Christine Moore

[Citizenship Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about something that is not in the bill. It concerns a change that was made whereby a person found guilty of a criminal offence abroad that is also a criminal offence in Canada would be denied Canadian citizenship.

As the hon. member knows, many justice systems around the world are very corrupt, and many people convicted of a criminal offence in a foreign system, sometimes in some of these corrupt systems, are not actually guilty, but are caught up in a vendetta by a corrupt system or government.

Is it not risky to disregard the context of the charges and whether due process was followed and then deny citizenship to someone who in fact never committed a criminal offence, but rather was the victim of a corrupt system?

[Health, June 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for months, the Liberals have been telling us that they support the Canada Health Act, but they certainly are not working too hard to enforce it.

The Pointe-Saint-Charles Community Clinic recently launched a class action lawsuit against the Government of Quebec and three private clinics for levying ancillary fees. Under the Canada Health Act, ancillary fees are illegal.

Will the government finally put an end to illegal fees charged to Quebeckers who use the health care system?

[Income Tax Act, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that with a bit of luck, I will have the other seven minutes another day. For now, I will focus on just one element of the bill that I find interesting. I will be asking the member for some clarifications once the bill goes to committee.

The bill provides a $200 tax credit for people, and their dependants, who are eligible and want to take first aid training. I would like the member to clarify whether this tax credit is indexed based on the number of children, because that does not appear to be the case in the bill. If I have two dependent children, are we talking about $200 or $600?

This needs to be clarified, so that people who have a large family can make sure all of their children take a first aid course. For instance, a friend of mine, Jamie Bouchard, has eight children. Clearly, with $200, she cannot expect the same results as someone who lives alone. I think the member needs to clarify that when the time comes to study the bill in committee.

It is extremely important for children to take first aid courses, even when they are very young. I have had the opportunity to work as an emergency room and ICU nurse, and I know how vital it can be for children to know what to do in an emergency, particularly when it is their mother or father who is in trouble and they have to intervene.

Finally, some paramedic friends shared some videos with me of a three-year-old child who, in a simulation, managed to place his mother in the recovery position and call emergency services. It can be very useful to teach even very young children basic first aid techniques.

Could my colleague clarify whether the bill gives a tax credit based on the number of dependants? Is it $200 per person taking the courses or $200 for all of the courses taken by that person and his or her children?

I have seven minutes left and I hope to be able to continue my speech in the second hour of debate.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not have 10 minutes to speak, I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion on the special committee and, more generally, on electoral reform.

I want to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the work he has done. I also want to commend the work done by the member for Edmonton Centre, among others. In the previous Parliament, my former colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, Alexandrine Latendresse, also worked very hard on the issue of electoral reform.

I would like to point out that most NDP members who were here before 2015 did a great deal of consultation in their ridings and used every means available to them to talk about electoral reform in a general sense in order to get a clearer picture of the most common concerns.

One of the most frequently raised points on the topic of electoral reform and our current system was that it does not make sense for a majority to have 100% control over Parliament when the majority of Canadians did not vote for them. Many people told me that minority governments are also perhaps not so effective, because that situation often leads to quick elections and not much work gets done during those Parliaments.

Nevertheless, many people have told me that they much preferred minority governments because members were forced to talk to each other to achieve their goals. Others told me that the problems started up again as soon as majority governments returned and they were allowed to take all control.

It obviously does not make sense to talk about electoral reform in a committee controlled by the majority government. If that had been the process, it would have made a mockery of our democracy, and I supported the proposal by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley to ensure that the committee reflects the percentage of votes we received.

As a result of his work, we will have a committee in which at least two parties will have to agree on the recommendations for them to be included in the report. At the very least, two parties will have to work together. For some recommendations, it may be two different parties than for other recommendations. At least the composition of the committee will leave us no choice but to work together. I am so happy about that.

Now, I will talk a bit about the points that are most often raised when I speak to people in my riding. One of the concerns that is raised most often has to do with the principle of local representation. People are worried that, if a new system is put in place, they will lose their local MP. They think it is extremely important to have a representative in the riding and to be able to contact someone who will help them. They are afraid of being forgotten if they are placed with a member who comes from a big city, for example. That is one of the points that was raised most often in the discussions that I have had with my constituents.

People also wanted to ensure that every vote counts. That is important. People told us that they always felt as though their vote was lost. They feel that is unacceptable. They said they liked voting for small parties and for people who really share their beliefs, but they know that if they do so, their vote is basically worthless. They often feel as though they cannot vote for their preferred candidate, who will do the best job, but instead they have to vote for the least objectionable candidate, according to the context and that person's chance of winning. That is not how people want to vote.

These are really important elements to consider and the committee will be able to examine the different systems based on these factors, as well as factors related to local representation and the ability of small parties to exist.

If we reform the electoral system, we need to remember that one thing that is different about Canada is that independent candidates regularly run in local elections. In my opinion, we need to take into account the fact that some members want to run as independents or that some candidates want to try their luck that way.

All of these different points can be studied by this committee, and no one party will have control. Obviously, the committee will produce its findings, but there is much more. With respect to witnesses, if a party has the absolute majority, it can block a witness who may have views that differ from the party's, for example.

This could affect more than the committee's decision or the recommendations it makes. It could affect the work that members do in this committee and even the reliability of the committee process. If people only listen to the witnesses they want to hear, the testimony will not reflect reality.

In such a comprehensive process, it is important to hear from experts who can provide information and talk about all the possibilities. Once we have this information and the recommendations on the table, we can decide on how to proceed.

