Julie Dabrusin

[Pride, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, for only the second time in Canada's history, we will raise the Pride flag on Parliament Hill.

Raising the flag to wave proudly on Parliament Hill is an important symbol of our commitment to ensuring Canada is safe, inclusive, and welcoming. With the passage of Bill C-16 from this place and Canada's leadership as the co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition, important steps are being taken to recognize this commitment.

With the reported persecution of the LGBTQ2 community in places such as Chechnya, celebrating Pride affirms our efforts to advance the rights of LGBTQ2 people around the world.

Across Canada, I invite all Canadians to join the Pride celebrations. I look forward to the Toronto Pride parade, Faith+Pride hosted by the MCC, the Trans March and the Dyke March, started by Lisa Hayes and Lesha Van Der Bij.

Pride is a time to celebrate, support, and remember.

[Salaries Act, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the comments by my colleague across the way about different women's issues and all of that. She focused on the importance of women's issues in this country. What I heard in earlier debate from across the way is that the position of Minister of Status of Women is a less important role. It is not as important and does not have the same responsibilities as other roles. As far as I understand, that is a role that covers 50% of our population.

I wonder what she has to say about the idea that the Minister of Status of Women is not as important a role as other roles in government.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I really appreciate the horticultural knowledge that is being shared at this moment in the House.

There have been a lot of folks talking about youth. I think one thing we can all agree on is that all members here have the best interests of youth in mind and we all want to make sure we are making the right decisions for youth in our country. However, having listened to the debate today, my question for the member opposite is this. Does she truly feel that the status quo is working?

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when looking at the specific needs that we are all talking about today regarding autism spectrum disorder, there are commonalities for other families as well who deal with other severe disabilities. I wonder whether my colleague sees options as to how we can serve all families, making sure we are not creating gaps between people who might have a very rare genetic disorder that is not being spoken about today. What does he see as potential openings and a framework to deal with those situations?

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the jurisdictional issues are very complex. That should not be something that stops us from taking further action, but it is something that we have to make sure we have properly considered going forward.

We must absolutely take action on this issue. It is something I hear about all the time from people in my community, how we support individuals and families with children who will not be able to support themselves and live independently. There are jurisdictional issues on which our government will have to have discussions with the provinces to find the proper solutions.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate and to what people were saying to try to get a sense of how we should be moving forward. However, when I look at the issues I have raised, I am concerned about making sure we are not leaving people behind when we are talking about a broader framework that would look after people and their caregivers in the long term, and to providing a future.

You just mentioned that you think it would have an impact beyond autism spectrum disorder. However, when we are looking at what we can provide as long-term supports, and looking to the future, I want to make sure that we consider the other people I have mentioned, such as aging parents and what happens to them as well. It might be that we have to keep discussing exactly how that looks, but what I will commit to and say is that I do not want it to be just a discussion. I really want to try to find some solutions.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about autism spectrum disorder, and in particular, about its impact on individuals and families in our communities.

I would like to begin by commending the great work of the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin when it comes to raising awareness about the needs of individuals affected by autism spectrum disorder.

While today is specific to autism spectrum disorder, I want to raise the fact that many people in our communities face challenges in seeking treatment and proper support for caregivers of loved ones with serious disabilities. I hear from many people at the door, in my office, and in various situations about their challenges.

My daughter has had the opportunity to volunteer as part of a reverse integration project at the Beverley School in Toronto. Some of the students at Beverley School have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Beverley School teaches students from JK to grade 8, and the philosophy of the school is a team approach to supporting the educational needs of students who have developmental and/or physical disabilities.

