Pam Damoff

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's thoughtful question is an important one. We in the House legislate. We create the laws. We leave it to the courts to hear the cases and deliver the sentences.

In this case, this woman has been sent to prison for life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. It is important to recognize the separation between that and what we are able to do in the House.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is not able, nor should he be able, to intervene in individual cases that are in the corrections or justice system. That is why we have those systems in place, and I am very respectful of that and take our responsibility for what we do here very seriously. We need to respect that division between the various levels.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite offended that the member would in some way suggest that I do not find this crime to be heinous. What happened to young Tori was terrible. Having said that, Terri-Lynne McClintic went to trial. She was sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 25 years. Our system in Canada has courts that deliver sentences and a corrections system that upholds those sentences, which is what is happening now. The offender is in prison. She is in an indigenous corrections facility, which is secure. Justice is being served. It was served during the trial and it is served with the offender being held in a secure corrections facility today.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

First, nothing we say or do in the House will ever ease the pain of the family of Tori Stafford, the pain it goes through each and every day. As a mother, it is unimaginable to me what that family has been through. For Tori's dad, her family, friends and all who knew her, I want to acknowledge their suffering and extend my sympathies for their loss.

I am going to turn my remarks now to the motion before us today.

In our country, we rely on our courts to deliver sentences and the corrections system to supervise offenders, uphold public safety and rehabilitate those in their care. We do not have a vigilante system in Canada. We do not allow public opinion or political rhetoric to determine the penalties dealt to individual offenders, yet the opposition has been playing political games with our entire justice system this past week.

Let us be clear. There is no doubt that this offender should be in prison and there is no doubt she remains in prison. The facts of this case are well known and they shake us to the core. She was tried and sentenced to life without eligibility of parole for 25 years. She has been in the custody of Correctional Service Canada since her sentencing. Let me reiterate that she is still in prison. She continues to be supervised while incarcerated and will remain under supervision for the rest of her life.

Let us get the facts straight. Neither the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety nor the House has the ability to overturn the decision that is the subject of the opposition motion. To make the public believe that we do is irresponsible of the opposition, and I, for one, do not want to live in a country where our justice and corrections system rely on political rhetoric and public opinion for their decision-making processes.

Last week, I had the opportunity to hear from the new commissioner of corrections at the public safety committee. She stated several times that the Minister of Public Safety had asked her to review the circumstances surrounding this transfer decision, as well as the policies regarding transfers in general. She reiterated that she was moving forward with this review, and I look forward to its swift conclusion.

Over the course of the last week, I have been disappointed by the level of debate in this place. Last Wednesday, as the gruesome details of the crime were read into the record, I looked at the children in the gallery and wondered if they would ever look at this place as someplace they would like to return to someday. I somehow doubt it.

Even though the details were part of a court transcript, I do not believe it is necessary to read them out over and over again. We all agree that we are talking about a heinous crime, but I am doubtful that rehashing the gruesome details before the House will achieve any constructive end.

I want to applaud the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the NDP critic for public safety, who sits on the committee with me, for his thoughtful comments and for raising the level of debate in this place on this motion.

Both committees on which I sit, the status of women and public safety, tabled reports in June on the corrections system, and in particular on indigenous people in corrections. The public safety report was unanimous and called for additional funding for healing lodges. Members from all parties heard from witnesses and agreed that healing lodges were doing excellent work and should be expanded and supported. The Conservative members of the committee agreed with us that they played an integral role in our corrections system. The status of women committee also recommended additional funding for healing lodges and heard extensive testimony on their benefits.

How many on the opposition benches have actually visited a women's medium-security institute or a healing lodge? I have visited both. I suspect most people, including those in the House, expect prison to look like what they see on television, perhaps the latest episode of Orange is the New Black. They might be surprised to see what a medium security institute, like Grand Valley, actually looks like.

Let me be very clear. A healing lodge is still a secure corrections facility. Perhaps if it was called a women's indigenous corrections facility, we would not even be having this debate today. It is not a spa. It is not a summer camp. There are no luxury linens, as some on the other side of the House have portrayed. Prisoners must follow the rules if they want to stay there.

