Christine Moore

[Bills of Exchange Act, March 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to my NDP colleague's Bill C-369. I am especially pleased that she introduced this bill, because this subject is very important to me. Designating a national indigenous peoples day would allow indigenous peoples to organize activities and talk about their culture, their history, and how they have influenced this country. On top of that, making this day a holiday would allow non-indigenous people to take part in the activities. That is the most important part.

Sadly, the history of the indigenous peoples is often poorly explained in our history books. We all took history classes in school, and we often heard the official version, rather than what really happened. There are still many people who do not know what really happened in the residential schools, for example. There are still people who do not know that such schools even existed.

This day would allow us to draw closer. It is important to understand the reality and experiences of indigenous peoples. That is why a statutory holiday is needed, because it would allow people to participate in activities. The indigenous communities in our ridings could organize events and invite people to join them, and people would be able to go because it would be a statutory holiday. People are happy to have the opportunity to participate in family activities. If this day were made a statutory holiday, the whole community could participate.

In its report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission indicated that reconciliation is not an indigenous problem, it is a Canadian problem. We must be able to re-examine all aspects of Canadian society, and turning National Indigenous Peoples Day into a statutory holiday, as my colleague's bill proposes, would be a way of doing just that.

Neighbouring communities must help indigenous communities preserve their culture. We need to get involved because we all have a responsibility to contribute. Whether we like it or not, indigenous culture is part of the history of our regions. Abitibi-Témiscamingue would never have been the same without the contribution of indigenous peoples. Our history is closely tied to what happened with the Algonquin.

When the first settlers arrived in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, they were practically abandoned. They were told that they would get land and that they would have to fend for themselves and hope to survive winter. Without help from indigenous communities and the Algonquin who were living in the region and who showed these people how to survive and adapt to this reality, we would not be here today. I think it is right for us to celebrate this day together. We are talking about a holiday in celebration of one of our country's founding nations. Our country would definitely not be the same without the indigenous peoples. It is even likely that the first settlers would not have survived without help from indigenous peoples and that the venture would simply have been abandoned.

The first settlers who arrived with Jacques Cartier would probably not have survived if not for indigenous peoples. They would probably all have died of scurvy. I do not understand how anyone could think that such an important time in our history should not be celebrated with a holiday. This is about increasing dialogue between communities, so that we can eventually work towards reconciliation. It should be a time to pause.

Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity to participate in powwows held in my riding in mid-June. This has given me the chance to learn more about the communities. I have also learned about the traditional foods, because there are all kinds of learning activities on indigenous and Algonquin culture at these powwows.

Every time I go to one, I think about how wonderful it is that we can attend, because there used to be some uncertainty. Lots of people were not even sure they were welcome. Some people approached the community of Pikogan, which is one of the powwows I have attended. Community members said they would be pleased to welcome non-indigenous people. It is a learning opportunity for people. For example, when an eagle feather falls, they take the time to explain what is going to happen and what has to be done. Hundreds of people from my riding who attended the event learned more about indigenous peoples. If this day is not a statutory holiday, it will be hard to get people to go to an event happening after supper, when everyone is busy running around doing all the things they have to do.

We need to take the time to stop and learn about what indigenous peoples have contributed to our society and the challenges they face. We really need a dialogue between what are unfortunately, in some cases, two solitudes. I think we would all benefit from that.

I cannot express how fascinating it is even just to learn about the languages of our indigenous peoples. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, many waterways, towns, villages, and mountains have Algonquin names. It is really interesting to learn where these names come from, why they were chosen, and what they mean.

I believe that all parliamentarians should support this bill because it is about the reconciliation of indigenous people and the communities living in the same territory. Once again, we need a statutory holiday to be able to truly take advantage of this time and what it can bring us.

The trauma of the past is too great for us to continue living in isolation, apart from one another. I hope that we as parliamentarians are ready to give indigenous people this day so that we can learn about one another. It would be so beneficial to learn about and discover one another. We should never close ourselves off from approaches that facilitate such exchanges.

I strongly recommend that all my colleagues support this bill and read what all the different indigenous organizations had to say about it. I believe that the majority of these organizations support the bill. Several members of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission support it. Therefore, I invite all my colleagues to read this excellent bill, to learn about it, and to support it.

Again, I thank my colleague. She has done a remarkable job. I am pleased to sit with her and to constantly have discussions with her.

[Telecommunications, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, many main roads in rural regions are not even covered by a cellular network. Although investing in 5G may be a good thing, in the meantime, nothing is happening in rural areas. The Liberals are so out of touch that the word “cellular” is not even in their last budget. If the minister is ready to pull his head out of the sand, I would invite him to go on a little road trip with me. He would realize that there is a cellular dead zone just two hours from here.

