Françoise Boivin

[Petitions, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am presenting a petition on behalf of hundreds of people in my riding who are opposed to the potential closure of the only public post office in the riding of Gatineau, at 139 Racine Street.

I am not surprised to see the number of people who continue to write to me or sign this petition and oppose this closure, given how important this post office is to the riding and the impact it has.

[Ethics, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speakers, Conservatives just do not seem to understand it is their leader's actions being called into question. The Prime Minister's actions show his inability to manage the PMO. His judgment is on trial and Conservatives are losing their cases.

My question is simple. Before promoting Ray Novak, did the Prime Minister ask if he was aware of or involved with any aspects of the Wright-Duffy matter?

[Ethics, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to believe that the Senate spending scandal was the work of just one man.

The chief of staff reports to the Prime Minister and works very closely with his principal secretary. The principal secretary at the time, who has since become the new chief of staff, is none other than Ray Novak, whom the Prime Minister has entrusted with a number of hot issues, including the Helena Guergis matter.

Was Ray Novak aware of the discussions going on between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy regarding the $90,000 payment?

[Ethics, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, he said “quite possibly”. Let us not leave anything out when quoting the ruling.

Let us get back to the Senate expense scandal. According to Senator Tkachuk, Nigel Wright would “want to know things, like ‘When is [the report] going to be done?’”

Mr. Tkachuk said he spoke to Mr. Wright about the political problem surrounding Mr. Duffy's expenses.

Do the Conservatives think that the chair of the Senate Board of Internal Economy conducted or can still conduct an independent investigation into a scandal that he himself is mixed up in?

[41st General Election, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the court decision in relation to the fraudulent calls made during the last election, Justice Mosley said that the Conservative database was quite possibly the source of those calls. He also pointed out that the Conservatives all but refused to co-operate with the Elections Canada investigation.

Why did the Conservatives refuse to co-operate fully with an election fraud investigation?

[Ethics, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in just one week, the Prime Minister went from having full confidence in his former chief of staff to being “not happy”. That is quite an about-face.

The Conservatives are quite specific in their denial. They deny the existence of any legal documents, but they have nothing to say about the February 20 email.

Does the Prime Minister's Office have any document—a memo, a handwritten or electronic note, an email, a PIN, a BBM, a fax, anything—regarding Nigel Wright's $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy?

[Ethics, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what I understand from that answer is that the Prime Minister's lawyer may have been aware.

When the Prime Minister learned about what happened, he did not demand a resignation, did not call the police and did not apologize. Instead, he steadfastly defended those involved in the scandal. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that if he had known, he never would have let it happen.

Why, then, would the Prime Minister say that he had full confidence in Nigel Wright on the first day of the scandal?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciated the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer's speech because the Canadian Museum of Civilization—I will continue to call it that for now— is in her riding. It is also in my region.

It does not seem to have occurred to the minister, and most of his Conservative government colleagues, to find out what the public thinks about this. In fact, this took almost everyone by surprise. The Museum of Civilization is one of the best-run museums in the country, if not the best. It is extraordinary successful and is world renowned, yet despite all that, all of a sudden the government announced that it was going to change the museum's name and mandate on the pretext of the upcoming 150th anniversary celebration.

Like me, my colleague must be receiving a huge number of letters, emails and communications from people in her riding. I am getting them too, even though the museum is not in my riding. I do not know what to tell these people because I can sense a political move. We spoke a lot about this government's lack of credibility, which makes us distrustful of any new suggestions it makes.

I would like the hon. member to explain why this government, through its then foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon, promised the Outaouais Chamber of Commerce that it would move the Canada Science and Technology Museum to the Hull side of the river. That never happened, but—

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, and it leaves me with a strange feeling.

We are in some twilight zone right now. Seriously. Maybe it is the time.

I am a night owl, so 7:30 p.m. is pretty early for me. At midnight, it will be as if it is early afternoon for me, so this is not the problem.

I heard some words from his mouth. He talked about proper debate and important work being done in committee. I wondered who was speaking. Was it this side of the House or the government side of the House? Why? Mr. Speaker, you were sitting on the same committee as I was, acting as our justice critic, when we were reviewing some piece of legislation the committee could not really study seriously.

This government limits our participation in committee. It is important for Canadians to know this. In fact, my colleague is suggesting that if we vote against this motion, it means we do not take our work seriously. This government has no credibility in that regard.

The Conservatives are telling us that they want to have proper debates, even though they do not take part in them. We know nothing about Albertans' concerns because their members do not rise to talk about them. We feel as though we are talking to a brick wall.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. As I said earlier to his leader in the House, these 20 additional hours a week do not pose a problem if they allow us to do things properly. If the member guarantees that even with these 20 additional hours a week we will continue to sit until June 21, if he guarantees that the bills will be studied without closure being invoked, and if he guarantees that more Conservatives will participate in the debates, then I do not have a problem with it.

Can the member give us these guarantees, or would he rather pretend that he is a great democrat and then do the opposite?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit torn about the motion.

I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight and other nights. The vote has not been held yet, but knowing how democracy works in a majority situation, I know that the motion will be adopted. Despite being a member of the NDP, my math skills are sharp enough for that. I am torn because sitting until midnight will give us more time to further illustrate how contradictory this government is and how, since 2006, it has been doing exactly the opposite of what it got elected to do, but that comes as no surprise.

The thing I am torn about has to do with the answer I have been trying to get from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons since yesterday. Sitting until midnight is all well and good. We on this side of the House certainly have no objection to that. However, the Conservatives cannot guarantee that we will be here until the originally scheduled date for summer adjournment. If we sit until midnight until June 21, then I might be tempted to vote with the government because it seems to me that we could get some good work done for the country in that time.