Christine Moore

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an issue that I talked about in my speech. When things were going well, they failed to plan. When the dollar was high, that was the right time to buy more equipment so that when the time was right, companies could boost productivity and hire people to help with that. That lack of planning has resulted in uncertainty, and companies do not feel confident about hiring more workers and acquiring more equipment. Those things come at a hefty price, and there is no guarantee that those costs can be recovered in the current economic context. This is a very difficult situation, and we are in it because the government failed to plan strategically.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that from the beginning, with the Liberal government in the 1990s, economic choices were made that painted our economy into a corner, so to speak. There was a refusal to diversify proportionally and to acknowledge that there could be negative consequences if we moved towards an economy based essentially on oil.

When succeeding governments make choices that are not sensible or diversified, that creates uncertainty. Any economist can see that if there is a problem one day, we will face adversity and will not be ready to deal with it. It is obvious now that the government must be very clear about the situation we find ourselves in. It should present an economic update, and clarify when the budget will be tabled, in order to reduce uncertainty. I wish to point out, however, that this uncertainty has been building up over the years.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak, especially when it comes to the economy. I think this is a major issue, and it is important to question what the Conservatives are doing.

When the economy is doing well, then it is thanks to their good management. When it is not doing so well, then it is because of international factors beyond their control. In my opinion, this is not a responsible government, and it has become patently clear that the Conservatives are not willing to take responsibility.

The NDP is ready to make good decisions and accept our responsibilities. It is easy to blame others, but if we want to correct the situation then we have to make choices and be transparent about it. That is the best way to show respect for the Canadian public.

The Liberals' and Conservatives' choices have made Canada an economic giant with feet of clay. They have reduced our ability to adapt when times are tough, what with our increasingly mono-industrial economy largely based on the energy and oil sector.

I would like to take a moment to provide a bit of background on natural resource development in Canada.

At first, the economy was based mainly on agriculture and forestry. Then development shifted from the farms and forests to Canada's underground resources. The importance of metals and minerals increased over time with the evolution of technology, which was mainly spurred by the introduction of hydroelectricity and improved railways, roads and infrastructure.

Furthermore, improvements in mining machinery and drilling techniques led to greater knowledge of mineral deposits, improved access to minerals and lower transportation costs.

Between 1886 and 1947, agriculture was joined by forestry, then mining and finally energy. With the exception of the early appearance of the oil industry in Oil Springs, Ontario, oil was not a major component of energy production in Canada until 1947, the year oil was discovered in Leduc, Alberta.

After the 1973 oil price shock, the production of conventional energy sources increased and technological innovation led to the development of Canada's oil sands.

When we look at the evolution of resource development as a percentage of Canadian production, we can see that the sectors were balanced from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. We then saw an imbalance in energy sector compared to the other economic sectors in the 1980s and in the 1990s under the liberal government. This imbalance consolidated Canada's economic dependence on oil, which we has become clear over the past 10 years under the Conservatives.

Now, the oil and gas industry is concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan. However, offshore production also plays an important role in Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.

Although the importance of energy products has soared over the past 40 years, Canada's economic history has been shaped by the wealth of all of our resources. Energy is the latest example of the major dependence Canada has developed in a global, integrated economy.

Although natural resources financed Canada's development for generations, all of our eggs are now in the energy sector basket, which confirms what the Leader of the Opposition said in 2012.

In 2014, when the price of crude oil reached a high of around $114 U.S. a barrel and a low of $55 U.S., Canada's exchange rate fluctuated from more than 91¢ U.S. to approximately 86¢. Yesterday's rate was 81¢ U.S., as it was 10 years ago when the Conservatives came to power.

In light of the background I just shared, I think it is important to understand a few things.

The current drop in the price of oil is closely linked to the fact that there is more supply from other countries, such as Saudi Arabia.

That is what has led to lower prices. It should be remembered, however, that there has also been a reduction in demand, because a number of countries have elected to move towards a greener economy and reduce their dependence on oil. The reduction in demand is going to continue.

If there have been major changes in our business to reduce our energy requirements and the cost of energy falls, we are not going to revert to what we have just changed. That is obvious. Countries are therefore going to continue to move towards a greener economy, because the price of oil fluctuates widely and makes budget planning difficult for many businesses and economies around the world. Demand will therefore continue to fall.

Even when oil prices are high again, there is no certainty that demand will be what it once was. It is therefore very important to diversify our economy, not just when the going is tough, but also when things are going well. We have to plan appropriately when things are going well in order to cope with adversity. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not do so, and we are therefore in a critical situation. It is essential for people to have an idea of exact prices and of the general situation. That is why we introduced this motion.

