Isabelle Morin

[Social Development, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, actually, the problem has not been fixed.

The Conservatives have no problem sticking their hands in our pockets, but things get complicated when it is time to pay people the benefits they are due.

Consider how hard it is to collect the guaranteed income supplement or the disability tax credit. The poorest are always the first to suffer at the hands of the Conservative government.

What will the government do to fix the problem at the Social Security Tribunal and to ensure that those who contributed to the pension plan receive the disability benefits they are entitled to?

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Indeed, it is a question of safety. It can very easily be argued that the Swedish model of criminalization drives women into the shadows. It is easy for them to say that prostitution decreases. However, they do not know how many women there are, because they do not know where to find them. They join criminal groups, or they hide because it is prohibited.

I refuse to believe that by criminalizing prostitution, it will be easy to solve the problem and fewer women will get into prostitution.

We might also wonder if these women are safe now. If we move towards a legalization model, prevention is much easier. It is much easier to keep women safer. If we adopt a model focused on criminalization, we drive women into the shadows. Normally, I really like the work that my colleague does, but on this point, I do not agree with her. Criminalization is not necessarily the way to go if we want to keep women safer.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question and comment. Perhaps he is right. I may feel that the wording is inappropriate, but perhaps it is used elsewhere. I would like to thank him for pointing that out.

In any event, I would like to continue with what I saying. I still find it odd. Of course, I do not want to see prostitutes next to a schoolyard. The hon. member used that example earlier, in his speech. There is a high school near my house, and I too would be concerned to see prostitutes or pimps there recruiting young people who are at the school.

This bill does not provide any tools and does not even attempt to determine why prostitution exists. I think that the main focus of our work here is to figure out what we can do so that prostitution no longer exists. We can regulate it and put all kinds of provisions in place, but we need to ask the fundamental question of what needs to be done so that there are fewer prostitutes in our country. We can criminalize them as much as we want, but that will not reduce the number of sex workers. That is what I think we should be focusing on, together. Many national groups in Canada would be willing to work with us to reach that goal. That is the direction we should be heading in.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House I will be sharing my time with my colleague, friend and neighbour, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

In fact, this is legislation to regulate prostitution in our country. I am pleased to rise and speak to this issue because it is something that is of great concern to my riding. Prostitution exists in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. It think it is an important issue and one that is of great concern to many people in my riding. Some of those people have come to talk to me about it over the past few weeks.

To give some background on this, in December, the Supreme Court ruled on the provisions of the Criminal Code that prohibit keeping a common bawdy-house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.

The Supreme Court found that these provisions were unconstitutional, as follows:

[The current statutes impose] dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky—but legal—activity from taking steps to protect themselves.

Currently, under our Criminal Code, prostitution is legal but there is no help for the prostitutes who engage in this line of work.

I want to address a number of things because the bill is very complex. We want to know what the government is doing to help sex workers. We all wish prostitution did not exist. However, it does exist because there are clients, people who provide their sexual services and people who exploit others for sexual purposes.

Last year, I participated in the study conducted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the bill introduced by my colleague from Ahuntsic. A police inspector from Montreal said something fairly shocking. He said that, in Montreal, you can order a woman like you can order pizza. That is the situation we are currently facing.

As legislators, we must consider why sexual services are so readily available in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and small towns. I think it is mainly because there are customers, but also because the women are very vulnerable. Our government does not help them very much.

Rather than taking an approach that marginalizes extremely vulnerable sex workers, we should be taking practical measures to improve their safety and help them get out of the sex trade, if they so desire.

We do not have statistics on the number of women who truly want to engage in this line of work. Earlier, a Conservative member said it was 10%, but we do not really have any idea what the actual number might be. In order to find out, we would have to allocate significant resources; provide financial support to these women; and offer them education, training and addiction treatment. There are many things we could do to help these women so that they do not get involved in the sex trade. Many women turn to prostitution because of poverty, whereas others do so to support an addiction. That is a fact.

According to the measures announced by the Conservatives in this bill, they are going to allocate $20 million to help women across Canada get out of the sex trade. I think it is a bit of a stretch for the government to say that it will be able to solve this problem and help women with $20 million. The government should be embarrassed about this announcement, which was made just a few weeks ago, on June 4.

That is one of the first things I want to talk about. There is prostitution in Lachine, close to my riding office. I once went up to one of these women to talk to her. As an MP, I believe I should speak to everyone.

