House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Victims Bill of Rights June 20th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that it would have been useful to have had more consultations in order to determine how to help people deal with their experiences? How does she think that we could explore this aspect of the bill of rights when we study it in committee?
Victims Bill of Rights June 20th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague some questions.
Does she think that this bill of rights is based more on the legal process or on the legal aspects of victimization? Have the psychological ramifications of being a victim of crime been sufficiently examined for this bill and when developing the bill of rights?
Combating Counterfeit Products Act June 19th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, since my colleague has spoken a lot about counterfeit drugs, I would like to make a comment. I do not know what she will think of it. Some scientific and medical articles I read indicate that, currently, 75% of the Viagra on the market is counterfeit. Since men are embarrassed to ask their doctors for this drug, they try to get it without a prescription. An enormous amount is counterfeit. There are even pills that are blatantly counterfeit: somewhat handcrafted, they are simply painted blue.
I would like her to talk about the risks associated with counterfeiting when it involves products that people are a little embarrassed to ask for or go and get, even if they could probably do so legally. If they took the time to see a doctor, they would not get a counterfeit product.
Could my colleague share her observations with us?
Combating Counterfeit Products Act June 19th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague briefly addressed the issue of counterfeit drugs. Since I am a nurse, the subject is of particular interest to me. At the international level, it is a veritable epidemic. In some African countries, there are more counterfeit drugs than legally produced drugs. When the counterfeiters started out, of course, they had a very shoddy way of doing things. Now, they go so far as to reproduce the packaging and holograms. It is very disturbing. Canadian hospitals have unknowingly bought counterfeit drugs and doctors have prescribed them to their patients, thinking they were the real drugs.
I would like to hear my colleague’s opinion on this epidemic. How can we solve the problem? How much of a risk do counterfeit drugs represent for Canadians’ health?
Conflict Minerals Act June 19th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, as I was in the process of explaining, unfortunately when the government refers to this bill, it often equates these transparency provisions with red tape that will impede investment and economic growth in the countries in question.
Sadly this rhetoric, which is central to the Conservatives' discourse, has no basis in fact. The bill sponsored by my NDP colleague calls for a responsible, progressive course of action and brings to the forefront the issues of human rights protection, the right of consumers to be informed and environmental protection.
Given the Conservatives' refusal to exercise due diligence, their blind partisanship and their belief in the benefits of deregulation, controlling the supply chain of extractive sector companies is a responsible course of action. Conflicts within the Great Lakes Region of Africa, fueled by mining companies, and their repercussions place a heavy burden on a government that, unfortunately, is only concerned about passing legislation that benefits lobbyists.
Some UN experts have called on the federal government to hold an inquiry into mining companies that fail to comply with OECD principles regarding ethical practices. In March 2009, the government announced its building the Canadian advantage strategy, which called for the appointment of an ethics counsellor devoid of any power.
Without a requirement to exercise due diligence, the activities of Canadian extractive sector companies will continue to fund social injustice and human rights violations in conflict areas. In the absence of regulations, companies seeking short-term returns on their investments will be a lightning rod for instability and will hinder direct foreign investment. Long-term investment projects are tied to the stability of political institutions.
However, the proliferation of armed groups chases away foreign investment and isolates this region, which is plagued by serious political unrest and devastating economic stagnation. In terms of foreign policy, Canada has acquired expertise in providing humanitarian aid and managing peacekeeping operations.
The development of this expertise rests on Canada’s faith in strengthening international legal instruments. As a result, Bill C-486 introduces the principle of corporate social and environmental responsibility, as well as legal provisions aimed at protecting civilian populations.
Bill C-486 contains provisions that are consistent with traditional principles of Canadian diplomacy, principles that this government is unfortunately dismantling through the excessive deregulation of the activities of Canadian companies operating abroad. A stable market, one that is conducive to investments, requires a state of law and strong political institutions, at the very least, hence the need for responsible supply chain management.
According to the French organization Coface, the prevailing political climate is one of the determining factors for a company that is seeking to invest. In the absence of regulations, activities will continue to fuel political instability, to the point where this region of the globe will become a region of bankrupt states where anarchy reigns, a region with the potential to become fertile ground for international terrorism.
Finally, when it comes to minerals, we have to understand that Canadian consumers have no way of tracing their movement. For instance, when we buy a toaster made of metals and other substances, we do not know where each of the metals came from. The same can be said for many consumer goods. There is no way of knowing exactly where the metal used was mined or processed. If consumers knew that the goods they were purchasing were manufactured with conflict minerals, and by purchasing them, they were perhaps contributing to the climate of political instability or fuelling unrest in certain areas of the world, I honestly believe they would not buy these products.
