Christine Moore

[Petitions, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that was drawn up in the wake of budget 2012. People in my riding are opposed to the measures in this budget, particularly the ones related to employment insurance reform. They are calling for these measures to be repealed immediately.

I want to present this petition because I believe this budget is still having some very negative consequences for my riding.

[Quebec's Rural Communities, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while rural areas continue to deal with a major structural crisis, there is an organization in Quebec whose mission is to promote the revitalization and development of rural areas.

For more than 20 years, Solidarité rurale du Québec has been defending rural communities' right to be different and to use that difference to their advantage. This organization is proposing a regional development model that focuses on the distinct character of rural areas.

I am extremely privileged to have Claire Bolduc, the president of the organization, living in my riding. She is constantly travelling around Quebec to listen to, inspire and invigorate rural communities.

Tomorrow, Quebec's premier will appoint Claire Bolduc a chevalière de l'Ordre National du Québec, which is the highest distinction the Quebec government can bestow upon an outstanding citizen.

On behalf of all my constituents and the members of the House, I would like to congratulate her on this well-deserved honour. As she so eloquently says, “A country is only as strong as its towns”.

[National Defence, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange that embarrassing information is all of a sudden confidential.

At the direction of the Minister of National Defence's office, five investigations targeted a journalist who has been bothering the minister. Another investigation was carried out when a different journalist released embarrassing information about the former chief of the defence staff.

Why is the minister using the military policy to go after those who have been trying to shed some light on embarrassing events in his department?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill S-209, which originated in the Senate, as its number indicates.

This bill is relatively simple. Its purpose is to amend the definition of “prize fight” and expand the list of exceptions to better reflect today's reality. First, prize fights are considered an offence under section 83 of the Criminal Code. Prize fight is defined as follows:

...an encounter or fight with fists, hands or feet between two persons who have met for that purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them...

However, there are exceptions. The definition excludes boxing matches between amateur athletes who follow certain rules, namely, those set out by the province in question. The bill goes further in defining a prize fight by adding the use of feet to the definition. It therefore no longer just includes fights in which the combatants use their fists or hands. It also includes fights in which combatants use their feet. The bill also adds a number of items to the list of exceptions, including martial arts.

The bill sets out four new exceptions. Here is the first:

(a) a contest between amateur athletes in a combative sport with fists, hands or feet held in a province if the sport is on the programme of the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee...

For example, this would apply to me. I participate in fencing, which is one of the exceptions. Paragraphs (b) and (c) exclude contests between amateur athletes in a combative sport with fists, hands or feet held in a province if the sport has been designated or authorized by the province.

Of course, not all combative sports, most of which originated in Asia, are part of the Olympic or Paralympic program, yet they are still practised in a number of countries.

I will continue reading:

(d) a boxing contest or mixed martial arts contest held in a province with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board, commission or similar body established by or under the authority of the province’s legislature...

Therefore, combative sports on the program of the International Olympic Committee as well as other amateur sports designated by a province or a body appointed by a province will be exempted. These include judo, Greco-Roman wrestling, freestyle wrestling, fencing, tae kwon do, karate, kick-boxing, mixed boxing and mixed martial arts.

The legislative provision is being amended to better reflect what is happening today in the world of combative sports. Prize fights will continue to be illegal. However, the list of exceptions is being expanded, given that this particular provision was last amended in 1934. There is no question that combative sports have evolved considerably since 1934. For instance, prior to 1934, there were no combative sports involving fighting between women. Today, boxing matches feature women.

Furthermore, prior to 1934, while fencing was an Olympic discipline, women were only authorized to use a fencing foil, as it was considered a practice weapon. Today women also fence with a sabre and an épée, although these changes are relatively recent. Clearly, the situation was very different in 1934 from what it is today in 2013.

Also back in 1934, combative sports were limited, at least in Canada, to boxing and wrestling. Over the years, many combative sports have evolved. Judo, karate and tae kwon do have been around in Canada for many years now. Mixed martial arts have also grown in popularity in recent years.

Some MPs even practised martial arts before embarking on their present career. A number of members on both sides of the House have been involved in non-traditional sports.

The member for Yukon and my NDP colleague seated near me are just two of the many members involved in combative sports.

This bill provides exemptions from criminal prosecution for these legitimate sports practised by thousands of Canadians across the country. As I nurse, I think of course about the safety of these sports and the safety of participants. By expanding the list of permitted sports under the prize fighting provisions, we want to ensure that certain safeguards are in place so that the health of practitioners of these sports is protected. This must be one of our priorities.