How much longer before people living in rural areas are not treated like second-class citizens by this minister?

[Ice Cross Downhill World Championship, March 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, picture yourself on a beautiful winter's day lacing up your skates and donning your helmet and gear before taking the ice to the adoring cries of thousands of spectators. Are you about to play hockey? No, you are at the top of a massive hill about to hurl yourself down a steep slope strewn with bumps, jumps, drops, and turns as you race to the bottom and hopefully arrive in one piece.

This is the extreme sport known as ice cross downhill, and one round of the world championship is being held now through Saturday in La Sarre.

Racers have competed in Austria, Switzerland, Russia, Finland, France, and the United States, and now it is Abitibi-Témiscamingue's turn to host this elite competition as part of a world tour that attracts athletes from many countries like Canada where ice sports are part of the lifestyle.

I would like to congratulate the La Sarre Ice Challenge president, Yannick Provencher, the organizing committee, the City, and the many volunteers who make this kind of event possible and put Abitibi-Témiscamingue in the international spotlight.

[Canada Elections Act, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk about this bill and the discussions that I have had about political financing, especially with regard to Quebec.

I would like to explain my particular situation in my riding, because it is especially important for understanding this matter. When I became an MP, I was fortunate that my provincial representative was an excellent politician who cared about people. We should recognize the excellent work done by others, no matter the party they represent. I have been fortunate to have had François Gendron as my MLA for my entire life. He recently announced that he will be retiring after serving in the National Assembly for 40 years. He deserves our congratulations.

This man is a walking encyclopedia. He knows about everything that has happened in provincial politics over the past 40 years. He was elected in 1976, when René Lévesque first formed a government, and has served ever since. I was able to talk to him and to understand everything that happened, where we started out, and where we are now.

Quebec went through a crisis in terms of political financing. The Charbonneau commission revealed the extent of the collusion and the organized donation systems. This led to some soul searching in Quebec about what to do. Quebec decided to limit donations to $100 per person, with no tax credit, and to fund parties with subsidies based on votes. After every general election in Quebec, each party receives a subsidy based on the number of votes obtained, and this is calculated according to a specific formula. This lets small parties obtain subsidies to support their operations based on the popular support they receive.

The smaller parties that are particularly focused on defending the most vulnerable still manage to do their work. Obviously, when people try to defend the most vulnerable, something that is very dear to me, it is clear that those people are rarely in a financial position to make donations to show their appreciation for the MP's work and help the MP get reelected because they know that the MP is truly devoted to them. Those people do not have the financial capacity for that and I would never ask them for anything. I know that they are not in a financial position for that.

When parties receive funding based on the number of votes that they get, people know that when they vote, they are making their small contribution to help the party continue its work.

In our federal system, where we have completely eliminated the per-vote contribution to parties, people do not see how they can tangibly help the members or the parties. That was a real loss. The government says that it should not be up to taxpayers to pay for the political parties. That is not true because that is happening now.

When the Prime Minister gets a $1,500 donation, the millionaire who made it gets $650 in tax credits. The existing tax credit system makes is so that I, the taxpayer, am paying to finance the Liberal Party. It is inaccurate to say that, under the current system, all taxpayers are not funding political parties. They are. However, the problem is that it is the wealthiest people who decide where all taxpayers' money goes. Low-income Canadians get a non-refundable tax credit. In other words, they do not get a cent.

Consider the example of my husband, who has a relatively low income. We have chosen to do things differently. He is a stay-at-home dad. He does not get anything back in return when he makes a contribution to my riding association to help me continue my work. He pays it entirely out of his pocket.

He gets absolutely nothing towards his tax return, because his income is too low. Other non-refundable tax credits exist that make it possible for him to look for more, so it does him absolutely no good. He does not get any more money back.

The poorest people who make political donations do not get a tax credit. They do not see any of that money again. Only wealthy people get some of it back in a tax refund. Ultimately, it is the wealthiest people who make political donations who decide how the political parties are financed. It is not all taxpayers who decide. At least when contributions are made based on the number of votes received, that means all taxpayers, in theory, the ones who vote, are deciding how the money is distributed based on people's political convictions. My colleague's bill deserves to be sent to committee for further study.

There are obviously financial considerations. We will have to look into this to find the best formula. The amount per vote or the maximum donation amount may need to be changed.

I am sure that my colleague is prepared to hear different scenarios and calculations in committee. If the committee determines that it would be better to move forward with a maximum donation of $100, with no tax rebate, and a higher per-vote contribution, my colleague will be open to that.

There are a variety of possible formulas based on the main principle, but in order to choose the right one, we will need to bring in an expert to go over our options. We must support the bill so that it can be sent to committee.

