Françoise Boivin

[Labour, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we do not know about that, especially coming from the President of the Treasury Board, who has been described as bargaining in bad faith. That did not come from me or the NDP, but the labour relations board.

What is most shocking is that the President of the Treasury Board does not even know himself who will be targeted by the budget implementation act. That reeks of amateurism. I will give him a second chance by asking a simple question. Which essential services and which public servants will see their fundamental right to strike violated?

[Ethics, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, none of this has any credibility. The Prime Minister pats himself on the back for making Mr. Duffy reimburse Canadians, except that he is the one who created the problem by appointing the Wallins, Brazeaus and Duffys of the world. So much for credibility; there is none.

The Prime Minister waited until February 2013 to act, even though Mike Duffy's scandalous expenses began to come to light in November 2012. Why do nothing for so long?

[Ethics, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly think, and so do Canadians, that all of them need to get out of the way.

The Prime Minister is still refusing to say why he changed his version of the facts about the February 13 meeting between Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy and himself. He still refuses to say why he misled the House about the number of people who were aware of the $90,000 cheque.

Can the Prime Minister tell us the exact number of people who were aware?

[Elimination of Partisan Government Advertising Act, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 471 and 472 related to the appointment of Supreme Court justices be withdrawn from Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-6; that Bill C-6 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; that Bill C-4 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-4 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes and corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

You understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that this motion be adopted unanimously. The government has found itself in a predicament over the appointment of Justice Nadon. What is more, yesterday we found out that the Government of Quebec is challenging the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, the government's assumption that it can proceed in such a way and the two provisions included in the mammoth bill. I think that this is an important debate, one that cannot simply be relegated to a footnote at the end of a budget bill.

[Justice, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was about the budget. I guess I missed the point.

Does the Minister of Finance understand finance? I do not see how changes to the legislation for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court, which were announced without consulting Quebec, help promote economic growth in Canada.

The changes to the legislation for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court have massive implications.

Why does the minister want to pick a new fight with Quebec? Will judicial appointments for Quebec from the Federal Court be a new standard at the Supreme Court of Canada?

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise. We have returned from a one-month prorogation and we are yet again debating a closure motion that would shut down debate, something that is at the very heart of our democracy.

I always thought that under our system, the only bills that remained active and were not penalized by prorogation were private members' bills. The government knows very well what it is doing when it prorogues. It knows that with prorogation, any government bills that have not passed die on the Order Paper. We might be more open to this kind of request from the government if we had heard a different throne speech.

Since there was an extra month of no work in the House of Commons, we expected to see some drastically different things to justify the extra month the government imposed before rebooting. We were not expecting to simply lose a month of debate on the bills in question. They want to push these bills through without debate and without acknowledging that there is a price for shutting down the House for over four weeks for absolutely no reason.

Before attacking the other parties, the government should show some humility. It should also show some humility when it shoves everything together and moves omnibus motions to bring legislation back to the floor of the House of Commons.

Holding hostage the committee for abused, missing women—

[Ethics, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy's lawyer just held a long press conference during which he revealed a lot about the Conservative Senate scandal.

For example, he revealed that Nigel Wright's lawyer is in possession of documents that allegedly implicate the Prime Minister directly.

He also revealed that the Prime Minister's Office allegedly threatened to throw Mike Duffy out of the Senate if he did not follow their plan, which included Nigel Wright giving a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy.

The Prime Minister's Office wrote out talking points for Duffy when the scandal broke. According to Nigel Wright, a number of senators have living arrangements similar to Mike Duffy's.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister's Office allegedly ordered Duffy not to co-operate with Deloitte in its review of his expenses.

All of this information directly contradicts everything the Conservatives have been saying since this whole thing started.

Enough with the cover-up. It is time for the Prime Minister to end his silence and tell the truth.

[Points of Order, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know I talked about “BS”.

Is that what my colleague is referring to? If so, I said “BS”. People can fill in the blanks as they wish. Maybe “BS” means “big spender” or “big whatever you like”.

I will have a look at page 140-whatever of Beauchesne. It is an expression that was used frequently on the radio when I used to do call-in shows.

I apologize for having offended the member.

[Points of Order, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is referring to. I would be curious to know what I said. I say so many things. Of course, I am not one to bite my tongue; I will give him that. However, quite honestly, I am surprised that this has anything to do with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. I do not know. Perhaps the member could refresh my memory.

[Justice, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, an important vote is missing. Three seats were set aside for Quebec and, at present, only two are occupied.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land. It should be a source of unity for all Canadians, not a source of conflict and division. What is the minister going to do to resolve the issues surrounding Justice Nadon's appointment and ensure that such a situation never repeats itself?