Christine Moore

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, my speech is about Bill C-266, which seeks to create Pope John Paul II Day.

I wanted to make this speech because this bill really bothered me in the sense that it made me think long and hard about what I should do. As a Catholic, I recognize the tremendous contribution that Pope John Paul II made to humanity, if you will. However, I am choosing to vote against this bill, and I think that it is important to explain why.

First, one of the issues that led to my decision is that Pope John Paul II is not Canadian. He is an important international figure who visited Canada, but he is not originally from here. It is also important to remember that the Pope is a head of state. This day would therefore recognize a foreign head of state, and I am a bit concerned that this would set a precedent. I would like to point out that this does not mean that Roman Catholics or Polish Canadians cannot celebrate the late Pope. These people can do so in a more general way without necessarily having a national day.

It is also important to understand that the other national days in Canada that recognize individuals are those to recognize Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, as we all know, were historic prime ministers. There is also Raoul Wallenberg Day. This man was a great activist during the Second World War and he was made an honorary Canadian citizen.

Another issue I had was that people are not religious in order to get glory. When a person makes a commitment to God, especially in the Catholic Church, he does not do it for recognition or glory. Religious work is done humbly, discreetly and simply. Humility is like the ground in which other virtues grow. The gospels present it as the fundamental virtue.

Pope John Paul II worked in many areas. We all recognize his wonderful commitment to peace and to opening the lines of communication between religions. He was a political activist who was against Communism and political oppression. He worked to help youth and to reform the Roman Catholic Church. In my opinion, it is more important to recognize and remember these achievements than the person himself.

For instance, we could decide to have a national interfaith dialogue day to pay tribute to the late pope and remember the message that he was trying to send. In my view, celebrating the individual per se is not consistent with the fundamental tenet of humility in religion. That is why the best way to remember Pope John Paul II is by remembering his battles and ideals, and by continuing to spread his message.

Another issue that came to mind as I was examining the bill is that he would become the only religious figure recognized in Canada. As we know, Canada is a secular country. Religious freedom is guaranteed, and the right to religion is recognized. Even the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”.

However, I would like to point out that religious traditions in Canada are very diverse. We have Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Orthodox Christians and Baptists. We have the various traditional religions of first nations and Inuit peoples. We have atheists, Jews, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and the list probably goes on.

I think all we have to do is walk around our major Canadian cities to see that we have places of religious worship that belong to different religions in a number of places.

I do not think that recognizing a particular religious figure from a particular religion is necessarily the best way to celebrate Canadians in all their diversity. That might create some problems, if you will, or raise some concerns.

Everyone is free to celebrate their beliefs, but I do not think it is healthy or appropriate to recognize a pope or a particular faith more than another. That goes against Canada's religious diversity.

The problem is that I cannot see why we would celebrate one pope more than another. As I see it, every pope has contributed in his own way to building humanity and developing ideals and beliefs.

Choosing a pope in particular is as if we were not recognizing the work of the others. I take issue with that. In my view, a person becomes pope because he has worked very hard and has fought for many things. I do not like the idea of elevating one pope above the rest.

I also want to clarify that I really struggled with this bill. I spoke with priests in my riding and other people. I talked it over with them. I think they understood my views on this bill.

I come from a Catholic family. We even had a bishop in my family. My grandfather's brother was a long-time bishop of the diocese of Amos. Back home, people recognize him. They all know who he is.

I understand the idea of wanting to pay tribute to an important figure in this religion. However, I unfortunately do not believe that a national day is appropriate. I think that if we had truly wanted to celebrate his memory, we could have, for example, created a national day in honour of one of his ideals, such as peace. We could have commemorated the date that Pope John Paul II passed away. Someone advocated for that. I think it would have been important to acknowledge the ideals he fought for and not simply his name.

That is why I wanted to make this speech. I wanted to explain to people why I chose to vote against this bill, even though it was really difficult for me.

I recognize the work done by my colleague. I know that he worked hard on this bill and that he did it with the best of intentions. I sincerely hope that he understands or that he at least listened carefully to the issues and concerns I had regarding this bill.

