Raymond Gravel

[Seniors, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Ernest Boyer, President of the FADOQ network said: “The 2008 federal budget will definitely not help low-income seniors improve their lot”. Yet, when in opposition, the Conservatives promised to rectify the injustice perpetrated against seniors because of poor management of the guaranteed income supplement.

Given the current year's surplus of more than $10 billion, could the Conservative government not pay its debt to seniors who were adversely affected by granting full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement—monies to which they are entitled?

[Unborn Victims of Crime Act, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my remarks were misrepresented after I spoke to this bill in the House in December. That is why I would like to set the record straight today. I think this is in order because my bishop and the apostolic nunciature in Ottawa have received a number of e-mails. I want to clarify and qualify a few things.

First, I am against abortion. I regard human life as sacred and abortion as always being a tragedy in our society. We must do everything in our power, while showing respect for those involved, to limit the number of abortions and promote life.

Second, I sincerely believe that human life starts at conception, and even before. From the moment that a couple decides to have a child, the process has already begun. I have never said that I agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada whereby a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, and that until then, it is not distinct from its mother. I simply quoted the definition given by the Supreme Court of Canada. I understand it, even though I disagree with it.

Third, the high number of abortions is distressing. We must identify the causes to be able to find solutions: lack of sexual knowledge, poverty, violence, emotional deprivation and lack of values, just to name a few.

Fourth, the recriminalization of abortion will not solve the problems I mentioned, since before abortion was legalized, many women risked their lives with self-induced abortion or turned to charlatans.

Fifth, by educating, teaching values, fighting poverty, ensuring respect and dignity for people, achieving equality between the sexes, fighting for justice and supporting pregnant women, we can hopefully decrease the number of abortions or even eliminate them entirely. A doctor told me the following: “With all the resources we have available to us now, there should be no more abortions. But we need to promote these resources, which a number of religious institutions refuse to do to this day.”

Sixth, I also said in my speech that the president of the Quebec office of the Campaign Life Coalition is a fundamentalist and an extremist who judges and condemns everyone who does not share his narrow views on life, and he does so in the name of God. That is not my God or anything like the God of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. I have been on radio shows with this man, Mr. Gagnon, and he has not once shown any compassion for people who are marginalized and excluded. But I think that is what the Christ of the Gospels would do.

Seventh, it is interesting to note that not one of the letters in which people insulted, threatened and condemned me was sent to me personally; they were all sent to my bishop or to the apostolic nunciature. The least people could have done would have been to send the letters to me too, since they do concern me. Moreover, the letters were written in English only. Can it be that people misunderstood what I said because my comments were made in French with simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons? Why did no francophones write to criticize what I reportedly said? I get the feeling that comments made by two people, John-Henry Weston in LifeSiteNews.com and Mr. Jalzevac, incited this taking up of arms. This is the second time a reporter working for that website has attempted to discredit me.

After I appeared on a Télé-France broadcast with Luck Mervil and Imam Jaziri in Quebec, I received emails that misrepresented the statements I had made during the meal.

Eighth, in my pastoral experience as a Catholic priest, I learned that I could change things only by welcoming others, by being non-judgmental and open to people, through tolerance, dialogue, communication, compassion, forgiveness and unconditional love, and by living my faith. One cannot change things with rules, laws, punishment, warnings, exclusions and condemnation. I do not believe that this bill offers any solutions to the problem it sets out to solve. That is why I think we should vote against this bill.

I would like to end with the words of St. Vincent de Paul, friend to the poor and unfortunate, who said that it is better to free 20 guilty people than to condemn a single innocent one.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has succeeded in turning all Quebeckers against him. He has even succeeded in displeasing the entire nation of Quebec. The Government of Quebec, the opposition parties, the financial and economic institutions and the manufacturing sector have all stated that this budget is not for Quebec. It is an empty budget that neglects the hardest hit economic sectors and people in need.

Not one of the Conservatives' elected representatives from Quebec—ministers, secretaries of state or members of Parliament—was able to make the Minister of Finance aware of Quebeckers' needs and aspirations. It is these members from Quebec who tell us, in the House, that you have to be in power to make things happen. Where are these Conservative ministers, secretaries of state and members of Parliament when it comes time to respond to Quebec's demands?

