Christine Moore

[Veterans Hiring Act, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague find it odd that among all the listed categories, there seems to be no room for people who are injured during training? Sometimes soldiers get injured on the base, during training or manoeuvres, and not during armed combat abroad.

Does the member not find it odd that injuries sustained in armed conflict seem to be all that matter and not injuries sustained in soldiers' daily work?

[Marine Mammal Regulations, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill introduced by my colleague for West Nova.

I will use my time to focus on the safety aspect of the seal hunt and the key role it plays in the socio-economic development of many Canadian communities where it is of vital economic and cultural importance.

Sealers are usually self-employed and work seasonally. They play an important role in managing the wildlife population in hunting areas to ensure the sustainability of the resource. Canada's seal hunt remains sustainable. The harp seal population is healthy and thriving. Having tripled in size since 1970, it is now estimated to be 6.9 million individuals.

In some aboriginal communities, the right to hunt and fish for seals is protected by the constitutional right to hunt marine mammals. I want to emphasize that fact because any planned or spontaneous act intended to disrupt the seal hunt would violate the constitutional right of these aboriginal communities, thereby disparaging their cultural heritage and identity, which are associated with the seal hunt.

As I said, Inuit communities truly consider the seal hunt as part of their cultural heritage and their daily life is shaped by this traditional activity, especially because it represents their main source of food.

Furthermore, although the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have banned imports of seal products, there are exemptions to this ban for products derived from a traditional seal hunt by aboriginal peoples. Thus, despite this ban, if clothing were made by Inuit communities as part of their traditional activities, they could be sold and exported to Europe. Despite the ban, there is a certain openness and recognition of the traditional cultural value of this hunt for our communities. For that reason, the legislator is obliged to guarantee the continuity of this inalienable right of aboriginal peoples.

This regulatory bill will do more than preserve cultural heritage. It will ensure the safety of hunters, employees of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and observers in their workplace. By establishing a safe working environment, this bill will contribute to the creation of regulations that will prevent serious accidents resulting from protests that disrupt the orderly conduct of these activities.

The goal of this bill is not to prevent protests by people who are opposed to the seal hunt, but to ensure that if these people want to express their opinion they can do so without jeopardizing the safety of the hunters and workers for whom this is the main source of income.

I believe that it is essential that people be able to hunt when it is their livelihood. For that reason I urge members to pass this bill.

I would also like to add that the seal hunt makes a key contribution to the budget of many Canadian families. Preventing them from carrying out these activities deprives them of essential financial resources. It will lessen the economic prosperity of the communities that are dependent on the seal hunt.

Overall, the sealing industry provides up to 6,000 part-time jobs. Of course, I mean that they are full-time jobs, but they are seasonal, not really part-time. According to conservative estimates based on available data, the value of the seal hunt is $35 million to $40 million annually.

The seal hunt can represent 25% to 35% of a hunter's total annual income. This is a very significant boost to the economy of those communities where economic opportunities are unfortunately often limited.

It is estimated that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, more than 5,000 people derive a substantial part of their income from the seal hunt. In a lot of cases, it accounts for more than 30% of their annual income. For hunters in the Magdalen Islands, 25% of their annual income comes from seal hunting.

My support for this bill takes into account the local realities of the communities that are economically dependent on the seal hunt. Ensuring that this activity goes on also contributes to the creation of a lot of indirect employment because of the many by-products of the seal hunt. I must point out that seals are not exclusively hunted for their fur. Seal oil is richer in omega-3 fatty acids than fish oils; it has been sold in capsule form, mainly in Europe, Asia and Canada, for 10 years. One particularly interesting fact is that researchers are looking at the possibility of using valves taken from harp seals in heart valve transplants in humans.

There is a company in my riding, Fourrures Grenier, that makes products like boots, mittens and other winter clothing using seal skin. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but they really are the warmest boots I have ever owned. They get me through our cold winters in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Even though seal hunting is not an economic activity in our region, there are still local businesses that benefit from the industry. As well, because of the Internet, they can now sell their products almost anywhere in the world. They are no longer located just in our region and have expanded their business. Things are going well for them.

I would like to point out that the New Democrats unequivocally support a seal hunt that is sustainable and humane. Those really are the two essential words to remember in the NDP's position on this issue. When the hunt is sustainable and humane, we can only support it, given all the economic benefits it has for our communities.

We support any legislative measures that would strengthen the Criminal Code provisions on animal cruelty. For example, the NDP wants animals to have legal status and wants to make the Criminal Code provisions on animal cruelty and animal neglect more enforceable. I want to point out that seal hunters have a great deal of respect for seals. I have full confidence in the way the hunt is carried out in Canada. I am proud of how seal hunting and fishing are carried out in our communities.

