Cheryl Hardcastle

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the path of destruction of the repulsive Daesh, or ISIL, needs no introduction. We have been very graphic in describing it here today.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in 2015 that the following atrocities were perpetuated by ISIL against the Yazidi community: the rape and abduction of women and girls as young as six and boys as young as eight forced into war as soldiers. These actions were directly targeted at the Yazidi people. As well, we all know very well the ISIL crimes that have also targeted Christians, Shia Muslims, and LGBTQ individuals.

For all intents and purposes, this is genocide. We have heard today how we are compelled to use this word in moral persuasion. I am doing so, and yet I remind my colleagues that this is a term that does, indeed, have its roots in legalese.

From my experience on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I have gained a deeper understanding that Canada has an imperative role as a leader in shaping international policy. Canada can count on its own allies among those who have called this genocide a genocide. Beyond this label, Canada has a distinct responsibility to act where clear evidence has presented itself. Therefore, please allow me to express my practical reservations about this motion.

First, I do not want to legitimize this group's actions on behalf of its demented imaginary state any further, but, at the same time, I wish to legitimize the persecution of targeted groups of humanity who have faced atrocities. I admit, I hope, there is some immeasurable value in these communities knowing that Canada recognizes their suffering and pledges to meaningful action.

Simply labelling this a genocide will not be enough. I comprehend that this is where our differences in the House must have consensus built around them in order for us to move forward. Canada wields great influence in the world, but our influence is most useful in complement with international co-operation. We should do more than to label this a genocide. We should focus our attention on the responsible way forward and refer this issue to the UN Security Council, maximizing Canada's ability to use its influence to assist those persecuted by ISIL. This must be our priority.

Additionally, I am disappointed the Conservative motion focuses only on the atrocious actions of ISIL. We in the NDP believe it is important to recognize all atrocities committed in the region, not just by ISIL but by Syrian President Assad's forces and opposition militias. We cannot forget that there are multiple actors committing war crimes in the region and the focus on ISIL is part of a complex regional issue of dysfunction and despair.

New Democrats believe that Canada has an important role to play in addressing the threat that ISIS poses to the global community and in alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict.

We have long argued that more stress needs to be put on crucial areas that perpetuate ISIL. Canada should focus on stopping the flow of arms, funds, and foreign fighters, including improving anti-radicalization efforts. It is imperative to move now to boost humanitarian aid in areas where there would be immediate life-saving impact. We will address radicalization by building winterized camps for refugees, with water, sanitation, hygiene, health, and education for the displaced. Support in areas of Canadian expertise is where we can do so much more work, combatting sexual violence, support for survivors, protecting minorities, and providing assistance to investigate and prosecute these alleged war crimes.

Canada should be providing considerable help to vulnerable populations in Iraq and Syria. This includes basic humanitarian support, but also long-term support for recovery such as the psychosocial support that has been mentioned earlier today, to help these groups return to their communities and rebuild. Along with the international community, Canada should assist in the development of long-term reconstruction for Iraq and Syria. It will take decades to rebuild.

Canada should be asking the UN Security Council to mandate international independent investigations and refer the issue to the proper court. Canada should provide immediate financing for these investigations and gathering of evidence. We need to maximize this area of our expertise. If using the terminology “genocide” is going to hold any weight in the future for something legalese, then we have to make sure that we have this evidence collected professionally and properly because that is what the International Criminal Court requires.

Naomi Kikoler is the deputy director for the Centre for the Prevention of Genocide and she stated at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum last November that there has been virtually no effort to systematically document the crimes that have been perpetrated, to preserve evidence, to secure and preserve forensic evidence, and to ensure that mass graves are being protected so that we can have successful prosecutions in the future.

This is one area where Canada can play a crucial role in supporting financially and intellectually with our expertise in sending experts to areas that have been liberated from the Islamic State. This is very crucial if we are to take seriously the term of genocide.

Also, in keeping with the emphasis of the Prime Minister's government on humanitarian assistance, there is a great deal more that can be done to help survivors of Islamic State crimes. Most notably, the women, children, and men who have been kidnapped and subsequently freed are released from Islamic State. They need considerable help when it comes to providing that psychosocial support to help them return to their communities and rebuild their own well-being.

One unresolved matter in which Canada can actively assist those persecuted by ISIS concerns the Yazidi young women who have been referenced here several times today. I recently met with Reverend Majed el-Shafie, who is the president of One Free World International, a human rights organization that advocates for religious minorities. One Free World International has put together a proposal that includes private sponsorships in order for young Yazidi women, 400 of them, to come with their families to Canada to flourish and to be that next generation of decision-makers and policy developers who will lead with a sense of power that comes from a sense of contentment in community and compassion, not fear and might.

