Isabelle Morin

[Government Orders, October 22nd, 2013]

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

In fact, I find it very worrisome to know that my money and that of my family, my neighbours and my constituents in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is being used to pay a senator who is going to give a partisan speech in a riding that is far from his or her own jurisdiction. I find that very worrisome.

Senators should look into legislation and study it, something they are not doing. I fail to see how attending partisan activities at the expense of taxpayers can help senators better understand the legislation or do their job better. I find this very unfortunate.

Basically, I think it is very wrong. The goal of our motion is to state that there is no problem if people want to hold partisan activities, but they must pay their own way. In any case, senators are well paid. In short, these activities should not cost taxpayers money.

[Government Orders, October 22nd, 2013]

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

First, as a constituent, if a Liberal member came to see me, I would certainly not talk about abolishing the Senate. I know how closed off the Liberals are to new ideas and I know that their position on the Senate is to maintain the status quo. I would therefore not want to waste my time telling the member what I think. At any rate, the Liberals do not listen to their constituents. That is what I think.

Second, we are entitled to a certain number of motions and opposition days. It is our right to use them for whatever topic we choose. My constituents told me that they are worried about the Senate in general. That does not mean that they are not worried about what the Prime Minister did; it was just crazy. In addition, it is very difficult right now to know who is telling the truth. We all agree on that.

There is the economy, which is in a very dangerous situation. There are a lot of topics. Railway safety is also important and it was not mentioned in the throne speech. However, at some point, you must decide on a topic and this is the one we chose for today's debate.

[Government Orders, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member who spoke before me for her passionate remarks. I would also like Canadians to know how pleased I am to rise in support of the motion that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth has introduced on this first opposition day.

Speaking of knocking on doors, I knocked on many myself as I walked through Dorval, Montreal West, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Lachine this summer. I met with thousands of my constituents. I asked them what they thought about the job I am doing, about the job the current government is doing, and about whether they thought we were on the right track. I asked them about their interests and their passions.

They talked a lot about job losses and the struggling economy. The aerospace sector in Montreal is not at all what it once was. They also talked about youth employment. However, one subject came up a lot: all the problems with the Senate. Remember, at the end of the last session of Parliament, there were a number of scandals in the Senate. Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy, for example, were names we heard often.

Montrealers are increasingly cynical about politics. They told me they were horrified by the current political system. A lot of money is wasted in the Senate, and that is cause for concern. People are asking what the Senate is for and whether having this second chamber is of any use at all to Canadians. People are asking what senators do for us and why they have such large expense accounts. Those questions came up frequently. As I told my constituents, I am in favour of abolishing the Senate, pure and simple. I am going to continue along those lines.

I am very pleased today to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. Let me just read it.

That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps [and I really emphasize the word “urgent”] must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

When I read this motion, which was moved by my friend and colleague from Toronto—Danforth, I felt that it was a good one. It gave me an excellent opportunity to tell my constituents how absurd I feel it is that a senator can take part in the caucus of the party he or she represents.

In the past, the Senate was established to ensure that experienced people could review the laws and assess them critically, since senators were in the chamber for a longer time. They were supposed to provide a non-partisan opinion. Senators participate in the caucus that they represent. For example, every Wednesday morning, the Conservative senators meet with the members of the Conservative caucus, and the Liberal senators meet with the Liberal caucus. I wonder whether a senator can really offer a non-partisan assessment. I know what a caucus is. Members of Parliament participate in caucus to get an explanation of the party line and to be told what will happen this week and where the emphasis is going to be. Am I supposed to believe that a senator is non-partisan? Really. That time is spent studying our party platform. We talk about our values and what we believe in. Am I supposed to believe that a Conservative or Liberal senator is non-partisan? There is something completely absurd about this concept.

As we know, at the moment, senators are not elected: they are appointed by the Prime Minister’s Office. As we saw in the last session, they are not accountable. Many of them are even under investigation. This summer, some people told me they were not sure they wanted to abolish the Senate, since it might be useful. In response, I talked about the National Assembly of Quebec. I told them that Quebec once had an upper chamber, and that in 1968 parliamentarians discussed the issue and came to the conclusion that it made no sense to invest taxpayers’ money in that chamber. Senators’ work duplicates ours. Senators are appointed, not elected. People have no say in the matter.

On December 31, 1968, the second chamber of the National Assembly of Quebec was dissolved. What a great gift to ring in the new year.

Truly, it was a great thing to do.

When I asked people whether they thought there was any real difference between the House of Commons of Canada and the National Assembly as regards the relevance of what is said about bills, not one person told me that the Senate was really useful. No one thought it was.

What is the Senate at the moment? It is a platform used by the party faithful to raise funds and promote the government’s agenda. As my colleague said earlier, it is a chamber of failed candidates. That is what happened in the last election. In my riding, candidate Smith was not elected, and right after the election the Prime Minister made him a senator. What is that? Disgusting is what it is.

The people said that they did not want this person representing them, and the Prime Minister’s Office disregarded that and appointed him to the Senate.

What is the Senate? It is a $90-million annual expense. In fact, expenses have risen to $92.5 million a year. I find that horrible.

Senators' partisanship is blatant. The Senate does not work. Last May, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration made 11 changes to the rules governing travel. However, despite these 11 changes, senators can still participate in partisan activities. Indeed, a senator can travel to a riding, claim hotel expenses, per diems and travel expenses to take part in partisan activities.

I am going to read what the Senators' Travel Policy provided in 2012 and included in the definition of “Parliamentary functions”. It points out that certain activities are excluded:

...but does not include activities related to (a) the election of a member of the House of Commons during an election under the Canada Elections Act, or (b) the private interests of a senator or a member of a senator's family or household.

This policy allows all senators to travel to engage in fundraising activities or to attend a Conservative cocktail. The current rules are not adequate. I am going to provide some numbers to support this, because I find it rather incredible. I am also a taxpayer and it sickens me to pay for that.

Over the last three years, Senator Irving Gerstein spent $998,771. That is the cost to taxpayers. Moving on. Another Conservative senator, Judith Seidman, spent $633,258. Davis Smith, a Liberal senator, spent $935,705. James Cowan, another Liberal, spent $1,362,852. Yet another Liberal senator—the Liberals are having a rough time—logged $999,454 in travel expenses. Grant Mitchell spent $1,209,704. Larry Campbell spent $923,535. Over a period of three years, these seven senators spent close to $7 million. That is incredible.

I see that I have only one minute left. I will be quick even thought there is so much to say about the despicable things that are going on in the other place that it is difficult to limit oneself to a brief 10-minute period.

A lot of money is spent uselessly in the other chamber.

Let me get back to my colleague's motion. Since we cannot abolish the Senate until we take office in 2015, we want to put a stop to the partisan activities that are carried out at taxpayers' expense, and to travel that is not directly related to senators' functions.

In closing, I would like to quote someone who enlightened me considerably regarding this debate. I am referring to Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator appointed by the current Prime Minister. In an interview on CBC radio, he said:

I was very naive. I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. I found it to be extremely partisan on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of Parliament and they were not. If I had to choose today, I would say that I am probably closer to closing the place down. I just do not see the usefulness.

I think those comments speak volumes.

[Respect for Communities Act, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I said and what I have been hearing in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. It is a matter of building trust with the individual, which is difficult. A drug addict is not going to decide to go for treatment overnight after seeing the $2.7 million government ads urging them to do so. It is a process. A supervised injection site like InSite will attract them because they will know that they can get help there. Then, they can work towards getting treatment.

[Respect for Communities Act, October 18th, 2013]

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

I find it a bit odd to hear her say that she listened with great interest to my speech and then ask if I know about the difficulties with drug treatment programs. I said that people in my family have gone through detox programs. I wonder if she was really listening and where she was. Perhaps it was an issue with the interpretation.

In my speech, I also said that in one year, 2,171 InSite users were directed to drug treatment services, which, to my mind, is significant. In addition, approximately 30 peer-reviewed studies that were published in journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal described the benefits of InSite. The Canadian doctors' association says that it has a positive effect on people's health and that it benefits the community because it puts all drug users in the same place. They receive support and are encouraged to check into a drug treatment program. I know that it is difficult. I am not saying that it is easy, but they need good services and a place to go.

In Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I spoke to a street outreach worker who distributes injection kits. I heard how difficult it is to reach these people and convince them to check into a drug treatment program. I believe that InSite helps address that problem.

[Respect for Communities Act, October 18th, 2013]

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

This is the first time I have spoken in the House since Parliament was prorogued. I would therefore like to take a moment to say hello to my constituents and tell them that I am ready to return to the House and I look forward to participating in the debates. I am also pleased to speak about health because I am now a member of the Standing Committee on Health and this is an issue of particular interest to me.

That being said, I was very surprised this morning to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health give the first speech, since the government had decided to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for review. There is a slight imbalance in that respect. Of course this bill is related to the health and public safety of Canadian communities; however, it would have made sense for it to be examined by the Standing Committee on Health. I wanted to take the time to say that.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2 or former Bill C-65 today. Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is a very thinly veiled attempt by the Conservatives to put an end to supervised injection sites. They want to give the minister more power, as we have already seen with immigration and other portfolios. This government wants to hold all the power.

If we add a long list of criteria that must be met in order for a supervised injection site to be opened, we will end up not having any more such sites. Right now, there is one such site in Canada called InSite, which I will talk about a little later. This bill shows that, sadly, we are still dealing with a very ideological government that puts its own thoughts and values ahead of scientific facts. We know that the Conservative Party is very anti-drug. Of all the Conservative bills, this one is aimed at pleasing the Conservative base by proposing to eliminate drugs in Canada.

It is unfortunate, because this bill will not have the effect they want. There was a big Conservative campaign this summer called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. It is a shame, but heroin exists. Like all other Canadians, I am against it and I would love to be able to say that it no longer exists, but it does. There is a problem.

Deciding not to address this problem or not to create health centres to deal with it will not solve the problem. That is very irresponsible. By preventing communities from building supervised injection sites, the government is saying that instead of putting all injection drug users in one place so they can get clean syringes and be supervised, it would rather have them shoot up in churchyards, in parks where children play and in schoolyards. That is what the Conservatives are telling us.

Personally, I would rather know that there is a supervised injection site in my neighbourhood than know that these people who are unfortunately using drugs could be anywhere. That is what I understand from this bill. Supervised injection sites do not provide drugs. Earlier I heard a Conservative member say that they do, but that is untrue.

People who use these sites go there with their drugs and ask the people there to help them with their injections so that they can have clean equipment and access to experienced staff who can help if they overdose or if there is a problem.

This is a huge health problem. The government has made huge cuts to healthcare. We are talking about $31 billion in cuts. The government should take this seriously. I think these injection sites can help with prevention. We can try to prevent diseases and stop them from spreading instead of having hospitals treat countless cases of AIDS or hepatitis A, B and C.

Currently in Canada, there is one supervised injection site, namely InSite, in Vancouver. I would like to talk about what InSite does. Facts and figures can really help people understand what a supervised injection site does. People often have unfounded biases or preconceived notions about this.

To use these services, users must be 16 years old, sign a user agreement and follow a code of conduct. This is clearly not a place with a free-for-all philosophy. Not at all. There is a code of conduct and a focus on safety. Obviously, patients cannot have children with them.

InSite is open during the day, seven days a week, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. It has 12 injection stations. Users bring their own drugs. Drugs are not provided.

Nurses and paramedics who supervise the site provide emergency medical assistance if necessary. Overdoses can occur. Personally, I prefer that this be done in a supervised injection site with trained staff rather than out on the streets.

Once users have injected their drugs, their condition is assessed before they are sent to a post-injection room and before returning to the streets. If there is a problem, they will be treated by a nurse. Staff members also provide information on health care, counselling and referrals to health and social services. Users can then be referred to Onsite, which is located in the same building as InSite. This is a place that provides detox treatment.

Some of my family members have had to go to drug treatment centres, so I know that they are essential. When people are struggling with this problem, they often have no choice. I am not saying that 100% of addicts are going. There are those who, sadly, want to stay on drugs, and that is very unfortunate for them. However, there are some who want to try to get clean.

I find it very interesting that in one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. I think this is very positive. If the 2,200 people who were referred for drug treatment had injected their drugs on the street, they would not have received this service.

In 2006, Wood et al. published another interesting statistic: those who used InSite at least weekly were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program. Once again, this shows the influence that InSite has had on people who use the service.

In addition, the rate of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver East has dropped by 35%. This means that one in three lives were saved thanks to a centre like that.

I know that some Conservatives will say that they think it is bad for communities. My colleague just asked a question. Of course, no one wants this in their backyard. I live in a very cool little neighbourhood in Lachine. If someone told me that such a centre existed near my house, I might have some concerns at first, and that is only normal.

