Christine Moore

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today.

We need to be aware of the damage done by FASD, which is often under-diagnosed. It would be nice if women were as honest as possible with their doctors, but it can be uncomfortable for them, especially if they are grown 20-, 25-, or 35-year-old women, to admit that they cannot help getting drunk every night even knowing it can harm their baby.

That is why the disorder is often under-diagnosed, and that can have significant repercussions. It often becomes clear later on, but many people have grown up being told they were unruly when really they were not properly diagnosed.

This addition to the Criminal Code is about recognizing that FASD can cause defects such as impaired judgment that make it hard for people to tell right from wrong. This will help make better treatment available for people convicted of a crime, ensure they receive appropriate behavioural therapy, and make sentencing commensurate with their intentions.

It is good to have this bill back in the House. I had an opportunity to speak to the subject when a similar bill was introduced by Ryan Leef, a member for Yukon who was not re-elected. I sincerely hope that we will be able to adapt our justice system to this important reality.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, not only did those events take place, but on top of that, the Liberals used public servants, employees paid by departments and therefore by the Government of Canada, to promote and organize these fundraising activities.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention an event that took place under the previous government and concerned Mr. Duncan. He used his ministerial letterhead. In addition to being censured by the commissioner, he lost his job as minister. He later became Government Whip.

Since my colleague has already been a minister, I would like to know what she thinks of the use of the ministerial title. When invitations are sent out, they are not being sent out solely in the name of a member of Parliament. For example, it is not the member for Papineau who is asking people to attend a fundraising event. People are being asked to attend using the title of Prime Minister, Minister of Finance or Minister of Natural Resources.

Does she think it is appropriate to use the ministerial title to draw people to fundraising events? Personally, I believe there is a problem from the outset when a ministerial title is used, and I think only the title of member of Parliament should be used.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, under the current government, regions like mine could end up being penalized. The government is creating a privatization bank where interesting projects are ones that might attract investors and a return on their investment. Small villages like the ones in my riding could end up not seeing any investment.

I have a friend who lives in Rapide-Danseur, a small village of 300 or 400 people. Her village will likely not see any investment. The cost of living has gone up. Many things, such as groceries, cost more. On many levels, things are not improving.

It may be unfair to ask him to do the math in his head, but I would like to know if my colleague can calculate how much more debt my friend's eight children will be saddled with at the end of the Liberal government's term, after the 2019 election.

[National Defence, November 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, until 1992, thousands of members of the Canadian Armed Forces were dishonourably discharged just because they were members of the LGBTQ community.

Last week, a first step was made in committee to have this dishonourable discharge removed from their service records, but we have heard nothing from the government since then.

Does the minister understand the consequences of a dishonourable discharge? If so, will he commit to taking immediate action to correct this injustice?

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is a $155-million shortfall. Of course, that money needs to be distributed based on need. However, I can assure the House that there is a need. If members would go and visit these communities, they would see that the need is there.

I do not understand what my colleague is getting at. The need is there and we need to fill it.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we need to establish a nation-to-nation relationship, but in order to do so, the government needs to have the courage to go into these communities and talk to people.

I visited the Winneway community during my election campaigns and I went back in between those campaigns. An unbelievable number of people told me that they had not seen a federal government representative in at least 15 years. No one has ever bothered to travel that far. If the government does not even take the time to talk to these people and see what their lives are actually like, of course it is not going to get very good results.

Obviously, the first nations must be allowed to set their own priorities. However, I can assure my colleagues that it is the priority of every member of our first nations communities to see their children and the children in their community grow up healthy. Everyone in indigenous communities is concerned about mental health. Everyone is affected by the suicides and the teenage drug use. Everyone would like first nations youth to grow up healthy.

I do not think there is any need to worry. The government can invest the $155 million, which is the shortfall for this year alone, without worrying about people getting upset about it.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by my NDP colleague, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, whose riding is next to Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Our ridings share a border, but that border is meaningless to the indigenous communities, in the sense that it was imposed on them and that their ancestral lands lie on both sides of the border. For example, the Timiskaming First Nation ancestral territory is in my riding, but it spills into my colleague's riding of Timmins—James Bay because these borders were established long after these territories were.

This motion calls on the government to comply with the historic ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordering the end of discrimination against indigenous children. We are calling on the government to immediately reinvest an additional $155 million for the delivery of child welfare that has been identified as the shortfall this year alone. We are also calling on the government to establish a funding plan for future years that will end the systemic shortfalls in first nations child welfare.

