Robert Thibault

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Charlottetown hails from a very historic and important part of this world. Charlottetown has the great distinction of being only about four hours drive away from western Nova Scotia. It is, like all of Atlantic Canada, very proud of its history. We have thousands of volunteers working to ensure we preserve our culture and history.

Atlantic Canada has many small museums, places around which people are able to exercise that function and they volunteer countless hours, but they need assistance and that assistance often comes in multiple ways. One is that students get great experience by working in those facilities when they are in university, right after high school. They are able to work in the summer to assist the communities, assist the volunteers and get the work experience needed to ensure they have a successful future and a good career in the work life after university.

These museums need assistance from senior levels of government in their operating and capital funding. They were pleased when they received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition then and Prime Minister now that there would be additional federal investments. Instead, they see themselves being hit twice and hit very hard. First is that the federal government, rather than increase the funding levels to museums, it reduced it. That was in the first round of cuts. Where will the second go? We do not know.

Second, we saw this past summer that there were a lot fewer student employment jobs and we have seen the budgets cut further. They know they can look forward to a lot less assistance in the future, both from the students and the volunteer organizations.

Would the member from Charlottetown like to comment on those points?

[The Conservative Government, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not telling Canadians the truth about the big fat contracts they give to their cronies.

Mike Harris' President of the Treasury Board awarded quite a hefty contract to a good Conservative like Marie-Josée Lapointe. He then tells us the contract was cancelled, but not before giving her half the money.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development awarded quite a hefty contract to a former Conservative minister, Harvie Andre. How much is the contract worth? The minister tries to reassure us by saying that it was just a measly $50,000, but his own government's web site says it was more like half a million dollars.

The Prime Minister, the worst of them all, made an offer his campaign manager in Quebec could not refuse: a seat in the Senate and the keys to PWGSC.

When it comes to hefty contracts for Conservative cronies, Canadians know that this government is not telling them the truth.

[October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps one day we could ask the member to explain that WTO discussions failed. The time has come to take other measures, to be proactive and to ensure that Canada is protecting its interests.

I asked him a simple question: Is the government prepared to invoke article 28 to protect our dairy products? Are we ready to do that?

I have a second, very simple question, this one regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. Will we guarantee a vote to all wheat producers who sell individually through that board before making any decisions? We are all familiar with the Prime Minister's study group or task force, whose members are predisposed to eliminate the board. Those individuals have decided. Before even conducting the studies, they know the results.

During today's Question Period, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board refused to answer this question, as to whether these farmers will be allowed to vote under Canadian legislation.

[October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my topic of discussion today is supply management.

On June 7, I questioned the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with a view to ascertaining how he planned to protect the supply management system in Canada.

Last week, like colleagues, I was in my riding and had a chance to speak to a lot of people, in particular to poultry and dairy farmers who are concerned about supply management and how we will protect them going forward in the future. One of the interesting questions they asked me was about how we saw the government's position on the Wheat Board and how the government was reacting to the Wheat Board. This is very interesting. This is the barometer that the Atlantic supply management people are watching, because it shows them how the federal government is going to--if it will--protect supply management.

Dairy farmers, chicken farmers and egg producers in Atlantic Canada do not want to tell western wheat producers how they should market their wheat and whether they should have a single desk or multi-desk system. That is not their intention. What they are concerned about is how the government is dealing with the western wheat producers.

They want to know if the government is listening to the producers or if it is starting with the preconceived idea of what it is going to do. These farmers see this as their barometer of how supply management will be dealt with. They remember the terms of the leader of the Conservative Party in 1998, the current Prime Minister, the terms denouncing the supply management model as a “government sponsored, price fixing cartel”.

What these farmers would like to know with respect to the Wheat Board is whether the Prime Minister is going to let each farmer vote. Is he going to follow the laws of our country and give a free vote to each farmer, not weighted in accordance with protection but everybody with a permit book having one vote in a democratic system? We know there is 73% support for the Wheat Board across the western prairies. Is the Prime Minister going to test that?

The second question they asked me was whether the government is committed and ready to use article 28 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Members will remember this question coming to the House before, under the previous government, and the answer at the time was that we were not ready to use article 28 to protect against blended dairy products, sugar, all sorts of products, because we were negotiating at the WTO through the Doha round.

