Brigitte Sansoucy

[Employment Insurance, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives caused untold hardship by eliminating access to employment insurance for workers who need it most. In my region and in many regions across the country, in Atlantic Canada and Gaspé, our seasonal industries are key drivers of the economy.

The Liberals roundly condemned the Conservatives' employment insurance reforms. Now that they are in office, will the Liberals commit to reinstating the five additional weeks for seasonal workers?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that the 360 hours were, indeed, costed. It would cost $1.2 billion, a hit that the EI fund could easily take, in light of its existing surplus.

The 360-hour threshold was supported by 80 groups of Canadians, including unions, anti-poverty groups, student groups, and women's groups.

I am happy to hear my colleague say that our proposal does not go as far as he would like.

Would it not make sense to support the motion and then do more?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

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

These are the kinds of comments that really get to me. I spent a large part of my career as the executive director of a social reintegration organization for young people experiencing family problems. I saw a large number of young people who were trying to get back into the job market and trying to find their place. They were constantly being penalized by the EI rules.

For many young people who are entering the job market and who have an unstable job with irregular hours, it is almost impossible to accumulate the minimum of 910 hours required to file an initial claim for benefits. They often work on call. These are young people who want to help themselves, but the EI reforms do not help them at all.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Liberals want to repair the damage they caused to employment insurance in the 1990s. A fine way to make positive changes to employment insurance would be to support our motion.

I invite my colleague to do so because it will make eligibility rules fairer for all regions and set up an independent employment insurance fund, which will make it possible to reinvest in training. Workers and employers contribute to the employment insurance fund, which can be used to provide fair benefits and training to workers. The next step is to repeal the Conservatives' reforms, which penalize workers.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, of course I support the motion. After 20 years of Conservative and Liberal reforms, the EI system is in a pitiful state and cannot provide families with the support they need. The government needs to take action immediately, specifically in the areas of eligibility and the EI fund.

In their election platform, the Liberals promised to clean up the mess in the EI system by repealing the Conservative reforms. Understandably, a program that is meant for workers is problematic when it is the employers who are criticizing the reforms, which is what is happening right now.

Before I became a member in the House of Commons, I was a municipal councillor. The Union des municipalités du Québec, an organization of employers, had adopted a resolution calling on the federal government to suspend the EI reform until economic impact studies were conducted. Here is what the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec had to say:

This reform will have a major negative impact on the social and economic fabric of the regions. It will drive seasonal workers and their families out of the regions. We will lose skilled labour power and entire families. In Quebec, we have been working for years on policies and projects promoting jobs and prosperity in the regions. We cannot sit idly by in the face of this reform. We urge the Government of Canada to suspend the reform until it assesses its real economic impact.

In the 1990s, more than 80% of unemployed workers received unemployment insurance benefits. The Liberals destroyed this program and, after their reforms, only 50% of unemployed workers had access to benefits. It was at that point, in the mid-1990s, that I decided to become a member of the board of directors of Saint-Hyacinthe's Mouvement action chômage. I found the reforms to be completely unacceptable.

Last December, the most recent data showed that only 39.9% of unemployed Canadians were receiving benefits.

I would like to talk about the impact that 20 years of Liberal and Conservative reforms have had on my region. I am very proud to be the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Quebec's agrifood capital. Agrifood products and seasonal work go hand in hand. In my region, many seasonal workers were affected by the Conservative and Liberal reforms. These workers are considered frequent claimants and, during periods of unemployment, must accept work that is 100 km from their homes and pays 70% of their usual salary. The City of Saint-Hyacinthe has set an objective of growing its population to 60,000 by 2020. As I just mentioned, municipalities are worried that their residents will have to move in order to look for work elsewhere.

This may mean that seasonal workers have to find a permanent job during periods of unemployment, and these jobs are often lower paying. When seasonal workers are called up in the spring to go back to work for the agri-food companies, many of them will not return to their seasonal employers, for fear that Service Canada will indicate on their file that they voluntarily left their employment without just cause and they will lose their right to EI. As a result, seasonal employers constantly lose their experienced workers who do not return to work for them when the new season comes around.

As I mentioned earlier, employers are now the ones complaining about the reforms. In my region, the Fédération interdisciplinaire de l'horticulture ornementale du Québec is requesting seasonal employer status and asking that its workers not be penalized because they work for seasonal companies.

HortiCompétences, an ornamental horticulture sectoral workforce committee in Saint-Hyacinthe, has been critical of the fact that its employees seem to be considered second-class workers. This is not a good way to encourage these workers to remain in the field they have chosen and for which they were trained.

