Julie Dabrusin

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have wandered a little off topic when we talk about people's charter rights and what the Supreme Court of Canada has said.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on the committee that reviewed this legislation and one of the most important issues that people were concerned about was the work that happened in the last years of the previous government, when it put together legislation that did not take into account the need to respect people's rights. In fact, we have learned time and time again that when legislation is drafted that does not have the proper balance in taking into account people's rights, it becomes unenforceable. Those things cannot be applied properly and do not respect the rights that we enjoy and respect in our country. That is what makes our country the safe place of refuge that people come to, because we respect charter and civil rights. That is something I treasure and I make no excuses for supporting that.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I loved it when I read that clause myself. When the member references Omar Khadr and his settlement, I would hope that we as a government have learned from the mistakes of past governments and what led up to the Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The reason the settlement had to be paid was the past mistakes that violated a person's rights. In two of its decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada noted these violations, though I cannot remember the exact years of the decisions. We should not repeat those mistakes. We need to respect everyone's rights. Whether we like who they are or not, everyone's rights are charter rights that we must respect.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to rise in the House today for this debate. I will begin by fully endorsing the sentiment expressed by Nadia Murad, the Yazidi Nobel laureate quoted in the opposition motion. Nadia and many others like her were subjected to unspeakable brutality at the hands of Daesh. We all want her tormentors to be brought to justice. We all want their actions brought to light. We all want them to face the consequences of their crimes.

While most members of Daesh were not Canadian, some of them were. They are rightly our focus today. Bringing them to justice involves taking a clear-eyed, fact-based look at the issue of terrorist travellers.

There are approximately 190 people with a connection to Canada who have gone to join a terrorist group somewhere in the world and they remain outside of our borders. According to the “2017 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”, about 60 others have returned to Canada. That number has not changed much since 2015. Again, some of these people were involved with Daesh, while others were part of other terrorist groups.

If we compare Canada with many of our allies, the number is quite small. However, even one person can do a lot of damage, so it is a potential threat we must take very seriously.

I want to underline that taking it seriously involves being serious about it. Let us not pretend, for example, that prosecuting the activities committed in a war zone on the other side of the world is a simple thing. This is not CSI: Mosul. It is a significant challenge to get accurate and credible knowledge about who was in Iraq and Syria and what they did. There is a reason, for example, that even though our intelligence agencies were aware of some 60 people who had returned to Canada from terrorist involvement overseas, none of them were charged under the Harper government.

Today, four returnees have been charged. Two have been convicted and two cases remain before the courts.

Whenever possible, if information pertaining to criminal activity exists, and if that information can be expected to withstand the rigours of our criminal justice system, charges are laid. Investigating, building a case, conducting interviews and following leads take time and effort, and our law enforcement agencies are doing that work. In the meantime, our security agencies, including CSIS, the RCMP and many others, work to identify, investigate and respond to threats.

When an extremist returns, the person is carefully monitored by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies within the bounds of the law. Those agencies work around the clock all year, including with international partners. They keep extremely close tabs on returning extremists.

Surveillance is not the only tool they can use. They may also use, for example, peace bonds, public listings, the no-fly list and the revocation of passports.

The RCMP's National Security Joint Operations Centre works with all implicated departments and agencies to respond to high-risk travellers. The women and men of our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies are trained professionals and they do a remarkable job of keeping us safe.

At the same time, I am proud that our government is focusing on counter-radicalization. I was particularly concerned about radicalization locally when I witnessed a protest in my community at the Alexander the Great Parkette that seemed to be directing hate toward specific communities. This happened within the past couple of months. I believe that counter-radicalization is important for the continued safety and security of our communities across Canada.

The Conservatives like to make fun of counter-radicalization, but the fact is, as University of Waterloo expert Dr. Lorne Dawson has said, “All the G20 nations are convinced of the need to move into prevention programming because, in the long term, it's our best bet. You can't arrest your way out of this problem. It's too big and pervasive around the world.”

Unfortunately, Canada has a lot of catching up to do. According to Dr. Dawson, “The previous Conservative government had little or no interest in following up on this”. The new Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence helps communities build resilience against all forms of extremism, whether it is inspired by Daesh, white supremacism or any other ideology.

Just as an aside, when the Conservatives talk about fighting terrorism with poetry, they are referring to a program called Project Someone run out of Concordia University in Montreal. This program uses strategies, including the arts, to prevent youth from turning down the path of extremism. This program received $170,000 in funding from the Harper government.

To recap, we need police and prosecutors to bring charges whenever they can find the evidence to do so. We need our security and intelligence agencies, in keeping with their legal authorities, to monitor individuals who may pose a threat. We need to support prevention programs that help keep young Canadians from becoming radicalized in the first place. Finally, we need to support the survivors of extremism.

