Louise Thibault

[December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to participate in the adjournment debate because it gives me the opportunity to go over in more detail questions I have asked the Conservative government.

In this case, the question was about the new horizons program. I said that the Conservative government had learned nothing from the summer career placement program, because it planned on using a similar tactic for the new horizons program that would centralize decision-making somewhere other than the regional centres, which are perfectly competent.

As we know, the new horizons for seniors program is a fascinating example of the propensity of governments to turn a very useful initiative into a way to centralize decision-making, which is, at best, very irritating for anyone involved.

This program encourages seniors to participate in their community and offers three types of funding: for upgrading equipment, for promoting awareness among the public about elder abuse, and for helping seniors use their life experience to benefit the community.

In theory, that will meet the needs expressed by these people. In practice, however, something major is missing to enable them to take control of their own situation. In my region, there are dynamic groups of seniors, such as the Lower St. Lawrence seniors round table and 50-plus forum. These people bring a lot to the community, and they know the Service Canada officers in Rimouski. They would like to propose their own projects to people who know them, who know their community and who understand local dynamics.

Instead, the government is trying to alienate seniors by making decisions far away in Montreal and Ottawa rather than close to home. Instead of working with people in their community, seniors have to go along with decisions made by people who are very far away.

Service Canada officers in major centres have a lot of experience and they mean well, but they are not close to home and they do not understand our dynamics or our community. The government should enable competent public servants in Rimouski—people who know what is going on and who know how to hold consultations in their community—to do these things close to home to better serve our seniors.

As I said, it started this spring with the move to centralize the summer work experience program, and it is still happening. I would certainly like to know the real reason the government wants to distance people from the decision-making process. Why does it not trust its regional public servants, who are very competent and dedicated? Why does the government not want seniors to have access to services that really are close to home? What is the government's true motivation?

I hope that I will get an answer this time without having to ask my follow-up question in English.

[Darfur, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after the Rwanda genocide in 1994, the whole world declared, never again! On the eve of 2008, the government must take the action required to put an end to this murderous conflict in Darfur. The government could increase its interposition force, significantly increase its aid budget for those risking their lives in Sudan to bring peace, and convince China to engage in meaningful dialogue to find a real solution to the conflict.

It could do that. It could take action. But it has not. Why?

[Tribute to Volunteers, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, two million people in Quebec enrich our society by spending 300 million hours volunteering for aid agencies. I want to thank all these people who selflessly commit to a cause and improve the lives of countless others.

What sets these people apart is that they give of their time and energy without expecting anything in return. The only thing they get out of volunteering is the feeling of being uplifted as human beings.

Every time a volunteer serves a bowl of soup to a homeless person, listens to a victim of abuse or helps someone else, people come together a little more. Every time a volunteer makes a difference in someone's life, humankind as a whole benefits.

I salute the volunteers in my riding, in Quebec and across Canada. I pay tribute to them because they often make the difference between despair and hope.

[Canada Marine Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am always interested in what she has to say.

The hon. member talked about security from the perspective of protecting individuals and their personal information and also the impact on neighbourhoods. I would like her to say a few words on this.

She may not run into exactly this problem in her riding, on the shores of Vancouver. Nonetheless, I am very interested in matters of the environment, the erosion of the shores and coastlines, and the safety of the mode of transportation and what is being transported—we are talking about substances that are often very harmful, even extremely toxic.

I was rereading a comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Yesterday, when he introduced this bill by saying it had two parts, he added:

It [the strategy of the bill] recognizes the importance of promoting strategic investment and productivity improvements, yet protects port lands for future transportation needs.

In my opinion, the port lands, the surrounding areas and the shoreline are not there for future transportation needs, but for current protection, to protect our environmental heritage.

I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.

[Canada Marine Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Alfred-Pellan talked about one of the goals of this bill, which is to improve the navigability of the St. Lawrence and everything related to it.

I would like to ask him what this means for what I would call the St. Lawrence-eastern Quebec corridor. I am sure he will understand why: my riding and my region are in that area.

I would like to know if Bill C-23 will have a direct or indirect impact on port infrastructure belonging to the federal government, be it Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Transport Canada. I am talking about the entire east coast, both the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence. Given that the government still owns much of this infrastructure, it is responsible for it. Fishing is not the only kind of business that goes on there. The federal government is carelessly neglecting its duty.

