Julie Dabrusin

[Automated External Defibrillators, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everyone in this place a happy new year. It is great to be back. I am happy to be here today to participate in the debate on the motion before us, introduced by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska. It is important to begin our new year thinking about issues of health and how we can look out for one another.

The motion calls on us to do two things: equip all RCMP vehicles with automated external defibrillators, or as we call them, AEDs; and ask the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to conduct a study to determine the availability of AEDs in first responder vehicles across Canada and make recommendations to the House in that regard, while respecting the jurisdiction of other levels or orders of government.

Obviously, the intent of the motion is good. It seeks to make positive change to improve public health, and I intend to support it.

AEDs are a valuable public health tool. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada estimates that 40,000 Canadians suffer from cardiac arrest each year, one person every 13 minutes. According to the City of Toronto's website, more than 2,500 people in the city suffer cardiac arrest in that city each year. In each of these instances, early access to a defibrillator can save a life.

Early exposure to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which includes the use of AEDs, is critical for survival. Employing these actions one to three minutes after cardiac arrest can increase the chance of survival significantly. That is why their widespread public availability is so strongly advocated, and it is why it is important that front-line responders be authorized and trained to use them to help people in cardiac arrest.

There is no question that accessibility to and use of AEDs is an important public health issue. I am pleased that the motion calls for a study of this matter. I think that the study should come first so that we can ensure that we understand how to best deploy these devices, and in collaboration with provincial, territorial, and municipal partners, make sure that they are available in the best places so that we can save people's lives.

I would like to know, if we are going to buy a whole bunch of these defibrillators, whether police vehicles are the best place to put them, or would we save more lives by putting them in public places, such as malls, office buildings, and community centres?

In the community of Toronto--Danforth, which I represent, we have defibrillators in a wide range of places. We have them in all of our subway stations and at many of our parks, such as Dieppe Park, Monarch Park, Greenwood Park, Riverdale Park, and Withrow Park. We have them in community centres, such as S.H. Armstrong, Frankland, Matty Eckler, and Jimmie Simpson. We also have them in several schools.

An article published in the Toronto Star about a year ago referred to research done by two U of T researchers, Timothy Chan and Christopher Sun, that identified a top-ten list of prime locations for AEDs. It was interesting, because they are not the kinds of places one might normally think of top of mind. Their list included coffee shops, ATMs, and Green P parking lots in the city of Toronto. The research considered each of these locations, mainly because of the location of cardiac arrests but also because they needed to be somewhere people could locate them and access them quickly. Where would people know where to look quickly if they were trying to find one in an emergency? Just this morning I was searching on the website trying to locate where the AEDs are in my community, and they were not that easy to find if I were in an emergency situation.

While in my community of Toronto-Danforth we seem to have defibrillators in many public locations, I am asking people around the community if they know where they are and if they know how to use them. That is another piece we need to look at. We need to know not only that they are there but how to use them.

The motion refers to training. It is important to not only have defibrillators accessible but to ensure that people know how to find them quickly and use them so that they can save lives.

We should be open to the possibility that what the study called for in part b of the motion may change the way we approach part a. It is important to consider the study and to make sure we are making the right decisions as we go forward in making sure we buy defibrillators and put them in the right places.

Let me touch briefly on the existing use and availability of defibrillators within the RCMP, as that is something that is referred to specifically in the motion. The use of AEDs is approved in several operational policing areas, including by the emergency medical response team, in the divisional fitness and lifestyle programs, and where provincial policing standards require that one be available.

With respect to their availability in RCMP vehicles, that varies by division. A few regions have equipped some of their police vehicles with AEDs, but the number generally remains in the single digits. It is a very low number. At the same time, it is important to note that all RCMP members are trained in the use of AEDs found in public areas as part of their standard first aid training, and that is something they must retake every three years.

As the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska referenced in his motion, a study on the availability of AEDs in first responder vehicles across Canada would need to be mindful of the jurisdiction of other governments. As the police service provider for all provinces and territories, other than Ontario and Quebec, as well as some 150 municipalities, the vast majority of RCMP vehicles used for contract police services are paid for in large part by contract jurisdictions. Any equipment purchased by the RCMP for operational and officer safety requirements to deliver these services or as a result of police standards set by the contract jurisdictions are cost-shared under police service agreements. Given those facts, it stands to reason that provinces, territories, and municipalities would be front and centre in the discussion on whether to procure and deploy AEDs in RCMP vehicles within their jurisdictions.

