House of Commons Hansard #130 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treatment.

Topics

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oshawa.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to support my colleague's hard work on Bill C-277, an act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada. We are in a time where Canada is seeing an aging population, and it is our role as parliamentarians to help prepare our economy and our health care system for the coming decades.

First, it is important to understand what exactly palliative care is. For someone who has a life-threatening condition or a serious illness, palliative care is used to help improve the overall quality of life, reduce and/or relieve any physical and psychological symptoms, help individuals have a more peaceful and dignified death, and provide support to families and friends while an individual is dying and afterwards.

Palliative care can be provided in a variety of settings. It is really dependent on the options and availabilities within a community. Palliative care is provided at hospitals, individuals' homes, long-term facilities, and hospices.

The bill ensures that all Canadians have a real choice in regard to their end-of-life plans, something that is extremely important now that physician-assisted dying is legal. The Supreme Court itself stated that a request for physician-assisted death cannot be truly voluntary if the option of proper palliative care is not available to alleviate a person's suffering.

As I've said in previous speeches, assisted suicide should only be made available on the rarest of occasions. Canadians expect and deserve a choice between quality palliative care and assisted death. The government has already committed to one of those, and it is now time for it to commit to the importance of high-quality palliative care in Canada.

We know that all parties are in favour of palliative care for Canadians, but we must ensure that all parties agree that the bill is in fact needed in Canada.

I will not lie, I do have some concerns about the current government's agenda when it comes to palliative care. The Liberals started off with promising all Canadians an immediate $3-billion injection for home care, including palliative care, but now the Liberals have changed course. The Liberals are using the urgency of palliative care in communities as a bargaining tool, and that, in my opinion, is absolutely offensive. The provinces that have agreed to the Liberals' terms when renegotiating the health accord were given funding for both mental health and home care, while others that have not yet agreed to the Liberals' terms have received absolutely nothing.

Again we see a lot of talk on home care specifically. I am not saying that home care should not be incorporated in the promised new funding, but to completely eliminate palliative care from the promised funding would be irresponsible.

The government must assure Canadians that there will in fact be some designation of money to palliative care. As I already said, the need for palliative care services is increasing. Currently, only 30% of Canadians have access to good quality palliative care and this is problematic. We must ensure that the government properly allocates some of the promised investment into palliative care, and ensure that this bill be supported by everyone.

Bill C-277 will ensure that action is taken to define services that would be covered. It would introduce a standard training requirement for various levels of care providers, and it would help to collect the necessary data to ensure palliative care is successful in Canada.

There is no reason for any party to oppose such a well-thought-out bill that has the support of so many stakeholders across the country including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, Pallium Canada, ARPA, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Kidney Foundation, the ALS Society, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, and the more than 50 organization members of the quality care coalition.

It is by working hard with organizations and bringing awareness to the need for palliative care that we can make a difference and ensure that individuals at the end of their lives are under the best possible care. This allows families to feel comforted and individuals to die with dignity.

In my riding of Oshawa, there is a wonderful individual by the name of Dr. Gillian Gilchrist. Dr. Gilchrist worked at the Oshawa General Hospital as the medical director of the palliative care team. She was the driving force behind the first palliative care unit at Oshawa General Hospital in 1981, and is considered a pioneer in providing palliative care within our community and raising awareness of the need for end-of-life care.

Dr. Gilchrist, along with her team, were on call 24-7, over all of Durham region.

Today, Lakeridge Health, which the Oshawa General Hospital has become a part of, and Queen's University, have partnered to create the first academic chair in palliative care. This chair will be named after Dr. Gillian Gilchrist. The idea is to ensure that we continue to focus on important areas within palliative care and be able to improve how future patients receive the best end-of-life care possible. According to Dr. Gilchrist, there is a lot that proper palliative care can do for an individual who is at the end of his or her life. lt provides patients and loved ones with the necessary support through a difficult time, not just physical support but emotional support as well.

Proper palliative care cannot be done without a team or proper training. This is why we must support this bill to ensure that the proper resources are there for Canadians when we need them. Experts themselves have said that if given the choice of good palliative care or to end one's own life, 95% of patients would choose to live.

