Françoise Boivin

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member on his speech.

I paid particularly close attention to his comments on the parts of the budget concerning seniors, because I too care deeply about seniors. I think this is true of all of my colleagues in the NDP, since we ran a very strong campaign on this very issue and 59 ridings in Quebec voted for the NDP platform. I have a few questions about the government's position in the budget regarding the guaranteed income supplement.

The member made a point of telling us he is happy about the $600 a year increase. I will address only the increase he mentioned for single seniors. Based on my calculations, we are talking about $50 a month, and that bothers me. Yesterday evening, I took part in an event with people from the Alzheimer Society, and I spoke with many seniors about the budget. They asked me if it was some kind of joke, since $50 a month does not even cover the increase in the price of gas, for example. The member talked about amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow seniors to retire whenever they want, but they will not have a choice. I understand that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms needs to be amended, because right now, they will not be able to retire and collect a pension, because they will be forced to work.

How does the member respond to the comments I heard from seniors yesterday evening?

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his very humanistic approach to a budget with many negative aspects. Although we are very pleased with the $2.2 billion for Quebec, we cannot help but notice that the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has put his finger on a problem.

The forestry industry remains a major problem for many communities in Quebec. I know that the hon. member has a lot of expertise in this area. I would like him to talk more about the amounts promised in this budget. How will this create a problem? We have heard a lot about the support the Conservative government has given to the manufacturing and automotive industries, among others. I am very worried about the difference in the amounts allocated to the forestry industry, some tens of millions of dollars here and there to various regions of Quebec. The riding of Gatineau is also affected by this problem, as we saw with the Bowater mill. The same thing is also happening in Pontiac and Papineau—Mirabel—Argenteuil.

Could the hon. member talk about some of the solutions that this government could have proposed?

[Status of Women, June 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, after last week's throne speech, we learned that the government is about to disband the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which, since 2004, has been examining the legislation, programs and policies that affect Canadian women from all walks of life.

Can the Minister for Status of Women reassure this House that the committee will definitely remain active throughout the 41st Parliament?

[Health, June 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, a very large majority of the people of Gatineau voted for change, and I said I would deliver their message. Clearly, health is the number one issue for the people of Gatineau, and I promised strong leadership to ensure solid support from the federal government.

There are desperate needs in my riding. In May, at times, it got to the point where the Gatineau hospital's emergency room was filled to over 200% of capacity, and the Gatineau CSSS had to ask people to avoid emergency room visits.

In 2010 and 2011, the average wait time to see a doctor was approximately 24 hours. In 14% of cases, wait times exceeded 48 hours. We all want a more effective health care system that meets everyone's needs.

From the very first day of the election campaign, the NDP, my leader and I put health care at the top of our priority list. The government said in the Speech from the Throne that it will help to ensure the stability of the health care system and will work to reduce wait times while respecting provincial jurisdictions.

I am prepared to begin working with the government and Quebec immediately in order to give the people of Gatineau the health care system that they deserve.

[Speech from the Throne, June 3rd, 2011]

It is good to be back, and congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Before I welcome the hon. member, I would first like to thank the people of Gatineau for having again placed their confidence in me in such large numbers. They have also shown their support for the message of change promoted by my party and the official opposition throughout the campaign. They will always be my priority and I will not forget them over the next four years.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon. member for Mississauga South. I have some idea of what she must be feeling today. It was seven years ago for me, but it remains an unforgettable moment.

I listened closely to the Speech from the Throne and to the motion from the member for Mississauga South in response to that speech. And while I admit that certain elements of her motion touched on things that we brought forward throughout the campaign, I am worried, as the critic for the status of women, to see very little on that topic. Can the member tell me if the government is taking this matter seriously?

[Liberal Women's Caucus, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today's opposition motion demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that we are approaching the end of the 38th Parliament. Although there is much still to be done for the well-being of all Canadians, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity today to thank all the members of the Liberal Women's Caucus, as well as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the hon. member for Jeanne—Le Ber, for the confidence they have shown in me throughout the past year in my capacity as chair of that caucus, as well as member for Gatineau.

The Liberal Women's Caucus that I chaired has had a great influence on a number of issues, including the missile defence shield, additional funding for seniors and natural caregivers from the Minister of Finance, national child care, and gender equality.

My thanks to all these committed Liberal women. See you again soon.

[House of Commons, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, an article on the front page of this Saturday's Le Devoir reported on the allowances paid to members of this House to reimburse certain expenses incurred.

In addition to revisiting the impressive travel claim made by the member for Montcalm—but never made public by the Bloc Québécois whip—the article also pointed out that MPs' expenditures reimbursed by this House are exempt from the Access to Information Act.

I would remind hon. members that the member for Repentigny, who admitted in February that he had been living in a hotel for 12 years to avoid having to make his bed in the morning—believes the present rules “comply sufficiently with transparency”. I personally would consider them more elastic than transparent.

It is time for Quebec to be un-Blocked.

[Status of Women, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Liberal women's caucus, I am pleased to report on a number of measures taken by our government with a view to fostering gender equality in Canada.

Among these are: extension of parental leave to one year; a national child care and early childhood education system which will see 250,000 spaces created by 2009; ongoing improvements to the Canada child tax benefit, which, by 2007, will have increased by over 100% since its inception in 1996.

Each year, with a view to counteracting violence against women, the government devotes $32 million to the national crime prevention initiative and $7 million to the family violence initiative. As well, the government recently approved the allocation of $5 million to the Native Women's Association of Canada to combat violence toward aboriginal women.

Women's health is one of this government's priorities. The government has created five centres of excellence for women's health, as well as the Institute of Gender and Health.

These are just some of the initiatives taken by the government in favour of women. It is therefore obvious that—

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address my colleagues in the House of Commons on Bill S-3 on which the Standing Committee on Official Languages has reported. I also have the pleasure and immense privilege of sitting on this committee. If there is one thing I want to remember about this Parliament it is the passing of the committee recommendations on Bill S-3.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act of 1988 states the federal government's commitment “to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society”. The purpose of Bill S-3 is to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French) and to enhance the accountability of federal institutions as far as implementing that commitment is concerned.

Allow me to state the Government of Canada's unequivocal commitment to promote the country's linguistic duality. The French and English languages, and the populations speaking those languages, have shaped Canada and helped to define its identity. Canada's linguistic duality is therefore ingrained in the very nature of our country. Over the past few years, the government has clearly indicated that it is fully committed to the values and principles of our official languages policy.

As indicated in recent throne speeches, the government has reaffirmed the value of Canada's linguistic duality and has made a commitment to promote the vitality of official language minority communities, namely by implementing its official languages action plan. This plan shows to what extent the political commitment in the Official Languages Act is taken seriously by this government.

The action plan is the new road map for Canada's linguistic duality. The government is firmly committed to implementing it fully and to achieving the ambitious goals set out in it.

One of the most crucial components of the action plan is the accountability and coordination framework. The objective of this framework is vast and its range is great to ensure that the official language dimension appears in the design and implementation of public policies and government programs. The accountability and coordination framework states the responsibilities of each federal institution under parts I and V of the Official Languages Act and it contains the implementation modalities regarding part VII, with which Bill S-3 is concerned.

For example, it specifies that federal institutions must make their employees aware of the government's commitments and the communities' concerns, identify their policies and programs that have an impact on the status of the two official languages and on the development of the communities, consult these communities and take their needs into consideration, et cetera.

