Christine Moore

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 2nd, 2016]

With regard to the government’s budgets, whether or not all the departments committed to them, as relates to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec: (a) what was the amount spent, and what amount remained unspent, for these activities, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) program, (iii) region, from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; (b) what amount has been spent, and what amount remains unspent, for these activities during the current fiscal year; (c) what was the amount budgeted to be spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; and (d) what was the amount budgeted to be spent on these activities during the current fiscal year?

[The Environment, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the protection of species at risk was last on the list of Conservative priorities. In fact, 82 species had been recommended for inclusion in the species at risk public registry. Of course, the Conservatives did nothing, and we are still waiting for action.

The Liberal minister has had six months, but she has not done anything either. This is not complicated. We are talking about adding species to the registry, as already recommended.

When will the minister finally take action on this?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I said that some Liberals seem to have fallen through a breach in the space-time continuum. It looks like my colleague has been lost inside that breach for the past four years, because I can assure him that the New Democrats have spoken to this issue under the previous government.

There is something that makes no sense here. The Conservatives could have taken action, but they did not. The solution is really quite simple: enforcing the law. All it takes is a few discussions for a couple of minutes. No new laws or regulations are required; it is simply a matter of enforcing the existing legislation. The Liberals could have settled this matter in a few hours or a few days—a few weeks at most. They could have argued that the Conservatives sat on their hands for a while but that they would get right on it since it is such a simple matter to resolve.

It seems to me that when we get involved in something, we move on the issues that can be dealt with easily and quickly and, after that, we go on to the more complicated issues. They are not even doing that. That is why it is ridiculous.

It is important to mention that the NDP raised the issue on several occasions and that we now have some Conservatives who seem to have forgotten that they did nothing and some Liberals who seem to have forgotten that this issue was brought up quite often, and that they can act quickly. Things are not going well.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency. If the government advises this agency to talk to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and they come up with the same definition for “milk”, the problem will be solved. The customs officers will be able to say that it is milk. Since it does not comply with the rules and exceeds the permitted quantities, the product cannot enter Canada. Therefore, there will be no problem.

All day the Liberal MPs have given speeches that barely mentioned diafiltered milk. Earlier, I almost thought they would ask my colleague the names of chickens in an effort to avoid the question. That is ridiculous.

The motion is about the very specific subject of diafiltered milk. From the outset, they have been beating around the bush in order to avoid talking about the specific issue before us. We could move on this in a few minutes or a few days. It is simple. The government should take action and everyone would be happy.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the easiest way to understand the problem is to understand the dynamic it has created. I will therefore read a message I received from a producer at the end of March. “I am sending you this message today to ask that you speak to the government on our behalf. Let me introduce myself. My name is Genevieve Audet. I am the owner of Ronick farm, a beautiful family-owned dairy farm in Ste-Gertrude. I need your help in defending supply management, a world model of responsible production that requires no subsidies, and which is suffering greatly as a result of the importation of milk proteins from the United States. The futures of many dairy farms are in jeopardy as a result of the significant drop in the price paid for milk at the farm, which does not cover the production costs, according to the Canadian Dairy Commission. The government needs to enforce its laws at the border to prevent these proteins from entering the country. They do not meet Canadian standards, they favour processors, they mislead consumers, and they hurt our economy. I hope I have made the right choice, Madam, and that you will choose to defend us”.

Other comments received afterwards clearly show how dairy producers feel.

“For some years now, we feel as though the government has turned its backs on us. Agricultural funding keeps getting slashed as our revenues dwindle, and all these agreements we are entering into only serve to open our borders ever wider, leaving us at the mercy of market forces... We have the potential to be a great economic force, but the government does not seem to realize it.... I do not know whether you are aware of this, but many start-ups are struggling to such a degree that they are on the verge of selling, and their creditors have all but lost faith in the industry.... Agriculture feeds the world, which is why I cannot understand why nothing is being done to remedy the situation. What will we do when there is no one left to feed us? Thank you very much for taking the time to read my words.... I appreciate it a great deal and hope you will be able to share them with others today”.

