Sylvie Boucher

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is keeping quiet and no longer wants to talk to Canadians about his hidden tax agenda. Who will pay for the tax increases the Liberals want to bring in? Our poorest citizens? Unemployed workers? Women? Who? Canadians are still waiting for an answer.

He is always ready to make sweeping statements and probably still believes that Quebec's nationalism is blind, that Quebeckers do not speak the kind of French he can understand and, more importantly, that Quebeckers are simply North Americans who speak French.

But does he really understand Quebec? No. For him, Quebeckers are simply Frenchies.

This Liberal leader is disappointing Quebeckers. They are disappointed by the attitude of this man who is trying to pass off his true ideas on Quebec—

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in recent days, we have watched as the Liberals have ramped up the worst sort of political partisanship. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors, motivated by an obsession to win at any cost. This pernicious partisanship clearly shows that the policies of the Liberal Party are devoid of ideas and lack direction.

On the one hand, the Liberals criticize the size of the deficit, and on the other, they want us to spend billions of dollars more. This government will not apologize for spending to stimulate the economy, protect jobs and support the unemployed. These are necessary, affordable, short-term measures.

The only ideas coming out of that party seem to be ideas for new taxes: more GST, more tax, an added tax burden on businesses. We get no answers from the Liberal leader. Where I come from, we call that blowing with the wind.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader enjoys himself. He enjoys announcing that he likes taxes and want to impose more taxes on us. He likes to raise Canadians' taxes. That is now very clear.

But he will not answer any more questions about his hidden fiscal agenda. He does not want to talk about it. It would certainly be embarrassing if he did, because he would be bombarded by criticism from across the country.

What taxes does he want to raise? Who will suffer these tax hikes? The disadvantaged? The unemployed? The poor? He should stand up in this House and tell us.

Because the Liberal leader prefers empty rhetoric and tax hikes, Canadians will reject the Trudeau-style Liberal patronage, a destructive ideology that brought us to the brink of social and economic bankruptcy. Quebeckers will remember that.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, if not the last few weeks, the Liberal leader has praised Liberal-style taxation. He wants to raise taxes. He wants to increase Liberal-style taxation. The Liberal leader must now answer to legitimate questions from Canadians, as well as my questions.

Which taxes does he want to raise? Does he want to raise income taxes, as well? How does he want to raise them? What portion of the population will bear the brunt of these tax increases?

The more closely we look at the Liberal platform on taxes, the more we find percentages creeping up.

Does he want to raise the GST to 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%? Are people going to see their entire salary eaten up?

He does not want to answer these questions.

We, the Conservatives, have lowered taxes for Canadians. We are proud of that, and we will never allow the Liberal leader to eliminate the progress we have made.

[Leader of the Liberal Party, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal ideology at its worst has returned on the other side of the House. The Liberal leader wants to raise taxes. Raise taxes for the good of the nation, he said.

This weekend, the Liberal leader also denied his party's recent history. After—like all his colleagues—signing a letter to the Governor General begging her to allow the opposition to lead the country with an unelected coalition, today he is dissociating himself from that.

For this man, Quebec is a little like Minnesota or Vermont. He recognizes Quebec's distinctness only by highway signs written in French. I have no congratulations for him.

For the Liberal leader, there is nothing like a healthy tax increase, a latent insult to Quebeckers and a firm denial of history. We expected nothing less from a Liberal leader who is gradually falling into line with the shortsighted ideology of his party and that of Trudeau.

[Quebec's Place at UNESCO, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago today, the governments of Canada and Quebec signed a historic agreement that recognized Quebec's special interest in culture and science and its desire to benefit more from the combined efforts of the federal and provincial governments. As a result, for the first time in history, Quebec has an important voice at UNESCO.

With its policy of open federalism, the federal government recognizes Quebec's unique personality within a united Canada and a flexible federal system. Gone are the traps the Liberals set to strip Quebec of all its ideas and jurisdictions. Gone is the Bloc's extreme polarization, which seeks only to destroy Quebec's history and culture.

Quebec has a real voice at UNESCO. It is not a Liberal or Bloc voice, but a unique, Quebec voice.

[Victims of Crime, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week and this year's theme is “supporting, connecting, evolving”. It presents a perfect opportunity to raise awareness about victim issues and about the programs, services and laws in place to help victims of crime.

I know one party in this House that will not be taking part in the events to mark this national week, and that is the Bloc Québécois. For purely ideological reasons and because of its narrow-mindedness, it systematically refuses to support any motion or bill that could help victims of crime. The Bloc votes for criminals and against victims.

Barely a week ago, the Bloc voted against Bill C-268, which would establish minimum sentences for people convicted of certain offences committed against young people, particularly, sex-related offences and trafficking of children. That is unacceptable.

The Bloc has the interests of criminals at heart, not the interests of Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I find this gentleman really very charming.

