Robert Thibault

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his remarks. He mentioned the fact that people sometimes marry for reasons other than just procreation. He gave several examples.

I am thinking of older people, who often no longer have the ability to procreate but who marry for love and for companionship. We consider those marriages equal to any other.

I would like to ask the member a question. He knows the law, he studies it and he continues to learn more about the law. The government has a responsibility, if it sees that the laws of the country need changing, to present bills to Parliament. We debate those bills, as we did in the case of civil marriage. We hear from witnesses in committee, we come to a decision and, finally, we enact the law.

I find it hard to understand why a government would propose a motion setting out what we would possibly find in a bill that it might table, if that were the wish of the House, unless it was because it knows that it can not introduce that bill without using the notwithstanding clause, or that it has no intention of introducing that bill or that it is trying to create division in the House of Commons and in the public.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the House leader speak on the motion. He made a lot about it being a free vote, even for his cabinet ministers.

I remember an important motion that was put in the House not very long ago, but there was no free vote for his cabinet. A cabinet minister had to resign because he would not support it. In my mind it is the responsibility of the government, if it does not agree with the laws of the nation, to bring forward differing laws and to put a bill before the House. Then cabinet solidarity is always asked for on those bills.

I believe it is disingenuous to say that there is a free vote when there is no bill. It is simply a motion before the House.

When the previous government brought it before the House, it did it in an honest and forthright way in the form of a bill and the parliamentary tradition of cabinet solidarity was kept at that time. I believe he is putting forward false premise to the public of Canada.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, members will remember that, in the House, not too long ago, when we were forming the government and we were debating the Kyoto issue, a Conservative member—their environment critic at the time—had made a speech, a filibuster. I believe this is still in the annals of parliamentary publications. I do not remember whether it was 16 or 17 hours, but it was very long. The thrust of his speech was that global warming did not exist, the Kyoto protocol was useless and there were no greenhouse gases.

Now, the Conservatives admit that this exists theoretically or in principle. Our actions to correct the situation, which are part of our international commitments, are not conclusive. They do not alleviate the problem.

We find that the Conservatives are out of excuses. According to the report of the commissioner of environment and sustainable development, there were failings in the programs that were put in place. Indeed, these programs were huge. Perhaps there were management problems. I do not dispute this with the commissioner. However, we could have improved these programs, given them special attention, made the changes that were needed and ensured that they were managed in such a way as to achieve their goals. It would have been a step in the right direction with international trading.

I will put my question to the member who, in passing, has made a good speech.

Is he convinced that the Conservative government recognizes global warming as a catastrophe that we must face, as one of the great challenges of humankind? Should it not quickly reinstate these programs?

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his words. He seems to know a lot about this issue, so I will ask him this question.

Is it possible to have a real impact on the environment, on air quality and on greenhouse gases with measures that will apply only in 40 or 50 years' time? Do we not need interim measures so that we can monitor progress and make adjustments?

There were good programs in place. Some people criticized how those programs were run. Would it not have been better to make the necessary changes to those programs and to help industry, Canadians and the provinces achieve the goal that had been set?

The government must invest in wind energy and especially in green energy, instead of simply cancelling programs. It has to put systems and measures in place for when we are no longer here.

We are talking about indoor air quality, without having a definition of what that means and without knowing what programs have been put in place. There could be a register of gastric gases, for all I know. Programs must be put in place, though.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the federal election, the member must have heard, as I did, the promises of the Conservative government. They said that once they took over, if the waiting lists and wait times were still in existence, Canadian patients could look for solutions elsewhere, even internationally, and the bills would be paid by the federal government.

I do not know if we have missed some information, but in my riding, we still do not have access to those services. We still have waiting lists and we have not been invited by the federal government to find those solutions or treatments either in Canada or abroad.

Does she, like me, find that this government is somewhat hypocritical or has she heard that these services exist in other regions of Canada?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. He spoke at length of the possibility for Quebeckers within Canada to maintain their language, promote their culture, counter the effects of more linguistically powerful cultures, like the United States, which continue to have a devastating impact.

