Brigitte Sansoucy

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise again in the House to speak about the sensitive and complex issue of medical assistance in dying.

This morning, I had the honour of seconding the motion of my colleague, the member for Victoria. I would like to reiterate how much I admire and respect the commitment and sense of responsibility he has shown throughout the process that has brought us here today.

I have had the opportunity to learn from his great expertise in constitutional law on many different occasions. I am a new member who was elected on October 19, 2015. The Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying was the very first parliamentary committee that I have ever been a member of. It was a great privilege for me because all the members of the House of Commons and the senators who worked on that committee did so in a spirit of co-operation in order to achieve the best possible outcome. We did not always agree, but we had a lot of respect for one another and we listened to what everyone had to say. We wanted to ensure that we made the best possible decisions and recommendations for the benefit of all Canadians, while respecting their rights. The 21 recommendations that we did make reflect that desire. One of our main goals throughout our discussions was to ensure that no one was discriminated against.

Naturally, Bill C-14 could not include all 21 recommendations. As I said after our report was released, I think it will continue to be useful for years to come.

My colleague from Victoria and I felt it was important to augment the committee's work with a supplementary opinion. The one thing all of the witnesses agreed on is that medical assistance in dying is linked to palliative care.

We also felt it was important to write a supplementary opinion to connect this issue to all other social determinants. It is important to say that we all have equal rights. However, because of certain social constraints, we must ensure that social determinants are taken into account in implementing medical assistance in dying.

As a member of the committee, I was astounded at the level of expertise we have in Canada on this issue. We heard from more than 60 witnesses, and we read thousands of pages before drafting our report and recommendations. I have a great deal of admiration for many of the witnesses who appeared before us because they put a lot of careful thought into this sensitive issue.

Our thinking on medical assistance in dying has changed in this country. The Supreme Court's Carter decision is proof of that. The witnesses talked to us about the change that has taken place in society. Looking back at the Rodriguez ruling from 20 years ago, it is clear that our society's thinking on end of life has changed.

I believe that our report and recommendations attest to that, and that is why it is so important to me that the bill we pass in the House reflect our constituents' thoughts on this matter. The witnesses, particularly groups representing people with disabilities, put a lot of careful thought into this matter and came to share their ideas with us.

I found it particularly hard when some of these groups told us that a few of their members had had friends or loved ones commit suicide prematurely. We currently have no measures to give these people hope that they will be able to freely choose at which point they will make a request for medical assistance in dying. That concern stuck with me.

I was also struck by the testimony from doctors who came to tell us that the Carter decision, which was handed down on February 6, 2015, changed their profession drastically. These doctors, like the ones I met in my riding, told us that throughout their training and their careers, they have been taught to heal and, failing that, to extend life. Now, they are being told that, according to what the public wants, what the law allows, and what their rights allow, patients in our country will be able to submit a request for medical assistance in dying.

I listened carefully to a number of speeches since we started having this discussion. During my many meetings in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I pointed out that it is not up to us, in the House, to decide whether medical assistance in dying should be available or not. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue. It is up to us to amend the Criminal Code.

I am from Quebec. The people of Quebec have had the Act respecting end-of-life care since December 2015. As many people have said in the House, that act was the result of six years of work to reach a broad consensus. Of course, in order to reach that broad consensus in Quebec, the legislation still had to comply with the federal Criminal Code. The province could only go so far within its areas of jurisdiction. Now we can pass legislation that allows us to go even further.

The consensus that emerged in Quebec and that was confirmed in my discussions with my constituents is that we now recognize that we have reached a time in our civilization when, as citizens, we want to be able to choose. What the Supreme Court told us is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us the freedom to request medical assistance in dying.

In order to deepen my reflections throughout our deliberations in the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, I felt duty-bound to seek out people and groups in my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who are dealing with this situation every day and meet with people who are sick or dying. This includes stakeholders and volunteers with a community organization called Les Amis du crépuscule, which provides assistance to people receiving palliative care and later to their grieving families. There are user committees for health care institutions, as well as the Hôtel-Dieu-de-Saint-Hyacinthe hospital foundation. That institution is one of the largest long-term care facilities in Quebec. Hundreds of people spend their last days on earth at the Hôtel-Dieu-de-Saint-Hyacinthe. I think it is around 500 people. That hospital has hundreds of beds, but only 12 palliative care beds.