Furthermore, we want the government to implement the full definition of Jordan's principle as outlined in a resolution passed by the House on December 12, 2007. The government must fully comply with all orders made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and commit to stop fighting indigenous families in court who are seeking access to services covered by the federal government. Paragraph (d) of the motion calls on the government to make public all pertinent documents related to the overhaul of child welfare and the implementation of Jordan's principle.

Jordan's principle gives priority to the child's interests and is named after Jordan River Anderson, a Cree child from Norway House, in Manitoba. He was born with complex medical needs and unnecessarily spent more than two years in hospital because the Province of Manitoba and the federal government could not agree on who should pay for his home care. Jordan passed away in hospital when he was five and was never able to spend a single day at home, even though that would have been possible with appropriate home care.

Unfortunately, payment disputes between federal and provincial governments over services to first nations children are all too common. First nations children are often kept waiting for services they desperately need or denied services available to other children in the areas of education, health, day care, recreation, culture, and language.

Anyone who tries to understand the federal government's logic is in for a surprise. The list of prescription drugs and treatments eligible for reimbursement is not the same for all groups of people under federal responsibility. The government does not reimburse veterans, serving military personnel, and members of first nations for the same drug list.

It is the same government in all cases, and Health Canada is in charge of approving all prescription drugs available for sale in Canada, but the list of drugs eligible for reimbursement depends on a person's status.

I have had several conversations with the doctor in Malartic who is in charge of public health. He told me how confusing prescribing drugs to aboriginal people can be because they are covered for fewer drugs than whites. It is a discriminatory administrative nightmare that causes doctors a lot of problems.

In many cases they prescribe treatments that might work, but that are not ideal in a given situation. Patients do not get the best possible treatment, and people have to deal with red tape.

According to Jordan's principle, the government that has first contact pays for the services and seeks reimbursement later so that children are not trapped in a bureaucratic quagmire involving different levels of government. That makes sense.

Patients should not have to fight these battles back and forth, especially when we are talking about patients who are pre-school aged children. These battles often go on and on between the various governmental jurisdictions.

It just makes sense to ask that medical services be paid, to ensure that patients receive care as quickly as possible when they need it. The fight to determine who ultimately pays for it, and who reimburses whom, can happen after the fact. It makes no sense to force patients to wait, least of all indigenous children, to determine who is going to pay the bill and whether the cost of treatment will be reimbursed or not, especially when it would be reimbursed in all other cases. It makes no sense.

We are also talking about children who are often critically ill. If treatment is delayed because of red tape, the patient's condition could deteriorate and treatment could wind up being a lot more expensive later, because care could unfortunately become more complicated as time goes on. We could mention antibiotic resistance, for example. Treatment must not be delayed, because the patient's condition could become more complicated, especially if the patient, in this case a child, gets a nosocomial or hospital-acquired infection, because he or she had to wait too long for treatment .

This red tape war against children and parents has to stop. We cannot keep taking people to court for treatments that often cost less than the lawyers' fees. This happens all the time.

People fight tooth and nail in court to get out of paying for treatment only to end up losing because the ruling simply makes no sense, especially when we consider that non-indigenous children are reimbursed for the same treatments by their province and the lawyer fees cost more than the treatment. It makes no sense. It is wasting a dollar to save a quarter.

Nobody is saving money. Most of the time, people's cases are found to be without merit, because these treatments are not experimental. This is pediatric care offered to non-aboriginal children in most hospitals. When it comes to care provided to children, one must be consistent and ensure that aboriginal children receive the same care as non-aboriginal children.

There are five Algonquin communities in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which is on Anishnabe land. Some are having a really tough time. In Pikogan, the Abitibiwinnik live near a major centre and have access to services in the town of Amos.

However, some communities in Témiscamingue are very remote. For example, Winneway, which is home to the Long Point First Nation, is about a one-hour drive from hospital if the road conditions are good. If a child from this community needed an ambulance, they could wait a long time and it would be difficult to receive care.

This community is so remote that it does not even have a school. Plans are in the works. Children are currently driven to another village to a school that had been closed. There were some cases of teenagers who were cutting themselves because they were in a school without windows. The quality of food is not always the best because there are no grocery stores in the village. There is only one small corner store that mainly sells frozen foods to be baked because these foods keep longer and do not spoil before they are purchased.

These people face serious challenges with respect to health, and I believe that it is unfair for these children to be penalized because of the federal government's approach, which unfortunately has become a bad practice.

I am out of time and look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, October 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to speak to this subject.

Clearly, this is not always a very easy subject to understand, but I think it is important in the context of the current system we are dealing with.

Many people are now faced with difficult choices; take insurance, for example. People are being asked to be more provident in general, to consider taking out life insurance or disability insurance so that they can protect their family in the event of adversity.

