Robert Thibault

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. I am an Acadian. My Acadian friends live in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the Magdalen Islands, Louisiana, Maine, Montreal and across Canada. They are members of this people. We really do not define ourselves geographically, even though people think most Acadians live in the Maritimes.

I have friends who are Quebeckers, and Quebeckers form a people. They share a common language, culture and history. A number of them live where I do, in Baie Sainte-Marie. They are just as much Quebeckers as the people who live in the Lac-St-Jean region or other regions. They are members of the same people.

If this people is to be defined by the word “nation”, it seems to me that it would be ridiculous to limit that to a particular geographic location, when there are Quebeckers pretty well everywhere in Canada. It could be said that the people of Quebec form a nation within Canada. That way all Quebeckers would be included. Would it not be silly to consider a Quebecker less of a Quebecker than others and less of a member of the nation if he moves around within the country?

[Community Access Program, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, recent Conservative cuts demonstrate a willingness to push back progress by denying Canadians the basic skills and opportunities they need to fully succeed in today's society. This callous attitude is further demonstrated in the government's failure to come clean about the future of the Community Access Program.

In Nova Scotia alone, CAP provides affordable public Internet service in 279 communities. It has engaged volunteers, provided skills training to youth and seniors and ensured public access to online government services and valuable health information.

The Minister of Industry tells us his department is currently examining options for the long term future of the program, but stakeholders have been shut out of the process.

The chair of the Nova Scotia CAP association has stated that members were used to an open dialogue with their federal partners but now it seems as though they are waiting to see how their future will be decided for them.

Open discussion and input from the network partners is imperative. There has been an overwhelming reaction to the uncertainty of this invaluable program.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we understand that the minister and the government is preparing a defence plan and that defence plan will have to consider a lot of investments in tactical and strategic air lift and in navy and army equipment. Could the minister indicate to this House and to Canadians how he could go ahead and invest $17.5 billion in air lift, especially for the big budget item like the strategic air lift, without having completed a full plan for our military?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, in my riding, we have the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, which opened after the Cornwallis military base closed. The centre is headed by Canada's former chief of the Defence staff, Mr. Baril. The centre provides training for soldiers, police officers and non-governmental organizations from nearly every country in the world. It has given training in more than 20 countries, and people also come to be trained on site in Nova Scotia.

We are worried about the centre. We know that the former government had agreed to renew its funding, but we are waiting for a commitment from the current government, especially the Department of National Defence, which partners with CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Could the minister tell us that we will shortly be receiving the funding needed to maintain this very important centre?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to hear that.

I know the minister is preparing a defence plan for Canada. CFB Greenwood is in my riding, a very important element within the military. Economically, it is very important to the area as well. The business community and the municipalities are making investments in support of that installation.

Could the minister indicate the future prospects for the Greenwood military base as well as new investments in personnel or services that might be located at CFB Greenwood?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for Scarborough Centre.

I would first like to thank the minister for being here this evening. Personally, like all the members from my party and, in my opinion, all the members in this House, I have immense respect for our soldiers. Our hearts are with these women and men, as well as their families, when they are called to take up arms.

We would like the minister to assure us that these people are not going to battle unless they have received the military training we take such great pride in. We recognize that our soldiers receive the best training in the world and that we do not send them into battle or into dangerous places without full training.

I would also ask the minister to assure us that all the soldiers who have gone to Afghanistan received the same training.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in today's paper the minister is quoted as saying that he believes the Worm report takes it very seriously and that he is worried about the impact of global warming on fish stocks. Yet on October 8 he told the House that he places his trust in his government's made in Canada plan, no action until 2050. Fish are not impressed.

Why is the minister willing to watch all our fish die before doing anything concrete to fight global warming?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday thefisheries minister admitted that global warming is likely contributing to the declining fish stocks off the shores of Newfoundland, but here is the real irony. While the Worm report predicts that all the fish stocks will collapse by 2048, the Conservative government's clean air act does not have any hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions until 2050, two years later. Whoops.

Does the minister agree with his government that there is no need to tackle global warming until the last fish is gone?

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what the member fails to recognize is that it is possible, before the writ is dropped, that campaign-type activities and financing be done by riding associations.

While he is right that as members of Parliament we should always be out consulting, and we are, there are people who would wish to challenge us. I do not think I am going to get in by acclamation. It could create a situation where spending is done outside of the regular election period spending that is overseen by the Chief Electoral Officer, by people who are challenging or by incumbents, through their riding associations that would be officious, not quite official, not part of a campaign, but that looked very much like a campaign.

We see that a lot south of the border. We see political action groups and all those other things that, while we do not permit them in Canada, they could be disguised and they could be leading to year-long or multi-year campaigns, preparing the way for the day that the writ is dropped.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member that Canadians would generally like fixed term elections. Throughout the last election I heard a lot of people in my riding say that they would like fixed term elections.

A problem could arise because of the type of democracy we have where there can be a minority government and there can be a vote of non-confidence and there can be circumstances beyond anybody's control, but perhaps with goodwill we could limit the times that that happened. It could even be enacted that there would be very limited circumstances where a motion or a bill could be declared to be one of confidence, and the confidence would be limited to a specific vote of non-confidence of the House. That would limit the ability of the governing side to force an unwanted election if it wanted to go to an election prior to the fixed date. That is something we should consider and work on for the long term.

My other concern is that we end up with a system that is a bit like the U.S. system and others where there are protracted electoral campaigns. One of the beauties of the Canadian system is that the election campaign is of a rather short period, with the exception of the last one because it straddled the Christmas and New Year's holiday period which created a rather long campaign. Canadians noticed and commented on it.

A 36 or 40 day campaign seems to be what we like in Canada. If we get to a period where we know what the date is, and we get into an extended one year unofficial campaign and a 36 day official campaign, that could be a risk.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on those points.