Isabelle Morin

[Employment, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's strategy is not working.Young Canadians are still feeling the effects of the 2008 economic crisis.

Let us not forget that 280,000 young Canadians lost their jobs during the crisis and that an entire generation is still having trouble finding work in the labour market. Also, more and more young Canadians are losing jobs to temporary foreign workers. According to TD Bank, it will take at least a decade for these young Canadians to recover from the cumulative effects of this economic setback.

Why are the Conservatives stubbornly refusing to look for a solution to the problem?

[Employment, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance does not want to answer questions because he knows that his botched budget does not meet the employment needs of Canadians.

Seventy per cent of jobs created in the coming decade will require post-secondary training, but what does the budget do to ensure that education will be more affordable? Nothing. What does it do to reduce the burden of student debt? Nothing. What does it do to create jobs that match the skills of young graduates? Nothing.

Why is the Minister of Finance ignoring the lack of employment for our young people?

[World Water Day, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in his book The Sacred Balance, David Suzuki reminds us of the following:

The elements that have sparked life onto this planet and continue to fuel it—air, water, soil, energy, biodiversity—are sacrosanct and should be treated as such.

David Suzuki helps us to understand how privileged we are to live in a country like Canada, which has between 15% and 20% of the world's fresh water. Fresh water is precious, and not just in developing countries. Water is sacred because it gives life, and nothing can live without water.

What have we allowed to happen to fresh water in Canada? We let polluting industries discharge toxic waste into our water; we privatize water and sell it in small bottles; we waste water without giving it a second thought.

The United Nations has designated March 22 each year as World Water Day. It is important on that day to make Canadians aware of responsible water consumption practices.

Today, I raise my glass of water to water.

[Food Banks, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a UN report released yesterday showed us that the Conservative government is failing Canadians, failing to reduce poverty and failing to help Canadians thrive. Everywhere in Canada, more and more families are going to food banks. According to HungerCount 2012, there is a 31% increase in demand for food banks since 2008. I see this in my riding. The NDG Food Depot fights to feed the community. Up to 800 people come to this food bank per week. Thirty-five per cent of its clients are children, and this is going up. Fifty-five per cent are on welfare, and fourteen per cent have no income because of bureaucratic obstacles. Canadians have a right to food security.

Where the Conservative government is failing, community organizations try to help. I thank the following organizations for the work they do to do feed my community: the Meals on Wheels program at Volunteer West Island; Dorval Community Aid; Saint-Vincent-de Paul Society in Lachine and Ville Saint-Pierre; Extended Hands in Lachine; and the NDG Food Depot.

[Canada Post, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' reorganization of Canada Post is not working. More and more sorting centres and post offices are closing, while hours of operation are constantly being reduced. But that is not all. After having a labour contract imposed on them, employees are being forced to work 10 to 12 hours a day. Some workers are on the brink of exhaustion and others simply want to resign.

How much longer will the Conservatives allow working conditions to deteriorate? When will they finally decide to do something about the situation? And they better not say it is not their fault, because they were the first to jump on it when special legislation was introduced.

[Criminal Code, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I started my speech earlier in the first hour when we debated this bill. I got as far as describing the amendments proposed by the member for Ahuntsic. I will now continue my speech.

The amendments I mentioned the first time I spoke on this bill are a step in the right direction, but we need to go further. We need to address the fact that human trafficking affects mostly women, mainly aboriginal women, our sisters in spirit. Canada's first nations people, Innu and Métis need to be included in this dialogue and in efforts to fight human trafficking. This would be a good time for the Conservative government to come back on its decision to cut funding to first nations and women's groups.

Human trafficking is a terrible and dehumanizing crime, but it is very difficult to understand the scale of human trafficking in Canada because we lack data. Human trafficking is complex. It is done illegally, it is subversive, its victims are very often too scared to come forward or press charges on their traffickers, and when they do, victims lack protection after testifying against their traffickers. For all of these obvious reasons, we lack data.

Studies on human trafficking sometimes overlook trafficking of Canadians inside Canada to focus instead on international smuggling and trafficking, but Canadians can fall prey to exploitation if they are struggling to find jobs or finish their education or if they lack opportunities and are forced to leave their home communities to find work elsewhere, especially if they are women or girls. This has resulted in massive human trafficking across Canada.

At the beginning of last year, the Hamilton crown attorney's office prosecuted the largest case of human trafficking ever found in Canada and was successful in receiving a guilty plea on the matter for all accused. Last December, police uncovered human traffickers trafficking victims across the Canada-U.S. border in Stanstead, Quebec.

However, what is more disturbing is that many Canadian citizens are trafficked in a variety of different manners, including sexual exploitation and, most commonly, forced labour or servitude. Many victims of human trafficking, both Canadian and foreign nationals, are caught in a dangerous situation. They are forced to choose between being hurt or having their families hurt.