I will admit that many Canadians are concerned about mixed martial arts. However, aside from the fact that they are widely practised in any case, it is worth noting that they pose far fewer risks for practitioners than other popular sports such as hockey and boxing. In fact, many other entirely legitimate sports result in far more serious injuries than do mixed martial arts and other combative sports.

One of the priorities of combative sport trainers is to ensure that practitioners know how to defend and protect themselves to avoid injury. This is not necessarily taught in non-combative sports because theoretically injuries are not supposed to occur, even though they sometimes do.

Studies have shown that serious head injuries occur less often in mixed martial arts than they do in hockey, for instance. Hockey Canada, which targets youth in particular, recently took steps to reduce the number of head injuries. Specifically, it banned checking at the bantam level. These associations are also slowly working to reduce the number of head injuries. They are mindful of the extent of the problem. I just wanted to point that out.

In addition, the regulations governing these sports have evolved a great deal with a view to better protecting practitioners. These sports, which are governed by associations and agencies, operate within a legal framework. Providing a legal framework at the federal level for these sports to allow them to exist will also make it possible for the provinces to enforce their own regulations, to set rules for these sports and to protect the health and safety of practitioners.

It is important to regulate these sports, not to ban them. To ban them would only lead to more clandestine fights. These types of fights pose the greatest risk to the health and safety of participants. Organizers do not necessarily respect the ground rules, such as the need for a medical team to be on hand to intervene if necessary, the requirement to wear gloves and the ban on hits to the head. The more these combative sports are regulated, the lower the risk of injury to participants.

Therefore, recognizing the popularity of these sports and legalizing and better regulating them benefits everyone. This bill will ensure that provincial governments no longer turn a blind eye to organized martial arts contests. It is important to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate any ambiguity over the legality of these different combative sports, which are growing in popularity in Canada.

May I remind members that this legislation was last amended in 1934. The purpose of this initiative is to update the legal framework governing prize fighting and adapt it to what is happening today in 2013.

That is why I support this bill.

[Last Post Fund, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion No. 422, which calls on the House to recognize that the Last Post Fund is underfunded and calls on the government to accept the recommendations of successive veterans ombudsmen who have spoken on the issue. The goal is to expand the Last Post Fund and review the assistance cap for funerals to bring it in line with the assistance given to active Canadian Forces members.

For anyone unfamiliar with the Last Post Fund, the fund ensures that no veteran is denied a dignified funeral and burial because of insufficient funds at the time of their death. Therefore, the fund provides financial assistance for the funeral and burial of eligible veterans, as well as for a gravestone. The Last Post Fund is financially supported by Veterans Affairs Canada and private donations.

This motion is legitimate because the number of modern-day veterans needing assistance when they die is only increasing. However, many of these veterans do not have access to proper funerals or burials because of a lack of means and because the Last Post Fund eligibility criteria are too restrictive and do not reflect the true cost of a funeral.

The eligibility criteria for modern-day Canadian Forces veterans are more restrictive than for veterans of World War II and the Korean War. Does the government think there are two classes of soldiers and two classes of veterans? All veterans deserve a dignified burial.

As a veteran myself, I believe it is important to recognize people's service, regardless of when they served. Holding dignified funerals is essential to acknowledging the service these people rendered to our country. Generally speaking, the population is aging, and more and more seniors are finding themselves in a precarious financial situation. When they die, it is important to recognize all the work they did for our country.

The office of the ombudsman made a number of recommendations in that regard. The most recent report is from 2009. It outlines many of the problems and concerns with the administration and funding of the funeral and burial assistance program.

The report indicates that the level of funding for veterans' funerals has not kept pace with the rising costs of funerals and should be increased to reflect industry standards. The report suggests that the administration of funeral and burial expenses is unduly bureaucratic and that the process should be changed.

It says that the program should be extended to all veterans. The estate exemption for the means test is not in line with present-day income and cost levels and should be increased to reflect reality. According to the report, many veterans' families are unaware of the program and it should be afforded greater exposure and visibility. Finally, the report finds that the timeframe for making application to the program is too restrictive and should be extended to allow consideration for special circumstances affecting grieving families.

Veterans must meet certain service-related criteria to qualify for the program. Not every veteran qualifies. Veterans of the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War qualify. Other veterans qualify if the cause of death is directly attributable to service-related injuries or if they are in receipt of earning loss benefits under the new veterans charter. Their eligibility is much more restrictive, and according to veterans' rights groups, does not reflect reality.

The Last Post Fund, the Royal Canadian Legion, the former Veterans Affairs Canada-Canadian Forces Advisory Council, and the Funeral Service Association of Canada have all called on Veterans Affairs Canada repeatedly to have the rules changed in order to offer the funeral and burial assistance program to modern-day veterans instead of providing it only to veterans who are eligible under certain programs.