That pretty well sums up what several producers in my community are going through. From 2007 to 2016, the number of dairy farms in Abitibi—Témiscamingue dropped 24%. There are only 114 left, compared to 150 10 years ago. The industry accounts for some 1,200 jobs in my riding alone. Of those, 826 are employed by dairy farms and 493 by food processors. I have a specific example in mind. Many cheesemakers have opened shop. Some of the top-quality cheeses they produce have even claimed awards on the world stage, like the Cru du Clocher.

Every year, the Conservative government's failure to act has resulted in shortfalls of $12,000 to $15,000 per farm, and now, it is the Liberals' turn to sit on their hands.

Do members truly believe most people have the means to fill a $15,000 hole in their budget? Several Liberal MPs are not earning the same salary as they once did. Though that may be the case, most people still have a hard time absorbing a $15,000 loss.

In Quebec, this industry accounts for 80,000 direct and indirect jobs, contributes $6.2 billion to the GDP and brings in $1.29 billion in tax revenues—$678 million to the federal government and $454 million to the province. There are 5,856 dairy farms producing almost 3 billion litres of milk annually. Revenues for these farms total more than $2.4 billion only in Quebec.

Failing to protect an industry that is so vital to our economy by not making sure that existing regulations and rules are enforced is absolutely appalling.

That is what is so shocking. Everything is already in place; all we have to do is get up one morning, roll up our sleeves, stop pretending that the problem does not exist and make sure that producers are not losing money. Milk is milk, that is all. Nobody here is going to tell me that a cow in the U.S. does not produce the same milk as a cow in Canada. Of course, the controls are not the same, but still, milk is milk. It is not hard to understand.

If it is as simple as that, it should be easy for this government to call the Border Services Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and get them to talk to one another and agree on a single definition of what “milk” is, and to keep Americans from circumventing our laws to bring in diafiltered milk.

This basically means that this government, if it had a sense of what it means to act with communities in mind, could settle the issue in less than a week, because no legislative change is required. All the government has to do is to get a move on. It boggles the mind that we are forced to tell the government to do its job. I do not think that I should have to talk about this. This issue should have been at the top of the government's agenda, especially after an election. The Liberals cannot pretend that they were not aware of the problem, because we talked about it during the campaign.

It feels like there was a breach in the space-time continuum for the Liberals. They do not remember what happened during the campaign. For them, it is like 50 years have passed, like they went through a black hole and forgot everything that was discussed during the election.

What I am asking the government to do is simple. I am asking it to protect the farms in my riding. I am asking it to ensure that the young people who decided to become dairy producers do not regret their decision, although they realize that there are some serious challenges, especially with respect to collecting the money required to buy back quotas. The government will have to ensure that in my riding people can continue to produce high-quality dairy products, such as cheeses. It must ensure that producers have the financial flexibility they need to put money aside, so that they can pay for their children's education.

I remind the Liberal government that operating a farm is not like it used to be. In the past, someone could run a farm after finishing grade two. Now, that person needs a lot of knowledge. They need knowledge of management, administration, and agronomics. Often, if they want to be successful, they need to seek out training and information. Even if producers want to pass on the farm to their children, they need to be able to afford training for these children so that they can properly hand over the business. We are talking about keeping up with something rather simple, which is feeding our communities. Canadians need to be able to feed Canadians. That seems logical to me.

I hope that the government realizes that it is possible to take action in very short order. I hope it will decide to climb out of this black hole it has jumped into and that it will follow through with what it said during the campaign. I hope that the Liberals will leave here and visit their ridings during constituency week, that they will do what they need to do, and that they will fix this problem. Too many family farms have shut down. I hope the Liberals will fix this, because the inaction we have seen so far is truly shameful.

Lastly, I hope that there will be good news in the next few days for the dairy producers in my riding.

[Excise Tax Act, March 24th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (baby products).

