Isabelle Morin

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I did, indeed, know that, but does he know that the federal minimum wage was frozen at $4 an hour for 10 years? Instead of tackling the problem and increasing the minimum wage, the Liberals decided to get rid of it, as they often do.

I do not know why some NDP MPs voted for that. I was not around at that time. They voted to eliminate it because this ensured that minimum wages would go up. That is what happened. The government of the time should have realized that the $4 minimum wage needed to be raised. Eliminating the minimum wage instead of raising it was one way of hiding the problem. It is quite simple.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. We certainly want to help young people earn a decent wage on their first job.

My colleague spoke about youth employment. Surely it is not the only option, but it is better than creating a bunch of jobs and making young people work for $10 an hour. During our time here, the Conservatives have been giving visas to temporary foreign workers. This would be a good thing to talk about in terms of putting our young people to work.

We could open a dialogue to find the best ways to put young people to work. The hon. member mentioned unpaid internships, something the NDP has taken a position on. However, we are talking about linking decent wages to jobs under federal jurisdiction.That is what the issue is. I hope the young people working those jobs will earn a decent wage. That is my answer to my colleague.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 35 years, 94% of the increase in income inequality happened under Liberal governments.

While that number is shocking, it is not surprising, considering that it was the Liberals who decided to get rid of the federal minimum wage.

Our southern neighbours have already set the path with the fight for the $15 movement that started back in 2012. Last summer, thousands of workers took to the streets to demand a decent salary. What came to light with these protests was that the people who earned minimum wage were not solely students who wanted extra money.

Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, stipulates that these jobs are also a step into the workforce for immigrants, recent graduates, and many other people who can only find employment in these types of jobs. That situation was acknowledged by religious leaders, politicians, and community leaders. So far, the movement led a few cities, such as Seattle, to accept the race.

What the NDP is asking for is completely reasonable. We simply want people who work full time to earn a decent living.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I would like to read today's opposition motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should reinstate the federal minimum wage and increase it incrementally to $15 per hour over five years.

A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but we believe that numbers speak for themselves, and there is no shortage of numbers to support the NDP's position. According to Statistics Canada, the weighted average minimum wage of all the provinces is $10.14 per hour. Accordingly, after working 40 hours a week, every week, an employee will earn the amazing annual salary of $21,000—before taxes, of course.

In 2013, in the province of Quebec, the average rent was about $700 a month. It will actually reach near $920 for the rest of the country. As for groceries, the average Canadian family spends approximately $400 a month, which is the equivalent of a weekly salary for a minimum wage paid employee, not to mention the cost of clothing, transportation, and electricity. I would also mention leisure, but at this point it is very improbable that there is any money left for enjoyment.

The poverty line in Quebec is $22,000 per year. What the Conservatives are telling us right now is that it is okay, it is normal even, for someone who works 40 hours every week to live below the poverty line. According to the Conservatives, it is normal for someone to have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

In my riding, the problem is very serious. Food banks can no longer keep up with the demand. I hosted my annual barbecue last Sunday and many young people came out to eat hot dogs. What really saddened me was that at 3 or 4 p.m., at the end of the event, there was a line of young people asking for the leftover sausages and buns. What we are asking for is not for all Canadians. We are talking about employees under federal jurisdiction. Those people at least should be entitled to earn a decent living. This would affect private sectors under federal jurisdiction. This includes the transportation, broadcasting, banking and telecommunications sectors.

At this time, one-eighth of employees in these sectors under federal jurisdiction earn less than $15 an hour. A large proportion of them therefore live very close the poverty line. For a country like Canada, it is not too much to ask for a full-time worker to be able to live well above the poverty line.

The last years have not been painted with austerity. The government is constantly, or at least claims it is constantly, looking for ways to boost the economy. Here is one: correct the mistakes made by the past Liberal government and reinstate the federal minimum wage. The math simply needs to be done. An average day at work is about eight hours. That would be approximately $200 more per week in the pockets of employees, more money to spend on clothes, food, and activities. More purchasing power is good for the economy.

The NDP's position is in fact strongly supported by leading economists, many of whom are actually examining the impact of the minimum wage on employment. Nothing seems to indicate that an increase could have a negative impact on the labour market, especially if it is just a slight increase. We can therefore be reassured. A $5-increase over five years will not disrupt the Canadian economy, as the Conservatives are trying to claim today.

Employees who are very familiar with their company, with its policies, products and services, are knowledgeable employees. Training new workers takes time and costs money. In this light, raising the minimum wage can even improve productivity since it can help reduce the turnover rate. Along the same lines, employees who manage to provide for themselves with only one job have more energy for that job than those who need to have two or three other jobs.