[Taxation, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, outside of large urban centres, many people enjoy fishing for sport. I, myself, have been known to fish for walleye, northern pike and yellow perch in the many lakes and rivers that are no longer protected in my beautiful riding.

However, with the tariff increases, the price of fishing rods, reels and lines will also go up.

Why do the Conservatives want to go after the sport fishing industry by taxing it?

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do need to have the same protection. The problem is with the other flaws.

A government could challenge a new environmental law, and that could prevent us from moving forward. Under this agreement, if we wanted to move forward with the same environmental protections, and there was no possibility of legal action, even if not everything was done properly, that might be possible. However, this is not the case right now.

That is why I cannot support this agreement.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that those types of agreements are indeed very valuable and they are of paramount importance. However, they are binding agreements, so we have to negotiate carefully. Canada is actually on the losing end of this particular agreement.

Generally speaking, in negotiations, both parties must gain something and the benefits must be comparable. However, in this case, too many measures are actually placing Canadian investors and Canadian industry at a disadvantage. We run the risk of clandestine legal action. The lawsuits could be secret. Canadian taxpayers will pay a bill without even knowing that the Canadian government has been sued.

From a legal standpoint, this agreement is not well structured. If the agreement had been good and negotiated properly, I would have been happy to support it. I recognize that the Chinese government's investments are important for our country. However, this agreement is really not good and we cannot support it, because such a binding agreement with so many flaws is really dangerous for the future of our country.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, because this is an extremely important topic.

We need to understand that the people are greatly affected by these companies that are developing natural resources. There is concern about losing control over development. There is support for this type of development and people want industries, but they want to see these companies develop the resources in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner and by investing locally. People have already seen enough disasters; they do not want any more. In my region, when a mine shuts down, an entire town shuts down. Some towns no longer even exist in my riding.

We need to be very cautious about these investments. People want to be consulted and want to be part of the process. Right now, parliamentarians are not even allowed to be part of the process.

The community will have basically no role in this, and there will be a great deal of legal fallout. Thirty years is a long time. As I said, that is twice my current age and then some. In my riding, mines—which have a lifespan of 15 to 20 years—may be subject to this agreement for the entire time they are in operation. That is huge.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Today I really want to speak to my constituents and discuss a very important issue. It has to do with the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should inform the Government of the People's Republic of China, that it will not ratify the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement.

I would like to revisit the process that has led to this motion. The negotiation process leading up to the agreement was truly clandestine and undemocratic. The negotiations were conducted completely in secret. We were not able to have our say as the negotiations were progressing. They were not even open to parliamentarians. The negotiations took place in a tiny bubble.

Then, in October 2012, the Conservatives tabled the agreement, without consulting the provinces or first nations. There was no committee review or any consultation with Canadians. Despite all our efforts and requests, the agreement has never been debated or examined by a committee, nor has it ever been voted on.

I would first like to point out that this agreement affects a first nations right. In fact, the aboriginal peoples of Canada have a constitutional right to be consulted if the government adopts any measures that will have an impact on their rights. This right has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. We already knew that this government thought it was above the law, and apparently, nothing has changed.

The Hupacasath First Nation has filed an injunction with the Federal Court to stop the ratification of the FIPA. Brenda Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation said:

First Nations were not consulted on the Canada China FIPPA. As First Nations with our Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights, it is our duty to intervene for the sake of our children's futures....if ratified, FIPPA will immediately affect our Title and Rights by limiting our ability to exercise [our] jurisdiction in land use planning and regulation of our territory...

In my view, it is particularly disturbing to see that the government reached an agreement without even consulting with first nations, even though the agreement will have a direct impact on their rights.

In my region, there are six aboriginal communities. When we talk about natural resource development, the forestry and mining industries are often located on their ancestral land.

A company trying to set up a project is sitting down with first nations and is taking the time to consult with them. It is trying to develop a rare earth project. Rare earth materials are used in a lot of high-tech devices, especially batteries. Because of China's technology boom, those materials are highly sought after. If there is presumably one deposit in the region, there may be others.