Fortunately, Quebeckers know better. They can see that the Conservatives are doing nothing for them, and they understand that the Bloc Québécois is the only party in Quebec that can defend their interests and values.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I think that the problems Quebec seniors are facing are becoming more and more alarming. More and more of them are becoming poor because the cost of living is going up, but the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement are not going up by much.

There are still lots of people in Quebec—about 40,000—who are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement they are entitled to, so I think it would have been nice of the government to automatically enrol people over 65 who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. This issue is important to me. I also think that seniors should automatically get $110 more per month just to help them reach the poverty line. I think that is important.

This kind of thing is not just happening in Quebec; 135,000 people in Canada are in the same situation. I think that as we work to help Quebec seniors, we are also working to help seniors in other provinces. This problem is very serious. The number of seniors is increasing—they will make up 28% of the population in 2015. I think that seniors can have a big impact politically, so the government would be wise to pay attention to seniors sooner rather than later.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

You are not supporting it? Actually, you will not be voting.

In my opinion, this is peanuts. The problem is that the money will be allocated on a per capita basis, even though the problems are much more serious in Quebec and Ontario, where 40% of the jobs have been lost. The payments should not have been made on a per capita basis, but should have gone where the problems are most urgent and communities are in crisis.

In closing, seniors in Quebec will remember, just like it says on the postcards. When the next election comes, they will remember, and they will not forget that they were ignored by the current Conservative government.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is peanuts. I agree with my friend that this is peanuts. Yet I wonder why the Liberals are supporting the budget. That still surprises me.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Indeed, quite deep.

The Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the CSQ, also said that the government was insensitive to the difficulties Canadians are experiencing and slammed what it called a Pontius Pilate budget. That is another way of saying that the government is washing its hands of our society's problems and crises.

Mr. Parent, president of the CSQ, says that the budget is also disappointing for seniors:

The Conservatives promised to make the guaranteed income supplement accessible to the least fortunate seniors. The budget completely ignores those promises.

Other reactions are similar. We can say that people are unanimous about the Conservative government because in Quebec, they rather strongly reject the budget.

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or the FTQ, also rejects the budget. It had this to say:

Not only does this budget neglect workers, but in a context of manufacturing restructuring, major economic slowdown, and the increased job losses to come in the manufacturing industry, we seriously question the appropriateness of putting $10 billion toward paying down the debt.

Everyone agrees that it makes no sense to put everything toward the debt and leave nothing for anything else.

This government will be judged on its actions—said the president, Mr. Roy. Alberta, whose economy is overheating, certainly does not need any federal assistance right now. It is the North Shore, Abitibi, the Gaspésie, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the major industrial centres that need urgent intervention.

According to the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the CSD, “the Minister of Finance should have gotten new glasses instead of new shoes”. It is customary to get new shoes to present a new budget. But he should have gotten new glasses.

I could go on like this for quite some time, for there are countless quotations. However, I would like to speak to you primarily about the file for which I serve as party critic, one that is very important to me, namely, senior citizens. Tuesday afternoon, listening to the minster speak, I had to ask myself exactly whom the elected members of the House of Commons work for. Do we work for the people who elected us and whom we represent here, or for the big businesses that are generating ever-increasing profits and that exploit people and make them poorer and poorer?

Listening to the Minister of Finance, I was left with the impression that the Conservative government does not care at all about the problems facing many of our citizens. We also have the impression that it has taken ownership of taxpayers' money and is managing it in a way that is unfair to the poorest and least fortunate in our society.

I am thinking about the victims of the manufacturing and forestry crisis, in particular, the older workers who lose their jobs, and seniors who were cheated by the government and are living practically in poverty. Yet the government had the means to ease their situation and mitigate its effects. The billions of dollars of surplus could have been used, in part, to ease the suffering and distress of many of our fellow citizens.

The Conservative government chose instead to pursue its right-wing politics. The far right, whether political, religious or social, is always very distant from human beings and terribly lacking in humanity. The Conservatives' right-wing politics go something like this: they put the entire surplus towards the debt and forget that they owe a debt to seniors. Conservative politics mean increasing military spending considerably in order to continue the war, when we know that war never resolves human conflict. History has taught us this. Conservative politics continue to support the large oil and gas companies in the west, by lowering their taxes. Yet everyone knows that they are major polluters, and that the entire population is suffering and will pay the price in the near future.