In short, the government’s commitment and actions are directly in line with the aims of Bill S-3, namely encouraging federal institutions to do more to support linguistic duality in Canada and making them more accountable in that regard. This government therefore supported Bill S-3 on second reading. It also indicated that it is in favour of sending the bill to committee so that there can be a closer examination of the potential consequences of amending a statute as fundamental as the Official Languages Act.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages has completed its work and reported its findings to the House of Commons. As we know, the committee feels that the wording of the bill can be improved and therefore proposed a number of amendments to Bill S-3. With the amendments it proposed, I think that the committee struck a fair balance between the risks of language focusing on the obligation to produce results on the one hand and the very legitimate desire to see the government’s commitment translated into concrete actions on the other. Allow me to explain. If the bill were to have passed without amendment in the original form it was in when it was tabled in the Senate, the Bloc and others feared that it might have a significant impact on federal-provincial/territorial relations.

The wording proposed by the committee avoids that situation. Despite all that, unfortunately, the Bloc still opposes the amended Bill S-3.

The committee also is recommending integration of a clause which states that the implementation of the federal commitment respects the jurisdictions and the powers of the provinces. There is no reason to oppose the amendment, but it is important to remember that an amendment such as this merely reiterates an already well established principle.

In reality, under Canadian constitutional law, Parliament can only adopt laws for activities which fall under federal jurisdiction. The powers and obligations of federal institutions are always exercised in accordance with respect to federal and provincial jurisdictions. However, the Conservatives, as usual, like to speak and say nothing new.

Despite the conservative redundancy, I will support the amended Bill S-3 for one reason only: because it will protect our anglophone and francophone minorities.

In the same vein, I would like to reassure those in this House who are afraid that passing the bill may weaken the status of the French language in Quebec. In that regard, the case law, in particular Supreme Court of Canada decisions in cases involving Quebec, is crystal clear. Language rights must be interpreted in light of the linguistic context and dynamics of each province.

Bill S-3, as amended by the Standing Committee on Official Languages, reinforces the Official Languages Act. If Parliament adopts it, the responsibilities of federal institutions will from now on be legally binding, which means they can be the subject of legal recourse. The governor in council will have the power to determine, through a regulation, how execute those obligations.

Many anglophone and francophone communities in Canada have been waiting a long time for a stronger commitment from the federal government. I call on the members of this House to support them unequivocally and to vote in favour of Bill S-3.

In closing, I would also like to thank Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier from the bottom of my heart for his tenacity—God knows how tenacious you have to be here—the MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his convictions, francophone communities throughout Canada and the anglophone community in Quebec, and more specifically the anglophone community in my riding of Gatineau, which guided me throughout the process of passing Bill S-3.

I thank them for their dedication to making Canada the extraordinary country it is.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. The member is one of the people with whom I had my first interview when I arrived here in Parliament. We had in fact both just been elected in the last election on June 28, 2004.

I remember some of the things she said, and some of the similar things I said. Since we had not had a minority government for a quarter of a century, we thought that this was a splendid opportunity for this Parliament to work cooperatively together.

There has been cooperation. I am somewhat surprised at the tenor of her speech. She seems to be telling all Canadians, incorrectly, that the government is refusing to compromise because it is refusing to go along with this game proposed in the NDP’s motion. As far as I know, the NDP succeeded in the spring in getting certain budgetary principles across to the government. So there have been compromises in this Parliament. There have also been less positive moments, on the other hand. There have been exchanges in which things have at times been said that are, I hope, regretted.

I have a question to ask my colleague. Is it not true that the compromise that we would like to see here is based not so much on substance as strictly on a question of procedure?

It surprises me that this would come from the NDP, the New Democratic Party. There seems to be a desire to impose on us new rules as far as democracy is concerned, in fact, the way in which a Parliament ends. From what I have always understood—and she may wish to correct me on this—there were two ways to achieve this. The government could decide when the election would be called or, in the case of a minority government, the opposition parties would lose confidence, they would simply declare that they had lost confidence and were leaving.

Is this apparent desire to invent a new procedure not rather an attempt to conceal the fact that, on the NDP side, they want to go to an election, but they lack the courage to do so immediately?