Under this agreement, Chinese companies may appropriate or attempt to appropriate some of the rare earths. This would be done with no consultation of first nations, with no one even sitting down with first nations communities. We have to be very careful.

From the outset, this type of agreement indicates that Chinese investors are probably more interested in Canada's natural resources or natural resource industries. We must be very careful. The Idle No More movement came out of protests against a number of legislative measures in the budget that had been put in place without any consultation with first nations.

We must be extremely careful before we bring in an agreement that would once again fly in the face of Canada's Constitution. We have already done enough harm to first nations communities. We have imposed enough things on them without any consultation. Right off the bat I have a lot of concerns about this measure.

The government did not consult the provinces either, even though many legal experts are saying that this agreement will interfere in the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions. It did not consult Alberta, whose oil sands industry could be attractive to Chinese investors. It did not talk to Ontario or Quebec about the forestry and mining industries. It simply did not talk to the provinces. I find this very worrisome because this agreement directly affects them. I will come back to this.

Lastly, the government has not conducted any studies in this House or in committee. Trade agreements are generally subject to study in Parliament and then to a vote. Why is this agreement the exception to the rule? I have no idea.

When the text of the agreement was finally made public, the NDP called for a study in committee, but the Conservatives refused. We then asked for an emergency debate. Once again, the Conservatives refused. We have asked the government questions during question period and we have not even gotten an answer.

More than 80,000 Canadians sent messages to the government to ask it to conduct a study on the Canada-China FIPA. The trade agreement with Panama was examined, as was the agreement with Jordan. This agreement with China is much more complicated and restrictive for Canada, but the government is refusing to allow Parliament to study it. That is completely irresponsible and shameful.

This agreement will bind the two countries for the next 30 years. The public has a right to know what kind of disaster to expect with the current agreement. Right now I am 29 years old. This agreement would bind Canada and China until I am 59. That is more than twice my age right now, and during that time we will be stuck with an agreement that could present a lot of problems.

In addition to the fact that the process leaves much to be desired, the treaty itself is extremely problematic. We will not have the right to withdraw from this agreement for 30 years. No matter what happens, there is no way out of this agreement whatsoever. The treaty is written in such a way that the dispute settlement mechanism between an investor and the state allows foreign companies to sue for damages in foreign courts outside the Canadian justice system.

That means, for example, that if a Chinese company investing in Canada finds a new Canadian regulation to be too bothersome, that company can file a complaint in courts outside Canada's jurisdiction and seek damages from Canadian taxpayers.

To make matters worse, foreign investors will be able to sue the federal government over laws that are not even federal. A provincial government could implement a law and foreign investors would still be able to take the federal government to court. We could therefore be sued over laws that do no even fall directly under our jurisdiction.

Before I close, I would like to point out that, so far, every time Canada has taken other countries to court under similar agreements, it has lost. We are 0 for 17. Every time, we have lost. On the other hand, any time China or the United States has been taken to court, it has won its case.

Therefore, from the outset, this is a very risky undertaking. The government has refused to consult the public and is not respecting the rights of first nations. What is more, we must remember that this agreement directly targets natural resources. This is a big investment, and these resources belong to all Canadians.

I think we need to be careful. Right now, this agreement does not contain the legal provisions needed for Canadians to really support it. If it did, I would have supported it, but that is not the case right now. That is why I wanted to share my concerns about this agreement.

[Air Force Appreciation Day, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today is Air Force Appreciation Day. It is an opportunity for my colleagues and me to recognize the outstanding contributions made by members of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Our air force is always ready to serve our country, whether that involves conducting search and rescue missions, protecting our sovereignty or providing humanitarian aid.

Whether the members work as pilots, mechanics, weapons specialists, meteorologists, aerospace engineers, air combat systems officers, air traffic controllers, equipment operators, logistics officers or intelligence experts; as imagery, search and rescue, or aviation and avionics systems technicians; or as firefighters, doctors, musicians or cooks, they all do their duty with passion, dedication and discipline.