The Conservatives will probably say that many small companies will go bankrupt or will face enormous difficulties if the minimum wage is increased because they will not be able to cope with employees' salaries. However, if we proceed on an incremental and moderate basis, these companies will have time to plan and adapt to that situation. Furthermore, most businesses that deal with federally regulated sectors are large businesses that can benefit from a degree of regulatory protection therefore they will be able to adjust to a gradual increase.

Canadians have spoken. They are opposed to blatant social inequalities, and they want people who work full time and pay taxes to be able to make a decent living.

One way to achieve this objective is to reinstate the federal minimum wage and to gradually bring it up to $15 per hour. The NDP has listened to Canadians; it is time the government did the same.

I would like to end my speech by once again quoting those who have supported us since we made this announcement. Sheila Block, an economist at Wellesley Institute, said: “Regular and predictable increases in the minimum wage will be good for workers and employers. Wages will no longer be eroded by inflation and increases will not be left to the uncertainty of political decisions”. Economists Nicole Fortin, David Green, Thomas Lemieux, Kevin Milligan and Craig Riddell also said that “minimum wages are particularly important as a wage floor for women and young workers.”

We are standing up for the people who have the hardest time finding work. In my riding, many people come to see me. I am fortunate to have an office in a building that also houses the local employment centre, the youth employment centre and the CEDC, which helps people write their resumés and get into the job market. The people who come to my office to ask for help are women and young people who cannot get a first job. Even if they do get one, they are being asked to work for ridiculously low wages.

Here is how the NDP sees it: people who get jobs will earn an income that is above the poverty line. These people will be able to reinvest in the economy. They will be able to work a single job. Instead of having two or three jobs and working weekdays, evenings and weekends, they will be able to look after their kids. These people will be able to get involved in their community and have a decent lifestyle.

It might be fine for a twenty-year-old student to earn a low hourly wage, but at 30, 40 or 50, people want a certain degree of comfort. That is what we are offering. I am very proud of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who moved this motion in the House today. It would be nice if all of the parties could see what this would bring to the Canadian economy and Canadians' quality of life.

I hope that we will have enough time to persuade our colleagues. This is the right thing to do, and I hope that we will succeed. There is no doubt that, when the NDP is in power, this is the kind of measure it will bring in.

[CBC/Radio-Canada, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians care about their public broadcaster.

I have received more than 150 emails from people who want no more cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada. Last April, Conservative cuts forced CBC/Radio-Canada to eliminate 657 positions and cut $130 million. Now another $40 million is being cut. The broadcaster's very mandate is being challenged by this government.

Does the minister realize that by attacking CBC/Radio-Canada, an important engine of our cultural industry, she is attacking our identity?

[Conservative Party of Canada, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, never has a government shown as much contempt for our democracy as this Conservative government.

It invoked closure in the House more than 76 times in order to rush through bills such as the electoral “deform” bill, which undermines the very foundations of our democracy.

When Elections Canada warned the Conservatives about the risks of their reform, they attacked the Chief Electoral Officer. When the Supreme Court sternly reminded the government to comply with the Constitution, the government did not hesitate to attack the integrity of the highest court in the land.

After muzzling our scientists, shamefully mistreating our veterans and claiming that there was no way around cutting home mail delivery for the most vulnerable, this government has proven one thing: it is not working in the public interest. The decision to move forward with the northern gateway pipeline despite opposition to this project is just the latest example.

Canadians deserve better than a government that is not working for them, and in 2015, they will have better: they will have the NDP.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which touched on a number of aspects.

We do have concerns about the powers being given to the minister. In their bills, the Conservatives are granting more and more powers. Although I have faith in the current minister, we do not know who the next minister will be. That is a concern for me.

Bill C-18 grants the Governor-in-Council the ability to make changes to the governing of various products. The Governor-in Council's new powers include making regulations respecting the manufacturing, sale and shipping of products between provinces. Furthermore, there is no requirement for the government to consult with the provinces on these regulations. As my colleague mentioned, this is one aspect that concerns us.

I hope that in committee we will have the opportunity to hear effective witnesses speak about the consequences and the benefits of this bill, so that we can make amendments that will satisfy everyone.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the pleasure of rising in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. I am also proud to say that the NDP has decided to support the bill so that it can be studied more thoroughly in committee.

In our opinion, many aspects of the bill constitute progress for farmers and the agricultural community. However, we are concerned about certain other aspects of the bill. We will examine the bill in committee and propose amendments. We will see how we can work with the government to advance the cause of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

The NDP feels that this bill is massive and is basically an omnibus bill. It amends nine different laws. Certainly, this government has introduced even bigger omnibus bills in the past. One of our concerns is our inability to study each item separately. The Conservatives have been introducing massive bills from the outset.

