Louise Thibault

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

Mr. Speaker, for 20 minutes we heard the hon. member talk about what this bill is not. That is rather unusual. I want to talk about the fact that the legislation will remove a privilege from a crown corporation because it has never used the privilege and has just found out about it.

Once it discovers it, uses it and benefits financially, could it not use the revenue to benefit the public, given—as the hon. member just said—that a rural safety study is underway and we already know that some services in rural areas will be abolished? That was known; this is happening.

Why not allow Canada Post to earn more revenue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my two colleagues who asked questions. I am very surprised by the rather twisted logic used by the parliamentary secretary to present this issue.

If I understood correctly, at the beginning he said, “This government will not privatize Canada Post”.

And now he is saying that Canada Post did not have the revenue in the first place, so it is not losing anything.

What interests me and people from my region, my riding and throughout Quebec is the fact that more money would perhaps mean more services.

As is currently the case in rural areas, there are safety restrictions for employees and there is a lack of revenue to keep post office boxes close to people in rural areas.

To meet employee safety needs, post office boxes must be further away, and we are racking our brains to find solutions. I must give credit to the Canada Post workers in my area who are doing their best.

But I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us why more revenues in this case would not be interesting.

The only interesting thing, as with local telephone service, is to deregulate and maybe one day privatize. But I have some serious doubts about that.

[Canada Post, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government has tabled Bill C-14 to withdraw Canada Post's exclusive privilege of delivering letters outside Canada.

Canada Post is already required to be profitable—as it should be—and it fears, and rightly so, losing a privilege and significant income in order to ensure quality service.

In rural regions like mine, Canada Post is struggling financially to strike a balance between safety issues and mail delivery.

As with local telephone service, the government is acting in favour of the companies and not the general public.

In its obsession with the free market, does the government realize that lower income for Canada Post inevitably means—

[Points of Order, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to honour the memory of the soldiers who fell in battle recently, by observing a moment of silence at 3 p.m., following question period.

[Points of Order, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for you. I thought that after losing two soldiers, we would have at least taken a minute to rise in their memory. I thought that was a tradition.

[Jean Lemire, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at its annual convocation ceremony, the UQAR awarded Jean Lemire an honorary doctorate in recognition of his career in marine biology spanning more than 20 years.

Jean Lemire led an expedition aboard the Sedna IV to document climate change in Antarctica. His 430-day odyssey of adventure and discovery awakened the dreams and curiosity of those who followed his progress.

His documentaries have won numerous prizes in Quebec and elsewhere, and inspired a whole generation of eco-citizens.

I salute Mr. Lemire's courage and vision. He urges all of us to explore our environmental awareness. As he says, “one cannot put a price, not even a political price, on fighting for one's cherished values”. This House should pay close attention to a man who has sailed the seas from pole to pole to bring us a clear message about the fragility of our planet and our individual and collective responsibility to protect it.

[Canada Elections Act, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I must say from the outset that I have a bit of a problem with some of the comments made by the hon. member, who tends to impugn motives to those who do not agree with his point of view. We know that there were some glitches in the last by-election, precisely because the Chief Electoral Officer interpreted the act as meaning that an elector could have his or her face covered—and covered is not the same as veiled.

Then, people immediately tested that interpretation, and it is unfortunate that this situation allowed some people to make fun of such an important democratic process. In any case, it is precisely to correct a whole situation, so that there is no longer room for interpretation or glitches, that we must develop a fair and equitable identification process for everyone.

I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on this. In my humble opinion, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must not take precedence over collective rights.

[Human Resources and Social Development, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government did not learn anything from the Canada summer jobs program.

The new horizons for seniors program was also a victim of the centralization of power. In the case of new initiatives, projects submitted by organizations in my riding, in my region, will be examined in Montreal.

Yet, Service Canada officers in Rimouski are much more familiar with the local community. They are competent and capable of making good, timely decisions in the region.

Why must the decisions that affect seniors in Rimouski, Trois-Pistoles or Dégelis be made in Montreal or Ottawa, or the minister's office, rather than locally?

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, because I only have one comment to make. It will not be necessary to respond, but I want to make my comment.

The reason why I have no question is that it would only serve to drag us into real pompous rhetoric.

First, all the people here in this House were elected legitimately. There are no first-class or second-class members of Parliament.

Second, a government member should have the intellectual rigour not to twist the facts by telling us about the absolutely extraordinary employment rate in Canada, when some people in the regions have problems and, because of this crisis, are in an extremely precarious situation. Consequently, let us at least respect the fact that these people are suffering.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his speech.

What really struck me as my Conservative colleague was speaking was that he was verging on intellectual dishonesty—I am choosing my words carefully here—when he talked about reducing taxes. He knows perfectly well that we are talking about companies that are in dire straits and are not making a profit. Everyone here understands that, and the public does too.

I want to focus on one aspect of the debate. I would like to ask my colleague whether he can comment on the measures in the motion that deal with the resource regions I come from. I hate calling them “resource regions” because that suggests that others come in, take our resources, and then abandon us to our fate.

Would he be kind enough to tell us what he hopes to accomplish with these measures for resource regions?