Gilles Duceppe

[Justice, October 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about conditional sentences, but he did not respond, and I know why.

Now, the minister is talking about economic crimes. In fact, we have talked to the victims.

The Conservatives are saying that they want to eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. But as for the two-year minimum sentence he is proposing for fraud over $1 million, the minister has not been able to cite a single case, because there are none. That is not the problem. The problem is offenders who get parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence.

I challenge him to include parole after one-sixth of a sentence in his bill. Otherwise, it is all talk and no action.

[Justice, October 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with the government's proposed new legislation to eliminate conditional sentences, an individual found guilty of perjury, for example—which is unfortunately what happened to Guy Lafleur—would be required to serve his sentence in prison, regardless of the circumstances, unless the sentence were suspended.

In his ideological stubbornness, does the Prime Minister realize that he is removing any leeway judges have to impose fair, humane sentences that reflect the circumstances of the case?

[Justice, October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, he will introduce the measures when Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones are eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their sentences.

He could have agreed to the Bloc's proposal that these two individuals not be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence but he preferred to do nothing. This is also the case for tax havens: the government refuses to introduce any legislation. Consequently, once white-collar criminals are paroled they can access the money that they transferred to tax havens without any worries.

Is that the Prime Minister's fight against white-collar crime?

[Justice, October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister is not tackling the real problems with his bill on white-collar crime. In fact, the bill announced does not abolish parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, nor does it go after tax havens, two measures that would directly target white-collar criminals.

How does the Prime Minister expect to truly tackle white-collar crime with a bill that is so flawed?

[Infrastructure, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny; Conservative ministers were there to announce the renovation of the Champlain Bridge. Now, they want nothing to do with it. It is rather odd, to say the least.

This government does not have money for unemployed workers, for families, for the forestry industry or the manufacturing industry. But it does not think twice about spending more than $100,000 to announce its latest progress report on the economic recovery. That is unacceptable.

How can the Conservatives explain this?

[Infrastructure, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, although it promised to clean up the Liberals' sponsorship scandal mess, this government is doing exactly the same thing by using taxpayer money for party purposes. First we learn that they distributed hundreds of cheques with the party logo on them, and now we learn that a company with a Conservative senator on its payroll was awarded a federal contract.

How does the Prime Minister explain this influence peddling and this partisan use of taxpayer money?

[Employment Insurance, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister can tell us how many unemployed workers will be affected and where, we will think about it. For the moment he is unable to give us that information. I would like to come back to his statement that contribution rates are set by an independent institution.

If that is true, how can he forecast that there will be a nearly $19 billion surplus between 2012 and 2015? Where did he get these figures? What is he basing them on? Either he knows the contribution rate in advance or his table is not true. One of the two pieces of information is a lie. Which is the lie?

[Employment Insurance, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Bloc Québécois that came up with the idea of an independent employment insurance fund. When the Prime Minister was the leader of the official opposition and we met behind closed doors, he said he agreed with our proposal. Now, in its latest economic statement, the government is forecasting a surplus of $18.9 billion between 2012 and 2015. Yet it is the fund itself that sets EI contribution rates, so it is impossible to predict a surplus.

Either the government knows the future contribution rate in advance or there is a mistake in its forecast table. One of the two pieces of information is false. Which is it?

[Cinar, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is funny; it would be very much in his interest to uncover what the opposition is up to. Is he refusing to do so because some Conservatives were also involved? Why is he refusing? Two parties, one attitude: a lack of transparency. If he is as transparent as he claims, he would release the memo he is hiding from us. He is the one in power now. He can easily ask for this memo to be released, so we know what the justice minister said to prevent the truth from coming out. He is in power. He needs to take action, or else he is just as guilty.

[Cinar, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked us to bring in new information in the Cinar case. Well, here it is. A case of documents concerning the production of Robinson Sucroe has disappeared from Telefilm Canada offices. Cinar admitted to committing fraud, by using only 10% of the funds, and a former RCMP investigator claimed that the Cinar investigation was going well until a memo was received from the justice minister, asking the RCMP not to press charges. Not to mention everything that is being kept hidden.

Will the Prime Minister finally abandon his opaque transparency and launch a public inquiry into the Cinar situation?