The bill is currently at second reading. The question now is whether we support the principle of fairer political financing. Each member here must be able to rise and say that he or she supports the principle, that it is an important issue, and that we must look at all of the options.

If the committee hears different funding options and determines that none of them are any good, it will do what needs to be done and decide not to pursue further study. If the bill does not go to committee, we cannot hear from these experts, who can provide potential scenarios and provide figures. This bill must go further, so that we can get an idea of what it all means.

That has a considerable impact on the MP's work. I have talked to MPs who worked under the former and current system in Quebec. They say that this system works very well and that they are not spending all their time at fundraising activities. They can truly focus on politics and doing their work as MPs. When MPs are running left and right to raise funds, they are not doing non-partisan work. They have more contact with people who are associated with them, whereas when they can spend more time on politics they are available to everyone and not just those who are affiliated with their political party.

I was elected in Abitibi—Témiscamingue to help everyone in that riding, whether they are separatists or federalists. To me, the person who enters my office is above all someone who deserves to receive services, deserves for me to be there for them. It does not matter if they voted for me or not, the important thing is for me to work for them. Even though I try to limit the impact this might have on my work as an MP, I would really like to be better able to do the work of a neutral MP, instead of having to go from here to there to raise funds.

It would be much more effective if we could really address the question and study the bill in committee. We could look at whether this truly is a fairer solution that will help prevent the kinds of abuses we saw with the Prime Minister's private dinners and with millionaires prepared to pay $1,500 to meet him. I sincerely doubt that they would have paid to meet just any backbench Liberal MP. We all know that these people would never have paid $1,500 to meet the member from the back of the room whose name they probably do not even know.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there are many religious organizations or organizations with religious affiliations that offer very good jobs in service of the community. These communities are open to all candidates, even if they hold different beliefs.

We must focus on the work the youth are being asked to do. There are different organizations, but we must focus on what these people will be asked to do. If we have any doubt, in looking at the recommendations, it is our job as members of Parliament to clarify, before we sign anything, whether the work in question will violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have a duty to intervene and to say that it is inappropriate for the organization in question to receive funding.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the problem I have with the attestation is how it was introduced, the lack of information about it, and the confusion it has caused. The lack of clear information created a panic. This was not the smartest way to introduce such a measure. It caused confusion within our organizations.

As for the minister's performance, a decision was made to double the budgets, but it came at the last minute. We appreciate the change, but did not have enough time to inform organizations that more money was available and that they should apply. Therefore, all projects have been accepted. Projects that received only seven points, in other words very weak projects that would not give someone much in the way of skills, have been accepted because we did not have time to advise the organizations doing good work that more money was available and that they could hire more than one employee if they applied again. Since the budgets were increased at the last minute, we did not have time to do our job and tell people that there were additional employment opportunities and they should submit more applications.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, to understand today's motion, we need to understand how the Canada summer jobs program works and especially how members of Parliament are involved.

This is a program that helps young people by giving them job opportunities. The purpose is not to replace a worker who would have done the work anyway. It is perfectly clear that when employers apply for funding, it is for a project that will not happen if they do not get the money. For example, an employer cannot hire a young person to do the work a municipal employee would have done. The employer has to prove that the job would not exist without the funding. The purpose of the program is not to replace existing workers by giving their jobs to students. I think that is key to understanding the program. It really is about special projects.

The first phase of an MP's involvement is identifying their riding's priorities. For example, in my riding, I will be focusing on projects related to agriculture and agri-food, projects that support people who are suffering, and projects that promote tourism. Those are the priorities I chose for my riding. I reassess regularly. I also chose to add projects that promote physical activity. It really is up to MPs to set priorities.

If members do not know which priorities to choose, they can get help. For example, Employment and Social Development Canada can tell MPs what their ridings' priorities were in the past. That is the first phase of an MP's involvement: setting priorities. Projects that are directly related to priorities identified by MPs get a few extra points added to their score. That, in a nutshell, is the first part of members' involvement in the program.

Next, officials carry out a detailed analysis of all projects. They use the scoring guide to award points to every project. Once all projects have been scored, MPs receive the list of recommended projects and the list of projects that were not recommended because their score did not qualify them for funding.

MPs are asked to review this list with Canada summer jobs officials. They can ask questions about the applications, such as what exactly the project was about and where the individual would work. They can request additional information about the projects to have a good understanding of how much was allocated and why. If they disagree, they can ask for changes. For example, they can ask that additional hours be allocated. If they strongly disagree with a project, they can even ask that it not receive funding. The fact that the project was changed at the request of the MP and the reasons for the changes are clearly indicated. The proponent will be informed.