A healing lodge is different from what Canadians might expect a prison to look like, but these institutions are also very different with respect to outcomes for prisoners and, in turn, better for Canadians and for public safety in the long run.

Claire Carefoot, executive director of the Buffalo Sage Wellness House, an Edmonton healing lodge, has 29 years experience in corrections. She appeared before the public safety committee during our study. This weekend, with regard to this case, she stated:

It's not a get-out-of-jail-free [card]....We have the same kind of supervision and restrictions they have in a prison. Only we're doing it in a healing way....they have to accept responsibility for their offences, for their victims, and they have to accept responsibility for their own behaviour.

Our government knows that a corrections system focused on accountability rather than simple retribution is better for corrections outcomes and therefore better for the public safety of all Canadians.

We know that taking a rehabilitative approach is the best way to protect the public safety of Canadians. I think Canadians would agree that when people leave prison, we do not want them to commit a violent crime. It is not in the interest of public safety.

As we know, regardless of the length of their sentence, the vast majority of those incarcerated in our system will be released from prison at some point. They may very well move into our neighbourhoods. My question is this. What kind of person do we want released from prison at the end of his or her sentence living next door to us? I feel strongly that, regardless of our feelings toward individual cases, public safety is best served when we take steps to prevent violent recidivism.

I have met and gotten to know many of the men and women who work in the corrections system, from the commissioner and correctional investigator, regional managers, to the wardens, corrections officers, parole officers, aboriginal liaison officers, program officers, nurses and more. These people work incredibly hard, with very little recognition. They develop programs and plans for offenders and work day in and day out, in often challenging circumstances, in an effort to rehabilitate those in our corrections system. They are passionate about their work and often make a real difference in the lives of offenders so they can become productive and healthy members of society upon their release, which in turn protects public safety.

In the case before us, under the watch of the Conservative public safety minister in 2014, the offender's security classification was reduced to medium and she was transferred to a medium-security institute. She remains in a medium security institute today. What has changed is the political games being played out before us.

It comes down to what we want our justice system to do. Is it solely for punishment? I suspect the Conservatives will say yes. However, there is more to it. It is essential that our system also does everything within its power to rehabilitate the offender, not because we prioritize the well-being of the offender over the victim, because we do not, but because we know it is in the best interests of all Canadians and ultimately makes Canadians safer.

This case certainly tests our morality. It tests the core of our beliefs as Canadians. However, I have faith in our commissioner and the staff in corrections. I recognize that there will be decisions made that we do not like or ones in fact that we may find troubling. However, I also recognize that we must protect Canadians and ensure the highest standards of public safety are upheld.

The minister's mandate to the commissioner acknowledged that the Correctional Service Canada protects Canadian communities through appropriate custodial measures, effective rehabilitation and the safe reintegration of people serving a federal sentence. Our focus must be on the public safety of Canadians. I know the Minister of Public Safety and this government are seized with this as well. At the end of the day, we all want to protect Canadians and ensure justice is served.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, September 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our economy is booming and a key factor in this economic strength is our immigration program. Our government understands that a strong and smart immigration system supports our economy, creates Canadian jobs and fills labour market needs. In my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, we see workers and entrepreneurs like Ancilla Ho-Young who have immigrated to our country and are making positive contributions to our society. Can the minister expand on why immigration matters to Canada's economy?

[Canada Revenue Agency Act, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I just put on my “Be a Donor” ribbon and assume I am allowed to wear it in the House.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-316. I want to applaud the member for Calgary Confederation for all of his tireless efforts on improving organ donations across Canada, first in Alberta and now here in the House of Commons.

Organ donation rates across the country are, quite frankly, pathetic. Here in Ontario, more than 85% of residents are in favour of organ donation, but only one in three Ontario residents has registered his or her consent to donate. This trend is similar across the country. There is clearly a disconnect between people's wishes and their actions and, sadly, without an individual registering in advance, the family is often faced with this decision at a time of crisis, dealing with the loss of a loved one when so many emotions are in play. Too often we have not discussed our wishes with our loved ones.

