Isabelle Morin

[Employment, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have one example of where the Conservatives are way off on the employment file.

The Conservatives are acting innocent and letting our airlines subcontract foreign planes and pilots for their flights. Sunwing and CanJet are among the Canadian companies that often use foreign planes and pilots. I have two simple questions.

Why did the Conservatives authorize so many foreign pilots and why are they exporting Canadian jobs abroad?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

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

I know that Toronto and other major cities in southern Ontario have the same issue as Montreal concerning transportation and quality of life. In the report, I read that 92 hours are eaten up by transportation, and that amounts to a lot of days.

Our plan is to sit down with the provinces and territories, aboriginal communities and other communities to see what needs to be done and what direction we should take.

I did not have a chance to mention this earlier, but we want reports tabled on a regular basis so that we can see where the money was invested and determine where improvements can be made.

We need to start by discussing a plan with the provinces and territories, aboriginal peoples and communities.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

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

We voted against the omnibus budget bills because in our opinion, they contained hundreds of provisions that were unfair to Canadians. I will answer my colleague’s question with one of my own, because he very much enjoys doing the same thing.

Why is Canada the only G8 country without a long-term strategy in place to fund public transit? Why must I tell my constituents that Canada cannot have public transit systems because the government is unwilling to pay for them? Why do northern communities still not have access to drinking water owing to the lack of government funding?

Admittedly, some positive measures have been taken in the past, but we are not talking about the past. We are talking about what will happen in two years’ time, in 2014, when funding under the building Canada plan ends. Will we be able to assure municipalities that stable, non-partisan funding will be available for them?

Our colleague opposite is currently keeping mum about that. He claims to have helped municipalities. However, when we look at where the money went in Canada, it is clear that the funding was allocated in a partisan way. What we want is a non-partisan funding process. My colleague opposite has been unable to answer that question.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina. I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where, week after week, we witness the Conservatives' failure to do something about the infrastructure-related problem that will arise in a year when the Building Canada Fund expires.

At the start of his speech, the Conservative member said that investing in infrastructure means investing in community development. I entirely agree with him, but I do not see how he can say that, then turn around and say that he will be voting against our motion, because that is what the motion is about. We want a stable, long-term, non-partisan infrastructure investment plan.

When we say infrastructure, we are talking about four classes: roads, highways, the sewer system and water treatment and supply facilities, and bridges. The current application-based process is flawed. We noted that when we conducted a public transit study.

For example, if a community says it needs a better sewer system, it cannot also apply for its public transit system because that would cause several of its projects to compete with one another. What is also unfortunate about individual applications, and we are currently seeing this, is that it is very easy for a majority government such as this one to make partisan decisions, to favour certain communities because they vote for the government and to fund projects that will improve the lives of the citizens of those communities while the community next door, particularly Quebec, will not receive much because it does not vote for the government. That is what I find unfortunate.

I will begin by saying exactly what we want, and then I will cite specific examples of the problems Montreal and my riding face every day, problems that could be solved by agreeing to the motion my colleague is introducing today.

We are asking for the necessary tools to manage infrastructure funding effectively. We want an effective long-term infrastructure plan to be announced in the 2013 budget, a plan based on ongoing consultations with the provinces, territories, municipalities and aboriginal communities. This government consults less than most, even though it has boasted all morning that it is conducting consultations. We want this to be written down so that we can see it happen.

Like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we want a 20-year plan, one that permits better long-term planning and support for long-term projects. Ultimately, if a municipality wants to carry out a long-term project—I just heard my Liberal colleague mention a football stadium in Sherbrooke—that represents enormous costs for it. We need to know that there is a federal fund that will help us support that. The federal government is providing a smaller and smaller percentage of infrastructure-related costs. A 20-year plan would enable us to do a better job of planning projects and federal government support for major projects.

Next, we want the plan to include clear targets and funding criteria. We want transparent, accountable, non-partisan funding mechanisms to facilitate the application process. As I explained earlier, partisanship is the order of the day right now, so we want a plan that will prevent that from happening.