As parliamentarians, we cannot oppose certain parts of bill if there is no clause-by-clause study. We are supposed to vote in a block, either in support of or in opposition to the bill. If we vote in favour of the bill, we cannot oppose the negative items. However, if we vote in opposition, the government will say that we do not support farmers. That tells me that we are unable to clearly express our opinion on government bills.

Today I will be looking at all of the proposed changes, and I will be stating which ones we support and which ones concern us. I hope that the Conservatives will be open to certain changes and amendments in committee. That is what legislators do.

The NDP went to talk to farmers and those affected, including small and large businesses, in order to gather their comments. We feel it is important to hear everyone's views. Although I live in a very urban area, I visited community and allotment gardens in my riding. The people there have concerns about what is happening in our agri-food and agricultural sector. It is very worthwhile for an MP to travel in her riding and talk to people about what is happening in the House of Commons.

The first amendment was about the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. What this is about is moving toward ratification of the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. This is good: it expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for the varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties. A new provision allows farmers to save and condition seed for purposes of plant production and reproduction on their own farm. It protects researchers' right to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or for another research use. It enhances public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties, which is a major change from the previous act. It maintains the ability of CFIA to grant compulsory licences to ensure that in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed and of good quality. There are a lot of good things in here.

As written, the bill would ensure that variety developers are able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, which is very important. It grants farmers the privilege to save and condition their own seed. This is another big step in the right direction. It promotes access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through an intellectual property rights regime. It protects researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights.

We also have some concerns, and I hope that we can address them by working effectively in committee with all our colleagues from all parties. The Liberals also said they are supporting this bill. At least we are all on the same page. From that point, it will be important to agree on the few amendments that will have to be made. I believe that it is important for a government to have objective criticism of its legislative measures. Working together as a team provides us with the opportunity to address and correct any flaws in the ideas being proposed.

Our concerns have to do with the provisions on the privileges granted to farmers and the fact that those privileges do not extend to the stocking of propagating material. The consequence of these provisions is that even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. The privilege also does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will probably have to pay for the sale of the crops grown from farm-saved seed. It also means that plant breeders could potentially generate revenue on a farmer’s entire production, rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. That is another one of our concerns.

We also have concerns about the potential legal burden for producers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural or accidental spreading of a patented plant genetic material. These protections were not included in Bill C-18. Perhaps the Conservatives will be open to adding that protection.

I now want to talk about the amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. Both of these are also affected by this bill. The advance payments program is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Bill C-18 expands access to the advance payments program in a number of ways. There are new allowances for multi-year agreements. This expands producer eligibility beyond those “principally occupied” in the farming operation, which will mean that farmers with significant off-farm employment will also be able to access the program. Furthermore, breeding animals will now be included in the advance payments program.

Our concerns are shared by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has been calling for an increase to the maximum amounts of advances in order to address rising farm expenses. The Conservatives did not include these increases in Bill C-18.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about all of the amendments because, as I was saying, there are so many of them. There are amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act. We have some concerns in this regard. There is a new licensing and registration system that will require Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to allocate additional resources to the CFIA.

That is too bad because, once again, the government has not provided for additional funding for the CFIA. With the crises that have occurred in the past, I think that the Conservatives are again imposing additional obligations on an agency without giving it the means to fulfill them. That is something that we have seen the government do repeatedly. It imposes new laws and regulations that are worthwhile and help our country progress but it does not give the agencies or departments responsible the means to carry them out. This is once again a weakness in the bill. I hope that together we will be able to remedy that problem.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we are going to support this bill because it nonetheless does have some benefits. However, the government must be open to some changes and amendments. The usual democratic process for a bill is to send it to committee. Recently there have been some problems with committees. I hope that with this bill, the government will note that we are open to changes being made.

I hope we will be able to improve the bill so that it is good for our farmers.

I hope to answer some questions, even if we do not have much time.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

Police training is another expense that is passed onto the provinces by the federal government. In the time that I have been here, this seems to have become a vicious circle, or a bad habit. For example, criminal penalties continue to increase, but the provinces are not given the money to provide proper services to prisoners. The government says that this bill will help victims but, once again, it is not giving money to the provinces so that they can provide appropriate assistance.

I am certain that the police system acts in good faith and tries to help victims and to support them as they navigate the judicial system. That said, the government must provide the funding and the means to do just that. It was very important to include some money to that end in the bill.

However, I am sure that my Conservative colleagues who are carefully listening to us will accept some of our amendments in committee. I hope that I can convince them.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he was here when we were talking about this bill and that he is also very interested in moving it forward.