We know that health care delivery is a provincial responsibility and I applaud the member for finding a way to engage the federal government in this important issue while still respecting our constitutional jurisdictions. This bill would make it easier to gather information: a simple check mark on one's income tax return and, voilà, the information is passed on to the province of residence. A province can choose not to participate in the program if it so wishes. This is so important because while our provincial counterparts have made tremendous strides to raise awareness and registration rates, we are still not seeing donor registration rates rising as they should.

In 2012, when I was an Oakville town councillor, I was part of a group of Oakville residents who formed the Oakville Be a Donor group. It grew out of a call from Oakville resident Jennifer Malabar, who challenged the mayor and council to register as organ donors. Jennifer developed a kidney disease while pregnant with her first child, Arya.

Facing an eight-year wait for a kidney transplant or the prospect of dialysis, Jenn was the recipient of a kidney from her husband Hitesh Patel, on their wedding anniversary no less. Hitesh later joined me for the Courage Polar Bear Dip wearing a Be a Donor T-shirt to raise awareness for organ donation. They later welcomed their second child, Sage, and the family continues to thrive.

Through the Oakville Be a Donor group, I met the most amazing people: Bev Cathro, who donated her kidney to her young daughter, and Ron Newman, affectionately known as the “Dialysis Dude”, who received a kidney transplant and lived dialysis free for many years, but is now back on dialysis as he waits for another donor. Ron continues to advocate and also organizes the Halton Kidney Walk every year.

Julie Pehar, whose experience was a different one, came to our group having lost a loved one and having made the decision to donate his organs.

Sarah Taylor and Keith Childerhose is a love story that played out as Keith struggled to breathe. In need of a lung transplant, Sarah took to social media to publicize Keith's challenges. They appeared in the news as Keith waited for a double lung transplant.

Keith was failing quickly and was on life support. He had been living with diffuse panbronchiolitis from the age of 25 and had been fighting the disease for 15 years. This severe and rare disease caused fluid to continually build up in his lungs, similar to cystic fibrosis. On life support, the news came that Keith was heading into a 10-hour surgery as a donor had been found. In one of the most touching photos ever taken, with Keith hooked up to an IV and tubes, looking into each other's eyes, Keith touched Sarah's nose as she touched his hand.

The good news is that the surgery was a success and brought much-needed attention to the need for organ donation. In a lovely twist to the story, the two were engaged, then won a wedding package and were married in 2013. As wonderful as Keith's and Sarah's story is, sadly, across our country there are too many stories like Keith's that do not have a happy ending.

Our Oakville Be a Donor group gathered together the Interfaith Council of Halton, community leaders and politicians to create a poster to be displayed around town. How pleased I was recently to visit the Halton police station and see our poster still hanging on the walls of the offices.

Despite our efforts to raise awareness, registration rates across Canada are dismal. I want to share some statistics from the Ontario Be a Donor website. In Ontario, there are over 1,500 people waiting for a life-saving organ transplant. This is their only treatment option and every three days someone will die because they did not get their transplant in time.

One donor can save up to eight lives through organ donation and enhance the lives of up to 75 people through the gift of tissue. Age alone does not disqualify someone from becoming a donor. The oldest organ donor was over 90, and the oldest tissue donor was over 100. There is always the potential to be a donor, and it should not stop someone from registering. Anyone over the age of 16 can register.

Current or past medical history does not prevent someone from registering to be a donor. Individuals with serious illnesses can sometimes be organ or tissue donors. Each potential donor is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

All major religions support organ and tissue donation or respect an individual's choice.

Organ and tissue donation does not impact funeral plans. An open-casket funeral is possible.

Right now, there are over 1,100 people in Ontario waiting for a kidney and 252 people waiting for a liver, and 46 of those on the wait-list are under the age 17.

When we register, we give hope to the thousands of Canadians waiting for a transplant. Those on the transplant wait list are often living with organ failure, like my friend Ron Newman. Tissue donors can enhance the lives of recovering burn victims, help restore sight and allow people to walk again. Transplants not only save lives, they return recipients to productive lives.

As I speak today in support of Bill C-316, I want to remember my friend Bob Hepburn. Bob was a generous and kind soul, a teacher-librarian who was a role model for hundreds of students at Abbey Park High School in Oakville and best friend to Tim Robertson. Bob was generous beyond words, so much so that he was twice a living donor, once donating his bone marrow and another time his kidney. Bob died quite suddenly a few months ago, and those to whom he had given the gift of life came to his funeral.