As Dr. Richard Reznick, dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Queen's University, said, “We have no desire to treat tomorrow's patients the way we're treating today's. We [must] treat them better.”

In conclusion, we must treat those people better. Many of the people requiring palliative care are seniors or veterans. Seniors built our communities, developed our businesses, and supported our economy. Seniors built this great country, fought in our wars, raised their kids, and ultimately created this prosperous country that we are all so fortunate to live in. It is our responsibility to ensure that the most vulnerable are taken care of. When these individuals, who have done so much for us, need the most support, it is Canada's turn to support them. It is our job to make them comfortable. This is why I will support this important bill. I encourage all members of the House to do the same. I want to thank my colleague for all of the good work she has done bringing this issue forward.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for bringing this bill forward, for her leadership on palliative care in Canada, and for making sure that the conversation does not die between parliamentary sittings. I would also like to thank Hospice Wellington for helping me with its insights and input on what I am talking about tonight, and I thank the hospice centres across the country for the amazing work they do for some of our most vulnerable citizens.

This private member's bill aims to establish a national framework for hospice palliative care. My predecessor, Frank Valeriote, co-chaired an all-party parliamentary committee on palliative and compassionate care, along with the members from Kitchener—Conestoga and the former MP from Windsor—Tecumseh. Together the committee took the lead in crafting a report called “Not to be Forgotten”, which forms the foundation of Bill C-277.

The hard work demonstrated by this committee cannot be overstated. After a year of travelling, town halls, and consultations, the committee drafted a report that addressed at length the issues facing vulnerable Canadians, such as elder abuse, pain management, and family caregiver support. In speaking to Frank Valeriote about this bill coming back to Parliament, he said that it was one of the best experiences he had while he worked in this place.

This report establishes a clear and comprehensive guideline for the government to establish a national framework that will reinforce the fact that every Canadian life matters. This bill rejects the notion that Canadians who choose hospice palliative care are a burden on their families and on society. In fact, this bill acknowledges that palliative care offers patients time to live with dignity and to share precious time with loved ones.

Canadians deserve the freedom to make this fundamental decision about life and death without fear that their personal choices will be obstructed by politics or government. With 70% of Canadians left without access to adequate palliative care, we have a responsibility to act in the interest of patients and their families. This is why our government supports both access to palliative care and to medical assistance in dying.

End-of-life issues are as diverse as Canadians themselves, meaning that it is our responsibility as a government to provide as many options as possible for Canadians so that they can take these deeply personal choices and make them their own. This means that we must work with the provinces and territories to develop a flexible, integrated model of palliative health care delivery that takes into account Canada's geographic, regional, and cultural diversity, along with a funding strategy for implementation.

As was mentioned earlier, we have to work out how we work with provinces and territories on how we can deliver these services together. This system must be responsive to the needs of patients and create an environment that creates comfort and reassurance.

As discussed in the report, a hierarchy of care environments is an excellent example of how palliative care can adapt to the needs of patients and their caregivers. These environments offer a range of choices, from one to eight.

It is not the quality of care that determines why level 1 is better than level 3. For many people, level 1 or 2 is the best location, since it keeps them at home, where they can receive good physical, emotional, and spiritual support as well as informational care.

Level 7 is a more traditional hospital environment with more involved and expert care, which comes at the expense of a familiar environment for the patient. Patients have described being removed from their preferred surroundings as in itself a kind of dying, because removing what is valued increases the expectation that they will die sooner rather than later.

This system provides an appropriate space for terminally ill patients so that they can have access to the support they need and the dignity they deserve while retaining as much of their home environment as possible.

It is crucial that this palliative care framework provide for the medical, emotional, practical, and spiritual needs of patients. These are the four pillars of hospice palliative care.

Canada has played a proud role in developing modern hospice palliative care. Even the word “palliative” is a Canadian invention, developed in Montreal in the 1970s. Now we must take the final steps needed to make hospice palliative care available to all Canadians.