We need to be able to not just care for these young people and foster and nurture their development so that they can take on the roles that we as esteemed members have in their place in the world, we have to recognize how imperative it is to do this now. Let us do it.

The NDP wholeheartedly supports this proposal and I was extremely disappointed to learn that it has been sitting on the Minister of Immigration's desk for months. There is a level of frustration here when we know that there is a real tangible impact we can have right now directly related to these atrocities that we are calling genocide now.

While opposition motions such as this carry the weight of a decision in the House of Commons, they have no binding effect on the executive branch. The recognition of genocide by the executive branch has in the past come through statements by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We know that in the legalese we have been talking about, genocide has been defined. I have heard it described here as the definition already in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Canada is a signatory to that genocide convention.

If the government were to recognize the actions of a sovereign state as genocide, then the consequences would and could include sanctions, which are really hard for us to apply to non-state actors, even though they consider themselves a state. This is where it is really problematic.

However, in the future, it will not be problematic for us to press for an International Criminal Court treatment of these same actors if we were to make sure that our expertise is used now to collect that evidence. This is because, as impactful and emotional as the anecdotal evidence is on YouTube with the beheadings, and some of the reporting that we have heard in the news, we cannot deny that there is an International Criminal Court.

Earlier today, I heard one of my colleagues on the other side call the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court dysfunctional and impotent. I have to say that if that really is the case, then we all need to think about the voluntary mechanism that is our United Nations, our world government. It is only going to be as strong and impactful as we, the member nations, let it be.

We are the sovereign state here. Let us not forget that. ISIL is not a sovereign state. There are actions that we can take so that we are making it impotent in the future, and not our own international body that we are trying to bring forward, a global community that sees security and peace for all. In order for us to be able to do that, we are going to have to recognize and face that this is only going to be as strong as we let it be.

Canada should be providing considerable help to vulnerable populations in Iraq and Syria as well. We know that basic humanitarian support not only helps communities flourish and develop strong sovereign states, but it is also what helps to alleviate and eliminate radicalization.

As a country, if we are going to use the word “genocide”, I embrace that. New Democrats continue to urge the government to boost humanitarian aid, and to prosecute alleged war crimes. In order to do that, we do have to accept our role in the international community. If all it takes to get the momentum going on very important initiatives for humanity is to install the use of the word “genocide”, I do not want to stand in the way of that.

Let us answer to the urgency of those affected by this genocide, and let us do it now.

[National Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias Act, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-233, an act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.

The New Democrats believe that a national strategy for dementia is long overdue. In fact, one should already be in place, and would be, had the current sponsor of this bill, the member for Niagara Falls, and his party not voted down a similar yet more comprehensive NDP bill that was tabled in the previous Parliament.

Dementia disease is a progressive degenerative disorder that attacks nerve cells in the brain, resulting in loss of memory, thinking, language skills, and behavioural changes. The disease forms lesions in the brain cells of patients, causing nerve connections to sever and nerve cells to die.

Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia, which is a general term used to describe a group of systems, such as loss of memory, language, motor skills, and other brain functions. Alzheimer's is not part of the normal process of aging, and currently has no cure.

The New Democrats ardently support the need for national leadership to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy across Canada to address Alzheimer's and other dementias. Our caucus unanimously supported former NDP MP Claude Gravelle's bill in May 2015 to create a national dementia strategy. Further, in election 2015, the NDP committed $40 million toward the implementation of a national Alzheimer's and dementia strategy.

Our party recognizes the crisis facing Canadian health care as our country's population ages, including the growing prevalence of dementia among the elderly. We believe immediate action must be taken to tackle these serious challenges on a comprehensive basis. Accordingly the New Democrats are concerned by the decision of the Liberal government to abandon its home care promise in budget 2016. By abandoning the necessary investments now, the Liberal government will only further exacerbate the costs and suffering down the line .

A national strategy for Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia must include mechanisms to ensure that staff have the necessary knowledge about the disease and the skills to deal with it. This means that people have to share information. The purpose of a national strategy is to share that information. People should not be working in isolation.

