences it had for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent to tell us if there is any basis for those fears.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of this bill, but I want to point out an interesting fact.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is a relatively simple bilateral trade agreement, unlike the Canada-Europe agreement, for example, which makes significant amendments to intellectual property rights, gives foreign investors special rights that Canadian companies do not have, and hurts dairy producers. I represent a riding where there is a significant number of dairy farms.

Does the hon. member agree that agreements such as the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, which requires less compromise than the more comprehensive and controversial multilateral agreements, such as the TPP or the Canada-Europe agreement, are better for Canada?

[Health, February 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, according to a University of Ottawa study, the provinces will not be able to maintain current services in the coming years if they accept the federal government's proposed health funding deal.

The parliamentary budget officer also sounded the alarm because of rising health costs due to, among other things, the aging population.

Will the government give the provinces the money they need to give people the services they need?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), since January 1, 2006: (a) how many financial transactions have been processed by FINTRAC, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many files have been sent from FINTRAC to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (c) how many of the files in (b) have been audited by the CRA; (d) how many of the audits in (c) have been referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (f) how many of the cases in (e) have resulted in convictions; and (g) what sentences have been imposed for each of the convictions in (f)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Criminal Investigations Program, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many taxpayers’ cases have been evaluated under this program; (b) how many of the cases in (a) have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) how many of the cases in (b) have led to prosecutions, broken down by year and by source of the funds or assets held; and (d) what were the findings and sentences for each prosecution in (c)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Community Action Program for Children (CAPC): (a) what is the Program’s total budget for each year of operation since it was established; (b) on an annual basis, how much funding is received per (i) province, (ii) territory, (iii) constituency; and (c) what are the Program’s operating costs since it was established, broken down by year?

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know how important the agrifood file is to him.

I will not compare the quality of the wine in his riding to that of the wines in other ridings, as he did. However, as many MPs have said today, it is important to go over this agreement as it applies to the particularities of each of our ridings.

Every member of the House has the duty to go over such an agreement and assess its impact on people, jobs, economic development, and our regions.

Like my colleague, I have demonstrated how bad this agreement might be for the dairy industry in my riding. Importing 17,000 tonnes of cheese from Europe will further erode the supply management system. Under this system, our constituents are guaranteed an adequate supply of high quality products at set prices.

I am sure, knowing my colleague's interest in agrifood, that he also has an opinion on the impact of this agreement on this industry.

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech.

Members may know that my colleague from Drummond and I are neighbours not just here in the House, but also in our ridings. When he speaks about dairy production in his riding, he is referring to what is happening in both our ridings, because the two are adjacent.

The member quite rightly spoke about the fact that the previous Conservative government had earmarked and promised $4.3 billion in compensation. That was the estimated loss of dairy producers caused by the entry into Canada of 17,000 tonnes of European cheeses. The $350 million program, which includes $250 million for producers and $100 million for processors, cannot be called a compensation program. It is a new modernization subsidy program.

My colleague from Drummond spoke about it. Last year he invited me to visit a dairy farm in his riding. Producers in our ridings have already modernized their operations. They are ahead of the curve, and a $350 million spread over a few years will barely pay for the electricity that powers the milking machines they already have.

I would like our colleague to comment on the fact that the current government is not acknowledging the losses caused by 17,000 tonnes of imported European cheeses. It is not acknowledging the detrimental impact on the industry and our regions' economies.