The Conservative government said that we had to encourage the manufacturing industry to take up the slack and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, one of the problems caused by the drop in the price of oil is a drop in the Canadian dollar. At the present time, manufacturing businesses are already at the limit of their productivity. If they want to buy equipment to improve their productivity, which they have not done previously, they have to pay for it in U.S. dollars. They are therefore losing 20%, as compared with when the U.S. dollar was roughly at par with the Canadian dollar.

Manufacturing firms will have to pay 20% more to buy equipment, which is in most cases purchased outside Canada and thus priced in U.S. dollars. Even if we rely on manufacturing firms to stimulate the Canadian economy, there is an additional challenge, because the situation in which they have been placed means that they no longer have the same buying power to increase their productivity. In short, we are in a bind, and our freedom of action is limited.

To conclude, if we want a reliable economic plan for the future, we have to understand that it must be based on a green, prosperous and sustainable economy. Greener and more sustainable energy choices must be made, and the opportunity must be made available on a worldwide scale. The more green energy opportunities are made available, the more people will be able to do business. When our economy is based on oil, it becomes unstable and unpredictable, because the price of oil fluctuates. World economies are going to endeavour increasingly to eliminate at least a portion of their dependence on oil in order to move towards more reliable energy sources. That should be one of the priorities for the Canadian economy.

Forward-looking measures must be taken to support the middle class and prevent it from being subjected to the adverse consequences of Conservative mismanagement. Canadian companies must be supported in their efforts to improve production capacity, even at times when things are going well. This was not done when the Canadian and U.S. dollars were roughly at par. If investment had been stimulated when it cost much less for companies to acquire new technology, thanks to the strength of our dollar, they would now have the ability to increase their productivity and cope with the current situation.

We must also support economic diversification, particularly with regard to natural resources. We should avoid focusing only on the sector that is doing well, neglecting the others and finding ourselves, as we do now, with an oil patch that is not doing well and other sectors that have been so underfunded and given so little support that they are hard pressed to take up the slack.

[Health, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in 1961 the Canadian government made a terrible mistake when it approved thalidomide and was slow to pull it off the shelves. It was not until 2014 that the House unanimously voiced its support for compensation for hundreds of victims and adopted a motion to that effect. Today was the deadline for the government to move from the motion to action. However, nothing has been done.

Can the minister guarantee that the victims will receive compensation as soon as possible?

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill.

Like many members of the House, I come from a remote area. Most people in my riding do difficult jobs. They work hard to keep their job so that they can put food on the table. Most of them would not be entitled to severance pay if they lost their jobs. The amounts they would be given are ridiculous compared to what MPs can get if they leave their position.

That being said, the member wanted to introduce a bill to prevent people who have been convicted of an offence from enjoying these privileges. I think that, in an effort to represent Canadians properly, it is very commendable to want to prevent people who have been convicted of an offence from enjoying such privileges.

The bill was examined and amended in committee, and there is now a list of offences to which the bill will apply. Unfortunately, I believe that by proceeding in this way, the member overlooked a number of offences that should result in a loss of severance pay. The law cannot be amended every time a new case arises. That does not make sense. We should have found a way to ensure that most offences are included already. Under the existing bill, we will have to add cases that we did not think of. They will be added later, but they will not be retroactive. This will be a never-ending process.

For example, in Nova Scotia, the law applies to offences with a maximum sentence of five years in prison. That encompasses a large majority of offences. The list that we have contains several provisions, but I do not see anything about members who commit sexual assault or sexual harassment when participating in events in the course of their duties, for example. I believe that most Canadians would oppose the fact that someone who has to resign, either because that person was found guilty of such an offence or because people did not support him or her in the election, is entitled to a withdrawal allowance. That does not make any sense. When an exhaustive list of provisions is set out, there is always the risk that an important one will be forgotten.

Furthermore, in committee, we asked to add offences under certain laws, for example the Canada Elections Act, the Income Tax Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. Unfortunately, that was rejected.

In the case of the Canada Elections Act, MPs—we cannot speak for senators—can say that they are here because of the provisions of the act. It determines that we can sit as members of Parliament and that we have the right to rise in the House of Commons to speak. It directly governs our role as parliamentarians and it was excluded from the bill. Everyone at home realizes that doing that makes absolutely no sense. Everyone is wondering why we did that. It makes no sense.

More specifically, we see that a Conservative MP, Dean Del Mastro, resigned because he was found guilty of violating the Elections Act and winning his seat illegally. He should not even have sat as an MP because he obtained his seat fraudulently. However, he will be entitled to his severance and pension. That makes absolutely no sense, and I believe that all Canadians are offended. They will be even more offended when they realize that the Conservatives amended the bill, which was well-intentioned, so that it cannot apply to this member.

In addition, this measure is not retroactive. I understand that we cannot go back 50 years, but there are some very recent cases. When the member in question resigned, I was sitting close to him. I still remember this incident, which is still fresh in Canadians' minds. In this case, we heard that it was not serious.

