Françoise Boivin

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to sit on the same committee as my colleague for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. I am often party to his very enthusiastic discourse. I congratulate him on it, especially since this bill is one I have no real objection to. I am proud to rise today to say so.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the pleasure of hearing from the Chief Electoral Officer. We must not get too carried away on this point. People's reputations are at stake. Perhaps that does not disturb my Bloc colleagues, although I would find it unfortunate. I do not think that the bill of the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord aims necessarily at character assassination, to use the very unfortunate anglophone expression. I have always tried to stand by this principle in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

There are people involved. The appointment process was initiated long before I arrived. That said, some of these people are competent and work tirelessly for fairly low pay.

I have a question for my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. How does he interpret the Chief Electoral Officer's response to us that he would, in the end, keep almost all of the incumbent returning officers if he had the authority to hire or dismiss them? Can my colleague tell us today, from the analysis the Bloc appears to have done, how many of the 301 returning officers appointed in the 2004 election and of the 308 appointed in the following one he considers incompetent? Care must be taken to draw the line between transparency and competence. Having worked in labour law, like my colleague, I am trying to protect this principle.

There are very competent returning officers, although the process by which they are appointed may be open to criticism. I repeat here that I support transparency, but I do not want people who devote heart and soul to the job to be attacked. How many returning officers are considered incompetent, if figures are in fact available? Is the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord reassured that the Chief Electoral Officer would confirm most of the returning officers in their positions were such a bill passed?

[Asthma, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on World Asthma Day we honour the efforts by The Lung Association in Canada and organizations around the world that are striving to improve the recognition and treatment of asthma. We also continue to strengthen our determination to educate the public about the serious public health problem that the disease poses, particularly to children.

The direct or indirect medical costs associated with asthma are high. Asthma is a burden throughout much of the country and the incidence of it is high enough to make it a priority in government health initiatives.

It is estimated that asthma is the cause of 1 in 250 deaths worldwide.

In keeping with the theme for this year, “The Unmet Needs of Asthma”, the government will continue to work with organizations like The Lung Association to help Canadians suffering from asthma to better manage their condition.

By working together, we can make a difference. When you can no longer breathe, nothing else matters.

[Olivier Simard, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Gatineau, there is a young man with incredible strength. In 1999, he was told he had leukemia. That was some shock for young Olivier Simard, who was not even 12 yet.

This news was followed by countless medical treatments, including radiotherapy and blood transfusions, but that did not affect Olivier's will to live.

The foundation Les p'tits bonheurs d'Olivier was established in 2001. Its objective is to raise money for families who have children with cancer, and to organize activities to give joy and happiness again to these victims. As we all know, a positive outlook and a smile are the best treatments against this disease. To this day, over $20,000 has been collected for this cause.

Today, I salute the courage of young Olivier Simard, who won this great battle, and the courage of his family. His will to live is an inspiration to us all. Today, at the age of 17, he is about to be declared free of the disease. Even though he has reached this final stage, he does not forget those who are still fighting. Through the foundation Les p'tits bonheurs d'Olivier, he brings them the smiles and the hope that will lead them to where he is now.

Congratulations, Olivier.

[Infrastructure, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Gatineau who believes in the economic development of the Outaouais region, I am proud of the announcement made by the Government of Canada on Friday to invest $38 million toward the completion of highway 50.

Could the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities tell the House what other measures were taken for the rest of Quebec?

[Alzheimer's Disease, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was really anxious to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Thornhill. I congratulate her for thinking of the many people with this terrible disease, particularly at a time when the Canadian population is ageing. It is really an honour for me to have this opportunity to speak about this terrible disease in relation to my colleague's motion.

In the Outaouais region, the Alzheimer society is a very dynamic organization. I have been involved with a number of their activities over the years. We all have people in our family or family friends who are struggling with this terrible disease. There is nothing worse than losing one's own memory, or realizing that a loved one no longer remembers who we are. We have all had to cope with such experiences, which is why this motion is so important. It is wholly justified, given the number of people in Canada affected by Alzheimer's.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to salute all those who work in the background. We are coming to the end of volunteer week, so I would like to take this opportunity to salute, among others, Alain Tremblay of the Société Alzheimer de l'Outaouais, Robert Courchesne and Yolande Gravel. I could never manage to name all those who give of themselves day after day, including those who raise funds for Maison Fleur-Ange, which is already no longer able to meet the need. That is why I am so pleased to be able to support my colleague's motion.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to work together on this, as we did for hepatitis C. Times like this are what make me proud to be a member of this 38th Parliament. There have been plenty of times when we have been less proud, for example when we see the kinds of games that go on here. In the case of the motion on hepatitis C, however, and this motion my colleague, as well as many other instances, it is interesting to see how what we do as MPs can impact on the everyday lives of those who have sent us here to represent them.

