Louise Thibault

[Memorial Cup, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding are known for their great competence and savoir-faire, to the point that the Canadian Hockey League's host-city selection committee chose Rimouski to host the 2009 Memorial Cup tournament.

There is no question that the legendary hospitality of the people of Rimouski tipped the scales in favour of this Lower St. Lawrence city. Players such as Sidney Crosby, Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards, Michel Ouellet and the other former Océanic players have also been extraordinary ambassadors for our region.

Congratulations to the bidding committee, to the Océanic team, to all the people of Rimouski and to the people of the Lower St. Lawrence who will come out for the 2009 Memorial Cup tournament.

Rest assured that hockey fans will have a front row seat at this memorable tournament. You will all be very welcome.

[Business of Supply, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I am obviously not surprised to hear yet another Conservative member boasting of his government's leadership and talking to us about pride, since self-praise has become their trademark.

What I really want to know is, how can such language be used when the Conservative government has completely ignored an entire sector of the economy, Quebec's forestry and private woodlot owners, and when we are dealing with an unprecedented crisis that will go on for a very long time? To the Conservatives, this crisis does not exist and they did nothing about it in their budget.

[Business of Supply, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened very carefully to the leader of the NDP addressing this House. I would like to know what he thinks about something that is dear to my heart, that is, the empty Conservative rhetoric served up to any member who has criticized or continues to criticize the government's inaction in response to the crises we are facing at home in Quebec. The leader of the NDP knows Quebec well. He even chose to hold a meeting there with his candidates, and received a warm welcome.

In Quebec there is a crisis, more specifically, a forestry crisis. Members who want to stand up for this particular issue are told that we do not have confidence in our businesses. But it has nothing to do with confidence in our businesses. They are experiencing a crisis. And something like the trust, which completely ignores the existence of private woodlot owners, is not what will help them.

I would like to know what the leader of the NDP thinks about the sort of nonsense we are hearing.

[April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief with this my last question.

Originally --and the minister's spokesperson will recall, because he must have it right before his eyes--, the purpose of my question was to understand why the government had not increased its peace implementation force and made a ten fold increase in its budget for those involved in creating peace by putting themselves at risk. What was keeping him from convincing China to engage in a meaningful dialogue in order to find a real solution?

I appreciate the comments that the spokesperson for the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made this evening, but I would like to hear him tell us what specifically the minister and his staff at Foreign Affairs have done directly in their dialogue with China to get it to truly engage in solving this crisis.

[April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to this adjournment debate, I have the opportunity to revisit a question that I asked on December 10 regarding Darfur. As we speak, atrocities are being committed over there to which neither I or any other person can remain indifferent.

People from my riding are regularly showing how concerned they are about human rights both here and abroad. It is for their benefit and for the benefit of the people of Darfur that I rise again today on this subject.

In Darfur, soldiers and militia groups rape and kill civilians with, in the case of the Janjaweed, the guilty support of the Sudan government. According to Amnesty International, we are talking about more than 200,000 people killed, more that 2.2 million internally displaced persons and 280,000 refugees. Thousands of women are systematically raped and opponents are tortured.

If we are at war in Afghanistan to ensure human rights, we have to be coherent and intervene elsewhere as well. We have to intervene in Darfur, especially since more and more observers and the American government, among others, say that a real genocide is taking place. If that is the case, Canada and its allies in the international community would have the legal obligation to protect the people of Darfur.

That means we need to prevent conflicts, we need to intervene if there is a conflict and maintain peace by ignoring the sovereignty of a nation such as Sudan because it does not protect its own people.

By looking into this, we learn that since January 2006, through CIDA, Canada has voluntarily contributed $388 million to peace efforts. I will give members a few figures. This way, I won't have to ask the government to give them to me only to hear it say how extraordinary they are. We have made some voluntary contributions for CIDA, humanitarian aid and early recovery in Sudan, namely $120 million in terms of humanitarian aid and 45 military advisors in terms of human resources. We have also loaned 105 light armoured vehicles—and I did say“loaned”—to Senegal, Rwanda and Nigeria.

It is really not much, but this meagre contribution compares favourably against the complete lack of leadership showed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who went to Sudan, but did not achieve any results.

The Darfur crisis must be resolved politically above all , and it is up to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to engage all stakeholders, China included, in seeking the solution. China is a particularly important stakeholder because, as we know, it buys 64% of Sudanese oil and is one of the main arms suppliers to the Sudanese government.

Even if the rebel factions find a common basis for negotiations, there is no indication that the Sudanese government will respect any resulting agreement. China can make a difference by forcing the Sudanese government to respect the peace agreements and peace missions. It must be encouraged to take part in a spirit of cooperation.

Given the urgency of the situation, the public is absolutely entitled to know the Canadian government's strategy as far as the Khartoum regime is concerned. One thing is certain: so far, Darfur really has not seemed to be one of the Conservative government's foreign policy priorities.

I ask again: when is there going to be a change, a real change?

[Tibet, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the whole world is distraught over the violence in Tibet. In order to resolve this crisis, the Dalai Lama's call for dialogue must be unanimously encouraged by the international community, and heard by China. The Conservative government must exert real pressure so that talks can begin immediately.

Apart from the empty rhetoric coming from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what concrete steps will the Canadian government take to help resolve the crisis in Tibet, without compromise?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I really wonder why the Conservative government's Minister of Finance is so concerned about provincial tax policies. I said earlier and I repeat: this gives me little encouragement about what will happen in the future.

The government would be much further ahead to take care of its own files. Consider, for example, issues concerning seniors, like poverty and retroactivity on the guaranteed income supplement. We could also consider the forestry sector in Quebec, especially in my region, which really needs help. The federal government has failed to take action on so many other issues.

I would like to know if my colleague shares my opinion, that is, if she thinks the government should stay in its own kitchen and cook its own meals, instead of not just eyeing up, but actually taking over its neighbour's kitchen.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the member's speech, I was expecting to hear “open federalism”, and he finally concluded with “open federalism”. I therefore want to ask him a very direct fundamental question.

Initially, when the Prime Minister took power with a minority government, he said he wanted to respect the provinces' jurisdictions.

I will take the example of Ontario. I can only imagine what would happen if Quebec were involved. My question is this: why do the Minister of Finance and the Conservative government feel free to interfere in the jurisdictions and affairs of a provincial government?

Have they—the Prime Minister included—forgotten that when they were talking about their wonderful open federalism, it meant not shoving things down the throat of a province that does not agree with their ideas? They should not claim, as the previous speaker did, that this is simply a way of encouraging the province. The speech by the Minister of Finance was not encouraging. They are trying to tell a provincial government how it should act.

What gives a federal authority the right to interfere in a provincial jurisdiction?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke very eloquently about the Liberal strategy and extolled the virtues of the Liberals' so-called balanced approach. Obviously—the flip side of the coin—he blamed the Conservative government. I certainly cannot blame him, because I agree with him about this government's lack of vision and lack of real action, for example, with regard to Ontario. The member talked about the auto industry; if he were from Quebec, he would also be talking about the forestry industry. He also talked about the fact that the government is not stepping up to the plate when it comes to environmental issues.

My question is very simple. Why did he and his colleagues not vote against a budget that they apparently nearly all reject?

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in short, I would say that even it if is very difficult and even if we are unlikely to succeed, I think we must at least try. As is the case for any group with individuals who are relatively or very extremist, there may be one or two whose views are closer to our own. That may well be. We should at least explore that possibility.