We have to find a way to ensure that everything we learn, everything that might be useful, such as best practices, is communicated to people struggling with the same problems. It is essential for people to have ways to talk to each other. The goal is not to step in for the provinces, but to ensure that communication channels remain open and people work together. Real collaboration needs to happen so people can share best practices. We have to ensure that nursing staff, doctors and other professionals, such as police and emergency responders, know and understand how to deal with dementia. They need to have the right skills and knowledge to work with people with dementia and provide them with quality care that is appropriate for their situation.

They are often forgotten, but the volunteers who work in this field need to be able to understand the reality of a person living with dementia. It is not always an easy thing to do. There are certain situations that are very difficult to go through on a daily basis, and it is hard to know how to intervene. The volunteers who work at these centres must have access to the knowledge and skills they need to properly understand the reality of the field they have chosen to work in.

As far as research is concerned, we have extraordinary Canadian researchers. However, we could also form international partnerships to further our knowledge. In my opinion, the quality of daily life for people with dementia is an essential area of research. Lately, a lot of research has been done on daily life, and we have learned how significant and deeply impactful this research can be.

In many places there has been a shift from a very medically-based approach to one focusing on the daily experience of dementia sufferers. The goal is for the transfer to long-term care to go as smoothly as possible. For that to happen, the person with dementia needs to be able to create reference points.

A lot of advances have been made because of these various approaches that focus on quality of life and ways of providing care and intervention. Not only is this helping those living with dementia to live much more happily, it is enabling families to be an integral part of the care process.

There is a lot to do. With the challenges this will present in the coming years, it is essential to share information in order for us to adopt an effective national strategy for dementia. According to the Alzheimer Society of Canada, as we heard earlier tonight, the disease and other dementias now directly affect 747,000 Canadian patients, and this number is expected to double to 1.4 million by 2031. Current dementia-related costs, both medical and indirect lost earnings, of $33 billion per year are expected to soar to $293 billion by 2040.

Sadly, the burden of caring for patients with dementia and Alzheimer's falls primarily on family members. In Canada, family caregivers spend 444 million unpaid hours per year caring for dementia patients, representing $11 billion in lost income and 227,760 lost full-time equivalent employees in the workforce. Providing millions of hours of unpaid caregiving has forced people to cut back or leave work altogether, which harms them and our economy. I want to talk about that this afternoon.

I learned from the Canadian Medical Association that 15% of scarce acute care beds are occupied by people who could be placed elsewhere, and half of them are dementia patients. Beyond those statistics, I have learned the real face of the problem. The real face of dementia is not just older people. I learned that 15% of dementia patients are under 60 years of age. I learned that we have a health care crisis and a social and economic crisis that we must address.

This is therefore an issue that cries out for leadership from Ottawa, working with the provinces and territories, which of course, have primary jurisdiction duties for health care delivery. I want the leadership from Ottawa to tackle five main elements: early diagnosis and prevention; research; a continuum of care for people and families in the home, the community, and institutions; real help for caregivers; and training for the dementia workforce.

Alzheimer's disease puts enormous emotional stress on millions of families in Canada and costs our health care system billions of dollars every year. Delaying the onset of Alzheimer's by two years could save our health care system $219 billion over a 30-year period. A national strategy for dementia may be able to make an astounding difference in advancing research to work toward achieving this goal, which would diminish this enormous economic hardship and subsequently, and most importantly, improve the lives of those affected Canadians.

The challenge caregivers face needs to be discussed. Over the years, I have known people who have been forced to take a leave of absence without pay to take care of a loved one suffering from dementia, sometimes for several years. In such situations, money gets tighter as families try to keep their loved ones in their homes for as long as possible. They often have to draw on savings that were meant for their own later years.

Canada needs a national strategy for dementia that comes from Ottawa but one that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction over health. One strategy tailored to the needs of each province or territory would be far better than 13 separate strategies implemented in isolation. We want a national strategy that goes beyond research to also help those now living with the disease, their caregivers, and the dementia workforce.

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is alarming to hear the issue of diafiltered milk being dismissed. In the big picture, we have a huge issue with the definition of this product. As another colleague has suggested, try and drink it. It is not milk. I do not care what percentage of a solution it is in the rhetoric of inaction right now. I would like to hear the member tell me the definition of diafiltered milk, because I do not believe that the government knows the crux of this very simple issue that could be fixed right now. Liberals turned their face on it when our hon. member brought a very simple solution forward. They should recognize their conflict in the definition.

What is the definition of diafiltered milk?

[World Eating Disorders Action Day, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 2, is the first ever World Eating Disorders Action Day.

I voice sympathy for those we have lost to eating disorders and our compassion and encouragement for those battling an eating disorder, and for their families.

