Louise Thibault

[Committees of the House, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I strongly object to the process and the implications of the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois and passed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Those listening must know that when a report is tabled, we do not know what it is about. It simply refers to something and we do not know what it really deals with before someone tells us and before we have the chance, perhaps, to read the blues.

I will be very brief. The process is absolutely not transparent. It takes place without debate and behind closed doors. This is serious, because this report, this motion describes three types of members: members affiliated with parties, independent members, and a third category. I will quote the blues for this committee in English, since that is all I have.

It states, “For the purposes of Standing Order 31.1(1), members of political parties not officially recognized in the House are not considered independent members”.

So should this one day be approved, we would have three types of members in this House.

The members in question—the three and now four independent members—were never informed, never consulted and were never invited to appear before the committee. So much for democracy, especially when it comes to this committee. In general, committees are interested in hearing from witnesses—or so I thought—and finding out what people think and, at the very least, inform them.

I do not think that a handful of people in a single committee, as qualified as it may be, should be able to decide on the Standing Orders that govern this House, since this affects parliamentarians and basically takes away the Speaker's right to make decisions and have discretion.

[Canada Elections Act, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to share an observation and if my colleague wants to respond to it, he is obviously free to do so.

I was shocked earlier by the way the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was talking about this bill, especially in the last 10 minutes. He was talking about this bill as the be-all and end-all—like all the other bills the government has introduced—for democratic reform.

This really irritates me. If the Conservative government truly thought this was important it would focus on something essential, on the voter turnout the hon. member was just talking about. Holding consultations will yield better voter turnout. Respect, both for citizens and their representatives here, is a basic concept.

The truly simple and necessary thing to do is to talk to people and hold consultations at every level.

No one will be fooled by this 20 minute presentation.

[Canada Elections Act, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask only one of the questions I had, but I will make the following observation. With respect to the Leader of the Government's argument that the decline in turnout is due solely to a lack of opportunities to vote, I would like to remind him first of all that people can vote almost every day, even if not in their own neighbourhood.

I am sure that a responsible government has analyzed the costs. So I would like to know what the total cost of this initiative would be if it were approved. Then, as there is always another side to the story, what are the negative effects of this suggestion?

[Rural Communities, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, apparently, the, not so new, Conservative government does not seem to understand the term “rural community”. Perhaps they think it means neglect, abandonment, isolation, and unending vastness.

For the people in my region and in those of many of my colleagues, living in a rural area means continuing to play an active role in the decisions that contribute to our own development, as well as being supported by the government.

We do not scorn urban areas, because we provide them with resources, but we simply want a fair share of the taxes we invest in collective development to be invested in our right to live in rural areas.

Centralized programs, confined by their inflexible framework, frustrate our desire to be at the heart of the world, like anyone else. It is time for the Conservative government to stop playing the new kid on the block who knows only how to improvise. It is time for the government to discover, understand and respect the rural reality.

[May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will put my question very directly.

By saying that there are now three managers, did the government's spokesperson mean that the director position at the existing office will not be filled and that, from now on, Rimouski will be under interim management?

I would like to raise another point. As far as this range of services is concerned, one has to realize that the situation is not the same everywhere. I was not talking only about my riding. I mentioned that the Rimouski office was serving the Bas-Saint-Laurent area. No passport services, among others, are provided. My colleague MPs and I are very proud to offer such services at our constituency offices, but do not come and tell us about services not provided in the regions.

I also have a third point. We live in a rural area and the fact is that there are residents—there may not be many but there are some—who do not have access to Internet.

So, those are my three other questions.

[May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate gives me the opportunity to once again share my concerns—and those of my fellow citizens—about a situation that is still going on at the Rimouski office of Service Canada. This situation has to do with the fact that the office has been managed on an interim basis for quite some time from Gaspé, and we have no way of knowing why or for how long.

Why is this worrisome? I will give an example that everyone will understand: Canada summer jobs. This is an excellent example of centralization and bungling. What justifies my comments? Reality.

The minister decided to centralize the handling and processing of applications in Ottawa for private companies and public agencies, and in Montreal for NPOs. However, in Rimouski, among other places, the minister had an organization and competent and experienced public servants who, year after year, were able to process these files. But no, in 2007, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development had to decide that the program had to be completely overhauled and managed differently. We know the mess that followed.

A week ago, evidently, after an outcry from the agencies—a legitimate one at that—it was decided to take a second look and announce a second round of funding. We should note that the minister is doing so ignoring the criteria that he himself established.

I am using that example to restate my question. The Rimouski office, which serves the huge Bas-Saint-Laurent area, is under interim management out of Gaspé. Its role is changing without notice, consultation or debate. Is what seems to be coming really being done to improve service delivery? The current situation is more akin to control changing hands and centralization, as in the example of Canada summer jobs I cited earlier. Does Rimouski have to kiss permanent management goodbye? Is the lack of action on appointing a director hiding something else?

This is why I have restated my question of May 1 last.

[Telcommunications, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, new pricing rules for local telephone services announced by the CRTC are quite simply unacceptable because they enact increases in rural areas. They represent a real obstacle to the development and occupation of rural areas. Once again, rural areas are penalized.

How could the Conservative government ignore such a vital reality as the rural areas? When will it reverse this decision and thus show that it truly cares about the rural as well as the urban population?

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

[May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just gave us some figures. Obviously, I am not at all surprised that these figures apply to major urban centres. I would like to reiterate that people in the regions are not rejects. They are hard-working, they care about national politics and they pay their taxes. They should not be made to wait unduly or have to travel 700 km or 800 km in order to get a level of service that someone in Montreal could get by crossing the street, or walking 3 km or 4 km to the Guy Favreau Complex.

My hon. colleague speaks of Canada Post. I would remind him that the taxpayer has to pay $15 for Canada Post's service. If the taxpayer comes to the MP's office, it does not cost a penny, thank God. So, the hon. member can say all he wants about the thousands of applications that are being processed and the progress that is being made, but my point remains, that the people in the regions, people in so-called “remote” regions, do not have the level of service they deserve.