That is why it has been important from the start of this debate on medical assistance in dying to talk about developing and implementing a real national palliative care strategy. For medical assistance in dying to be a real choice, palliative care also has to be offered as a choice. Unfortunately, many people have limited access to palliative care.

In Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, people have access to Maison Victor-Gadbois, a home for end-of-life care for those with cancer. This home receives 800 applications a year, but can house only 200 people.

Doctors have told us that we have developed a health care system based on hospitals and healing. When I met with Monsignor Lapierre, bishop of the Saint-Hyacinthe diocese, to talk about this issue, he made a comment that was full of wisdom. He told me that we should be just as concerned about aggressive treatment as we are about medical assistance in dying. He is sometimes called to the bedside of people who tell him they have had enough.

We must vote on this issue of medical assistance in dying here in the House with a sense of the responsibility we have to represent our constituents who are living with a serious and irremediable illness and intolerable pain.

Every time I rise in the House to speak to this issue, and during each meeting of the joint committee and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which studied this bill, I think about the people who are suffering. They are the ones who are at the heart of our discussion on Bill C-14. There are people who are suffering now, and they have high expectations for the bill we are going to pass. When the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Carter, people who were suffering had hope that their right to request medical assistance in dying would be respected.

The amendments in the motion by my colleague from Victoria say that we must not disappoint these people who are suffering and awaiting our decision. They hope that we will allow them to make this request for medical assistance in dying soon and that their rights will be respected.

These people who are suffering need not go to court. I was touched by the testimony given by members of the Carter family, who spent many years before the courts with their mother. When Bill C-14 was introduced, they came to tell us that the bill would not even give their mother the right to request medical assistance in dying. I cannot rise in the House and vote in favour of this bill, knowing that I am leaving people who are suffering to their own devices because they are not in the right class to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

This week, the Minister of Health told us that we need to think not only about the rights of Canadians, but also about the work of doctors. Since I began thinking about this issue, I have realized how much respect I have for all health care professionals. I also have a lot of faith in their judgment.

The doctors who testified in committee said that, while requests for medical assistance in dying are a new part of their reality, they have been dealing with difficult requests from patients that require them to use their judgment every day since they became doctors.

The difference since the Supreme Court ruling in Carter is that now they must deal with requests for medical assistance in dying. These decisions will be difficult for some. Fortunately, the bill gives them the right to conscientiously object and tell the patient that they are not comfortable complying with their request. We think it is important for the health care system to ensure that patients will not have to find a new doctor in the yellow pages. They must have support in order to exercise their right to ask for medical assistance in dying.

We also believe that sufficient safeguards have been put in place. I was really moved by the representatives of organizations for the disabled who asked us not to be paternalistic or treat the disabled like children. The fact that they have an incurable disease or are living with a degenerative disease or suffering a great deal is no reason to treat them like children. They are autonomous and can provide informed consent.

The Supreme Court talked about suffering that an individual deems intolerable. Nobody can judge another person's suffering. We all react differently to illness. That respect for individuality must permeate the medical assistance in dying law we implement. We must ensure that each individual, each citizen of this country, has the freedom to make that choice if the situation arises.

Nobody in this country wants to be in the position of having to make this request. Nobody wants to face the choice of whether to request medical assistance in dying. Nobody wants to support a loved one in making a choice about requesting medical assistance in dying. Nevertheless, we all hope that, when that day comes, every person will have all the resources they need to give free, informed consent. We hope that every person will feel their rights are being respected and will not be told that, unfortunately, they belong to a small class of people who are not eligible because it is felt that their death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Many, including the Barreau du Québec, the Collège des médecins du Québec, and Quebec's health minister, came and told us that “reasonably foreseeable natural death” does not mean anything and is impractical. In my opinion, we are putting doctors in a position where they cannot reasonably use the flexibility we are trying to give them in a fair and equitable manner because this criterion has no clear meaning for a doctor.

We must ensure that the legislation we pass is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Carter and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must ensure that once this legislation is enacted people who are suffering will not be required to ask a lawyer to go before the courts to uphold their right to seek medical assistance in dying. At the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, we heard that the provinces are ready to continue their work to enact provincial legislation. Quebec's health minister said that he was pleasantly surprised at the work of his colleagues from the other provinces.