About 80% of people with eating disorders are girls or women. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, yet full recovery is possible.

In Canada, organizations such as Windsor's Bulimia Anorexia Nervosa Association work hard to advance awareness, research, and treatment of this misunderstood illness. The Government of Canada should work with them, allocate more funding for research, and work with provinces and territories to establish a national strategy for the elimination of these eating disorders.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very intriguing question. I believe these comprehensive conversations need to take place in that provincial jurisdiction, that provincial arena. However, up until now we have not been able to have those meaningful discussions because this was something in the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court has addressed that.

Now no one is vilified when they talk about it at a provincial level. They can actually make some comprehensive arrangements and people can be acknowledged in a safe environment professionally as they address this complex issue.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments because I am one of those people who does champion not just palliative care but recommitting this country to universal health care access. We have all heard through assisted dying many stories from our constituents, who are very disconcerted. It is really scary for ordinary Canadians to read the text of a bill that could be passed tonight, and then to have almost platitudes, very ambiguous comforts about palliative care. That is where the problem is.

I do agree that it is very important, and I think maybe the hon. member misses my point that it should have been front-loaded. Those details should have come first, and then present the text for Bill C-14. That makes it that much easier for people to be able to accept. I know as recently as last week, I heard people who are heartbroken saying, “My father was in the hospital hallway for nine days before he passed away. What are you going to do about that? I don't want to hear any more about Bill C-14. What are you going to do about that?” My heart breaks.

It is not just that my heart breaks. I know now I have to show some federal leadership like all of us here. That needs to come first. It would be very easy for the current governing party to stand up with some real hard-core statements, not these ambiguous things that are meant to placate us and just sort of distract us from the issue.

Where is this money? Recommit to the Canada health accord. Enforce the Canada Health Act when it comes to home care. You could make three bold statements right now that would change the whole atmosphere of this. That has been missed and that is what is highly frustrating. When it comes to working with other jurisdictions, yes you have to take federal leadership that is strong and true, and strong—

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, Bill C-14 now goes to third reading, which gives the Senate two days to consider it before the June 6 deadline.

While I acknowledge the government's expressed desire to get the bill passed before the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline, I think most people agree that this is too important a piece of legislation to rush, especially considering that in its present form it is not likely to pass constitutional muster. On this, I second NDP justice critic, the member for Victoria, when he said, “I cannot accept passing a bill that I know to be unconstitutional”.

The key flaw of Bill C-14 is the end-of-life requirement of a reasonably foreseeable natural death. This is the part that conflicts with the Supreme Court, which did not require terminality or end of life, and therefore, according to the Carter decision, infringes on the charter rights of all those who have a grievous and irremediable condition that causes them intolerable suffering but who are not dying as a result.

The Canadian and Quebec bar associations, various other legal experts, and now the Alberta Court of Appeal, has said that this requirement conflicts with the Supreme Court. Medical groups do not like it either. The body that represents every provincial medical regulator has come out against the bill as being too vague for doctors to follow.

The NDP put forward a number of amendments that would have improved the bill tremendously. Had they not been rejected, the bill would likely have had a better shot at making it through the Senate.

We suggested removing the controversial end-of-life requirement, which is almost certainly unconstitutional, and replacing it with the exact words that the Supreme Court used in its decision. However, the Liberals rejected that.

Of more than 100 amendments moved, just 16 were accepted, and they were mostly minor technical clarifications. However, the NDP did manage to secure agreement on two amendments that were introduced and adopted unanimously, and that was clarifying conscience objection rights and adding a stronger commitment to palliative care.

As criticism grows against the bill, the government increasingly falls back on the excuse of a deadline imposed on us by the Supreme Court, which is not exactly true. The court said that it would give federal and provincial governments a year to put in place more complex regulatory regimes should they choose. On June 6, an exemption is opened in two Criminal Code offences for patients and physicians acting within the guidelines that the court set out in the Carter decision.

There is not a vacuum, and to be blunt, murder will not become legal, nor will medical aid in dying return to being illegal without a federal law in place.

Over the past year, every provincial medical regulator has developed guidelines for medical aid in dying that physicians must follow. These safeguards are very close to the safeguards proposed in Bill C-14. Federal leadership is necessary to ensure that access is equitable across Canada and to prevent a patchwork, but it is not strictly necessary to ensure basic access right now. Therefore, this final push to get the bill through the House is most unfortunate, and it is not the outcome we had hoped for.