As well, we want a plan that encourages the use of innovative technologies for greater efficiency and sustainability. We want to set aside funds for replacing and expanding infrastructure in rural, remote and northern regions, and for public transit, to reduce commuting times between home and work.

Public transit is a major issue for Montreal, so I am going to say a little more about that. I will start with two quotations that support my argument. Quebec's transportation ministry produced a report on traffic congestion that says:

By 2016, the number of trips per day in the Montreal metropolitan area will increase by two million, a 25% increase, and we will have to manage 10.2 million trips per day.

This goes to show that we have a lot of congestion in Montreal. As further evidence, I read about a TomTom GPS survey in The Gazette. I quote:

A North American traffic survey conducted by the TomTom GPS manufacturer found that of the 26 cities studied, Montreal ranked number four when it came to traffic delays. ... Montrealers are delayed a total of 92 hours a year because of traffic jams.

So we are wasting 92 hours of our lives sitting in our cars. That is incredible.

People in my riding are coping with some really serious problems. Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lachine, Dorval and Montreal West are located on the west side of Montreal. Unfortunately, I do not have a metro station in my riding because I live on the outskirts. We manage with the commuter trains and the bus system, which are unfortunately not very efficient.

MPs from Montreal met with the STM officials two weeks ago to talk about this. I asked them what was happening. In my riding, when I travel from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to Lachine by car, it takes me 10 minutes. Walking is not really an option; it would take an hour because it involves crossing highway 20. Buses are rare, and they take about an hour and a half. Some of my employees who live in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, in my relatively small riding, spend over an hour on the bus.

Constituents have called me to say that they would like to come and see me at my office, but that getting there is a problem. The Loyola campus of Concordia University is in my riding. A lot of students find this situation difficult. The 92 hours they spend on public transit means 92 hours they cannot spend studying or working, if they need to work because tuition fees are high. But that is a whole different issue.

This is really a problem. These people who come to see me are families who cannot spend time with their children, or partners who see less of each other. It is sad.

The Train de l'Ouest—the line from Vaudreuil to downtown—is another project in my riding. We have a lot of problems with that line. It is the only train that travels fairly quickly from my riding to downtown Montreal, but not often. There are 16 trains a day, and we are having trouble getting more funding to completely rebuild the western line. It will be very expensive. We do not yet know what is going to happen with this project. The federal government has not promised to provide enough money to improve the situation. This affects my constituents’ quality of life.

I find it sad for the people who voted for the Conservatives. Their slogan was: my region in power. If the people voted for the Conservatives, money would flow to the riding. If they did not vote for the Conservatives, then there would be no money. Senator Smith, who at the time was running in Lac-Saint-Louis, said that if constituents wanted the Train de l'Ouest, then they needed to vote for him. Sadly, it seems he was right.

I would like to conclude by mentioning another misguided infrastructure project in my riding, namely the Vendôme metro station. It is not accessible. A person with disabilities cannot access the metro, yet the new Montreal hospital is under construction a mere 20 minutes away.

We want a stable, long-term, non-partisan infrastructure plan, one that addresses problems of this nature. Right now, the situation is discouraging. I hope the 2013 budget contains a plan. VIA Rail was hit with massive cuts, which is very sad.

I hope that the government will continue to invest in infrastructure and give us projects that make sense.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Trois-Rivières for his excellent question.

That was the key part of my speech. The Conservatives do not understand the costs that will be incurred at the local level. If they did, this bill would not be before us today.

As I said, improvements need to be made in three areas. It is true that the Conservatives improved two of those, but they are basically asking us for a miracle. I am sorry, but these days we cannot do more with less. And that is exactly what the Conservatives are trying to have us believe. That is what they always say. They say that less money will be allocated, but the same services will be available and that more people will have protection with the same services. That is not possible. We can see it happening now. Ministers are telling us that everything is fine, that cuts have been made to very important departments—

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, it is important to decide whether we want an independent agency to take care of that.

