Kate Young

[Accessible Canada Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, following through on that, I want to talk about common themes. We heard a number of stakeholders at the committee. There were common themes and we did listen. Many of the amendments that came from the NDP and Conservatives were very similar to amendments we put forward. I hope the member will agree we came to an understanding in a number of areas and put forward amendments that had teeth and really moved this legislation forward.

[Accessible Canada Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments on this very important bill. However, I have to take exception to what the hon. member was saying, because he is in fact misleading Canadians. He is saying that this bill has no teeth. It definitely has teeth. He is saying this bill has no timelines. It definitely has timelines. I think we need to underscore how important the amount of input from Canadians with disabilities has been, in order to get where we are today.

I want to say specifically that our government wants to hit the ground running when this bill passes. New regulations will be in place very quickly, within two years after the act comes into force. That means that we are going to start moving right away and that the regulations will be enacted. Once Bill C-81 receives royal assent, the Canadian accessibility standards organization would be up and running within one year.

Therefore, there are timelines and to say anything different is wrong. You cannot mislead Canadians to think that this does not have teeth. This is a step in the right direction. We know that people with disabilities are very happy with this bill, and we are very committed to making sure we follow through on this bill.

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the House. It is an important debate that we need to have. It will be a debate that will continue, I am sure.

What has been stated before, of course, is very true. Our government is committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitive trade of human organs in the strongest of terms.

Organ transplantation and donation is governed by a comprehensive legislative framework at both the federal and provincial and territorial levels, encompassing health and criminal law. The Criminal Code currently prohibits the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the donor. I think that last part, informed consent, is especially worth noting. That is in and of itself the most important part of any discussion about human organ donation.

Organ trafficking is a growing concern internationally. I appreciate the fact that this has been brought to the House to debate, but no known cases have occurred in Canada, and we hope it never happens.

In Canada, organ transplantation and donation is governed by, as I mentioned, a comprehensive legislative framework at both the federal and provincial and territorial levels. Health regulatory offences apply where organs are removed, transplanted outside the regulatory framework, while criminal laws apply where the organ donor did not consent or was coerced.

More specifically, provincial statutes prohibit the sale, purchase and dealing in any human tissues or organs outside this regulatory framework. These laws require the explicit consent of the donor or next of kin in the case of deceased donation. Federally, the safety of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation regulations, administered by Health Canada, prohibit transplant activities unless carried out by a registered establishment.

In Canada, we talk a lot about encouraging people to donate organs. It is an ongoing issue. I think probably everyone in this House knows someone who has been on that waiting list, sometimes waiting months for an organ transplant. We have to encourage Canadians to make sure that they sign up so that they can become organ donors, if in fact the situation arises where they would be considered a donor.

That is what we need to address in this House. We need to encourage education so that people understand the differences between consent of an organ donation and what is actually going on around the world that I agree is abhorrent in nature.

The Criminal Code also includes a number of general and specific offences that can respond to the conduct targeted by Bill S-240. In 2005, the Criminal Code was amended to enact a number of specific offences that comprehensively address all aspects of trafficking in persons. For those who want to look it up, it is sections 279.01 to 279.04.

The main trafficking in persons offence prohibits engaging in specified types of conduct in order to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of another person. Exploitation is defined broadly, and includes causing a person “by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.” “Coercion” and “consent” are the two main words in this discussion.

In addition, it is an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it was derived from trafficking in persons. The concept of material benefit is sufficiently broad to encompass the receipt of an organ in cases where the recipient knew the organ was obtained through deceit or any other form of coercion. It is terrible to think that people get so desperate in this world that they know the organ they are receiving has been taken from another human being without their consent or through coercion. That is the worst possible point of this bill that we must address.

Canada's human trafficking offences also apply extraterritorially and, therefore, can be used to prosecute in Canada those Canadians or permanent residents who commit human trafficking offences abroad. There are Canadians who travel abroad and knowingly go there in order to receive an organ from someone who was either paid or coerced. That has no place in our civilization.

In addition to the human trafficking offences, criminal offences of general application could also be used to respond to organ trafficking. Depending upon the facts of the case, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, uttering threats, organized crime offences or extortion could all be used to address organ trafficking conduct involving coercion of the organ donor and all are punishable by significant penalties of imprisonment, as they should be. These provisions, however, do not have extraterritorial effect.

There are some real important issues that need to be discussed and I am certainly glad that my hon. colleague brought this forward. Trafficking in human organs is something that no one in the House would agree with. It needs to be debated, though, because there are laws that may conflict with this bill and we need to make sure we get it right. It is certainly something that, as a government, we are looking into. We need to address it and have the discussion both here in the House and possibly at committee stage.