Many here in this House have heard me speak at length about the importance of innovation, and here too it has a role to play. Innovation can do more than grow our economy. It can also revolutionize how we protect and care for the most vulnerable in our society, including first nations and people who have difficulty getting to care.

A perfect example is the virtual hospice, an online exchange where ordinary people communicate with palliative care professionals to improve care. The virtual hospice uses readily available technologies to help Canadians living in remote areas access the medical professionals they need while remaining in the comfort and security of their own homes and their own communities.

Dr. Valerie Schulz, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry in London, Ontario, has developed a simple and effective way to get medical students interested in palliative care. Each year, 12 students from the undergraduate program become hospice volunteers. Each student undergoes 30 hours of training and is mentored by an experienced hospice volunteer. The experience is priceless for the future doctors, as it gives them a chance to meet and converse with people outside the clinical environment and without the need to bring a clinical perspective to the relationship. Thankfully, this practice has taken root with great success in hospices across Ontario. It develops the relationships that future doctors will have with their patients facing similar challenges.

Students relate to the hospice clients as persons, learning how they feel about and react to the prospect of dying. Friendships are formed and lessons are learned, which will be of lifelong value to the future doctors. The clients also are transformed, touched that a future doctor cares enough to spend time with them in a companion role. This program is worth emulation and broader application.

In my riding of Guelph, Hospice Wellington has been in existence for over 30 years. Their residential program is noted for being one of the best performing, if not the best, in the province. It serves over 300 individuals and their families. It is my hope that this bill will allow terminally ill patients to receive this kind of care from coast to coast to coast.

I am proud of the work the government and this Parliament have initiated with respect to end-of-life issues. Bill C-277 will provide Canadian patients with a comprehensive system of palliative care as a first option before they consider other options, such as medical assistance in dying.

Additionally, this approach emphasizes the importance of living with dignity before dying with dignity. By creating a national framework for end-of-life treatment, Canada will plug the gap in its medicare program, ensuring that all Canadians, from the very beginning until the very end, have access to the compassionate care they are entitled to under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for bringing this forward for us. I will be supporting this bill as it comes forward with amendments.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has two minutes. That is all the time remaining. My apologies.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak even though I have only two minutes.

Obviously, I intend to vote in favour of Bill C-277. I want to congratulate and thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her bill, which seeks to develop a framework on palliative care in Canada.

This bill is very important and all Canadians have been waiting for it for a long time. Many Canadians are suffering because of the lack of clear national standards. There is also a lack of funding for palliative care.

In 2014, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay moved a very important motion calling for the creation of a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative and end-of-life care.

The population in my riding is aging. Approximately 17,800 people are over the age of 65, so people have been waiting for this bill for a long time. However, now we need to walk the talk and take meaningful action. We need to develop a national framework and ensure that there is funding for it. We must be proactive. I consulted my constituents and I know that family caregivers do extraordinary work. I recently lost my grandfather and I was able to see the excellent work that is being done in the area of palliative care, but again we need to support family caregivers.

I want to once again congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton. We are really proud of her. We are also pleased to see that the Conservative Party has woken up and seen the importance of providing palliative and end-of-life care in Canada. Congratulations and thank you.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need palliative care services now more than ever. Fewer than 30% of Canadians have access to this vital service that allows them to choose to live as well as they can for as long as they can. Bill C-277 is the next action required to define the services to be covered, to bring standard training requirements to the various levels of care providers, to come with a plan and mechanism to ensure consistent access for all Canadians, and to collect the data to ensure success.

Canada has an ever-growing number of individuals of all ages experiencing chronic and terminal conditions. Good palliative care covers a wide range of services, as we have heard, such as acute care, hospice care, home care, crisis care, and spiritual and psychological counselling. A palliative philosophy of care is needed to address a wide variety of needs through an adapted and patient-centred process.

Use of more home care and hospice care will bring a fourfold reduction in health care costs compared to acute and palliative hospital care. The creation and implementation of a palliative care framework would give Canadians access to consistent, high-quality palliative care through hospitals, home care, long-term care facilities, and residential hospices.