That being said, when asked, 80% of the people who live or work in that area of downtown Vancouver support InSite. Furthermore, the number of discarded needles and injection paraphernalia and the number of people injecting drugs in the street dropped dramatically one year after InSite opened. These are all positive aspects.

In closing, I do not have enough time to laud it properly, but an organization in my riding called Head & Hands in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce does some work with people who are unfortunately addicted, and it distributes injection paraphernalia. Once again, the entire Notre-Dame-de-Grâce community supports this. Since the organization's inception in the 1970s, crime has decreased and the number of people using detox services has increased. I think that is important.

Of course I will be opposing this bill, because I think we need these supervised injection sites in our communities in order to reduce crime and help people who are suffering from addiction.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to proudly support Motion No. 428, which was moved by my friend and colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas. I want to congratulate him on his excellent work and his vision for Canada's future. I congratulate him on behalf of my constituents.

Motion No. 428 would establish an electronic petitioning system in the House of Commons, in addition to the current paper-based system. This motion is designed to update the democratic procedures at the federal level, and it is consistent with the goal of allowing the Canadian public greater access to Canadian institutions.

Canadians are currently experiencing a crisis of confidence in our institutions, which is very unfortunate. Overall, Canadians are dissatisfied with the state of democracy in our country. There is a general dissatisfaction with certain institutions, and primarily with the Senate. We are also seeing record levels of voter abstention, particularly among young people and minorities. These abstention levels are alarming. An Elections Canada report showed that in the last federal election in 2011, voter turnout for people aged 18 to 24 was only 39%, which is 20 points lower than the national average of all age groups.

This crisis of confidence is not unfounded. Canada is currently suffering from a democratic deficit. Certain segments of the population are under-represented. Young people are the first to be under-represented, but cultural and linguistic minorities are as well. As a result, their opinions are often marginalized. The public has also lost its influence over the parliamentary agenda, as interest groups have taken over. In order for the public to have its say on the agenda, it must go through the cumbersome and complicated process for submitting a paper petition to the House of Commons. The existing system—paper petitions in particular—is inadequate and does not help promote democracy.

My dear colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, and I believe that electronic petitions will help bring us one step closer to equality and justice and will help include the public in the democratic process. Introducing an electronic petitioning system at the federal level will be a simple, concrete change, but it will have an immediate impact on the public. The stakes are huge here. This is about bringing Canadian democracy into the 21st century, with a focus on openness and transparency.

We feel it is important to strengthen existing rights by taking advantage of opportunities offered by technology. The Internet is part of the daily lives of Canadians, but it is currently underutilized by our institutions. Young Canadians are literally born with computers in their hands. We need to bring our political practices in line with the times. It is our responsibility to take advantage of the opportunity presented to us and make the Internet a real tool for democracy by allowing electronic petitions in the House of Commons. The positive impact this measure would have on democracy is significant, and that impact would be both symbolic and practical. Elected officials and the public would be more closely connected if we were to simplify access to the parliamentary agenda.

Electronic petitions are one tool that could help restore public confidence in our institutions and in the effectiveness of democracy in Canada. In addition, electronic petitions would give Canadians more opportunities to express their views. This is not about replacing current procedures involving paper petitions with a completely electronic version. It is about an additional way of sharing opinions and giving under-represented groups—youth and cultural and language minorities, for example—a voice.

My colleague opposite, the member for Oxford, is opposed to the motion, which I find unfortunate and somewhat shocking. He criticized the fact that the motion suggests triggering a debate in the House if the petition has a certain number of signatures. He feels that it would trigger debates on frivolous issues. If the member believes that the concerns of Canadians are “frivolous”, I wonder why he is representing his constituents here in the House.

Some people may say that the risk of the bill is that it could overwhelm the parliamentary agenda with a flood of irrelevant or airy-fairy petitions. However, I stand here today to reassure my colleagues and fellow members of Parliament regarding the impact of such a measure on our institutions. Our goal with Motion No. 428 is to establish a rationalized procedure of electronic petitioning in Canada. To do so, we intend to draw our inspiration from some national and international examples of successful implementation of electronic petitioning.

