Christine Moore

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a simple question.

When the Liberals were in opposition they criticized the Harper targets and said that they were not high enough, that it was irresponsible, and that they would not accomplish anything. However, they are using the exact same targets and the plan has not changed.

How can a plan that was irresponsible and not ambitious enough all of a sudden be acceptable to the Liberals?

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the electronic petition I am presenting today has to do with the changes to the Treasury Board policy that put Garderie Tunney's Daycare, here in Ottawa, in danger of closing down because of rent increases.

In the end, that day care managed to reach a deal with the Treasury Board, but other day care centres, like the one mentioned by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, remain in jeopardy.

This electronic petition is very important because it calls on the Treasury Board and the government to make the work-life balance of federal employees a priority, specifically by keeping quality child care centres in federal workplaces.

I believe it is important to table this petition if we want to ensure that our federal public servants enjoy reasonable, accessible work-life balance.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleague can help us understand what is going on.

As I said before to another member, we are debating an amendment that would send Bill C-4 back to committee. Over the course of the four meetings that the committee spent studying the bill, the Conservatives presented no amendments. Now they want it to go back to committee. When I asked them whether they planned to present amendments and why they wanted to send it back to committee, they said that there was no way to improve it and that they had no plans to present any amendments.

Why do the Conservatives not just vote against the bill at third reading instead of trying to use an amendment to send it back to committee? I just do not understand what they are trying to do. We disagree on the bill, but it seems to me that if they do not plan to present any amendments, they should not send it back to committee. They should just vote against it if that is what they are going to do. I would like to understand what is going on. Can my colleague help me understand why this amendment is on the table?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague could explain something to me. We are currently debating an amendment to send the bill back to committee, but when we studied the bill in committee the Conservatives did not present any amendments. Why are they trying to send the bill back to committee if they did not put any amendments forward when we were studying it in committee? There were four meetings.

He just said in his speech that the Conservatives are working hard, but he had four meetings to table amendments and the Conservatives tabled none. Therefore, I have difficulty understanding the process and what exactly they are trying to do. If he could clarify that, it would be really appreciated.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleagues agree that the previous bill, which this bill is trying to repeal, could ensure the security of police officers, because a lot of them are unionized. The ones who work in unions could have their names and addresses published. They really worry about that.

Would the previous bill, which this bill would repeal, secure police officers in their work?

[Canada Labour Code, September 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this topic because it is pertinent to one of my areas of study. I am a nurse by training, but I also did additional training in workplace health and safety. The reason I want to emphasize this is that in many cases, workers do not go on strike to get a better salary, but to protect against dangerous working conditions. Throughout history there have been strikes that sought to denounce dangerous working conditions and to call for change.

Some sectors remain quite dangerous no matter how careful companies might be. Take for example the history of mining work. It is extremely dangerous work. Even though mining companies are now making tremendous efforts in the area of workplace health and safety, the fact remains that deaths occur in the mining sector every year.

If workers decide to go on strike to denounce working conditions that are inadequate or put their health and safety at risk and the employer can simply use replacement workers, then the situation will not improve. This does nothing to address the danger. This simply puts pressure on the workers by calling them babies and saying that others are prepared to do the work and that they should stop complaining. That is not the way to improve workers' health and safety, especially for those who work in dangerous fields.

Without anti-scab legislation, strikes tend to drag on. In 1974, there was a strike in Quebec that lasted 20 months and resulted in an amendment to the Quebec Labour Code. However, prior to 1974, there were several strikes that went on for more than 10 months. That is almost a full year of unemployment.

When workers refuse to work for 10 months, they clearly have a reason. If employers are simply allowed to replace their employees with other workers who are prepared to do the job—probably because it is that or nothing—the working conditions of employees do not improve. Employers do not strive to improve employees' health and safety.

