Isabelle Morin

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I would like to wish the minister a happy birthday, to start.

Is the minister aware that the government has cut almost 20% of the approved check pilots responsible for oversight and air safety since coming to power in 2007?

Does she find that alarming?

[Mothers Without Status, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with Mother's Day coming up on Sunday, I would like to take about Ivonne Hernandez Segura, whose asylum claim was rejected and who is facing deportation.

Ms. Hernandez was the victim of serious domestic violence in her country of origin; that is a recognized fact. In 2012, Ms. Hernandez became pregnant. She was the subject of a deportation order. Therefore, she could not access the health care she needed for a reasonable cost. Nevertheless, she gave birth to her first child on Canadian soil. Her relationship with the father deteriorated, she once again became a victim of domestic violence, and she was forced to flee.

Shortly before she was to be deported, amid strong public support, the court postponed proceedings, citing the irreparable damage that would be caused if she were to be deported and separated from her son, who was 14 months old at the time.

As a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has a duty to act in the best interests of the child. I seriously doubt that separating the child from his mother and deporting her is in his best interests.

I rise in the House today on behalf of Ivonne Hernandez and all mothers without status who are in a similar situation to say that we can do better. We must do better.

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-592, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals.

In January, a husky and a cat were found dead in a Calgary alleyway with their mouths taped shut. In October, a police dog named Quanto was stabbed multiple times when he was on duty in Edmonton.

We need new policies. There is a growing movement calling for better protection for our animals. At the request of my constituents, I decided to look at what the federal government could do to help animals.

I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this bill, which provides a better definition of an animal, defines the intentions and acts of cruelty, such as animal fights, and sets the penalties for those found guilty of these unacceptable acts.

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

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way seems to be saying that time allocation is normal in the House and that it happens simply because the parties cannot reach an agreement.

That being said, when I read a budget like this one, I think of my constituents, who are worried about the changes being made to the transportation of dangerous goods, the fact that the bill does nothing for the environment, the fact that more and more businesses in my riding are closing and the fact that people are having difficulty creating high-quality jobs.

I would like to be able to talk about this, because it is my duty as an MP to represent them in this House and ask the government questions. I think it is only natural that if I feel like talking about my region in the House and my colleagues also want to talk about their respective regions, we should be able to do so. When time allocation motions are imposed on us, we are denied the right to speak.

I understand that the member finds this normal. How nice for him; he had the opportunity to speak. On our side, unfortunately, not everyone will have time to do so. There are 308 members in this House.

This seems to be how the government likes to pass bills and advance its own agenda faster, without taking the realities of all the regions into account. I find that unfortunate, and I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.

[Dorval and Lachine Historical Societies, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since 1984 the Dorval Historical Society has put forward citizen participation and promoted the heritage of the city.

Today I would like to emphasize its continued efforts and 30th anniversary. Through its mission to promote and preserve our heritage, the historical society plays an important role in shaping the identity and culture of Dorval residents.

The past has shaped our identity, and history helps us understand the society in which we live today. I must say I have a lot more faith in historical societies to write history for what it is than I do in the Conservative government.

My heartfelt thanks go to the Dorval Historical Society for its unrelenting hard work over the last 30 years and for its dynamic community involvement.

I would also like to commend the outstanding work that the Lachine historical society has done since 1991 to promote the history of the third-oldest parish on the Island of Montreal. I would like to sincerely thank the organization for that.

[Canada Post, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Conservative tax of 58% on stamps, the 37¢ increase is higher than the cost of sending a post card in the United States. Furthermore, it now costs almost $19 to send a parcel from Lachine to Toronto, whereas it costs $2.50 to ship a parcel across the U.S. It has gotten to the point where it would be less expensive for me to get in my car, go to the United States and send my mail from there. Why is the minister insisting on reducing services for Canadians while the 23 senior executives at Canada Post pocket $20 million.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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

It is typical of the Liberal Party to say that it would seem that a few weeks ago the leader may have misused public funds. The use of the conditional in that sentence indicates that it cannot be true.

