Louise Thibault

[Rimouski Oceanic, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, today I want to celebrate the fantastic season our major junior hockey team, the Rimouski Oceanic, has just had.

Having won the regular season championship and the playoffs, the team broke the record of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Canadian Hockey League for the longest string of consecutive victories, with 35.

We must praise the hard work and efforts of the organization as a whole, and the players in particular, as well as the remarkable performance of Sidney Crosby, the leading scorer throughout the regular season and the playoffs, the best junior player in the country and best junior prospect for the NHL draft.

Congratulations to the Oceanic on winning the President's Cup and good luck at the Memorial Cup Tournament.

[Yolande Sirois, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to cite the great generosity of Yolande Sirois, who received eloquent public praise in recognition of her commitment and gifts to the community of Rimouski and the Lower Laurentians.

Over the past 10 years, Ms. Sirois has contributed in excess of $325,000 in support of many agencies and institutions, such as the Fondation du Centre hospitalier régional de Rimouski, the Fondation de l'UQAR, the Musée de la mer, the Trimural du millénaire, the Centre polyvalent des aînés, and more.

Ms. Sirois' philanthropy was given well deserved praise at a gala concert in April. This mark of recognition becomes her, since she has also been a major contributor to musical culture by supporting the Concours de musique du Québec, the Fondation de l'École de musique du Bas-Saint-Laurent, the Concerts aux Îles du Bic and the Conservatoire de musique de Rimouski.

A thank you and congratulations to Ms. Sirois.

[Port Infrastructure, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the port infrastructure under Department of Transport jurisdiction is in a sorry state and is compromising economic development. The deterioration of the wharf at Les Escoumins, used by the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry, will, despite recent federal commitments, mean the loss of 25 jobs and $5 million for at least the next two tourist seasons. Interim compensation measures are required.

Does the Minister of Transport intend to implement some interim support measures to alleviate the situation and to rectify, albeit imperfectly, his past inaction?

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

Madame Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright for his question. I do not think it unreasonable. All I wanted to say is that open-mindedness is essential. Should the number of days, give or take a few hours, conflict with the merits of a request, I say that common sense must prevail and something else be agreed upon.

When I was on the committee I agreed with the 21 days and to make amendments. The matter of breaks to permit members to be with their families has been raised. I do not want to give it cavalier treatment, as it is an important value in our society. I do not see why parliamentarians could not benefit as well.

So my answer is that I will vote for 21 days. However, if anyone proposed changing that somewhat, I would not be opposed to listening to arguments put forward by persons of good faith.

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

Madam Speaker, when I addressed the parliamentary secretary earlier, I was truly speaking in good faith, as are my colleagues. It was an opening and it was in this light that I was calling on my colleagues.

In my opinion, it does not matter whether we ask for 21 days or 15 days. What matters is that we recognize the principle. I am prepared to give my support too, once we have been enlightened or given information—whether in a debate or another forum—which helps ensure further reflection. I will not dig in my heels at 21 days; when I said one, two or three days, I meant that this takes time.

I thanked the House staff who assist us in committee, because they do an excellent job. I am in complete agreement, since I said it earlier, with what the member for Gatineau has just added.

The main point we must remember from what the committee members have said about the motion before us is that the time must be spent. I think a proposal of one, two, three or four days is rather inappropriate. What I wanted to point out when I rose to speak were the reasons it is important to act responsibly, transparently, with good documents in hand and to be properly equipped. Obviously, my colleagues and I said at the start in this House that there are no partisan politics on this committee. It is truly a committee where its members, all equal, have the desire to move things along.

The point I want to address is, “Let us give ourselves more time”. I have no magic answers, but what interests me is considering everything people here have to say and when we return to committee taking the time to reflect.

When I say it takes the number of days it takes, that means the time required is the time needed to do a thorough and serious study so that—if I may be permitted a pun—the public really gets its money's worth.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments the parliamentary secretary has just made and with respect to the response by my colleague, the committee chair and member for Vegreville—Wainwright, I would like to point out that—and I think many of my committee colleagues will agree—the issue here is the spirit of the motion and not the letter.

While my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright will call on us to vote, I think that the essence in a democratic process is that, by clarifying one another's comments, we move the matter along and really improve it. When I say really, I do not mean—and my colleagues will agree—spending one, two or three days on it. Still, at issue is taking the time to study the items in the supplementary estimates.

In my comments, I will first consider the budget cycle in its entirety—I will point out certain things—which includes the specific question raised in the motion, with respect to timing.

Consideration of the estimates, votes and the supplementary estimates is one very important aspect of the job of MPs in committee, but, more generally, of our work as parliamentarians. The motion concerns the supplementary estimates, but it is interesting to debate it in broader terms.

What we do in fact in studying the supplementary estimates and other items is analyze them. MPs analyze how public funds will be spent and distributed. This is very important, as my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright pointed out at the start. The analysis is crucial because it has to do with the way the government intends to spend every cent taxpayers contribute to government coffers. It is no small matter.

