Isabelle Morin

[Last Post Fund, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 422, which would improve the Last Post Fund.

My colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's moved this motion on behalf of our veterans. This proves that we are true to our slogan for the last election: we can work together with other parties.

We will support this motion, which has three major components that are important to the lives of our veterans: increase funding for the program so that benefits are in line with the current cost of funerals and burials, broaden program eligibility criteria, and help families in need who lose a loved one.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the three branches of the Royal Canadian Legion in my riding: Dorval Air Services, Lachine and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. They do incredible work. I have met with the people from these legions often, and I have had a number of discussions with them. I thank them for a job well done.

,As I was saying, there are three major aspects to this motion. The first focuses on increasing program funding. I must concede that the last budget did take care of that. The Conservatives decided to increase the funeral service reimbursement under the funeral and burial program from $3,600 to $7,376, but only after a massive campaign mounted by the Royal Canadian Legion on this subject. In January, I received letters from veterans in my riding who were urging me to support this motion because it is something that they have been waiting for for a very long time.

I want to thank my colleague for moving this motion. However, let us not forget that, when the Liberals were in power, they reduced funding for Veterans Affairs Canada for five years in a row. In 1995, they made cuts to the funeral and burial program. The Chrétien Liberals reduced the estate exemption from $24,000 to $12,015. In other words, if a veteran's estate is estimated to be worth more than $12,015, the surviving spouse is not entitled to any assistance under the Last Post Fund for funeral and burial costs, which is odd, considering that that is exactly what my colleague seems to be asking for in her motion. I think that it is strange, but of course, people can change.

The letters received pertained to this aspect in particular and prompted the Legion to launch this national campaign. I received roughly 50 letters at my office. It is nice to see that, when people band together, they can push the government to get things moving. I therefore encourage anyone who wants to mount a campaign to use this same method—to send letters to ministers or to their MPs—because that is how to get things done.

The Royal Canadian Legion asked for three major changes, which are included in my colleague's motion: an increase in the actual amount the fund pays out to cover funeral expenses; an audit of the eligibility of low-income CF veterans; and an increase in the estate exemption to ensure that more surviving spouses are eligible for assistance.

Last fall, I had a visit at my office from a woman whose spouse, a veteran, had unfortunately passed away. She said that she did not know what to do because she was not entitled to assistance. Her assets were around $14,000, which is below the poverty line. This woman was not rich. She lived in an apartment in Lachine. She had a car and a little money set aside. She told me it was unfortunate that the Last Post Fund could not help her. Her late husband had left her around $12,000 or $13,000.

It is curious that, before the Liberals and before 1995, the exemption to be eligible for the Last Post Fund was $24,000, compared to the $12,000 it is now. That is half, which is what my colleague told me.

This woman was desperate, since she had just lost her husband. Her situation was very difficult. She came to see me to ask for help. Of course, I cannot give money to everyone who comes to see me. Nevertheless, I found it very difficult to deal with this. These Canadians are being told that it is too bad for them and that that is just the way it is. I find that very unfortunate. I feel very strongly about this. The grieving process is never easy.

Veterans have represented Canada, our nation, in peacekeeping missions abroad. They have given their time to help others in war-torn countries and places where there have been natural disasters. Some have even given their lives.

When they were young, they decided that they wanted to proudly represent their country in national or international missions, in order to help others.

I also want to say that they do not receive enough money to have an adequate funeral. I am pleased that the Conservatives' budget doubles the funding for the Veterans Affairs Canada funeral and burial program. However, I think that we need to do more.

I feel it is very important to broaden the program's eligibility criteria. As it now stands, today's veterans can access the program only if their death is the result of a service injury. As I was saying earlier, if veterans are financially disadvantaged but there is no proof that they died of an injury, too bad for them.

I would like to give an example. Last fall, 20,147 applications were rejected. The member for Medicine Hat boasted about the fund, saying that it has helped approximately 13,000 people. However, last year, 14,000 applications—approximately two-thirds—were rejected. Let me reiterate that these people are in genuine need.

It makes sense that if a person is rich, the Canadian government should not be obliged to help pay for that person's funeral or burial. However, when a low-income individual is dealing with the death of his or her spouse, partner or father, for example, it is upsetting that Veterans Affairs Canada cannot help out because the person did not die as a result of an injury.

