Christine Moore

[National Defence, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Lockheed Martin has started signing contracts with Canadian companies for the manufacture of F-35 parts. The problem is that we still do not know if the F-35 is airworthy, able to fly through clouds, able to fuel in mid-air or able to land in the Arctic.

Is Lockheed Martin awarding contracts to Canadian companies because the Conservatives have already decided to purchase the F-35s? Or have they never seriously considered other options?

[National Defence, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 procurement process has been badly botched. Senior officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force warned the government that the F-35s were not compatible with our air-to-air refuelling fleet. Despite the mismanagement of this file and all of the alarm bells, the Conservatives are still in love with the F-35s and refuse to put an end to this misadventure.

Why do the Conservatives still refuse to hold an open and transparent bidding process?

[Financial Administration Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-473, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation), introduced by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Gender equality is still an issue for Canadian society today. Progress has been made, but we need only look at the membership of the House to see that we still have work to do.

This bill seeks to achieve balanced representation of men and women serving as directors on boards of crown corporations within six years. It should be noted that it applies only to crown corporations and not private businesses.

First, we must understand that gender equality, in my opinion, is the responsibility of a proactive government. If government sets an example, hopefully others will follow.

Women are still under-represented on boards of directors of crown corporations in Canada. Most of these corporations have more men than women on their boards, and it is estimated that women make up approximately 27% of these boards.

Many Canadian women have the skills and experience needed to serve on these boards of directors. I think that women should have the same opportunities as men to be appointed to these boards of directors.

Equality in how our crown corporations are managed is an important issue, since these corporations offer a window into our country and how it manages gender equality. The fact that there are still too few women leading our political institutions, businesses and crown corporations is a problem that we should be looking at if we want to set an example as a society with equal rights in terms of gender representation.

Of over 200 crown corporations, agencies, boards of directors and commissions, only 27% of all available positions are held by women. Furthermore, fewer than 20% of chairs of these boards of directors are women.

Many people tend to celebrate the achievements made in recent years regarding women's rights. However, I do not think we should fall into the trap of taking gender equality for granted. We must continue to work. A lot of work remains to be done to make more progress and to protect what some may want to take away.

To those who say that appointments to senior government positions must be based on merit, I agree. I do not think this bill will change the fact that people are appointed based on merit. However, we must not forget that there are highly skilled female workers in Canada. There are enough women with the skills required to fill these positions and who deserve to be there. What we primarily need to change are the mindsets and the stereotypes that are perpetuated.

As the member for Mississauga South said, research shows that businesses with more women on their boards are more profitable. These businesses generally outperform other businesses with fewer women.

According to the bill's proposed roadmap, the implementation will be gradual. We are talking about 30% women after two years, 40% after four years and 50% after six years.

The bill also stipulates that:

105.2 Any appointment of a director of a parent Crown corporation in violation of section 105.1 [in other words, the percentages I just gave] is invalid and the vacant position shall be filled without delay by the appropriate Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council

Therefore:

105.4 (1) Five years after the coming into force of sections 105.1 to 105.3 and every five years after that, a comprehensive review of these sections and of their operation shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

Therefore, there will be a review after this bill is implemented to ensure that we stay on track. This is quite important. According to the Conference Board of Canada, without a quota, gender parity will take over 150 years to achieve. Even I will not be able to live that long. It will take 150 years to reach parity in important positions. I am not sure that waiting one and a half centuries is really the best solution in this case.

Moreover, when a gradual gender representation quota is imposed on the boards of crown corporations, people in charge of recruitment and appointment recommendations will be compelled to expand their recruitment efforts and extend their search to candidates with the required skills in non-traditional or less traditional recruitment pools.

In addition to seeking more women, organizations will also look for women who may have different backgrounds, more varied experience and different visions, which can only help enrich the boards of our crown corporations. Studies have shown that a higher percentage of women in senior management can generate tangible benefits for businesses. This will then foster economic growth and help develop our country to its full potential.

Of course we want peak performance from our crown corporations. We have known for some time now that female members of corporate boards offer Canadian companies a different and valuable perspective.

We can work with crown corporations to institute change and raise the bar for corporations that belong to Canadians and play a leading role. This is our opportunity to ask crown corporations to show leadership and say that women should play as great a role as men in managing them.

Drawing from a wide talent pool instead of accessing the assets of only a portion of Canadian society, as we are doing now, would be logical and beneficial. Gender parity will truly benefit Canadians both socially and economically. Bill C-473 can take us one step forward in that direction.

I sincerely believe that those who see impediments to this bill are mistaken because we have seen over and over that there are plenty of competent women. Maybe they are just shyer.