In the interest of making a well-informed decision, it would also be wise to include other sectors in our study, namely health. Equipping first responder vehicles with AEDs is primarily a public health measure, so it is important to involve health as part of this discussion. We should do our due diligence in examining the worthy public health objective the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska has in mind through inclusive and comprehensive discussions with all stakeholders.

In my opening, when I was talking about what we have in Toronto and in Toronto—Danforth, I touched on the issue of the different needs that may exist and how they might actually vary from place to place. As it stands, there is a lack of empirical evidence about potential gaps in first responder needs as they relate to AED accessibility. We know that most RCMP vehicles do not have AEDs, but we do not know whether from a public health perspective it would be more effective to put a defibrillator in every police car or to increase the number of defibrillators in Canadian communities and continue to ensure that police know where they are and how to use them.

I wholeheartedly support the second part of the motion. A thorough study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would go a long way in informing the action proposed in Motion No. 124. It would give us a factual picture of the AED landscape in front-line vehicles across the country and their use and effectiveness, which would be a much-needed knowledge base. With that, the Government of Canada would be much better placed to develop new policies and standards and to understand the resource implications associated with the proposal to equip all RCMP vehicles with AEDs.

In summary, we strongly support the use of AEDs as an important life-saving tool. I am in favour of the proposal in the motion and the principles, and I look forward to the study it calls for. This is a wonderful way to start our session, thinking about how we can save lives and look out for one another across all of our communities.

[Hanukkah, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the nights are growing longer and the winter solstice is almost here, but tonight, many of our homes will be full of light as the Jewish community starts celebrating Hanukkah.

Lighting the candles on the menorah is one of my favourite holiday traditions, especially as I drag out my grandmother's old menorah that still plays Rock of Ages on its music box.

However, my favourite part of the holiday is food, and Hanukkah is the best because of that deep fried food, like latkes and doughnuts.

Every December, and only December, I get out my deep fryer and fry up some delicious food. When I put it away again on January 1, I am already looking forward to next Hanukkah.

As I begin my celebrations and get ready to make doughnuts, I ask everyone here for some help. Please send me their best doughnut recipes. They can send them on Facebook or Instagram, but for the next week I will be at my deep fryer, making doughnuts.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated hearing the rundown and commentary about the bill, yet clearly what keeps on being flagged as I am listening to this conversation is that there is a need for greater access to information, a need to open things up. The current system clearly needed to be worked on and this is what we are doing. I see a bill before the House that addresses the very types of concerns put forth.

The fact is it is wonderful to push back and say here are all these problems, but there were some constructive changes made at committee and perhaps the member having a role on the committee would like to speak to the amendments that were made at committee to make the bill better.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was listening with interest to the presentation across the way and heard a lot of criticism of how the system is currently functioning. The member said it is slow and people are not getting the information they want. As far as I know, the Access to Information Act has not been updated in 34 years. She and members of her party had an opportunity to update that legislation, taking into account all of the changes that have been happening with the Internet and the like.

Does the member not think it was a priority to deal with that so we would not have to wait? Clearly, she feels that the current situation is unacceptable and that change is needed, which is exactly what we are doing.

[Cannabis Act, November 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, back when there were laws banning alcohol, organized crime got into the business of selling it. Once alcohol became legal and available to anyone who was of age, organized crime got out of the business. In our experience, that is because legalizing alcohol caused the market to dry up.

Legalizing cannabis will therefore have a positive effect. This has been confirmed by experts, and police officers and stakeholders working in this field agree.

[Cannabis Act, November 21st, 2017]

I understand the concern the member has raised, Mr. Speaker, and we need to think about that.

Right now, cannabis remains illegal and it is not helpful at this moment to get into that conversation because it creates extra confusion. We need to make it clear that cannabis remains illegal now. This is a conversation we will need to think about more carefully in the time to come.

[Cannabis Act, November 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, not every house will have four plants in it, although that is the number of plants people will be entitled to. That being said, there is alcohol in many households, but that does not mean children drink all the time. Parents need to manage their households appropriately.

What we are doing here is creating a system in which cannabis will be legal, but with rules to keep it out of the hands of children. Even children younger than 13 are already using cannabis, so it is not like children do not have access to it. The only difference is that right now they get it from drug dealers. In my opinion, that is much more dangerous.