Today we must pass legislation that is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Carter, that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that allows every Canadian to request medical assistance in dying.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his third speech today. I had the opportunity to listen to him at the special joint committee, which helped me better understand his position.

I think that no human being makes light of asking for medical assistance in dying. It is impossible to take this issue lightly.

Organizations representing the disabled appeared before the committee and told us about the importance of respecting the rights of the disabled because the Supreme Court talked precisely about rights and about recognizing them as persons.

I am concerned when I hear my colleague say that we must not give people too many choices. Even a vulnerable person, a person who is suffering, can make a decision.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I had the privilege of sitting with him on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. This committee's meetings were marked by respect and a willingness to listen, and I was able to better understand my colleague's reasoning with respect to his conscience.

However, for me, medical assistance in dying is a choice. I believe that if someone is not comfortable with it, they simply do not have to ask for it.

My colleague finished his speech by talking about the wisdom of centuries of civilization. I have been dealing with this issue since January, and my fellow Canadians have been telling me that civilization is at the point that individuals can make decisions about their own lives.

Does my colleague not believe that we must let Canadians make decisions about their own lives?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my admiration and respect for the commitment and sense of responsibility that my colleague from Victoria has demonstrated in this complex and sensitive issue. I have benefited from his expertise in constitutional law on a number of occasions.

This week, as a way of justifying the provision on reasonably foreseeable death, the Minister of Health said that it is not just Canadians' rights that are at stake here. She said that we must also consider the challenge for doctors to carry out the requests for medical assistance in dying.

Like me, my colleague heard representatives from the medical profession when they appeared before the special joint committee or the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Naturally they said that their profession has changed dramatically since February 6, 2015. How are they dealing with these new requests?

[Taxpayer Bill of Rights, June 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, every time I rise in the House, I am always thinking about representing the people in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and doing a good job of defending their interests.

I decided to run for office in order to improve the day-to-day lives of my constituents and to stand up for their rights.

In the case of the motion before the House today, I unfortunately do not believe that it would truly defend the interests of Canadians. I am not saying that the member did not have their interests at heart or that he did not intend to defend them. However, the proposed motion misses the mark.

I will explain why, in my opinion, Motion No. 43 must be rejected. First, the motion debated would not require the Canada Revenue Agency to provide better service. On the contrary, it would fuel poor relations between agency employees and the public.

The public currently has mechanisms it can use to deal with grievances or to complain about service. When dissatisfied, the public can file a complaint through the CRA complaint resolution process or with the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman.

I will get back to the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman, but I want to talk more about the changes proposed in the motion and about why we should reject it.

Under the motion's proposed changes to articles 4, 8, and 9 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, public servants would face potential legal action regarding the services they provide to the public; the changes would also promote an unhealthy climate at the agency.

This motion would amend the articles of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, so that if a Canadian found that the agency had failed to adhere to one of its 16 principles, the taxpayer could take the agency to court. If this motion were to pass, agents could become potential targets. They would be exposed to countless legal proceedings.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights sets out 16 rights, and it is based on the values of the agency, which are professionalism, respect, integrity, and collaboration. It sets out how Canadians have the right to be treated and sets out what they have the right to expect from the agency.

I have had to deal with the CRA, as have the staff in my riding office who help constituents resolve problems at the federal level every day. We are therefore well aware that the agency always keeps in mind the high standards of accuracy, professionalism, courtesy, and fairness when serving the public.

When a person thinks that one or more of his or her rights have been violated or is dissatisfied with the service received from the CRA, that person is invited to file a service-related complaint as part of the CRA's complaint resolution process. If still not satisfied once the complaint has been investigated, that person can contact the taxpayers' ombudsman and ask her to review the complaint. There are already mechanisms in place and they work.

I promised to come back to the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman. When I read Motion No. 43, I was surprised to see that the Conservatives want to change the powers and mandate of the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman. I want to remind the House that that position was created by the Conservatives in 2007.

Need I remind members that the Conservatives were in office in 2007? They therefore had the means, the authority, and countless opportunities to make any changes they thought were necessary. Now, all of a sudden, the Conservatives have had an epiphany and want to protect taxpayers. Why now, almost 10 years later?