This woman told me that she was doing this type of work because she has two children, that it pays more than other work and that, if she could, she would prefer to have another job, so she could have a better life. It is not necessarily a job that she likes, but as a poor, single mother with two children to raise, it is a simple way for her to make money quickly. That is unfortunate.

Our society could have decided to give her a good education, to help her, to provide support for her family and to establish community groups that would help her with workshops to raise her self-esteem. For example, in my riding, the organization La P'tite Maison de Saint-Pierre gives self-esteem workshops to women. That is the kind of community group we can support in order to keep women out of prostitution. When I hear that $20 million will be given out across Canada, I wonder what that will mean for my riding. That is not very much in the way of concrete help for these women. That is really unfortunate.

I would like to delve deeper into the bill and see what it does. The bill will create new offences related to prostitution, namely purchasing sexual services. That means that we are criminalizing the people who buy sexual services. Once again, that is an attack on female prostitutes or young men, because I am told that young men prostitute themselves as well.

Groups that study various models around the world say that criminalizing the purchase of sexual services scares women in some ways. Even though the Conservatives say that selling those services on the street corner will be prohibited, let us not kid ourselves; given the means made available to address the situation, there will still be women on street corners.

Let us assume that a woman is on the street corner and that a client pulls up in his car; obviously, she will not take the time to talk to the man or to look inside his car to make sure that there are no weapons or other items that could be dangerous for her.

Right now, when that happens, women certainly take the time to look inside to see whether there is a rope or something that could harm her or be dangerous for her. Under this bill, she will not do that. Clearly, she will quickly get in the car, which will be more dangerous for her.

In my view, this provision does not help sex workers. Given that this trade does exist, we need to ask ourselves what we can do for the health and safety of these workers. According to the Supreme Court decision, we must work to ensure the safety of these workers. Whether we like it or not, this is a legal activity in our system, and it must be regulated.

The bill makes changes that have to do with receiving a material benefit, advertising sexual services and communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in a public place where children can “reasonably” be expected to be present. I have a problem with the word “reasonably”. It seems inappropriate.

I want to name some people who support us because this bill does not respond to the Supreme Court's decision.

The NDP calls on the government to refer Bill C-36 to the Supreme Court. It must do more to help prostitutes get out of prostitution, for example, through education, prevention and social housing. All Canadians have the right to work without the threat of violence. This bill does not solve that problem.

Steve Sullivan, the former ombudsman for victims of crime, is one of the people who agrees with us. This very credible man said:

Back in December, everyone seemed to agree on one point: The law shouldn’t criminalize sex workers. This bill will do just that—if they communicate...in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present.

Emmett Macfarlane said:

These provisions are not only bad policy, but they undoubtedly raise the same set of concerns the Supreme Court addressed when striking down the old provisions last December.

It is important to understand that we need to send this bill to the Supreme Court so that it can rule on whether we will end up with the same problem. We would then have to wait another year for provisions that truly help women get out of this situation.

No one here can prove to me that the Conservatives are truly helping women in our country. I do not think that this bill is proof of that either.

[Corporate Social Responsibility of Extractive Corporations Outside Canada Act, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to support the bill introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, Bill C-584, An Act respecting the Corporate Social Responsibility Inherent in the Activities of Canadian Extractive Corporations in Developing Countries.

For the benefit of my constituents, I will briefly explain what it is about.

My colleague's bill will ensure that Canada meets its commitments under international law and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights with respect to the extractive activities of Canadian corporations in developing countries; it creates the Office of the Ombudsman and requires corporations to report to it on their extractive activities; it gives the Office of the Ombudsman responsibility for developing guidelines on best practices for extractive activities; and it requires the ombudsman to table an annual report on this act and its operation.

I am very proud to be able to support this bill. Since I have been a member of Parliament, a number of groups have come to consult me at my office about the matter. There is a large Filipino community in my riding and they came to see me the first and second year after I was elected specifically to talk about this problem. Groups from the African and Latin American communities have also come to talk to me about it. It is a great concern for them. Even though they are in Canada, they know what is happening in their countries and they expect the government to act quickly to change the situation.

At the moment, 75% of the world's mining companies are headquartered in Canada. It is therefore our responsibility to point out to them that what is good in Canada is also good abroad. Since their headquarters are in Canada, it is up to us to tell them what practices they must follow. If we believe that human rights are important in the choice of best practices, of course we must encourage those companies to do the same things outside our country, in developing countries.

