Robert Thibault

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find that last comment to be absurd. If the federal government is serious about moving assets and moving jobs into regions, it can call for tenders for facilities within those regions.

The defence of the member that the government has to do that because it was done by other governments in the past, is contrary to the Conservatives' assertions that they were elected for change and calling for transparency. This motion calls for public tenders for public assets. It seems to me that is transparency.

If this unsolicited proposal to which he is referring is so good it would stand up to the scrutiny of a public tender and it would be the favoured tender. Perhaps there are other facilities out there that would have been a better value or would have better responded but if no search is done through pubic tenders, how are we ever to discover that?

If the government is serious about decentralization, I would encourage the member to have those tenders.

One thing I want to say on transparency is that one of the reasons we need this type of a motion is because of the actions of the government. The minister responsible for this action, who said that this was the best deal possible, is not even allowed to take questions from the members in this chamber, to answer to the Canadian public for his actions and to answer on how he is expending the Canadian dollar. Is he getting value? He may be but I cannot ask him that question. Nobody can. He sits in another house. He was appointed off the campaign bus to the Senate and into cabinet and expends billions and billions of dollars.

The government says that the people of Canada asked for change and they are getting nickels and dimes.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member. I agree with her on some points. That said, I will not be voting with her because I support this bill. I think that we need this institution to help us protect ourselves.

I agree with her that we do not want duplicate services. It is important that our resources for this be used wisely.

The member seems to have skipped over one thing: everything that is going on internationally. When we have to deal with avian flu, SARS or some other as-yet-unnamed threat, we need an agency that can work with international groups and provincial governments to ensure a concerted approach.

I had the opportunity to visit China with the Minister of Health to see what we were doing and how we were participating internationally in the SARS issue, avian flu, or the possible flu pandemic.

We developed tools like the Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN), a Canadian tool used by several countries around the world.

It would be unfortunate if each of the ten provinces and three territories were to develop such a tool. I think it would be reasonable to have just one nationwide tool managed by an institution like the one run by Dr. David Butler-Jones. We must have an institution like that to work with provincial authorities and with regional groups through the provinces. I think that is reasonable.

It will contribute to ensuring the health safety of the Canadian public in all provinces and territories. That is what the member wants, so I encourage her to reconsider her position and support this bill.

[June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member's answer highlights the problem. In the five years that I have been here I have worked with three different transport ministers and have watched each of them try to resolve this problem by waiting for the legal ramifications, legal studies and arbitration to be done. The Department of Transport always advised the minister on which direction to take, as it is advising the minister now.

The answer in Digby is for the Department of Transport to take over the wharf and to turn it over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which agreed in 2005 to take it over and manage it under a harbour authority, like every other fishing harbour in the community, which is what Digby actually is. It should never have been at Transport Canada. That would be the ideal answer, with the support of the federal government.

The problem is that the Minister of Transport is getting his advice from the people who made the mistake. They are the ones who are representing the minister in these discussions with the Maritime Harbours Society. They would have to admit infallibility and I do not see that happening very soon. That is why I encourage the minister to appoint an independent group, an independent body, an accountant or a lawyer, to do these negotiations with the Maritime Harbours Society, someone who has nothing to protect and has an unbiased nature in representing the government. Surely there is a Conservative accountant or lawyer somewhere who can do that work. That would help.

I have heard the member's previous answers to what the needs of western Atlantic Canada are, which is to move everybody to Alberta. The herring fleet , the scallop fleet and the lobster fleet cannot make it up the Athabasca River. They need the Digby Port. It is a fishing port and it always has been.

I would encourage the member and the minister, as I have done in private conservations, to go outside of the department and get independent advice. This is not a problem that was caused by the minister but he can resolve it and I would be pleased to work with him to do so.

[June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, well maintained, safe and efficient wharves set a fishing community apart. They can make the difference between a prosperous and a marginal season and it is imperative that the Government of Canada develop and maintain a responsible policy to manage these wharves and protect a way of life.

In opposition it seemed that the Conservative government recognized the importance of maintaining our wharves and protecting a way of life. In fact, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley was particularly vocal about this issue and the community of Digby in my riding was one of his favourite topics of conversation. It seemed that he could hardly speak to a reporter without attacking the Liberal government for having divested ownership of the Digby Wharf to the Maritime Harbours Society. Now that the Conservatives are sitting on the other side of the House, they are silent on this issue.

I recognize that the situation in Digby is not the fault of the government but it alone has the capability of fixing the problem. However, the minister prefers to play politics rather than do the right thing.

