Françoise Boivin

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his excellent speech. I had the pleasure of sitting on the legislative committee on Bill C-38, and I share his opinion that you did an excellent job as committee chair, knowing the passion this subject arouses. Above all, I admired the calm and truly democratic way in which everything proceeded.

Obviously, when I was elected a year ago, I had no way of knowing how turbulent this Parliament would be. However, like my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I will be able to say that I took part in what I consider a historic moment, in the sense that this vote will reaffirm the leadership role that Canada can play in terms of the right to equality.

I want to take advantage of my colleague's background in law, since we are not often able to call upon counsel for free in the House. So, I want to know what he thinks about an argument often made by our Conservative friends in committee and during the debates at the different stages of Bill C-38.

I am talking about the fourth question included in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the traditional definition of marriage. Since the Supreme Court did not answer this question, our Conservative colleagues frequently use this as an excuse to claim that Parliament could simply reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. So, I want his opinion on this.

If I may, I also want to ask his opinion about the frequent complaint that this legislation is being rushed through with no regard for the democratic process. In this context, I want—

[National Child Benefit, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to congratulate the Liberal government on its recent evaluation of the national child benefit. The report, entitled “Evaluation of the National Child Benefit Initiative”, confirms that this measure is reducing both child poverty in Canada and its serious effects.

Since 1998, the Government of Canada has consistently increased benefits for children and the family. Between now and 2007-08, annual federal benefits for Canadian families with children—provided through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement—should reach $10 billion.

Progress has been made in reducing child poverty, but the Liberal government recognizes that a permanent strategy and ongoing efforts are required in order to achieve the goal we have set. Clearly, children and their families are a priority for our government.

In closing, I take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

[Infrastructure, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for communities in Quebec, because an agreement was signed on sharing the gasoline tax and public transit funds. The Quebec premier described this agreement as the most important agreement they had signed with the federal government to date.

In my region, this agreement will enable us to invest in water management, sewage treatment and public transit.

Can the minister tell us about this new deal for cities and communities, concluded in the interest of Quebec?

[Pay Equity, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to salute the commitment my government has made to equity in the workplace.

As a matter of fact, it was a Liberal government that created the pay equity task force in 2000, and we are determined to implement its recommendations and make the legislative reforms needed.

The Liberal government has provided constant support through concrete initiatives, such as the employment equity embracing change support fund, in order to help federal departments meet their equity objectives.

I want to remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition asked the government to repeal what he referred to as this ridiculous pay equity legislation and said that taxpayers are being misled about pay equity, which he felt had nothing to do with gender equality.

My government is proud to have continually worked for pay equity in Canada, since the Liberals came to power in 1993.

[Bill C-48, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?

[The Environment, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the week of June 5 to 11 is Canadian environment week. Could the minister describe for us, at the start of environment week, three recent measures testifying to the government's determination to improve the environment in Canada, in the wake of the greenest budget since Confederation?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this kind of talk makes me want to weep, almost as much as the Conservatives' position.

The hon. member for Langley is making accusations about us with respect to the Atlantic accord. Knowing how the Conservative Party feels about the Atlantic provinces, they need not give us any lectures.

I wonder sometimes if the hon. member for Langley knows that when the Liberals came into power in 1993, the EI fund was in a deficit. In fact, it had a $5.884 billion deficit. By 1994, the governing Liberal Party had already managed to reduce the EI deficit to $3.601 billion. The hon. member makes a point of saying that it is just a hidden tax. I would point out to the hon. member, who gave us this speech, that the contribution rate has decreased considerably. That might make him happy.

How does he reconcile the Conservative Party's so-called new provisions in favour of the Atlantic provinces with the comments made by its leader on the inability of Atlantic Canadians to take charge of their own lives? He said these people do nothing but chase after their EI cheques. How does he explain this pseudo interest in the Atlantic provinces? This party does not give the impression that it has a very good opinion of them.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we would never think that the hon. member is rising too often. This is an extremely important issue, particularly in Quebec. It is an issue that was at the forefront during a good part of last year's election campaign, if not throughout that campaign.

