Robert Thibault

[Transport, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bay Ferries Limited has announced that it will be closing the service between Digby and Saint John on October 31. This ferry is a vital link between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the United States and central Canadian markets.

The announcement is a devastating blow for the local economy, for the families, the students and businesses that depend on the service.

Since privatization of the service, economic conditions have changed in western Nova Scotia. The service is no longer financially viable. How will the federal ministry assume its responsibility and ensure the permanent survival of this vital transportation link?

[National Aboriginal Day, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on this 10th annual National Aboriginal Day, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a first nations community in New Brunswick, the community of Elsibogtog, which sorely lacks adequate housing.

In fact, Susan Levi-Peters, Chief of the Elsibogtog Nation, wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. She asked him for 500 new houses but will receive only five.

We know that aboriginal housing is not a priority for this government. The funding promised in the Conservative budget is simply an allocation and totals $1 billion less than what would have been invested under the Kelowna accord.

This is an insult to aboriginal Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this excellent question. I do not necessarily have an answer to it and perhaps it is not up to me to have one. This was the beauty of the Kelowna accord. In fact, no single person or specific level of government was expected to have all of the answers.

First nations communities are very diverse. Such communities have all kinds of differences. They have different capabilities and different challenges to overcome.

This accord facilitated a partnership between the communities and the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to work on the various problems, using the various qualities that exist from one community to the next. We were getting closer to reaching our goal, but only the bigger challenges were addressed. The motion mentioned health care, housing, education and economic opportunities.

In our communities, whether in Toronto or Baie Sainte-Marie, Nova Scotia, as Canadians, we all deserve the same opportunities, the same solutions and the same security. I believe it is entirely legitimate that these communities want the same thing and it is only reasonable to admit that the existing structures and systems are inadequate. We have seen some success, but there were many shortcomings. I therefore believe that we should go back to the Kelowna accord.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting a member of another opposition party who used that comment in the House once to say that there are some very difficult problems. There are some problems that are not going to be easy to resolve. The worst thing we can do is hide from them or stand back from them. I think we have to look at them in a serious manner.

I would ask the member to first consider that the Conservatives should not say that “they” have inherited this problem. This is our problem. All Canadians have participated for over 135 years in creating the problems that are out there in those communities. It is time to participate in the solution and to do that in an honest manner.

The question that has not been raised here today is about what we should have seen at the last federal election. The people in these communities are underrepresented at the ballot box. They tend not to vote in the same numbers as the non-aboriginal community. If we wonder why, let me say it seems to me that they do not have any confidence. They do not have any confidence that Parliament and the government are going to have the proper effect, although the potential is there. The cancellation of this historic accord I think shows that they have reason to be apprehensive.

We had the provincial governments and the federal government getting together for years of negotiations and discussions on how this was going to be addressed. Finally we had one step in the right direction, not the solution to all problems, but a good step in the right direction, which was summarily cancelled after an election. Contrary to all the statements that I heard from the Conservative side of the House prior to the election on their desire to work with the first nations of this land, the Conservatives cancelled this agreement. This is the root of and the foundation for solutions to our many problems that we jointly share.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, about one hundred minutes ago I stood in the House to address this motion by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, a very good motion, and it is a little difficult one hundred minutes later to resume with exactly the same tone and at the same place.

I ask the House to imagine what it would be like should the government find the maturity to resume the discussions on Kelowna. The longer it waits the more difficult it is. I would ask the government to reconsider this seriously. I would ask all members of the House to look at the motion and support it, because we are at an opportune time in our country, in our nation, in our federation, where the economy is the best that it has ever been. For eight years we have had surplus budgets. We have resources. We can look toward financial resources for the future.

I believe it is incumbent upon us as a people to make sure that nobody is left behind, that we work together to make sure that those who are suffering the most or have the most difficulties get the assistance that is necessary, not welfare and not charity, but real and reasonable investments in the form of partnerships, in the form of a mature relationship, government to government to government. To me that is what Kelowna represents. Kelowna represents a chance for these communities to look to the future.

When I sat on the government side of the House and listened to the members in opposition speaking about their concerns and what they would do, it was completely different from what we have seen. The minute the government came into power the first thing it did was cancel that historic agreement. I would ask the government to return to it.

I see aboriginal communities, native communities and the Mi'kmaq community in my neighbourhood doing very well. Based on the resources, we have to go further than that. We have pitted people against people in a fight for a limited resource. Who is going to get the biggest amount of a finite resource? We have the fight in fisheries. We are looking at forestry now.

