Christine Moore

[Petitions, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions calling on the Canadian government to adopt a pan-Canadian food strategy. It is a matter of survival for Canadian women. It is also about the quality of food and promoting local food.

I hope that the government will consider what the petitioners are calling for.

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is shifting the blame onto the Conservatives for the abysmal report card her agency received from the Auditor General.

She claims that cuts to the number of agents are to blame. However, after two years, she has done nothing about it. When over half of all calls to the CRA are blocked and 30% of callers are getting the wrong information, it seems clear to me that in-person service needs to be restored in rural areas.

When will she face the facts and admit that nothing is more effective than in-person service?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when I ask the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue what they think of the Minister of Finance, their answers are decidedly unparliamentary. They say they are being royally—I will let my colleague fill in the next word—by the Minister of Finance and by the Liberal government, and they are extremely disappointed.

What saddens me even more is that the finance minister is giving all other politicians a black eye. I mean those from my own party, of course, but also the Conservatives and probably some Liberals. All of the politicians who are in the House for all the good reasons and who work day after day on behalf of their constituents have had their credibility called into question. People think we are no good, but there are some people in this House who really are here to represent their constituents.

The finance minister's actions are also fuelling public cynicism towards politicians. I think that is a real shame. The Minister of Finance should have to apologize for the grave disservice he is doing to those who stand up in this House every day and work hard for the people they represent.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we are in exactly the same situation. The government is throwing money at programs without making sure that they are working properly. As for the Canada child benefit, the Liberals have put that money on the table, but the program is not really working.

Many people really need that money, but they cannot get it because the Canada Revenue Agency is asking them for one document after another, whether it is because they did not file their tax return, they do not have the resources, they are totally confused, they simply do not understand and there are no resources on the ground. If the poorest people cannot access the money they are entitled to, that means that the programs are not working.

If we do not bother to find out if the measures we are introducing are accessible to the people who need them, we are no further ahead. This is not just about throwing money at something and recording it in a budget line item. We have to be responsible and make sure that money actually gets to the people who need it. The government never does that, which is why we end up in these situations where there are simply no more resources.

For example, there is no Revenue Canada service counter in my riding. That means I am the only resource available to do CRA's work for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and help people get the money they need.

Sometimes I manage to get $26,000 for families that are entitled to it. That is simply because I am capable of providing a service to them, which is something the government has given up on.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important to give a short and simple summary in order to explain the situation to members of the public who may listen to my speech.

We currently have a Minister of Finance who owned some companies before becoming an MP and minister in 2015. One of these companies, Morneau Shepell, provides advice on defined benefit pension plans, among other things. He worked in the pensions field, and, just like everyone else, he had to meet with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner after he was elected. When he was appointed finance minister, he told everyone, including members of his caucus and Canadians, that he had placed these interests in a blind trust. What this means is that someone else manages these interests, and the owner no longer has a say and no longer controls the assets, but hands over complete control to someone else. The owner cannot act to their own advantage.

That is what he told everyone. However, we eventually discovered that there was no blind trust and that he had retained control of his interests. Instead of doing what he had told everyone he would do, including his own colleagues who sit with him every day, he used a numbered company in Alberta to manage his company's shares. He probably chose Alberta because he pays less tax there. That alone is a little odd, given that the minister lives in Ontario, but oh well. He retained control of his interests and told everyone the opposite. We found out, and he tried to remedy the situation.

The other problem is that he tabled a bill, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, that would result in people switching to the pension plan sold by Morneau Shepell. This bill significantly increased the company's share price, and, to make a long story short, between the time he was elected as an MP and the time when the cat got out of the bag, the value of his shares went up by about $10 million. Simply put, the Minister of Finance made $10 million off the backs of all Canadians. My summary may be a little simplistic, but it is the truth. The Minister of Finance made $10 million off the backs of Canadians.

What did the minister offer by way of amends? He promised to give the money he had made to charity, as if throwing money around would fix everything. For the Minister of Finance, it is as simple as that: he got caught, so he throws some money at the problem, and it magically all goes away. It reminds me of certain countries with dubious ethics, where all people have to do when they get in trouble is throw money around and all their problems vanish, so they never really have to worry.

What the Minister of Finance does not understand and what is really unfortunate in all this is that it is not about money. As Canadians, we are not angry at the Minister of Finance over $10 million. No one thinks that if he had earned only $2 million, that would have been fine, but $10 million is really over the line. The amount is neither here nor there. He could have made $100 and that would not have been too serious, but we are talking about $10 million. The real problem is that he betrayed everyone's trust. He betrayed Canadians' trust as well as the trust of his colleagues in his own party, and he continues to behave as though nothing happened, as though throwing $10 million at a charity will solve everything, and now everything is fine and we should all just forget about it and move on. The fundamental problem is that no one can trust the Minister of Finance anymore.

That is precisely why we are debating this motion today. He did this, but we know that he has other numbered companies, whose contents are unknown. Has he used the same ploy to make money with other bills he has introduced? Did he use the budget to make money? We do not know, because he continues to hide what is in his numbered companies. We no longer trust him, yet he carries on as though nothing were wrong, as though the problem went away when he threw money at it. That is not how it works in real life. There is a trust issue here.