However, the problem this raises is that people have access to far more information on health and genetic diseases. For example, we know that a given gene could indicate a greater predisposition to a given disease. Often, nothing is certain. We know there is a greater predisposition in a given gene carrier, but we also know that nonetheless the person may never develop the disease in question.

Because of family history, more and more people are being asked to take a genetic test if they want access to life insurance or disability insurance.

People who refuse to take the test run the risk of being denied insurance. If you pass, it means you do not carry the gene, and you can therefore be insured and everything will be fine. However, if you discover that you do carry the gene, you run the risk of being denied insurance, not only from that insurance company, but also many others that you would approach later. All this because you carry a gene that predisposes you to a given illness that could be very serious, although there is no guarantee that you will actually get the disease.

This could put additional stress on people, because they will be afraid of developing a disease that they may never actually develop. This is very important. This has become increasingly important over time, with the evolution of medical technology.

When it comes to genetic discrimination, it is also important to make sure that people can continue to take part in genetic research without begin forced to disclose the results or findings of that research. It is therefore important to ensure the confidentiality of data.

My colleagues might not know this, but Quebec is quite interesting when it comes to genetic research. People who do family research realize that the population base in Quebec did not move very much for many years, unlike in Europe where there were regular unions between people from different regions or countries to consolidate alliances. In Quebec, the people did not move very much at all. This is extremely interesting for genetic research because it allows the researcher to establish family lineage and see how genetic diseases were transmitted within a family. A significant amount of data is readily available, in other words, it is easy to find out who married whom. Family trees can be established for the vast majority of Quebeckers. A number of companies that do genetic research decided to use Quebec's population for their studies.

If the research participants are not sure that their data will be protected or whether they will eventually be forced to disclose to an insurance company the blood sample they might have provided 10 years ago, then this could seriously hamper the research.

This research helps detect the genes that cause certain diseases and contributes to medical advances. Accordingly, protecting people from discrimination also allows advances in research to continue.

Research participants are often compensated financially. I think that practice should continue provided this is really done for research.

However, when insurance is involved, we should consider the need to prevent people from obtaining financial compensation for agreeing to take a genetic test because that is a source of pressure. If an individual is offered a lower insurance premium on condition that they agree to take a test, that becomes a financial incentive. That is perverse and does not help resolve the issue of genetic discrimination. These are very important considerations.

Researchers need access to this data, as do health professionals when this information is found to be pertinent to the condition of their patients, so they can provide appropriate treatment. However, if health professionals have access to these test results, we must ensure that confidentiality is protected. If we do not protect patients' privacy, we run the risk that some people will refuse these tests, will not know that they are at risk of developing a disease, and will definitely not change certain lifestyle habits that are putting them at risk.

Genetic testing can play a preventive role in some respects. If we know that we are at risk because of an abnormal gene, we can work on the risk factors, because those can be mitigated.

When it comes to breast cancer, for example, some genes have been identified, but there are other risk factors, such as birth control pills. By reducing their exposure to such substances, people can reduce their risk, even if they know they may be genetically predisposed to that type of cancer.

I know that genetics may not be the most riveting topic. I would like my colleagues to be more upbeat and enthusiastic, but I must admit that we are discussing a highly specialized scientific field and that it is easy to get lost, particularly for those at home who have even less knowledge of health. That is why we, as legislators, need to protect them properly.

We have the opportunity to speak to experts who can explain to us the challenges associated with this sort of bill. We have the responsibility to protect Canadians, particularly when it comes to such a technical topic. It is not always easy for the people at home to follow what we are doing, but we have here a wonderful opportunity to better protect Canadians. We can ensure that no one ends up in a precarious personal or financial situation and that no one is prevented from protecting their family because they have been refused insurance.

It can even have an impact on their children. Imagine finding out from a genetic test that one has a genetic predisposition. Then imagine being denied insurance because one chose to have the test done. Then imagine one's children and other family members also being denied insurance. That would be a shame. People are increasingly being expected to take charge of things themselves and make arrangements for their own security, so refusing to protect them would conflict with what they are being asked to do.

I am therefore asking my colleagues to support this bill so it can be referred to committee and improved as needed. We must protect Canadians from genetic discrimination.

[National Defence, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague was also a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence in the previous Parliament, he will understand what I am talking about. We had access to some secret defence documents, under certain conditions to prevent information from being leaked, of course. That helped us to better understand the issue.

Does the government intend to make detailed information, such as the statement of operational requirements, the analysis of the various aircraft, and everything that has been done by cabinet, available to the people who will sit on the committee that Bill C-22 proposes to create?

Will the opposition critics on this file have access to that information so that they can determine whether the best decision was made for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces?