Isabelle Morin

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to talk about this bill today. It is also practically a miracle, given that the government has limited the time for debate. I want to point that out right away so that as many people as possible understand what non-Conservative members have to deal with every day. The government is constantly imposing time limits and gag orders, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget, is the biggest bill that has come before the House this year. The country's finances will be managed and programs will be cut or saved based on what is in this bill. The Conservatives are eliminating many programs.

Not all members of my party or all opposition members will have a chance to talk about this bill, and that is utterly ridiculous.

The bill is over 400 pages long. It is a complex bill that should be studied much longer. Yet the opposition members are up against the time allocation imposed by the government, which is limiting debate. Basically, there is no way to address everything that is in this bill. This is an omnibus bill. As we have said repeatedly on our side of the House, there are many things pertaining to finances in this bill and many things that have nothing to do with finances. With this omnibus bill, the government tried to include all kinds of bills that it wants to pass quickly, without examination and without giving the appropriate committees a chance to study them.

I thank my colleague from Drummond, who pointed out that everything having to do with fish habitat will not be examined by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development or the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Instead, it is the Standing Committee on Finance and its subcommittee that will examine the future of fish habitat in our country, which is ridiculous.

There are several aspects that I wanted to address. I will try to do so as quickly as possible, since I do not have much time. Earlier, a colleague across the floor was talking about youth and how proud he is to see so many things for young people in this bill. I am part of Canada's younger generation and, I must say, if I were an ordinary citizen—I mean if I were not an elected official—and I still had student loans to pay back at age 27, I would find my future very depressing.

There has been a lot of talk about the retirement age. In fact, it is very easy for the government to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 in the next decade, and it is smart for the Conservatives to include this change in this bill. People will be a bit confused, and 10 years from now, when the change affects them, they will think that the government of the day is to blame. The current government is trying to confuse people so that they will forget what is happening.

What is happening is that the government has raised the age of eligibility for old age security benefits by two years. What impact will that have, aside from shifting the cost to the provinces? It will mean that the most vulnerable people in our society, often women, who receive provincial social assistance benefits, are going to have to wait another two years. Social assistance benefits do not pay as much as old age security benefits. These people are going to have to live two more years in dire straits. This is going to affect my generation, not people who are over 55 now. It is going to affect today's young people, tomorrow's seniors, who are going to have to work for two more years.

What has the government done for young people? It has done away with the Katimavik program, in which my sister, many of my friends and many people in my riding participated. It was a great program that taught young people the value of bilingualism in Canada, because it gave them an opportunity to learn both official languages. In addition, the program allowed young people to work in other provinces and discover Canada. It gave them the chance to gain leadership experience and become independent. It was a wonderful program that did not cost much compared to what the ministers in this government spend. Yet the government decided that for ideological and political reasons, it did not like this program, so it scrapped it.

The unemployment rate is highest among young people and there is nothing in the government's budget to address youth unemployment.

The government says that it is going to inject millions of dollars into helping the unemployed find jobs. In the meantime, it is cutting positions in the public service and in areas that interest young people, such as the environment. It is cutting funding for community groups that provided jobs. Young people from my generation that are graduating from university are ending up unemployed. The same is true for those finishing CEGEP or secondary school.

We are certainly grateful for the extra $50 million the Conservatives are going to invest in hiring under the youth employment strategy, but that is not enough. It is a far cry from a job creation strategy for unemployed youth.

A young person in my riding is worried about the skill link program. There is nothing in the budget for that program either. I find it worrisome and I do not understand how the member opposite can say that this budget is so great for youth.

Things with the environment are no better. We are living on a planet that is experiencing global warming. We have seen it over the past few weeks. A month ago it was 27^oC out, and the following week it was -5^oC. That is not normal. Young people are the ones who are going to suffer the long-term consequences of the Conservatives' current inaction.

As I said earlier, the most ridiculous aspect is that all the environmental measures in this budget will be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance. That is nonsense.

This bill has consequences for the future, for my generation and for everyone. Life expectancy is longer now. People who are 60 today, and who will live to be 80 or 90, will feel the effects.