I therefore encourage all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the tremendous dedication of all the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force, from the chief of the air force staff right down through the ranks.

[Discover Your Canada Act, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is too bad because I have a lot to say.

Bill C-463 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to give taxpayers a deduction for the expense of purchasing tickets for themselves and their children for leisure travel by airplane, train or bus if the travel involves crossing at least three different provinces. We understand that the hon. member is trying to encourage Canadians to travel within Canada and to discover other regions. This intention to promote travel within Canada and to have people discover other provinces that they might not otherwise is good.

However, is this the right solution? Absolutely not. I would say this is a flop. First, this bill targets people who already travel within Canada or who are likely to do so. For many Canadian families who are already struggling to make ends meet, this measure will not make much of a difference. In my riding, families tell me they would like to come see me in Ottawa, but they do not have the money to get here.

In this bill, they are being asked to travel through three different provinces. That makes absolutely no sense. Families who are struggling financially are not going to discover Canada. This measure does not help them one bit because it is a non-refundable tax credit. In order to benefit from it, one has to pay taxes. Families with a very low incomes will never be entitled to this credit, so this is of no use to them.

It is very clear that only well-off families would benefit from this bill. If you are poor, you will not travel across Canada, but if you are rich and you can afford it, the government will help you visit Canada. This makes absolutely no sense to me and it is not the right approach to presenting a bill.

Let me focus for a minute on people living in Quebec and Ontario. The bill talks about crossing three borders, which means going to four different provinces. We estimated the distances involved using Google maps. I used as an example someone living in my riding, in the city of Rouyn-Noranda near the Ontario border. In order to qualify for the tax credit, that person would have to travel at least 2,300 km. However, someone living in B.C. or Alberta would only need to travel 1,500 km. The province of origin creates inequalities.

Things get even worse for people from Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Nunavut: since they are travelling south, crossing three borders becomes a near-impossible feat. The distances involved are truly vast. Obviously, it does not make much sense to base a tax credit on a requirement to cross three borders.

One only has to look at a map of Canada to see that the three-border rule is illogical, given the sheer size of our country and the way it is divided, with huge territories and smaller provinces. Logic alone shows that the bill would be very difficult to implement, and that it would create inequality between provinces.

Second, it is true that travelling can be a hassle. It is important to note that Canada's domestic transportation networks are not ideal. Transportation services are lacking and often costly for Canadian families, and even for tourists. For example, the Northlander, which recently shut down, serviced northern Ontario communities as well as communities adjoining my riding. Obviously, rail service is a provincial responsibility; nevertheless. there used to be a train where now there is none.

Often, passengers who take the bus are looking to head in a specific direction. That said, the fact that there are no buses that run from one end of Ontario to the other makes no environmental sense. One has to get to Montreal first and then cross Ontario before heading north. The bus routes make no sense. What is more, the tax credit does not apply to cars. People have to make a few detours in order to qualify for the tax credit. That makes absolutely no sense. We are penalizing those who live in remote places where trains and buses are scarce. We are forcing them to make a bunch of detours in order to qualify for the tax credit.

This penalizes people who live close to a transit line, in areas regularly serviced by public transit.

[Discover Your Canada Act, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why my colleague chose the rule of crossing at least three different provincial boundaries. I think that if you start out at the far end of the Northwest Territories, cross just one border and go to southern Saskatchewan, for example, you have travelled a fair distance.

I just looked into purchasing airline tickets on the Air Canada site. It costs more to fly from Toronto to Rouyn-Noranda, which is in my riding, than it does to fly from Toronto to Vancouver. There is no logic to the three provinces rule. It is quite commendable to want to travel to far-flung parts of the country, but that does not cover the three provinces rule.

I do not understand why the member chose three provinces. It puts some regions at a disadvantage.

[National Defence, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of armed forces members and their families are concerned by the announced cuts to military family resource centres. These centre are located across Canada and provide vital support to military families. These families want answers.

How much will the Conservatives cut from military family resource centres? What services will be cut or reduced? Will some of these centres be forced to close their doors because of the cuts? The families want answers.