Françoise Boivin

[Justice, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, I have been saying that Canada is in desperate need of a justice minister.

This government is still deliberately turning its back on Quebec at every opportunity. The prisons act is just another example of that. An influential Quebec minister publicly declared that communications with Ottawa have been cut off.

When will the government decide to listen to Quebeckers? When will the Conservatives realize that they are way out in left field? When will they see reason? Most importantly, when will the Conservatives remember a certain Prime Minister's 2006 speech in Quebec City about open federalism?

[Justice, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it was to be expected. The Conservatives' prisons act is going to be challenged in court. Quebec's criminal lawyers have made their position clear: this law muzzles Canada's entire legal system. “Muzzle” is a word we have been hearing often in the House. First, the Conservatives muzzled parliamentarians, and now they are muzzling judges, lawyers and probation officers who will not be able to do their work freely.

Why does this government think it can do a better job of justice than the people who work at it every day?

[Justice, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, diversions and stalling tactics do not enhance public safety. Let us be serious for a moment. Police budgets have dropped close to the critical threshold. That is not my opinion. That is a fact according to the president of the Canadian Police Association.

How will reduced police services help enhance safety and protection in our communities?

[Justice, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking French and he still did not understand. I was talking about the aboriginal population, which makes up nearly 60% of the prison population in the prairie provinces. As for Quebec, I understood the minister's response, although it does not make sense in terms of the facts.

Let us talk about the astronomical costs associated with his prison program. It is scary. Bill C-10 will cost Quebec and Ontario $1 billion each over five years. There will be fewer police officers on our streets and more criminals out of prison without proper preparation. Who is going to pay for all that? Taxpayers will, even though they are already being squeezed. How can the Conservatives justify such recklessness?

[Justice, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what the Quebec justice minister was suggesting yesterday. He had to hold a press conference to explain how Quebec was going to distance itself from Bill C-10.

The government's repressive model is particularly harmful to aboriginal offenders, who are already overrepresented in our prisons. For example, in the prairie provinces, aboriginal people make up almost 60% of the prison population.

In 1999, the Supreme Court recognized the principle of restorative justice and the need for rehabilitation services. So why does this government want to divert the funding dedicated to the rehabilitation of aboriginal offenders? Why does it want to put even more pressure on—

[Justice, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government has no use for common sense. We need only think of its bill on sentencing.

However, the government may be in for some little surprises, and some big ones. Quebec refuses to budge. It will continue to focus on the rehabilitation of young offenders rather than on repression. Rehabilitation works. Quebec has had one of the lowest youth crime rates in North America for 25 years.

Why do the Conservatives stubbornly insist on denying the facts?

[Status of Women in Afghanistan, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, incredible progress has been made in Afghanistan, but women in that country are still not benefiting fully from that progress. A young woman from Gatineau, Ahura Homayun, talked to my team to raise awareness about this issue. Despite all the work that has been accomplished, Afghanistan is still one of the worst places for women: the maternal mortality rate is one of the highest in the world; 87% of women are illiterate; only 30% of young girls have access to education; one woman in three suffers physical or sexual abuse; and 70% to 80% of women are in forced marriages.

President Karzai has supported a voluntary code of conduct developed by a religious advisory committee to reduce the rights gained by women and legitimize violence against them. We cannot tolerate this step backward. I am calling on the government to immediately engage in dialogue about this with the Afghan authorities and to appeal to them to respect women's rights because doing so is essential to peace and security in their country.

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague was speaking in the House, I took a minute to ask my Facebook friends a question. I asked them if they agree with the government that Air Canada is an essential service and that the economy might collapse if the company negotiates with its employees. I told them that it was proving difficult to find common ground and that there could be a strike or a lockout. Well, 95% of them told me that they do not agree. They also said that the government must take Canadians for fools if it thinks that workers should not be allowed to organize, and that the government should not try to take away the basic right to freedom of association and free negotiations.

The charter guarantees freedom of association. If the right for two parties, employers and employees, to negotiate freely with equal power is taken away, what is left? That is what I want to ask my colleague.

[41st General Election, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is a motion and the motion demands that the government enact legislation. The point of the question was to determine when the government plans to pass legislation.

I will say it again. In the beginning, it was an isolated incident. Then it was a rogue employee. After that, it was a smear campaign by the opposition. Now, the Conservatives are trying to blame the opposition by changing their version of the story and saying that we are attacking everyone who voted legitimately.

Denial, diversion, evasion, confusion: it is not an isolated incident.

New types of election fraud require new powers.

Will they amend the act? We are not asking if they will vote in favour of the motion. Will they amend the Elections Act and, if so, when?

[41st General Election, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a political party that got caught using the in and out scheme, which it called an administrative dispute, and repeated that every day. It was convinced that it did not have to comply with the Elections Act. It was ready to take the battle all the way to the Supreme Court, until new allegations of in and out transactions surfaced.

There is a very simple way to shed light on the 2011 election fraud: the government should give Elections Canada more powers.

When will it do so?