Mr. Speaker, sales tax should be levied on products that are considered something of a luxury. Unfortunately, that is not at all the case right now. Some products, such as frozen pizzas and maraschino cherries, are zero-rated, but basic baby and breastfeeding products are not.

This bill covers baby bottles, diapers, nursing pads, breast pumps, and breast milk storage bags. These are basic products used for breastfeeding and baby care. I believe they should be zero-rated.

That is why I am introducing a bill to zero-rate some of these products to remove the federal tax. This makes perfect sense. In Quebec, these products are not subject to provincial sales tax. I hope that the House will pass this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to create jobs, but now we are talking about employment insurance. I first want to say that the priority should be to have an EI program that protects workers when they lose their jobs. The issue of job creation is also very important and must be addressed in partnership with the provinces. Some local employment centres are doing a fantastic job. They fall under provincial jurisdiction. In my riding, they provide a lot of support in the area of development and finding jobs. They also provide services to employers.

When it comes to job creation, it is important to work closely with our provincial partners. The previous Conservative government had an abominable record in terms of working with the provinces. It was appalling. I am very hopeful that we will start working with the provinces again on things like job creation. I also hope we will create an employment insurance system for the workers that really benefits the workers. Those two things go hand in hand.

When someone unilaterally decides to make cuts without taking the concerns of workers into account, when a government decides what needs to be done without consulting the provinces, we cannot expect positive outcomes that reflect the reality on the ground.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the motion covers the essentials. Yes, we have a lot to do to come up with an employment insurance system that really helps workers once and for all. That is critical, and that absolutely has to be one of the changes we make to employment insurance. Yes, we have a lot to do. The Conservatives made such a terrible mess of the program that it has to be changed. We can do it together, but we need to act quickly. Every time we wait one, two, or three years to make changes, workers in my riding suffer that whole time. There are some things we need to do immediately, but we also need to launch a continuous improvement process to ensure that the program always meets workers' needs. We need to make this happen as quickly as possible.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to talk about employment insurance. My colleagues may not know this, but I am from a rural region, a remote region with lots of seasonal industries. Employment insurance is therefore a reality for many of my constituents. They would like to have other options, but that is a fact of life in my region.

I think that one of the most important parts of the motion is the one that would protect the employment insurance fund for good. People need to understand that the employment insurance fund is like a nest egg for workers. It is money they have saved. Employers contribute too. Workers and employers pay for the employment insurance fund. The government does not put money into it. Logically, the fund should belong to workers. The government should not be able to take whatever it wants from the fund to balance the budget, but that is what previous governments have done, unfortunately.

From 1998 to 2008, the Liberal and Conservative governments stole $57 billion from the employment insurance fund. Workers built up that fund with their hard-earned money, and employers contributed to it as well. Governments stealing $57 billion from the employment insurance fund is like parents who are unable to pay their bills and balance their budget deciding to raid their children's piggy bank to steal their children's hard-earned babysitting money or lawn-cutting money. Everyone agrees that stealing money from children to balance the budget does not make sense.

Being forced to do so shows a lack of financial capacity. We must secure the employment insurance fund once and for all, precisely to stop governments from dipping into it every time they have to balance their budget. This habit is totally unacceptable.

The fund is profitable, especially when we consider that $57 billion was stolen from it. The fund would be perfectly healthy if the government had not stolen that money. In 2016, the fund had a $3.3 billion surplus. The fund belongs to workers. It is there to protect them when they lose their jobs, and the government has to stop dipping into it. We must secure the fund once and for all. This is a priority for many people and many organizations that advocate for the rights of workers and the unemployed.

Access to employment insurance is another big problem. Currently, less than 40% of workers have access to it. The country has many workers, and out of all those who lose their jobs, only 40% manage to get benefits when they need them. This is an insurance plan. Is it normal for an insurance plan that is meant to cover job losses to pay out benefits in only 40% of cases? This makes absolutely no sense, especially when it is the workers who are making the contributions. We must ensure that the employment insurance fund is used to pay benefits to workers and help people when they are especially vulnerable.