The role of government is to redistribute the collective wealth and to meet the needs of the public. We all know the needs are many and pressing. We also know how little they are being met at the moment.

Consideration of the estimates, votes and the supplementary estimates is vital. It is not symbolic, because it is linked directly to government spending, obviously, as I have mentioned.

In my opinion, and no doubt that of many others, this study therefore deserves all possible attention. Members must, therefore, have enough time. The notion of time needs to be defined, that is the deadline, as opposed to the maximum amount of time we would all like to have. The members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates have voiced their consternation and frustration in order to indicate how seriously they take this task. They did not make a criticism just for the sake of doing so. It is, moreover, inconceivable that we should give the impression that we are approaching something so important in a way that might be interpreted as cavalier, as if we were not concerned about this very important work we are doing in committee. Yet this work is of the highest importance, and we do indeed want to assign to it the great importance it deserves. It needs to meet the expectations of the public, no more and no less. So the time required must be taken.

If it is necessary to redefine the expression “time required”, it would not be 21 days, I am sure, but it will certainly not be one or two days either, as I said.

I feel that this is a matter of respecting the democratic process, at least I feel it is also about that. The issue at stake here is the respect of our fellow citizens, that is, the people we represent. And the basis of that respect is for us to respect their legitimate expectations, especially where public finances are concerned.

In my opinion, this motion is justified and important. The time must be taken to closely scrutinize the government's requests for supplemental funding, and thus to require justification. This is critical, at a time when, more than ever, the population is absolutely entitled to demand accountability.

It is a known fact that having too much information is the same as having too little. When we have to go through this much information in so little time, we may not look at it as carefully as we should.

Committee members need more than just one day's notice to examine such voluminous and complex documents. Let us acknowledge that a budget document, whether for the main or supplementary estimates, is not very user-friendly. It has to be deciphered. The House of Commons has highly-skilled staff to help us with this task, but each member of the committee has to take on this task, give it serious thought, develop tools and be as well prepared as possible at committee meetings.

I will reiterate my last thought. It would be an aberration to have only one, two or three days to consider these budgetary estimates. Furthermore, this aberration could lead, and may have led, to other more serious aberrations. You may have guessed that I am referring to, without going into detail—it is being discussed enough these days and rightfully so—the scandals, the sponsorship scandal and the gun registry scandal in particular.

With regard to the review and consideration of estimates and budgets, if we had the right tools and if we could effectively review such ample documentation, we could obtain truly timely information and answers. In fact, as parliamentarians, we could obtain information that would allow us to act more expediently.

We want the members to be able to conduct a serious, in-depth and comprehensive review and to have more time for this than they currently do. We must take the time to study the figures. When necessary, the committee must be able to take the time to call witnesses and ask questions.

In response to the comments by my colleague from Mississauga South, I recognize that parliamentarians are responsible for ensuring they have access to the most complete and useful set of tools possible. However, I will put the ball back in the member's court by saying that it is always appropriate for the government, in keeping with its philosophy of transparency, to keep improving these tools, as well.

Dealing with such an important matter in so little time is part of the democratic deficit. As parliamentarians, we must work to minimize this deficit, and eliminate it, if possible. I want to be part of this process and, to this end, I believe that this motion is entirely justified.

The committee members, of which I am one, must have the time to do their job properly. I sincerely hope that everyone in the House will support substantial improvements to this process.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as you may have noticed, the debate on this bill to change the definition of marriage is having a polarizing effect.

Such is often the case when an ethical issue is at the heart of a process of reflecting.

I use the expression “process of reflecting” intentionally because I presume that no one, not in this House nor in the general public, has taken a position on this major social issue without giving it a great deal of thought.

This is an ethical issue because it has meaning for everyone. It is an ethical issue because it concerns the collective meaning and values that drive us all as humans.

Those who support changing the definition of marriage and those who wish to uphold the traditional definition of marriage have wasted no time presenting arguments that have polarized opinions, indeed speaking in terms that are moralizing, to say the least.

This often has the perverse effect of making some appear open, progressive, advanced, defenders of rights and others bigoted, reactionary, backward, not to say obtuse and almost half-witted.

This might be because many people turn this into an emotional debate, when they focus on the notion of discrimination by asking, for example, if love between same sex partners is not equal to love between opposite sex partners, or by talking about the real suffering of same sex couples who are victims of discrimination and homophobic behaviour.

As a result, the groups are put into opposing camps, and the attempt was made early on to show that there are only two possible options with regard to such discrimination: if we agree with the bill, we oppose discrimination; if we oppose the bill, we support such discrimination. However, there is a third option, which is to oppose the bill and discrimination.

