Louise Thibault

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his speech. He already discussed this, but I would like him to answer a more in-depth question. Anyway, I am giving him the opportunity.

He spoke about the forestry and manufacturing sectors, saying that not only are they now in competition with China, India and other emerging countries, but that this competition was already established and foreseeable. For a variety of reasons, the sectors were not able to prepare or were not ready.

In addition to the emergency measures proposed in this motion—we are talking about a bandaid solution—I would like to know what else there is for citizens and other levels of government that have made a real effort to prepare for the future. We are asking the Conservative government to make tangible plans, here and now, in our regions. How will this be done so that the industry and our people can legitimately generate profits and live well like other Canadians?

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who is always very eloquent. I agree with him that we no longer look as good as we used to compared to other countries. We do not look as good as we used to, period.

My question for him is similar to the question my colleague from Chambly—Borduas asked. I want to ask about financial assistance for workers who have been affected by crises in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

Does my colleague think the government should implement a permanent program for seasonal workers that will not encourage them to change careers, but will enable them to round out their seasonal work with a related or complementary job by helping them, not penalizing them?

We need qualified people in these two industries—which are primarily regional—now, and we will need them in the future. Such a program would enable these industries to retain qualified workers.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing on which I agree with what the member said, that is that Quebeckers obviously have the ability to adapt.

However, I do not understand why, in his speech, he spoke more about the past than about the present and the future. Here and now, in many regions of Quebec and elsewhere in the country, people have lost their job. There are small and medium businesses, as well as large companies in the forest industry, among others, that have no future.

What people want to know from their minority Conservative government is what it will do now. In the past, it refused, for example, to provide loan guarantees. It bragged that it left $1 billion to the Americans under the agreement. It still pats itself on the back. It tells us about the $400 million. But what did it do with the $14 billion that it applied against the debt? What concrete action will it take for people who legitimately want to work in the forest industry in Quebec and elsewhere and who are going through a crisis?

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I could go back quite a few years as well.

But I would like to hear the hon. member who just delivered that highly eloquent speech say a few words about something that is happening across the entire country. I am talking about women who work on the family farm and do not receive pensionable earnings.

Recommendation 18 of the 21st report mentions this need in particular to develop options in order for women, as well as men, who work on the family farm to receive a decent income when they retire. That is what I call equity. I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees that this would provide pay equity for women who work in farming.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say that I always find it interesting that, in a forum composed of men and women, when a woman expresses herself forcefully, all sorts of motives are imputed to her, but when a man does so, he is described as passionate and courageous. This is especially surprising in a place that represents democracy.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether, in the government's intentions, as expressed in the throne speech and yesterday's economic statement, she found anything similar to what she is talking about. I do not want to ask her a partisan question or know why she has not done this or that. I just want to know whether she has found anything consistent with the Liberal motion today.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. She touched briefly on the issue of the guaranteed income supplement recipients and the inadequacy of those payments. My question is regarding a motion that I tabled and that we have not yet had the opportunity to debate. We will be debating it at a later date.

Does she acknowledge that calling on the government to significantly improve the guaranteed income supplement should be aimed primarily at singles? As we all know, it is much more expensive to live alone and it is mainly women, by a vast majority, who live below the poverty line this way.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has had some very specific questions from other members about the bill we are debating. I would like to ask for his comments on a much broader subject.

We learned this week that the French president has just asked the European Commission to introduce a European tax, no more, no less, on any product coming from a country that does not conform to the Kyoto protocol.

In economic terms, especially, I wonder what that means to my colleague, in the broader sense of the environment, obviously.

[Seasonal Workers, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government announced that it planned to “improve the governance and management of the Employment Insurance Account”.

Beyond the reserve needed to deal with an economic crisis, the huge amounts accumulated in this fund must be used to protect the financial security of citizens and to increase employability.

When will the federal government transfer more funds to provincial governments and to Quebec, which are responsible for labour force training, so they can implement permanent strategies to extend the weeks of work for seasonal workers?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think that those listening to us must find these debates boring and repetitive. Several times each day, colleagues from all parties address the House in a completely partisan fashion and allude to years of inaction by their predecessors. If they ever return to power, they will do the same thing. This brings nothing to the debate and gives nothing to the people we represent.

Thus, I will give my colleague who just spoke the opportunity to provide concrete—because he spoke of tangibles a bit earlier—actual, down-to-earth examples, for the good of Canadians and Quebeckers, of what this government will do in future. I do not want to know about its intentions; I want to know what concrete action it will take to tackle poverty, especially the poverty suffered by our seniors who—although they receive the maximum guaranteed income supplement—live well below the poverty line. This is a shameless lack of respect.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, naturally I listened carefully to the speech by the House leader of the Bloc Québécois who reminded us, among other things, of the Bloc's five conditions. I do not know if he will agree with me, but I believe that there could have been four or six.

Given the sad reality of poverty, which continues to spread in Quebec and elsewhere, can he tell me why the Bloc Québécois did not make this one of its conditional priorities and completely overlooked this aspect of our Quebec society which really needs to be addressed by both Quebec and federal jurisdictions?