Pollution is part of our lives today. I have asthma. I moved from Sherbrooke to Montreal and I felt the effects of living in a big city where there is more smog and more pollution. It is not inconsequential. This is happening right now and the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.

It is shocking that nothing is being done for aboriginal youth. We have talked about education for aboriginal youth. The government tries to boast about putting money into education. However, Cindy Blackstock, who is with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, took the government to court because it was shocking to see that nothing was being done for aboriginal peoples and to show the gap between funding for aboriginal children and all other children in Canada.

The government took the case to the Federal Court—we do not know if it will go to the appeal court—and it claimed that aboriginal children cannot be compared with children from another country because their situations are different. I am sorry, but a young Canadian is a young Canadian. Aboriginal children should have the same right to education and the same right to health care as other children.

At the same time that it was boasting about helping aboriginal peoples, the government cut funding to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. These two groups can no longer continue with their health initiatives. The government is harming the health of Canadian aboriginal children, while boasting about giving money to aboriginal peoples.

Getting back to the environment, this budget puts the kibosh on Kyoto. There is one sentence somewhere in the budget that says the Kyoto protocol will no longer be in force.

I see that I have just a minute left. I do not have much time, but I want to quote Devon Page, executive director of Ecojustice, who said that this budget is “a clear attempt to speed through new legislation and avoid parliamentary debate. And we think it’s wrong. Overhauling the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the communities we live in needs vigorous debate. That’s how democratic societies operate.”

That suggests to me that this executive director thinks our country is not democratic. Personally, that makes me worry about my future.

I have a few seconds left. I would have liked to talk about immigration, a little more about the environment, and transportation. There is nothing in this bill for public transit, even though we would like to see a national public transit strategy. I would have liked to talk a little more about the economy, but I cannot because there is a time allocation motion that denies us the right to speak.

I will answer questions to the best of my ability. The main thing is that we cannot support this bill. It is ridiculous.

[Safer Railways Act, May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this bill must be passed today. As I said, we have been waiting for long enough. I should point out that there are still problems with this bill. It is important for us that the bill be passed as is, but we must not stop there. Improving the bill in 2012 is no reason to rest on our laurels and revisit the issue of railway safety in only five years' time.

Other things need improving right now. We must not wait too long to act.

[Safer Railways Act, May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to finally see the rail safety bill at this stage. I know that it has been many years and many people, including members of our party, have fought to pass this legislation. We know It is not perfect but anything that makes rails safer for our workers and passengers can never be a bad thing.

As we do have some time to speak to this bill, it is important to highlight some of the issues that are missing in the legislation for the future. This bill is an important first step that everyone wants to see but it is not the final one.

The Transportation Safety Board has had a wish list for some time, and it should come as no surprise that one of the safety issues needed is positive train control. This will improve both passenger and freight trains. Voice recorders are essential on airplanes and naval ships but not on trains. Without voice recorders, we have a hard time knowing exactly what went wrong. The TSB has been clear about this since 2003 and it is now 2012.

Did we leave this out of the rail safety bill because the United States does not have this regulation? That is what we heard in the committee. Is the government afraid of creating a regulation that will keep our people safe just because the Americans do not have the same rules as we do?

Every time there is an accident, we do not know what happened. We cannot get to the bottom of it because there are no voice recordings. The voice recorders are essential to train safety. They should be reviewed by independent safety experts so that the employees do not feel that they are only in place to spy on them in their place of work. The minister has supported the idea of voice recorders on trains, as does the Department of Transport.

When this law is passed, it will be important to continue to move on rail safety to ensure every Canadian is protected. It will put more emphasis on safety management systems, or SMS. This is not a bad thing when we first look at it. SMS provides a nice check when it comes to ensuring that all the safety inspections are done. However, I do have a worry, not with the concept but with the implementation.

The bill's amendments have allowed for a discussion between employers and their union in the development and implementation of SMS. This is a good thing. I sit on the committee for transport, infrastructure and communities and I have the Dorval Airport in my riding. So I get to see many transport issues.

SMS has been implemented in the airline industry and, if they are working properly, they are a great thing. What has been happening, however, is that the safety management system takes over the job of real inspectors. The workers have alerted us that they have less access to planes since the takeover of safety management systems.

