Nycole Turmel

[Supplementary Estimates (C), 2012-2013, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the NDP will vote no.

[Supplementary Estimates (C), 2012-2013, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the NDP will vote no.

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. L'Heureux is well respected, but her role involves supervising the management of the Library of Parliament, which, frankly, is quite different from the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What is more, in her current role, she cannot fulfill the duties of the Parliamentary Budget Officer on a full-time basis. In fact, she does not meet the criteria that she herself set for this position. Does anyone meet these criteria? Yes: Kevin Page.

Rather than appointing someone to the position on an interim basis, why did the Conservatives not extend the mandate of the most qualified employee?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the problem. The President of the Treasury Board's comments were clear. Appointing a Parliamentary Budget Officer on an interim basis is against the law.

There are only two possibilities: either the Conservatives broke the law or the President of the Treasury Board has once again been spouting nonsense and misleading the House. So, did they break the law or fail to tell the truth?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the NDP called on the government to extend Mr. Page's term until a new Parliamentary Budget Officer was chosen, the President of the Treasury Board's office attacked the NDP and said it would be against the law to make an interim appointment. Imagine our surprise when late yesterday Conservatives appointed an interim PBO.

Did Conservatives break the law with this appointment, or did the President of the Treasury Board mislead Canadians?

[International Women's Day, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my heart is filled with emotion as I rise here today to recognize International Women's Day.

Today, March 8, I would especially like to commend the women who have laid the groundwork for equality throughout history.

I am thinking of all those courageous women who fought to change the status quo, often putting their own lives in danger.

Without them, we would not be where we are today. However, we must not abandon our efforts now, when true gender equality is still a long way off.

In some parts of the world, women and girls are more likely to be raped than to learn to read.

In Canada, women earn on average only 73% of what men earn, and nearly 1 million women are victims of violence simply because they are women.

Each and every one of us has a moral obligation to ensure that women's efforts towards equality are expedited. We in the NDP are ready to lead the charge.

[Business of the House, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what bills his government plans to debate for the rest of the week and the week the House returns.

This morning, the government once again invoked closure to limit debate on a bill because it views legitimate discussion of its bills as an obstacle. It has invoked closure no less than two times in two days.

When my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley spoke weeks ago about a lack of agenda from the government, it did not mean that the government should return to its old ways of shutting down debate at every opportunity.

Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons could tell us what bills he intends to place on the order paper for the rest of this week and the week the House returns.

Could he also tell us how many debates he intends to limit?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Toronto—Danforth, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, March 6, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the system we have now is not necessarily a democracy, which is sad. As we have already said, if we had discussions and talked about the situation, the real problems and Senate spending, as well as its cost and value, I think it would answer all the questions about the present problem. They are talking a lot about value for money and productivity. Speaking of value for money, I mentioned the average number of days senators were at work in their chamber. For the sake of democracy and people's well-being, we must discuss the problem in order to solve it.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party's solution is to send the issue to the Supreme Court rather than having a real debate

For every problem, there is a solution. If discussions had been held, perhaps we would not be debating the abolition of the Senate here today in the House. We would be talking about the real problems that affect Canadians, such as poverty, for one. We would also be talking about the economy in general and not about abolishing the Senate. If the discussion of a problem gets held back, this is what results.