Thus, if projects do not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, MPs already have an opportunity to intervene without the changes that the Liberals tried to make. We can ask what the project entails and what organization is sponsoring it. I believe it is important that we make an effort to find out, especially when we receive lists of projects where the business is identified by its business number. I do this all the time when I review my list. I ask a lot of questions because the business number does not tell me the exact nature of the business. Even without the Liberal changes, MPs can intervene to ensure that the projects are good ones and that they will help young people improve their skills. If necessary, we can intervene if we believe that changes should be made.

It is important to fully understand that, because we are now in a situation where some members may have shown a lack of judgment by favouring organizations whose mandate and work ran counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thanks to a lapse in judgment by certain members, the decision was made to apply a clumsy systemic solution that worried many organizations, because the solution was poorly explained and it was unclear where it was coming from.

I think it is sad that we have ended up in this situation, because this program does a lot of good in our communities. We had some leeway. It could be said that this has scared off organizations that might be of a religious nature, but that were nevertheless working on the ground to help people.

In my riding, for example, there is a religious organization called La Fabrique de La Reine, which submitted a project for a religious interpretive museum. A museum was created in the church with all the traditional Catholic objects of the past, and visitors learn about what they are. This is really a tourism project, since no one is even being asked to promote religious values. The project is related to religion, of course, but it is much more about history and tourism. Because of the misinformation that followed the change in the program introduced by the Liberals, this organization may have misinterpreted what it was about.

When people commit an error in judgment, it is worth asking whether the solution is to make systemic changes to a program that was working fine, or whether any changes could have been implemented less clumsily.

The Canada summer jobs program is really about the work, not the organization. In other words, no points are given for what is not on the form. We do not evaluate the organization, we evaluate the work. For example, tourism is one of my priorities, and if a tourism business wants to hire someone to cut the grass on its property, it will not get many points because that kind of work is not directly related to tourism. It is just maintenance work, and work like that does not enable young people to acquire specific skills.

What we want is to select projects that will really enable young people to develop specific skills. For example, we select projects that are directly related to the established priorities. Take tourism, which is one of my riding's priorities. If the project involves setting up an exhibit about women who have changed the history of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that is really a tourism-related project, because the person involved will develop management and research skills and will have to do advertising and set up the exhibit. That is the kind of work that really helps people develop skills.

It is extremely important to understand that the program is centred on the task and the work completed. Obviously, it is important to verify the organization you are dealing with.

That brings me to another problem that was created when the Conservatives were in power. A lot of positions were cut in various regions. Applications addressed to Canada summer jobs used to be processed in Abitibi—Témiscamingue by my constituency employee who was working for Service Canada at the time. His position was cut when the government decided to bring the Canada summer jobs application processing back to Laval. Now Laval reviews the projects and makes the decisions. At the end of the day it is the member of Parliament who has the final say, of course, but Laval reviews the project that may or may not be good for Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

That is also very problematic because people unfamiliar with the region cannot identify the organizations that might be a bit shady.

[Justice, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on February 20, the Canadian Judicial Council recommended that Justice Michel Girouard be removed from office.

He has been barred from hearing cases since 2013. In a vast court region like Abitibi—Témiscamingue—Nord-du-Québec, his absence is having major repercussions on public access to justice.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us where we are in the process and whether she is planning to make a recommendation to Parliament this week, so that we can act swiftly to restore access to justice?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am quite stunned to see the Minister of the Environment move a time allocation motion when we have been debating the bill for only two hours.

I represent five first nations communities and people who are concerned about the environment. I am here to share their concerns and their proposals for improving the bill. If I am prevented from speaking at second reading, then I cannot share those concerns before the committee meets to propose and make amendments to the bill. I therefore cannot talk about all the corrections that should be made to the bill at the appropriate stage of the process, before the bill goes to committee. That is a big deal. The bill is being referred to committee without input from members about the corrections they would like to see made. Committee members will not have input from all members of the House on what needs to be done.

The Minister of the Environment needs to understand the problem she is creating by sending the bill to committee when members have not had the chance to speak to it or ask any questions. I am very disappointed in this attitude, especially considering that this bill amends 36 statutes. For example, as far as the Navigable Waters Protection Act is concerned, I spent over 60 hours on my own bill for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The government, however, seems to think that two hours of debate on a vastly broader bill is enough. The French version of the bill is 400 pages long. I am stunned and absolutely disappointed with the attitude of the Minister of the Environment.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I fought to have the closed offices reopened.

I would like my colleague to tell me if reopening the offices is enough. We will still have a problem if there is no change in how veterans are treated and if they still have to deal with red tape.

Along with the reopening of offices should there be a change in approach? If there is no change, there will still be a problem.