Mr. Penashue, a minister who also violated the Elections Act and who chose to resign, was not re-elected. However, he still retains all of his privileges. Those are two examples of Conservative members who, conveniently, would not be subject to sanctions under the bill. For a member who spoke about the importance of standing up for taxpayers, I think he has missed the mark.

There are a number of other laws. With the Income Tax Act, for example, the government keeps going on and on about combatting tax evasion. However, the government is apparently not prepared to crack down on a member who spoke in favour of this measure in the House and who was evading taxes himself. That makes absolutely no sense. How can Canadians have faith in their parliamentarians when they see these parliamentarians giving preferential treatment to others who are caught cheating? This attitude is what causes people to lose faith in politics and to lose their trust in us. It is very unfortunate.

It is high time we put an end to the hypocrisy and recognized the importance of being as inclusive as possible in our approach to a bill like this one, an idea like this one. We also have to be flexible because things are not always black or white. However, by creating this exclusive list, we could end up missing the mark. I am sure that, sooner or later, even the Conservatives will end up regretting the fact that their own exclusive list will prevent them from punishing an MP who has broken the law. They will realize that they messed up when they had a chance to get behind a real bill that would have applied to everyone.

When it comes to fraud, the Conservatives are not the only ones with problems. The Senate has issues with that too. Liberal senator Mac Harb, who fraudulently claimed $50,000 for living expenses and travel, resigned but is still getting his allowances. The worst part is that senators do not face any consequences. A senator cannot even lose the next election. Those found guilty of fraud simply apologize publicly and keep all of their allowances.

Contrast that with the people who regularly show up at my office because they are having problems with employment insurance and their tax returns. The Canada Revenue Agency tells them to reimburse a certain amount, so they do, even though they did not knowingly make those mistakes and their situations involve sums that might mean a lot to ordinary people but are insignificant compared to the kind of money we are talking about today. For parliamentarians who break the law, it all depends: if they are on the government side, the government can massage a bill so it does not apply to them. That is hypocrisy.

People will of course understand why I am voting against the bill. It was a good idea, but because of what the Conservatives did in committee, they are missing an opportunity to prove that they are willing to fight crime, even when it is committed by former colleagues.

If the Conservatives are prepared to do some real work, the NDP is willing to accept a bill that actually deals with all offences. Right now, however, this is really just a sham bill that will apply only to certain cases. The amendments made in committee were a serious mistake.

[Air Transportation, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as oil prices fall, Canadians are wondering why airfares are riding high. In 2011, Canadian airline companies used higher oil prices to justify increasing airfares. Today, the cost is not going down. That is odd.

Will the government ensure that there is price transparency in Canada's airline sector, especially so that people living in remote areas such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue will stop being taken advantage of by airlines?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board seems to be saying that air strikes are the only option.

How can he be sure that bombings will not just prompt more people to join ISIS? How can he be sure that it will not lead to more retaliation against the people or more rapes?

When we give tangible help, humanitarian aid, to people in refugee camps, we are protecting ourselves by reducing the possibility that those people will go fight alongside ISIS. How can he be sure that the bombings will truly stop? He himself said that bombings alone will not eliminate the threat posed by ISIS.

How can he be sure that the bombings will stem these atrocities?

[Petitions, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize because when I introduced my bill on volunteer firefighters, I referred to the previous version of my bill and inadvertently said “Bill C-534”, when I should have said Bill C-504. I ask that the Journals be corrected.

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, October 1st, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-630, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (volunteer firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, after my bill for volunteer firefighters, Bill C-534, was rejected, a number of volunteer fire departments wrote to tell me how disappointed they were that Conservative and Liberal members had chosen to defeat the bill.

That is why I decided to introduce the bill once again. It contains the same legislative provisions as the previous version and will enable volunteer firefighters to be absent from their work to respond to emergency calls. This will help small municipalities recruit and have access to volunteer firefighters.

The bill also includes provisions regarding the Employment Insurance Act, to ensure that volunteer firefighters who are receiving EI benefits do not get caught in an administrative holdup if they participate in training or respond to an emergency call in that capacity.

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

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I know that there have been several speeches today. The Conservatives do not seem to understand the fact that our motion is just about the relevance of a particular subject. The motion states that the Speaker will intervene when he deems that the answer has nothing to do with the question, when it is completely off topic. If the Speaker thinks that the answer could have been better, but that it was nevertheless on topic, the Speaker will not intervene. In other words, if a member is talking about the same thing, the Speaker will not intervene, but members will still have the opportunity to participate in adjournment proceedings.

Does my colleague get the impression that the Conservatives do not understand this simple motion that asks members to stay on topic? Has anyone commented to him that MPs were a little ridiculous, considering what happened on Friday, and has that had an impact on him in his riding?