Gérard Asselin

[Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member who sits on both the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

These past few week, several bills have been put forward in this House in an effort to strengthen justice and provide tools for that purpose. Besides wanting to build prisons and throwing people in jail, the government is also talking about providing the necessary tools.

The member who just spoke, to whom I am putting my question, was a police officer in Ontario before becoming a member of Parliament. I would like him to tell me whether the gun registry is an essential tool that police use from time to time in Ontario. Did he use the gun registry when he was a police officer? Given that the association supported the government's decision to maintain the gun registry, did he use the registry when he was a police officer?

[Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, hunters on the north shore are well aware that in order to hunt, they have to register their ATV, their boat, their trailer, their truck and also their hunting camp. At the time, they decided to take part in the system, which was not necessarily comprehensive. But in order to use a hunting rifle, a hunter had to register it.

The Conservatives are living in the past. This has been resolved. This is the system in place now. Anyone who wants to use equipment has to register it. The police in Quebec and in Canada support the firearms registry, which has led to a decrease in the crime rate.

[Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I found his remarks somewhat contradictory.

He said that he has five children and wants to protect them. He said that the Minister of Justice has introduced legislation in keeping with the commitments made by the Conservative Party. Something is also in the works to give police the tools they need to do their job and maintain law and order on our streets to keep people safe.

He used very often and repeatedly the word safety in his speech. Is it not somewhat contradictory for the Conservatives to be introducing this kind of bill, which not only does not abolish parole after one-sixth of sentence, but also takes away from police a trump card that allowed them to act? On top of that, they want to abolish the gun registry. Will it not just thrill criminals to bits to be able to carry and use as they please hunting guns or handguns without having to register them?

I would like the member to tell me this: Can we protect people while at the same time allowing criminals to carry unregistered firearms?

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the question I wish to ask will also be very brief, because the member who just spoke is on the government side.

Why has no one questioned the minister, or at least tried to convince him, about the fact that if they really wanted to solve the problem of these crooks who steal from honest people, this bill should have included the elimination of the one-sixth practice, and prohibited the transfer of any fraudulent earnings to tax havens?

Why does this bill set the amount at $1 million? When someone steals $900,000, are they not still a crook? Is that not fraud? Is it only considered fraud if the amount is at least $1 million? There are certain things we do not understand and we would like the member from the government side to explain them to us.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think the Conservative Party has really missed the mark. If they really wanted to solve the problem with this bill, tax havens and the one-sixth practice also needed to be eliminated. Sentences handed down to these crooks would be served. For instance, Vincent Lacroix would serve 14 years. It would also prevent these crooks from stashing their spoils in tax havens, particularly in Barbados.

When Vincent Lacroix gets out of prison in two years, he will be able to retrieve his spoils, his jackpot. He will be able to live off the money he hid in tax havens.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and I am left with a number of questions. I am sure that the voters who listened to his speech also have many questions.

We know that the Conservative Party hoped this bill would solve the problem with white collar criminals. Members will remember Vincent Lacroix. Earl Jones is another such case. I would like to ask the member why they settled on the figure of $1 million. Is there small fraud and large fraud? Someone who cheated others out of $900,000 would not be covered by this bill, while someone who committed fraud of over $1 million would.

Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones stole public money. They jeopardized the financial security of our seniors, of those who invested and who trusted them. Why did the Conservatives not include a provision to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served? That would have ensured that Vincent Lacroix would serve his 14 years in prison, instead of two years. But the Conservatives did not include such a provision. They say that they want to, but they are not doing it.

The other thing is that they allowed Vincent Lacroix, and other fraudsters, to hide their money in foreign countries, with the problem of—

[Supreme Court of Canada, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court handed down yesterday declared that Quebec's Bill 104 is unconstitutional. This bill closed a loophole in the application of Bill 101, which ensures the protection and primacy of the French language in Quebec. The Supreme Court has made it possible for individuals to avoid obeying Bill 101 and to pay their children's way into the English public school system by first sending them to an unsubsidized English school for a while.

The Supreme Court is just like the Tower of Pisa; it keeps leaning in the same direction, in favour of the Canadian nation. It is disappointing to see that this decision invalidates the work that the Quebec nation has done to affirm and maintain the primacy of the French language.

It is unacceptable that a court from another nation would chew up and spit out a bill that was unanimously adopted by Quebeckers to protect their language. This is why the only way for French to survive is for Quebec to become a sovereign nation.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the companies that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred to are not just making money, they are harming the health of their own workers and that of people living in the regions in which they operate. The activities of companies looking for uranium on the north shore, mainly around Sept-Îles, are detrimental to their employees and people living on the north shore.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's fine speech.

It is not just abroad that many Canadian companies are doing this kind of thing. Companies mining for uranium have done some testing at Sept-Îles on the North Shore. They did some drilling and took some core samples, and everything was left on site. Everything was left with no supervision from Environment Canada, and the Canadian government does not care.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had to be called upon, because these Canadian companies are doing this not only abroad, but also in Quebec on the North Shore, for instance, in uranium mining. They left exploratory samples—they were hoping to find uranium—on the side of the road that runs along the Moisie River, a salmon river, as well as near the water intake for the city of Sept-Îles. Not only are environmental regulations needed, but we must also be much more vigilant, because companies are doing this kind of thing right here, as well as abroad, and they have no qualms about it.

I wonder if my hon. colleague knew that this was happening not only abroad, but also in Quebec. I would like to hear her comments on that.

[National Defence, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has confirmed that the Bagotville base will not be selected as the home of the new Chinook helicopters, under the pathetic pretext that Bagotville did not meet the requirements to accommodate this kind of aircraft, which is completely false.

By excluding Bagotville, is the Conservative government not demonstrating once again its disregard for Quebec's economic interests?