I mention this because spaces like the Beverley School are so important to younger students with autism spectrum disorder. One student, okay, my daughter, wrote the following about the school on its blog:

Beverley isn't a place of work nor a place where you have to go to take tests or to have to be forced to learn something you don't want to learn. You are surrounded by supportive and helpful friends, in gym class, H and E would walk in a circle holding hands and then we would try to throw the rainbow ball into the hoop and it turns out S is quite good at basketball. We had fun and that is, in my opinion what Beverley does best, making work that could be tiresome and changing it and making [it] more fun and comprehensible, something a lot of schools are missing and that Beverley excels at.

I have highlighted the Beverley School, because it is one example of the bright lights for children with disabilities and their families. Today I would like to focus on that aspect of today's motion. How can we support people with autism spectrum disorder and their families or caregivers?

I talked with a family in my community that includes two children with the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. The boys have been students at Beverley School. The challenges highlighted by their story are similar to what I have heard from many similarly situated families, not just with autism spectrum disorder but also with severe disabilities. The challenges are financial, and there is a need for caregiving assistance.

I would like to describe the concerns raised in the parents' own words:

Since [both boys] are physically able and indeed physically precocious boys, we are stretched to the absolute limit of our endurance to look after them. While we are fortunate enough to be able to afford in-home private support, this, in combination with our expenditures on camps and special programs, costs us about $50,000-$60,000 each year.... As we grow older, we are worn by our sons' disabilities. We worry about their future and our future.... [The boys] cannot be looked after in a home setting as they grow older without professional and motivated caregivers present for 16 hours each day (assuming that they are not in school). There are no publicly provided solutions for a problem like this. We are faced with group home care, which is largely unavailable, or a quite startling financial burden.... [The] publicly supported responses to this sort of disability long ago turned away from institutionalization. We cannot say that we disagree with this. The resulting vacuum, however, has left us in a completely untenable situation.

The reason I wanted to read that part of that family's testimony is that we need to give voice to some of the people who are directly impacted by the issues we are debating today. It is important for us to take into account their perspectives on the needs we must meet.

Today is about autism spectrum disorder, but the general question of supporting individuals with disabilities and their families or caregivers should also be part of this discussion. The issues raised by the person I quoted earlier are similar to many other disabilities as well.

Last week, I saw the play The Boy in the Moon at the Crow’s Theatre in my community. The play is based on Ian Brown’s book about raising his son, Walker, who has a rare genetic disorder. It pointed to some of the same challenges: parent or caregiver fatigue, financial concerns, wanting proper opportunities for a child, and concerns about a child's future as the parents or caregivers age.

I would like us to consider this universality when we consider such issues as family or caregiver supports where a child has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. I would like us to also consider how we can create a framework that includes all individuals with more severe disabilities and their families.

Today I am advocating for such an inclusive framework, a way to ensure that individuals with severe disabilities who will not be able to live independently, and their families, have proper supports.

I had the opportunity recently to hear from Sister Sue Mosteller, of the Sisters of St. Joseph, as part of a consultation on a national poverty reduction strategy. She provided a moving presentation on supporting people with disabilities and their families. She told the story of a family she was working with. Two sons had chromosome disorders. They required constant supervision, and the parents were exhausted. She flagged the need for parent respite and supporting these families.

A common theme that also arises is a concern about long-term care for individuals who will never be able to live independently. What will happen as parents age and cannot look after their adult children? On this point, I would like to tell members what I heard from someone in my community who wrote to me. He wrote:

Unlike children who grow up and become active members of the work force, a severely disabled person, like our son will never be able to do this. This results in increasing costs for our care of him, not decreasing costs like most families. Combine this with the fact that as he turns 18-21, much of the infrastructure we have relied on, disappears or changes.

Years ago, the system chose to migrate children of this ilk to the home from institutions. I have no doubt that this change has resulted in a better quality of life for the children and families. Frankly, I can't imagine it having been any other way, but the system has not provided enough support to those of us at home. My wife can't work as she has to care for our son, I am still taxed at 50%, even though our mandatory expenses can become debilitating.

...the system is awash with good intentions and poor outcomes.