The seal hunt creates economic opportunities for a number of communities, and it is our duty to ensure that we find a balance between maintaining the economic benefits associated with this activity and ensuring that it takes place in a sustainable manner.

I will admit that I am a bit confused about whether we are supposed to refer to it as hunting or fishing. I think we can use both terms without any problem. If we want to encourage seal hunters or fishers and help them pursue their economic endeavours, we must ensure that they have a safe work environment. If we increase the distance that another person must maintain, we can allow hunters and fishers to do their job safely without violating the rights of people who want to protest. They will be able to continue to protest, but this will allow people to work and earn a good living.

[Meat Inspection Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, since it bears some explanation in our current situation.

I want to make it clear that the bill is not designed to determine whether or not horses should be slaughtered as a general practice. Personally, I agree that if a horse is healthy and its meat is healthy then it can be slaughtered and its meat can be consumed. It would not bother me in the slightest to eat it. I would be pleased to do so if I knew it was safe.

The problem identified by my colleague's bill is the safety of horsemeat. Currently, food safety inspection systems do not allow us to be sure that the meat we are eating is safe. The various food crises we have gone through testify to that. No one here would want to eat meat that was likely to make them sick.

That said, the horses slaughtered in Canada have often not been raised for the end purpose of human consumption. This includes slaughtered race horses. They are given injections of a number of medications, treatments and analgesics. Several of those products can end up on our plates.

Unfortunately, some drugs are impossible to detect, so even if the meat is tested to find out whether it has been contaminated by such and such a product, it could test negative because the substance in the meat is not there in sufficient quantity to be detected. However, it would still be toxic for a human consuming it. Even at levels that are undetectable by conventional tests, substances of that kind could be dangerous. That is the problem we currently face.

What my colleague is specifically saying is that, while we wait for food inspection systems that are safe, especially for horsemeat, we cannot continue to do nothing, knowing that the meat is not only consumed in Canada, but is also exported. We have to consider this bill in the context of food safety.

We can all understand that a person who raises a horse for consumption will not give it the same substances as a person who raises a horse for performance purposes. That is why certain products end up in that meat.

As far as raising animals in general is concerned, if I raise cows or cattle, I know they are going to end up on someone's plate. I will therefore pay a lot more attention to what my animals consume. I will obey the rules.

Standards are established based on scientific research, among other things. They help determine exactly how the meat of another type of animal may be safe for humans and what we must do to ensure food safety. Very detailed inspection systems are in place and people may lose the right to raise animals. There are very specific rules in place for the other types of meat.

As far as horse is concerned, not many people raise horse for consumption.

That being said, if someone decides to do so and has the medical reports for his horses, we totally agree that he can use them. We can be assured of the safety of the horsemeat. Unfortunately, that is not the case at this time.

If the government is prepared to pass my colleague's bill and implement measures to ensure the safety of horsemeat, then my colleague's bill will become law. If the law becomes unnecessary, the government could choose to repeal it and that would be entirely appropriate.

However, in the meantime, we cannot continue to allow people to eat meat that is not safe. Often, food products that are not so healthy, cost very little at the grocery store. The risk is that people who are especially vulnerable will buy this meat believing that it is safe.

For most people, it is logical to believe that if a product is sold in Canada, then it must be safe. That is what most people think. They believe that if the product is on their grocery store shelf, then it is a safe product. People with health problems may be more vulnerable, as may be single mothers who have to feed their children. They may say to themselves that the meat is less expensive. However, if they feed it to their children, it could cause health problems, especially if the children are more sensitive to certain substances.

I would like to remind members that this bill does not take a stand on the slaughter of horses. This bill is about the safety of horse meat, and we must vote accordingly.

I believe that there is enough literature available to realize that, at present, it is not safe to eat horse meat. That is why the United States took action. It understood the problem.

At present, the horses that the United States does not want are sent to Canada to be slaughtered. That makes no sense.

Food safety should be one of the government's priorities. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this bill. I urge them to do so, but I also particularly urge my Conservative colleagues and the critics associated with agricultural issues to adopt the bill. If they refuse to act now, the NDP will act in 2015.

We need to find solutions to make horsemeat safe. We need to work on this right away and introduce a more comprehensive bill. Some flexibility is needed, but there is less flexibility when dealing with a private member's bill. Government bills can include budgetary measures, but this is not possible with private member's bills.