I am quickly running out of time, so I would like to conclude by saying that, during their campaign, Canadian army, navy and air force veterans told us what they want. For 15 years now, Canadian army, navy and air force veterans have been putting pressure on the Government of Canada, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, to resolve these shortcomings.

At every national biennial convention since 1998, they have passed resolutions urging the government to address inadequacies in the Veterans Burial Regulations. Veterans advocacy groups have collectively applied pressure year after year, yet the gap between the necessary costs and the costs covered continues to grow. Frustrated by and disappointed in the lack of action on this issue by successive governments, members of the Royal Canadian Legion launched a letter writing campaign. That is the campaign I was talking about earlier.

I am quickly running out of time, so I would like to conclude by saying that we will support the motion. I feel it is very worthwhile. However, I must repeat that we feel that the program has been underfunded for many years. Changes were made in March, but they were too long in coming. I am not sure that the government's approach will actually resolve the problem.

The problems with regard to program eligibility need to be fixed; the program needs to include modern-day veterans. The estate exemption needs to be increased so that more families of veterans are eligible for help.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather strange.

I just stated the facts in my speech: the Liberals sold and privatized CN. I am not saying that it was either a good or a bad decision; what I am saying is that the government should have implemented regulations before selling, privatizing and denationalizing CN. The government should have come up with some rules to make it work. Simply privatizing a company and leaving the rest to the market is not okay.

We saw prices that made no sense, and people came to tell us that the service was not good. When 80% of those who use a service say that it is not good, it is no longer a question of nationalization or denationalization. We must not forget that it is an essential service, as the member said. If it is an essential service, there must be regulations to ensure that it is a good service.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague opposite was listening to my speech, because I was not talking about nationalization. However, I did mention that the Liberals sold CN in 1996.

Since the member asked me how things are working in my committee, I am happy to tell him that we have problems.

Since I was elected, 99.3% of the amendments we have proposed over the past two years have not been accepted by the Conservatives. That is not what I call teamwork. I will not talk about how things were before I arrived, because I was not here. I am talking about what I have seen so far.

We had another problem in committee, and I actually moved a motion on that. The committee chair decided that the meetings will be one hour and forty-five minutes long instead of two hours. In my view, that affects my participation in the committee, because I am often the one who has less time to speak. Given the sequence of speakers, I get less floor time.

The Conservatives do not ask us questions and do not want to talk with us. That is another problem facing the committee right now.

I did not ask specific questions about nationalizing CN. Rather, I am interested in what we can do with Bill C-52 to improve Canada's rail system.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North.

I want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for all of her hard work and passion in this field. I will start with a short resumé of what happened and why we are here today.

Essentially, the bill gives rail freight customers and shippers the right to enter into service agreements with railway companies. It also establishes an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, to resolve disputes in the event negotiations fail and sets penalties for violations of arbitration decisions.

I would like to give everyone some background. In 1995 the Liberals, who were in power at the time, decided to sell CN. The problem was that they neglected to put in place an effective regulatory framework for rail transportation. As a result, railway companies held a virtual monopoly. The Liberals were in power until 2006 but did nothing to address this problem. There was nothing in place. The problems likely to arise in these situations usually affect prices. Indeed, since railways had a virtual monopoly, users sometimes had to pay very dearly.

In committee, witnesses told us that sometimes the trains arrived without enough cars. In other cases, trains failed to come in on time. Finally, in 2006, when the Conservatives rose to power, they came under a lot of pressure. Seven years later, the bill is before us. We will support the bill, but I would still like to add something.

I had the chance to speak to Bill C-52 at the last reading stage. Since then, this bill has been studied in the transport committee, of which I am a member. This bill is a first step in the right direction and I support that, so I will vote in favour of this bill. However, it is important to note that several witnesses who came before the transport committee to speak about this bill wanted amendments. With the suggested amendments, this bill would become a robust tool and industry standard for Canada.

The committee received a list of six amendments that were the bare minimum of what the Coalition of Rail Shippers and other witnesses would like to see in this bill. The Coalition of Rail Shippers is the main rail freight customer stakeholder organization in Canada. These witnesses are experts in their field and key actors in their industry. It is important that the House acknowledge the amendments suggested by this organization. It is also important for us to consider the expert testimony that the transport committee received.