[Cannabis Act, November 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-45 concerning the legalization of cannabis. This issue is important to people in my community. I have heard from many constituents about their interests, desires, and concerns related to the legalization of cannabis. I have heard from many people who are in favour of legalization. They would like this bill to become law as quickly as possible. They are in favour because they themselves consume cannabis or are concerned about the negative effects of maintaining the criminalization of cannabis in our communities.

I have also heard from many people who are not necessarily opposed to legalization, but they have concerns. I hope to address these concerns today. I understand their concerns about using cannabis. I am a mother and recognize the concerns raised in that respect. As I say that, I can imagine my kids rolling their eyes at home. As a parent, I worry about my children, too. I understand they will make mistakes, but the legalization of cannabis is not one of my top concerns for my children going forward. I also believe that through the legalization and regulation of cannabis, concerns about cannabis consumption by youth or people operating vehicles can be addressed.

In many parts of my community, a spring walk through the park will bring the smell of lilacs and pot. I do not say this to make light of cannabis use, but simply to point out that it is very common in my community and very common in a situation where it remains illegal. It is very clear, based on a walk down my streets but also on statistics, that the criminalization of cannabis is not keeping it out of the hands of people in our communities, adults or youth.

I understand that the statistics are that 21% of youth have used marijuana and 30% of young adults use it. Those are high numbers. If the goal is to keep people from trying marijuana or using it, the approach of criminalization has not worked. As has been stated in this place many times, but it bears repeating, the World Health Organization found in 2009-10 that the number of Canadians under 15 who had tried cannabis was at a higher rate than for any other country studied. As well, in a 2013-14 study by the WHO, Canada remained in the top five countries of 15-year-olds and was number one for cannabis use among children 13 years of age or younger. Clearly, if a person is concerned about youth access to cannabis, the current system is not working.

Here is the crux of the matter: the threat of a criminal record is not deterring youth from consuming cannabis. They are still doing it. However, once they have a criminal record, this can impact their future opportunities. It can close doors, and to what end? Under the new legislation, as with alcohol, there will be regulations to prohibit the purchase and use of cannabis by youth, but as with alcohol, we will not be threatening them with a criminal record. The criminal record brought only negative consequences without achieving its purported goal, which was to deter use.

Finally, we want to continue to collaborate with the provinces and territories to make sure that the public education campaign can also be done collaboratively and that we all have access to the same information.

Another point is on the nuts and bolts of working with youth. It is harder to have conversations and convey information about something that is hidden. Our government has announced $46 million for a public education program to accompany the legalization of marijuana. Having an open conversation is much more effective. Health Canada has published detailed information on the health risks of cannabis use on its website, and I encourage all Canadians to review it. It is there to be found.

As we talk about youth, I am also concerned about the fact that people who are consuming marijuana are exposing themselves to risks that go beyond health issues related to consumption. For example, there is no way to trace source or ensure the quality of the marijuana they purchase. We saw situations during the prohibition of alcohol where people consumed alcohol that had impurities. It was somehow made in a way that was not safe and would make people sick. Under our current legalized and regulated system for alcohol, we rarely hear of such incidents.

In the same way, in the legalized market, we have more controls over the safety of production and the safety of the method of sale. Personally, I would rather see people going to a store that is regulated to purchase their cannabis than to a drug dealer.

The model of decriminalization fails to address consumer safety. That is not the other option here. The model of decriminalization has and maintains a lot of the harms associated with the prohibition of cannabis use. Decriminalization does not address the concerns raised by my constituents, and it leaves us with a grey zone. It leaves us with a market that remains in the hands of organized crime.

I would like to share some statements made by the Centre for Addition and Mental Health in Toronto from its cannabis policy framework. It states:

Under decriminalization, cannabis remains unregulated, meaning that users know little or nothing about its potency or quality.

As long as cannabis use is illegal, it is difficult for health care or education professionals to effectively address and help prevent problematic use. The law enforcement focus of prohibition drives cannabis users away from prevention, risk reduction and treatment services.

Decriminalization may encourage commercialization of cannabis production and distribution – without giving government additional regulatory tools. Those activities remain under the control of criminal elements, and for the most part users must still obtain cannabis in the illicit market where they may be exposed to other drugs and to criminal activity.

