Sylvie Boucher

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Of course, it is important that Canadians and Quebeckers have the impression that everyone is paying the same kinds of taxes. We often hear that that is not currently their impression. As for tax havens, of course I think we need to address this problem.

Today the Minister of National Revenue often repeated the same answer. However, looking at all the names listed, we saw that they were friends of the Liberals. My advice to the minister would be that she speak to her boss and get a list of his friends. She would also get their phone numbers.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, yes, I like to travel around a lot, too. I am a grassroots politician. It did some good, but at what price? One has to think about that.

When you say that, yes, we are the ones who thought of that, I would point out that, two years ago, you were the ones elected. It was already in our platform and that is what we would have done, but we were not elected. You were.

Before saying something and taking someone else's ideas, you should have thought about it first. You did not think about it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in the House, especially to speak to the fall economic statement.

I want to begin by thanking my leader for the excellent speech he gave today for the 150th anniversary of what we have become. He demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a statesman. I am very proud to stand side by side with him. He is a great man.

Let us talk about the fall economic statement. This fall, we were treated to even more scandals. Unfortunately, I think that the Minister of Finance has lost the confidence of the House. He should have done the right thing. He is responsible for the country's finances, but he hides his assets from Canadians. Every member is required to declare all their assets to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 90 days, but it took him two years to do so. It is unbelievable and very troubling. We have been asking questions for over a month, but as everyone likes to say, it is question period not answer period. We have yet to get an answer from across the way.

Yesterday, we learned of the existence of the Paradise Papers. Who is named in these papers? The Liberals' friends. If anyone was wondering if the Liberals learned anything during their 10 years in purgatory, the answer is probably not.

At the time of the Gomery commission, I was working at the National Assembly and had friends who worked for the Liberal Party. Today, those friends say that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It saddens me, because they used to be staunch Liberals, and they lost their jobs because of the Gomery commission. I believe that the more we dig, the closer we get to a second Gomery commission. That would be sad.

I liked what my NDP colleague said about the fall economic statement, that the most striking thing about it is what it does not say. It has nothing to say about farmers. They are not mentioned at all. They got $250 million, far less than we Conservatives had promised them. Let us talk about that $250 million. Within a week, there was not a cent left. Farmers are still coming to see us at our constituency offices because they do not understand why this program only lasted five days. I do not understand it either.

The 9% tax cut the member opposite was talking about is all well and good, but it was not even the Liberals' idea. It was Stephen Harper's government that wanted to do that 9% tax cut. They took that idea from the Conservatives and put it out there as their own. That is what bothers me. It is one thing for them to come up with their own ideas, but I would like them to be honest and say that this was not their idea. They have set themselves up as saviours, but they stole that idea from the Conservatives because they could not come up with an idea of their own. That is pathetic.

The Liberals have to look at other parties' platforms to come up with their own. Maybe they should give that some thought, because what we are seeing nowadays is pretty pathetic.

What saddens me is that the more things change over there, the more they stay the same. I am not saying there is nothing good in Bill C-63. Some things in it are good, but many more are bad. The Liberals should have split the bill in two so we could vote on the parts that make sense. As it whole, it does not make sense.

I will not vote in favour of a bill that does not give Canadians the truth. We are getting used to this now because the Liberals are often all about the smoke and mirrors, but dig a little deeper, and things start to not make sense. It is sad because this is no longer the Liberal Party of Canada; it is a one-man party, the Prime Minister's party. His selfies are all over the place. I am sure Canadians are picking up a hefty tab for all those photos. I think that is a real shame.

The Liberals are claiming these are the facts, but that cannot be entirely true; either that or there are still things we do not know, because the parliamentary budget officer, or PBO, is saying exactly the opposite. He is saying that over 80% of middle-class Canadians are paying more tax than before. This statistic comes from the PBO, not us, and the Liberals over there are trying to tell us that that is not actually true.

We are used to seeing the Liberal Party give with one hand and take away with the other, but one day they are going to have to be consistent. If they cannot come up with sensible tax breaks of their own, they are going to have to stop pretending that they have. They are taking things from another party's election platform because they are unable to keep up with the times.

What saddens me most is that the Liberals are not listening to Canadians. They travelled around a lot. They did a bunch of consultations, but they did not listen to anyone they consulted. The same thing happened with small businesses. The official opposition parties had to rise in the House and organize round tables for the Liberals to realize they were headed in the wrong direction. People had to badger and hurl questions at them for three straight weeks before the Liberals finally came to the realization that what they were doing made no sense.