I think those communities deserve, as we do, to be able to participate in all sectors of our economy. They deserve, as we do, to know that their children are growing up in a healthy environment where they have safe water, good waste water treatment, adequate housing and not too many people per house, and where they need not be fearful of pandemics or diseases such as tuberculosis.

In my little community of Yarmouth, we have the risk of an outbreak of tuberculosis, with 700 people having to be tested a couple of times. I can tell members that this puts fear into the community.

First nations communities are facing that daily. They do not see any change. They must be very frustrated and disappointed. For once there was an agreement with them, the federal government and the provincial governments, an agreement that shone a light, gave them potential and was a place to start.

I encourage all House members to support this motion, to reassure these people and all Canadians, by proving that we are working together to ensure a better future for all of our citizens.

[Millennium Excellence Award, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate two accomplished young people in my riding: Amy Florian and Jillian Kaulbach.

Amy and Jillian are recipients of the prestigious Millennium Excellence Award. This honour recognizes their academic achievement, community involvement, and their demonstrated leadership abilities.

As they begin their post-secondary studies this fall, they should be proud of their accomplishments and know that we stand beside them to offer our support as they dream big and realize their potential.

I would ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Amy and Jillian, as well as all the recipients of the Millennium Excellence Award for this important honour.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Toronto Centre.

The motion states:

That the House recognize the urgent need to improve the quality of life of Canada's Aboriginals, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, living both on and off reserve, which requires focused and immediate initiatives by the government in areas such as health, water, housing, education, and economic opportunities and, especially, immediately moving forward with the implementation of the Kelowna Accord with its full funding commitments.

If we talked to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we would find that they support this motion. If Canadians went to Métis communities, Inuit communities, and first nations communities throughout this land and saw the shortcomings in those communities they would ask why governments are not getting together and working with these people to address their concerns. They would ask why we do not see the shortcomings in these communities, why we do not see the potential in these communities. Canadians would ask why we are not addressing these problems together rather than all levels of government taking individual initiatives. When each level of government has its own initiative, they are often disjointed and seldom reach what we would like to achieve.

What was the Kelowna accord? It was not a deal done on a napkin prior to a press release. The Kelowna accord was the result of a lot of lobbying done by people in those communities talking to the federal government, the provincial government and local municipalities. Negotiations were held among federal and provincial officials and first nations. An agreement was reached.

To cancel the accord sends the wrong message. It does not recognize our responsibilities as Canadians. It does not look at the errors we have made in the past and provide solutions for the future. The Kelowna accord was a very good initiative. It was very well supported. To be able to get the provinces, the territories and communities together to come to an understanding took a lot of work, a good plan and a lot of compromise. Now it has been cancelled.

What are we telling those communities? What are we telling the young people who have dreams and aspirations? We are telling them that they cannot look to governments for help. We are telling them that they cannot trust the Government of Canada to enter into an agreement with them because a minority government on a whim might renege on it and remove federal participation.

The situation in which these communities find themselves is unfortunate and regrettable.

People are losing their faith and see no future in using the institutions available to them. They use means that I completely disapprove of.

Nevertheless, they see no other solutions. The burgeoning difficulties and the lack of partnership make them feel that they have to barricade roads, hunt and fish illegally—hence poach—and use illegal means to boost the economy of their community.

Canadians and the federal government should recognize that they have an obligation to guarantee to them that when a document is signed or a verbal agreement is made, the agreement is honourable and will be honoured.

We hear often from members on the opposite side who tend to be very, very right wing that if we do a special agreement, it is race based. We have to recognize the specific needs of these communities. We have to work together.

Sometimes I hear it said that the court is ruling Canada. Sometimes it is because sometimes these decisions are forced by the court. Sometimes the court forces us into action only when we do not recognize our responsibilities. Generation after generation do not see what the treaties really mean and do not recognize that perhaps we have some liabilities and some responsibilities as Canadians toward those treaties. I remember a member of another opposition party saying that when we buy the dog, we get the fleas. With those treaties came some responsibilities and we have not always met them. For the first nations in most cases, it all has not worked to their advantage.

We should go to the communities and see the lands that they have lost. They were forced to live on reserves, their resources stripped from them, their potential stripped from them and they were reduced to a mere existence. That is not acceptable. We cross oceans so that does not apply to other nations, to other countries, to other peoples. We send our military. We send our aid. This is what we have to do in Canada, but not in the same way. We have to recognize the majority.

