Brigitte Sansoucy

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 6th, 2016]

With regard to federal spending in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in each fiscal year from 2011 to 2016 inclusively: what are the details of all grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) the department or agency that awarded the funding, (ii) municipality, (iii) the name of the recipient, (iv) the amount received, (v) the program under which the grant, loan, contribution or contract was awarded, (vi) date?

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people.

The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it.

Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision?

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing.

That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts.

Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision.

When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 3rd, 2016]

With regard to the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component, National and Regional Projects, of the New Building Canada Fund, for the amounts budgeted for projects of interest: (a) what amounts were allocated to each province and territory; (b) what is the expected number of projects in each province and territory; (c) what amount was set aside for each project listed in (b); (d) what data was used to determine which projects would be selected; and (e) when will these projects be announced?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, some members will vote against this bill for conflicting reasons. The government will have accomplished that.

With regard to conscientious objection, I believe that, if certain people do not want medical assistance in dying because of conscientious objection, all they have to do is not ask for it. With regard to health professionals, the joint special committee clearly established that some aspects of health fall under federal jurisdiction, while others fall under provincial jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the role of doctors and the way they do their work falls under the responsibility of professional bodies and provincial jurisdiction. I feel like telling my colleague that a doctor who refuses to provide medical assistance in dying should at least give the patient some direction.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague was offended by what I said.

What I said is that there is a difference in how the two committees operated. I invite him to talk to his colleagues who were there the evening we first began studying the bill clause by clause and his colleagues who sat on the special joint committee because there were really two completely different work atmospheres.

Members cannot vote for conflicting amendments. Yesterday evening, I voted for some amendments and against others.

I asked some of my Liberal colleagues who sat on the special joint committee whether they were able to share their opinions on medical assistance in dying and the topics discussed by the special joint committee with their caucus. One of them told me that the government is moving in one direction and going against it would be like trying to paddle against the current at Niagara Falls. I do not understand that attitude when we are examining such an important bill.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell you that I will share my time with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.

As a new member, I had, for my very first experience on a committee, the immense privilege of sitting on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It was a privilege in a number of respects. First, I was there with my colleague from Victoria, who shared with me his experience as well as his expertise as a constitutional lawyer. He was very generous in allowing me to work with him in the committee.

It was also a privilege because it was an opportunity to learn about all the work that had been done since February 6, 2015, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Carter case. We read the report of the group of experts that criss-crossed Canada throughout last summer and fall and met with everyone interested in the issue of medical assistance in dying. They also met with people in the various American states that have had medical assistance in dying for 10 or 20 years. They went to Europe. They reported to us on everything they had learned about medical assistance in dying. We also read the report of the group of provincial and territorial experts. Although Quebec was the trail-blazer, working on the issue for six years and passing a law on end-of-life care last December, several provinces have studied the issue.

It was also a privilege to hear over 60 witnesses who came to present their points of view, whether as legal experts or as physicians. We met with representatives of different professional associations such as nurses and pharmacists. I found it really rewarding to hear all these witnesses and to better understand the different points of view. Indeed, on the subject of medical assistance in dying, as has been noted, there can be an opinion and its counter-argument. It was in light of all these views that we arrived at our recommendations. However, the particularly rewarding aspect of sitting on this committee was the commitment of the 11 MPs and five senators who gave full meaning to the term “working together”.

As a member of this committee, I developed a great sense of fellowship with all these parliamentarians. In spite of our differing views, we took the time to listen to each other, and we were respectful in our work. We spent dozens if not hundreds of hours working together. In spite of our differences of opinion, we were all committed to arriving at the best possible outcome.

This commitment to so complex and delicate a subject was for me a truly useful experience. Unfortunately, when I reported for the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the first evening when we did the clause-by-clause study and when we considered what I regard as the most significant amendments dealing with the most fundamental elements of the bill, I did not feel at all that open-mindedness, that commitment on the part of the Liberal representatives sitting on that committee. I did not feel that same willingness to listen to each other to arrive at the best possible outcome.

That evening, I was very disappointed to see that certain committee members quite simply did not seem to want to be there. They may have been checking their email, because they spent a lot of time with their noses buried in their tablets or looking at the ceiling. They mechanically voted against the amendments proposed by the opposition. Viewed from the outside, they seemed to be acting like good little soldiers.

In the special joint committee, we did indeed arrive at one dissenting report, a supplementary opinion. However, throughout our work on the 21 recommendations, we had this desire to reach the best possible outcome on this very difficult subject.

Since tabling our report, I have fallen into the habit of saying that it will be relevant for at least 10 years. Of course, I did not expect the government to take all of our recommendations into account. In so short a time, that was not possible.

Basically, what the Supreme Court has told us is that medical assistance in dying is a right. Since it is a right, therefore, we were motivated throughout our discussions and our work by the desire to be sure not to discriminate against anyone. However, this evening I will be obliged to vote against this bill, even though I have invested hundreds of hours of work in it and even though I have read thousands of pages and heard all those witnesses. For me, reasonably foreseeable natural death is a ground of discrimination, based on age, for example.

As a member of the special joint committee, I had the opportunity to take time to meet with my constituents. I wanted to seek out the wisdom of those who work with persons at the end of life before taking a position on the various recommendations. I wanted to test my assumptions and my thoughts. I had the opportunity to meet, for example, with Les Amis du crépuscule. This community organization in my riding works every day with persons at the end of their lives. Those workers told me that they would respectfully welcome anything that we would decide, because they welcome the choices that people make. Indeed, the question of medical assistance in dying is essentially a question of choice. One person may choose to request such assistance. Another, who for reasons of conscience or other reasons cannot accept calling for medical assistance in dying, need only refrain from requesting it.

These meetings made me realize just how unavailable palliative care is in our communities. The member for Victoria and I made note of this in our supplementary opinion in the report of the special joint committee. My riding includes the Hôtel-Dieu, one of the largest hospitals for long-term care in Quebec. Hundreds of persons die there every year. There are only 12 beds for palliative care. We have one home that accommodates people at the end of life who are suffering from cancer. This home receives 800 applications per year and can accept only 200.

Some people have told me that, if they have to be ill as they end their lives, they want to have quality care and to live with dignity beforehand, so they can die with dignity. This was a very strong message for me, because fundamentally, we must remember that this bill is intended to ensure that each of our fellow citizens is able to die with dignity.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when we asked Department of Justice and Department of Health officials to identify the legal or legislative basis for the reasonably foreseeable natural death clause, they referred us to the minister. I am not yet convinced that this clause, which nobody really seems to understand, is necessary.

Can the minister tell us why such a vague clause was included in such an important bill?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 20th, 2016]

With regard to the mandate letter to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, as it pertains to the development of a Canadian poverty reduction strategy: (a) what timelines have been set by (i) the Minister, (ii) the Department; (b) what (i) stakeholders, (ii) organizations, (iii) partners have been identified for consultation purposes; and (c) what amounts have been earmarked for implementing the Canadian poverty reduction strategy?

[Physician-Assisted Dying, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this is starting to look like another broken promise.

Let us now talk about another mismanaged file: medical assistance in dying. The government keeps talking about the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline as justification for limiting debate and refusing to work with the opposition. That is funny, because the government does not seem to be too concerned with abiding by the ruling itself. It is irresponsible to introduce a bill that a number of experts, and now the Alberta Court of Appeal, have deemed unconstitutional.

How can the government defend Bill C-14, when the bill does not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?