I do not agree with the member when he talks about $320 million being a drop in the ocean. He said that while $1 billion is invested in the fund, only $300 million is given back. As I mentioned, the money is there, but a fair balance must be struck in the employment insurance fund, in order to meet needs.

The hon. member is also suggesting that the money put in the consolidated revenue fund just evaporates. That is not necessarily the case. Many investments are made in the Canadian economy. This is helpful and, as the minister mentioned earlier, it allows us to drastically lower unemployment rates. This may be the most important point in the minister's speech, namely that we can reduce the unemployment rate all across Canada, including in Quebec.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

There is certainly all that, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for his question.

I listened to the new minister's speech on all the adjustments made in the new program. I think that these adjustments address many of the irritants in the employment insurance system.

I want to reiterate that it is not easy to come up with a definitive answer and say, “There is the solution”. That is the beauty of the system. As I explained, we are trying to make adjustments. Sometimes we make mistakes, which we catch the next time we conduct an evaluation. I think that we have to look at the big picture, because this is a program that benefits the vast majority of Canadians.

Full employment would be the best, not taking EI benefits away. That is what everyone dreams of, I am sure. Every Canadian dreams of having a good paying job. This may not be very realistic, but we must nonetheless hope for that dream to one day become a reality. Efforts must also be made to help the most disadvantaged through this program. We are solving a great many of the problems. Are we solving all of them? The future will tell. With a balanced government, we will endeavour to make the necessary adjustments, when appropriate.

I cannot repeat it enough. According to the Auditor General, the employment insurance account should be part of the consolidated revenue fund. When I hear people say that we on this side have pillaged it, that irks me. After all, as I said earlier, there has not always been a surplus in the employment insurance account. Not so long ago, it was seriously in the red. That does not do those who lose their jobs any good. In my opinion, this surplus has been very well spent, that is, on the needs of Canadians, on health care, at various levels of the economy, and even by reinvesting into the economy. That does help employment.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I said it at the beginning of my speech and I say it again directly to my friend from Acadie—Bathurst. I admire his passion in this matter. He never stops talking about his cause to anyone who will listen and anyone who will support him in this.

Of course, I understand the position of my colleagues from the Atlantic region. Everyone votes his or her own conscience. As a Liberal MP, I am very happy to say that I have been able to vote my conscience on several issues on which I had very firm views. I am thinking, among other things, of the anti-scab legislation. I had already said, even during the election campaign, that I would be in favour of such legislation. I was not afraid to say so and I was not afraid to emphasize it in regard to the motion on gasoline, and so forth.

Insofar as employment insurance is concerned—my friend is very aware of this—it is certainly a very touchy matter in Quebec. During my election campaign, under my beautiful signs—I thought they were very beautiful—there was always another little sign asking, “Who stole the employment insurance fund?” It came from a certain labour confederation that was—how might I phrase this—very “pro-my-friends-across-the-way”, the Bloc Québécois.

That being said, I am very aware that this is an extremely sensitive issue. However, in the context of this motion and the entire employment insurance issue, beyond the cheap rhetoric that you sometimes hear from certain quarters—I do not mean the member for Acadie—Bathurst at all—we must remember that the employment insurance fund has not always run surpluses. There are some important choices to make. People sometimes forget to mention that employers and employees have contributed to the employment insurance fund. The cost of contributions has gone down considerably. That is very good for the economy.

That being said, how can the right balance be found between 12 weeks and 14 weeks? It is not always easy. What I like about the measure proposed by a previous minister, as I mentioned in my speech, is the fact that things can be monitored and adjusted. What we should do in this connection is try to find answers to the irritants. That is certainly what we all try to do. I can never say enough how much I admire the passion that my friend brings to this. But are 12 weeks the solution—