I invite my colleague to come to my Montreal office. I will show him what our employees do. In my case, my employees prepare householders and help me write press releases, among other things. They are completely non-partisan. They help me with my work as an MP and not with my partisan work. We have never engaged in that kind of activity.

The Liberals and Conservatives are all about entitlement. When they form the government, they raid the public purse for partisan ends. That has been going on for far too long in our country.

It is time to put an end to this charade and to elect an ethical party that will do things differently and stand by its principles for a long time, even if it is in power for a long time.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it happened eight times in the past eight years and that there are more important matters. Even if it happened only once, it would be one time too many.

This is not about whether or not eight times is too many. It amounts to one misuse of public funds every year. My colleague said that it did not happen often enough to be taken seriously and to represent an ethical problem. Really? What are they talking about? That does not make sense. If I steal something from a grocery store, I am not going to tell my constituents that it is not serious because it only happened eight times. However, that is what my colleague is saying. That is ridiculous.

With respect to the other part of his question, the F-word is not part of my vocabulary. However, he says that I said it. If that is the case, I apologize, because I did not mean to. However, I really do not believe that I used such colourful language in the House.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I am pleased to rise in the House today, on this opposition day, to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I will read it for the benefit of my constituents.

That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family.

Here is the reason we brought forward this motion. Just last week, a reporter from iPolitics discovered that a government plane, paid for by taxpayers, had been used to fly Mark Kihn, one of the Prime Minister's good friends and one of the government's main fundraisers. In our opinion, the issue is important enough for us to take a day to discuss it.

Today, Conservative members are trying to undermine our position by saying that this is not important, that we should not have set aside a day for it, and that we should be talking about the economy instead. Personally, I feel that it is an economic issue. The government says that certain services have to be eliminated and that it will not be able to make federal health transfers at previous levels because there is not enough money. However, we can see clearly that the Prime Minister is using taxpayers' money to help his Conservative buddies. Therefore, this is an economic issue, in my opinion.

It is also an ethical issue. The Prime Minister is fine with flying one of his friends around the country at a ridiculous cost. I too would really like to be able to say to my friends that I will use taxpayers' money to show them a good time and that if they need to get to such and such a province, I will organize a meeting with some people there and slip it into the expenses for my parliamentary work. That would get them a free trip. Things do not work like that in Canada. Unfortunately, it is an issue for which the current government and the Prime Minister fought when the Liberals were committing the same kinds of swindles. Once again, here we are confronted with a done deal, and that does deserve our attention for a day.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that we think the Prime Minister should not have any free time and should not spend any time with his friends. He thinks that we are mean because we do not want him to have a social life. That is not at all what we are talking about today. We are talking about the fact that the Prime Minister travels in a secure plane. Even though I do not share his political opinions, I think it is important that the Prime Minister, his family and his children travel in a secure plane. A country like ours must ensure that he receives the protection he needs. If that protection comes in the form of a secure plane, that is fine by me. However, if one of his friends boards that plane, and if that friend is the guy who runs Conservative fundraising campaigns, he should pay more than $260 to board the plane. That just makes sense.

The parliamentary secretary is trying to convince us that the Prime Minister's jet provides the same class of transportation as a WestJet plane. I have news for him. Maybe he does not fly WestJet, but I can tell him that the experience is not at all the same. We are talking about a private jet with food and alcohol.

I would like to talk about the hourly cost to operate that plane. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but it costs taxpayers $11,000 per hour to fly the Challenger. Now they are saying that the Prime Minister's friend, who is probably rich enough to pay more, should not have to pay more. The Conservatives are trying to convince us that this is good for taxpayers and that the $260 will go back to them. I think that is shameless sophistry. That is why we wanted to spend the day talking about it.

Now I would like to read an alarming quote from the Prime Minister in 2005, during the Liberal reign, which was just as murky.

We have seen the Prime Minister flying around the country on Challenger jets doing a few hours of government work, then spending the rest of the time campaigning and fundraising, often at exclusive cocktail parties where big Liberal donors pay $5,000 a ticket to discuss public business. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Liberal culture of entitlement goes on. The public must be given a chance to put an end to it.

