Denis Blanchette

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several speeches. What I like is that every NDP member who has spoken has contributed something different to the debate. I thank my colleague for her speech. I especially enjoyed hearing about her experience as an immigrant. She gave us a different perspective on the debate. We look at it from the viewpoint of those who welcome immigrants, but it is also important to hear about the perspective of the people who immigrate to Canada.

I was struck by one aspect of her speech. She talked about the definition of serious criminality and how it is perceived elsewhere. How can we improve this bill for people who are not really criminals? There are also political considerations. How can we improve the definition in order to be fair to people who apply to Canada?

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 17th, 2012]

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

All afternoon, I have listened to debates and questions. I am asking myself a question about this bill. Does this bill really help victims? Does it not, rather, seek to take a little more revenge on those who have committed crimes?

My question for my colleague is this. Will this bill really help victims or is there not a better way to help them?

[Petitions, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present a petition calling for a national public transit strategy.

[Employment Insurance, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear whose pockets are being lined with this wealth they claim to be creating. It is obvious when we look at the corporate bonuses that go to the CEOs.

Statistics Canada's data are clear. Since 2007, entirely on the Conservatives' watch, the average income of Canadian families did not move. And with the new employment insurance rules, people will be forced to take jobs that pay 30% less.

Can the government tell us why Canadian families are not benefiting from the Conservatives' economic policies?

[National Defence, June 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same old, same old when it comes to the F-35s.

The governance structure for the new F-35 secretariat is made up of the same players who were fingered in the Auditor General's report. In fact, these three deputy ministers had to explain themselves before the public accounts committee.

How do the Conservatives expect to get different results by changing only the exterior, and not the contents?

[Artifacts, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec City has built its reputation on the wealth of its heritage, which draws thousands of tourists to the city every year. Instead of focusing on this heritage, the Conservatives are relocating five million artifacts to the federal capital. What is more, they are doing the same to Calgary, Winnipeg, Cornwall and Halifax.

Crating, transporting, uncrating, installing and classifying the artifacts in a new building will cost millions of dollars, and it is not clear that this will save any money in the long run.

Why spend so much money to lock up these artifacts? Why not give cities like Quebec City the chance to use the artifacts as tourist attractions and enjoy the resulting economic spinoffs?

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2012-13, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board confirm to members of the House that the bill is in its usual form?

[Main Estimates, 2012-13, June 6th, 2012]

(On clause 2)

Madam Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board confirm to members of the House that the bill is in its usual form?

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

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

In an earlier question for a government member, I said that this bill is the government's admission of weakness with respect to the pension plan problem. I would like her to comment on that.

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech given by my colleague from Burlington.

This bill is an admission of weakness in the sense that the premise is that since people cannot change their pension plans, the Conservatives are merely falling back on something else, something smaller, for a small group.

It seems to me that a government needs to show some leadership. If it is going to set out on a crusade, it must do so confidently and convincingly. I am sure that if the government had decided to try to convince the provinces that improving public pension plans was the way to go, it would have had the unanimous consent of the House.

So is this bill not an admission of weakness?