The NDP worked long days in good faith with other parties, but it is better than passing a flawed bill, defying the Supreme Court, and infringing on the charter rights of suffering Canadians, which prompted this legislative response in the first place. For us, this is not a partisan issue. We have collaborated with all parties from the start on this and will continue that constructive approach, especially when it comes to championing the causes for our health care and palliative care.

We had a chance to get this bill right, but the government does not seem interested in listening at this point. It is important here to step back and reflect on how we got to where we are now.

In February 2015, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling established the charter-protected right of competent adult Canadians experiencing enduring and intolerable suffering as a result of grievous and irremediable medical conditions, including a disease, disability, or illness, to access medical assistance in dying. In February 2015, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Carter v. Canada that Canadians who are suffering intolerably because of a grievous and irremediable medical condition have a charter-protected right to access medical assistance in dying.

The effect of the ruling was suspended until June 6, 2016. The reports of an interprovincial task force and a federal expert panel, as well as a wide array of witness testimony, were considered by a joint special committee of Parliament, resulting in 21 recommendations on a legislative response to Carter.

We succeeded in adding major actionable recommendations on palliative care to that report. This issue of palliative care is what, for myself, goes directly to what I object to most about Bill C-14 in its current state.

Should the government rush into a bill like Bill C-14 without also having a plan to shore up and extend palliative care? The answer is, of course, most emphatically no, it should not.

As noted in the recent report by the Canadian Cancer Society, “Right to Care: Palliative care for all Canadians”, there are gaps in palliative care across the country. As my colleague mentioned in her speech, it is very heart-wrenching to know some of the stats and facts about what is actually available right now in palliative care for Canadians.

It is an epic fail for the government to be putting forward a bill while at the same time ignoring the real tangible details that we need to give us confidence as we move forward in a future with medical-assisted dying. That was so insensitive.

About 45% of cancer patients die in acute care hospitals, even though most Canadians prefer to die at home. Not only are acute care settings more costly than dedicated palliative care, they are also not equipped to provide the most appropriate care to palliative care patients and their families.

Palliative care can increase the efficient use of our public health care dollars, but increased care outside of a hospital setting can place undue financial hardship on family caregivers. Health care costs tend to increase substantially in the months and weeks before death, due to increasing frailty and dependence on health care services.

We believe that the government should take a lead in providing appropriate funding for palliative care. Improving palliative care in all settings, including outside the hospital, should result in a more efficient use of health care dollars.

However, there will be upfront costs to facilitate change. Federal, provincial, and territorial governments should work together to establish a financing plan, and create a national palliative care transition fund to ensure the changes needed to improve palliative care in Canada can take place.

When I look at the latest version of Bill C-14, it states that:

...it commits to working with provinces, territories and civil society to facilitate access to palliative and end-of-life care, care and services for individuals living with Alzheimer’s and dementia, appropriate mental health supports and services and culturally and spiritually appropriate end-of-life care for Indigenous patients.

Now, it is all well and good, but precise commitments need to be made, and this bill is quite vague.

The only other time palliative care is mentioned in the bill is:

....this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.

On the fifth year? To me, this seems to be way too far in the future. Canadians of all political persuasions and faiths, indeed, Canadians of goodwill everywhere deserve something more definite and concrete than a promise to review palliative care within five years.

This is all the more disappointing, given that the government could have addressed this issue in its recent first budget as it knew that we would soon be debating Bill C-14. However, as we know, not a single dollar was earmarked for palliative care measures. We should have fortified health care, palliative care, home care before we crafted Bill C-14. It would have alleviated our anxiety on what the future holds.

[Foreign Affairs, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Salim Alaradi's nightmare continues. In 2014, he was falsely charged and unjustly imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates on false charges. The charges were dropped in March, and yesterday, after almost two years in prison, he was acquitted of any wrongdoing. Yet today, he continues to be detained without reason.

Mr. Alaradi's family still waits anxiously for him to return home. What is the government doing to secure the immediate release of Salim Alaradi?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to expand on the issue of amendments being addressed. Would he agree that no opposition amendments were accepted that were to the core provisions of the bill and that they were mostly minor or technical clarifications in nature?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about some of the concepts. I am very concerned with the idea of this being a balanced approach, that in this case balance is a logical fallacy here because an evidence-based approach has been ignored so far. I do not understand how that can be compromised in this kind of a profound situation with a bill dealing with something as serious as medically assisted dying.

Is the member at all concerned that there has been no independent legal analysis sought with regard to adherence to the charter? There has not been any. Is that a concern at all in this so-called balanced approach?