Françoise Boivin

[Firearms Registry, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not. Let me be clear on the record, I do not want to prosecute. That is in the amendments we presented in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vague recollection of a speech by the Prime Minister in the 2006 election campaign that spoke of open federalism. That was a long time ago. Rather than uncorking the champagne, this government should admit the contempt it has shown towards Quebeckers. Even Alberta admits that nothing justifies depriving the provinces of data paid for by taxpayers in order to protect them.

Will this government finally listen to the provinces?

[Firearms Registry, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble believing a government that, to date, has accepted so few amendments to the bills studied in committee. I have even more difficulty believing an irresponsible government that dismantles the firearms registry in the name of privacy rights on the very same day that it introduces a bill enabling police officers to spy on law-abiding Canadians as if they were criminals. It is clear that this government is refusing to stand up for the rights of victims of gun related crimes. The government is ignoring the warnings of police chiefs and the families of victims. And, now, it is ignoring the provinces that wish to keep the data.

Will the government preserve the data in the registry until a final decision is made concerning the court challenge—

[Public Safety, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, day after day, I find it hard to believe that the minister is capable of giving that kind of response with a straight face.

It is time for the government to be transparent with Canadians regarding the implications of the government bill on surveillance. This bill means that police officers and even the Commissioner of Competition will have access to Canadians' personal information at any time and for any reason. The Prime Minister admitted that this bill has a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed.

Will the government commit to withdrawing the foolish provisions concerning warrantless access that its own members have trouble accepting?

[Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I too was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which considered the issue of abolishing the long gun registry. My remarks or my question will not make him change his mind. On this side of the House, we are aware that the Conservatives are so convinced that they are right, and their position on the registry is so ideological, that we would be wasting our breath trying to get them to listen to reason.

However, there is one thing I would like to say to the House. The Conservatives often go out of their way to say that the NDP members who voted for the registry must respect the mandate they received from their constituents. But I am wondering if the hon. member is aware that these members were re-elected on May 2, 2011, after changing their minds because they were convinced that the hon. Jack Layton's position was well founded. He said that we were going to improve the registry so that hunters did not feel singled out, and that is what we did. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not listen to anything we had to say.

[Public Safety, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, shame on this government, which is making things up as it goes along. It is shameful. Canadians are not foolish enough to believe the minister of insecurity's doublespeak. This bill is useless and endangers the rights and freedoms that are especially important to Canadians. This bill is going to create an unbelievable surveillance machine. Service providers will have to collect and divulge information about all of their clients. Who is going to pay for the government's spy work? Canadians will have to pay for it when their service providers send them the bill.

Do the Conservatives know how much their Big Brother bill is going to cost Canadians?

[Public Safety, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I remain skeptical. To date, this government has not proved to be open-minded and has not even considered letting the opposition introduce amendments.

This bill was quickly renamed to give it a title that will allow the minister of public insecurity to constantly give his petty little answers. I have serious doubts. Under this bill, personal information will be provided to the authorities without a warrant for any reason, when service providers already provide the police with the information they request in 94% of cases.

Will the Conservatives scrap this bill—

[Public Safety, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is so sad because I had the same offer for him from our side, although I have doubts about that.

Once again, the government will not listen to anyone who contradicts it. Quebec's information and privacy commissioner clearly said that this bill goes too far. The rights and freedoms of Canadians will once again be flouted by this government.

Why is this government being so stubborn and refusing to listen to the experts? What about transparency? Is the government waiting for a court challenge?

[Public Safety, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we feel the love coming from the other side of the House, that is for sure.

A minister of public insecurity has introduced a Conservative bill on lawful access that treats law-abiding citizens like criminals. I think I have heard that somewhere before. I agree we need to protect those who are more vulnerable, but we could do so without giving the government the power to spy on all Canadians.

Why are the Conservatives so eager to protect the personal information of hunters, while giving themselves the power to infringe upon the personal freedoms of all Canadians?

[Justice, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the thing I can count on is that this is a minister who speaks without any scientific evidence. Did he have any? No, he did not.

As a lawyer, allow me to help the minister by giving him some legal information. In Ottawa alone, court delays are already six to seven months. After eight or 10 months, defence lawyers usually start to get impatient and ask for the proceedings to be stayed. The Conservatives can talk about being tough on crime, but the only things this bill is tough on are the legal system and taxpayers.

When will this government stop playing political games and start rethinking this disastrous bill?

[Justice, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the difference between a Conservative and a New Democrat is that a Conservative turns a blind eye where a New Democrat is able to analyze the facts before making a decision.

Let us talk about bad decisions. The Canadian Bar Association is sounding the alarm, saying that the Conservatives' crime bill could free more accused criminals than it incarcerates. A minimum sentence means that more cases will have to go before the courts, which will increase the waiting time even more.

I have a very simple question for the minister: according to his department, how many cases will be dismissed for unreasonable delays, if this bill passes?