Brigitte Sansoucy

[Access to Information, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised major reforms to access to information. They promised to give the commissioner order-making power, namely the power to force the government to make information public.

However, the Liberals also want to give the minister veto power to say no to the commissioner's decisions. In short, nothing is going to change. The government says that it wants to be transparent. It needs to stop pretending.

Will the government give up this nonsensical idea?

[Medical Assistance in Dying, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, after applauding Quebec's non-partisan approach in dealing with medical assistance in dying, the Liberal government is taking the exact opposite approach.

It is stifling debate, refusing to listen to experts about the constitutionality of the bill, and rejecting the opposition's most important amendments. Even the Alberta Court of Appeal has contradicted the government. Bill C-14 does not comply with the Carter ruling.

How can the Liberals put forward a bill that could be challenged the very moment it is passed?

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I got into politics to try to help make people less cynical about politics. I believe that what happened yesterday only made people more cynical.

As I said from the outset, I was lucky because the first parliamentary committee I sat on is a committee where we were able to work together respectfully and we achieved the best possible result following our exchanges.

I sincerely hope that the government stops trying to get its way by all means possible. The end does not justify the means.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

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

Indeed, taken out of context, my words could have meant a lot of things. The key word in his question is “parallel” because yesterday I was indeed drawing a parallel. From my experience working on domestic abuse cases, often in these situations friends of the guilty party tend to downplay the situation, saying that the victim asked for it. That is the parallel that sprang to mind when I heard colleagues saying that she should not have been there, she should not have been in the middle of the room, as if she were responsible for what happened to her. That was the parallel I was trying to make.

Likewise, when a child is bullied in the schoolyard, it is not right to ask what he did to provoke the bullying. The bully is responsible for what happened, not the person who was bullied or assaulted. That is the parallel I wanted to draw yesterday. I hope I answered my colleague's question.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Before I comment on the matter before us this morning, I would like to make a comparison with the discussions we had about Bill C-14.

The discussion started off well enough. I am very happy to have been a member of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, where the quality of the debate was very mature. I really enjoyed collaborating with my Liberal and Conservative colleagues on our committee's work. We were all motivated by a desire to work together to get the best results for the people we represent. Even though we did not always agree, our discussions were always respectful.

Our life experiences make us who we are today. Personally, regardless of the situation, I always pay attention to the people around me. Someone just said that, when emotions are running high, our actions may be out of character. No. When my emotions are running high, I am always respectful of the people around me.

I was therefore saying that the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying managed to discuss the issue respectfully. Last week, I attended the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to examine Bill C-14 clause by clause. I think that may have been the beginning of what we saw yesterday. I did not get the impression that the Liberal members who were at that meeting were open to discussion.

My life experience has taught me that discussion and debate yield better results. I did not get the impression that the members at that meeting were open to debate. The members were there, but some of them did not even seem to be interested in the discussion. They were just there to obey the order they had received to vote against any amendments proposed by the opposition.

This week, time allocation motions were moved, motions that would prevent members from speaking in the House. One Liberal colleague made an interesting analogy. When I asked him why we could not have a discussion about Bill C-14, he told me that even he had tried, but it is as though the government is caught in a rushing stream moving toward the deadline, toward its goal, and going against the government right now is like trying to swim against the current at Niagara Falls.

When a government adopts the attitude of wanting to achieve a certain goal at all costs, it will run roughshod over anything standing in its way. In my life, there is something that I refuse to ever accept and that is the excuse that the end justifies the means. That should be unacceptable. I think that we were all able to see the result of that attitude yesterday.

We really need to ensure that our debates in the House are respectful. That is the only way that we will be able to honour the privilege that we have been given of being here to represent our constituents.

In her speech, I heard my Liberal colleague trivialize yesterday's behaviour, and we saw that attitude yesterday as well.

When someone witnesses an act of violence or intimidation and thinks that the victim is partially responsible, that should raise a red flag. That line of reasoning is wrong. Under no circumstances is a victim of an act of violence or intimidation ever responsible for that act.

Some Liberal members are trivializing what happened, saying that he is a good person. I too am a good person and I am never disrespectful towards anyone. I would never do anything that might hurt anyone around me. If genuine respect guides us in all our actions and in all situations, we can ensure that we will always be considerate of those around us.

In his apology this morning, the Prime Minister said that he did not pay attention to his surroundings. When the committee examines this matter, it will have to decide what the consequences should be, and then we will all know what consequences we can expect if we do not pay attention to our surroundings in the House. That is crucial.

What is more, people keep talking about bringing decorum back to this House. Unfortunately, since this government came to power, there has been plenty of lip service, but very little in the way of real measures. If it really wants to bring back decorum, the government should start by withdrawing Motion No. 6, which muzzles the opposition and limits our rights as parliamentarians. That would be far more meaningful as a concrete gesture than any empty rhetoric the Liberals could spew here today.

Some concrete action needs to come from this debate, and we must leave room for discussion. This morning the Minister of Health said that she hoped we would make a wise decision regarding Bill C-14. In order to do so, parliamentarians must be allowed to continue the discussion and debate.