However, for now, it is important to arrive at these recommendations based on as much information as possible. We must work as a team and be sure that our process is democratic and representative. Once this process is complete, we can decide what to do with the recommendations. Do we submit them to the public in a referendum? Do we move straight to a bill because there was a broad public consensus? To do so, we have to do the work fairly and equitably. All parliamentarians, who represent all of the political views across the country, must have a chance to be heard, participate actively, and vote.

With this process in place, the first step will be to make some specific recommendations. Once we have the recommendations, we can decide what to do. A number of Conservative colleagues have mentioned a referendum, which is why I wanted to touch on that topic. Before we talk about a referendum, we need to know what we would ultimately want to ask in a referendum. Right now, we want to look at all of the proposals. We cannot hold a referendum to ask the public whether they agree with each of our proposals.

When a referendum is held, the question must be clear. I think the proposal needs to be quite clear so that people understand it and can respond accordingly.

I am very pleased to conclude the debate on the excellent motion moved by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during the previous Parliament, the Conservative government and the minister for democratic reform, who was then the member of Parliament for Nepean, if I am not mistaken, introduced a reform that made significant changes to our election rules. My colleague was not here at the time, but I do not think the government consulted the public back then, and they certainly did not hold a referendum.

I am trying to understand the Conservatives' logic. Why do they insist on a referendum when they are not in power, but do the opposite when they are in power? The party's position seems to change based on when it is in power.

Should it not reconsider our proposal to make a committee or entity responsible for making that decision? That is what we have proposed, and that is what we will do.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the Prime Minister by name again.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member named the Prime Minister.

[Veterans Affairs, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to treat our veterans with respect. However, today we learned that only high-ranking veterans will really be able to take advantage of the benefit increases promised in the budget for veterans who are unable to work because of injuries. It makes no sense. The government's plan even goes so far as to demote veterans.

Does the government realize that one of the worst possible insults in the military community is to be demoted? When will the minister fix this?

[National Anthem Act, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill, which follows in a long line of bills aimed at correcting the English version of O Canada.

I would first like to point out, primarily for the benefit of some Quebeckers and francophones outside Quebec, that the French version is really the first version of O Canada. The music was written by Calixa Lavallée and the lyrics were penned by Adolphe-Basile Routhier. One could say that the original version of O Canada is still the French version. Accordingly, when we talk about correcting the English version, we are really talking about correcting an adaptation of the French version.

What is more, the English version of O Canada is not an exact translation of the French, but rather an adaptation. The message in both is more or less the same, but the English version is not a word-for-word translation of the national anthem in French. It is important to explain that for people who do not understand the language very well, and who might not fully understand what these changes consist of.

Again, for people wondering about the changes that will be made to the second line of the English version, the bill would change the words “all thy sons” to “all of us”. In other words, “the patriot love of thy sons” becomes “the patriot love of all of us”.

I wanted to clarify that for my colleagues and the people watching my speech who wanted more of an explanation about the French and English versions.

What is more, between 1880 and 1907, several attempts were made to translate Routhier's French version into English. It was the version composed by Robert Stanley Weir, a justice of the Exchequer Court of Canada, that would become part of popular culture. It was written in 1908 and sung during the 300th anniversary of Quebec City. The full version included the line “True patriot love thou dost in us command”. In 1914, that lyric was replaced with “True patriot love in all thy sons command”.

As I said in French, in 1914, the line that commenced with “True patriot love thou dost in us command” in O Canada was replaced with “True patriot love in all thy sons command”.

There is no clear answer as to why the change was made. A lot of people assume that because of the war, people wanted to make the English version of O Canada more patriotic, so they replaced those words. That is the most common explanation.

We now have a bill under the scrutiny of the House to again modify O Canada to make it more inclusive by replacing the words “all thy sons” with “all of us”. It is important to remember that women make up 50% of the population. Therefore, I think it is a good idea that our national anthem be more inclusive.

Also, as I said to some of my colleagues, perhaps in 1914 there were not a lot of women in the army. However, now they are full members of the armed forces. If the original change was made because of the war, and the face of the army has now changed, I think that with respect to war and patriotism women should have the right to be included in our national anthem.

That is why it is important to move forward with this bill. There were a number of bills that have attempted to correct that problem in our national anthem. The first one I have noted was in 1984, so it is not the first time we have tried to change it. Now is the time. I do not think it is fair to wait another 32 years. We will be very discouraged if it takes another 32 years. It is the right time to do it.

We are in 2016. The Canadian population will understand why we want to make the change. It is not a big change, and there will not be a big difference in the national anthem, but the difference is significant for women all across Canada. That is why we should support this bill by my colleague for Ottawa—Vanier. He did a really good job on it. My former colleague, Libby Davies, also worked on it.

It is the right time to do it. Let us make our national anthem inclusive. It is a good time to be singing the famous version with “true patriot love in all of us command”. I would be proud to sing it that way. It is what we should do, and I encourage all members of the House to make that change.

[Child Care, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a big proponent of work-life balance. That should apply to everyone.

Because of a 2014 decision that will take effect on July 1, not-for-profit day cares in federal buildings, which have enjoyed free rent until now, will have to pay market prices for rent going forward. As a result, the day care in the Statistics Canada building in Ottawa may have to close its doors, and the same goes for the day care in Montreal's Guy-Favreau Complex.

When will the Liberals overturn the Conservatives' bad decision?