On the one hand, specific modalities of implementation would presuppose two conditions for an electronic petition to be presented to the House of Commons. First would be a threshold of 50,000 electronic signatures, and, second, the necessity for at least five MPs to sponsor the petition. The benefit of such limitations would result in only relevant petitions actually being debated by the MPs.

On the other hand, electronic petitioning has been tried and tested by a variety of actors at a variety of levels. Wherever it has been applied, it constitutes a breakthrough for democracy. In foreign countries, for instance, the United Kingdom, electronic petitioning has been successfully applied since November 2006, and also in Canada, where electronic petitioning procedures are already used by the province of Quebec.

Finally, non-profit organizations and democracy watchdogs such as OpenMedia or Leadnow, recently conducted promising experiments concerning electronic petitioning at the national scale, based on the international success of organizations and activist networks such as Avaaz or Change. Nevertheless, OpenMedia and Leadnow ultimately faced the impossibility of submitting their e-petitions to the House because of their electronic nature.

To conclude, I want to insist on the urgent necessity to reform our institutions in order to restore the confidence of our citizens in Canada. Levels of dissatisfaction concerning the way democracy works and operates in Canada is getting higher every day. Simply said, Canadians are frustrated by the lack of transparency, accessibility and accountability of the Conservative government.

MPs from the NDP, including me, are convinced that such a reform requires a deep modernization of our institutional procedures. Our first concern is to ensure reintegration of Canadian youth and under-represented groups in the democratic process. It is our duty to provide our citizens with every opportunity to take part in the democratic life of our country and to express their opinions. It is also our duty to ensure equality and justice in terms of democratic participation, by opening and facilitating the access to political processes as much as we possibly can.

As members of Parliament, the demands of the people have to remain our main focus when setting the parliamentary agenda. Adopting an electronic petitioning procedure at the federal level would constitute a first step to putting those words into actions.

Moreover, I share the belief with my colleagues of the New Democratic Party that the conditions have been met for such a measure to be successfully implemented in Canada. Indeed, we now have the necessary insight and a sufficient number of examples of application of e-petitions, at the national and international levels, to draw our inspiration from. We are fully aware of the benefits and criticisms pertaining to electronic petitioning and we possess enough empirical data to set appropriate limitations.

In essence, methods of citizen participation through e-petition do exist and have been tested and approved by others. The only thing left is for us to incorporate them in our institutional framework so that Canadian citizens can make better and proper use of electronic petitioning. On that matter, we are deeply convinced that Canadians are ready and willing to appropriate these new ways of expression. A study conducted in March 2013 by polling institute Angus Reid shows that 80% of Canadians are in favour of electronic petitioning.

I sincerely hope we all share the feeling of emergency concerning the current situation in Canada, as well as the belief in the necessity to react as quickly as possible.

I hope I have convinced all members of the potential of Motion No. 428 in terms of restoring the confidence of Canadians in our democratic institutions. Of course, the New Democratic Party and I intend to consider the fears and reservations of our fellow MPs, and as a result will call for a debate on the question at committee.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

He began by saying that this is a very dark hour for Canadian democracy.

Young people are becoming more and more cynical and are voting less and less. There are a number of reasons for this cynicism, but if you ask them, they say that Canada's Parliament does not really represent them.

This is the computer age. Young people are born with computers and gadgets in their hands. This motion is a good opportunity to give them more access to Parliament.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to share his comments on the positive impact that this bill might have on young people's involvement in politics.

[World Day Against Child Labour, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Iqbal Masih, a Pakistani child labourer, was sold as a slave at the age of four and spent six years of his life chained to a loom.

In 1995, Iqbal was freed from horrible conditions of forced labour. He took action and spoke out against child labour. Iqbal Masih's efforts to stop child labour made him famous on the international stage but, sadly, he was killed in 1995 for standing up for children's rights.

In 2010, there were still 215 million children—that is one in seven—who were working. More than half of all those children are exposed to the worst kinds of child labour. They work in dangerous environments, as slaves or in illegal activities. Child labour robs them of their childhood, potential, dignity and basic rights.

Every year, on June 12, we mark World Day Against Child Labour.

I want to dedicate my speaking time to the memory of Iqbal Masih, to all young Canadians and to organizations that are involved in the daily fight against child labour.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

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

One of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism. I wonder why the Conservatives ignored those recommendations.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives will commit to working with first nations to establish an independent first nations election tribunal.