Robert THIBAULT

THIBAULT, The Hon. Robert, P.C., B.B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
West Nova (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
September 29, 1959
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Thibault
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=1e092884-bbf5-4e32-8487-f67996cbd856&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
administrator, businessman, municipal administrator

Parliamentary Career

November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
LIB
  West Nova (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (January 9, 2001 - January 15, 2002)
  • Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (January 15, 2002 - December 11, 2003)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
LIB
  West Nova (Nova Scotia)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health (July 20, 2004 - February 5, 2006)
January 23, 2006 - September 7, 2008
LIB
  West Nova (Nova Scotia)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health (July 20, 2004 - February 5, 2006)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 158)


June 18, 2008

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I have a question on Mulroney-Schreiber.

The mandate of the commission of inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber theft is so limited that many questions will remain unanswered. Yet the government has the duty to shed light on this affair.

Why is the Prime Minister protecting Brian Mulroney? Why is he hiding the truth?

Topic:   Oral Questions
Subtopic:   Ethics
Full View Permalink

June 17, 2008

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to see how the government has taken linguistic minority communities hostage. Precisely because they are a minority, these communities need stability and predictability, without being subject to partisan threats.

Why is the government using linguistic minority communities for its own narrow political gains?

Topic:   Oral Questions
Subtopic:   Court Challenges Program
Full View Permalink

June 17, 2008

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the government's refusal to announce the reinstatement of the court challenges program immediately shows to what extent it has taken minority language communities hostage. Now, almost two years after eliminating the program, the government is still not being clear about when or even whether it will be reinstated.

Why is the minister putting partisan politics ahead of the interests of minority language communities?

Topic:   Oral Questions
Subtopic:   Court Challenges Program
Full View Permalink

June 10, 2008

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding, as a member of Parliament, that when one votes in favour of a bill at second reading, one is voting on the principles of that bill. We expect that the bill will be sent to committee where committee members can work on the details, and work on minor adjustments to the bill to make those principles work. If the amendments are substantive, then the principles are being changed.

In this case the minister has stated both inside and outside the House and at committee that natural health products were not at play in the bill. He said that nothing in this legislation would change the rules for natural health products: the availability, the choice. But I understand from members opposite that the minister now wants to put forward some amendments that would deal specifically with natural health products where they are not involved in the bill now. That is changing the principles of the bill.

I believe that it would be respectful of the House if the minister withdrew the bill, made the relevant amendments, and put the bill forward, so that all members could do an adequate study, receive advice from the Library of Parliament, receive advice from interest groups and professionals prior to our debate at second reading, and well in advance of it going to committee where we would make those moderate modifications.

Does the member not find this to be contemptuous of Parliament? Does he not find it to be disrespectful that members would abuse their privileges in this way?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Food and Drugs Act
Full View Permalink

June 10, 2008

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his remarks. He is a diligent member of the health committee, and I cannot help but notice his impressive new haircut. I understand he shaved his head to raise funds in support of people with cancer. What a commendable thing to do.

I am sure he has followed this bill's progress, as have I. All the witnesses who appeared before the committee, not specifically for this bill, but to examine some of the drugs on the market and the drug approval process, generally spoke in favour of progressive licensing for drugs, which this bill specifies.

The member realizes, as I do, that many Canadians were afraid that this bill would make it more difficult to access natural health products. The minister indicated that this bill was in no way meant to target those products or change access to them in any way. It is not meant to make access any easier or any more difficult. It is not meant to change the licences to sell such products or any such matters. He said that was a completely separate issue.

Now we are told the minister intends to make a number of changes to the bill, changes that will affect these products. I think this will change the principles of this bill and I would like to ask the hon. member if he agrees with me.

We were asked to support the principles of this bill at second reading and to study it thoroughly in committee. Now, those principles are being changed. When we go back to committee, it will be with a bill that is different from the one we have been studying so far, the one we have been discussing with experts, the one on which the research branch of the Library of Parliament has been advising us. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Food and Drugs Act
Full View Permalink