I would like to know how Bill C-23 addresses this issue: superficially or in depth?

[Canadian Heritage, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Exhibit Transportation Services will be discontinued as of April 1, 2008. They allowed museums to share works of art affordably and in accordance with high standards. Heritage Canada has decided to hand this service over to the private sector, which will be free to offer the service as it likes. Those who will be disadvantaged the most will be museums that are far from the major centres, such as the Musée régional de Rimouski.

Art has to be protected and transported safely. Museum art collections have to be accessible to us because they are part of our heritage.

[Seniors, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of seniors who are living in poverty are being deprived of a benefit for which they qualify and are not being notified. They must be found and helped.

This government has chosen to spend millions of dollars on an advertising campaign boasting about how close Service Canada offices are, instead of solving this urgent, specific problem. This is immoral and inhuman. And to think that this money also could have been used to improve the guaranteed income supplement program.

Does the minister really think that, as his ads would have us believe, seniors who are living in poverty are going to stumble on a Service Canada office at a curling rink?

[November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak in English, which is something I do very seldom, but it is necessary because I do not think the parliamentary secretary understood what I said or listened to what I said. I find that, on behalf of the people I represent and the people all across Quebec and Canada, very insulting.

I am talking about people who are having problems and what we are hearing from the person across is that there are 500,000 new jobs and it is very promising. I am not talking about the people who will be able to get those jobs. I am talking about people, for example, in the forestry sector who are looking for a way of getting help to continue to work. She should not talk to me about other bills and other things that other parties have done.

This is a direct question for a number of people. What does the government intend to do for these people in particular?

[November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to go back to the question I asked on October 29. My question was for the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and it was about employment for seasonal workers.

I asked the government whether it planned to allocate funds for provincial programs that would enable seasonal workers to increase their weeks of employment and develop complementary skills. The response I received requires clarification. It was far from satisfactory, particularly because this is a critical issue for workers who have been hit hard by the forestry crisis and the rising dollar.

My request was based on the Employment Insurance Act, which provides for two types of insurance for workers who lose their jobs. The first is benefits to help workers bridge the gap between jobs, a reality that, unfortunately, many have to face. The second is transfers to provinces under agreements that provide for the establishment of employment support programs.

I would like to give you an example. In my riding, a pilot project is helping maple syrup producers hire forestry workers whose wages are covered in part by employment insurance because they are taking a pay cut. Everyone knows that the maple syrup industry pays a lot less than forestry, but the two industries are complementary. Maple syrup producers could not hire these skilled workers without timely financial assistance.

The forestry sector is not the only one affected by seasonal work. Yes, that sector is having problems, and good jobs are being lost in our regions. But there is seasonal work in other economic sectors too, such as tourism, agri-food, fisheries and many others that I could name if I had more time.

These people do not always earn enough money to make it through the off season, so sadly called the “dead season” in French. What these workers have in common is the willingness to work as long as possible each year, and we must recognize that they do want to work. Anyone who has experienced unemployment for any length of time knows that it is much more gratifying and fulfilling to work than it is to be forced to rely on EI benefits. Our regions and our economy need these workers, their expertise and their determination.

It is time to stop telling them that they are no longer needed, that they are going to be relocated, that any measure is good, except keeping them employed. More must be done to ensure that they can continue to earn a living using their skills and expertise, while keeping them as close to home as possible.

This is the kind of measure that people from my region and other regions want. I wish I had more examples to give. Yet, to do this, transfers to the provinces must be increased.

Despite their claims, the Conservative government is doing nothing concrete to respond to this legitimate concern, which I have expressed here on behalf of everyone who has been affected.

What was the government's response to this problem? One short sentence in the Speech from the Throne, to which I have already referred and which states, “Our Government will also take measures to improve the governance and management of the employment insurance account.” That is not enough. We need to see more substance. We know there is a surplus of $2.3 billion in 2007. Some sort of action is needed to help seasonal workers keep their jobs in their own regions.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in order to give others an opportunity to speak.

I thank my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his speech. I would merely like him to say if he agrees with my statement that it is nothing more or less than deregulation. It is based on an ideology that favours the free market, quite often at the expense of the people to be served. To repeat the expression he himself used, service for those who live in rural areas will go out the window.