When it comes to human trafficking and victims, I think the member for Ahuntsic has not gone far enough in her bill. We have to understand that the victims do not choose to be in this situation. They are being asked to help us charge their pimps. The victims are afraid; they do not want to make accusations against their assailants because they fear for their lives. They have little reason to believe that the process will be successfully completed. They are also afraid for their families.

Last summer, I went to Thailand and Cambodia with a delegation of members to learn what the Thai and Cambodian governments are doing to solve the problem of human trafficking in their countries. That was a very interesting trip.

When I came home, I decided to talk about human trafficking in my riding, because it is definitely a problem there, particularly in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. At the Vendôme metro station and on Saint-Jacques, lots of girls get picked up. Lots of cheap motels are criticized for their disgusting practices. That is why I showed the film Avenue Zéro in my riding, which features Annie Robert, who is in charge of human trafficking investigations at the RCMP.

In the movie, she interviews victims. The image I have in mind is that of the poster and postcard that the RCMP used to ask the victims for help and to encourage them to testify. What you see is a woman who has been beaten up and is covered with bruises and blood. She is really dirty.

In Avenue Zéro, the victims tell us that the advertising is aimed at them. It is a poster showing a woman who is suffering. They tell us to help them by putting a stop to these kinds of situations. The victim interviewed in the film says that nothing in the poster gives her any hope or tells her that she will have a better life, that people will help her or that her family will be supported if she testifies against her attacker. In many cases, the victims are approached because they are alone, particularly victims of sexual exploitation. These are often young girls who do not really have families, who are forced onto the street and who wind up in these situations through no fault of their own.

There is also the whole forced labour aspect. This is practically slavery. If my figures are correct, this represents roughly 20% of human trafficking in Canada. PINAY is an organization near my constituency that works with Filipinos who come to Canada. These people often wind up working in homes doing domestic work. They are practically slaves who have no way out. These people have no assurance that they will be well treated after they testify.

I see my time is almost up. I had a lot more points to mention. Perhaps we can introduce amendments during the study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that we can make a greater contribution to legislation that will protect victims and guarantee their well-being and subsequent reintegration.

I unfortunately have not had time to put any questions to the member who introduced this bill. I hope that, at the very least, she obtained a lot of legal opinions on reversing the burden of proof. That may be interesting to take a look at and it may be necessary. However, reversing the burden of proof in Canada is a serious matter. I hope we can discuss it in committee and really get some legal opinions on the issue.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

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

As I said earlier in my speech, I think the government has a tendency to produce a lot of bills that shift the cost to the provinces. I do not know what the provinces’ reaction has been, but we will certainly have to think of a way to help them.

According to the CEO of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the bill will mean that the public will be more prejudiced against persons with mental disorders. In my opinion, the bill does not help them, since they will be further stigmatized.

The provinces do not have a lot of resources to work on prevention and support these people. Individuals who have mental disorders are victims of what is happening to them. I do not think there are many resources to help the province ensure that individuals with mental disorders are properly reintegrated into society, that they do not reoffend, and that their mental health care helps them feel better in society.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I would like to touch on two points in his question.

First, he asked me why the bill was introduced at this particular point in time. In fact, it was introduced according to the roadmap and the agenda that the government has set.

That being said, the fact that the announcement was made on the same day we learned that Dr. Guy Turcotte had been released from prison and had gone home to his community seems to me to be a hugely political move rather than a move intended to improve the law. That is why I expressed concern about that.

The second part of his question concerned the three amendments that were made. As I said in my speech, we think that these are sound measures. I do not agree that a criminal should be able to return home without the family being made aware of it. I am very happy that the bill now takes this into consideration and that the family can be notified.

Nonetheless, I still have concerns about what is done to help the accused reintegrate into the community. I find that not much support is provided.

In addition, we must not forget the victims, who must be given assistance, including psychological support. We have to be sure that they understand the process. We often hear that the process is complicated.

I had to reread the bill the number of times before talking about it, and I was a teacher before becoming a member of Parliament. Many of the sections are extremely complex and they have to be clearly understood. Most people will not find this very easy. An awareness campaign is perhaps necessary to ensure that everybody clearly understands the issues and that people agree with the way in which the decisions are made.

For the victims, this is certainly a step in the right direction. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses in committee.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

I will first provide a little background. The bill proposes three major amendments. The proposed amendments are intended to make public safety the priority, to create a finding that a person who is not criminally responsible is a high-risk accused, and to enhance the involvement of victims.

At present, it is often forgotten that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provides that the court or review boards shall take into consideration “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused”.