Yesterday's incident occurred when the government was trying to curtail debate. It is the attitude that we saw this week that led to yesterday's actions. After the Prime Minister's apology, some Liberal MPs rose in the House to make light of the situation.

In the House, we must not make light of acts of violence and bullying. Yesterday, when I compared what happened to other acts of violence, that is exactly what I wanted to convey. We must not make light of acts of violence and bullying, no matter where they are committed. This belief must be very clear in everything that is said in the House.

We have the privilege of representing citizens. Consequently, we must rise above what we witnessed yesterday. Since yesterday, I have heard people say that we have to put things into context. The context and the facts are very clear, though, and we must not try to make light of them. It is important that there be very clear consequences for yesterday's actions. The best thing that the government could do about this incident is withdraw Motion No. 6.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the topic we are discussing this morning, I want to remind the minister that we are not debating Bill C-14 because of the government's actions and the Prime Minister's behaviour yesterday.

I agree with the minister that our life experiences shape how we deal with those around us. I commend her for saying that we must be respectful in our behaviour toward the people around us and in how we deal with others.

What really got to me in the exchange we had yesterday after the Prime Minister apologized was that a number of his Liberal colleagues rose to downplay violence and bullying. They even put part of the blame on the person who was subjected to this violence and bullying.

I would like her to talk about her contribution. What will she do to ensure that her colleagues no longer downplay violence and bullying?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I took up the cause of employment insurance when I decided to become a member of the board of directors of Saint-Hyacinthe's Mouvement action chômage in 1996. I found the Liberals' employment insurance reform completely appalling.

The problem is that fewer than four out of 10 workers have access to employment insurance. What am I supposed to say to the six out of 10 workers who are not getting anything and who spent their whole lives paying into EI? What am I supposed to tell those families? When a worker does not have any income, the whole family does not have any income. Those who happen to be entitled to EI benefits wait for weeks to get their first cheque, but six out of 10 workers will not even get one. That does not make any sense.

We need to do something. Workers do not chose to become unemployed. They do not choose not to work. That is not true. What people want is to support their families. It does not make any sense to tell workers that we are going to take the time to look into this. No. We need to do something and we need to do it now.

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have spent my life serving the community. I have worked in community organizations and in a shelter for battered women.

This evening, I am here to talk about employment insurance. However, when I became an MP, I never thought I would hear the same excuses here in the House that I heard from abusive husbands in the shelter where I worked with battered women. Abusive husbands said they did not do it on purpose, they did not mean to hurt their wives. I am sorry. There is no excuse.

It is a privilege to be in the House and to represent our fellow citizens. I want all of the women watching today, particularly those who have been victims of violence, to know that we are here for them too.

Now I am going to talk about what I was supposed to talk about. On February 26, I rose to ask for answers about two concerns. When workers lose their jobs, they face tough times, and I hope to get some answers to my questions tonight.

Workers need the five additional weeks for seasonal workers to be restored. We also need answers about how the employment insurance fund is managed.

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 major reform that is affecting Quebeckers and Canadians the most pertains to seasonal employment.

I am very proud to represent the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the agri-food capital. Any time we talk about agriculture, of course we are talking about seasonal jobs. The various EI reforms have been particularly hard on the workers in my region.

It is still true that workers must accept work that is 100 km away from their homes and pays 70% of what they earned previously. Employers in this region are losing employees because they are being forced to accept other jobs.

My husband is the coordinator for Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe. That is actually where we met. These days, it is the employers who are appealing to that advocacy group, which works on behalf of workers with or without a job.

We are at the point where employers are reaching out to advocacy groups to talk about the impact of the EI reforms. We are at the point where these employers are denouncing the EI reforms and asking for assistance from workers' advocacy groups in order to help their workers. This reform makes no sense, and I hope I will get some answers here this evening.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to comments made at second reading stage. She also spoke about the importance of listening to physicians.

Quebec has been leading the way on this issue, so I think that the government should give great credence to the Collège des médecins du Québec. With respect to the legal void that the minister is invoking today as a reason to rush the debate, Dr. Yves Robert, the secretary of the Collège des médecins du Québec, said:

This is an artificial deadline. It is not true to say that there would be a legal void. The conditions imposed by the Supreme Court would serve as a legal framework if there was no federal law. [The Supreme Court] struck down the sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting a physician from assisting a grievously ill patient in dying.

This will still be true on June 7. Why is the government in such a rush to prevent parliamentarians from speaking to such an important issue?

[Canada Border Services Agency, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Auditor General's report was at least well received by the CBSA and the government. I also know that the Canada Border Services Agency is well aware of its mission, which involves risk assessment.

That being said, I just spoke about a lack of resources. I would like some information. What guarantees can we give Canadians that officers who are on vacation or other types of leave will be replaced? Can we reassure Canadians that there will definitely be someone working at every post where the risks posed by shipments are assessed?

The Auditor General mainly criticized the lack of resources at the CBSA. I would like to hear what the government has to say about that.