The question today is how we move beyond good intentions to get to good outcomes. I have heard from many people today about the funding that has gone to science to find means of early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. We have heard about how the government is supporting initiatives to better understand multiple factors that can influence autism spectrum disorder, as well as about the projects that are being undertaken to understand autism's development over the course of a person's life.

All of this is important, and I am happy to see these steps being taken to support this research. However, today I would like us to also consider the issue of how to deal with the vacuum that has been pointed out by people in my community. What support are we providing to individuals with severe disabilities, specifically those people who will not be able to live independently, and what supports are we providing for their families? As we have moved away from institutionalization, which I applaud, how will we make sure that across our country, the future for these individuals is secure and that the families are supported?

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move beyond good intentions to good outcomes.

[Agnes Macphail, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this year our first female member of Parliament, Agnes Macphail, will be featured on the commemorative Canada 150 $10 bill.

Agnes Macphail was elected in 1921, and she was the only woman in this place until 1935, when she was joined by Martha Black. She was a feminist, an advocate for social justice, and she was the groundbreaker who paved the way for the 92 women who take their seats in this place. She once said, “I do not want to be an angel of any home; I want for myself what I want for other women, absolute equality. After that is secured then men and women can take turns being angels.” Perhaps a hint to her success lies in this quote of hers, “Never apologize, never explain. Just get the thing done and let them howl.”

I rise today to celebrate her role in our history as a famous East Yorker and to announce that the new East York Hall of Fame is open for nominations. I would urge people to make their nominations now.

[Petitions, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last night I had the honour in this place to speak in support of labelling genetically modified foods, and today I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of my constituents for labelling genetically modified foods.

Various polls consistently show that over 80% of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM foods, and the petitioners ask that the House of Commons establish mandatory labelling of all genetically modified foods. I thank Lilian Martins and the Big Carrot natural food market for advocacy on this issue, and Kate McMurray from the Big Carrot, who was here on the Hill last week to advocate.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in support of Bill C-291, which would introduce mandatory labelling for genetically modified food. I support sending the bill to committee after second reading where expert witness testimony can bring evidence as to how Canada can move forward in regard to providing information to Canadian consumers on genetically modified foods.

I support the labelling of genetically modified food as it provides transparency for Canadians. I have heard from many people in my community who would also like to see this type of labelling information. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the Big Carrot Natural Food Market, which is in my riding. It goes beyond selling food to providing information and workshops about organic foods, natural health products, and environmental issues. It has been a tremendous advocate on the issue of genetically modified organisms and labelling.

While I support the bill going to committee, I do see some issues with how it is written. I believe that improvements should be made to benefit consumers and producers. There has been a lot of discussion in this place about the pros and cons of genetically modified food. While there can be a very long and worthwhile debate on this issue, the truth is that the labelling debate does not require members in this place to make any such pronouncement.

Before genetically modified products are sold to Canadians, they undergo a health and safety assessment by Health Canada to determine whether they are safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts. In order to label genetically modified foods, we do not need to debate this scientific analysis.

As has been pointed out in debate earlier in this place, GMOs are different from one another and need to be examined separately by Health Canada to determine their health safety. What Canadian consumers are requesting is that their food be properly labelled.

People who want the labelling for genetically modified foods may have other concerns beyond health and safety. They may have environmental concerns and they may have concerns about seed ownership. Others may feel entirely fine about genetically modified food, but they want to know what is in their food regardless. Ultimately, labelling is about transparency. I welcome this transparency. Labelling allows us to know the composition of the food we purchase, and we can choose from there whether or not we want it. This is all about giving choice and informing the consumer.

From a legislative perspective, the new regulation-making authorities in Bill C-291 could be unnecessary since the Food and Drugs Act already contains a provision in paragraph 30(1)(b) that provides authority to create regulations that support the Food and Drugs Act's prohibition of false and misleading labelling of food. I say this because that could include genetically modified foods in relation to composition. Regulations can be more detailed. I point out that this is an additional route for us to consider. I would like the committee, should the bill go to committee after the vote at second reading, to consider this as well.

