Christine Moore

[Health, June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have once again shown that they do not understand the issues that affect Canadians' health.

The Supreme Court unanimously confirmed today that medical marijuana can be consumed in different forms. Thus, the regulations imposed by the Conservatives violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Will the Conservatives stop playing political games and focus on Canadians' well-being when it comes to medical marijuana?

[Health, June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in order to manufacture drugs the Canadian pharmaceutical industry imports substances from more than 2,000 foreign laboratories. Health Canada itself recognizes that it cannot inspect more than 10 laboratories a year. It therefore trusts the inspections carried out by the laboratories themselves.

How do we know whether these laboratories actually follow Health Canada rules? Will the minister fix the situation and stop playing with Canadians' safety?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 11th, 2015]

With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, broken down by fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present: (a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (b) how many jobs are estimated to have been created by this funding, broken down by (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in the last part of my comment I used language that was unparliamentary. I should have said that I hope we will throw them out for the next 100 years.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 100th gag order, and it is completely shameful. It does not make any sense.

The people of my riding are being insulted. Even my baby is feeling insulted. It has kicked at least 100 times since the government announced this 100th gag order.

What is more, they are imposing a gag order on a budget bill. We are talking about the budget that the Conservatives were two months late in tabling. They did not want to table the budget for two months. They needed more time. Finally, they balanced the budget, but do you know how, Mr. Speaker? They did so by selling the GM shares and by dipping into the contingency and employment insurance funds. If more time was needed to debate the budget bill, then why did they not table the budget two months earlier rather than imposing a gag order, which is a slap in the face to Canadians?

I simply hope that Canadians will remember this 100th gag order and that they will get the Conservatives the hell out of here for at least 100 years.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' plan is completely unrealistic and it is a 30-year plan.

The Liberals are saying that, when there are vacancies, they will appoint more qualified senators who will be less partisan. However, I would like to remind my colleague that most senators will be retiring when my baby goes to university.

I cannot wait 30 years for our country to have a Senate that might be somewhat less partisan. In any case, the plan has to work first, and that will not happen. Some senators will be there until 2043. The senators representing Quebec alone will not be retiring until 2024, 2024, 2049, 2039, 2021 and 2024.

Do we have time to wait for all of these senators to retire before we can hope that the Senate may begin to do its work in a less partisan manner? This plan does not make any sense and is unrealistic. It is not a solution. It is merely a band-aid for the problem, an attempt to find an easy solution. Most people do not understand that this plan will not work because there are senators who are not scheduled to retire for another 30 or 40 years.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in my case the decision was made behind closed doors, even though we asked that the process be public. It was decided that my employee's salary was inappropriate, even though no one ever tried to speak to me and no one ever spoke to my employee. That was an absolutely partisan decision.

I am referring to expenses that were deemed inappropriate by an outside auditor, the Auditor General, who is not partisan. We asked that our case go to court. We even asked that it be referred directly to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, we are talking about two completely different cases. On the one had, we have the Conservative MPs who decided to get into bed with the Liberals and rule that we had made partisan expenditures. On the other hand, I am talking about expenses that have been deemed inappropriate by the Auditor General, who is completely independent.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, which is totally inappropriate considering what is happening right now. A report will be tabled tomorrow. It will name 30 senators, some of them current senators and others who have retired. Nine of them—two of whom are still sitting and seven who have retired—have claimed expenses that have been deemed sufficiently inappropriate to be referred to the RCMP.

There is therefore a major problem, and the motion that was put forward to cut funding to the Senate was completely appropriate. Canadians are thoroughly discouraged by what is going on in the Senate. Of course there are the expenses, but there is also the way senators act.

A bill was passed at least two years ago now. It was introduced by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and concerned the rights of transgender people. The bill has been sitting in the Senate since then. The government is well aware that, with the election coming, the bill is likely to die on the order paper. The members work hard on bills that may perhaps be rather controversial or that deal with sensitive issues. They make sure that they are amended and modified and they seek the opinion of their colleagues so that the bill can be accepted by everyone in the House and passed by the majority. Then, the government can turn around and tell the senators to make sure that it is never discussed and that in any case it will die on the order paper.

This makes no sense. The worst of it is that the government is doing this not only to the official opposition but also to its own caucus. The Conservatives are doing the same thing with the bill introduced by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. He worked very hard. He conducted consultations. He came to speak with us and agreed to make some changes because we had some problems with the bill. Now, the bill has been completely amended and it is likely to die on the order paper. They are doing the same thing. They do not respect what goes on here in the House.