With the passage of this bill, we, as legislators, must always be aware of the problems with implementation. There is little sense in creating unnecessary regulations that only detract from rail safety.

As I will repeat several times for the benefit of my colleagues, the companies and the workers, this bill must be passed but we must remain vigilant to the problems that could arise. We cannot rely too much on the paper checks. Safety management systems cannot be used to take jobs away from workers. That would comprise safety and defeat the purpose.

The bill does not mandate research and development which could be helpful in creating new ways to make rail even safer. Although it is nice to see that the bill will encourage introduction and use of new technologies under the rules, it still comes down to implementing positive train control which all sides agree will be a good idea, employers and workers alike.

Railway companies can be forced to implement positive train control today under the act, so I trust that we will come together in this House and ensure that we improve the safety of our trains even more.

Finally, we will get to see punishment for those companies that break the law. The only possibility for punishment for these offending companies was prosecution. That method of punishment takes so much time and costs a lot of money to the taxpayers, which makes it basically ineffective for many violations. Civil aviation and varying modes of transportation already have monetary punishments for violators, which have given those industries extra tools to improve compliance.

Now we are bringing in punishment for offenders who violate the act. Punishment is not the only way to improve safety. We must ensure that the trains have all the safety features they need.

After many years and many passages through this House, it is time to do the right thing and pass this into law. My speech is to remind all of us that this is just a first step and not the end of the race. Rail safety is something serious and should be taken seriously. We must work together on protecting all Canadians. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

[Air Canada, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Aveos workers keep getting more bad news every day. Yesterday, they did not get their final paycheques. They also learned that Aveos refused to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and that the Conservatives had no problem with that.

Today, the minister tabled a legal opinion that supports Air Canada. We are well aware that when it comes to helping Air Canada, the Conservatives go to great lengths. However, when the issue is workers and 1,785 jobs in Montreal, the minister has nothing to say.

Why is the minister refusing to protect workers?

[Air Canada, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when someone is a minister, they accept the responsibilities that come with the job. It is the minister’s job to enforce the law, and the minister should step up to the plate.

In Montreal alone, 1,785 Aveos employees are jobless, and all the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has to say to them is that the government is looking into the issue.

We know what “looking into the issue” means to the Conservatives. It actually means that they are going to act as if they are doing something and forget about the situation.

Will the minister step up to the plate? Will he save these jobs and enforce the law?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what worries me most about this bill is the principle of safe and unsafe countries of origin. I have listened to the Conservative government's argument since we started debating this bill, but in my view, it does not hold water.

About a quarter of the residents of my riding were not born in Canada. A lot of people come to my office looking for refugee status.

When this legislation is passed and a journalist from Russia tells the member opposite that he has written critically about the government in office there, and that he is afraid for his well-being, but that our government believes that Russia is a safe country, what will he do?

I would like the hon. member to tell us what he is going to say to this person who is asking for help. Is the member going to say that he cannot help him because the minister has decided that his country is safe?

[Youth, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this year, for the first time in nearly 40 years, millions of young Canadians are being deprived of an important job search tool. I am talking about youth employment centres, which have suffered further cuts. Certain groups in my riding are particularly worried about how this will affect youth at risk.

Need I remind this government that the youth unemployment rate is double the Canadian average?

Why are the Conservatives abandoning our youth?

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, that is an issue I did not have time to address in my speech.

The minister wants to give himself excessive powers. We think these questions should be examined by a committee, because putting all the power in the hands of a single person does in fact leave room for safe and unsafe country designations based on political considerations or considerations that take foreign policy questions into account.

We are talking about a bill that is going to determine the lives of hundreds of people who come to Canada to ask us for help because things are bad for them in their countries. But this bill would allow the minister to designate safe or unsafe countries based on what he thinks and based on his concerns. He would be giving himself the right to do that, even though it would have an impact on people’s lives.

In my riding, people come to see us every week to claim refugee status. It is extremely difficult for these people, who have had problems with the justice system. Many journalists who have written negative things about the regimes in power in their countries have said they fear for their lives. And now we are going to have to tell them that the minister has decided, on his own, that their country is on a blacklist.

I think this in fact detracts from the bill and I think an amendment in this regard is needed.

