Christine Moore

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons understands that we are talking about the relevance of answers to questions in terms of the subject that was being discussed. We are not talking about the quality of the answer. If I ask a question about X, the minister, the Prime Minister or the leader can certainly stand up and thank me for my interest in the subject and say that, unfortunately, he does not have the information with him to answer me, but that he would be pleased to provide it, or he could invite me to meet with him to talk about it. That would be enough for the Speaker to consider the answer to be relevant.

We are not talking about submitting written questions in advance; we are just talking about relevance. If I ask about potatoes, the answer should be about potatoes. If I ask about bananas, the answer should be about bananas. It is as simple as that.

As to the quality of the answer, the Speaker would intervene only if it were off topic and way out in left field. That is what we are talking about, not the quality of the content. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons seems to have taken this in another direction entirely. We are just talking about the relevance of the answer to the question that was asked.

[Petitions, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition that has been signed by people in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming on the changes the government made to the navigable waters protection act.

The people in my riding and the neighbouring riding are worried about the protection of water and want to be sure they will be able to continue to fish, and to hunt, because the animals use that water. They also want to continue activities such as kayaking. They are worried, and that is why I am tabling this petition today.

[Reform Act, 2014, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills is part of a much larger debate we are currently having about making our parliamentary system more democratic, reforming our democratic institutions and recognizing the role of each member within his or her caucus.

When talking about a topic as important as this, it is critical that we remain open-minded and that we are prepared to hold an open discussion and listen to the ideas coming from all sides. No one can claim to be the keeper of absolute truth. With a topic as complex as this, we need to be able to admit that discussion is the only way we will all win.

That is why I would like to thank the hon. member. From the moment he introduced his bill, he has been open to discussion. I have been able to speak with him about my concerns and fears about his bill. He took them into consideration and showed that he was willing to amend his bill in light of those concerns. That is the kind of attitude we need if we are going to reform our democratic system. What we definitely do not need is having bills introduced to reform our democratic system without the willingness to accept any amendments whatsoever. We will not be able to change our parliamentary system by setting things in stone before debate even begins.

I wanted to take the time to thank the hon. member for that.

This bill will make rather substantial changes to the nomination process and the process of admitting or readmitting a member or the party leader to the caucus.

I would like start by taking a moment to talk about what the NDP is doing so that people can then understand the concerns I had.

Our internal bylaws call for a biennial leadership review. Even if our leader is Prime Minister, they must submit to this review. We also take steps to ensure the transparency of our nomination process.

We also have affirmative action policies in place. As far as nominations go, we have processes in place to ensure that at least half of our candidates are women. We also encourage persons with disabilities and LGBT, Aboriginal, and young people to run in the nomination process.

In fact, my main fear regarding this bill is that it will weaken the parties' affirmative action policies. I am not talking about a party leader who blocks a candidate in order to shoehorn in a friend or acquaintance, but of someone who tries to promote one person's nomination because they belong to one of these affirmative action groups.

I do hope the amendments my colleague intends on bringing forward in committee will not weaken the affirmative action policies put in place by the parties to increase representation of under-represented groups. Once the bill gets to committee, if the amendments my colleague will propose to improve his bill are rejected, the subsequent vote will surely have a different outcome. If they pass, however, my fears will have been assuaged and I will be free to continue down the same path.

When we talk about a process to expel a member from a parliamentary group or elect a party leader, we have to keep certain facts in mind. In some legislatures, in Canada and elsewhere, sometimes there are people who do things that may not be not illegal but are certainly not well received.

Currently, if a caucus member did such a thing, it would be up to the party leader to decide whether it was serious enough or still within the bounds of acceptability and decide whether that person would remain a member of his parliamentary caucus or not. It is much more appropriate for that decision to be made by all the members of the caucus.

This also applies to the leader. When he or she does something that is not illegal, but is not well regarded, the members of caucus can vote to determine whether that person still has the moral authority to be the leader of a parliamentary group. What is more, it is appropriate to ask that question.

Medical issues may also come into play when it comes to the leader. Some people might refuse to give up the position of leader while experiencing medical problems affecting their judgment—for example, because of substance abuse or an illness that is affecting their cognitive abilities, self-examination and judgment. In that case, a mechanism would enable members of caucus to decide what to do next.

It would be interesting to discuss this in committee. In some exceptional circumstances, these measures might help parliamentary groups make a decision that would not be based solely on the judgment of one person or a handful of people within a group, but on the majority of the members of a parliamentary caucus.