We also have to talk about the two-week waiting period. This creates a very difficult situation. In addition to the two-week waiting period, when no money is coming in, there are other countless delays.

The former Conservative government massacred the employment insurance program and made it practically inaccessible. Furthermore, the processing times are outrageous.

People called my office to tell me that they still had not received an answer after three months. When you earn very little, you cannot survive without any income for three months.

Therefore, while they wait to find out if they qualify for employment insurance, most people are forced to take on debt, mainly by obtaining credit at very high interest rates using credit cards. These situations are unacceptable for our workers. The waiting period must be eliminated in order to provide better access to our employment insurance program and ensure that workers' security is not jeopardized when they lose their jobs.

We must also lower the eligibility rate. This rate, expressed as a number of hours, varies by region, which makes it discriminatory. For example, it can be difficult for people just starting their career to accumulate these hours. That is why we want to reduce this rate to 360 hours. Someone who works full time may not really have difficulty accumulating 360 hours, but if a worker cannot get a full-time job, it is difficult to accumulate the number of hours required, which can be quite high, to be eligible for employment insurance.

Many times people have come to see me to tell me that they do not have enough hours and that they have no recourse. I know that these are people who worked hard and tried as hard as they could to accumulate the proper number of hours, but were unable to do so. Often, it is because of their job and the nature of their employment.

Employment insurance needs to take into account the reality of workers. It is not the workers who are seasonal. It is the industry. Take farmers for example. They would like to work 12 months a year, but there comes a point where the snow begins to fall and hay will no longer grow. That is the reality. We cannot do anything about it. That is the way it is.

The tourism industry also has a season. We would like tourists to visit all year round, but that is not the case. We need to understand that it is not the workers who are seasonal but the industries. That is why we need to be able to support these workers; if we do not, our seasonal industries will be completely unable to find workers.

We also need to understand the reality for people who work on call. For example, orderlies who work in major hospitals start their careers working on call, until they have enough seniority to obtain a better, full-time position. At the beginning of their career, they will work on call and fill in for others, during summer holidays, for example. They will have significant periods of downtime. If we require these on-call workers to accept a job elsewhere, they will never gain enough seniority to obtain a full-time job.

This is key. We need to ensure that people who work on call and have very irregular work hours for the first two or three years of their career are not forced to accept another job elsewhere. Otherwise, they will never succeed in finding a secure job.

We also have to make sure that employment insurance takes regional realities into account. Forcing a worker who lives in one RCM to travel long distances to work in another RCM causes all kinds of problems, such as transportation and housing problems. It costs money. If a worker is forced to travel 100 km from home to earn 70% of his or her pay, and if we factor in higher child care, transportation, and other costs, people could end up losing money because of this increase. It makes no sense at all. The government has to understand regional realities and stop displacing workers.

Some jobs do not fit the mould. Some self-employed workers choose to contribute. When we are talking about employment insurance, we need to understand regional realities and not come up with laws that make no sense and do not take different employment circumstances into account. I think it is important to have an employment insurance system that meets workers' needs. Let us come up with a really good program once and for all rather than take a piecemeal approach to fixing it.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's question and the language she used to be in poor taste, but I will answer it anyway.

If this military mission included very clear objectives and a detailed plan that says exactly where we are going, and if it were to be carried out under the aegis of NATO or the UN, the New Democratic opposition could give it serious consideration.

However, there is currently no clear plan and no clear objectives, the government is not acting under the aegis of the UN or NATO, and there is no plan for long-term stability in the Middle East. We therefore do not know if the mission will end up buttressing another terrorist group that is currently an enemy of ISIL and that will become our enemy in a few years.

That is why a combat mission is not reasonable. We must focus on stopping the flow of money to terrorists, deradicalizing our young people so that they do not become enemy fighters, and deploying our Canadian Armed Forces to provide humanitarian and medical assistance.

We can train our soldiers in such a way as to ensure that their lives are not in danger, not to send them to the front lines.