The bill is timely, as we have heard, since the special committee that studied the Carter decision on medically assisted dying said that without good quality palliative care, there really is no true choice, and we want Canadians to have a choice.

I want to thank many organizations. We heard them mentioned before. They are the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, Pallium Canada, ARPA, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, many of the member hospices, Heart & Stroke, the Kidney Foundation, the ALS Society, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, more than 50 organization members of the Coalition for Quality Care, and many faith organizations, including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

There are so many Canadians who have said that they support this bill, and it is through organizations and groups like these that we can integrate palliative care into the current health care system and make a true difference for Canadians.

I want to thank everyone for their support and for continuing to bring awareness to this. I thank the all-party committee that studied this subject and assisted me in bringing forward this bill with these recommendations. I want to thank colleagues on all sides of the House, who have spoken passionately and in support of this bill, and the thousands of Canadians who have written letters to MPs and the Prime Minister and sent 84 petitions to the House asking for palliative care.

Some hon. members have indicated that they are prepared to support referring this bill to committee for amendment. I have heard the members' input on getting the balance right between what is under provincial jurisdiction and what is under federal jurisdiction.

I know that areas such as education are under provincial jurisdiction. However, with the provinces beginning to roll out services in fragmented ways, the federal government has an opportunity to provide the leadership needed to leverage best practices and to fill the possible gaps, because the work does not end with one plan.

We must develop the infrastructure we need in order to provide palliative care beds and hospice care. With our aging demographic, we are going to have to increase the number of home support workers, personal caregivers, registered psychiatric nurses, palliative care specialists, and those providing support services. The promise that the government made in its 2016 budget to allocate $3 billion for this is a good start.

I am happy to see this bill go to committee, with the hope that we will find a way to accelerate the process of making this framework a reality. As we begin the new year, we have a chance, as parliamentarians, to come together in a co-operative spirit to do the right thing for Canadians without partisanship.

I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support this bill going forward to committee. Give Canadians the palliative care they so desperately need. Let compassion make members' choices, and support Bill C-277.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the United States' decision regarding refugee travel.

Let me remind hon. members that they are not required to be in their own seats and that, pursuant to the order made earlier today, the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Outremont.

On Friday, January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from the United States for at least the next 90 days. The countries included in this ban are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Also included in the executive order are an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and a four-month ban on the admission of any refugee or refugee claimant.

These edicts have sent disbelief and shock waves throughout the international community. I, for one, can say this: in all of my life, I never thought that I would witness a ban based on race, religion, and place of birth from any democratic country, much less from Canada's closest ally and neighbour.

Since the immigration and travel ban has been made public, I have received hundreds of emails and phone calls from constituents who absolutely reject these racist policies, policies that so clearly violate many international refugee and human rights legal obligations, including the 1951 refugee convention and its 1967 protocol, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the convention against torture. It is therefore our duty as their elected representatives to respond to these extraordinary events.

How ironic it is that the Trump executive orders were made on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Honestly, have we learned nothing from history? A ban against individuals, based race, religion, or country of birth simply cannot be tolerated.

I rose in this House yesterday to propose this emergency debate, and I would like to acknowledge and thank the Speaker for granting my request. It is my utmost sincere hope that we will have a productive and non-partisan discussion about what action Canada needs to take in light of the Trump administration's immigration and travel ban. Canadians cherish their role as global citizens and are staunch defenders of human rights, both at home and abroad.

Over the weekend, the Prime Minister tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength”. When Canadians heard these words, we could not help but feel a sense of pride, for they reaffirm our Canadian values. Now it is time for us to give meaning to these words with an action plan. Exceptional situations require exceptional actions. This is one of those moments. Canadians are loud and clear that they want us to step in. The unprecedented outpouring of support, fundraising, and activism on the part of Canada's refugee sponsorship community has not faded.

As a first measure, yesterday I called on the government to immediately remove the 1,000 application cap on privately sponsored refugees. Canadians have overwhelmingly shown their generosity and compassion by stepping up to provide private sponsorship in the Syrian refugee initiative. Instead of stifling this incredible spirit of compassion and kindness, Canada should be facilitating this gesture of hope by lifting the cap on privately sponsored refugees.