The discussion at that time was that it was probably dangerous to do this while we were in negotiations. The agricultural community agreed. However, those negotiations have failed. The current government and the international community have not been able to level the playing field around the world. The current government has not been able to protect supply management in Canada as it sought to do. The G-6 countries could not agree. The gaps were too wide. The discussions were called off.

Now is the time to step up and protect our supply management system by using article 28 and making sure that all definitions of the import of dairy products are covered. Now is the time to step up and protect our supply management industry. Our communities depend on it. Rural communities depend on dairy producers, feather farmers, chicken producers and egg producers as the economic base of their communities. They will not survive without them.

If we go with what the Conservative leader always has said in the past--that we should have a competitive model, no “government sponsored, price fixing cartel”--then the industry will certainly fail and consumers will lose, because now supply management protects consumers as well.

My two-part question is simple. Is the government committed to using article 28 to protect supply management? Will it give all wheat producers equal votes and all of them a vote before making any changes to the single desk marketing system?

[National Peacekeepers' Day Act, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to second the bill introduced by the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

We know that he had the support of the hon. member for Sudbury last week and that the bill should have come up for second reading at that time. However, the hon. member had to go back to his riding to be at the funeral service of two soldiers who had fallen in the line of duty in Afghanistan. Our colleague made the right choice and went to the funerals with the families in his riding.

I thank the member for Sudbury who exchanged turns with the hon. member last week. Thus, the House can proceed to the study of the bill.

I am very happy to see all political parties support the bill and support our troops since the bill aims at designating a National Peacekeepers' Day.

Sometimes, we may have a rather romantic vision of peacekeepers' life because we think they spend their time on the front line, in a big space between two armies five to ten kilometres apart where they can take walks and are never fired at. As I will show later in my speech, I must say that that has not always been the case.

I spoke with Mr. Herb Boudreau, a retired soldier who was in Cyprus, I believe, where he was involved in some very difficult situations. He often found himself in these frightening situations.

I will not list all of the reasons that prompt us to support the resolution. I believe the members have already done a good job. I would like to point out a few facts, however.

On August 9, 1974 nine Canadian peacekeepers serving with the United Nations emergency force in Egypt and Israel were shot down by a Syrian air defence missile while preparing to land at Damascus, Syria on a regular re-supply mission. This represented the greatest single loss of Canadian life on a single peacekeeping mission and that is why the date is selected in this bill.

In recognizing the nine fallen peacekeepers, we pay tribute to the lives of over 100 Canadian peacekeepers who have been killed serving the international community in this capacity.

Peacekeeping is a dynamic concept that responds to changes in the international environment in order to create security for those affected by conflict. Traditionally, peacekeeping took place between two states in order to monitor a peace treaty upon which all parties had agreed. These early missions were traditionally military in nature.

The role of peacekeeping has expanded to include the delivery of humanitarian aid, supervision of elections, repatriation of refugees, disarming of warring factions, and the clearing of landmines.

Another increasingly important aspect of peacekeeping is support for stable government and human rights, including the organization of electoral systems and the training of police forces and the judiciary.

Canada peace support efforts now include the RCMP and its provincial and municipal policing partners, Elections Canada and Correctional Service Canada. Civilian experts involved in peace support operations include: regional and municipal administrations, judges, prosecutors, the media, health, tax and social policy advisors, child protection experts, facilitators and mediators, and people who manage basic infrastructure such as sewage treatment plants and railways.

It can be argued that the major threat to the international community is no longer from nation states disputing territory or trying to keep the balance of power. Rather, we are confronted by a spectrum of armed groups representing different value systems that seek power and influence.

While these groups may, in some cases, be funded by nation states, they also have access to private and commercial sources of funding. They are not signatories to the legal conventions we have relied on. They make no distinctions between civilians and combatants. Terror is their preferred weapon and they rarely engage in open combat. These non-state actors are media savvy and use the Internet skilfully to convey their messages.

The result is a blurring of lines, both in reality and in our understanding. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, activities within a city of thousands or millions in conflict become a dynamic and complex mosaic of combat, stability and security, and humanitarians operations.

There is no indication that conflict will return to the rather neat and tidy affairs of the past governed by agreed to protocols and rules. Changes in conflict and its methods compel us to think about how we respond to and manage conflict.

We need public and informed debate about the respective roles of military and humanitarians, and to determine how both can function effectively in a rapidly changing international environment. It is a conversation that needs to include all Canadians.

