Christine Moore

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have a mixed system in Quebec that ensures that everyone is covered. Despite that, and although Quebec is very protective of its jurisdiction over health care, Minister Barrette has expressed an interest in talking about universal pharmacare, because he knows that it can save money.

I am wondering how my colleague can question the urgency of raising this issue, when the most advanced province in terms of universal pharmacare believes that universal pharmacare would lead to cost savings and promote the appropriate use of medication.

[Act respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill because I believe that victims' issues are of utmost importance.

The bill that my colleague from the Quebec City region introduced addresses this issue. The ombudsman's office is currently a program within the Department of Justice. My colleague's bill will make that program a permanent, independent office. It will no longer be merely a Justice Canada program. The office will be much more independent. I think this is a very good idea, especially when the ombudsman has to intervene regarding problems within the Department of Justice itself. With more independence, the ombudsman will be able to do that properly.

I think this is a very good bill that really deserves to go to committee. I am sure there are probably other repercussions, but I think the committee can get to the bottom of that. I sincerely hope this bill will make it to committee.

It is important to give the ombudsman's office more independence because that will facilitate victims' access to federal programs and services. Once we have examined the bill more closely and maybe amended it to make it even better, it will achieve that goal.

I think it is important to point out that, too often, indigenous victims get completely overlooked. I believe that making the office of the ombudsman more independent would allow it to provide more assistance to indigenous victims of crime. Indigenous communities are often very isolated. Unlike other Canadians, the people who live in these communities cannot just go to the nearest courthouse for information. They have to get their information online or over the phone in a language that is not their mother tongue. That is why I believe it is especially important to highlight the circumstances indigenous victims often get trapped in. Whereas criminals with limited means are entitled to legal aid, victims are often left to chase down information for themselves and struggle to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, this can make victims feel overlooked.

Given the badly mismanaged missing and murdered indigenous women inquiry going on right now, I understand why indigenous victims fear and distrust the Canadian justice system. An independent ombudsman's office would be able to help them get more justice. It would also be in a position to issue recommendations so these women can get more resources and support and the reality of small communities can be better understood.

For people who live in Waskaganish or in the small village of Kangiqsualujjuaq in my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou's riding, the courthouse is not next door. There are no victims services in their community. What is more, victims of crime committed locally might be forced to live with the person who committed the crime or with that person's family, which makes the situation even harder for a victim living in those communities. They might want a bit of privacy, but everything is out in the open in those communities. That is tough to go through.

I think that the ombudsman could focus specifically on the issue of services provided to indigenous victims who live in those communities. With greater independence, the ombudsman will not be afraid to make recommendations calling for swift action from the Department of Justice. That might be a bit harder to do for someone who is not fully independent.

Then, we might manage to truly improve the lives of women living in the north, but also of men who might be victims of crime.

We see what is happening with the Jordan decision, where criminals are being released without punishment. Lack of access to justice in the north is already an extremely complicated problem. Having a more independent and effective ombudsman whose term is secure will go a long way to improving justice in the north. I think it is worth sending this bill to committee so that we can truly understand how beneficial this role can be. By passing a bill like this one we might bring more justice to people who are far too often forgotten in our current justice system. I am talking about first nations in northern Quebec, but also across Canada.

[Act respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the bill provides for that independence, but it also makes the position permanent. It would therefore no longer be just a program but a permanent, independent office.

I would like to know what impact that could have on the office, particularly in terms of hiring qualified staff.

[Indigenous Affairs, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the position being taken by the government's lawyers is contrary to the letter, the spirit, and the intent of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The Anishinaabe people in my riding, who have been waiting a long time, placed so much hope in what the Prime Minister said following the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The Minister of Justice is an experienced lawyer. Does she seriously think that the Supreme Court and the entire legal community intended to draft an agreement that did not even include a fair process for survivors?

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, oversight is indeed extremely important, especially with regard to procurement. It is imperative that we ask questions about where the arms that leave Canada are going. It is a matter of accountability.

When I was the critic for military procurement, that was one of the questions I would routinely ask companies. I would ask who they did business with and whether they tried to sell their products in a responsible way. That is one of the key issues in the arms trade. We cannot keep closing our eyes and giving companies money to buy us weapons when those same companies export arms to countries we might have to fight. It makes absolutely no sense for us to buy fighter planes to attack armoured vehicles that were made in Canada to begin with. We would not have to fight those vehicles if we had not sold them in the first place. We need to use common sense. When it comes to dealing in arms and military equipment, we need to take our heads out of the sand and start asking questions.