In 2007, the Conservatives therefore created the position of a taxpayers' ombudsman, who is supposed defend the interests of Canadians, but they failed to give the position all the tools needed to do so. Now that they are no longer in power, suddenly they want to give the ombudsman the tools she needs to do her job. If they truly cared about standing up for Canadians, they could have given the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman all the necessary tools any number of times.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives were always attacking our officials and our public services. By bringing forward the motion, they are trying to cast doubt on the quality and integrity of the services our public servants provide to Canadians. I find that completely unacceptable.

I for one am extremely proud of and grateful for the work our public servants do. In fact, I would like to say thank you to them.

As an aside, this week happens to be National Public Service Week, from June 12 to 18.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their work and their dedication. Every day, our public servants from coast to coast do high-quality work that reflects their professionalism, and we thank them sincerely. The problem is not the quality of the service that public servants are providing, but rather the resources they have to provide those services.

The ombudsman's powers are limited to evaluating service delivery. The ombudsman is explicitly forbidden from reviewing the administration or enforcement of program legislation, other than to the extent that the legislation or policy relates to service matters.

The ombudsman is not on the taxpayer's side or on the agency's. The ombudsman's mandate is to provide an impartial review of unresolved complaints from taxpayers about service. The ombudsman reviews service-related complaints to determine whether taxpayers received accurate, clear, and complete information. The ombudsman reviews the matter and recommends corrective measures if necessary.

This approach makes it possible for individuals to avoid an endless, complex, and very costly process. This fair and efficient system ensures the same rights for all Canadians, not just those with the means to take matters to court.

The NDP believes that it is possible to improve the services that the Canada Revenue Agency provides to Canadians. To do so, we believe that the government must provide more resources to the agency so it can provide better services to the public and ensure the accuracy of the information it shares with all Canadians.

We encourage the government to make the necessary investments and we are prepared to work with the government to find potential solutions in order to improve services for all our constituents.

The government should provide more resources to the Canada Revenue Agency so it can improve its services and be as fair as possible. The NDP has always fought for high-quality, accessible service for all. The Canada Revenue Agency still has a lot of work to do in that regard. We encourage the government to make the necessary investment.

[Status of Women, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, gender-based analysis within the federal government is nothing new. In fact, a Liberal government committed to introducing it in 1995. It is now 2016, which means we have been waiting for over 20 years. For 20 years, the departments have been making decisions without having to systematically consider the impact they would have on women.

Will the government commit to stop dragging its feet and implementing gender-based analysis in all departments before the end of 2016?

[Main Estimates 2016-17, June 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

As everyone knows, Canadian household debt levels are worrisome, and that makes families acutely aware of the impact of debt on a budget. What I hear every week when I go back to my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, is that people are worried and the government needs to know. Every week, I meet people who are worried about this government's spending. People tell me that they are concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren. They feel compelled to express that concern.

I would like to know if my colleague has been hearing the same kind of thing.

[Main Estimates 2016-17, June 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He talked about his tour across Canada. He must have heard the same comments I hear in my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Before becoming an MP, I was a municipal councillor for many years, and the municipalities have long been saying that in programs funded equally by the three levels of government, they get the short end of the stick because some of the money goes back to the higher level of government whether in terms of labour costs or equipment. I would like to know whether a different breakdown is being considered.

The hon. member talked about the importance of helping our rural communities. I represent a riding where the largest city has a population of 53,000, and the municipalities are telling me that they think that once the big cities get their share, there will be nothing left for them. Is that true?

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. It is fascinating to hear from him that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development met with all the provincial ministers and that this meeting only resulted in the promise of another meeting.

The provincial ministers are calling for practical measures and the government talks about discussions. Discussions are not an alternative to action. It is all very well to mention “practical measures” several times in a speech, but that does not lead to action. The promise of action in 2017-18 is no substitute for the immediate measures called for by the provinces. Consultations are not actions.

What real action will the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development take to address the provinces' urgent requests?

Today, we are talking about real action. What will be the alternative to real action?

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is clearly all over the map with its bill on medical assistance in dying.

After assuring us that Bill C-14 complied with the Supreme Court's decision, the Minister of Justice is now telling us that her bill does not need to comply with the decision and that it only needs to comply with the charter. However, the Supreme Court based its decision on the charter.

Why this new take? Did the government finally realize that its bill does not comply with Carter or with the charter?