Next month marks the 50th anniversary of the day that Lester B. Pearson, secretary of state for external affairs and later prime minister, proposed a resolution for the development of an international peace force to Suez under the United Nations. Lester B. Pearson stated:

We need action not only to end the fighting but to make the peace...My own government would be glad to recommend Canadian participation in such a United Nations force, a truly international peace and police force.

Even at that time there was a blurring of lines between the blue beret and the steel helmet.

Pearson believed that Canada had a responsibility and a vital interest in creating peace and security in countries ravaged by war. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize, as we heard, in 1957.

Today, more than 100,000 individuals from more than 100 countries are engaged in more than 30 peace operations around the world.

I would like to talk a bit about the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre because I share Lester B. Pearson with the member who is sponsoring this bill. Mr. Pearson was from his riding, but his heritage was in my riding also.

Over the past 50 years, Canada has cultivated a formidable reputation for excellence in peacekeeping. Within that reputation, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre is recognized as a leader in multidisciplinary peace operations research, education and training. Since its inception, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre has trained over 6,100 people from 147 countries, including courses delivered in over 30 countries in English, French and Spanish.

A not for profit and non-governmental organization, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was established in 1994 by the Government of Canada and works in partnership with a range of domestic and international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Reflecting the reality of working in a complex mission and field environment, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre faculty and participants come from a variety of civilian, military and police backgrounds. Applying problem-based learning and adult learning techniques, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre is renowned for the quality and diversity of its courses for civilian, police and military participants.

Research ensures that the centre's training materials are relevant and up to date, and its close working relationship with funder agencies and partners ensure that the centre's learning materials offer a balance of relevant theory and practice.

Peacekeeping, and the environment in which it is conducted, has evolved significantly since the first peacekeeping mission some 50 years ago. In this changing environment, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre's contribution to preparing military, police and civilians to develop and deliver effective peace operations worldwide is more important than ever.

In closing, I am very pleased to support the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill intended to increase awareness among Canadians about our peacekeepers and to teach them more about the multitudes of situations they face. It is not always easy. Sometimes, we must make the peace that we would rather be keeping.

In order to have infrastructures, sacrifices must be made and courage is needed. For this reason, people from across the country—like those of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre—group together the officers and all sectors of our society, governments at all levels, in order to meet the requirements and expectations of all countries concerning Canada.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague understands the situation quite well and he has pointed out a lot of solutions. I agree with him that income support alone is not the answer. We have to look at the community itself and at the support it is receiving to permit people to live and thrive there. There are instances where income support is necessary. We need to invest in the education and training of these people.

My colleague alluded to the fishery. I have been dealing with a gentleman who is about my age, 22 or 23. Things are difficult for him. He does not own his own vessel. He wants to get out of the fishery but he needs retraining. He has the perfect qualifications for assistance under existing programs at HRSDC, but there are no more funds. There are no more funds are available out of the Yarmouth office. Many people in my community are facing these same problems and they are calling my office looking for help. I am sure the member has many people in his community who are doing the same thing as well.

We have a lot of community organizations looking at literacy. It does not square the circle of what my colleague is saying and what the frontbenchers of his party are doing. The government cut the labour market agreement, cut money for ACOA, cut unemployment, cut the Status of Women, cut literacy training, and reduced funding for training for older workers.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments.

He must certainly recognize—just as his colleague who will speak after him, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's—the difficulties we are now having with the workforce in rural Nova Scotia. Indeed, there are problems with fishing, with the herring industry, the salted fish industry, which is suffering a setback. Some people have a hard time making a real career of it, working a full year. It is important for these people to have support, and we are talking about support here. Also, it is important for them to have a training opportunity, to have access to continuing education. If we take the tools away from them, such as support for literacy education, which is the key for retraining, reshaping and preparing for the new economy and new jobs, we are in fact reducing investments where they should be increased. Investments in vocational training are also reduced. In southern Nova Scotia, only three months of the fiscal year are recognized. There used to be more money allotted for the development of human resources, for getting these people in training programs.

But we get no response on that from the government. We see no investment and a setback of $1 billion in social programs. We should increase investments in public Internet access sites in communities such as Maitland Bridge, which the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's must know well and where we should be investing. Instead, we are telling them that we are not investing anymore.