I believe it is precisely the role of parliamentarians to ask these questions and think about how the arms trade is conducted. However, the Liberals decided that creating a committee to oversee arms exports was not all that important. I am very disappointed by their attitude, because the whole reason Parliament exists is to consider all these issues so Canadians can see that their MPs and senators are doing their job and making sure the arms trade is conducted responsibly. Unfortunately, when the NDP's motion was voted down, it meant Parliament and its members were prevented from taking action.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my whole speech, not just the parts he wanted to hear, he would have heard me say very clearly that I am not against selling arms to NATO countries. I believe they are capable of using arms intelligently. However, I have my doubts about doing business with countries such as Saudi Arabia.

I encourage the member to listen to speeches in their entirety so he can ask much better questions.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill because it is extremely important to me.

The thing to keep in mind about arms treaties is that trading in arms is not the same as trading in potatoes. Arms can result in death and the destruction of the environment, depending on which type is used.

The use of this equipment carries consequences that are too great, which is why much more monitoring and supervision is required. We have to ask questions to determine what this equipment will be used for later, for example. That is one of the underlying questions in the Arms Trade Treaty that we are discussing here today. The urge to regulate the arms trade reflects a greater realization that we cannot simply sell weapons without asking how they will be used later on. That would make no sense.

Take our troops, for example. I think it is essential that we not send them somewhere to fight for the values of freedom, the values of the United Nations, and Canadian values, against people who are using Canadian arms that were sold to them directly, or transferred to them some other way, but ended up in the wrong hands.

Out of respect for our soldiers and because of what we, as a country, ask of them, we must have a solid arms trade policy that takes into account that arms will change hands more than once. If we think we know where arms will end up one day, then maybe we should refrain from selling them. It is not acceptable to turn a blind eye in order to make money in the arms trade. We really need to know where they are going and how they will be used.

This is a bill aimed at supporting the implementation of a treaty on the arms trade, but unfortunately, parts of it remain vague. For that reason, our party intends to support this bill and, by extension, the Arms Trade Treaty, but with the caveat that unless certain parts of the bill are clarified, it will not achieve the ultimate goal of ensuring that arms are sold only to people capable of wielding them responsibly. It is crucial to know whether those that have weapons are capable of using them in a judicious and well-thought-out manner, or whether they will be irresponsible and have no scruples about violating human rights by deploying them against civilians.

We need to be even more careful with our arms exports. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the bill, as it currently stands, will achieve that goal. The best example before us is our arms deal with Saudi Arabia. We have proof that the weapons we sold to the Saudis are being used against their own citizens as a tool of repression. As human beings and as a society, we cannot live with this blood on our hands. We cannot accept Saudi money if we know that the vehicles they buy from us will ultimately be used for unacceptable purposes, as is happening now. It is a matter of integrity. I could not feel comfortable explaining to my child that weapons are being sent overseas and used against civilians.

However, I also understand that selling arms is an economic activity, and I agree that we should engage in that sort of trade with countries that abide by the treaty, NATO countries in particular. I know that these countries will use those weapons properly and wisely, and that they will not use them to violate human rights.

When we send weapons to a country that violates human rights as brazenly as Saudi Arabia, I have to wonder about our integrity. On one hand, we participate in this arms trade and we take the money that comes from it, while on the other, we condemn human rights violations. Our attitude does nothing to help stop the cycle of violence in Saudi Arabia. We are telling this country that what it is doing is not nice, but we are still agreeing to sell it weapons. It does not make any sense.

That is why we need to strengthen the provisions of the bill that deal with exports. Right now, they are too vague. The bill is not sound and does not settle the issue once and for all. There is also the matter of signing treaties and passing bills to ratify treaties. Treaties set out specific commitments and when a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to take specific action. The signing of such documents should not be seen as an opportunity for a selfie. It is serious business. If the government passes bills without any real intention of implementing the very principle on which the treaty is based, we are not really making any progress.