I had the opportunity to work with Bob Nault, as well as the member for Fredericton, when each was the Minister of Indian Affairs. We would want to work with the communities, to look at the fundamental problems in the governance and the administration, to look at the role of women, to look at the possibilities, to look at the shortcomings and how we can address them.

When we look at an agreement like Kelowna that gave such a sense of hope, that looked at those elements, at health care, at education, at infrastructure, at water and sewers, how can we back out of that? How can we go home and tell our people that our government has led us down this path?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 16th, 2006]

With respect to the arbitrator’s report on the dispute between Transport Canada and the Maritime Harbour Society over the Port of Digby: (a) what action does the government intend to take in response to the arbitrator’s report; (b) how will the government assure that the interests of the people of Digby are respected, promoted and protected; (c) will this facility be acquired by the government, entrusted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and managed by a local harbour authority?

[June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the $400 million investment in the budget was a re-announcement of processes that were already underway under the previous government. They are good initiatives, do not get me wrong. They do speed up the flow but that is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about ordinary people who travel across the border once in a while, maybe for tourism or for business. We can say that we will have special documents that will get recognition but we do not know what that means. We have not even developed the documents yet and this initiative is to be implemented in 18 months, What are the Americans going to implement? What will we implement? How much will they cost? Will they be as expensive as a passport or more expensive? Will they be as readily available or more readily available? We do not have any of that information.

My riding depends greatly on the American tourist. We have a huge tourism industry in the Maritimes. It is the second or third largest industry in Nova Scotia. Because of market conditions that have been happening since September 11, 2001, we have seen a reduction in tourism. One ferry has completely closed. We have had Bay Ferries do a great initiative this year. We are seeing signs of improvement in the number of Americans who want to come into our country but we need to be welcoming. We need our government to be forcing the Americans to take our side.

[June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the day for the implementation of George Bush's western hemisphere travel initiative quickly approaches, Canadians in border communities are becoming increasingly nervous about the lack of leadership from the Conservative government.

When I raised this issue in the House two weeks ago, the Minister of Public Safety brushed off my concerns with yet another non-answer. Since the minister is so blasé about the issue and since his promised solutions have yet to materialize, I would like to take this opportunity to remind him of exactly what is at stake with this policy.

On January 1, 2008, all Canadian and American residents will require a passport to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Such a rigid requirement will severely impede the flow of goods and people across the border. Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs concedes that it will likely cost the tourism industry more than $1 billion per year in revenue. Others estimate that the number is more like $2 billion in lost revenue.

For a riding like mine that depends on casual cross-border travel, this will have serious implications for the tourism industry. In my riding, when the weather heats up in the U.S., we get a flow of tourism. It is that volatile and that quick. If there is some special project or special package in the tourism industry, we get the flow from the U.S. It is not always planned tourism.

As well, the western hemisphere travel initiative has important ramifications for other Canadians. For example, each year Quebec City hosts the largest peewee hockey tournament in the world. In 2008, American teams that have played in Quebec for years will find themselves turned away at their own border should they come into the country without passports.

It also means that American families will have to spend more than $500 on passports to visit their relatives in the Maritimes. How many, I wonder, will simply choose not to visit us?

Now the government assures us that the U.S. government is willing to consider an alternate secure travel document for Canadians travelling to the U.S. To date, however, there have been no firm decisions as to what would be required from such a document, and there are no guarantees that we will even reach an agreement on this matter.

Moreover, unless there is a cost effective and convenient alternative for American travellers, Canadian tourism will still be negatively impacted as Americans choose to stay at home rather than visit our country.

In the House of Commons, the Minister of Public Safety keeps repeating his mantra that his government has made this a priority. Unfortunately, no one told him that the Conservative government had only five priorities and that the western hemisphere travel initiative did not make the cut.

In fact, Canadians are dependent on the U.S. senate and American governors to protect their interests on this issue. This is bush-league leadership and Canadians deserve better.

The minister keeps repeating to us that the U.S. senate has passed a bill that will delay implementation. I would like to remind him that this development is meaningless unless the U.S. house of representatives also passes an identical piece of legislation, which is increasingly unlikely.

Even more concerning are statements from the Secretary for Homeland Security saying that the Bush government does not support delaying implementation. If the congress does not want to introduce the necessary legislation and if the Prime Minister's ally in Washington wants these new regulations to be implemented without delay, how can the minister expect to satisfactorily resolve the matter?

Let me ask the minister again. Why is the government abandoning Canadian communities on this issue? Will the government stand up and represent us on this vital question or do we have to depend on the U.S. senate and governors to defend our interests?