It is good to listen to all these institutions within Quebec. Francophones outside Quebec seldom enjoy equal opportunities. They often have a harder time, having to resort to challenges and to contend with provincial governments which may not be as prepared to offer as readily services in the language of the minority. We also have to contend with school boards, health boards and all the institutions responsible for serving people in their mother tongue. It is often a different story if you are a francophone outside Quebec.

This motion which, like the hon. member, I will be supporting, states that Quebeckers form a nation within Canada.

Here is my take on the issue. People, regardless of where they live, whether they live in my riding, Montreal, Quebec City, Edmonton or the Lac-Saint-Jean region, are equals. As such, they should have an equal opportunity to have access to similar opportunities and similar services to preserve their language and culture, as requested by Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and all French-speaking Canadians in a minority setting.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the government to which the member belongs cancelled the court challenges program, this long-standing tool of choice to improve the lives of francophones outside Quebec. That tool has now been taken away, and people have to rely on the kindness of the provinces, local health boards or school boards, which have been known for 100 years to refuse to provide the services requested. Services were obtained through constant battles, large and small, fought with the help of funding from the court challenges program which has now been cancelled. In so doing, a component which the member considers important to the development of these communities is being removed.

What does the member have to say to that?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that a decision had to be made quickly without consulting the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I learned that from statements made at a press conference by the former minister. Although I plan to support the motion, I am concerned by remarks that this represents significant evolutionary change. This motion and these changes were not debated across the country.

What does this mean to the other provinces?

If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was not consulted, then who was?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his remarks. I agree with most of what he told the House. Like him, I intend to support the motion, because it is obvious that Quebeckers form a nation within Canada and that they are part of this great Quebec nation, whether they live in St. Mary's Bay, in my riding, in British Columbia or in Quebec. But there are other nations as well.

The minister said something that got me thinking. He said that, while this is sometimes described as a symbolic change that may give rise to debates in the future, it marks an important evolution. In proposing a change in the evolution of a country, a nation, Canada, any government has a responsibility to consider the ramifications and impact. Normally, there would be much debate.

I assumed that there had been discussions within cabinet before a decision was announced in the House. But I learned earlier, on the television, that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had not been consulted. And if he was not consulted, I guess the provinces and the communities across the country were not either.

Without any prior discussions with his caucus or ministers, the Prime Minister rose in this House to propose significant changes, an important evolution, as the minister responsible for the economic development of Quebec put it. I find it odd nonetheless. I support the motion because I think that what it states is obvious.

I would like the minister to tell me, however, how it is that the Prime Minister made such a decision without any prior discussions with his ministers, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in particular? Was this minister consulted, he who hails from Quebec, particularly since this is a very important issue to Quebeckers?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very enlightened speech. This is the second time we have heard him on this matter.

The hon. member has a lot of experience, which he acquired under several governments, including the last government. He had already sat in this House before that. The members of this House know that often these issues are difficult within a government. This calls for discussion within caucus, the government itself, and between ministers. Rumour has it that some hon. members—and even some ministers—were just as surprised to hear the Prime Minister's statement a few days ago, last week, as we were and as Canadians and journalists were.

Can the hon. member imagine a prime minister making such a decision without consulting his ministers, namely his government's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should admit that her party is using the valuable time of this House—where we should be debating current issues that are relevant and very important to all Canadians from all provinces—to engage in petty partisan politics.

A motion was presented to recognize Quebec as a nation, and now the Bloc wants to add “currently” within Canada. Like the hon. member, I too was elected to the Parliament of Canada to represent the interests of my region and my riding, to make laws, to present motions and to debate issues for Canada, as it exists. We cannot imagine a different Canada.

I visited almost every region in Quebec. About fifteen years ago, I dealt with a family from Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce, the Bonnevilles. These people were very proud of their riding and their region. They told me about the Beauce. They did not talk about the Beauce being currently within Québec.

Are the hon. member and the Bloc Québécois suggesting that we use this wording for first nations, that are currently within Canada, in case they decide some day that they want something else? Quebeckers form a nation within Canada. They are no less Québécois and no less members of that nation wether they live in Sainte-Marie or in Montreal.