I am proud of the work our government has done to support and welcome refugees to our country. Under this government, over 40,000 Syrian refugees have arrived in Canada since November 4, 2015. Our government's commitment to bring 1,000 Yazidi women and girls and their families is well under way, something we have talked about today in this place.

This weekend, I attended an event in East York, which brought together members of local sponsorship groups which welcomed people seeking refuge to our country. I also met with one of the people they helped to welcome. It was beautiful to see how much we could help one another and learn from each other. My office worked with many of these private sponsorship groups, and it has been one of the most touching and important things we have done as a way to help and support our community.

A week and a half ago, I attended an event at the Metropolitan Community Church in my community, where we talked about the work this church is doing to support LGBTQ2 refugees coming to our country. It works with the Rainbow Railroad. It was an inspiring moment to talk about the work it is doing to help all these people who are seeking refuge in our country. It highlights our role as a country and what our government has taken on to help people who are escaping dangerous situations around the world.

Our government is working with community partners to ensure that when people come to our country from dangerous situations as refugees, they get the specialized support and treatment they need, including mental health services provided through the refugees health care program that had been cut by the Harper government. I am very glad we have been able to offer them safe haven, and I am so proud to be able to welcome them to our country.

Even though this motion contains some parts I do not agree with, I will vote for it as an act of solidarity with Nadia Murad, who is quoted in the preamble, and with all the Yazidi women and girls who have suffered at the hands of Daesh. I am sure, like most refugees, they will end up giving Canada more than Canada would ever hope to give them. That is certainly what we have seen in my community when we have welcomed refugees and have seen their commitment to make our country a better place. Certainly, we are better as a community for having welcomed them. I am happy we are giving them that support.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. The bill represents a landmark shift in how we approach corrections in Canada. It would end the practice of segregation in all federal institutions. It would implement a new correctional intervention model that would ensure that offenders are held to account while creating an environment conducive to rehabilitation in the interests of everyone's safety.

This is the right thing to do and the safe thing to do. It would keep correctional staff and volunteers safe. It would keep inmates safe, and ultimately it will keep communities safe. An effective corrections system with appropriate and targeted interventions to deal with difficult, challenging or dangerous situations within a secure environment is in everyone's best interests.

The reality is that almost all offenders will return to the community. If we lock them up and throw away the key, we are not providing them with the tools they require to safely reintegrate back into society. That is why Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units. These units would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in these challenging situations. They will be used to manage inmates who cannot be managed safely in the general population.

However, unlike segregation, inmates in SIUs will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs to address behaviours that led to their SIU placement. They will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell every day, double the current number of hours in the segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful human interaction every day, including through programs, interventions and services.

Currently in the segregation system, a full day can go by for an inmate with virtually no meaningful human interaction. Inmates in an SIU would also have daily visits from health care professionals, and because of the strong focus on intervention, inmates in an SIU would be able to continue their rehabilitative progress and work toward their correctional plan objectives. All of this would help to facilitate their safe return into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

The result would be better correctional outcomes, a reduced rate of violent incidents and more safety and security for inmates, staff, volunteers, institutions and ultimately, the public. The bill is a significant step forward for the Canadian correctional system and builds on the good work already under way. The government has provided almost $80 million over five years through budget 2017 and 2018 to better address the mental health needs of inmates. That includes $20.4 million in the last budget specifically for incarcerated women. There was also about $120 million in budget 2017 to support restorative justice approaches through the indigenous justice program and to help indigenous offenders safely reintegrate and find jobs after they have served their sentences.

All of this is about making Canadian communities safer through effective rehabilitation in a secure correctional environment. This is the right policy direction, in line with recent calls for this kind of transformation.

Two constitutional challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found the legislation governing administrative segregation contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are also pending class actions and human rights complaints related to both the use of segregation and the inadequacy of mental health care. Of particular importance in this regard, the bill would also strengthen health care governance. The bill would provide that corrections has the obligation to support health care professionals in their autonomy and clinical independence. It would also create the legal framework for patient advocacy services to ensure that inmates receive appropriate medical care.

Importantly, the bill would enshrine in law the requirement for Correctional Service Canada to consider systemic and background factors in all decision-making related to indigenous offenders. Addressing gaps in service for indigenous people and people with mental illness in the criminal justice system is a mandate commitment for both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, and the government is following through.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which finished a report last spring on indigenous people in the correctional system. During testimony for this report we heard from an individual by the name of Mr. Neal Freeland, who stated:

If you're native...If you're native in this country you know someone in your family is in prison. If you're native, That's a fact. If you're native, That's the reality of growing up in this country.

His testimony was very powerful.

Our committee recommended that the Correctional Service of Canada develop risk assessment tools that are more sensitive to indigenous reality and review its security classification assessment process.

