Françoise Boivin

[Firearms Registry, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, both the chiefs of police and the provinces have told them the same thing. Women and victims say that this bill does not make sense.

What part of this does the government fail to understand?

[Firearms Registry, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting my colleague across the way. With answers like that, the parliamentary secretary is destroying the legacy of the victims from the Polytechnique, women who paid with their lives for the lack of control over high calibre weapons.

The government is so out of touch that dangerous weapons, like those that killed 14 women 22 years ago, will circulate freely.

The chiefs of police—

[Firearms Registry, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, 22 years ago today 14 women were killed by a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle. Soon that rifle could be sold with no safeguards, not even a confirmation of a valid gun licence. The Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar incredibly believes that shopkeepers' income tax forms would replace these safeguards. It is incredible, it is offensive, and it is just not true.

Even as we mourn, the government is going too far, moving ahead with its dangerous and unnecessary plan. Why?

[Firearms Registry, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today is the 22nd anniversary of the tragedy at École Polytechnique. We honour the memory of the 14 women who lost their lives that day. This is not a time for partisanship, especially in a House where women hold 25% of the seats. However, ironically, the firearms registry is set to be scrapped and the data in it completely destroyed this year, adding to the pain of this tragedy.

The registry was initially created in response to what happened at École Polytechnique. Last week, in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I heard survivors of this tragedy advocating for the continuation of the registry. Their testimony was quite upsetting. But the Conservatives remained unmoved. How can a government that claims to care about victims behave this way? How can Conservative MPs look the opposition in the eye and say that public safety is important to them?

It is not too late. The Conservatives can still transfer the data to the provinces, as Quebec is asking them to do. I still hope they will make the right decision to honour the memory of the victims who died on December 6, 1989.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we really hope this produces results, because this is not the first time we have heard that.

We are now hearing from another RCMP officer who is complaining about suffering sexual harassment almost daily. She says she was the victim of obscene remarks and discrimination that have no place in the RCMP. The growing list of similar allegations is another blow to the RCMP's reputation.

Does this government plan to turn a blind eye to these women's reports of systematic harassment on the part of high-ranking RCMP officials? Will it stand up to defend these women and do more than just call an inquiry? The facts exist; it is time to act.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Chief Government Whip's speech.

I would have liked to examine only the youth criminal justice system, but when we study a bill that amends nine laws, we cannot choose. It is a package deal.

When listening to the member opposite, I had even more difficulty understanding why the government did not accept the amendment proposed by Quebec and tabled in committee by the NDP on the long-term protection of the public. Since the hon. member spoke extensively about rehabilitation and public protection, what is the problem with the word “long-term”? In addition, the burden of proof is being shifted from the judge to the Crown. I would like to know what the problem was with judges in the previous program.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

Attempts to amend Bill C-10 were denied by the Speaker because those amendments should have been proposed during consideration in committee. These amendments had to do with compensating victims of terrorism. There had already been strong reactions with regard to victims of terrorism and the amendments we were trying to make to the bill. Everyone needed to grasp the importance of addressing this issue. There were flaws and problems in the way that victims could seek compensation from foreign countries. It is not clear that they will get money from foreign countries.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm to the House that these amendments will go to the Senate so that it can at least consider them before returning the bill to the House?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I have also appreciated working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights over the past two weeks, trying to amend a bill that most experts say will not enable the Conservative government to achieve its desired objective, which is to make our streets safer.

The debate in committee was rather difficult, since we heard inappropriate comments from our colleagues on the other side, who ridiculed us if we did not speak in favour of the bill. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

All the proposed amendments were cavalierly dismissed. What does my colleague think of the Minister of Public Safety's new idea to propose the amendments that have to do with the Terrorism Act, when it will be unelected members of the Senate discussing them?

[Justice, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why, but I sense that the Minister of Justice is going to hold many press conferences in the coming weeks.

I know this government does not care about numbers that do not support its ideology. If it did care, it would realize that 93% of Canadians feel safe in their communities. Still, it is moving forward with its ill-advised bill on law and order, even though the costs are unknown and the legislation is flawed by the government's own admission.

Why will the Conservatives not stop scaring people and start working with the opposition, to find a more balanced approach regarding the justice system?

[Justice, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what shocked Canadians this week was to see the Conservatives rush through their uncosted, ineffective crime bill. They shut down debate and now they are introducing their own 11th hour amendments to fix flaws in the bill.

Provinces, police, municipalities, crime experts and the legal community have all sounded the alarm, and now even the government is admitting that the bill is flawed.

Why has the government left it to the unelected Senate to patch up its failed bill?