Sylvie Boucher

[Justice, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance's chief of staff became directly involved in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, the Liberals did not admonish him. They rewarded him and gave him a promotion.

Now we learn that he threatened the staff of the former attorney general and tried to subvert the rule of law.

Why does this Prime Minister reward those who do his dirty work and fire those who stand up to him?

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, from interfering in justice files and numerous ethics breaches to false promises, backtracking and a deficit with no end in sight, this Liberal government has gone way off course.

One after another, party members are jumping ship, and when they do, the Liberals bash them. We are now seeing the Liberals' true colours as they squabble endlessly with the provinces and the rest of the world turns its back on us. They said Canada was back. They forgot to say the strife was back too.

Quebeckers deserve better. They deserve a government that respects provincial jurisdiction. They deserve responsible government. They deserve a government that listens to them, a government that will put an end to scandals of all kinds.

Quebeckers deserve proper representation. They deserve a blue wave.

[Criminal Records Act, May 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, that is not the issue. I was against marijuana legalization, but it is legal now.

Bill C-93 needs to be reworked so it no longer creates inequality. This bill needs to be revised because many elements of it are not working, not least of which is the astronomical price tag of $2.5 million.

We remember the long gun registry all too well. The Liberal government of the day promised it would cost $2.5 million. It ended up costing $2 billion. When we check the Liberals' math, we see that they keep getting Canadians further and further in debt. I am not going to take any lessons on economics from the Liberals.

[Criminal Records Act, May 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his question.

It is a good thing our vision differs from the Liberals'. We voted against legalizing marijuana and it is now legal. That said, Bill C-93 highlights the bill's shortcomings.

The government was improvising, and Bill C-45, its marijuana legalization bill, was rushed through Parliament. It did not have unanimous support. With this bill you told the provinces that they would have to figure things out. We will have to work together on Bill C-93.

I was indeed against the legalization of marijuana. If the government wants this bill to pass unanimously, we are going to have to review it carefully, because it creates a large number of inequalities, and I do not like inequality.

[Criminal Records Act, May 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

This bill follows on Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, which has been in force since October 17, 2018. Bill C-93 seeks to make changes to the pardon process and provide no-cost record suspensions for Canadians found guilty of simple possession of cannabis in the past. It also seeks to help Canadians who were convicted of using a drug that is now legal, since they will no longer have to go through the usual waiting period or pay the fees associated having their record suspended.

For this type of application, an offender would usually have to wait between five and ten years, depending on the conviction, after serving the sentence to obtain a pardon. Furthermore, the cost of the application is $631. The measure introduced by Bill C-94 would amend the Criminal Records Act and makes reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act. It goes without saying that this new legislative measure must be properly drafted or else it could potentially mislead many Canadians who could one day avail themselves of it.

For example, if this legislative measure were adopted as written in Bill C-93, the administrative costs would be grossly underestimated. Also, it would result in criminal information about offenders being maintained and remaining available, as in the case of pardons granted in a system parallel to that of the RCMP. This information would be available to foreign police services. This would allow U.S. customs officers, for example, to bar a Canadian convicted of simple possession of marijuana from entering the United States.

If a criminal record is not completely erased, it can have a life-long impact. This is counter to the purpose of the bill to ensure that all Canadians who have been convicted and have a criminal record will be able to travel to the United States without any problems.

My speech on this bill will focus primarily on one topic that is very important to all Canadians, specifically the sound management of public funds, which has never been the hallmark of a Liberal government. The Liberals have always been champions of debt. I think that the current government is a perfect example of that, here in the House. Accordingly, it is only responsible and even advisable to ask such important questions about Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money.

I have a serious concern about how much Bill C-93 will really cost. Based on our estimates, it could cost $315 million. The minister and his officials have said that it would cost around $2.5 million, because they expect that just 10,000 of the 250,000 eligible Canadians who have been convicted of one sole possession offence will apply.

Since we are talking about estimates, let us recall the boondoggle created by a Liberal government with the implementation of the national firearms registry in 1995. Let's talk about Liberal spending estimates.