In the government's response to this report, it confirmed that this recommendation was supported by a June 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ewert v. Canada that Correctional Service Canada must ensure that its use of tools with respect to indigenous offenders do not perpetuate discrimination or contribute to a disparity in correctional outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada will continue its work, informed by this decision, to ensure that it applies the assessment tool in a culturally responsible way for indigenous offenders.

The budget contribution, along with the work by the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada, and the Minister of Justice, is complemented by additional measures in the bill, including enshrining in law the requirement for CSC to consider systemic and background factors in all decision-making related to indigenous offenders.

On another note, at committee, I also worked on a report called the “Use of Ion Mobility Spectrometers by Correctional Service Canada”. The committee agreed to undertake a study of “the alarming rate of false positive results from ion mobility spectrometers with a view to finding more effective ways of preventing drugs from entering prisons, while encouraging the effective rehabilitation of prisoners.” In this regard, Anne Cattral from Mothers Offering Mutual Support told the committee:

There is now a clear disconnect between CSC policy, which recognizes the importance of building and maintaining family ties and community support for prisoners, and the continued reliance on an unreliable tool that fails to keep drugs out of prisons but does a very good job of deterring families from visiting... The effects on children of being denied a visit to a parent are also deeply distressing; this happened to my own grandson.

The bill would authorize the use of body scanners on people entering correctional institutions. A body scanner is similar to what is used by security personnel at airports. Body scanners provide a less invasive alternative to strip or body cavity searches and eliminate the issues with false positives that I heard about.

The bill would also better support the role of victims in the criminal justice system by allowing them enhanced access to audio recordings of parole hearings. That would be a vast improvement over the old system.

As I stated, this is about safety. It is about focused intervention to better serve the needs of vulnerable inmates. We need to improve the safety of our inmates, our corrections staff, our institutions and our communities. This bill would transform Canada's correctional system to meet those goals.

I am proud to stand behind this bill, and I encourage all members to join me in supporting this historic proposed legislation.

[World Food Day, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, much divides us in this place but there is one thing that unites us all. We all need healthy food to thrive. Today is World Food Day. It is a day when we can think about the food we eat, how it is produced and how we can ensure that everyone has access to the food they need.

The Danforth Multifaith Community will be holding a walk on October 21 in honour of the national “Chew On This!” anti-hunger campaign, which aims to educate Canadians about food and food security.

Last night, we debated the IPCC report in this place. One of the things the report highlighted was the impact our food choices and our food waste that we generated had on climate change.

Today, on World Food Day, we can all think about how we impact the environment with our food. We can thank a farmer for making that food and we can think about our world food sources and how we can protect them.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong, and in fact, I think it is exactly the right solution.

When we are looking at how to address this issue, creating incentives is one of the strongest solutions. No one has to agree with me or believe me; believe the people who won the Nobel Prize in economics. This is the best way to get there. We have people who have spent a lot of time studying this and working through it. It is a very strong solution. It is not the whole thing, but it is a strong step forward. In fact, the movement to push against it only pushes us further away from where we need to go.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the member about the fact that we need to scale up. That is something I tried to incorporate in my speech. I am happy that we have taken steps. I see the challenges, just from the debate we have had tonight, about how hard it is. I have seen my own province roll back. I do not want anyone to be left with the impression that what I am saying tonight is that we cannot and should not be doing more as well.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at in this IPCC report is, yes, that we need to do more. That is something the IPCC report sets out clearly, and yet we need to look at what we are doing and, in fact, the challenges we have in doing it.

One of the things I am really happy about, for example, is the phasing out of coal-fired plants. That is something we will do by 2030. I saw it in the province of Ontario. I used to look out my office window and see a line of smog on many days, and I could actually feel the health impacts. I love to run, but I could not go out for a run because of the smog. We got rid of the smog days.

The fact is that with pricing pollution, getting rid of coal-fired plants, investing in transit and clean technology, we are taking action, and we have to focus on that.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She has been such a leader on these issues, and I am really happy to have her here tonight participating in the debate with us. I would also like to begin by thanking the member for Beaches—East York for bringing forward this emergency motion. It is such an important issue and exactly the kind of one that I am so happy to see us all here in the House debating late into the evening. I am happy to have seconded this motion, because this is an issue that touches not only my own heart, but also is important to so many other people in my community and across our country.

It is interesting to have this at the end of our day here in the House because I started my day this morning by meeting with the Citizens' Climate Lobby. I have had a chance to talk with its members several times about their ideas for how to best address climate change. There have been really amazing citizen activists who have been coming out and speaking with us. They advocate in favour of a carbon fee and dividend system, and do tremendous work talking and educating people about how pollution pricing works. They were the ones who came to speak to me three years ago at my office in Toronto. I had conversations with them and am very grateful for their advocacy.