The following six key amendments were suggested by the shipping community: first, include details on service agreement components; second, delete the term “operational” as it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements; third, include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract; fourth, limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in service agreements; fifth, limit arbitration for failed service agreement negotiations to matters raised by the shipper; and, sixth, limit railway companies' ability to raise network issues in arbitration, i.e., finding convenient excuses for not agreeing to shippers' demands in contract negotiations and arbitration.

These amendments are sensible, practical and, might I add, modest. Unfortunately, all six amendments were defeated at committee by my colleagues opposite. My NDP colleagues and I moved nine amendments at committee. The committee is there to provide space and time for parliamentarians to consider bills of law in depth. How can we uphold the value and ethics of this democratic place when already during witness testimony it is clear that the Conservatives are unwilling to make any changes to the bill? Why are the Conservatives blocking parliamentary work at the committee stage?

Here, I would like to point out that the Conservatives asked only one question about the nine amendments that my three colleagues and I proposed. I am somewhat annoyed by that approach. Committee work is meant to foster discussion.

I remember when I was elected two years ago, members from all sides told me that there were too many attacks in the House. I was also told that at times there are more monologues than discussions. However, I was also told that it is different in committee, and that it is in committee that the real group work happens because everyone wants to move this country forward. That is what I was expecting.

I found myself serving on a committee where the Conservatives did not ask any questions. We proposed amendments to move things forward, but they did not want to discuss them. We talked about our amendments and we explained them. We explained why we wanted to amend the bill and which expert testimony we based our amendments on. They had absolutely no interest, however, because their minds were made up before they even heard the witnesses.

As I said earlier, I will support the bill because it is a first step in the right direction. Without the rejected amendments, the bill remains a partial success for the shippers. I look forward to participating in strengthening the bill in the future by working with the Canadian shipping community and fighting the issue of price gouging and uncompetitive rail freight rates.

The NDP has participated in efforts to provide the shipping community with better legislation and regulations for quite some time, and we will continue to be involved in this process to benefit shippers by addressing the shortcomings of Bill C-52.

Earlier I mentioned that several witnesses at committee honoured the amendments brought forward by the Coalition of Rail Shippers. These included Pulse Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and the Grain Growers of Canada. All those groups wanted those six amendments to be adopted.

In February I raised some concerns that I had with the bill, including pricing discrepancies between CN and CP; the lack of market competition, innovation and regulation, because CN and CP operate as a duopoly; and the poor quality of rail freight transportation services.

The parliamentary secretary just asked my colleague a question about the fact that we have one of the nicest systems in the world, but I have some statistics.

According to the Rail Freight Service Review, 80% of shippers are unhappy.

I am not so sure that it is the nicest system in the world. I hope not, according the statistics.

At the last reading, I stated that the rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers are not satisfied with the services that they receive. This poor quality of services is affecting Canadian exporters, damaging our reputation in the global market and costing us jobs. We cannot afford to be left out of competitive business deals because the CN and CP cannot guarantee satisfactory service.

I will finish by saying that we must make rail freight services work again for shippers across Canada. We can accomplish this with strong legislation, a strong Bill C-52. I will support it even if I still believe that some amendments should have been adopted by the government.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. We work together on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and we had the pleasure of studying this issue at a number of meetings.

The Conservatives have a habit of coming to committee with preconceived notions, and I find that disappointing. They do not really listen to witnesses. They do not ask questions to determine if the witnesses' testimony is relevant or not because they follow their ideology and their minds are made up. Pardon my language, but they just do not seem to give a damn.

The Coalition of Rail Shippers proposed six minor amendments that, in my opinion, would really help them. The coalition believes that even though the bill helps them and is a step in the right direction, it gives far more support to CN and CP.

I am wondering if my colleague is able to list three of those amendments. I sometimes get the impression that the Conservatives did not even necessarily listen to them, let alone really study them. Could he list three of the amendments and tell me why he voted against them?

[Employment, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at 9:40 p.m., while every Montrealer was glued to the game between the Montreal Canadiens and the Ottawa Senators, Old Dutch Foods announced the closure of its plant in my riding of Lachine.

We will lose 200 jobs with this closure. This cavalier way of doing things is a tragedy for the 200 families who will no longer have a job.

Will the government commit to working with Quebec to replace these jobs in my region?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as I mentioned, the tax increases affect hospital parking, bicycles, strollers and sports equipment.

There have been a lot of questions about that, especially when it comes to hospitals. If I put myself in the shoes of a person visiting her husband, brother, sister or children in the hospital who has to pay more for parking, I think that is very sad.