A study is absolutely essential. Witnesses can confirm this for us. Do we need an independent agency? I think so. We will have to study this matter further.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very relevant question.

My speech had three main points, one of which was co-operation with the provinces. I think this aspect will be improved. Another point was expanding the eligibility criteria for witnesses, and this aspect has been improved considerably.

In the case of Air India, one witness was ready to testify, but unfortunately he died. So, there were no more witnesses, because people were afraid. That is normal.

I am trying to imagine what it would be like to be young and get caught up in a street gang. By all accounts, if I were to testify and denounce someone, I would need to be absolutely certain that I would be protected. It is extremely stressful; it would take a lot of courage to do it.

It is important to provide the tools needed. It would not require much funding. We could compare this to other government spending: for instance, one minister orders photo ops that cost millions of dollars, while another uses a helicopter like a taxi cab. Then the Conservatives tell me there is not enough money to protect witnesses. Come on. What country are we living in?

To answer my colleague's question, there are flaws. The RCMP made three recommendations. It needed more money and the government has not come through in that regard. I hope that the government will be open during review in committee, that it will move forward and invest more money in this. If we want to protect witnesses, then we need money.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

When a Liberal member rises and says that we should create an independent organization to protect witnesses, I immediately have to wonder why this has not been done in the past. The Liberals were in power long enough to do something about it.

That said, if the Liberals propose this in committee, although I am unfortunately not a member of that committee, my NDP colleagues will definitely question the witnesses in that regard and try to ensure that better decisions are made.

We support this bill at this time, so that it can be sent to committee for further examination. I am sure that everyone will be open to these kinds of things.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51, which is intended to make witnesses in Canada safer.

Naturally, the NDP will support the underlying principle so that the bill can go to committee. However, the NDP is once again asking the government to broaden criteria for witness protection program eligibility to ensure the safety of all Canadians who might be in danger.

To that end, my colleagues in the House will recall the remarks made by the member for Trinity—Spadina last November. She stood up, as I am standing today, to urge the government to support the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our local police forces. The federal witness protection program does not have enough funding, its selection criteria are too narrow, and there is not enough co-operation among the three levels of government when it comes to protecting witnesses.

My colleague from Trinity—Spadina also pointed out that our local police forces and the RCMP have a very hard time convincing witnesses to speak out against street gangs, a scourge that also affects my riding, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

The NDP is committing to building safer communities. One of the ways we plan on doing that is by improving the federal witness protection program and giving police forces additional tools to combat street gangs. I speak from experience with the urban context in my riding, but it is just as important to protect potential witnesses who live in the suburbs or in rural areas across Canada.

In Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the police are working hard to combat the influence of street gangs. My riding is a suburb of Montreal. We are talking about Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Uptown and the suburbs of Lachine and Dorval. Street gangs and human trafficking are serious problems in an area of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. There is a lot of prostitution, drugs and $25-an-hour hotels, if you know what I mean.

Eastern Lachine also has a lot of problems with drugs and street gangs. Members of the Dalbé-Viau high school community, which is in the area, are afraid because people often come to recruit students after school. The police are very focused on the issue of street gangs in my riding.

When the local population feels safe, it co-operates with the local police force in order to better serve the neighbourhood. However, our police forces do not have enough resources. For local communities in Canada, strengthening the federal witness protection program will improve co-operation with local police forces and the RCMP in their efforts to fight violence and will increase the safety of our communities.

I am talking about the lack of resources. The east end of Lachine has a big problem with street gangs. However, we are lucky because the local newspaper, Le Messager Lachine & Dorval, publishes two pages every week where police station No. 8 provides information about crimes that were committed and asks for help from the community.