The Quebec Produce Growers Association said the following:

“This sector is currently vulnerable”...the employment insurance reforms are hurting produce growers. “We already had a hard time recruiting local workers, but it has become even more difficult with the reform.”...Many seasonal workers went back to the same employer year after year. Now, they are penalized by the employment insurance rules.

It is clear to us that a universal qualifying threshold is the best solution. Regional unemployment rates vary widely. In a region like mine, where the unemployment rate is low, seasonal workers are penalized because they will have a hard time qualifying for employment insurance year after year. It is unacceptable that 60% of unemployed workers do not qualify. That impoverishes whole regions. Employment insurance beneficiaries spend their income locally. Employers have made it clear that, when their workers have no income, they lose customers.

As my colleague mentioned, we switched from boards of referees to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. Many more people were comfortable with the complexity of the previous system. The Liberal and Conservative reforms made it impossible for ordinary mortals to navigate the labyrinth of the new Employment Insurance Act and its appeal system. In my region, there were significant delays in setting up the social security tribunals, and, as a result, many workers had to wait more than a year to collect benefits.

I have to wonder about this situation. What do we say to a worker who is let go after the company where he has worked for 25 years undergoes restructuring? This honest worker will submit an EI claim that will take several months to be approved. Under the new guidelines, he will be called to a job search session before he even receives his first payment. He will be pressured to accept any old job, even if it is not suited to him and has nothing to do with his qualifications. After just a few days, he will be forced to quit that job in order to find suitable employment.

As we know, this honest citizen will automatically be deprived of his right to receive benefits. Why? Because he is now considered a repeat offender by the employment insurance officers. This will then lead to interminable delays due to disputes.

Without support, his chances of getting his benefits back are almost nil. In the best-case scenario, he will receive his first payment between three and six months later. Is that how an honest worker deserves to be treated? I do not think so. That worker could be one of us, or one of our children, a parent or neighbour.

In my region there is an advocacy group for workers with or without a job, called Mouvement action chômage. That organization kept a record of the ramifications of abolishing the boards of referees in our region. It noticed that with the new Social Security Tribunal very few workers are able to make an appeal. Many workers wait months or even an entire year before being heard by the new tribunal.

According to Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe, only four out of seven cases heard in the past few months resulted in redeterminations and only because they were backed by Mouvement action chômage. Those who defend themselves have no hope of getting anywhere.

The directives the employment insurance officers receive are wreaking havoc on seasonal workers. In agri-food, in my region, those who apply for EI more than once in less than two years face stricter eligibility requirements, and for no good reason. Often the reasoning provided in the workers' file is just ridiculous. We know that.

In closing, unfortunately, if the decisions being made by the Employment Insurance Commission officers are any indication, then Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe will have its work cut out for it in the coming months.

[CBC/Radio-Canada, February 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, such a major transaction will require government approval. At the very least, the government should require transparency from CBC/Radio-Canada.

Quebeckers and Montrealers have an attachment to the CBC/Radio-Canada tower. It has a unique status in our cultural history. The CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors' plans could see the tower torn down.

Can the government tell us whether it considered other options for using this building?

[CBC/Radio-Canada, February 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the CBC/Radio-Canada tower is officially for sale.

This plan has raised some serious concerns from the beginning, and there has been no transparency. CBC/Radio-Canada's production capacity is at stake. Management has not offered any guarantees that it will be maintained.

Can the government tell us whether it truly plans to hand a blank cheque to CBC/Radio-Canada? What guarantees will it require?

[Health, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec and Canada, we must provide care based on needs and not on means. The NDP has twice written to the Minister of Health, and I must rise again to ask her to address the matter of ancillary fees in Quebec. Few people, in every one of our ridings, can afford to pay $300 for drops or $500 for a colonoscopy. The Canada Health Act is clear on this, and the minister has a duty to enforce it.

When will the government take action and put a stop to this two-tiered system?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives cannot simply claim to be in favour of transparency and equity, even if every Conservative member tells me that he or she supports workers and unions. In my opinion, when a government interferes in an organization's business and tries to pit its members and leaders against each other, that government cannot then turn around and say that it wants to help the organization. The truth is that the useless bill that the Conservatives introduced was designed to give unfair advantage to anti-union employers. That is what it boils down to.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will help my colleague out with his research.

In a letter sent to the Conservatives, the Canadian Bar Association said that the Conservatives' bill violated privacy and constitutional rights. Even the Christian Labour Association of Canada called on the government to withdraw the bill and draft a new version because the bill violated privacy laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There were some who said that this was not a good bill.