I decided to use a Cartesian approach to analyze the redefinition of marriage. I have discussed this issue with colleagues, former parliamentarians, voters and experts in law, ethics and education. I want to take this opportunity to thank these people for their frank discussions with me.

This bill aims to redefine marriage; in other words, to change or amend the definition of marriage and, consequently, to change a social reality.

The definition of the social institution is central to this issue. So we must question what we are defining and, logically, ask ourselves some questions. Here are a few of them. What is marriage? What are the goals of marriage? What is the purpose behind this social institution? What, therefore, is its ultimate purpose?

To answer these questions by saying the ultimate purpose of marriage is solely to give expression to the love and commitment of two individuals, without involving procreation implicitly, is very different than to answer that marriage is a genealogical institution.

When defined as a genealogical institution, marriage is a social reality that defines family and, among other things, enables children born from such a marriage to know their biological parents.

If we eliminate the notion of generational renewal and the survival of the human race as the implicit goal of marriage, we are giving precedence to individual rights and changing a societal norm.

The definition of marriage under natural law as the union between a man and a woman is not the result of a moral or ethical value imposed by mankind, but simply a biological fact that only a man and a woman may procreate and perpetuate life.

The traditional definition of marriage does not discriminate, it reflects a biological reality. Neither assisted reproduction nor adoption changes that natural rule.

We all know that there are people who get married but do not wish to have children, and that there are couples who cannot have children for a number of reasons. There is no doubt that their love and commitment are just as noble and deep as those of couples that start a family. As far as I am concerned, that is not the issue. There are always exceptions. There are exceptions to every rule.

The issue for me is whether we are discriminating when we view differently realities and goals that are different. It is perfectly legitimate for same sex couples to wish to formalize their union and enjoy related social benefits. However, it seems to me that this wish can hardly be reconciled with the genealogical nature of marriage.

Another issue is the protection of religious freedom. A number of people are concerned by the protection of religious freedom in the context of the celebration of marriage and given the fact that the Supreme Court used caution in its response to the reference's third question. First, as regards question No. 1, the Supreme Court said the following:

Although the right to same-sex marriage conferred by the proposed legislation may potentially conflict with the right to freedom of religion if the legislation becomes law, conflicts of rights do not imply conflict with the Charter—

As regards question No. 3, the Court said:

—the Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials—

The Court showed caution. Therefore, it is legitimate that some people would be concerned. These people are expressing a serious doubt and wondering if, following the redefinition of marriage as proposed in the bill, the next request by same sex couples might be to ask for equal rights regarding religion in the context of this new definition.

As a member of Parliament and legislator, I will have to vote on this bill. It will be a free vote and I will vote freely. I will do so according to my conscience, after careful consideration. My conscience reflects my own views and also those of other individuals, because it takes into consideration the best interests not only of today's society, but of tomorrow's.

[Omer Brazeau, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 20, the people of eastern Quebec were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Omer Brazeau.

Mr. Brazeau's unmatched generosity, tireless work, perseverance and tenacity led to the creation of Rimouski's cancer treatment centre and regional hostel unit.

Mr. Brazeau, who himself fought a stalwart battle against cancer, but eventually lost it, never stopped working to improve the quality of life of his fellow citizens.

In 1985, Mr. Brazeau became the president of eastern Quebec's cancer association. He left his position in 2001 and, with André Casgrain, founded the eastern Quebec palliative care association.

The social involvement of this great man was eloquently recognized. Indeed, Mr. Brazeau was recently honoured with these prestigious honours, among others: the Quebec National Assembly Medal; the Order of Canada; the Queen's Jubilee Medal and the Paul-Harris Medal, which is the highest distinction awarded by Rotary clubs.

On my behalf and on behalf of my constituents and my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I extend our most sincere condolences to Omer Brazeau's family and friends.

[Agriculture, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the work of the men and women who produce cash crops in Quebec, whose economic and social contributions have been a factor in the development of Quebec and Canada for 25 years.

In Quebec, the grain industry includes over 11,000 producers, who grow oats, wheat, canola, corn and soybeans on more than 900,000 hectares of land. In 2003, its production amounted to $800 million, coming first in plant production and fourth in agricultural production overall.

Grains are primarily used in animal feed, processing into food products for human consumption and the production of certain fuels. Quebec's producers set an example of good crop management with regard to environmental, agronomic and economic constraints.

This important and prosperous economic sector in Quebec and Canada deserves the full support of the federal government.

[Government Contracts, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, in response to a question about maintaining the 55% Canadian content requirement for army boots, thereby allowing Tannerie des Ruisseaux of Saint-Pascal-de-Kamouraska to remain in operation, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that he wanted to respect international agreements. But the fact of the matter is that DND procurement is excluded from all international trade agreements.

I will simply ask the Minister of Public Works and Government Services again if he can give us the assurance that this 55% requirement will be maintained, thereby maintaining 50 jobs in Saint-Pascal-de-Kamouraska?