Bill C-291 responds to the concerns that consumers are not being provided proper information about the composition of their food. The Food and Drugs Act already has regulations that provide information to consumers in respect of other foods that have been deemed safe by Health Canada and yet require different labelling.

The example I would like to discuss is irradiated foods. I would like to refer to the regulations applying to irradiated foods because irradiation is a process that is reviewed and approved by Health Canada and yet labelling is required. The labelling regulations set out under the Food and Drugs Act are a good example of well-formed labelling regulations. I would suggest at committee that reference be made to these regulations as a way that we might want to amend or improve this legislation.

The labelling regulations for irradiated foods require the identification of wholly irradiated foods on the labels of prepackaged products or on signs accompanying bulk displays of irradiated food. While Health Canada is responsible for the regulations which specify which foods may be irradiated and the treatment levels permitted, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency administers the regulations for labelling irradiated foods. The regulations set out the words that can be used to let people know that the food is irradiated. The regulations set out a mandatory symbol to be used. There are regulations governing legibility and the location of the labelling.

When I look at the example of labelling irradiated foods, I see a model that could apply equally well to genetically modified foods. We have a precedent in Canada for labelling foods that Health Canada has determined to be safe, but for which further information is mandated to be available to Canadians. The irradiation regulations set out further considerations for us for GMO labelling. For example, in the case of irradiation, if an ingredient that is 10% or more of a food that is irradiated, it must be listed as irradiated on the label.

This raises a question for genetically modified foods. If a food contains only a percentage of genetically modified organisms, for example, only one ingredient out of 10, what then? We should consider that. That is an extra detail that will need to be looked at. This question would need to be looked at in more detail by the committee. Then we could consider how the regulations could probably work for labelling.

I have heard of additional situations which also require some thought and consideration. For example, if a cow is fed genetically modified feed, is there a requirement to label the milk or meat as containing genetically modified organisms? How would this be enforced and measured? These are important questions that the committee can investigate and provide recommendations on.

In the end, my hope is that we would have a comprehensive and thought-out labelling system for genetically modified foods. This is where we are lucky, because we have models from around the world to learn from. Labelling genetically modified foods is hardly a new idea. It is not novel. In fact, there are at least 64 countries around the world that require the labelling of genetically modified foods, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Brazil. The United States has also recently signed into law the national bioengineered food disclosure standard regarding the disclosure of genetically modified organisms. We can look to each of the models adopted by these many countries to see what is most appropriate and useful for Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health stated that Canada will be monitoring the U.S. government's labelling plans. To this I would add that we should look to the European Union to examine its approach. Considering this approach would be particularly timely, since we are looking to greater trade with the European Union following the Canada-European Union trade agreement.

The reasoning in support of labelling in the European Union is set out by the commission. It is to ensure clear labelling of GMOs placed on the market in order to enable consumers as well as professionals, such as farmers and food feed chain operators, to make an informed choice. It also says that traceability enables tracking GMOs and GM food or feed products at all stages of the supply chain. It goes on to say that traceability also makes labelling of all GMOs and GM food and feed products possible. It allows for close monitoring of potential effects on the environment and on health. Where necessary, it can allow the withdrawal of products if an unexpected risk to human health or to the environment is detected.

There is a precedent. There is some information about the European Union that we can build upon. It is important to recognize that GMO foods are allowed to be sold in the European Union; they are just labelled. They are deemed to be safe for consumption. They are tested. Therefore, labelling is not a ban; it is about providing information.

If our food processors and manufacturers intend to be exporting foods to jurisdictions such as the European Union, Japan, or the United States, they will need to take GMO labelling into account, so why not provide Canadians with the same information?

This is a good time for us to be making these changes. I support Bill C-291 and sending it to committee for further consideration.