We can all understand that some people take matters into their own hands and there have to be rules and regulations around trafficking in human organs to make sure people are not leaving Canada to get organs in this way. We also have to educate people in Canada to the fact that, yes, organ donation is a very positive thing to do, but people have to be able to consent and no coercion can be involved at all.

[Canada Post Corporation, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to creating a more inclusive, accessible and barrier-free Canada. That is why enhancing Canada Post's accessible delivery program is a key part of our government's renewed vision for the postal service.

I am pleased to rise to inform the House that this week marks the first meetings of the Canada Post accessibility advisory panel. This national advisory panel of experts and advocates for persons with disabilities and seniors will advise Canada Post on an enhanced accessible delivery program to make it easier for Canadians to access their mail and parcels.

The accessibility advisory panel will serve as a valuable forum for input and dialogue on the issue of accessibility. I thank the distinguished Canadians who have agreed to serve on the panel and help Canada Post continue to improve delivery for all Canadians.

[Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the second hour of debate on the motion introduced by my hon. colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. His personal story of his wife's battle with MS is truly gripping and we all take it very seriously.

This motion proposes that the House of Commons instruct the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA in short, to study the issue of episodic disabilities to ensure the people who live with these disabilities are adequately protected and that there is equity in government policy.

First, it is important to understand that a person can simultaneously live with both permanent and episodic disabilities. Every disability is different. What sets an episodic disability apart is that, unlike disabilities that may have more consistent and predictable impacts on daily living, an episodic disability is marked by fluctuating periods and degrees of illness and wellness. Episodic disabilities are often life-long and chronic conditions. It is difficult to predict when episodes of disability will occur, how severe they will be and how long they will last.

Because episodic disabilities can be unpredictable, people with these types of conditions may face particular barriers to their social and economic participation. For example, they face barriers to employment and they are often ineligible for benefits and services, including those provided by the Government of Canada. As a result, people with episodic disabilities may be vulnerable to experiencing income insecurity. Our government recognizes that current programs and policies for people with disabilities are generally based on an understanding of disability as a continuous state, rather than one that fluctuates over time. We also recognize that programs and policies do not always meet the specific needs of people with episodic disabilities, so we need to obtain a better understanding of the socio-demographic, economic and disability-related characteristics of Canadians who experience episodic disabilities in order to better meet their needs and eliminate the barriers they face to full participation.

Advancing the economic and social inclusion of people with episodic disabilities aligns with our government's commitment to ensuring a more accessible and inclusive Canada. On June 20, we tabled in Parliament Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. This proposed legislation would proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility in areas under federal jurisdiction. New requirements in priority areas such as employment, developed in co-operation with partners and Canadians with disabilities, would help to ensure that all Canadians can fully participate in their communities and workplaces.

As I said during the first hour of debate, Bill C-81 is inclusive of episodic disabilities. In defining a disability, Bill C-81 specifically recognizes impairments or functional limitations that are episodic in nature. With Bill C-81, we would transform how we think about accessibility and ensure that in working toward the realization of a barrier-free Canada, we are inclusive of all people with disabilities, including people with episodic disabilities. We know there is more we can do to advance the inclusion of Canadians with episodic disabilities, particularly with regard to improving their financial security.

Let us not forget that many supports and services for people with episodic disabilities fall primarily within the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments. Employers also play a key role in advancing the financial well-being of people with episodic disabilities, through the provision of flexible work arrangements as well as other accommodations and supports. We need to work together, then, to support and advance the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities.

The findings of a HUMA study could assist in identifying realistic solutions. They could also shed light on emerging ideas and best practices in advancing the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities.

Therefore, we support the motion of the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to give instruction to the HUMA committee to study the needs of persons with episodic disabilities. We support it because it works toward our government's aim to create a truly accessible Canada where all Canadians have an equal opportunity to succeed, have the same rights and obligations, and are equal participants in society.

Let me remind the House that our government has taken significant action to enhance federal programs in place to support people with disabilities. For example, the Canada Labour Code was amended to provide employees with the right to request flexible work arrangements, such as flexible start and finish times, and the ability to work from home. This could be beneficial to an employee with an episodic disability.

The Government of Canada is also committed to filling knowledge gaps around the experiences of people with episodic disabilities. The Statistics Canada 2017 Canadian survey on disability is the first national survey to contain questions aimed at identifying people with episodic disabilities. It will provide valuable information to be used by governments, disability organizations and other stakeholders. Results are expected to be released in the near future.