I would like to read an excerpt from a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on April 3 that supports what my colleague is saying. Although this association supports this bill, it feels that “certain conditions must be met if this bill of rights is going to have real influence and not just make empty promises”.

That is kind of what my colleague was saying. When the government proposes a charter like the Canadian victims bill of rights, it has a responsibility to ensure that victims will be given all the psychological and financial support they need to move forward in the justice system.

It is important to give the justice system leverage, but the victims have to be at the heart of that approach and that is not the case at the moment. By providing victims with financial support, we would be putting them at the heart of these initiatives.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

I would like to begin by saying that the NDP is going to support this bill so that it can be examined in committee. We should examine it clause by clause as carefully as possible. We are going to ask the witnesses called by the government, the NDP and the third party good questions, because that is important.

We have been waiting eight years for this bill. Finally, it is here and we have to be able to work with the government to make changes and amendments if necessary.

I am going to provide a bit of background. This is a promise that the Conservatives made eight years ago. When the Conservative government took office, it promised, at several press conferences, that it would introduce a bill to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights. It happened this year. Until September 2013, Justice Canada held in-person and online consultations and finally Bill C-32 was introduced.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime actively participated in these consultations and provided a list of nine recommendations, most of which the government took into account.

My speech will focus on our concerns and what aspects of the bill we should examine together in committee.

The office made the following recommendations for a bill of rights: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limit opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or re-offend.

At first glance, the Canadian victims bill of rights takes into account most of these recommendations. However, there are a few that I am concerned about, and that I believe weaken this bill. As I mentioned a number of times, I hope that we will be able to work together as good parliamentarians should. The victims of our country are already fragile enough and we must give them all the help we can. That is how we will make progress.

The problem with this bill is that it does not provide for any financial assistance. We have heard that no one knows just how familiar victims will be with their rights. My colleague also talked about that. We do not know whether victims will be aware of what assistance they can request. We have to wonder whether support will fall to community groups.

I have an interesting statistic that shows that, right now, community groups provide the bulk of assistance to victims. The work is often done by volunteers. Groups that provide services to victims usually have employees, but they also have volunteers who provide assistance to victims. In 2011-12, 72% of victim service providers relied on volunteers.

I love volunteering and I think it is important, but I am not sure whether victims of crime should be dealing with volunteers. Should they not have access to someone with training in that field? It is not always easy to work with crime victims. They are dealing with a lot of feelings, emotions and an incredible amount of stress. It would be good for the bill of rights to provide for some funding to organizations that provide assistance to crime victims.

I have another concern about the money being allocated. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.

A victims bill of rights should, first and foremost, provide financial assistance. Costs borne by victims could be associated with transportation, communication or support, for example, when they need help getting to a particular location. A first step would be to help cover the costs associated with the consequences of being the victim of a crime.

Furthermore, according to the 2009 General Social Survey, 7.4 million Canadians reported being a victim of a criminal incident in the preceding 12 months. Since this bill affects one-quarter of Canadians, we must listen to them. I am sure that that the topic of costs came up during the consultations that were held.

According to that same survey, 47% of women over the age of 15 who said that they had been sexually assaulted by their spouse or a partner in the preceding 12 months said that they did not report the assault to police. It was sometimes out of shame, out of fear of retribution or out of fear that no one would believe them or that they would be blamed for what had happened. If nearly half of women who are victims of assault do not feel they can report it to police, out of shame or for other reasons, perhaps it is because we need to provide services to those women.

If women are ashamed to report that they are victims of a crime, we need to ask ourselves what can be done. The victims bill of rights will help victims who go to the police and take legal action, but we need to make sure that we have something to help the men, women and children who are afraid to go to the police. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any provisions to address that problem.

We are calling on the government to send this bill to committee. We want victims to have access to the support and services they need. That is of the utmost importance to us. That is how we can best address victims' needs. We acknowledge that, for many victims, being able to participate in sentencing and parole hearings is progress. However, as I said, there are elements in the bill that could be strengthened.

To conclude, I would like to quote Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime. On April 3, he said:

It’s a good bill, as far as it goes. I think the biggest problem though is that the minister of justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that.

He added:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

These days, it is all about keeping people informed. Without financial backing, it will be difficult to make sure that victims are well informed. The bill of rights should include provisions to ensure that victims get the support and help they need. The government says it is tough on crime, but when 50% of female victims of crime do not report the crime to the police, we have to ask ourselves some questions. We have to convince these women that there will be progress and that the police will take them seriously and be with them every step of the way as they deal with their very difficult situations.

I would like to reiterate that I will be proud to support this bill, but I hope that my Conservative colleagues will be able to work with us to improve the final version of it.