I believe this is a good example of a local newspaper working together with the police force. However, it also shows that the police force really must lack resources, since it has to go through the community newspaper to ask for help from witnesses to crimes involving street gangs. This does not happen in other parts of my riding. When such crimes are committed in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the newspaper does not work with the police force. The police have to go out and find witnesses, because it is not easy and they are very afraid.

Earlier I talked about prostitution in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. As indicated by a Conservative member, one who has worked very hard on the issue of human trafficking, victims are often the ones who become prostitutes. It is very difficult to seek them out and get their testimony. These victims are afraid for themselves and their families. They do not always trust the police; they have to be sought out. If they are not given adequate protection, of course they will be less likely to give testimony.

Since 2007, the NDP has been asking the government for this on behalf of Canadians who do not have legitimate protection. We are thrilled that this is finally before the House today. We have been calling for this for some time, and as my colleagues have mentioned, this government has been in power for seven years. The Liberals did not take care of this matter either. We need to do something, and fast.

I would like to focus on three key points that, I think, still need to be discussed regarding Bill C-51: expanding the eligibility criteria, co-operation with the provinces, and insufficient funding.

As for expanding the eligibility criteria, for quite some time now, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its eligibility criteria, which are too strict, because not many witnesses are admitted to the program.

According to a Public Safety report, only 30 of the 108 cases assessed for the program were accepted in the year ending on March 31, 2012. This translates into an admission rate of 28%. Since we are good parliamentarians, this compels us to really look at the program's shortcomings and ask some questions here today.

We are talking about witness protection. But the government says it is tough on crime. I do not understand. To be tough on crime, we need help from witnesses. That is the key to solving crimes. If there are no witnesses to provide information, charges cannot be laid. It is key that we protect witnesses because if we do not, they will not come back. No witnesses will ever come forward, and that will not set a good example for others. In the case of street gangs, it is often internal witnesses that come forward. If gang members know that one of their gang friends told the police about a crime that had been committed and then that friend is never seen again, it is a given that they will not want to testify.

The eligibility criteria have been expanded. Bill C-51 says the following, and I quote:

expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result;

Bill C-51 will expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program—and I am very happy about that—in particular, by including a new group of eligible people, those who assist federal departments.

Consider the case of a person who wants to testify against an organized crime group or a street gang. Think about the stress such individuals will experience and the courage they will need to testify. Add to this the fact that these witnesses will most likely be testifying against someone they know. This is where the federal witness protection program comes into play.

As I said earlier, federal departments and agencies that have a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to recommend witnesses for the program.

Human trafficking is a real problem in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Many young women work as prostitutes, often without earning any money themselves, because they have a pimp. The documentary Avenue Zero addresses this issue. It raises a number of questions and paints a picture of the human trafficking problem in Canada today. The documentary was filmed in various parts of the country and ends in my riding. It is not a Quebec production as such, but the closing scenes were filmed on Saint-Jacques Boulevard in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, where a number of seedy hotels used by prostitutes are located.

I recall very vividly a victim who gave testimony to a female RCMP officer responsible specifically for human trafficking. The victim recounted how it had taken her a very long time to testify against the people who were abusing her and forcing her into a life of drugs and prostitution.

It makes my skin crawl. She initially testified that she did not always trust the police because it was hard for them to think of a prostitute as a victim. She stated that she was now very happy because she knew that the City of Montreal was working hard to make officers assigned to neighbourhood police stations more aware of the fact that, in the world of prostitution, prostitutes are not always the criminals, but rather the victims.

She explained how she needed a lot of time and courage, how she feared for her life, and for the lives of her sister and parents. She had to go to the police, but that was hard to do without being spotted. Once she arrived at the station, she had to tell everything she knew and the police recorded it all.

These actions require extraordinary courage. There is no denying the existence of vast sex trafficking networks in Canada. Proposed legislation on human trafficking is before the House right now because trafficking is going on around us and the victims require protection.

When I see that there were 30 people under witness protection, I have to ask myself some questions.