Recently, several people have written about female representation on boards of directors and in companies, suggesting that they might be shyer. They might not stand out as much or express their interest, but they are still there. Some of them need a little encouragement, a few compliments on their work. Maybe they need to hear that people have been admiring the quality of their work since they have joined a particular company or crown corporation and that they would make an excellent board member. Recruiting such women and helping them reach their potential would be good for both our image and for our crown corporations.

Canada should have high-performing crown corporations. Consider Canada Post, which is dealing with some major challenges at the moment. I think that such a corporation would benefit from having more women on the board. We must enable women to progress. If we do, we will all win.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this issue in the House and to highlight, once again, how women can help enrich Canadian society. I sincerely hope that all members of Parliament will agree and will enable our crown corporations to move forward because it is clear that we cannot afford to wait 150 years. I would really like to see this happen in my lifetime. Fortunately, I am pretty young, so that gives us a lot of room to manoeuvre.

We cannot stand back and let things happen or merely encourage women. We have to be more aggressive if we want to achieve this goal.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous speech, I spoke about the position adopted by Quebec's National Assembly, which stated that it was crucially important to communicate with the U.S. and Ontario governments and with the aboriginal communities.

How does he think the federal government could adopt a similar approach in studying this bill to achieve co-operation between governments in order to come up with a better bill?

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is the official opposition critic for small business, I would like to look to his expertise in this area.

In practical terms, what is the impact of contraband cigarettes on small villages where, in many cases, there is just one convenience store and grocery? Both my riding and the member's have villages like that. What is the practical consequence of contraband cigarettes for these businesses and the village economy?

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the essential points I stressed in my speech.

The funding must be part of an overall approach. We cannot merely put legislative measures in place; we must also allocate funding to tackle the problem. Border agent positions have been eliminated, but tobacco often moves across borders.

If we really want to tackle contraband tobacco, we must not only address the legal aspect, but also provide funding for the agencies that work to combat it. We also have to talk about tobacco addiction and do more prevention so that fewer and fewer people smoke and demand for these products shrinks. We also have to improve access to resources that will help people to stop smoking.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the treaty in question in front of me, so it is difficult for me to answer the question.

However, with regard to young people, I would like to mention a point that I did not have a chance to discuss in my speech. Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke can also be influenced by the example they have in front of them and start smoking. Young people often smoke in secret. It is very hard for them to say openly that they have made a mistake and that they would like to stop smoking and get help.

When you do not have enough money to buy cigarettes legally, or at market prices, it is easier to buy illegal cigarettes than to find help to stop smoking. It is not necessarily easy to get help.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague was not able to hear the whole of my speech. I said very clearly that this benefits organized crime, organizations that also deal in weapons and drugs. I did say that these dangers were even greater and that criminal organizations are not content with merely being involved in contraband tobacco.

I do not know why she did not hear this part of my speech, but I think I expressed myself very clearly. I am really quite astounded that she did not understand.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleague a question earlier and said that I quit smoking 10 days ago. I appreciate the warm applause I received from most of the members in the House. I think that if everyone got that kind of encouragement when they quit smoking, far more people would do it and feel motivated. I wanted to thank my colleagues before starting my speech.

Today, I will be speaking to Bill S-16 on tackling contraband tobacco. The purpose of the bill is to add offences to the Criminal Code, particularly with regard to contraband tobacco. The bill also introduces minimum sentences, among other things.

The 2012 National Assembly of Quebec study on measures to counter the use of contraband tobacco found that:

In 2007, more than one-third of the cigarettes smoked in Quebec and Ontario were contraband and over 90% of these illegal cigarettes came from aboriginal reserves and lands.

It is important that we not take these statistics lightly. These are alarming numbers, and I think they are also cause for concern when it comes to health and safety.

The provisions being introduced by the government seem superficial or do not reflect all the issues associated with contraband cigarettes. We want this matter to be addressed in committee so that we can understand and clarify all the related issues.

We must think more comprehensively. Contraband cigarettes are one part of the overall issue of smoking. I think it must be addressed in a much more comprehensive, societal manner. We must adopt a holistic vision. Contraband is a symptom. It is one factor that reveals a whole.

This increasing production and distribution meet a consumer demand. Why is that demand growing? Why is contraband growing?

First we have to understand that demand among young people is high because prices are low. Cigarettes are unfortunately readily available and everywhere. It is much easier for a youth to get hold of contraband cigarettes than cigarettes purchased in the legal market, if you compare the two products. Legislation has been made tougher. Stiff fines can be levied on food markets, and they will no longer take the risk of selling to young people. However, dealers in contraband cigarettes have taken advantage of this by the back door. That causes another problem.

Info-tabac.ca has offered an explanation regarding young people:

While legally sold cartons cost approximately $60, smokers can buy 200 aboriginal cigarettes (the equivalent) for one third of the price. In addition to being available to anyone who wishes to buy them, including minors, these “discount” packs do not carry any health warnings.