I would like to remind members about how much the Liberals estimated it would cost to set up the infamous registry. At the time, it was supposed to cost $2 million. Do my colleagues remember how much the implementation of this very expensive and useless Liberal registry ended up costing? Surprise, it cost an estimated $2 billion. That is a far cry from the $2 million projected. So we can put this in proper context, I will say this: the cost was nearly 1,000 times the initial estimate. The Liberals are clearly not very good at estimates. In fact, I would say that they are the worst.

My concern, which is very justified and shared by many colleagues and taxpayers, makes it hard for me to believe the government's estimate of $2.5 million. It is obvious to anyone who has read the bill that even the government is not sure about this amount. Considering the significant bureaucratic effort required to analyze, validate and confirm the profile of each applicant, we are convinced that the Liberal government's cost estimates are well off the mark.

It is only natural for Canadians to find the government estimates set out in this bill rather dubious. It is important to remember that the Liberals promised to balance the budget in 2019. However, the only thing members will remember about the Liberals' legacy to our children and grandchildren is another $90 billion in debt. How long will it take us to pay that back? It will take at least 25 years. So much for the Liberals' estimates.

Given the painfully obvious past and present failures of Liberal governments as well as the government's claims that middle-class Canadians are its priority, I have to say that making the middle class bear the tax burden of this measure, the cost of which the government has obviously once again under-estimated, is unfair to honest people who have never had a criminal record and likely never will. Canadians work hard to earn a decent living to feed and house their families and to try to give them a decent education so that their generation will be richer than ours.

I will find it very difficult to support this bill if significant amendments are not made to ensure that justice is served for honest taxpayers and for the offenders who would benefit from a privilege paid for by said taxpayers.

I agree with expedited record suspensions for simple possession in principle, but we need to consider the cost. Canadian taxpayers deserve the truth when it comes to their money. I will always stand up for their right to demand transparency and accountability in the government's management of public funds. Once again, that does not seem to be the case with this bill.

There are so many problems with this legislation I hardly know where to start. The only way to make it worthwhile is to sit down together and go through it in detail to make sure Canadian taxpayers are treated fairly and are not made to foot the bill. Normally, pardons come at a cost, but these will be handed out for free. We need to look at all the ins and outs of this bill to make sure it is fair to everyone, and, most importantly, to make sure the government's numbers are accurate and costs will not end up ballooning like they did with the gun registry.

[The Senate, May 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the fact is that we want him to tell the truth.

[The Senate, May 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I get a real kick out of listening to the Liberals over there.

In January 2014, the Prime Minister booted Liberal senators out of his caucus. Now he is trying to convince everyone that newly appointed senators are independent.

Liberal blood is thicker than their respect for an independent appointment process, so it is not at all surprising that our newest senators were appointed because they are Liberal Party pals.

When will the Prime Minister stop lying to us, respect the process and tell the truth?

[Social Development, May 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the parliamentary secretary, that was not the issue. We are not talking about pitting people against each other. This is not about us or about other MPs. It is the Prime Minister himself who made headlines for his disparaging remarks. He said that the massive influx of male workers in rural Canada would have a negative social impact.

I live in a rural area where there are foreign workers. We have nothing negative to say about them. They work hard and contribute to our economy. My concern is that our Prime Minister is making insulting comments when he goes abroad. Whether it is about men or women, it has to stop. We are not the ones who need to apologize. It is the Prime Minister who needs to apologize for his comments—

[Social Development, May 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, at the G20 in Argentina, the Prime Minister once again made headlines for his disparaging remarks. He said that the influx of male workers in rural Canada would have a negative social impact. Seasonal workers have been coming to our rural regions for many years. They drive our economy and no one complains.

Instead of wondering how to adjust and adapt, should the Prime Minister not be happy that Canada has access to such a skilled workforce?

[Petitions, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, which will help fight the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

We will be debating this legislation tomorrow, and I hope it passes quickly.