Therefore, how will this government meet the needs and expectations of people in remote rural communities, in Atlantic provinces as well as in Quebec, in Ontario, in western Canada and in the north?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I share the position outlined. That is what we want to do. We want to make sure that the Government of Canada assists older workers, younger workers, all workers to achieve their potential. We will not do that by cutting the programs that help them do that. We will not do it by eliminating literacy training. We will not do it by cutting retraining, by eliminating CAP sites, investments in infrastructure in those communities. That is the last way to do those things.

Certainly we want to help them. Absolutely. We will maintain that and that is why we will form government again after the next election.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that for many years we heard the Conservatives in the House, when they sat on this side at the time, talk about the $1 billion boondoggle. It was a self-prophetic evaluation of the work that they would do. The $1 billion boondoggle arrived on the same day that they announced a $13.5 billion surplus, with $1 billion in cuts to social spending.

I heard the minister today in the House suggest there was room in the economy for a lot of these older workers, that they had to have retraining to do it in order to integrate into jobs, but at the same time cut the money for retraining those people. The government cut the money for literacy, the basic building block to help a lot of workers learn new skills, new trades, integrate into the modern economy and contribute to their communities. The money was removed.

Three months into the year at HRSDC the budget for retraining was cut. There is no money; the government could not find any money anywhere else. It found money for its priorities, but that was not a priority. With $13.5 billion the government can finance a few priorities. The government left the workers out in the cold and is leaving them out in the cold.

I named the four large industries that are going through difficulties in my community. People have been turned away from their places of employment. Young people, middle aged and older workers are looking for ways to help their families and maintain their communities. What did they get from the government? Cuts.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for drawing the attention of this House to this very important matter. I congratulate him for having framed this motion that I will support and that I find quite broad. It would be impractical to approach such a vast problem from a narrow-minded perspective.

Solutions to the problems facing older workers cannot be considered without also considering the communities in which they live and where they want their families to live. The communities must have the benefit of economic growth and good potential in order to survive.

It is impossible to look at this in isolation. We have heard a lot of good comments on that this morning. If we break it down, income support alone does not do it and training alone does not do it. I think we have to look across the board at the community, the economy and the place where older workers and younger workers live.

The impact of closures of factories and businesses, as suggested by the motion, affects more than only one demographic segment of our communities. It affects all the communities. There has to be an approach that takes care of all this.

With income support, I think we could start at the very base. We could look at those income support programs we already have and ask if they are meeting the needs. I know that residents in my communities who are receiving the Canada pension plan or old age security are struggling. They are struggling to survive. The amounts they are receiving are not enough in today's economy. We have seen the prices. The cost of living has increased dramatically for them.

If we look at the consumer price index, it does not tell the story. The consumer price index is growing very slowly. Inflation is under control. But if we look at the very basic cost of maintaining our homes and our families, we will see that non-discretionary spending has risen very quickly in the last few years.

Sure, the big items have not gone up. Automobile prices have not gone up all that much and perhaps groceries have not gone up all that much. Electronics certainly have not. However, let us look at the basic costs, such as the price of fuel, the price of heating our homes, the price of energy. Let us also look at the costs of insuring our homes and insuring our vehicles. In rural parts of the country, where a lot of these older workers live, mass transit is not an option. Mass transit is not available. It is impossible to raise a family and maintain a household without a personal vehicle. Those costs are very high.

I have heard suggestions from the governing party that since there is a surplus in the Canada pension plan and the economy is doing very well we should be accelerating a reduction in premiums. I would ask the government to consider the other side of that, the side of maintaining premiums. We have to watch it, because we do not want to choke employers and choke the economy, but I think we should be increasing benefits. The government should be increasing the amount of disposable income that is given to older workers, retirees and disabled people in this country.

I thank the member for Charlottetown for suggesting that we could look at people receiving the Canada pension plan who may be able to work for part of the year as long as they do not lose their Canada pension plan. Some of them, while they can no longer work a full time job because of chronic illness, may be able to do two or three weeks' work in a year. If there is no clawback of their Canada pension plan, this would be a benefit to their community, to their families and to them.

We see many sectors, such as the fruit growing sector and the agricultural sector, that have a chronic shortage of labour. They need a lot of labour in a very short period of time. These workers might be available at that time. It could benefit both those sectors and the workers. I think we have to be imaginative at how we look at this.