We often hear of workplace health and safety problems for employees in other countries where mining is being done. We also have to consider the issue of colonization, and I would like to use a excellent quotation to describe the problem.

Mireille Fanon-Mendès-France, of the United Nations Human Rights Council, said the following:

Canadian mining companies often act like new colonizers. They come to the countries, they take over the land and they violate the peoples' right to self-determination…

In fact, that is exactly what is happening. The companies arrive, they crowd out the people, they take over the land and they decide what they are going to do. If they need people to work, they use them. If not, they bring people in from elsewhere.

I am aware that some mining companies do not act that way. One of my good friends worked for a mining company before he changed jobs recently. That company went to the job site and gave health and safety courses to the miners. Those are good practices, and it is what my colleague is asking for with the establishment of the office of an ombudsman.

It is a question of choosing those good practices, gathering them together, sorting them out and teaching them as examples of what should be done. That deals with the problem of colonization.

We also need to consider our environmental responsibilities. What about our responsibility concerning the water used in mines? Are they going to let things slide like the previous two governments did? They, too, can say that it is not their responsibility because it is happening in other countries. That is what the Conservatives seem to be saying and, unfortunately, we have just learned that they will be voting against this bill.

The Conservatives are saying that it is none of our business, but it is our business. These companies have their headquarters in Canada. It is up to us to ensure that they proudly represent Canada. Our international reputation is at stake.

There is social unrest because companies show up and chase people off the land even though they were already living there. There are problems with violence. Children have also worked in those mines. The mines are a hotbed of violence and child exploitation.

We need to take a leadership role, especially since three-quarters of the world's mining companies have their headquarters in Canada and everyone knows what going on in those mines. We regularly see newspaper articles and reports on the working conditions in the mines, the potential for accidents and the age of the workers, which is something that concerns me.

I have done a lot of work on the issue of human trafficking. I do not want to accuse any company of human trafficking, but we know that young people are being exploited in these mines. It is unbelievable. We need to assume that leadership role and implement best practices. We need to ensure that every mining company that represents Canada abroad is accountable. That would help our reputation.

The creation of an ombudsman was recommended in the report that came out of the 2007 national round tables on corporate social responsibility and the Canadian extractive industry seven or eight years ago. The report was jointly written by NGOs, unions and the mining companies themselves. The government is arguing that we should not get involved in this, but if the companies themselves are able to stand up and say that they need guidance, it is time we give it to them.

The ombudsman's mandate would be to investigate complaints about the foreign operations of Canadian mining companies. Someone has to receive those complaints. The ombudsman should also publish the results of his investigations and make recommendations to the government regarding legislative changes and the sanctions that should be imposed on companies at fault.

This round table submitted its recommendations in 2007. In 2009, two years later, the government chose to instead create the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, which is responsible for hearing complaints about environmental degradation and human rights abuses abroad. This is good, but it is not as good as having an all-powerful ombudsman.

This office has been the subject of a lot of criticism. The counsellor did not have the authority to investigate complaints. What is the point of having a counsellor who cannot even investigate complaints? He also did not have the legal power to ensure that the parties involved participated in the arbitration process in good faith. If one of the parties does not participate in the arbitration, it created problems because the office of the counsellor could therefore not determine whether there was harm and could not recommend corrective action. In fact, six cases were raised and nothing ever came of any of them.

Now we can see what is going on with the self-regulation that Conservatives believe in so strongly. No matter which sector—rail safety, credit cards—they always say that there is a little code of conduct and that people act in good faith. I am sorry, but those fabulously wealthy mining companies are not all acting in good faith. Some are, but it is not true that they all are. It is our duty as lawmakers to impose regulations on these companies to ensure respect for international human rights.

Many people and organizations support my colleague's bill. I would like to congratulate her again. One that really interests me is the Development and Peace initiative called “A Voice for Justice”. The campaign has collected 80,000 signatures calling for the appointment of an ombudsman who can ask unscrupulous Canadian mining companies for accountability.

I want to emphasize that because, in my riding, the congregation of the sisters of Sainte-Anne is really very active when it comes to ensuring respect for human rights and children's rights on an international level. The sisters asked me to talk about this issue. I would like to thank them for the work they do. A huge thanks to my colleague who introduced this private member's bill.

I hope that the government will at least agree to send it to committee. It is part of the legislative process to send it to committee, study it thoroughly and then decide whether or not to continue the process.