I say all of this on a happy note, yet tonight has been a night of highs and lows. I hope people are watching, or, if they are not watching tonight, that they take the opportunity to go back and see what has been happening. We have really seen the full gamut of the kinds of discussions we can have on this topic. I have heard people who have made really strong presentations about why it is so important that we take action, why we need to take action now, and the importance of the IPCC report in explaining the magnitude of this issue. At the same time, I have also seen a shocking dismissal of the need for action, which has been heartbreaking. We really need to take into account the fact that there have been people who, just moments ago, talked about how we really should not be taking action, asking why we would price pollution or do anything when other people across the globe are not. Well, there we go. If no one else is doing anything, then surely we should not be doing anything here, they argue. How can we ever explain that as a reason for not taking action? That part of the debate has been hard.

That is the challenge, because the report really set out the urgent need for action. This is not something we can keep debating for hours and hours and days and days and years on end. This is now a time for action. At the same time, in my own home province I have seen a premier step away from pricing pollution, step away from actions that were working and were not impairing the economy. Our economy was and is doing well in Ontario, but they have stepped away. It is something that has been very hard to debate. When I look at it, it shows me why we need to take action. It is really why Canada needs to take a leadership role.

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a UN body that assesses the science related to climate change. We heard some of the dire warnings in its report, but it assessed the impacts of an increase in temperature of 1.5°C or higher. We have talked about some of them, but for example, 80% of coral reefs would disappear as a result of a 1.5° increase. At 2°, the report finds that pretty much 99% of them would have gone. It is not just that coral reefs are lovely, but also that they support marine life. They are part of the whole ecosystem we depend upon.

Also, the report talked about extreme weather. This is something Canadians might want to note, as Canada is specifically mentioned as a region that would be impacted by increased heavy precipitation from an increase of even 1.5° C. When we look at that degree change having an impact, Canada is thus being singled out as one of the places where the impact would be felt. Even in Toronto, we have seen increased floods. We have seen increased weather events across our country.

This summer, I was in Calgary for a wedding, where the smoke was palpable and heavy from the wildfires in B.C. It was just such heavy smoke. It was something I have never witnessed before and being unable to see far. It was like a fog, but it was smoke in the air that we could smell. We see these kinds of events happening more frequently and they have a cost.

Here, people are talking about the money and cost of pricing pollution, but there is a cost to inaction. We cannot ignore that. It is the cost of responding to these types of extreme weather events. Individually, it results in increased insurance costs. It is not as it were free for us to sit back and do nothing. It is not free. Above all, we need to take that into account.

I want to start talking a bit about how that report provided some hope, because it also shows that if we take action we will reduce the intensity of global warming and allow the planet time to adapt; hence, there is a hopeful pattern set out in this report. As I was reading the report, which is devastating in parts, I was thinking of a movie that came out when I was a teenager called If You Love this Planet. It was about nuclear warfare. I remember being really quite scared and feeling devastated and not understanding what we could do. I needed to see that there was a plan of action, a way to move forward. There is a danger sometimes when we feel overwhelmed by fear that maybe it is better to do nothing because it is just too overwhelming. However, the report does set out some ideas as to how we can move forward.

I was talking with some people who run a group called Climate Conversations in Phin Park, which is part of the Pocket community. They were saying they are trying to bridge the divide in the kinds of difficult conversations that we have been having in the House, where maybe some people feel like they do not want to be feeling shame for doing certain things. They might feel like they are unhappy with the tone of the conversation and so they try to mediate those conversations. That is important because we do need to learn how to talk about this and be better at it. That has been made clear to me tonight.

One of the things they mention is that we have to make these emissions more costly. They do not talk about the individual costs, but that we have to put a price on emissions. In the past weeks, we just saw the Nobel prize going to economists who have singled out pricing pollution as a solution, as a proper way to deal with climate change. That was great to see. Here I have a Clean Prosperity report that shows exactly the same thing, that pricing pollution is a way of addressing climate change. At the same time, the report says that it will not cost individual families more. That is something we have been hearing about, but in fact there are reports that speak against that.

Pricing pollution internalizes the cost of what we do when we go out there, and that is important. It is a market solution and it is something that impacts our decisions to become more efficient. Who does not want to see us to be more efficient in our individual choices and in our business decisions? That is important. I am proud that our government is doing that and we are going to be pricing pollution.

I also want to talk about transit. We are investing in transit. It is something I advocate for because I ride my bike just about everywhere in my community. Active transportation is how we build connected, healthier, safer cities.

In addition to that is the need to invest in clean technology, creating job opportunities and building out. That is the stuff we are doing. Can we do more? Always. I actually believe that is the tone we are adopting, that we need to do more and need to take action. This IPCC report shows us that. I am proud of the measures we are taking and the fact that we are ready to have that brave conversation about taking those further steps. That is why this debate tonight is so important. We cannot allow the answer to be, no, we are not going to pay a price on pollution, but in fact are going to make our grandchildren pay that price because we will not do anything.