The hospital in my home town charges for parking. People are already using street parking around the hospital in order to save the $5 charge. In many cases, $5 really eats into their budget and now the government would have them pay even more. I think that is ridiculous and outrageous.

I do not see how the Conservatives can say they are lowering taxes when they use hospital parking lots to increase taxes. It is outrageous.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question.

I know that his riding was greatly affected by the closure of Aveos. Employees in my riding, in Montreal, also lost their jobs. I want to reiterate to those workers that I think it is sad that this situation still has not been resolved.

To answer my colleague's questions specifically, no, I do not think the Conservative government is doing enough to help the middle class, and the Aveos situation is a perfect example. We had good jobs here in Canada and now we do not. There is nothing concrete in the budget for jobs for the middle class. The government keeps talking about job creation. When we ask questions, the stock answer is “jobs, growth and prosperity”, and nothing more tangible than that. The government never spells out exactly what it is going to do to create jobs and it ships out the good jobs. I do not think that these are good measures for Canada's middle class.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was getting at in the last sentence of my speech. I think it is unfortunate that we are forced to vote on an omnibus bill and that the Conservatives refuse to split this bill, which does have some good measures.

I do have something to say about young people. Canada has 240,00 unemployed young people who are unable to find jobs, despite job creation measures. That is unacceptable. These young people are looking for jobs, but there are none to be found. It is not just the fact they are unemployed that is disgraceful, it is also the fact that these young people end up under-employed. I know; this is my generation. I have plenty of friends from university who are in their late twenties. They have a bachelor's degree, master's degree or Ph.D and are getting jobs that pay $12 or $15 an hour.

I have asked questions to the minister and parliamentary secretary several times now and they never have anything specific to offer. No, I will not vote in favour of the budget, because I find—

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1. However, this piece of legislation does not address Canadians' real concerns.

Ever since the Conservatives’ 2013 budget was unveiled, my constituents have been calling me to say that they feel isolated and neglected by this government’s economic measures.

I have to say that I feel quite privileged to be able to speak to this bill, given that the Conservatives have imposed time allocation for the thirty-second time, which is surely a record for Canada. At least I have the opportunity to voice my opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to Conservative bills that lack depth. Instead of actually being concerned about ensuring our economic recovery, creating stable jobs and tackling the growing debt levels of Canadian households, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that will kill jobs. These measures will mean a higher cost of living for Canadian families and will stifle economic growth.

For instance, there is nothing in Bill C-60 to deal with household debt in Canada, which is currently estimated at a record level of 167% of disposal income. That is a staggering number.

The Conservatives’ economic agenda does not address the needs of Canadians. Canadians need measures that are geared toward creating quality jobs. The NDP will be voting against budget 2013 and the budget implementation bill, unless they are reworked to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families.

While I do agree with some of the measures contained in this budget, I have to say that, since I have been a member of this House, the Conservatives have refused to split budget bills into components that we can vote on separately, and thus let Canadians know, through a transparent process, which measures we support and which ones we do not.

I would like to single out several measures in this budget that I think are worthwhile in order to let people know exactly which ones I consider to be important. I will then tell you which budgetary provisions I think completely miss the mark.

Budget 2013 provides for two tax credits that I endorse: one for adoption-related expenses and one for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. I believe that these are positive measures. Furthermore, the budget streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers, which I strongly support. It extends the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector. It includes measures to facilitate the collection of unpaid taxes and taxes sitting in tax havens and to streamline Tax Court of Canada procedures. It provides for changes to the GST and HST that are generally positive. Lastly, it calls for reducing the general preferential tariff, the GPT, on sporting equipment and baby clothing. These are sound measures, and I am not afraid to say so.

However, the Conservatives will not split up the budget and instead are forcing us to vote on a mammoth bill, as was the case in 2012 and 2011, which prevents me, as an MP, from voicing my true opinion of the budget to my constituents. I find it very troubling that I am unable to do so. However I do know that the Conservatives will seize the opportunity to say that we are voting against these measures when we ask any questions. Incredible.

I would now like to turn my attention to some of the important issues raised by Bill C-60 which is chock-full of various measures.

This budget contains tax increases for Canadians. It calls for changes to the bargaining mandate of the Treasury Board and 49 crown corporations. It proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, as well as changes related to citizenship and immigration. It announces the merger of the Canadian International Development Agency with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. It highlights the Conservative government’s ongoing failure to address the challenges facing aboriginal peoples and the lack of viable, concrete job-creation measures for Canadian youth, the segment of the population hardest hit by the economic downturn.