That is why I sincerely hope that we will take the time to seriously examine this bill in committee and that the government will accept amendments to strengthen the provisions regarding the export of firearms to countries that violate human rights. I think that is essential.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that the Arms Trade Treaty does not allow any exemptions. The United States is currently exempt from the provisions on arms trade. That presents a problem as well. We will have to decide what to do with the United States. Since the treaty does not provide for exemptions, we will have to find another solution. We cannot continue to conduct trade with the United States the way we do now if we truly want to respect the spirit of the treaty. That is another important issue.

When we talk about arms exchanging hands, we must keep in mind that some of the weapons sold to the United States are later transferred to another country. For example, some countries might help groups that find it difficult to arm themselves to ensure stability. On certain occasions we armed groups that we believed were capable of regaining control of their country and their region. Unfortunately, one of those groups turned against us years later.

When we decide to arm foreign groups, we have to ask ourselves if we are being smart about it and if we can be sure they will use the arms they receive to restore stability. We have to figure out whether there is any chance it could backfire and put us in the position of having to send Canadian troops to fight those groups a decade later.

We can all agree that we have to be smart and sensible about the arms trade, and that we must not ignore human rights issues. If we do, we kind of have blood on our hands.

As lawmakers, I hope the bill we ultimately pass will address this issue very clearly, not vaguely like the bill before us. I hope the committee will be smart and sensible about its work on this.

[Canada Labour Code, September 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to arguments against my bill, particularly those made by the Liberals. I strongly encourage them all to listen closely to be sure they understand.

They say that we already have an employment insurance program that allows women to leave work 12 weeks prior to their due date. However, pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. That means women get nothing for 28 weeks. Miscarriages and congenital malformations are much more likely to occur during the first two trimesters, which is when there is no protection available to women.

That is why we need preventive withdrawal programs that provide an income for women, especially when other women in the same province have access to that kind of program. They argued that a woman living in Ontario would not have the same protection as a woman living in Quebec even if they worked for the same employer, but that is already the case for parental leave benefits.

A House of Commons employee who lives in Quebec does not get the same benefits as her colleague who lives in Ontario. One collects benefits under Quebec's parental insurance plan, and the other collects employment insurance. We already have different provinces doing different things when it comes to parental leave benefits, so why not adopt the same approach for preventive withdrawal? The same logic should apply.

Furthermore, I have been told that the only province where women could benefit from this is Quebec. That is true, but other ministers are currently working on similar programs, because they realize how important this is. Alberta and British Columbia have progressive governments that are examining this issue and understand just how crucial a preventive withdrawal program can be in family planning. Yes, it is true that only women in Quebec would benefit from this, but that could change soon. I hope things will change.

The government could introduce a Canada-wide federal program, except that 85% of employees work under provincial jurisdiction. That is why it makes a lot more sense to leave it up to the provinces to create their own programs and for us to align with provincial programs to ensure that all employed women in a given province can benefit from the same protections.

As members can see, there is clearly no reason to vote against this bill, particularly at second reading, when it still has to go to committee. Even the Conservatives understand that this is about women's rights and that the bill will protect pregnant and nursing women. They were able to put partisanship aside to support my bill, even though we all know that we have very different opinions on a number of issues. The Liberals therefore have no reason to play politics and deny rights to pregnant and nursing women. Women deserve to have a safe pregnancy and some assurance they do not end up in financial difficulties.

I hope that the Liberals will understand what is at stake and that they will send this bill to committee because it is a matter of women's rights. We need to take action.

[September 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this situation, because it is in the context of events that occurred in Quebec.

Last spring, Quebec media revealed that journalists had been under police surveillance, meaning that their telephone conversations had been tapped. Of course, people were shocked to learn about it. It was reported that journalist Patrick Lagacé was not the only one who had been under surveillance, and that other journalists had been under police surveillance, not just for a few weeks, but for periods of four to five years. They included journalists from Enquête, even Alain Gravel. This was clearly a serious situation.

Many people were shocked, and after some hesitation, the Quebec government decided to launch an inquiry into the protection of journalistic sources on November 11, 2016. Other measures were also adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec, including a unanimous motion stressing the importance it attaches to the protection of journalistic sources.

Quebec Minister of Justice Stéphanie Vallée stated:

The new disclosures are extremely serious, and as mentioned, it is essential that the public trust in its public institutions, in all institutions.

Thus, it is important to remember the principle behind the protection of journalistic sources. It has to do with public trust in its institutions. A number of scandals have been uncovered by journalists who did a tremendous amount of investigative work, and by sources who never would have spoken up without the anonymity provided by the protection of journalistic sources. Without it, some of those stories might never have come to light.