I therefore urge them to think about this and to pass my colleague's bill in the meantime. We cannot stand by when there is a health risk. We cannot wait for people to die or become seriously ill. We need to take action. We need to look at this issue to resolve, once and for all, the problem with the safety of horsemeat in our country.

I want to repeat that this bill is not against the slaughter of horses. If someone were to offer me horsemeat and could guarantee that it was safe, I would be happy to eat that meat.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague probably knows, often the people who take the Canadian Forces recruits' course are in limbo. They do not have a permanent assignment and so they do not have an address for a certain period of time.

Does my colleague believe it is fair that Canadian Forces recruits cannot vote because they are temporarily unable to provide an address, yet they will spend the rest of their lives defending the government decisions that are imposed on them?

[International Nurses Day, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate International Nurses Day. I have the honour of practising this profession along with more than 300,000 other Canadians.

Some of my parliamentary colleagues would do well to take inspiration from these exceptional and dedicated women and men who dedicate their lives to serving society.

If each member here looked after the well-being of his or her community in the same way that nurses look after their patients, we would, by far, already be the best country in the world in every way.

Furthermore, a nurse's ability to set aside personal convictions, listen to others, and understand that it is up to the person in front of them to choose and act is something that some parliamentarians should be taught.

Nurses are more than professionals. They are guardian angels who support their patients during the most difficult times of their lives. At one time or another in their lives, every Canadian has needed a nurse, and I think they all experienced the professionalism and generosity of these unique people with huge hearts.

I want to wish a happy International Nurses Day to all the women and men who keep our health care system running.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in order to legitimize a democratic institution, those who contributed to its creation must be able to participate in it.

The Constitution protects the right to vote. The government cannot refuse to allow numerous people to vote under the pretext that they are unable to prove their identity. The government cannot introduce legislation that prevents people from proving their identity when they are able to do so.

I have some concrete examples. Take, for instance, a person in my home town who shows up and does not have any identification. The Elections Canada employee has known that individual for 60 years and has no doubt about who it is because they are from the same town. The Elections Canada employee would be forced to prevent that individual from voting. While there is no question about who the person is, and the employee knows that the individual is not trying to vote fraudulently, the employee would still have to prevent that individual from voting. That makes no sense.

To protect the legitimacy of a government, we need to protect the integrity of the right to vote. Those two elements go hand in hand.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is okay at all. When it comes to reforming our democratic institutions, it is not okay for a government to act this way.

For example, the Government of Quebec held an open discussion among the various political parties about reforming the financing rules. They achieved a degree of consensus. Even though there were disagreements about the exact amount, it was about financing, and the discussion was open. What we are dealing with here is a major reform of our elections legislation, and over and over, the Conservative government limits time for debate.

This attitude demonstrates the Conservative government's complete disregard for our democracy, and I think it is a real shame that this is the message it is sending to the next generation.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I consider myself lucky to be able to speak to Bill C-23, especially because time allocation has been imposed at every step of the way. This bill has elicited a lot of debate. Thus, we have not been able to talk about Bill C-23 freely or as much as it warrants.

First, I would like to say something about the Conservative amendments adopted at committee stage. I believe that they would not have been adopted without the work of the NDP, especially my colleagues from Louis-Saint-Laurent and Toronto—Danforth.

As soon as the NDP received this bill, we realized that there were major problems and we decided to take action. Unlike the government, we consulted Canadians, we travelled across the country to hear their opinions and we listened carefully to the experts. As a result of our efforts, the Conservative government agreed to back down on some aspects of this bill. Unfortunately, it still contains many flaws.

The NDP, in good faith, suggested almost 100 amendments to improve this very controversial bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives put their ideology ahead of the country's interests. The only amendments accepted were those to correct some wording or vocabulary errors. No substantive NDP amendment was adopted by the Conservative Party, which naturally had a majority on the committee.

The worst thing about all this is that the Conservative government, by means of its majority in committee, ended debate even before half of the amendments proposed by the NDP were debated. This is indicative of the government's scorn for the democratic process, even though the bill is actually about democratic reform.

I would like to put things in context. During an opposition day in March 2012, following the robocalls scandal, the NDP moved a motion to strengthen the election process. The motion called on the government to introduce a bill within six months of the motion being adopted. We waited much longer than six months.

I would like to point out that the motion was adopted unanimously. Among other things, it sought to strengthen Elections Canada's authority over investigations and presented measures to prevent more fraudulent calls from happening in the future. One would have reasonably expected the government to want to put things right, but it did not take those measures into account and even made things worse in its bill.