Our government is proposing a system that allows for regulatory control of production, distribution, and sale. Along with the experts at CAMH, I support our government position of legalizing and restricting access, to allow opportunity to regulate cannabis and mitigate the risks.

Our government has committed up to $161 million for training front-line officers on how to recognize signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving. Whether legal or not, drug-impaired driving is happening in our communities.

In 2008, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police unanimously urged the government of the day to make resources available for the training of drug recognition experts and for all officers in field sobriety testing. That plea resulted in no action from the government. In 2013, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police asked the government to make available oral fluid testing technology, and no action was taken by the former Conservative government.

Our government is listening to the concerns of law enforcement agencies and providing the training, resources, access to technology, and legal authority to allow police across the country to provide them with what they need to keep our communities safe.

Currently, Canada's non-medical cannabis industry is entirely criminal, meaning that all non-medical cannabis being sold or purchased in our communities is helping to put approximately $7 billion annually into the pockets of organized crime. Upwards of $2 billion every year are spent trying to enforce our current ineffectual cannabis prohibition regime. Smart action is what is needed to drive down the black market for cannabis. With legalization and regulation, law enforcement resources can be used effectively and we can reduce the involvement of organized crime.

For too long, in my community and across the country, cannabis has been easily accessible among our youth who have been using it at record rates to the great profits of organized crime.

I support Bill C-45 to enact the cannabis act, to provide legal access to cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution, and sale.

[Firearms Act, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about Bill C-346. For those who have just joined us, Bill C-346 amends the Firearms Act to eliminate the expiration of firearms licences for those over the age of 18. It essentially makes licences valid for life, only requiring an update of information every 10 years, with a penalty of a licence suspension if the information is not updated.

The current legislation requires owners of firearms to renew their licence every five years. As part of the process, they must update the information relevant to their licence eligibility. I will discuss this in further detail, but at this point I would like to clearly state that this does not seem like an overly onerous requirement to balance against the requirement and responsibility of having a firearms licence.

I believe everyone in this place can agree that we want to keep firearms out of the hands of people who could be dangerous. Our safety and the safety of our communities is paramount. Canadians, including my constituents, want to live in a country with effective gun regulations.

Millions of Canadians lawfully and responsibly own firearms. Responsible firearms owners understand why it is important for firearms to be kept out of the wrong hands. As of Sunday, the Toronto police showed that 324 shootings had occurred in the city of Toronto this year, including 26 shootings in my community.

Canadians understand the importance of doing everything to combat gun crime and to keep communities safe. This includes keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals who can be dangerous. At the heart of this is the fact that whenever we talk about guns, we need to focus on responsible gun ownership and the safety of our communities.

Our government believes in an effective approach that prioritizes public safety while respecting law-abiding firearms owners. The fundamental principle of the Firearms Act is ensuring public safety. Bill C-346 disturbs the balance, and for that reason, I cannot support this bill.

First, I cannot support the primary premise of this bill, which appears to be that the current requirements that a firearms owner renew their licence every five years is too onerous. I talk all the time with my kids about privileges and responsibilities, that when we have certain privileges, we must accept the responsibilities that come along with those privileges. For example, many Canadians have the privilege of driving a car. We all accept that that this privilege comes with the responsibility of driving the cars responsibly, and of renewing licences to ensure that the driver continues to meet the eligibility requirements, including whether or not the driver still meets the eyesight requirements?

That is the idea. Under the current legislation, every five years a responsible firearms owner must renew their licence. They update the information relevant to their licence eligibility. A renewal notice is sent to licensees about 90 days prior to expiry, and they have a six-month grace period if, for some reason, the licence is not renewed within that timeline.

The licence renewal forms can be completed online, and the cost is $60 for five years. Does this sound too onerous a responsibility for maintaining and fulfilling the obligations of having the privilege of maintaining lawful firearms ownership? It does not to me.

What I cannot understand is the problem that the member across the way wants to address. I can understand that we would want to see people update their information and to keep their eligibility information current. I cannot accept that we would be promoting responsible firearm ownership, or keeping our communities safe, by taking away this renewal every five years.