Our government also supports people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, through initiatives such as the labour market development agreements and the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Moreover, we have been working with the provinces and territories toward Canada's accession to the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

These measures, in addition to Bill C-81, will help our government lead the way to real improvements to inclusion and accessibility in Canada.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that our government supports the motion before us today. Given HUMA's busy agenda over the coming months, we propose that an amendment be made to the motion to allow more time for the completion of a comprehensive study. Instead of February 2019, we suggest that the committee be required to report its findings to the House of Commons by May 16, 2019.

This is an important topic, and we should give the HUMA committee the time it needs to get this right. Our government remains committed to upholding and safeguarding the rights of all people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, to enable them to reach their full potential.

[Violence Against Women and Girls, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, violence against women and girls is a terrible and tragic reality, and it is important to shine a light on this ongoing abuse.

This month marks the London Abused Women's Centre's ninth annual “Shine the Light” campaign. The London, Ontario, organization offers abused and sexually exploited women and girls counselling, advocacy and support in a safe setting. Its “Shine the Light” campaign aims to raise awareness of violence against women and girls by turning communities purple for the month of November.

Our government strongly supports gender equality and condemns any type of violence against women and girls. As Canadians, we need to do more to create a culture of non-violence and respect for women and girls. This month, let us stand in solidarity with victims, their families and loved ones and recognize their courage and survival.

[Asbestos, November 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada's activities in working to reduce Canadians' risk of exposure to asbestos is another example of our government demonstrating its leadership and vision.

We have taken a proactive and comprehensive approach, one that is founded in science and based on evidence. We have taken action by developing regulations to ban the manufacture, use, import and export of asbestos and products containing asbestos under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Evidence-based policy-making is important to the government and to Canadians. Examining the evidence and ensuring that operational and policy decisions are informed by the best possible scientific data are cornerstones of our government. Our actions on asbestos are comprehensive, coordinated and well researched, and will protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

[Asbestos, November 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon West regarding asbestos.

Protecting the health and safety of all Canadians is one of our government's foremost responsibilities and one that we are committed to upholding. The Government of Canada takes great precautions to manage and control the risks associated with asbestos in accordance with federal policy and legislative requirements from applicable acts and regulations for health and safety.

Our government has already taken proactive and concrete action to address this issue and to reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos. In 2016, my colleague, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement announced that the use of asbestos in new government construction and major renovation projects under its purview would be prohibited, and published an initial publicly available inventory of government-owned and leased buildings that contain asbestos.

Furthermore, in December 2016, my colleagues and I announced a number of measures as part of a whole-of-government approach to ban asbestos and asbestos-containing products in Canada by 2018. I am pleased to report that we have followed through on our promise to deliver on all commitments announced in the strategy.

For example, in June 2017, new federal workplace health and safety rules came into force that drastically limit the risk of people coming into contact with asbestos on the job. The Government of Canada's position regarding the listing of asbestos as a hazardous material under the Rotterdam convention was updated based on Canada's domestic ban.

The National Research Council and its partners have been reviewing all instances of asbestos under the national model building codes.

Health Canada is working to raise awareness of the health impacts of asbestos through social media and other communications products.

On October 17, 2018, Environment and Climate Change Canada, in collaboration with Health Canada, published regulations to prohibit the import, sale and use of asbestos, as well as the manufacture, import, sale and use of products containing asbestos with a limited number of exclusions. The new regulations and related amendments will take effect on December 30, 2018.

In closing, I thank the member opposite for her questions and for sharing the government's interest and concern with protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

[Brain Cancer, October 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today is the first-ever Brain Cancer Awareness Day in Canada.

While we have made significant progress and advancements in various forms of cancer treatment, there is still much left to be done. That is why our government is undertaking a series of measures to modernize our health care system so that we will be in a better position to provide greater access to new treatments for diseases like brain cancer.

With disease awareness comes hope and support for research. I would like to recognize the Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada, a national non-profit organization based in London, Ontario. This week they launched “Hats for Hope”, a nationwide brain cancer awareness campaign calling on all Canadians to show support for increased brain cancer research.

I extend my thoughts and support to all Canadians impacted by brain cancer. Together we can make a difference.

[Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, October 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and appreciate his coming forward and talking about his most personal story with his spouse, someone living with MS. The fact that more Canadians suffer from this dreadful disease than anyone else in the world is something we really have to take seriously. Episodic disorders like MS are very individualized to the person. My heart goes out to him and his family.

I want to talk about the present bill, Bill C-81, which is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities. The bill actually includes specific mention of episodic disabilities in its definition of disabilities to ensure consideration of the particular accessibility needs of Canadians with this type of disorder.

The member's motion calls for the committee to report to the House by February 2019. I wonder if the member would be flexible in his timeline. It is important to give the committee the time it needs to make sure that it hears all questions and answers about this very important issue.