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

However, I must correct what the hon. member said. I have never said that we had to accept every claim. What I said is that all claims must be considered in a process that does not take country of origin into consideration. That is what I said. I said that this principle, having safe countries and unsafe countries, was going to bias the way a claim would be analyzed.

If I receive a claim from anywhere in the world, from someone who says they have a problem with the justice system in their country or who says they are experiencing a particular situation, and they would like their claim to be considered to determine whether they can be granted refugee status, I think that where the person comes from should never be considered, because that clouds the analysis that is done. That is what I said.

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31 today, because nearly a quarter of the residents of my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine were not born in Canada. Every week, we meet foreign nationals who ask us to guide them through the sometimes long and often difficult process of claiming refugee status.

Bill C-31, which we are discussing today, generates strong reactions among immigrant families in my riding. People are afraid that under these new rules, the thousands of people who come to Canada every year seeking protection will no longer have an opportunity to prove their claims. They are questioning the transparency and fairness of the process.

Unfortunately, we have no arguments to persuade them otherwise. It must be clearly understood that people who come to Canada and claim refugee status are in an extremely vulnerable position. Some have been tortured, threatened or persecuted; others have a genuine fear that this will happen to them if they are sent back to their country of origin. And even though the reasons they give sometimes do not correspond to the very specific definition of “refugee”, they may still have left their country of origin for entirely legitimate reasons. In most cases, they have left everything behind, hoping they will be given some protection here. These extremely sensitive situations call for the greatest vigilance.

We have to make sure that each of these nationals is entitled to a real opportunity to make their claim in a process that is just and equitable. If this bill is enacted, refugee status claimants will now have only 15 days to complete their claim and 15 days to appeal the decision if their claim is refused. Those deadlines are unrealistic and the consequence will be that some of them will not be able to make their claims.

To understand clearly how inadequate this measure is, we have to look at the context. People have left their country of origin, where, for one reason or another, they were threatened or persecuted. They arrive in Canada, perhaps traumatized by their experience, and they have only 15 days to complete their claim. These people must write down their life stories, then get legal advice, and most importantly, obtain the supporting documents for their claim. Demanding that people do all this, and in such a short time, when they have just escaped from a situation where they feared for their lives and sometimes speak neither French nor English, will often amount to asking the impossible.

We are deeply concerned that there will be a designated safe country list unilaterally determined by the minister. The purpose of this measure appears to be to expedite the processing of claims, however it could in fact have serious consequences. Not only do we fear that this approach will taint the entire claim review process by bringing into play political considerations that have no place in the process, we also believe that this way of categorizing countries as safe and unsafe is totally out of touch with reality.

This approach to immigration does not take into account the individual characteristics of each foreign national. A country that is safe for a majority of people may not be safe for certain individuals or minority groups. One need only reflect for a moment to realize that such situations exist the world over, for example, for the Kurds in Turkey, the Roma in Hungary, and journalists and political opponents in Russia. Such situations exist when it comes to the rights of homosexuals in certain countries or the treatment of women. Our immigration system must provide each and every claimant with a fair process based on the claimant's specific situation and the facts as they relate to the claim, regardless of country of origin.

Not taking into account these specific considerations, ignoring the very existence of repression and discrimination, means choosing to bury one's head in the sand and leaving the most vulnerable people to their fate; it also violates Canada's humanitarian tradition. Even though their particular circumstances require closer review, foreign nationals from safe countries will have to comply with even shorter deadlines, and they will be unable to appeal decisions. It seems obvious to us that by shortening deadlines and considerably reducing the possibilities of appeal, the government is endangering the lives of refugees, because it will no longer be possible to correct mistakes that may have been made early on in the process. I wish to remind the government that it has a responsibility to protect foreign nationals.

The immigrant population in my riding, just like elsewhere in Canada, plays a key role in the growth of the country. Immigrants contribute on a daily basis to the economic, social and cultural development of our country.

The immigrant population will play an even more important role in the society of tomorrow. Our immigration system must continue to evolve in order to meet changing needs and world circumstances. In my opinion, Bill C-31 does the opposite. I remind the government that we are entirely opposed to all the criteria contained in this bill.