It is really important that those kinds of things be made public, because it helps us move forward and create a healthy democracy. Without the work of journalists, there might even be more wrongdoing. Thanks to journalists, who do rigorous investigations and often get information from sources who could face serious consequences if their names ever got out, we have access to that information. Since people know that some oversight exists, perhaps this keeps them more honest in their work.

Given that the commission of inquiry is mandated to make recommendations on police practices and ways to protect sources, I think this could produce very positive results. Since the bill before us addresses only about 75% of the problem, it will be important to follow up on it, especially after what we have learned from Quebec, in order to settle things for good and address other protections that could prove necessary.

After what happened in Quebec, something needed to be done. People realized the magnitude of the problem, and since the federal government did not want to create its own commission of inquiry to protect journalistic sources, claiming that these problems did not exist at the federal level, it was important to find a solution. That is why Bill S-231 was introduced in the Senate.

This bill is based on another bill from 10 years ago. There was an attempt to solve this problem 10 years ago, but unfortunately, thanks to our sometimes inefficient parliamentary process, it was not successful, because bills died on the Order Paper, work stopped and started, and there were back-to-back minority governments.

Back in 2007, all political parties were unanimously in favour of taking action. Unfortunately, no action was taken. Then we learned that journalists had been spied on for years. That is terrible, but I applaud Mr. Ménard for the work he did 10 years ago to protect journalistic sources.

Bill S-231 resurrects most of the measures in Bill C-426, which was introduced 10 years ago, and it adds other measures to keep it current because new laws have been passed, so some additions were necessary to keep journalistic source protection up to date.

Let us consider the true ramifications of these revelations. In light of the revelations about the police surveillance of journalists, Canada's international ranking in terms of freedom of the press dropped 14 spots to 22nd. This had an extremely negative impact on Canada's image, a country considered to be rather free. It came to light that behind the image, the police were allowed to spy on journalistic sources.

The thing that really got me in all of this was how long it went on for. The spying did not just go on for a short period of time, for a week or two because the police thought that the journalists were in contact with certain people. The police were listening in on the telephone conversations of renowned journalists in Canada for four or five years. They listened to all the details of the journalists' lives. It makes no sense. There was no specific time frame involved. It was truly an ongoing wiretap to try to gain some information. When we look at this mess, the first thing that comes to mind is that we should have gone further to solve this problem 10 years ago.

Now, 10 years later, it is vital that we pass the bill. It will not solve the problem in its entirety, but I estimate that it will address at least 75% of it. That is why we cannot allow parliamentary procedure to again prevent us from taking action on this problem.

It would have been good for the present government to introduce its own bill to resolve this issue. This is a members' bill. However, for the sake of Canada's public image, we can no longer afford to not act on this issue. Freedom of the press is a fundamental principle in Canada and Quebec. Our journalists deserve to know that they can do their job without being spied on with impunity. Furthermore, Quebeckers and Canadians deserve to know that they are protected when they speak to a journalist, and that there will be no fallout.

With respect to employment insurance, we remember that in 2013 we learned that investigators had quotas for recovering payments from the unemployed. Had the journalist not investigated this story and had there been no guarantees to protect the source, we perhaps would never have learned about this. For that reason, it is important to protect our sources. Otherwise, people will not dare blow the whistle on such situations. When people no longer report such situations out of fear that they will not be able to remain anonymous, and when this has consequences, we stop making progress and democracy suffers.

Given that the protection of sources is closely linked to democracy, it is vital that we address this issue now. I hope that we will do so once and for all and that it will not take another 10 years.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the concept of consent implies that the individual is capable of giving it when he or she is asked. I will give an example that is not really related, but nevertheless shows how pertinent this is.

Before patients are taken to the operating room, as a nurse, I have to have them sign a consent form indicating that they consent to the surgery. If we realize that a patient has not signed the consent after he is already in the OR and under sedation, it is too late to have him sign the form. We have to wait for the effects of the medication to wear off and seek consent once we are sure that he is fully lucid.

If drugs are involved, even if the person is capable of giving consent, that means absolutely nothing, in my view. In the medical field, we do not allow patients to give their consent to any care or treatment if they are already under the effects of a substance that might prevent them from giving their free and informed consent.