Second, in addition to this measure, I am also calling on the government to show leadership with a special measure to fast-track the refugee applications that have already been successfully screened and processed for resettlement in the U.S. or those that are near completion but are now caught in this ban. These individuals are now left in a devastating limbo, and that is simply unacceptable. We all know that women, children, and families who face violence and persecution caught in this ban will be left out in the cold, and Syrian refugees will be refused indefinitely. How can that be?

To date, the government's response has been to simply say, “Stay the course”. We must remember that the current course of action proposed by the government was what was in place before the Trump ban on immigration and travel. If we do not modify our current immigration plan and policies, then we are just bystanders in the face of these intolerable, discriminatory polices.

Sadly, the Prime Minister's words will then ring hollow, rendered as meaningless rhetoric in this important moment in our history. None of us want to see that.

Third, given the severe and serious implication of the ban, Canada must now determine whether or not the American refugee system can be deemed to be providing a safe haven for those who face persecution. A number of organizations, including Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and the Canadian Council for Refugees, amongst many others, have called on the government to suspend the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement.

The principle behind the Safe Third Country Agreement is that Canada should be able to rely on another country, a safe country that a refugee claimant has travelled through, to provide a fair hearing, an effective protection should it be warranted rather than allowing the individuals to continue to Canada to make a claim. At the heart of this, Canada must be confident that the other countries' record for refugee rights and human rights is both adequate and equivalent to that of Canada.

Given these troubling developments, it is simply not possible to suggest that the U.S. currently reaches these standards. Canada can no longer have confidence that the American refugee system is providing a safe haven for those who face persecution. The New Democrats are therefore calling on the government to immediately suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Finally, the Canadian government must take immediate steps to ensure that Canadians are not impacted by this executive order, and to reassure Canadian dual nationals and Canadian permanent residents that they can travel safely.

Since the signing of the executive order, there has been a troubling amount of confusion and concern as to who is impacted by this ban. The confusion and concern have been expressed not just by Canadian dual nationals but also by the Canada Border Services Agency, as little information has been given about how they would enforce this issue.

During the government's press conference over the weekend, representatives of the CBSA made it clear that they were not being given adequate information as to how to handle this executive order. They stated that they would be watching what the executive order means in terms of details, so until they have that level of understanding, they do not know; they are confident in their current screening system processes.

Despite verbal assurances that the ban did not apply to Canadian dual nationals and those with permanent resident status in Canada travelling with passports from one of the seven countries impacted by the ban, there are media reports that at least one individual is already being denied entry into the United States.

Dr. Reza, an Alberta biomedical engineer born in Iran and a Canadian permanent resident, was denied entry into the United States on Saturday while travelling with a group of colleagues to a San Francisco biomedical engineering conference. It was reported that he was told that, because he was born in Iran, he could not pass through the airport.

Many members are concerned. There are many issues with respect to this. As the NDP critic for immigration, refugees, and citizenship, I am calling on the government to act. We need to give meaning to the Prime Minister's words and to take action. Canada can do this and Canada must do this.

George Washington once said:

...happily, the government of the United States...gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance....

If the Trump administration will not live up to the wise words of Trump's predecessor, then Canada and the international community must step up and stand united with a clear voice and offer a clear path forward.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to start off by repeating what the member made reference to. I believe that the government, through the Prime Minister of Canada, has been very clear on the issue, and I will repeat the tweet, the words that were put on the record shortly after:

To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength

This is a message, “Diversity is our strength”, that the Prime Minister has been saying ever since I have known him. He is a man of great tolerance and understanding of what real Canadian values are. When called upon, he is a Prime Minister that has come to the plate and has been there for Canadians. I believe that Canadians understand that.

We see through this ministry that the Prime Minister has put together a group of individuals, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to our Minister of Immigration, to take actions that I believe are in the best interests of Canada as a whole and maintaining the values that Canadians have.