I hope that all members in the House will want to and will be able to vote in favour of the bill introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Neighbourhood Celebrations, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am tired of talking about crown corporations like Canada Post, CBC and VIA Rail, which are not doing well because the Conservatives have abandoned them.

I would like to talk about things that are going well. So, let us talk about the neighbourhood parties that will be held in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and in Dorval.

I would like to thank every town and district that is organizing a neighbourhood party or festival, which I will gladly attend. Thank you Lachine for inviting Kaïn to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, and thank you Dorval for one of the best Canada Day celebrations in Quebec. Thank you NDG and Paul Cargnello for NDG Arts Week, and thank you Montreal West for Tuesdays in the park. I would like to thank our community organizations that are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods and give them their unique flavour.

I would like to wish all my fellow citizens a good summer. Come and celebrate with me the whole summer long. Together, we will build our neighbourhoods and our country.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. I have not yet had the chance to talk about this.

Since we arrived here, we have seen this government constantly attack public services and crown corporations, such as VIA Rail and Canada Post. We saw the cuts that were made at Canada Post and more cuts are being made. This is a slow march to privatization. The last big wave of privatization came from Mr. Mulroney, who privatized 23 crown corporations during the 10 years he was in power. I wonder whether our Prime Minister thought to himself that he does not have a lot of time left and that he has to redouble his efforts during his final year. I think this is unfortunate.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

His analogy is very odd. I will respond with another analogy. When a person has a leg amputated, he can still walk, but with one heck of a limp. That is what is happening. That is what the government is doing.

Yes, CBC/Radio-Canada will keep operating, but it will have to make do with less. That is what we are saying. We are saying that the corporation needs stable, multi-year funding. That is what we are asking for. I wanted to reread my colleague's motion, but I do not have it.

My colleague quoted Hubert Lacroix, who was appointed by the Conservatives. Monday morning, on the air, Mr. Lacroix referred to my colleague as “the infamous Pierre Nantel”. He had a particular way of talking about my colleague that made me wonder whether he might actually be quite partisan. I am sorry, but I will not base my opinion of the CBC on Mr. Lacroix.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to defend our public broadcaster because I believe that we should be talking about this institution. I would have preferred to be talking about it in different circumstances. This time, we are talking about it because there has been another wave of Conservative cuts.

I will reread the motion moved in the House by my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher:

That, in the opinion of the House, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a key role in informing, entertaining and uniting Canadians and is today weakened because of the many rounds of cuts over the past 20 years, and calls on the government to: (a) reverse the $45 million in cuts for 2014-2015 in Budget 2012; and (b) provide adequate, stable, multi-year funding to the public broadcaster so that it can fulfill its mandate.

I would like to start by talking about CBC's mandate. The Conservatives have been telling us all day that advertising revenues are down, and my colleague just asked if a public broadcaster should have advertising. That is not what today's debate is about, but I want to discuss the mandate. We have a law governing public broadcasters in Canada. If the law requires CBC/Radio-Canada to fulfill a mandate, it must be given the means to do so. It is not about whether the advertising brings in enough money. The government is not giving the broadcaster the means to fulfill the mandate conferred on it by law. That is the saddest part of all this.

These $130 million in cuts will have a direct impact. For example, these cuts mean that funding for the CBC will be $29 per Canadian in 2014-15. This means that $29 of my taxes will go to CBC/Radio-Canada.

A very interesting table by Nordicity compared countries and found that the average contribution to public broadcasters per inhabitant is $82. In Norway it is $180; in Switzerland it is $164; in Germany it is $124; and in Denmark it is $116. Some countries contribute a bit less than that: France and Belgium contribute $68. The only two countries who contribute less than us to their public broadcaster are New Zealand and the United States. I find that unbelievable. I want to congratulate CBC/Radio-Canada, because with funding of just $29 per inhabitant, it still manages to provide high-quality news and content in French and English.

We are giving the CBC less and less money. In 2012, $82.4 million was cut from English services, $42.3 million was cut from French services and $4.7 million was cut from corporate services. That resulted in the elimination of 657 full-time jobs: 573 immediate losses and others to come in the future, including 35 positions at the news service.

As my colleagues have said, the information we get from the CBC is very important. It teaches us about current events and politics, and it tells us what is going on around the world and at home. I do not want to criticize other broadcasters, but the CBC has a standard. If there are not enough producers, investigators and researchers to find all of this information, we will end up in a black hole where the information is lower quality and is increasingly less relevant and insightful.