I thank my colleague across the floor, the member for Calgary Confederation. I know that this is an issue he has been committed to for years. I am proud to call him a friend and even prouder to have been asked to be a seconder of this bill. It is my sincere hope that Canadians will soon have another simple option to register as donors on their income tax returns, thanks to his private member's bill.

Those who are watching today should talk to their loved ones about their wishes and go online and register today. In Ontario, they can go to www.beadonor.ca right now. It only takes two minutes to register.

I ask all members of this House for their support for Bill C-316. This bill would create a simple way for Canadians to register as organ donors. It is my sincere hope that when Canadians file their income taxes in the near future, they can just click on a box to have the federal government notify their province of residence of their wish to register.

[Gender Equality Week, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of the MP for Mississauga-Lakeshore, this week is Canada's first Gender Equality Week. This week, Canadians are invited to reflect on and address the challenges faced by women and gender-diverse individuals. Advancing gender equality is not only right, it is also smart. If we move forward with meaningful changes, we could add $150 billion to our GDP in less than a decade.

In my riding, I run a program called young women in leadership, where we pair young women with businesses and organizations for a job shadow. It gives young women a chance to experience a career they may not have otherwise considered and has inspired some to change their mind about what path to pursue.

Gender equality means a larger workforce with more diverse ideas and better decision-making. Let us allow Canada's first Gender Equality Week to inspire us, because if we get this right, we all benefit.

[Accessible Canada Act, September 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I know from speaking to advocates in my community and beyond that this is legislation that they have been calling for. I applaud the minister for her due diligence in meeting with organizations all across the country, as well as meeting with individuals who have done work on best practices in other countries. The minister sat down with Inclusion International to see what best practices would be. I have heard incredibly positive comments about the legislation.

We need a starting point and this is it. It is a really good one and I am very proud of the work of the minister and our government in bringing this forward. I think it is going to make a huge change for people in our country living with disabilities.

[Accessible Canada Act, September 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I should have said this last time, but I want to thank the hon. member for her advocacy, as well as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has been a vocal advocate on that side of the House for people living with disabilities.

I have spoken up at events where sign language interpretation is provided but the interpreter is standing in the dark. There is not much use having interpreters standing in the dark who cannot be seen by the people who need to see them. I am not familiar with the reasons why that was not included in the bill. I am sure it is something that will come up at committee hearings. Those individuals who wish to be heard will certainly be given the opportunity to speak at committee.

[Accessible Canada Act, September 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, at this point I am not on the committee, although I did sit on the committee when it reviewed Bill C-65.

My experience on committee has been that there is really good work that happens there. Bill C-65 would be a prime example, where really important amendments were brought forward.

In my opinion, it is critical that this bill be implemented. I know the minister has made a commitment to see that this is legislation that will impact people's lives and not years from now, but in the near term.

I look forward to the deliberations that happen at committee and to hearing from witnesses. If there are improvements to be made, the committee will benefit from the expertise that will be provided at the committee meetings.

[Accessible Canada Act, September 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this morning with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

For decades, we have seen concerted efforts made to try to remove barriers to accessibility across Canada, but pervasive barriers still exist all around us. These barriers exist in our physical environment. They exist in the way information and communications technologies are developed, in how employment practices are established, in the way procurement policies are created by the government, in how government serves Canadians and in how our federal transportation networks are structured. These barriers stop millions of Canadians from participating in everyday activities that many people take for granted.

There was a time in Canadian history when the needs of people living with disabilities were not even part of the conversation. That is still too often the case, but thanks to the advocacy of leaders in disability and accessibility issues in Canada, we are more aware of the issues of those living with disabilities. We are increasingly aware of the challenges and injustices faced every day. Legislation alone will not be enough to address the issue; we need a change in the way we as Canadians think.

In Ontario, legislation will ensure that a sports complex has accessible parking spots, wide doors and washrooms. However, if people in wheelchairs are relegated to the second floor because no accessible seating is provided, or where accessible seating is provided, people stand up and block their view for the most exciting part of the game, the goals, that is hardly inclusive.