Who said that? Our current Prime Minister, right before the end of the Liberal reign. I am tempted to say the same thing to him now and ask if he thinks this is all right. I find this a little disheartening.

Sometimes I walk around my riding and meet young people and seniors alike. I often visit low-income housing areas, which people seem to like. They tell me that it is the first time an MP has come to meet them and make them feel important. They often ask me questions, especially about my age. They like seeing a young woman in her 30s who is active in politics. They ask me what it is like in Parliament, and whether they can still trust our system. When these people ask me that question, I sometimes think of scandals like this one and I have to think about how to answer them. Can they still trust our system?

Sometimes I feel as though if I say “no”, that politicians can no longer be trusted, I will destroy all their hopes. However, my conscience always tells me to look at what the Prime Minister and his cabinet are doing, and look at what the Liberals did in the past.

This is Canada. We have a wealth of natural resources and raw materials. We have good universities and can become the richest country in the world. However, Canadians have been shafted by the government so often that many are living in poverty. People have to use food banks because they cannot make ends meet. Seniors often come to see me. They have rotten teeth and need to go to the dentist, but they cannot afford to go and are not doing well. Then people ask me if they can still trust our political system. I am tempted to tell them to ask the Prime Minister, because my own trust is somewhat lacking right now.

However, I do not want to say no to them. I try to tell them that there are good people in every party. I hope that a new party will be elected soon because people want a change. There are honest people. Some members do good work for their constituents. Some Conservatives, Liberals, independents and members of our party have values and are ethical.

However, we have a Prime Minister who is willing to fly his friends around to participate in fundraisers. We have a government that introduces bills to completely change our electoral system, which will change the democracy of our country. I find that disheartening.

What I find even more disheartening is to see that the Conservative members are not even listening to me. We moved a motion and, since this morning, we have been hearing a lot of sophistry. They try to ridicule our arguments. They do not even have the decency to listen to what we are saying. If they engaged in this discussion, then they might realize that this is indeed an abuse of public money. If they truly believed in ethics and respecting public money, then they might ask for more from the people who travel in our Challenger jets.

We are simply asking that the Prime Minister stop bringing people with him on his plane because it is a secure aircraft and it is the Prime Minister's plane. It is not a limousine or a flying taxi. This plane should not be used for the Prime Minister's friends. It is a plane that should be there for his safety.

If the Prime Minister wants to take some to time to go see his friends, then he is free to do so. A Prime Minister does not work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year. The Prime Minister just has to pick up the phone if he wants to talk. If he is on a plane and he wants to have a conversation, then he can pick up the phone and talk to his friend. I find this disheartening.

I hope that the members who still have a bit of sway in their caucus will stand up and remind their colleagues that they fought for ethics. It is important to fight for ethics and I thought it was meaningful that they fought against the Liberals because the Liberals had a culture of abusing public money. Nonetheless, once a party is in power it still has to stand for ethics, which the Conservatives currently are not.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. She does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The committee’s study on dangerous goods is very important. I do not really know who said it, but it is true that Transport Canada does not enforce the regulations. We have seen this, with what happened.

I think this independent organization, whose mandate would be to ensure that the rules are enforced, is essential. With the Conservatives, it is always a question of self-management. For instance, the NDP asked that companies be required to tell us when a drug shortage might occur. However, the Conservatives said that they would not require them to do so. The result was another shortage of drugs. Here again is a case where the department is being asked to self-regulate. I do not think this is a good idea, and this is why we wanted to see an independent agency set up. This is also why we wanted there to be a reassessment in five years. We would then have been able to decide whether an independent agency was necessary or not. The regulations must be enforced. I am sure that people are doing what they can—I believe in the basic goodness of people—but sometimes things are forgotten, and there can be lapses or shortcomings. This is why independent agencies exist. They exist in order to monitor the situation. Their role is to make sure that everything is all right. It would have been a good idea to include an independent agency in the bill.

We are going to vote in favour of the bill, because it is a step in the right direction. Its content is good, but it does not go far enough. There are half measures in the bill. There may perhaps be repercussions, but we are going to support it anyway because it includes some helpful measures for employees, even though it does not go far enough.