I would like to know why the government is helping the oil companies. I have no idea why. Why does it not want to help the manufacturing or forestry industries? Why be so unfair? Why is the government putting all of the surplus from this year, ending March 31, toward the debt? Why does it not use part of these billions in surplus to help men and women, young people and seniors, who are living in insecurity and who are getting poorer and poorer? Why does it not use part of the billions in surplus amassed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to meet the huge affordable social housing needs of all our communities?

We must not forget that these billions in surplus came from taxpayers and do not belong to the Conservative Party. Perhaps it should listen to what the people are saying through the members they have elected. We were elected, just like them.

I would like to talk about my file, which is seniors. Since I became a member, I have travelled Quebec and have visited some regions many times. I have met with the heads of seniors' associations. I listened carefully to their requests and I heard about their needs. These needs are often desperate. We told the government about what seniors need, but nothing in this budget addresses the needs expressed by our seniors.

Everyone remembers that during the last election campaign, the Conservatives officially promised to do right by the seniors who had been shortchanged by the mismanagement of the guaranteed income supplement program. Yet again, there is absolutely nothing about these promises in this budget. Even worse, it goes so far as to tell seniors that they need to work if they want to increase their income. This is despicable, shameful and irresponsible on the part of a government.

Obviously, investing $60 million per year to allow low-income seniors who can work to do so in order to increase their income is nevertheless a measure that will affect some people. However, it will not help the majority of seniors who are unable to work. Imagine saying that to an 80 or 85 year old who receives the guaranteed income supplement, is therefore living below the poverty line—set by a 2004 government study—and needs $1,285 just to reach it. Anyone receiving the guaranteed income supplement is poor. They are told that if they want to supplement their income they will have to go to work. That is irresponsible and a slap in the face for those individuals who worked their entire lives. Today, as a gesture of thanks, they are told to go clean houses or work at Wal-Mart for minimum wage.

I find it curious that the MPs and even ministers in the Conservative Party, and therefore in the government, who come from Quebec and who work in Quebec were unable to obtain from their government what seniors everywhere in Quebec are asking for. Why is that? Petitions were signed, postcards sent and most seniors' organizations supported us on this issue.

In addition, we often hear Conservative members say that Bloc Québécois members are useless in Ottawa—

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the budget. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

First, as I listened to the budget speech on Tuesday afternoon, my first reaction was that it was a whole lot of hot air that was far from meeting Quebeckers' expectations, which we, the Bloc Québécois, have been putting forward for some time now.

Over the past several weeks, we have been telling the Conservative government that it would have to make a significant course correction if it wanted the Bloc Québécois to support its budget. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party ignored our demands, even though they were realistic and good for people. Our demands addressed issues that are problematic in Quebec and elsewhere, such as the environment, culture, the manufacturing and forestry industries, job losses among older workers, seniors living in poverty, and discrimination against women in our society.

I read many reactions to the budget speech, some of which were particularly juicy. Ms. Monique Jérôme-Forget, Minister of Finance in the National Assembly, said that the new federal budget did not reflect Quebec's priorities. She expressed her disappointment as follows:

With $20 billion worth of room to manoeuvre, the minister...had plenty of opportunity to announce new support measures for the forestry and manufacturing industries—

However, the federal minister has made choices that do not meet the needs expressed by the Government of Quebec.

She deplored that.

Adriane Carr, from the Green Party, said:

I look at this Conservative budget and I see a big group of ostriches with their heads stuck in the tar sands.

I like that description.

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this government's ideology compels it to put everything towards the debt, forgetting that it owes a basic debt to our seniors. It is breaking a promise that it made to seniors, namely, to make the guaranteed income supplement fully retroactive.

Instead of telling them to go back to work if they want a decent income, as is the case with the measure announced in this budget, why does the government refuse to pay its debts to our seniors, putting everything towards the debt instead?

[Seniors, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I delivered nearly 10,000 postcards to the Prime Minister criticizing the government's refusal to make full retroactive payments of the guaranteed income supplement. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan and I also tabled a bill to obtain this full retroactivity and an increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

Our demands are being supported by organizations that can see that seniors are also facing a crisis. They know it and are not fooled. Their memories are not gone and they will remember this government that gave them hope and then abandoned them. They will remember this government that has the means to give back the money it took away from them, this Conservative government that stubbornly refuses to return what was stolen from them.

This is yet another battle, like the one to help our industries, that the Bloc Québécois will fight for seniors.