If a man cheats on his wife for two years and buys her a car to make amends, does that solve the problem? No, because the fundamental problem is that there has been a breach of trust. The money spent on making amends is not important. The Minister of Finance still does not get that. He still does not understand that it will take a lot more than a charitable donation to regain our trust.

What is most disheartening is that, once again, the Liberals have shown that they have a double standard. On the one hand, they are telling us that the minister can simply throw some money at a problem to make it all go away, and on the other, they are stopping people from receiving the disability tax credit. These are people who have decided to go to work and earn a living despite being disabled. However, they are told that because of one criterion or another, they are no longer considered to be disabled and are no longer entitled to the tax credit. Their efforts to find a job and contribute to the economy despite their condition are no longer recognized. That is how the rest of Canadians are treated.

Government members like to say they have increased family benefits. In reality, however, the poorest Canadians often do not even have access to these benefits. I see this every week in my riding. They are asked to provide a ton of paperwork to prove that they actually have custody of their children.

In my riding, a woman who lives with her husband went through months of back and forth with the Canada Revenue Agency, trying to prove that her three-year-old son actually lived with her. She was exasperated. The CRA kept asking her to fill out forms to prove that her three-year-old lived with her. Where did they think he lived? He is three. He does not have his own apartment. Of course he lives with his mother and father. No, that is not obvious to the Canada Revenue Agency.

In the meantime, the family benefits are taken away, not just in cases where information about the child is missing, but in all cases. This means that this mother has no money to buy books, clothing, and other things that her son will need for school. While the Minister of Finance can do as he pleases, this is how Canadians are treated.

People who receive employment insurance benefits have a lot of requirements to meet. If they do one thing wrong, those benefits are taken away. Some people take a one-day training course, thinking it might help them get a new job. When they report that day of training, they get their EI benefits taken away, and for the next two months, they are told that their file is being reviewed. Meanwhile, they have no money to live on.

The Minister of Finance can earn $10 million off the backs of Canadians, but if a family in need receives an extra $50 by mistake, the government takes it away because they are not entitled to it. Come on.

The government then continues to say that everything is fine, when in reality, the most vulnerable Canadians are unable to meet all of the requirements set out by the Canada Revenue Agency and other government departments to prove that they are really in need. They are made to feel guilty for asking for the money they need, as though they were looking for a handout, when really this is money they are entitled to.

However, the Liberal minister can do whatever he wants. Let us remember that he forgot to disclose that he owned a house in France. I am sorry, but a person would have to be really out of it to forget something like that. I have seen some pretty drunk people in the emergency room, and they still remembered that they owned a house. However, that is beyond the Minister of Finance's ability. He is unable to disclose that he owns a house in France, an asset that he put in a company so that he could pay less tax. That is ridiculous. For him to say that he forgot he owned a house is an insult to Canadians' intelligence.

Government members are comparing this situation to the vote to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board, because they are saying that some members had small wheat farms but would be voting on it. That was certainly a concern, but it seems to me that there is a big difference between voting on a measure and a minister actually introducing government legislation, especially when the government has a majority, which means that the bill is more or less guaranteed to pass.

Making $10 million on the backs of Canadians simply does not compare. I can say that that money would have been greatly appreciated.

We cannot ignore this. It is false to say that Canadians are not concerned about this. Canadians are very concerned about this.

[Automated External Defibrillators, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a pleasure for me to speak to a motion like this one, because this was part of my daily life for many years for one simple reason: I am a nurse who worked primarily in acute and emergency care in a small, rural hospital. Every day, we had to face the reality that someone could suffer a cardiac arrest at any time, and sometimes they were 45 minutes away from the hospital. There are only two ambulances serving the entire RCM, which is about 100 kilometres across. It can sometimes take a very long time even for emergency responders to arrive.

Defibrillation does not really happen the way it looks in the movies, where the patient arrives at the hospital, we put the paddles on him and defibrillation occurs. For defibrillation to work, electrical currents still have to be going through the heart. If the patient flatlines, it is too late; nothing can be done and defibrillation will not work. That is why, if we want defibrillation to be effective, it must happen quickly, before the electrical currents in the heart stop following cardiac arrest.

It is good to have automated external defibrillators that are easy to use, not like those in hospitals that require training. These AEDS will save lives because people do not need much training to be able to use them effectively to reanimate someone. They will also help prevent the brain damage that can occur due to a lack of oxygen, as well as the harmful consequences that go along with that. The more quickly the defibrillator is used, the greater the chances of reanimation and the less severe the after-effects of the cardiac arrest and lack of oxygen.

This will have an impact on the number of lives saved and will reduce the severity of the consequences of a cardiac arrest. That is extremely important.

The motion refers to RCMP vehicles. Given that the indigenous police fall under our jurisdiction, I believe that we should also equip all of their vehicles with automated external defibrillators, particularly when we consider the fact that indigenous communities are often located in areas that are far from hospitals. For example, in my riding, the Long Point First Nation community is about 45 minutes from the hospital, when a person is driving fast. When weather conditions are not ideal, if there is a snowstorm, for example, it can easily take an hour and a half to get there.