For this reason, I believe it is important to require Canadian extractive sector companies to be more transparent and more open about the movement of products. This would help to ease the instability and decrease the incidence of human rights violations in these regions.
Conflict Minerals Act June 19th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting patiently to speak to Bill C-486 respecting the extraction of conflict minerals.
As the official opposition energy and natural resources critic, I am especially interested in this bill. The Great Lakes Region of Africa is currently plagued by chronic political and economic instability. Paradoxically, the abundance of natural resources is one of the causes of this instability. In fact, these natural resources should be driving the socio-economic development of the people living in this region. Resources are plentiful and financial opportunities abound, but instead of enabling the community to develop, these resources create instability. That is very unfortunate.
This brings me to the bill. In addition to this situation, it is unacceptable that future profits earned by Canadian mining companies will help fund extremely violent internal conflicts and will contribute, whether directly or indirectly, to the suppression of basic rights. For this reason, Bill C-486, which was brought forward by my colleague for Ottawa Centre, provides for mechanisms to thoroughly monitor the movement of a mineral from the extraction site to its incorporation in the final product for end consumers.
The bill also provides for the participation of an independent third party that would produce a report on the exercise of due diligence. This process would ultimately depend on the co-operation of the companies involved, the expertise of the third party and on Natural Resources Canada’s duty to inform the public.
More specifically in this instance, the bill allows the government to endorse Canada’s traditional position on responsible supply chain management. As a signatory to the OECD's Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, the government has, by extension, supported the OECD guide on due diligence.
The bill in fact formalizes the main points of the OECD guide. It is highly contradictory to ratify an international agreement while at the same time refusing to adopt it in the form of a federal bill. Unfortunately, this is not the first contradiction of which this government is guilty.
I would like this government to act logically when it ratifies international conventions and I would like to see it apply these conventions in its bills. This is not the case here and for that reason, we need to take action and to lend Bill C-486 our support.
This bill is in line with the New Democrats’ position that companies should act in a socially responsible manner while allowing consumers to make more informed choices. The government equates transparency provisions with administrative formalities that can hinder investment and impede economic growth in the states located in the Great Lakes Region of Africa.
This rhetoric, central to the Conservatives' position, clearly has no basis in fact. The bill sponsored by my NDP colleague calls for a responsible, progressive course of action.
Victims Bill of Rights Act June 13th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how she feels about the fact that the Conservatives are standing up to say they are protecting victims, but when it comes to protecting aboriginal women, they are failing. When it comes to protecting military women, who are subject to five assaults a day in the armed forces, and when it comes to protecting women in the RCMP, they are failing dismally.
I would like her to comment on the fact that they failed dismally on the very issues where they could have taken action.
Citizenship and Immigration June 13th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was unable to give a clear answer, just like the day before, when he hung up on an interviewer.
The minister is unable to say how many Syrian refugees are in Canada right now, and when he does give answers, they are contradicted by the Syrian Canadian Council.
Can the minister tell us how many government-sponsored refugees are physically in Canada right now?
Forestry Industry June 13th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forestry industry employs about 600,000 people across the country and is the most important business sector to the economies of many communities, including many aboriginal communities. In my riding, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, more than 5,000 families make a living from the forestry industry.
In Quebec and the rest of Canada, people count on the government to take the necessary measures to ensure the sustainability and development of the forestry industry.
That is why I recently moved a motion that proposes that the government work with the provinces, territories, and first nations to develop a national strategy to advance Canada’s forestry sector. The purpose of MotionNo. 5188 is to create good jobs and develop our forests in a responsible and sustainable way.
We must also find ways of diversifying and promoting wood-based products, developing building systems and expanding markets for Canadian wood products.
That is why I hope that all members of this House will support my motion and the Canadian forestry industry.
Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act June 12th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, increasing the residency requirement in no way changes the value of Canadian citizenship.
I believe that people are capable of proving that they belong and that they have a desire to become Canadian citizens after a reasonable period of time. If we have not been able to establish that a person would contribute greatly to Canadian society by becoming a Canadian citizen in four years, I do not know how increasing the residency requirement would change anything.
What is important is that we process these applications within a reasonable amount of time to allow people to build their lives. It is unreal to see how complicated it can be to get Canadian citizenship and to build a life. Many people who earned university degrees in Canada are turned down for jobs because the employer is very concerned that something could happen and the individual would not be able to stay in the country.
It is essential for people to be able to build their lives and become full citizens by exercising their right to vote, among others, and actively participating in their communities. For example, someone could become a municipal councillor in their town to truly get involved.
For this to happen, we need to process applications within a reasonable amount of time and exercise due diligence. If we had an adequate organizational capacity, I am certain that we would be able to assess an individual's case in four years. That seems reasonable to me.
The current residency requirement is reasonable, so I do not see why the government wants so badly to increase it. The system already has massive delays.