For three weeks now, practically a whole month, we have been asking questions about the finance minister's ethics. The finance minister is the one who manages Canadians' money, and yet he cannot even answer our questions, even now that the Paradise Papers scandal has erupted. There will come a point where the more newly elected Liberals, who were not around for Gomery and who certainly do not want to end up in a similar situation, will have to start asking questions. Perhaps they will get more answers than we have been getting.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 3rd, 2017]

With regard to individuals seeking asylum after crossing the border illegally or irregularly: how many such individuals have sought asylum since October 1, 2016, broken down by month and by province?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 3rd, 2017]

With regard to documents concerning third party activities during elections, including documents concerning the influence of foreign organizations or other entities on third parties or their activities, held by either the Privy Council Office or Elections Canada since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all memorandums on the subject, including for each (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title, (v) subject matter and summary, (vi) file number; and (b) what are the details of all studies received, reviewed, analyzed, or otherwise consulted regarding the subject, including for each the (i) date, (ii) author, (iii) title, (iv) findings, (v) file number, (vi) website location where findings are available online, if applicable?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Prime Minister? I do not trust the Prime Minister, so I will go with the commissioner, as the Prime Minister has asked us to do every time a Liberal scandal has erupted over the past two years. However, we see through the Prime Minister, who is using the commissioner to distract from the real problem, namely the Minister of Finance and all his cover-ups.

Why is he defending the indefensible? What is the Minister of Finance hiding in his numbered companies?

[Canadian Heritage, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are forever rolling out the red carpet for foreign lobbyists who constantly influence this government's decisions and are brushing off the interests of Canadian companies.

This government has had 99 meetings with Amazon, 37 with Google, and 16 with Netflix, all companies that we know for a fact are seeking changes to our copyright and broadcasting laws.

It makes us wonder if the heritage minister is just a puppet for American Internet giants. How can the minister stand by and let American corporations rewrite our laws?

[Ethics, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is getting mixed up in municipal elections. It did not occur to the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie to warn her associates before going door to door on behalf of the candidate on her husband's team.

Does the minister understand that, because of her relationship with the leader of Renouveau sherbrookois and the authority that she has, she risks putting this municipal campaign in conflict of interest and she herself could end up with an ethics problem?

Did she use her ministerial resources to promote her candidate to the detriment of others?

[Taxation, October 27th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, while the Prime Minister takes selfies, shows the world his socks, and flashes a phony smile, people suffering from serious mental health problems are being denied the disability tax credit. The Liberals have no compassion and would rather line the finance minister's pockets.

Will the minister immediately order her department's collection agents to revert to the criteria they were using last April? Will she stop blaming everyone else and start taking responsibility?

[Act Respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, October 26th, 2017]

I would like to be able to speak without being interrupted by the members opposite, Mr. Speaker. If they are not interested, I would ask them to leave the chamber.

We all know that it is unusual and unacceptable that the rights of victims of crime in Canada are still not systematically recognized, or recognized nearly to the same degree as the rights of criminals.

Victims of crime were very important to former Prime Minister Harper and nearly a decade ago he worked very hard to assert their rights. Recognizing victims' rights has become synonymous with wanting to give victims of crime a voice and rights that are on par with the rights of criminals. In the course of trying to gain this recognition, a number of things have been considered, including the creation of a federal ombudsman for victims of crime, a sort of counterpart to the federal ombudsman for criminals.

From day one, the ombudsman for victims has always reported to the Department of Justice. He is therefore not independent, unlike the ombudsman for criminals. He is tied to a Department of Justice program that can be abolished at any time. The powers of the ombudsman for victims of crime are limited, unlike those of the ombudsman for criminals, including the power to investigate when complaints are lodged by victims, especially complaints against the Department of Justice, to which the ombudsman reports directly.

The National Office for Victims, which is part of the public safety portfolio, the Correctional Service of Canada, the Parole Board of Canada, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada review victims' complaints and work with them in order to formulate recommendations on how to remedy any infringement or denial of their rights.

If a victim of crime disagrees with a response received from the Department of Justice, he or she can go to the ombudsman for victims of crime. However, since the ombudsman is not independent from the department it is supposed to criticize and monitor, its powers are more limited. It could end up in a conflict of interest, to the detriment of the victims themselves.

The ombudsman could suggest an apology to the victim or a new review of the victim's request, but it would be a highly delicate matter to contradict a decision made by the department under which it operates and side with a dissatisfied victim demanding a new review of their complaint.

The main goal of Bill C-343 is to make the position of ombudsman for victims of crime equal to the position of correctional investigator, which is independent of the Department of Justice and can operate freely, unlike the ombudsman for victims of crime.

If the ombudsman makes a recommendation or criticism that is unfavourable to the Department of Justice, the department can remove it from the report at any time and thereby directly circumvent one of the chief purposes of the ombudsman for victims of crime, which is to be a voice for the victims and represent their rights and interests.

Victims of crime are asking for a voice and for fair and equitable representation before the Department of Justice. This is indispensable especially since the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was passed because it expands the responsibilities of the ombudsman, who is the guardian of victims' fundamental rights. I sincerely hope that everyone in the House will be strong and stand up to protect victims of crime.