I want to talk about the cuts that could have a tangible effect on my constituents. The CBC has cancelled two cooking shows and one original series. It has made a 50% cut to regional live music productions.

At Radio-Canada, a cut targets two journalists and one producer of the program Enquête. As we know, this program in Quebec was the first to shed light on the whole saga of public financing in the construction industry. Without Enquête, there would have been no Charbonneau commission. That commission is currently shedding light on many disturbing facts in our province. However, it is the quality and thoroughness of Enquête that made this possible.

There will be fewer episodes of the show Quelle histoire!, which is produced in Ottawa-Gatineau, fewer musical programs on Radio-Canada, and fewer original episodes for flagship shows. Moreover, nostalgia series, presented between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m., will be replaced by an American show. This is called americanization.

Radio-Canada reflects our identity. It talks about us, about our uniqueness, about the Quebec reality, about the French fact. Now, we will find ourselves with yet another American show. This means fewer jobs for Canadian actors and producers.

The government wants to keep the economy going. After reducing Radio-Canada's budget, it goes without saying that jobs had to be cut. They must have figured that it would be cheaper to broadcast an American show. We are losing yet another part of our identity here.

The end of the sport news in the evening is tragic. On the radio, the show Par 4 chemins is being eliminated, as are La tête ailleurs and Culture physique. We will no longer have a public broadcaster that talks about amateur sport. We will no longer have that.

All these cuts are in addition to others included in budget 2012: massive cuts to the service provided by Radio Canada International, an expansion plan for regional stations put on hold, and the shelving of the development of a website, Kids' CBC. This is very sad. We are heading into a situation where CBC/Radio Canada will no longer control its content. This is what is happening.

Earlier, my colleague told us about the show Les belles histoires des pays d'en haut. I met a woman from my riding who works at CBC/Radio-Canada. Unfortunately, I cannot name her for obvious reasons. She told me that they were showing Les belles histoires des pays d'en haut because it is cheaper than current original content or production. Those are the facts. CBC/Radio-Canada has less money. Consequently, it shows programs that cost less.

Why do we always see the same people on CBC? There are some popular actors and some not-so-popular ones, but we always see the same people because they cannot take the risk of trying to find something new. Last fall, I watched Série noire on TOU.TV. It was an incredible series, new and different. I told my friends about it, and some of them liked it while others did not.

The woman I mentioned earlier told me that Radio-Canada was not sure if it was going to go ahead with the series because it had to consider the ratings and advertising; otherwise, it could not afford to do the series. The number of stations is increasing. There is more demand for advertising. We know what advertising is like these days. I see it on the Internet. Of course I fast forward through the ads. I do not watch them.

The Conservatives are saying that there is less advertising so they need to make cuts. Clearly, it will not work if they are relying solely on advertising. There is no doubt about that. CBC/Radio-Canada has original content. It is defined by the fact that it does not carry all of the same type of shows that private broadcasters do.

Of course, that may mean that it reaches smaller pockets of the population, meaning lower ratings, but is that a reason not to fund it? The government seems to want to move to a free market, and there are many things that have already been lost because of that. For example, there is less culture in our country and fewer shows for young people. We are moving toward mass Americanization, and no one seems to care what will happen.

I would like to talk about a letter that a Montreal resident, Guylaine Bombardier, wrote to my colleague who moved this motion. I just love what she wrote. She said that, as a francophone citizen of Quebec, she truly believed that, without CBC, the health of our democracy and our culture would not be the same. She added that, despite the many constraints associated with competition, which should not be a factor for a public service, CBC is doing a better job than any other broadcaster of helping her understand the society she lives in. She also said that the unreasonable cuts to CBC worry—

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

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

I think it is disgraceful that the government is using its majority to change laws as fundamental as those associated with our democratic system. What is even more regrettable is the fact that it is not surprising.

Since I became an MP in the House, I have seen the government use its majority again and again to push through bills that Canadians do not want. If every opposition party disapproves of a bill, at some point, the government should begin to wonder. It is not a question of ideology; it is about changing our laws for the better.

However, this government uses so many time allocation motions that it has set a record. It is not even taking the time to listen to the amendments we put forward.

During the clause-by-clause study of this bill, half of the clauses could not be debated because the Conservatives decided that they did not want to take the time.

That is frustrating, and I think that the international community could easily say that we are not truly democratic.