When I read my colleague's bill, I was surprised. Sometimes we can be a little naive and not think to look through all of the rules. In the NDP, we elect a chair every year and we have gender parity, so if the chair is a man, the vice-chair will automatically be a woman and vice versa. I was surprised to find out that that is not the norm everywhere. Naively, I figured that all parties elected their chairs. It seemed logical to me. I would therefore like to thank my colleague because now I know that some parties have a lot to learn from the NDP. I think that is a bit of a shame.

With these changes, the election of a caucus chair once per Parliament would not be a strict rule but the minimum standard. If a party wants to hold an election every year, as the NDP does, it can continue to do so. The important thing is that caucus chairs have to be elected. That is very interesting. That way, people can elect an individual who is competent and who is also ready to listen to them.

Choosing the right person is key to maintaining harmony within a parliamentary caucus. The chair has to have sound cognitive abilities and knowledge of the parliamentary system, as well as human relations skills allowing him or her to accurately assess situations and intervene at the party level and the caucus level for the good of the members. Electing the caucus chair is therefore a very good way to operate.

I would like to thank my colleague one last time for his openness when we were discussing my concerns.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will draw an analogy with the current Ebola crisis.

A number of airlines have cancelled flights that fly over the affected area, which has adverse consequences for the people there. Humanitarian workers are having a hard time getting there.

In a conflict situation, if airlines stop flying to certain regions for insurance purposes, humanitarian aid might be compromised, as it may no longer be able to get there. It might take considerably longer for aid to get there when humanitarian workers have to land in countries that are much further away and travel the rest of the route by land.

Providing compensation to the airlines might help keep certain flights to risk areas so that the people can continue to benefit from the humanitarian help they need. Nonetheless, even if the government committed to getting involved in the insurance aspect of things, there is no guarantee that the airlines will maintain their flights. We will have to see if this really has an impact and whether the airlines will agree to maintain these flights as a result of the government's commitment.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her question.

Double-hull tankers are not indestructible. Accidents and spills can happen with these boats as well. They are not the miracle solution. In any event, since 1993, in accordance with a convention, Canada is obliged to use double-hull boats and there are still spills.

As far as marine safety is concerned, it is not just the design of the boat that affects the number of spills. Marine safety laws and their enforcement play a role too. When governments, like the Conservative government, are lax with marine safety, then Canada's oil industry is affected and pays the price. If we want sustainable development of our resources, then we must have appropriate safety measures in place in order for Canadians to trust an industry.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here to deliver my first speech since the summer break, following a busy summer that was full of ups and downs. I am on my feet, ready to respond to the government and hold it to account.

Bill C-3 has to do with marine safety and aviation safety. Once again, there is a discrepancy between the bill's objective and what it actually does. We already debated Bill C-3 in another form before prorogation. At the time, it was Bill C-57, which was referred to committee. The NDP proposed some amendments, which were all rejected. The NDP also asked the government to expand the scope of the bill, which the government also refused to do.

This attitude is really unfortunate. When we are dealing with topics as broad as aviation safety and marine safety, they are often very complex and require the testimony of expert witnesses. Logically, then, if we are opening up such a debate, we need to try to go over the entire subject and take the opportunity to discuss all the appropriate aspects of marine and aviation safety in order to avoid having to constantly come back to such a technical subject. Basically, it is a little like spring cleaning at home—we have to look inside every nook and cranny. We cannot simply choose the parts that interest us. This is the logical way to go about it, but unfortunately, the government refuses to apply this logic. It does not agree that as long as we are discussing such complex issues, we should explore them fully and completely.

As I said, one thing we wanted was to expand the scope of the bill, in order to discuss in particular the closure of the marine rescue centres and the negative impact of some legislation on environmental protections, specifically for coastal environments. All of these subjects were directly related to the bill's objective. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to do so.

Bill C-3 also proposes to amend the Marine Liability Act. It also seeks to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Canada has been a signatory to this very important convention since 2010, and only today are we seeing a bill seeking to implement it. The convention defines the liability of vessel owners for costs incurred when oil or other similar materials are spilled.

It is very important to highlight and clarify the liability of companies and vessel owners when such a spill occurs and when damage is caused. If oil or other noxious and hazardous substances are spilled, Canadian taxpayers should not have to cover the cleanup and damage costs.

The limited liability of private businesses is a recurring problem from one bill to the next. We saw this in Bill C-22. The real costs and inflation over time are not being considered, and there may be a considerable burden on Canadians. As New Democrats, we believe in the polluter pays principle, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, who constantly fob off the true environmental, social and economic costs onto current and future Canadian taxpayers.