We asked that the Chief Electoral Officer be given more power to conduct investigations and to compel witnesses to appear, for example. Right now, when the Chief Electoral Officer tries to investigate a scandal, such as the robocalls, he does not even have the authority to compel potential witnesses to appear. How can he investigate when the people involved merely have to say that they do not wish to appear? That approach is not working very well. It seems to me that anybody can understand that the Chief Electoral Officer should be able to compel witnesses to appear. The Chief Electoral Officer should have been given more investigative powers to ensure that, in the future, he never finds that his hands are tied and he is unable to make sufficient progress and get the proof he needs, which unfortunately is the case right now.

Not only is the government refusing to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to investigate, but it is also going to prevent him from educating the public and encouraging people to vote. The only person who can do this sort of work in a non-partisan way is the Chief Electoral Officer.

This work includes encouraging people to vote and finding innovative ways to get young people to vote. The government is now preventing the only person who could have done this in a non-partisan way from doing the job.

These amendments give him back a little bit of power. He will be able to participate in youth engagement programs in elementary and secondary schools. However, unfortunately, he does not have the right to encourage young people between the ages of 18 and 25 to vote. He is therefore only allowed to encourage people who are not yet old enough to vote to exercise the right to vote.

I am very pleased that young people in elementary and secondary schools are being encouraged to learn about the election process and eventually play their role as citizens, but it does not make sense that the only people the Chief Electoral Officer is allowed to approach are those who are not yet able to vote. He does not have the right to talk to students in colleges, universities or aboriginal groups. It does not make sense.

Let us talk about another problem they refused to address. We wanted to keep vouching from the start. They wanted to get rid of it, but in the end they went back on their decision. However, the voter card does not provide proof of address. People like students, seniors and first nations members will have a hard time establishing proof of address.

What is more, the NDP proposed an amendment to include a notice on the voter card that the voter could no longer use that card to vote with or as identification. This amendment seems logical to me, but the Conservatives did not even accept it. This speaks to their illogical thinking.

I know we are not allowed to use props, but I conducted a little experiment. The hon. member for Manicouagan can attest to this because he counted along with me. I emptied my wallet to see what I had on me. If I had to prove my identification today, in my purse I have 21 pieces of ID with my name on them. However, I have only three cards that prove where I live. In fact, I have to exclude my list of drugs from the pharmacy because it is not an acceptable proof of address. The only things left are my hospital card and my driver's licence. They are the only two ID cards I have in my wallet with my address on them.

Needless to say, not everyone has a driver's licence. As far as the hospital card is concerned, what happens when people have not been to the hospital in 10 years? If they moved, the address on their card might be the one they had 5 or 10 years ago, when they last went to the hospital.

If I did not have a driver's licence and had recently changed my address, I would not be able to prove who I am. However, I am not a member of one of the most vulnerable groups. Imagine more vulnerable groups such as seniors, aboriginal people and students, who already have a hard time proving their identity. What will they do?

I encourage everyone to do a test at home by emptying out their wallet. They will see that their address is not shown on many of their cards. A lot of cards will have their name, but not many will have their address.

I do not walk around with my hydro and phone bills in my purse. Not to mention, I cannot even get these bills mailed to me for free. I get them online, like everyone else. Online bills are not considered original documents under the law. They are just copies printed out from a computer.

The bill still has some flaws that have not been fixed. Since more than 70 people testified in committee and only one of them supported Bill C-23, I think the Conservative government could have shown a lot more openness.

Whether we like it or not, the minister is new to his job. It is understandable that he might not draft a perfect bill. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[National Defence, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Master Corporal Kristian Wolowidnyk suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder He attempted suicide after the Canadian Forces tried to dismiss him. As a result of public pressure, National Defence had agreed to offer him extended leave in order to facilitate his transition. Oddly, after the media frenzy died down, the Conservatives reneged on their promise. He is deemed capable of working or returning to school, which is ridiculous.

Will they finally keep the promise they made to this soldier?

[Festival du DocuMenteur, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the people in my riding have been dealing with a serious situation, a polar bear invasion.

This invasion has led to 15 attacks so far and has caused many accidents on the highways, since the polar bears tend to blend in with our snow-covered roads.

What is more, mating between these polar bears and our black bears has produced offspring that look exactly like panda bears. This is bringing in unprecedented waves of tourists that we are unable to accommodate because our infrastructure is not designed to handle 25,000 tourists a day. I invite every expert in the matter to join me for DocuMenteur, a unique fake documentary festival being held this week in Rouyn-Noranda, a festival where truth and lies have been meeting for 10 years now.

I would like to congratulate the many volunteers and commend the co-founders of Festival du DocuMenteur: Carol Courchesne, Émilie Villeneuve and Ariane Gélinas.