Would the member not agree that the response from the Prime Minister, from actions taken to date by the Government of Canada, is in fact advancing the values that Canadians hold so close to their hearts?

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the answer is no.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the government, while I think that the sentiments are laudable, we hope to hear some more substantive discussion of the issues than that.

I would ask my colleague from the NDP to elaborate on one aspect that I do not think she touched on, which is the security dimension. I think the executive order actually risks making us less safe, not more safe. I wonder if she agrees with me and if she might reflect on why that is the case.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

From this point of view, when we have division and the politics of fear, it does not breed safety, and that really is what the executive order does.

We in Canada take a different point of view. We want to open our arms, hearts, and minds to those who are fleeing persecution. We want to step up in troubling times with our neighbour making such a discriminatory proclamation. We will work with the international community and we will take our place on the international stage and do our work.

We want the government to consider the proposals that we have put forward. Let us put the words of the Prime Minister into action. That is what this debate is all about.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is regarding the safe third country agreement. How exactly would the NDP go about suspending it?

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member asked this question, because I did not have time to get into the details.

As it happens, article 10 of the safe third country agreement allows for the simple and immediate suspension of this agreement for up to three months with the possibility of an extension. It states:

Either Party may, upon written notice to the other Party, suspend for a period of up to three months application of this Agreement. Such suspension may be renewed for additional periods of up to three months. Either Party may, with the agreement of the other Party, suspend any part of this Agreement.

That is how we could do it.

My question for the member opposite and the government is this: Will the government commit to the immediate suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement as written in the agreement itself?

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this emergency debate to address the presidential executive order issued by Donald Trump prohibiting the travel of all refugees and individuals from seven Muslim majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Canadians are deeply concerned about President Trump's appalling racist immigration ban.

His fundamentally misguided policies are not just spreading a wave of intolerance around the world. They are also creating devastating implications for thousands of innocent people, travellers, and refugees. The ban will also have a major negative impact on the North American economy.

This ban against individuals based upon race, religion, or country of birth, implemented by our closest neighbour cannot be tolerated by Canada. We have the obligation to speak out. To be very clear, New Democrats unequivocally oppose this ban and condemn it. We denounce this policy, but like many Canadians, we are concerned that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have not done the same.

The New Democrats requested this emergency debate, and I commend my colleague from Vancouver East for getting it approved. We have also called for a number of practical measures that the government can and must adopt to ensure that Canada does its part, starting with an official statement indicating that Canada does not endorse Donald Trump's Muslim immigration ban. Direct and concrete measures must then be taken to deal with the consequences.

Canada's values of diversity, peace, and inclusion are diametrically opposed to this order and everything it represents.

In unprecedented times like these, our words must be clear and our actions must be real. The world is watching and lives hang in the balance. We must stand up to those who pedal the politics of fear and division, and Canada must step up and do its part. We support the government's initial move to provide temporary resident permits to those who intended to return to the U.S. but can no longer do so because of the ban, but there is much more that Canada can and must do.

Today the NDP is calling for five specific measures. The first is to lift the 1,000 cap on privately sponsored refugee families, which, as we all know, was reached in a single month. That cap, especially at a time when the United States has banned the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, is completely unacceptable and contrary to international laws enacted since the Second World War.

Indeed, Canadian citizens who want to help in some way should be able to do so.

There are Canadians who have worked with neighbours and raised tens of thousands of dollars and made plans as private sponsors to bring over Syrian refugees, but now because of the government's cap, they had to phone the Syrian families they had promised to bring over to tell them that they could no longer help them, not for lack of resources or lack of willingness to help, but because of an arbitrary, artificial cap of 1,000 applications which the government could remove today if it wanted to. It is unacceptable and it has to change. There are 2,248 innocent Syrian refugees who have been immediately and indefinitely stranded by Trump's ban. We have the capacity to help these people and we must.

Fast-tracking refugee claims is the second point. We must do so for those who had been accepted by the United States before the ban and those who were about to be accepted.

Canada should help those refugees who have been left behind because of the ban and put a system in place that ensures the rapid approval of claimants in Canada's refugee system, because the security requirements are quite similar.