The same goes for drugs. Often, the people involved are young. The Polyvalente Dalbé-Viau is a high school in Lachine, which is in my riding. Lachine has a troubled history because of street gangs. There was once a cannabis café in Lachine. That brought a lot of problems to my neighbourhood. Since then, people have been going to the school and recruiting young people to sell drugs, recruiting young women to go into prostitution, and bullying. If nobody wants to testify against such people because there is no protection, as I said earlier, then what is the point of the program?

Another purpose of Bill C-51 is very useful:

(h) extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program;

I think that this is important too because the bill will extend the emergency protection period. It will eliminate some technical problems related to coordination among provincial programs.

The second point I want to discuss about the federal witness protection program is co-operation with the provinces. I think that is very important. As a number of my colleagues mentioned, a certain level of coordination is necessary, but right now, that coordination is not consistent. Ontario and Alberta have called on the government to revamp the witness protection program. Bill C-51 would allow for the designation of provincial and municipal witness protection programs so that some provisions of the act apply, which I think is very good.

It would also authorize the RCMP commissioner to coordinate, at the request of appropriate, non-political officials of a designated program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated programs.

As I said, I think that is very important.

And, since the government does not seem to be paying attention, I will repeat what we have been saying all day: there is not enough funding.

It is clear that changes cannot be made and more people cannot be protected unless there is more funding. That makes no sense at all. How can the Conservative government improve the witness protection program if it does not allocate the necessary funding and personnel?

The government must invest money to bring these measures to fruition, as called for by the RCMP. Why did the Conservatives refuse to provide additional funding for this program? No one knows.

It will be very difficult for local police forces and the RCMP to work with the existing budget and effectively manage the growing demand for this program.

If I recall correctly, the current program cost $9 million during the 2012 fiscal year, which is not that expensive. However, if we want to protect people, we have to allocate the money needed. One plus one equals two. This will put a huge operational burden on witness protection groups.

As my colleague and friend mentioned earlier, it is difficult for local police forces to set budgets for protecting witnesses. The context varies from one city to the next. A city like mine, Lachine, has lots of expenses related to all kinds of other things. In my opinion, based on the new criteria, many witnesses will be accepted into the program. We cannot keep accepting people and then refuse to pay for them. That makes no sense. Perhaps the Conservatives do not realize how much money this could cost.

The RCMP websites states the following:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

The RCMP website states that, under the current criteria, there is not enough money to conduct in-depth investigations. There is a shortage of witnesses and no money to protect them.

Today, the Conservative government is telling us that it will admit more witnesses because it is expanding its criteria. That is a good thing; I agree. It is a step in the right direction. But they are telling us that they will admit more witnesses without providing more money. That does not make sense.

We are also concerned about transparency. In May 2010, the RCMP submitted a report to the Minister of Public Safety in which it requested that the witness protection program be enhanced. We were never informed of this. We managed to obtain a copy of this report in December 2012 through the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The government has difficulty being transparent and this is another prime example of that.

In conclusion, this is definitely a positive piece of legislation. I am very pleased that the criteria are being expanded. I believe that protecting victims is the most important consideration in these cases but that this is an area that needs improvement, as proven by the fact that only 30 witnesses were admitted to the program in 2012. If we want to punish crime, we must first be in a position to call witnesses in order to ensure that a crime was indeed committed and that the investigation will be conducted efficiently. In my opinion, it will be difficult to use these new tools without the necessary funding. When the bill is studied in committee, I hope that the government will be open to discussing the possibility of making amendments.

Today, the parliamentary secretary often repeated that the objective of the bill is to expand the criteria. That is fine, but we have to be able to use these new criteria and apply them with the help of the requisite resources.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Women's issues are really important to her, and she does an outstanding job in committee.

I would like to go back to the quote about how the problem is not harassment, but the idea of harassment. In committee, we proposed mandatory anti-harassment training for RCMP employees, for example.

I would like my colleague to comment a little more on that. How could including anti-harassment training in this bill have made a difference at the RCMP?