That is what I wanted to say today about this motion. I will be pleased to support it. I really encourage everyone to follow suit, because this dreadful disease and related dementias must be addressed. That is why the motion deserves our support.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with care to what my colleague from the Bloc Québécois has had to say, and in principle I agree with her comment on the importance of being able to properly fulfill our role as parliamentarians. Since she is new here, as I am, I imagine our views on that coincide.

We are here to do a job. On the committees of which I am a member, we receive lots of documents on which we have to vote and express our opinion. Then everything goes back to the House, with our hopes that this will advance the democratic process for the sake of those we represent.

That said, we do have a lot of support. I should take this opportunity to congratulate the researchers available to us MPs, who provide us with truly exceptional service. Rarely do we turn up at committee meetings without having already studied the issue thoroughly.

My colleague made a point of saying that everybody would be somewhat favourable to the motion and the concept involved. No one wants to make decisions without being fully informed, particularly when budgets are involved. That is, after all, how the taxpayers judge us.

Our colleague also says that a day or two is not enough. I would like to know how many days would have been really necessary in her opinion, since she is on that committee. I have also heard what the deputy leader had to say, and I admit that practicality must come into it as well. If a day or two is insufficient, can she give us some idea? Given the deputy leader's arguments, the jump to 21 strikes me as overdoing things somewhat.

[Privilege, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 18, which states that “no member shall use offensive words against either House or any member thereof”.

Yesterday, in the context of a debate on the opposition motion by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the Bloc Québécois member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup made some very offensive remarks about me. The Chair asked him to withdraw them but he refused, claiming he had not uttered them.

I would draw your attention to the remarks he himself made:

Why do we want to see this motion passed? To make sure that the member for Gatineau will not finance another electoral campaign with the dirty money collected by the Liberal Party of Canada. That is basically why.

That is what he said, though he denies having said anything that was directed at me personally. Judging by the attitude of the Bloc, Mr. Speaker, you will have no trouble seeing how much a comment such as this can be offensive to someone who has newly entered politics after an election campaign. Behaviour such as this casts a very wide net and attacks people's reputations. Perhaps he does not attach much importance to people's reputations, but I do, and so do the people of Gatineau.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, following her intervention filled with allegations, if, on one hand, she believes in the Gomery commission and if, on the other hand, she believes that it is also a good approach to have pursued civil action against those who have allegedly diverted funds?

Furthermore, does she believe that it is a good approach to go before criminal courts when we think we are able to prove that some individuals have committed fraud, what could even be called influence peddling? Does she agree with these approaches?

Finally, she insists on telling us that it is absolutely extraordinary that the Parti Québécois has established a trust account, as if this were the panacea of the century. If my memory serves me well, having heard some comments and read probably the same newspapers as my colleague, it seems to me that I heard that it had received $100,000 from the famous witness whom she mentioned a lot in her speech. As far as I know, according to what the leader of the Parti Québécois said, with his hand on his heart, $20,000 was put into the trust account. Where is the other $80,000? That is the question I would like to ask my colleague.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the enthusiasm, but my colleague has just accused me of having financed my campaign with dirty money. If this is not a terrible and unparliamentary way—

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member shares my great interest in women's issues.

However, I am a bit puzzled in a sense by her first question. The hon. member is saying to me that my word, the word of the Prime Minister, and the word of the Minister of Public Works is worth zero. I find that very insulting inside these walls.

I respect my colleagues from every side of the House. I do not necessarily agree with what they say and what they do, but I still respect them. Sometimes that is where I have a bit of a problem with what has been going on since the last election. There seems to be no more respect inside these walls and we wonder why Canadians do not respect us.

Basically, the hon. member is saying “Show your good faith”, but we are showing our good faith with every move we make. Do we have to play antics? I also believe, like her, that there is nothing funny about this. However, when we hear that one day “We might use our opposition day to bring down the government, or we might use our opposition day to do this”. She wonders why I think there is a game being played here.

As for the comments that I made, I was asked by a journalist if I realized that there were not many women involved. I said that I could kick myself for not having noticed, as the chair of the women's caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada. I never looked at the sponsorship with those eyes, but now that it has been put in front of me and some of my colleagues discussed it, it is a fact.

A lot of people who know me know how I value the importance of women in politics. I believe that in some aspects, for all types of different reasons, we bring something different. I am not saying something better. I am saying something different, before I get all my male colleagues insulted--