There are other rather strange goings-on among the current senators. Such is the case with Senator Don Meredith. I am going to quote an article that I found particularly interesting. It has not been discussed much. It is an article from the Huffington Post written by Zi-Ann Lum.

Entitled “Tory Senator Don Meredith Touts Degrees From Unaccredited Schools”, the article states:

A Conservative senator earmarked as one of the Senate's top spenders holds a master’s degree from a school whose phone number directs calls to a customer helpline for a website that sells iPads and printers.

Senator Don Meredith, a Toronto-area Pentecostal pastor, has a master's degree in religious studies from California State Christian University (CSCU)--an unaccredited and unregulated private institution that has shifted addresses at least four times within the last 10 years.

Further on, the article states:

Meredith also says he has an honorary doctorate from an association of Christian counsellors that has no standing as a degree-granting school. Since receiving this honorary doctorate, Meredith frequently signs his newsletters and press releases as “The Honourable Dr. Don Meredith.”

A few days after this article was published, Senator Don Meredith stopped using the title “doctor” in his blogs and letters.

It seems to me that anyone who twists reality in terms of his degrees and qualifications is not the kind of person that I am particularly proud to introduce. It appears that in the Senate, these kinds of things can go on with relatively few consequences. Don Meredith is still a senator. There is no problem, there are no consequences, despite the fact that he distorted the facts about his degrees, probably even when he had a discussion with the Prime Minister before being named to the Senate. This is surreal.

Let us talk about former senators. In one of his speeches, a Liberal senator decided to read his book in English from a to z, in order to obtain a French translation of it free of charge, since everything that is said in the two houses is translated, because this is a bilingual country. He obtained a French translation of his book free of charge and published the translation.

Is this really the kind of parliamentary work that Canadians deserve? I do not think so. Even in terms of the quality of the work, there are major problems.

There will be charges, or at least claims, for inappropriate expenses, but there is also a multitude of very debatable expenses about which we can do nothing.

For instance, questions should be asked when senators continually take return flights between Toronto and Ottawa in business class that take less than an hour and easily cost $2,000 to $3,000, and they are accompanied by their spouse.

In the House of Commons, the rules are clear about when we are entitled to fly business class and when we are not. Unfortunately, in the Senate, the rules are not clear. People regularly take short return flights in business class that cost the taxpayers a fortune. These expenses are not challenged because the senators have the right to do this. There is a problem in terms of the expenses that people legally have the right to claim.

The Senate is a major problem, and according to the list of appointments, a number of senators will be with us until 2027, 2037, 2026 and even 2040. The Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Housakos, will be in the Senate until 2043, and the Auditor General’s report pointed the finger at him. The Speaker of the Senate will be in office until 2043. He has clearly adopted the flawed attitudes that currently hold sway in the Senate.

How can we change an institution that is so flawed, where the senators can remain in office for all these years? My baby will be in university when the Speaker of the Senate retires. How can this change? We will have to wait a generation if we hope to pay a little more attention to Senate appointments. However, paying more attention to the appointments is not a solution. We have an institution here that is completely flawed.

In construction, if a house is too shoddy, there is nothing else to be done. There is no choice. When the foundations and the very structure of a house are too flawed, there is no choice but to tear it down, and this is precisely the problem with the Senate.

We have reached a point where we cannot simply hope to repair the damage. The repairs will be far too onerous in comparison with the problem. There is no choice. We must take action and tear this institution down in the hopes that we can get closer to what Canadians want. Many Canadians are disappointed with what is going on, and they do not understand how we can let it happen.

If someone in any private company distorted the facts about his degrees, would he keep his job and his degrees with no consequences? No. If an employee exaggerated his spending in order to claim huge expenses, would the company agreed to keep him? No.

We are at the point where the institution is so flawed that we have no choice but to tear it down, rebuild it and hope that the end result will be what Canadians want.

However, at present, based on what is on the table, I am not going to wait until my child is in university before at least trying to do something to improve the Senate.

In my opinion, even the Prime Minister knows that the Senate is no longer working, and there is a reason why he has not appointed any senators even though there are more than 20 vacant seats.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the Liberals' famous plan for the Senate.

I do not know whether he looked at the list of senators, but while a number of them are retiring, the terms of others are not up until 2030, 2039 or 2026. Even if senators are appointed more carefully, it is still going to take at least 30 years for the Senate to be completely renewed.

Is the Liberal plan a 30-year plan?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was finance critic before being industry critic, I would like to know if the Conservatives, at the same time as modifying what we have asked for, could improve other measures that could apply to banks in Canada and fees charged to consumers.