This is an issue I have been deeply committed to throughout my tenure as a member of Parliament and before I was elected. In the spring of 2017, I held a round table on employment for people living with disabilities in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington. The round table brought together organizations such as Community Living, experts on accessible employment and people with lived experience.

I continue to advocate for this issue in the community, in the House and with my colleagues in Parliament. We need to recognize the contribution people living with disabilities make to employers. It is not about doing what is right, although it is. It also makes economic sense. Just ask employers such as Mark Wafer, former MPP Pete Kevin Flynn, and Phillipa Durbin, who talk about the benefits to their businesses because they have hired those living with disabilities. Ask employees such as my staffers, Steven Muir and Karina Scali, or people like Robin, Andrew or James, who are outstanding employees who make significant contributions to their work.

Madam Speaker, you are aware that our government is a strong proponent of promoting inclusion and fairness to grow the middle class. Our government has committed to measures to make Canada a more equitable place, such as improving income security for seniors and helping families through improvements to the Canada child benefit.

Accessibility is a right in this country, not a privilege. That is why we are putting accessibility at the heart of our actions for greater social justice. That is why our government has brought forward Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, to uphold that right in areas under federal jurisdiction. This involves Parliament and all that we do here. It involves the Government of Canada, crown corporations and the federally regulated private sector. It includes organizations in the federal transportation network, the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors and the banking and financial sectors.

Federally regulated sectors represent a large component of the Canadian economy. They employ about 900,000 people and are essential to economic, civil and social participation in society.

I believe that our government and our partners in the federally regulated sectors can be true leaders in accessibility. By changing the status quo in these areas, I am confident that a change in standards will follow in the private sector. However, our ambition is greater than that. Our ambition is that this legislation will lead to a more consistent experience of accessibility across Canada.

With this in mind, our government's actions on accessibility are focused on priority areas that Canadians living with disabilities have told us have an impact on their daily lives. They include public buildings and spaces, service delivery, employment, transportation, information and communications technologies and procurement of goods and services.

The core of Bill C-81 is the development and implementation of new accessibility standards in these priority areas. Through Bill C-81, our government is proposing the creation of a new organization called the Canadian accessibility standards development organization. This innovative organization would govern and oversee the process of creating new accessibility standards in partnership with key stakeholders.

I am proud that this organization will be led by a majority of persons living with disabilities on the board of directors. This is key to ensuring that those with lived experience are part of the decision-making process. This has been an issue in the past and continues to be an issue in our country, when those developing policies do not include those living with a disability.

This organization will be the first of its kind in Canada and one of the few in the world that is dedicated to developing only accessibility standards. The organization will work in partnership with persons living with disabilities, technical experts, industry leaders and representatives from organizations that are obligated to comply with the law and its regulations.

The standards created by the organization will then be considered by the government for application to the federal jurisdiction through regulation. Provinces and territories will also be invited to participate in the standards development process. By bringing together perspectives and knowledge about accessibility issues into one place, our government envisions that the Canadian accessibility standards organization will become a global centre of technical knowledge and expertise on accessibility.

We believe that this organization can serve as a national and international model for action on accessibility by putting the principle of “nothing about us without us” at the heart of its operation, letting people living with disabilities lead the way.

Over time, these standards will lead to measurable improvements to accessibility and have a real impact on the lives of Canadians living with disabilities and functional limitations.

In closing, I would like to reflect on the spirit of this legislation. Our government is committed to backing Bill C-81, with focused investment across the Government of Canada. This includes the development of the Canadians accessibility standards development organization.

As a government, we want to make accessibility a reality as we hire people, make our facilities easier to access and purchase goods from private sector suppliers. It is the sum of all these efforts, including new accessibility standards, that will allow people living with disabilities to be included in a way that many of us take for granted.

This legislation is the start of building not just an accessible Canada, but an inclusive Canada. We need to recognize that accessibility is a start, but it is not enough. We need to be leaders and effect real cultural change. This is how we will provide everyone in this country with the chance to realize their full potential. This is how we will make sure that everybody can contribute to the Canada of the future.

Our country will be stronger and all Canadians will benefit when we include everyone in the conversation, when we ensure that each and every Canadian can reach their full potential and when we build a truly inclusive country.