Françoise Boivin

[Justice, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, because of the Conservatives' fiasco with the appointment of Justice Nadon—and by the way, this has never happened in 138 years—Quebec will be under-represented on the Supreme Court of Canada for up to five years. Only eight justices can currently hear cases. It is incredible. Furthermore, the court must rule on a number of important and complex cases, including the Senate case. What will the Minister of Justice do to ensure that Quebec has full representation on the Supreme Court of Canada as soon as possible?

[Business of the House and its Committees, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I may have a few questions.

I am actually looking at Motion No. 2 and specifically focusing on the special committee that is to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. Obviously, everyone here will understand that we are nowhere near the national public inquiry that the victims' families have been requesting for several years. That being said, the committee is an improvement. However, the committee's report is still due on February 14, 2014.

Did prorogation not give the committee less time for the work it has to do? Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons not think that this loss of a month's work could well have a negative impact on the committee's work?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2013]

With regard to the distribution of jobs with federal departments and agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) how many jobs were located in the Quebec part of the NCR in 2013; (b) how many jobs were located in the Ontario part of the NCR in 2013; (c) how many jobs in the Quebec part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget; and (d) how many jobs in the Ontario part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, they can try to spin all they like, but they could not pass a lie detector test with those answers and fabrications. Canadians are not fools; they are not stupid.

What did the Prime Minister learn during the audit of Senator Wallin's expenses that forced her to leave the Conservative caucus?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here is another question the Prime Minister did not answer yesterday. Perhaps today will be our lucky day.

What changed between the time the Prime Minister said Nigel Wright had his full confidence and the moment he accepted Mr. Wright's resignation, just three days later?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Which one?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to arrive here this Thursday morning to find another time allocation motion. I have lost track of how many there have been. That will be part of my question for the Minister of Public Safety because we have lost count.

This has become a habit. This is the fifth time allocation motion on as many bills that the government has moved and tried to ram down our throats.

I would like to read something to the minister. One of his former colleagues said:

A columnist wrote something interesting today. He wrote that in his view the decision to invoke closure on the bill represented in some ways the death of the true meaning of parliament. Parliament is the ability to gather together as elected representatives to talk, discuss, debate and hopefully do things that can enrich the lives and in this case the safety and security of Canadians. The federal Liberal government has failed Canadians.

That was Stockwell Day in the House of Commons on November 28, 2001.

I wonder what has changed with the guys in front of me. They seem to have forgotten all of the basic rules of democracy. The fact is that a party might support a bill that is, by the way, long overdue. I am sure the minister will use that fact to say that if it is long overdue, we should adopt it quickly. Just because they have suddenly realized the urgency or the need of something does not mean that they have to shortcut democracy.

Does he not feel a bit ashamed to say to the people of Gatineau, let us say, or Sherbrooke or people from the Conservative side that he is not interested in hearing examples that we have concerning the witness protection program? We have crimes that cannot be solved. We have situations because we cannot have access because it is not funded enough. The bill is not perfect.

Maybe the minister needs to hear these things, but no. They shut down debate. If it was not urgent in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013, why is it urgent now? At what number are we on those closure issues?

[Petitions, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I too am fiercely proud of my constituents' activism, particularly regarding my campaign promise to improve our health care system and ensure that the federal government is more proactive so that health care remains public and universal.

That is what this petition is about. It has been signed by many people in my riding who, each week, share with me their concerns on this subject.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that the minister is unblocked, finally.

That said, I think this is the fourth time in four days that I have risen to criticize this process, something that now seems to be standard practice for this government. They bring in a gag order to end debate.

What the Minister is not saying is that in 2006, the Prime Minister prorogued the House because he was about to be clobbered by the opposition parties. Such actions tend to derail bills. There were elections after that in 2008 and 2011.

Today, all of a sudden, on this beautiful May 29, we are told there is great urgency—in fact, we hear this every day. This is the fourth bill of its kind, and they are not trivial bills either.

There was Bill C-48, which dealt with all kinds of tax amendments, Bill C-49, meant to change the name and mandate of a museum, and Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. These are not inconsequential bills.

Now we have Bill C-52 before us. I believe the cat was let out of the bag yesterday when a colleague of the minister rose to say that they were ultimately not interested in what people from the various ridings had to tell them. What interested them was what they, the Conservatives, had to say on those matters.

In their view, once we agree on a bill, we should be quiet, stay politely seated and not say another word because, in any case, they are not interested in what the people of Gatineau have to say, through their member, on the merits of the issue.

Only three hours were allotted for debate at third reading. That is appalling. It is a hijacking, not of a train, but of debate. It is shameful. For reasons unbeknownst to us, this is now part of this government's normal procedure.

I do not want to know whether the bill is good, since we are going to vote for it. I want to know why we are being compelled to do it this way. To date, the minister does not appear to want to give us an answer that is sensible and acceptable, at least for the people of Gatineau.

[Government Appointments, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether they realize that they are protecting a man who tried to make a run for it and leave his wife behind in prison. They are allowing that individual to remain a member of the Privy Council.

The intelligence sharing fiasco in the Delisle case happened under Porter's watch and fraud at the MUHC happened under Porter's watch. It is time to end the charade.

The request to extradite Arthur Porter is currently in the federal government's hands.

Can the minister confirm this information and will he take immediate action to have Mr. Porter tried in Canada?