I would like to speak about the Digby Wharf in a bit more detail. In 1999 the Department of Transport transferred ownership of the wharf to the Maritime Harbours Society, along with $3 million for the upkeep and maintenance of the facility. This transfer has been a dismal failure.

Seven years later, the wharf is in a state of dangerous disrepair and serious allegations have been raised about the use of the funds by the society. After several years of legal proceedings between the Maritime Harbours Society and the Department of Transport, the arbitrator has finally reported his findings and has found no wrongdoing on either side, although he did point to a very poor contract by the federal government.

With this process completed, there is no longer any reason to delay returning control of this wharf to a community that depends on it for its livelihood and yet the government continues to do nothing, preferring to play politics with the issue. The government would rather blame the previous government for its mistakes than take responsibility and fix the problem.

When the Conservatives were in opposition they said that they would take quick and immediate action to resolve this situation. During the election they repeated that promise and yet five months into their mandate they have done zero.

A month ago I raised the issue in the House and asked the minister when he would take action on this file. I asked him to return control of the wharf to the people of Digby and to ensure that his government invested the necessary money to protect fishing and the regional economy.

Instead of addressing the root problem of this issue, the minister chose to play politics at the expense of the people of Digby. He stood in the House and accused me of not doing anything over a 13 year period. I have only been here for five years and when the decision was made on the Digby Wharf it was a Conservative who represented West Nova. The minister owes it to the people of Digby to take action on this file and return control of the wharf to the people of Digby.

When will the minister do the right thing? When will the government assume ownership of the wharf and invest the necessary money to ensure the safety of the fishing fleet and the long term economic sustainability of this region?

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent speech. He stood up for supply management and for this motion, which I will support with great pleasure. I imagine that all members will support this motion.

The member now hears government members say that they support the supply management system. However, he should not forget, and nor do I, that that has not always been the case. One could not count on the members from the old Reform Party to stand up for supply management. Now, they support the motion. I thank them and commend them. All members and all Canadians must be on the same side to ensure that supply management is maintained.

He spoke very well about the elements or the messages sent. We are sending a strong message to the international community saying that all Canadians support this system, which is very beneficial for consumers, as he mentioned.

We are also sending a message to our government. The government says that it wants to respect the will of the members of Parliament. The committee is sending the government a very strong message, and we support this message. Better still, this is a message for the farm families and the communities who rely on agriculture.

In my riding, the supply managed sectors of agriculture are doing particularly well, be it poultry or dairy products. But the young generation is concerned. People are asking what will happen at these negotiations. I think that it is important to use article XXVIII to support the three pillars. All members must send a strong message to the international community.

[Agriculture, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no response.

On May 17, the western ministers of agriculture asked the government to reconsider its position on market access for sensitive products. Canadian producers prefer a balanced approach, in other words, negotiating access to international markets and defending supply management.

Is the government prepared to defend supply management, or will it drop this system, which successfully supports our Canadian communities, in favour of multinational interests?

[Agriculture, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's question period, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that his government supported the supply management system at the WTO negotiations. However, he also said that when we defend supply management and lose the vote 148 to 1, Canada's position is untenable.

Can the minister tell us clearly how he intends to defend the supply management system at the WTO?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the minister to tell us how he is going to do it.

How will he do this? He stood in the House not too long ago on a question from me on the Digby Wharf and accused me of not doing anything over a 13 year period. I have been here for five years. When the decision was made on the Digby Wharf it was a Conservative who sat in the seat for West Nova. He and the minister for ACOA use their ministerial responsibilities for political purposes. He has indicated that he will make that decision on a political basis. He owes it to the people of Dibgy to return that facility to their hands.

[Canada Post, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Tories continue to abandon Canadians, particularly rural Canadians. Now they are abandoning postal services. They will no longer deliver mail to 53,000 rural families in this country. This means 53,000 cars driving 40 kilometres each to pick up the mail instead of a few cars delivering it to all. A made in Canada plan.

Will the government guarantee that all Canadians will continue to receive their mail and that all Canadians will be treated equally?

[Passports, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this answer will not pay the bills for businesses in border communities.

The tourism industry in my province has been hit very hard by 9/11 and the rise in the Canadian dollar. It is the same for U.S. states. American governors are reacting but not our Prime Minister.

Will our government not represent us on this vital question or do we have to depend on U.S. governors to defend our interests? This is bush league leadership. Once again, the Prime Minister shows himself to be a shrub, a little bush.