Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd first like to thank you for your passion for postal services, Mr. Anderson. I think it's a subject that does indeed deserve the committee's attention and that also deserves more attention from the government.
I found the previous exchange particularly interesting, namely how to define rurality today.
As you know, I'm the Member of Parliament for Abitibi-Témiscamingue. It's a so-called rural region in northern Quebec. It's a six-hour drive from here. One of our challenges is to build a swimming pool in Rouyn-Noranda. It's the same in Ville-Marie, Témiscamingue. There are no federal funds for that.
Yet in Gatineau, just a few kilometres from here, right in the midst of an urban area of 1.6 million inhabitants, I noticed a sign in front of a building stating that it was built in 2010 thanks to the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. This, I thought, was money that could have been invested in the Rouyn-Noranda swimming pool in my own region. The pool was too old, so it remained closed all summer, and my son couldn't train there. We're experiencing a problem stemming from the fact that the current definition of rurality includes cities like Gatineau. This bedroom community right next door to a major Canadian city is recognized as rural. I think that poses a significant problem.
That brings me to my first question. How can we currently highlight the importance of land occupancy, especially for the federal government? If land occupancy is a priority and it's important that the people who occupy that land obtain the services they need, I think the post office is a basic service.