House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 24% of the vote.
Citizenship and Immigration October 27th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, last spring, all parties in this House agreed to reform the asylum system to ensure that all refugees are treated fairly and have access to a new appeal section. With its bill to supposedly fight illegal immigration, the government is insisting on creating a second category of refugees based on their method of arrival in Canada.
Why is the government coming back with a discriminatory bill that creates two classes of refugees?
Business of Supply October 21st, 2010
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.
We have been debating since this morning and it feels good to finally hear something rational and logical, to have a coherent discussion. This morning, the NDP pathetically tried to say that the Bloc is taking advantage of this opposition day to talk about an issue that has been of concern to it since 1993 and that was brought back into the news recently by the hon. member for Beauce, and that suddenly, the Bloc has become a right wing party and a fan of the hon. member for Beauce. The utterly ridiculous thing about that is that the NDP will be voting with the Conservatives. If we follow their partisan logic, the NDP is becoming a right wing party since its members are voting with the Conservatives on this motion. This rationale only goes so far.
Does my colleague think that the strategy the NDP used this morning is nothing but a diversion to avoid speaking to the heart of the matter, namely that it is a centralizing party to the extreme? We saw that recently with the social housing bill, where they voluntarily excluded the possibility of opting out for Quebec. They had done that in the past for other bills and they chose not to take that route.
Is this not just a diversion and is that not the most centralizing party in the House?
Business of Supply October 21st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed in the speech from the NDP leader, who tried to associate us with the member from Beauce simply because we have used one of his ideas in our proposal. Even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day. That is the case with the proposal from the member for Beauce.
That said, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing the elimination of the so-called spending power since 1993. And now they are saying that we are just playing politics. I would respectfully submit that the most pitiful example of partisan politics was the vote on the gun registry and the manoeuvring done by the leader of the NDP.
If he is open to the Government of Quebec's right to opt out with compensation, why did he not include it in his latest bill on social housing?
Citizenship and Immigration October 18th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, according to Rue Frontenac, most of the decisions handed down last year by the immigration appeal division in Montreal were in English. First the IRB refused to translate documents into French and provide functional interpretation in French, and now we learn that two board members in Montreal are unilingual anglophones who are unable to hear cases in French.
When will the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stop making life difficult for applicants who want to be heard in French?
Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act October 5th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, in his eloquent speech, my colleague demonstrated the wisdom of the Bloc Québécois' position.
He also decried the Conservatives' grandstanding. I would like to add something to that and ask his opinion. The Conservatives have an increasingly ludicrous habit of giving their bills ridiculous titles such as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, Sébastien's Law or the Keeping Canadians Safe Act. The bill title has become a kind of political marketing tool instead of an objective description of the bill's scope, as is usually the case in the House.
Does my colleague feel that this demonstrates the Conservatives' grandstanding?
Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act October 5th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. Personally, I am quite worried by the Conservatives' approach to crime. The bill before us today deals with the issue of serious and violent crime. Yet at the same time, the government is doing everything in its power to abolish the gun registry, which the police want to have at their disposal because it helps them in their work.
This morning we spoke about another bill concerning justice and white-collar crime. This government, just like the Liberal government before it, is refusing to address the issue of tax havens. Even if white-collar criminals are put in prison for a while, if they can hide their money in tax havens around the world and spend the rest of their days living off the proceeds of their crime, it is not much of a deterrent.
Does my colleague have the same worries about the Conservative government's doublespeak and hypocrisy when it comes to justice issues? They play the tough guy and boast that they are tough on crime. But when it comes time to take real measures, and not just change the length of a prison sentence in a bill—and you have to wonder if criminals often read the Criminal Code—that is another story. They need to do more than just grandstand. We need real, meaningful measures to fight crime and, in terms of prevention, measures for gun control and control of tax havens. Is that not doublespeak right there? The government has done nothing in terms of prevention, but it has been very big on repression.
Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act October 5th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I am always fascinated by the Conservatives' double-talk when it comes to justice issues. They say they are going to get tough on crime, yet they leave more guns in circulation. All police officers are calling for the gun registry to be maintained, but the Conservative government will not listen to them.
Of course they always quote some “Constable Smith”, a traffic cop in some unknown town, saying that he is against the firearms registry, yet every police chief of all major Canadian police forces and associations told us that the firearms registry was needed.
Does my colleague not find that there is something hypocritical—and I will connect the dots—about saying they will get tough on crime and give criminals longer jail sentences, and the fact that they want to make things easier for criminals and undermine the work of police officers by trying to destroy the firearms registry?
Petitions September 30th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people requesting that the House direct the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to use his ministerial discretion to grant a temporary resident permit to Mr. Freeman on humanitarian and compassionate grounds so that he can be reunited with his family.
Mr. Freeman has spent most of his life in Canada. He has four Canadian-born children and his wife is Canadian. He had a run-in with the American justice system at a time when there was significant racial violence in Chicago. He has fully paid his debt to society, having served his entire sentence in the United States following a plea bargain with American prosecutors.
Those who have signed the petition feel that we should help him so that he can be with his family again.
Business of Supply September 28th, 2010
Madam Speaker, the minister's argument is rather inconsistent because he still supports the mandatory short form census with the same sanctions. We know that one of the questions requires the respondent to provide their date of birth and it is mandatory that the person respond. I have always been told that it is impolite to ask a woman her date of birth or her age. It is simply not done. It is too personal.
The minister is accusing the opposition of wanting to put people in prison because we want them to fill out the form, but he is the one insisting that everyone—men and women alike—give their date of birth to census workers. Why does he want to put people in jail for refusing to provide their date of birth?
It is absurd. The minister does not want to put people in jail any more than any member of Parliament wants to. By all accounts, to have reliable data, we have to make sure people respond in a reliable way.
I would like the minister to explain this contradiction.
Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act September 23rd, 2010
Madam Speaker, when the committee report on immigration consultants was passed, the first recommendation made by committee members was that immigration consultants working in Quebec should be regulated by Quebec.
The reason is simple. First, there is an immigration agreement between Quebec and Canada, which means that the immigration system in Quebec is quite different and requires different expertise. Second, in Quebec, there is the Office des professions du Québec as well as a whole regulatory framework. The provinces are responsible for governing professions.
The Liberals and the New Democratic Party supported this recommendation at the time. I would like to ask the member if her party still supports the committee's first recommendation. Is her party willing to study and support possible amendments in order to act on this recommendation?