As the deputy critic for natural resources and energy, I believe it is extremely important to understand that proper natural resource development requires a constant and appropriate legal framework.

When development in certain industries is not subject to a legal framework, investors tend to flee. Also, let us not forget that, to be developed, this natural resource must be transported. However, if the transportation framework is flawed, the industry can become unstable.

Therefore, we must protect our natural resource development as well as the economic potential of that development. To attract investment, this activity must have an adequate legal framework. People will want to invest in Canada if they know that safety measures are in place to reduce incidents, particularly during transportation.

Canada signed the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. Yes, it is a 2010 convention.

In the fall of 2012, quite recently, two large transport vessels ran aground on the west coast because of the marine traffic. Today, we are under the impression that, with this bill, the Conservative government is trying to apologize for its inaction over the last few years.

The government may have wanted to show goodwill when it signed the international convention in 2010, but years have passed. There have been disasters since then and oil spills on the west coast. We are only now debating this bill at third reading. It took a long time.

Throughout the various stages of the bill, many members have pointed out the government's failings when it comes to safety. Shutting down marine safety programs and cutting budgets is certainly no way to promote safety. The Conservative cuts are being felt even in our air force.

Recently, the Canadian air force had to resort to stealing parts from search and rescue aircraft kept in museums to keep its planes going. We will not even mention the Liberals' recycled submarines. Obviously, things are not any better on that side.

Part II of the bill amends the Aeronautics Act to give the Airworthiness Investigative Authority powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force.

In other words, instead of letting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigate when a military aircraft is involved, the investigation could be done by an authority under the Department of National Defence, which is therefore not required to release its report, as is the case for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

A witness from the armed forces told us that some reports and secrets are not made public for security reasons. However, when we hear that the armed forces consider a secret the number of soldiers taking drugs for erectile dysfunction, we realize that we might not agree on what should be secret in the armed forces.

Many flights pass through my region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, including military planes that fly over the northern part. The consequences of one accident could help us avoid other accidents with civilian aircraft, but unfortunately, since this information is sent to National Defence and the report is not made public, other avoidable accidents can occur. I find it unfortunate that the government's decision is to favour this new way of doing things.

[CBC/Radio-Canada, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are going to cut another $45 million from CBC/Radio-Canada.

That does not bode well for regional news coverage, given that 657 full-time jobs were already cut in April. Recently, because of a lack of resources, RDI did not even go to Lac-Mégantic to cover an important announcement. If RDI is not even able to cover an event that is 250 kilometres from Montreal, they are not going to be going to Abitibi.

When will the minister promise to support regional news coverage by stopping her attacks on CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer my colleague's question is to quote the words of a mother whose child was murdered. Members may have seen her on CBC news on April 3, 2014. Her name is Lori Triano-Antidormi, and she expressed some doubts about how effective this bill will be.

According to Lori Triano-Antidormi, this bill could create false hope for victims. This woman is a victim of crime, but as a psychologist, she also helps people to cope with situations like the one she experienced. This is what she said:

My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system. Right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. The crown has the final say. If the government were to make that change, it would only fuel vengeance in the victim which from a physiological perspective doesn't help their healing or recovery.

In many cases, victims are more concerned about knowing that the person who committed the offence understands the pain and suffering he caused, than they are about the sentence the offender receives. However, no justice system can guarantee that. The offender may be sentenced to 25 years in prison rather than 15, but if he continues to dig in his heels, remain in his shell and fail to understand the harm he caused, what purpose does that serve?

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, during its study, the committee will have to hear from front-line and second-line health care professionals. In many cases, these professionals respond to emergencies when the victims show up, whether they are victims of assaults or car accidents. The situations vary.

We need these front-line workers and police officers to tell us about how they respond to these individuals. We need to hear what it is really like for them, for example, when a mother comes out of her house in tears and clutches them in her arms. You have to know what to do, and you have to ensure that these people have rights and that they get the support they need. I think that is worthwhile.

I also think it would be worthwhile for the committee to hear from victims, if they feel able to testify. I am thinking in particular of victims whose case did not go to trial, for various reasons that I have already mentioned. Perhaps the person who committed the crime is dead, either because he committed suicide after committing the crime or because he died when the police attempted to arrest him. There are also cases where the person who committed the crime was never found or where the victim was told that their story seemed truthful, but that there was not enough evidence to lay charges.