I will agree with him on several points. The gun and handgun registry remains in place. The demagoguery must stop and we must put in context what is true and what is not. The members across the way are trying to convince people that we want to do away with the registry completely. That is false. The gun and handgun registry is here to stay, and that is what we are saying on this side of the floor. As a woman, and a mother, I support my government's approach, because I feel it is time today to speak of the victims, which my colleagues over there never do. They are the ones we are thinking of, along with the many men and women in Quebec and in Canada who have long guns and use them within the laws of Canada. This is why the red tape needs to be reduced. We have to be guided by our hearts, our gut feelings, as well as our heads.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we must make it perfectly clear that it is not all firearms that are concerned, but only long guns used for hunting. We on this side feel that gun control legislation needs to target criminals, not the thousands of honest Canadians who use rifles and shotguns to protect their property. Our purpose is to stop criminals and to protect victims, whom the NDP too often forgets about.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to debate the motion tabled by the hon. member for the riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I am fully aware that the issue of gun control, like all crime-related issues, is of great importance to this hon. member and all the hon. members of the House.

The government has established a balanced approach to gun control in Canada, an approach that does not try to criminalize legitimate owners of firearms or to impose an additional burden on them.

Canadians and Quebeckers have, to a large extent, put their trust in this government because it has undertaken to stand up to criminals to ensure the integrity of and respect for victims’ rights. Our balanced approach is part of a comprehensive plan which also aims to make our streets and our communities safer.

The government has made major investments in crime prevention in the last three years and has provided law enforcement services with new and improved tools. The government is taking action against gangs and those who commit drug-related crimes. We are transforming the way that the justice system deals with criminals, while seeing to it that their victims receive all due respect.

Tackling the illegal use of firearms is one of the pillars of the government’s public safety agenda. We have introduced longer mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes, and we have put tough new rules in place for the release on bail of persons charged with a serious weapons-related offence.

We are also strengthening the police presence in communities to fight armed crime with the aim of increasing the safety of Quebeckers and Canadians and their families. As a woman and a mother, I support my government’s approach, particularly so that victims can finally hope to see the light of day and feel safe in our country.

We have invested $7 million annually in tightening up the front-end screening of first-time firearm licence applicants, in order to keep firearms away from untrustworthy individuals. Just recently, we tabled a bill which, among other things, creates a new criminal offence for drive-by and other intentional shootings that involve reckless disregard of the life or safety of others.

In addition to taking these long-overdue actions, the government has proposed fundamental changes to gun registration laws. As members know, it is our intention to take an approach that aims for effectiveness without imposing an additional burden on farmers, duck hunters and other law-abiding Canadians, coupled with specific measures to prevent gun crime.

For example, we are going to fund initiatives designed to strengthen front-line policing, border security and the fight against organized crime. We feel that the gun control laws have to target the criminals, not the thousands of honest Canadians and Quebeckers who use rifles or shotguns to protect themselves, hunt, and otherwise earn a living.

Our goal is to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, not to create bureaucratic nightmares and needless costs for legitimate owners of non-restricted firearms.

With this objective, the government has introduced a number of measures to make it easier for gun owners to comply with the existing legislative requirements, since firearms owners whose weapons are registered are subject to continuous eligibility screening.

The motion currently before the House, which was put forward by the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, seeks to eliminate one of these measures.

In 2006, the then minister of public safety announced a one-year amnesty period to shield from prosecution those owners of non-restricted firearms whose license had expired, provided that they take the necessary steps to meet compliance requirements again within that period. This amnesty period, which the member seeks to eliminate, has since been extended, and the government recently announced plans to extend it further, up to May 2010.

I should point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

This amnesty is one of several measures taken by this government to enhance compliance with the law. In 2006, the former public safety minister also announced that license renewal fees would be waived. In other words, individuals would not have to pay a fee to renew or upgrade existing licenses or to replace expired licenses. Those individuals who had already paid such fee were reimbursed. It is important to note that new license applicants are still required to pay a license fee. Like the amnesty, the fee waivers was extended for one year.

In May of last year, the government introduced yet another measure to support compliance through a regulatory amendment that enables individuals with expired possession-only licences to apply for a new license without taking the Canadian firearm safety course. Most of the affected individuals are over 50 years of age, and they often reside in rural or remote areas where access to training is limited.

Collectively, these three measures form a comprehensive regulatory package intended to increase compliance levels, and they appear to be working. In just three years, from 2006 to 2008, the rate of renewal of possession-only licences increased by 15%. The initiative introduced last year to make it easier to renew these licences led approximately 11,000 holders of expired possession-only licences to comply once again with the Firearms Act.

As I mentioned earlier, the government plans to extend these measures for another year, until May 2010, to give more people the opportunity to comply with the gun control measures in the act. That is the government's goal, and the members opposite should want the same thing. This extension will also allow the government to develop and introduce long-term measures to help increase public safety and reduce the administrative burden on gun owners.

As I noted at the outset, the government has taken a balanced approach to gun control. We are absolutely committed to protecting the safety and security of Quebeckers and Canadians while ensuring that law-abiding citizens are not subjected to unnecessary registration procedures for legally acquired, non-restricted firearms.

Unfortunately, the motion before us is not prudent. The measures proposed by the hon. member would unnecessarily criminalize thousands of farmers, hunters and rural residents who are responsible gun owners. We would do better to work to protect victims of crime in this great country of ours.