Bill C-60 as tabled amends 49 laws and includes new legislation along with complex provisions containing myriad details and programs that will affect Canadians, the very people who elected us to establish a more just society and bring about wealth and prosperity for all Canadians.

For the sake of the public, we have a duty to weigh the major issues that this bill targets, but it will be very difficult to accomplish this in such a short period of time. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives are giving us a mere four days to debate this mammoth bill.

On top of everything else, we have just learned that the Minister of Finance has asked the Standing Committee on Finance to set aside only five days to study the bill.

The committee that is supposed to conduct an in-depth review of the bill will have a mere five days to tackle this job. That is outrageous.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60, not only because of the measures it contains, but also because the process lacks transparency and is unethical from a parliamentary standpoint. Bill C-60 contains a broad range of measures that warrant careful consideration, but instead, the Conservatives have tabled another omnibus bill, much like bills C-38 and C-45 that were brought in last year. Tabling such a wide-ranging bill and imposing such a tight deadline for review undermines the very nature of Parliament, as members do not have the opportunity to learn everything they need to know about the bill and its ramifications.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to say that such actions weaken the nature of Parliament. Yesterday, while I was knocking on doors in my riding, I talked for 20 or 25 minutes to a man in Dorval, whose name is John and who is 50 or 60 years old. He told me that he had always voted to do his duty as a citizen but that he had become cynical in the past two years. He told me that he was dismayed and that he no longer believed in the parliamentary process because of our government. I was astounded and did not know what to say to him. I am not cynical, but I had a hard time finding good arguments, because I, too, think that what is happening in Canada is not reasonable and not healthy.

Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out several times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to exercise their role of oversight. For the third time, the Conservatives are undermining the democratic process inherent in Parliament and trying to escape the watchful eyes of parliamentarians and the public.

I would like to point out another important concern. The former Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly indicated that the cuts announced in the 2013 budget are not necessary in order to re-establish a structural surplus. In his opinion, the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow the growth of Canada's GDP.

There is evidence. According to estimates by the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP. Based on these facts, the Conservatives' 2013 budget will raise the unemployment rate in Canada. It is unfortunate, because when unemployment rates are high, the economy runs slowly. I wonder what logic the government is using when it talks about the economy.

The Conservatives love to boast about their job creation record. Yet, 1.4 million Canadians are without work and 240,000 more young people are unemployed than before the recession. Despite that, the Conservatives' Bill C-60 offers no job creation measures.

As the official opposition's youth caucus president, I am particularly concerned with Canada's youth and young workers. As a result, the rest of my speech—which is not much longer—will focus on the younger generation that is ignored by the Conservative government.

In today's labour market, there is a desperate lack of jobs for young Canadians aged 15 to 24. A study by TD Economics revealed that a young person who is currently unemployed or under-employed will be financially scarred for 18 years. This young person, who wants to work and often has an extensive education, not only has a problem finding work, but will be affected in the future with reduced earning potential. Right now, this young person has no job and cannot invest in the economy. As I said, it will take this young person 18 years to overcome the economic deficit that is being created today. This is not the way to make the economy work.

For these young people in their 20s, this means putting off purchasing their own property, having children later, needing more time to pay off their debt and earning lower salaries. That is what the Conservative government is offering our young people at this time.

Combining the underemployment crisis and unemployment among young people with the tax hikes announced in budget 2013, with Bill C-60, the Conservative government is in fact reducing my generation's purchasing power.

Although the Conservatives promised not to raise taxes, their budget includes new tax hikes for Canadians on almost everything, from hospital parking to credit unions, safety deposit boxes and labour sponsored investment funds, not to mention bicycles and strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians $7.8 billion over the next five years.

Why did the Conservatives promise not to raise taxes if they knew for a fact they were going to raise them by several billion dollars? Budget 2013 is based on an ideology that is harmful to Canadians. Although economists agree that austerity measures undermine growth, the Conservatives are determined to impose these backward-thinking measures in order to achieve their political agenda of cutting the deficit by 2015.

I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to finish and giving me a chance to speak to this bill. I will now take questions. However, I would like to emphasize that, although there are some good measures here, it is unfortunate that we have to vote on everything at once.