The workplace has changed significantly. We need only think of what our grandfathers told us. It is unfortunate, but in my family, there are four or five men missing part of a finger. That may not seem like much, but it is because the health and safety standards were not the same at the start of their careers, and they were in manual trades that were a little more dangerous than other trades. Although minor, these are life-changing accidents, and yet, they could have been worse.

Anti-scab legislation ensures that employers must negotiate with their employees. If something undermines the health and safety of workers as it does in the case at hand, at some point it costs less for the company to improve practices than to have employees who are on strike for a long time. However, if the employer is allowed to call on replacement workers, its negotiating strength is no longer the same. That is why my colleague's bill is so important. It changed a lot of things in Quebec, and I hope we will be able to do the same here.

Of course, there may be different legislative approaches. That is why we have committees in our parliamentary system. Committees allow us to choose how extensive of a study should be conducted, depending on the bill. If the committee thinks that the bill is extremely important, it can choose to examine the bill over ten sittings or so and hear from many witnesses and stakeholders.

The committee is controlled by the Liberals.

If the Liberals think that this issue is extremely important and warrants extensive consultation, there is nothing stopping them from moving a motion in committee to conduct a study that will last long enough to hear everyone's views and perhaps make amendments to the bill.

This is such an important bill affecting bargaining power and labour law that we cannot simply dismiss it out of hand. We absolutely must send this bill to committee so that we can discuss it and resolve the situation.

Right now, only two provinces have legislation to prohibit replacement workers: Quebec and British Columbia. In practical terms, some people may not have ideal working conditions, but since they know that they will simply be replaced if they go on strike, they accept the risks and continue to work, hoping that nothing bad will happen to them. This is a dangerous attitude that can destroy families.

In my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I have friends who have become widows because of mining accidents. Adolescents have become orphans. They lost their father at age six or eight. These are not easy situations. However, I also know that mining companies have done a lot to improve workplace health and safety.

Unfortunately, accidents still happen, and that is why we need to bring in legislation that enables us to make improvements the various systems and companies as much as possible, to ensure that workers are as safe as possible and that they are not afraid to speak out about dangerous working conditions for fear of being replaced in the event of a strike.

This is an important bill, and it has a history in the House. This is not the first time this matter has come before us. Yvon Godin talked about it many times here in the House. It is an important bill. The fact also remains that some federally regulated professions can be very dangerous. Railway workers labour in a profession that is very physically demanding and very dangerous. Accidents can happen.

Consider those who repair railways. They often have to hammer huge spikes with weights of about 150 pounds and have to carry heavy objects. There are other dangers, too. For instance, if repairs are not done properly, this can cause accidents not only for workers, but also for rail users.

Some federally regulated occupations involve significant risk, so it is appropriate to protect people by preventing employers from hiring replacement workers in a strike situation, whether it is company-wide or just in one particular unit. Strikes can involve people in specific trades for whom working conditions are unacceptable and may have nothing to do with other employees.

It is important to remember that many of the demands employees make, whether they are unionized or not, have nothing to do with compensation and everything to do with health and safety.

I think that passing this bill can help us save lives, advance labour law more quickly, and continue to be a global leader in health and safety. In many sectors, such as mining, we are considered world leaders when it comes to safe workplaces, but if we stop now, if we stop improving, our international reputation will suffer.

It would be nice if the government chose to provide truly improved worker protection and signalled its intention not to go down the same path as Stephen Harper's government.

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to sum up what I have to say in five minutes.

Let us start with some history. The Supreme Court was created in 1875. It has been the final court of appeal for criminal cases in Canada since 1933, and for civil cases since 1949. The Supreme Court consists of eight puisne judges and a chief justice, who shall hold office during good behaviour until the age of 75. Of these nine judges, three shall be from Quebec, to ensure expertise in civil law, and tradition has it that, of the remaining six judges, three come from Ontario, two come from the western provinces and one comes from the Atlantic provinces.