I would like these people to have an opportunity to share their thoughts and to talk about their experiences so that we can take them into account. We need to ensure that the victims bill of rights applies to all victims and not just those who fit the definitions in a very specific bill.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I would like to point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading because we feel it should be studied at committee. However, we are definitely not giving the government a blank cheque. I do not think we should conclude consideration in committee until experts have spoken to us about specific aspects of the bill. That is why we feel very strongly about it going to committee. I sincerely hope that, for the victims' sake, we will take the time to conduct an in-depth study at committee and that the committee will be open to the potential amendments put forward by the opposition. I hope that we will take the time to do a non-partisan study. I think that it is particularly important, when talking about victims, not to be excessively partisan.

One thing disappoints me. The Conservatives have been talking about being tough on crime since they formed a minority government in 2006. They have consistently increased penalties for crimes, imposed minimum sentences and talked about victims. However, it was not until 2014 that they decided to introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights, when they could have done it at any point since 2006. I feel it is particularly disappointing to see that they have waited until their mandate is almost up to decide to work on this issue.

Since the government came to power, it has proposed increasingly severe legislation, as though the only thing victims want is harsher punishment for those who commit crimes. With respect to victims, I do not think that the various aspects were fully explored.

To begin, many of those aspects are not of a legal nature. They are related to the process and how we should be treating victims and listening to them. One of the first things that comes to mind is the whole process of revictimization or investigation.

Let us take a case of sexual assault as an example. Someone has been victimized in a very intimate way. As part of the legal process and obtaining evidence of the assault, the person undergoes an examination at the hospital. There is a kit for sexual assault, for rape.

I am a nurse. I have worked in emergency and intensive care. I was trained to use this kit. It is not much fun. When a person is raped, we have to look for physical, material evidence. To convict the rapist, we have to invade the victim's body when she is still in a very vulnerable psychological state. When we use the rape kit, we are kind of victimizing the victim all over again. Everyone understands that it is part of the legal process, but it is not easy to do.

For the Canadian victims bill of rights, we have to make sure there is money so that the people using these kits are properly trained and have the tools they need to help people in such sad situations.

There is something else that is not covered by the Canadian victims bill of rights: the right to be heard, believed and listened to. Often during the investigation, whether the crime was serious or not, people ask questions that can be a little biased. The victim might get the feeling that nobody believes her, that they think she is responsible for what happened, that she is being accused of making excuses or making things up. That is a very hard thing to go through for a victim who experienced a traumatizing event and found the courage to talk about it. For example, from the way the investigator asks questions, the victim might get the feeling that the investigator is practically accusing her of making the whole story up.

That can be unbearable for a victim. The bill of rights does not touch on the right to be listened to and believed, and that is a shame. That is exactly the psychological aspect I was talking about in the questions I asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

This bill of rights is very closely tied to the legal process. In some cases, there is no trial because the guilty party is never found. In many rape cases, the rapist is never found. If no charges are laid, the victim is not considered a victim in the eyes of the law because it cannot be proven that a crime took place if there is no trial. There can be obvious signs of rape on the woman's body, but if there is neither a trial nor a conviction, she is not considered to be a victim of crime.

In the case of other victims, the offender may be found, but lack of evidence may prevent the victim's case from going before the courts. These women will not be considered victims, even if a crime is committed against them and they are traumatized. The victims bill of rights will not apply to them because there was not enough evidence to take their case to court.

In other cases where a trial does take place, the criminal may be acquitted for different reasons. I will not go into all the details, but the victim is not considered a victim even though she has suffered psychological trauma. She lives with the impact of the crime day in and day out. That is also not recognized by the victims bill of rights.

There are other situations where people are not identified as victims. I am talking about cases where the attacker dies, for example as part of a family tragedy. The father kills his children and then kills himself. He will obviously not be tried in court, and thus the victim will not be considered a victim under the bill of rights. That is very unfortunate.

When the bill to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights is studied in committee, I recommend that the government take the time to talk to victims. I would like the government to step out of the legal realm and examine the possibility of giving rights to victims who will not be considered victims. I am talking about victims who do not press charges and whose attackers will not be incarcerated for the various reasons that I mentioned. Could they be included?

I hope that in committee we will take the time to listen to leaders of community organizations and health professionals who work with victims of crime in order to determine a holistic approach to helping victims. The bill of rights should recognize that victims have the right to be heard instead of just being linked to a judicial process.

There will still be a lot of work to be done when the bill is studied in committee, and we will do it. I sincerely hope that the Conservative government will take the time to do a thorough job.