In my communities in western Nova Scotia, there has been a very serious downturn in the herring industry. It is cyclical. It will come back. It moves around. The herring quota has been reduced from 80,000 tonnes a year to 50,000 tonnes a year. A lot of people will not make EI this year.

These people are very good employees. They are able to go from one business to another. The employers have been working together to try to maximize the number of weeks that people can work. Everybody has been quite responsible, but many of the workers still will not have the required number of hours. They will not quite make it this year. Who are these people? Most of them are female. A lot of them are older, at 45-plus. They are single parents. They are one parent families. These are the people who hurt the most.

We need to have a little imagination as to what kinds of programs we could put in place. When we were in government, we had a very good program. We would create projects. They were called make-work projects, but they were always of community benefit. These people's time would be valuable. They assisted in the communities and were rewarded for it by earning income and earning their EI insurance, and they could maintain their families.

Training is no longer available to these people. There have been cuts in the training programs. I mentioned this earlier. Three months into the year, the retraining programs and the support programs from HRDC have been cut. Literacy training has been reduced. These are the basic building blocks that people need to be able to get out there.

We are seeing people who have been displaced from the herring industry. Shaw Woods was a very good employer, and a responsible one, but because of international market conditions it had to close down. The Weymouth lumber mill has closed, and the softwood deal will not reopen it, trust me. King's processors, again because of international pressures, had to close down. Then there are the tourism industry and the agricultural industry. They are all taking hits. We see less tourists coming into Nova Scotia from the U.S. market since 9/11, a problem that will not be solved tomorrow. It is a tough problem and it affects a lot of seasonal workers. A lot of these businesses depend on students.

What was the reaction at HRSDC? It was to slash the student employment program. It had already been cut because of the census figures. I hear it is being cut again. An average of 70 students less per riding will find work next year. Not only are we not helping the students, we are not helping the communities. We are not helping the local communities maintain a good, vibrant economy where these older workers should, according to the minister, reintegrate into the workforce. I think we have to look at all those things.

Then there are the CAP sites. I mentioned this earlier. I was in the community of Maitland Bridge two weeks ago. It is an isolated community, next to a national park It was big in the forestry sector. This community is losing its youth. There is no high-speed Internet access in that community. It is very important for Maitland Bridge to develop a CAP site. There are some sites 10 or 15 kilometres or more from where Maitland Bridge is, but in this community there are none. Now there is no potential of getting these sites, because that funding has not been restored. It has been cut.

It is important for us to do these things. It is important that we get broadband Internet access for all the communities. We have been able to do it for a lot of communities and we had the school program to get it into all the schools. We have it in some rural communities, but we have to get it into all rural communities if we want to protect the economy of the communities where these older workers live.

I am not calling for going back to the old ways of EI. I remember the EI trap. Rather than seeking full time work, people would sometimes get into that trap. That did not help, but we have to look at EI and make sure it is working properly.

In my community, because of the boundary divisions that were added, with some larger communities, some urban and semi-urban communities where the unemployment rate is zero, it is assumed by Statistics Canada that the seasonal workers in my community can work year-round. Therefore, they need a large amount of work weeks to draw EI. That is not true. At those rates, they cannot be driving 400 kilometres in the morning to work and 400 kilometres back in the evening. There is no way that is going to work. I think our boundary divisions have to be a lot more reflective of the communities where these people live.

We have talked about pilot projects. It was mentioned that some of them worked well and some of them did not. We have to review them, of course, but what do we continue to hear? We hear they are being studied and studied and they are being put forward. We continue to have the same thing, those same projects. I think we have to be more imaginative than that. We have to give flexibility to the very good civil servants who work for us at HRSDC, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, who know what the potential is in those communities. They know where to make the investments and what groups understand the local economy and can create the necessary jobs and training.

Again, let me look at another point. Let me bring this back to who a lot of these older workers are in my community. Who are the people we are trying to help? A lot of them are women. They depend on and need some organization and some leadership to be fighting on their behalf, because they are in isolated communities a long way from the centre.

What do we get from this government? For one thing, it slashed the budget of the Status of Women department. That was an insult. Then, a few days later, we heard that the remaining budget cannot be given to organizations that do any lobbying, advocacy or research. We continue to have a Status of Women organization in theory, but it cannot do anything, because we know that the REAL Women group believes that the money from the Status of Women should only be used to bring people together to do some brownie recipe exchanges.

I think it is time for us to get realistic and make sure that we take care of all of the people in our fair country.