The motion flows from this problem, in other words, that this is a tradition, not a requirement. As we saw in the past under Stephen Harper, the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon did not comply with the rules. In that case, there was a formal obligation under the law, because the three justices from Quebec must have been members of the Barreau du Québec for at least 10 years, which was not the case for Justice Nadon. That was a legal, constitutional obligation, but it was not respected at the time of his appointment. There are precedents here, and in this case, it was a requirement.

What we are talking about now arises from tradition and custom, not obligation, so it is understandable that people would be concerned. I think we need to deal with Supreme Court appointments once and for all to ensure that what the vast majority of the population wants is no longer a custom but an obligation. If we deal with this now, it will not come up every time there is a new government and every time there is a new appointment, because that just gets tiresome.

I also want to talk about the bill my colleague from Drummond introduced because another important factor for me when it comes to Supreme Court appointments is bilingualism. I think the current definition of bilingualism is sloppy: they need to understand French, but they do not necessarily need to speak it. That makes no sense to me. There are tests in both languages that can tell us if people know the other language.

For example, I once did some research into working abroad in the U.K. I had to take an English test and get a minimum score on it to work there. We can do the same thing here. There are tools to evaluate whether people are truly bilingual. Saying someone just has to understand French but does not need to speak it is not good enough. To me, that is ridiculous. I also want to point out that, to be appointed to the Supreme Court, a candidate must satisfy a number of conditions, including having been a member of a provincial bar association for at least 10 years.

In other words, that person has time to prepare. People are not being appointed to the Supreme Court two years out of law school. While practising, people can figure out whether they are interested in joining the Supreme Court later in their careers, and they can make learning the second language a priority if they have not already mastered both official languages.

As a francophone, if I had been a lawyer and I thought I might like to be appointed to the Supreme Court one day, I would have made sure to take English courses so that I was completely bilingual. It is the same thing for anglophones. This is an important part of it. People do not just magically end up on the Supreme Court. It is a long process. A lot of hard work goes into getting appointed to the Supreme Court. These people have time to prepare. They have worked in a number of fields and have had time to decide to learn the other language so that they have the qualifications needed to sit on the Supreme Court.

That is why it is important we move away from our traditional approach to appointing judges and make regional representation and bilingualism mandatory criteria. No longer should we need to rely on such voluntary traditions that can be observed or disregarded with each new government depending on which of our friends we may want to appoint. That needs to stop. We need to put rules in place and settle this issue once and for all.

By so doing, we will avoid having to challenge time and again appointments deemed inappropriate or otherwise not in the best interests of our justice system going forward.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to each program of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, since 2002: (a) what are the various programs; (b) what are the criteria for each program; (c) what project evaluation grid is used by program managers; and (d) what changes have been made to the evaluation grids identified in (c), since 2002, and broken down by year?

[Rouyn-Noranda Huskies, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies, a major junior hockey team, has won its second President's Cup in three years. This trophy is awarded annually by the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League to the league's top team.

The Foreurs de Val-d'Or won the cup in 2014, and this year it was the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies who came out on top, and also came within four minutes of winning the Memorial Cup, the pinnacle of junior hockey supremacy in Canada.

I want to congratulate each and every player on the team, as well as their coach, Gilles Bouchard, and the rest of the coaching staff, on their remarkable season, their passion, and their 72 victories.

I also want to commend the team president, Jacques Blais, and other members of the organization who contributed to the Huskies' success. The team is also celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, an anniversary that will go down in hockey history for the entire Abitibi-Témiscamingue area, as highlighted by the thousands of fans who turned out for the parade through the streets of Rouyn-Noranda.

To our champions, the Huskies, thank you once again for a great season.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to research and information, if something I am doing is illegal, I am certainly not going to talk about it. If people can at least talk about what they are doing, we will be able to get far more crucial information. If an activity is illegal, it is very difficult to get information that will give us a better idea of the limits we need to set. That is what I meant to say. If marijuana is decriminalized, people will at least be able to report how much they are consuming, and that will give an idea of the repercussions this has on their concentration or their skills.