The eligibility criteria exclude some modern-day veterans. That is not fair. We have heard stories of funeral directors who pay the balance of funeral costs when the family cannot afford to pay.

Although the Conservatives have announced an increase in the amount for funerals, they have made no other changes. The Conservatives have not changed the estate exemption criteria, nor have they improved access to the program for modern-day veterans. All veterans' rights groups have been calling for these changes for almost 20 years.

Canadian Veterans Advocacy said:

The Canadian Veterans Advocacy, however, continues to bear serious concerns about the Last Post Fund’s restrictive criteria, particularly in the sense of exclusion of deceased veterans who did not serve in WW2 and Korea yet who’s [sic] families require financial assistance for a dignified internment. We are gravely concerned about the current Means Test and the formula responsible for the denial of two thirds of applicants...

Two-thirds of applicants. That is really sad because we are talking about veterans. This means that two-thirds of veterans are denied a decent funeral.

As a country and as parliamentarians, we have to ask ourselves if this is the kind of service we want to provide to our veterans. Do we want only one-third of veterans to have decent funerals? I think we really need to look at this issue and also at eligibility for the program.

Jeff Rose-Martland, president of the organization Our Duty, also said that the measures implemented to date have not fixed the bulk of the problem. He said, “The major problem with the funeral and burial program is the rejection rate. They reject over two-thirds of applicants. There is nothing in the budget about fixing that. The Last Post Fund doesn’t cover so-called “modern” veterans—those from Afghanistan and peacekeeping and the Cold War. Budget 2013 doesn’t remedy that either.”

He also said, “Changes in the 2013 budget are just smoke and mirrors. The government put more money into a fund that cannot be accessed anyway. It is a distraction so they do not have to make the changes needed. That way the Conservatives appear to be doing something when, in reality, they are ignoring the litany of complaints about the program.”

This motion calls on the government to commit to addressing this situation, which all veterans have decried for years. I think it is really important to do this.

I hope that most of my hon. colleagues have had the opportunity to participate in ceremonies attended by veterans side by side with personnel on active duty.

A close look at our retired veterans tells us they were awarded a large number of medals. Knowing the meaning of these medals makes us realize they served in many places. However, the Korean War and World War II are not necessarily represented in the medals. Is this what should happen to modern-day veterans as well? There have been several military tours for missions in the current Bosnia-Herzegovina or the former Yugoslavia. In addition, some veterans also served in Egypt, while others participated in several overseas missions.

In my view it is important that these veterans be entitled to a decent funeral if they pass away within 20 or 30 years of service. Indeed, we hope it is as late as possible.

I feel it is crucial to keep modern-day veterans in mind, like those who served in Afghanistan for example, so that they know that regardless of when death comes, in either a few or many years, they are entitled to a proper funeral.

This is the least a country like Canada can do for its veterans.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the beginning of my colleague's speech.

She spoke about the fact that the Conservatives' sense of urgency is driving them to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons. I believe she is aware that there are costs associated with extending the sitting hours and that, in the end, Canadians foot the bill.

Personally, dealing with the Senate is the only urgent issue I can see. I believe there is some urgency in that case. People have cheated and really shown a lack of goodwill.

Is that why the government wants to extend the sitting hours?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague speak some more about other times when sitting hours have been extended this early in the session. It is a possibility, according to the parliamentary calendar, but not just yet. This has come much earlier than expected.

Can she speak about those precedents? Does she know how things turned out when this approach was used in the past?

[Criminal Code, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, some towns in my community do not even cover two kilometres. These are really small towns.

I would like to know how this standard would apply to such places.

[Search and Rescue, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, instead of investing in propaganda, the Conservatives should be investing in equipment.

Since 2006, the Conservatives have been promising to replace search and rescue aircraft that are 45 years old.

Back then, they said it was a priority, but seven years later, they have yet to keep their promise. People in distress have to cross their fingers and hope that a plane is fit to fly.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us when, exactly, search and rescue aircraft will be replaced?

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, May 2nd, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-504, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (volunteer firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce my bill to amend the Canada Labour Code for volunteer firefighters, which is seconded by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

This bill will strongly reaffirm Canada's and the House's commitment to volunteer and part-time firefighters. It will give them protection under the Canada Labour Code so that their employer cannot, without just cause—and I want to emphasize that point—prevent them from or discipline them for meeting their obligations and responding to calls as firefighters.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the House to reaffirm its commitment to volunteer firefighters. In many rural areas, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit volunteer firefighters, and it is very difficult for fire departments to get their forces together between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays.

This will provide real help to firefighters and to all communities, particularly those in rural areas.

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