This unconditional permanent availability at lower prices is the crux of the problem. It undermines health, but also safety and the economy. The situation results in major monetary losses for various countries and monetary losses for businesses and authorized resellers.

Furthermore, the Association des détaillants en alimentation has noted that cigarette sales have fallen by 30% to 50%. We would be very happy if there had been a similar decline in smoking, but there has unfortunately been no significant reduction in tobacco consumption. Sadly, it even continues to increase.

According to that same association, sales of contraband tobacco are still rising at a tremendous pace and now exceed legal tobacco sales. The result is a genuine social and economic crisis. Criminal groups control most of the market. The rise in tobacco use by young people is caused by the low price and high availability of illegal tobacco.

Tax revenues from tobacco sales in Canada have fallen by nearly $2.4 million, and there have been job losses as a result of the thousands of convenience stores that have closed since trafficking in contraband tobacco began.

This illegal trafficking is also alarming from a public safety standpoint because of uncertainty over the content of these cigarettes—the chemicals they contain—and unfortunately because of the growth in illegal rings in the area. These trafficking rings often have targets because this is a financing method for them. However, they do not merely engage in cigarette trafficking; they also traffic in drugs and weapons. In my opinion, these two factors pose even greater threats to our security both nationally and internationally.

Our approach to combating contraband has to change. First of all, it is fundamentally important to consult the provinces, the territories and first nations communities. In its study on measures to combat illegal tobacco use, the Public Finance Committee of Quebec's National Assembly recommends:

That the Government of Quebec create a joint commission involving five parties, namely the governments of Quebec, Ontario, Canada and the United States as well as the Mohawk nation, to fight contraband tobacco and to develop an action plan dealing...with: A “win-win” agreement among the governments and aboriginal people to stop the large-scale tax-exempt sale of tobacco to non-aboriginal people...

I think we need to apply this logic at the federal level so that we can get to the crux of the issue and understand expectations. The 2009 report of the Government Task Force on Illicit Tobacco Products stated:

...any comprehensive attempt to address the domestic tobacco situation in Canada will require the participation and collaboration of First Nations communities.

In order to fight contraband effectively on the ground, we need to work in partnership with the communities that are most affected, just as we need to work with aboriginal people, youth and people faced with social challenges or living in poverty.

We can also target youth with public awareness and information programs on contraband cigarettes. We can do more to protect minors. Of course, it is already illegal to sell tobacco to minors, but we can do more to highlight the dangers of smoking.

One of the measures is to work with grassroots campaigns spearheaded by associations, neighbourhoods, merchants and relatives. We must work together with those who are already in the field, with those who are directly involved.

A study of the problem giving rise to the bill requires a comprehensive strategy at the federal level, in conjunction with the groups that are affected and involved. We must facilitate a dialogue in order to find possible courses of action and ensure consistency in the measures implemented.

In my opinion, if we send the bill to committee, we will have an opportunity to hear from witnesses and experts who have legitimate experiences to share. I sincerely hope the committee will do some very good work, so that we can adopt a holistic approach that is a great deal more comprehensive than what is set out in the current bill. We must not only work with grassroots groups on the ground, but also with law enforcement authorities to make sure we have enough police and they are able to get to the root of the problem efficiently.

There must also be better control at borders and for that, unfortunately, we need more people. Because of recent cuts, it is increasingly difficult for teams of border officers to play a part in this campaign.

We must think in terms that are much broader than those in the current bill and set up a global strategy that takes into account all the stakeholders who are doing everything they can to fight the problem, a strategy that maintains or increases staff in the Canada Border Services Agency and one that preserves funding allocated to the police.

One of the measures to be taken involves resolving the paradox between the lack of preventive action and the elimination of smuggling. Unfortunately, people still talk about the law of supply and demand, so it is appropriate to take action that reduces the demand.

We need to do more to encourage people to stop smoking so that, when they realize that smoking costs too much, they do not turn to smuggled cigarettes but rather to smoking cessation help.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we must not deceive ourselves: if people buy contraband products, it is often because the legal product is expensive. I am absolutely not against the high price of cigarettes. Absolutely not. However, we have to understand the logic behind it.

Personally, when I started smoking, a pack of cigarettes cost me $2.70. The last one I bought before I stopped smoking 10 days ago cost me $12.50. It is certain that, unfortunately, people are going to opt more for contraband products.

I would like to know whether money from the taxes on cigarettes is at least used to fund stop-smoking programs, in order to reduce demand.

Is the money devoted more specifically to that, so that people consume less tobacco and so that one day, contraband becomes less attractive for lack of customers? Has that been done, at least in part?