I am certain that my colleague will agree with me that this should be extended to all emergency vehicles used by indigenous police and in all indigenous community gathering places, even though they are not mentioned in the motion. We could ensure that arenas, sports facilities, and all indigenous communities are also equipped with these defibrillators. I hope that the message will be passed on to the Minister of Indigenous Services so she can establish a strategy in that regard.

With respect to automated external defibrillators, it is important that they be available, but we must also discuss training for users. We must ensure that people know how to use them and where they are located. That makes a big difference because if the person has to look for the defibrillator, it will take longer. Members cannot answer me because this is not a question and comment period, but I am curious about how many people know exactly where the automated external defibrillator is located in the Parliament buildings. Does anyone here know? I am not so sure.

It is also very important for a communications plan to be put in place when automated external defibrillators are purchased so that everyone in the community can locate them quickly. Sometimes we believe that we have to know CPR and be very knowledgeable to save a life.

Just by knowing where an AED is located, people can help save a life by giving the device to someone who knows how to use it in under a minute. When a heart attack happens, the person who knows how to use the AED is often also the one who administers first aid to the victim. The first aider will start performing CPR and other techniques. If this person also has to go looking for an AED, valuable time will be lost. Making sure everyone knows where these devices are located can be highly beneficial.

A few years ago, there was a private foundation that had a program to help small communities buy AEDs. I passed on the information to small communities in my riding, and two AEDs were obtained through this program. I think private foundations that offer AEDs or help small municipalities buy them are extremely important. However, I also think that we need to play a major role in this issue. It is important to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and other governments, but we can still play a leadership role, especially when we consider that lives are at stake and that this is a relatively simple thing to do. We can find solutions to make these devices more widely available.

I cannot overstate how much this would change things in rural communities like mine. I live in a rather remote area. When I give people my address they often get it wrong and never find their way. In more urgent situations, it might take longer to find my house. However, the local first responders know the area like the back of their hand and do not need an address. Just name the woman who needs help and they will get there in no time. If they are equipped with this device it might make the difference between hugging a friend and going to a funeral.

I sincerely hope that, in studying my colleague's motion, people will be able to set partisanship aside entirely. The motion deserves to be studied in committee because it can help us improve outcomes for Canadians. I also think that knowing that there can be a quick response will change a lot of things when it comes to people's health.

Unfortunately, heart attacks rarely occur in ideal circumstances. Most of the time, things do not go so well. I have seen cases where it happened to people who were hunting in the deep woods. That is not an ideal situation. Over the course of my career, only once have I witnessed someone having a heart attack right in the middle of triage. Lucky thing that happened in the ER. In real life, heart attacks do not happen in the ER. They happen in places where, most of the time, having access to an AED can change things for the better.

The majority of ambulances are now equipped with these devices, but considering the allocation of ambulance services in many rural communities, where few ambulances are available and wait times can be long in some cases, emergency response vehicles absolutely need to be equipped with these devices. We must also ensure that the first responders are properly trained in their use.

We can do a lot for people and I hope that we will move forward because it is a matter of life or death for Canadians. I hope that people will have a heart.

[Automated External Defibrillators, November 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, actually, this is more of a comment.

I wanted to tell my colleague how useful this can be in rural regions. I am an intensive care nurse in the ER. That is my specialty. We often have just two ambulances. When one ambulance is away transferring a patient, we may find ourselves without an available ambulance. Sometimes, because of circumstances beyond our control, police officers have brought patients to me in the ER because we simply did not have an ambulance available to respond.

I just wanted to say how useful this would be for rural Canada.

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, what does my colleague think is the biggest problem related to cannabis at the moment? Is it the pressure on the legal system because of people charged with simple possession and all the repercussions that go along with that, for instance, the delays because of the number of cases before the courts, or is my colleague more concerned about the taxes not being collected? Which of those two problems regarding cannabis is the member more concerned about?

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the problem with the current government is that it seems to believe that money is the solution to all problems.

It is not the amount that is important, but what is done with it. The government needs a strategy. The Liberals can throw as many numbers around as they like, but what counts is how that money is used. Does the government have a specific plan? Does it know where it is going? The government seems to think that money is the solution to all problems. The Minister of Finance throws money around saying that he will repay what he never should have earned because he was in a conflict of interest and he thinks that will magically make everything better. That is not a responsible attitude. It is not the amount of money that counts. It is what is done with it.

The government could allocate smaller amounts if it knew exactly where it was going and what it was going to do. In my opinion, it is not the amount that matters. What matters is knowing exactly what is going to be done with the money and having a strategy. The government cannot just say that it is going to make investments and then leave it up to others to take the necessary action.

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I may not have the expertise to know what impact this will have on the free trade agreements, but it is clear that the Liberals need to immediately get to work with regard to the three trade agreements that my colleague mentioned.

I also think that we need to take into account the fact that two U.S. states decided to legalize marijuana. I do not know what sort of impact that will have on the free trade negotiations, whether it will be positive or negative, but I do know that the Liberals need to act now to resolve the issue of the three agreements we have signed that prohibit the trade of cannabis.