As some of my colleagues have already said, we will support the bill at second reading, so that it can be examined in greater depth in committee. That said, measures already exist for making public safety the priority. That is something we consider to be very important, and we support it. We want to hear what the experts have to tell us about that.

The legislative amendments to the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code that are proposed in the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act would clearly make public safety the paramount concern in the courts and in the decision-making processes of review boards in relation to persons declared NCR—not criminally responsible—or unfit to stand trial.

I will explain that a little more. At present, at the trial of a person with a mental disorder, there are three possible verdicts: absolute discharge, if the person is not a significant threat to public safety; conditional discharge, and that is what we will be discussing here; and detention in custody in a hospital, which is not changing. So there are really two things. First, a person may be charged. However, if the person has a relatively severe disorder and is unable to stand trial immediately, they will not stand trial right away. The person will therefore have permission not to stand trial. They will be treated and will stand trial later. Here we are talking about someone who could be a threat to public safety. What is done then is that the person is offered treatment. The bill ensures that while receiving treatment, the person will not be dangerous to public safety.

My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques told us about a problem: the fact that the timing of the Conservative government’s introduction of the bill seems a little suspicious. That is unfortunate, because it is a very good bill. We will allow the bill to proceed, but we are a little afraid that the Conservatives would like to score political points with this bill. They announced it on the day Quebec learned that Dr. Turcotte might be released. That trial received extensive media coverage. The Conservatives immediately came and told us they would be putting forward a bill to protect the public. So they came in on their big horses with their swords at the ready, to say they were protecting the public. That is something we hear a lot from the Conservative side: that they are the best when it comes to protecting the public. That said, this is actually what the bill does, by strengthening the protection of the public. But one does wonder why the Conservatives introduced it at this time. Why did they make the announcement at a point when the bill was still only at the draft stage or did not even exist yet?

My second concern about the bill is that the Conservatives are attempting to download costs to the provinces. In an interview with Global News, Carole Saindon, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said the provinces would have to foot the bill for this new policy. This seems to be increasingly the case with Conservative bills.

The federal government passes laws and downloads the costs of implementing them to the provincial governments. It did so, for example, when it increased the age of eligibility for OAS. It did so again with Bill C-10 on minimum sentences. This bill we have before us, which is a good bill, will also have to be paid for by the provinces. What is more, we do not know if the provinces and territories were consulted. We do not know what will happen if a province does not have the necessary funds to fully implement the bill.

There is an organization in Ontario that deals with mentally ill people who get in trouble with the law. It is currently working at 104% capacity. The bill is a step in the right direction, but we do not know if we will have the means to implement it.

My second point concerns the creation of the high-risk NCR accused designation. This bill would amend the Criminal Code by creating a process to designate accused persons as high-risk NCR. They could be designated NCR because of serious personal injury offences committed against other persons and because there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. The designation might also apply in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public. High-risk NCR accused would be ineligible for a conditional or absolute discharge. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board. This designation would apply only to NCR accused, not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

Persons found unfit to stand trial are persons who are unable to undergo a trial but who were not unfit at the time of the crime.

The third amendment I discussed earlier concerns enhancing victims' involvement. I would like to emphasize this point. Victims often appear to be forgotten by the Conservative Party. This is what troubles me. The government always tables law and order legislation, but it often forgets the victims. I used to work in a prison. I was a teacher at a detention centre. Social reintegration is key to ensuring that things go well in society. I understand that there must be laws and punishment—no one is opposed to that—but we are lacking a reintegration aspect.

As a number of my colleagues have said, we had trouble obtaining data from the government on this subject. Some members had to place questions on the order paper to get answers. We wanted to get some of the case law and statistics gathered by the government on persons found not criminally responsible. We wanted to know how much time each person found not criminally responsible spent in treatment before being discharged. We wanted to know exactly how many people this legislation would affect.

I think it is appropriate to talk about enhancing victims' involvement. Victims are often disregarded in Conservative legislation. This bill would ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill provides for non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. It will also ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person. However, I find this last point somewhat vague. This information does not tell me how that would be done or how victims' safety would be guaranteed.

To sum up, I think this is a bill that will enhance an existing act. I hope the Conservative Party is not playing a game so that it can make a lot of political hay out of this issue.

This is not the point of the exercise. The objective is to come up with a better law that respects human rights.

I hope that we will have the bill before us in committee long enough to study it carefully, that witnesses from all sides of the House will appear and that we will go through the whole process in order to pass this bill.

[Canada Post, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' strong-arm tactics at Canada Post are becoming a total fiasco. First they closed a number of post offices across the country and deprived Canadians of postal services, as we saw in Lachine and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Now their modernization and reorganization efforts are floundering, with delivery delays, undelivered mail and workers forced to do unending overtime. People are angry.

How does this government plan to fix the situation at Canada Post?