We can all logically understand the principle behind license renewals. Circumstances change, and we can all understand that an individual might qualify for a firearms license at one point but in the future might not meet the requirements. Under the current regime the information collected every five years is critical to protecting the public. It is an invaluable tool for the chief firearms officers, who review the information to determine whether there are safety risks associated with allowing an individual continued lawful access to firearms.

One of the most critical parts of the current five-year licence information update is what information can be investigated under section 55 of the Firearms Act to determine whether an applicant is eligible to hold a licence. Subsection 55(1) states:

A chief firearms officer or the Registrar may require an applicant for a licence or authorization to submit such information, in addition to that included in the application, as may reasonably be regarded as relevant for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is eligible to hold the licence or authorization.

Subsection 55(2) states:

Without restricting the scope of the inquiries that may be made with respect to an application for a licence, a chief firearms officer may conduct an investigation of the applicant, which may consist of interviews with neighbours, community workers, social workers, individuals who work or live with the applicant, spouse or common-law partner, former spouse or former common-law partner, dependants or whomever in the opinion of the chief firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant is eligible under section 5 to hold a licence.

A firearms licence holder's personal situation, including mental health, employment, and marital status, can change numerous times in a 10-year period. By moving the requirement to update the chief firearms officer every 10 years, it will make it more difficult to determine all the factors in a person's changing life.

I also would like to address a specific part of the renewal eligibility requirements that should be emphasized and viewed through a gender-based analysis. One aspect of licence renewal eligibility concerns the owner's role in domestic violence. The key part of the five-year licence information update is that current or former partners of an individual may be contacted about concerns regarding extending the privilege of that person to acquire a firearm and to continue with his or her licence.

A 2011 Statistics Canada report on family violence in Canada found that from 2001 to 2009, in 53% of spousal murder-suicides, the cause of death was shooting. According to the RCMP 2015 Commissioner of Firearms report, in 2015, almost 400,000 new or renewed individual licenses were issued, and 688 applications were refused. Of these refusals, 40 were because of domestic violence.

I am proud that our government has adopted Canada's first gender-based violence strategy. Taking that into account, and the fact that women who leave an abusive spouse are at particular risk of violence, it seems reasonable to me that we have a system that allows for this factor to be reviewed every five years. I should add that domestic violence can be the basis for a licence to be revoked if an issue arises before the five-year renewal, but every five years, we have a chance to review.

I would add that 112 of the refusals were because of mental health, 203 refusals were because there was a concern that a person would be a danger to him or herself, and 132 refusals were because there was a concern that a person would be a danger to others. The refusals were just a handful of the new and renewed licences issued, as we would hope and expect. However, can we not all agree that it is better for us to remove the privilege that comes with a firearms licence from a person who is involved in domestic violence and is viewed as a threat to him or herself or as a danger to others? Is that not at the heart of public safety?

This is not just a question of renewing a licence every five or 10 years. Under this proposed legislation, if the licence is not updated at the 10-year timeline, it does not expire. It is not a 10-year licence that expires. At 10 years, the licence is suspended.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, laid out very clearly all the unanswered questions in Bill C-346 in respect of suspension. It is not a defined term in the legislation. What does a license suspension mean? Would people who have suspended licences be allowed to continue possessing firearms? Would they be allowed to purchase ammunition? Would they be allowed to buy, sell, or trade firearms? Can a suspended licence be confiscated? All this ambiguity in the Firearms Act is unacceptable, and it clearly does not prioritize public safety.

I understand that when we talk about all these matters in the House, there are different perspectives. I have heard them. I am not a gun owner, and I represent a community of fewer gun owners that many of my colleagues. I understand that. In my community, there are incidents of shootings that make the community feel unsafe. Two weeks ago, a man was shot a couple of blocks from my house, with a child in a vehicle. I spoke to constituents recently who have bullet holes and broken windows from a shooting at the beginning of the summer.

Our government will be implementing measures consistent with our platform and will ensure that criminals and individuals who pose a danger to themselves or the public are not able to obtain and use firearms.

I will not be supporting this bill. To me, it is not a heavy burden for gun owners to renew their licences every five years, as the current legislation requires.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the effectiveness and compassion of our immigration system makes Canada an example for the world, but we know that we can always do better, including when it comes to immigration detention. Our government has made great steps on this, which can be seen in the significant drop in the number of people detained under immigration laws in the last two years.

Can the minister please tell us what more the government is doing to ensure that immigration detention, especially for minors, is used as rarely as possible?