We also need to work with the international community to address any weaknesses in the refugee resettlement process. Thousands of refugees will no longer be able to find asylum because of Donald Trump's anti-immigration and anti-Muslim order. Canada should work with its international partners and come up with a plan to increase the number of refugees welcomed here until that ban is lifted.

Those are the NDP's initial proposals. These measures could be taken immediately and could provide significant support to everyone affected by President Trump's executive order regarding immigration and travel. We can no longer assume that refugees in the United States will be given a fair process. We must do our part, lift the cap limiting refugees here, and work with the international community to help the many refugees left in the lurch by this ban.

Canada must get guarantees for people travelling to the United States, specifically, that they will be allowed to enter that country without any additional undue prejudice.

Again, we are urging the government to join us in condemning this ban and to take action to help the thousands of vulnerable people impacted by it. Instead, what have we received from the government? I was shocked today when I looked at the transcript of the new point man, the member of Parliament for Orléans, a former general, someone who has been around for a long time. For him to be seeking to find excuses is, for me, intolerable, especially when we know that he is supposed to represent the best of Canada in dealing with the U.S.

What did he have to say specifically when he was asked about this racist ban on Muslims? He said, “That’s up to the United States to—to actually decide for themselves. It’s within the legal remit of the president to issue executive orders.”

On CBC Radio's The Current this morning on whether Canada needs to change its own policies in light of the U.S. policy changes, the member for Orléans said, “An adage of keep calm and carry on, or another one is, you know, ice water in the veins, until such time as clarity is provided, either by us or by interaction with the Americans. I think that's the wisest course.” Really? Keep calm and carry on: is that the best the government has to offer?

I listened to the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North as he stood to justify the inaction of the Liberals by reading a tweet by the Prime Minister. Is that our foreign policy? Is that what Canada standing up for human rights on the world stage boils down to in this era with the Liberal government?

We on this side of the House are clear that we are against singling people out because of their religion, banning them because of their religion or their country of origin, edicts being sent out, so-called presidential orders, governing by decree. Like my colleague from Vancouver East who brought this debate forward, I never thought I would see that happen in my lifetime, but I do know what happens when dealing with someone with that type of fascist behaviour if we do not stand up to be counted.

The NDP will stand up to be counted. We are not afraid to call a spade a spade. It is time to say no to Donald Trump, to say yes to human rights, and for the Government of Canada to say no to these racist policies.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:25 p.m.

Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and ask him a very simple question.

In his speech, he mentioned that our Prime Minister delivered a pretty good speech on this issue. It was an inclusive speech that made it clear that Canada is a welcoming country.

However, in his speech, he often used words like “if” and “maybe”. He took for granted that the American government will do certain things. At this stage, are we not better off remaining positive and inclusive rather than assuming the future will be as bad as he suggests?

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation was listening to his colleague from Winnipeg North when he said that I complimented the so-called speech delivered by the Prime Minister on this issue. The Prime Minister did not actually speak to this issue.

When travelling abroad, he has plenty of wonderful things to say about human rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms have been guaranteed by the United Nations since the end of the Second World War. Every Canadian prime minister, regardless of political stripe, has had the extraordinary responsibility of representing a country with a long-standing democratic tradition and stating that we will stand up and fight for human rights.

All we got from his Prime Minister was a tweet. I would like to remind my dear colleague that the root word of “Twitter” is “twit”. I can assure him that Canadians expect better. Two thousand two hundred—

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order.

I encourage the member to avoid making unparliamentary remarks.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, I listened patiently as the leader of the New Democratic Party delivered his speech. At times, members cross the line. I would suggest that the leader of the New Democratic Party has crossed the line. All members are honourable, and I would ask him to withdraw his comments.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I invite the hon. member for Outremont to withdraw the word.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel BanEmergency Debate

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was answering my colleague. Earlier your colleague said that there would be no points of order, but I would be pleased to respond to both at once.

We are here this evening to debate an issue of utmost importance to the future of human rights around the world.

When one of the most important democracies adopts an executive order that bans—