Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the ways and means debate, particularly as we enter into a recession.
In its budget, the government announced several measures to set the economy back on the path to prosperity. In my opinion, Quebec is not getting all the benefits of these measures that the neighbouring provinces are. What is more, the Conservatives would have done well to heed the people of Quebec and the needs they expressed.
This budget is a long way from meeting the needs unanimously expressed by the Quebec National Assembly. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservatives chose instead to heed the demands of Ontario and the west, to the detriment of Quebec.
For example, the government is offering measures aimed mainly at Ontario, to a total of close to $4 billion. The forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec, on the other hand, will receive a mere few millions—a pittance.
While some of the measures announced in the budget might be of benefit to the industrial sector, nevertheless it is still a fact that there is no aid directly targeting the manufacturing sector in Quebec. Yet the Bloc proposed some far more generous measures within its recovery plan, measures that could have helped companies no longer making a profit because of the crisis. The government turned a deaf ear and opted for a variety of measures to reduce corporate taxes.
Yet everyone understands that a manufacturing or forestry company that is not recording any profit is already paying little or no taxes. So who exactly is really benefiting from these tax cuts? The answer is obvious.
I would, however, like to address the economic aspect of the situation. Clearly, a recession is an economic phenomenon that requires an economic stimulus package, and a whole speech could have been devoted to that. A recession, however, is not just about business and taxation.
In fact, there is another aspect of the recession that I prefer to talk about: the impact on people's lives, particularly the most disadvantaged. In this connection, I note a remarkable consistency in the Conservatives: to always ignore the same categories of the disadvantaged—the most vulnerable members of our society—or to once again attack the same sectors that, according to their ideology, will not be profitable.
When I took part in the debates on last November's throne speech, I raised the point that there were some glaring omissions including women, people with inadequate housing, older workers, the unemployed, the cultural industry, and seniors. Once again, the same categories of people are ignored by this budget.
I would like to focus on what is happening to seniors living below the poverty line. These seniors are among the poorest, most vulnerable members of our society. Seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement will not be getting any more help anytime soon. The Conservatives have provided a $1,000 age-related tax credit, which is all well and good, but it will not help the poorest of our seniors.
That leads me to question this measure, because this is just like the problem with business tax credits: how is a tax credit supposed to help people who may be living below the poverty line and who pay little or no tax?
The increase to $6,048 might help seniors who are working for various reasons, but we must put things in perspective. It looks like seniors could save up to $961 in taxes, depending on their income. However, this is a tax measure that individuals will notice just once a year after they file their tax returns. This is not the kind of direct assistance that people need during hard times. And that does not even account for the fact that the amount saved will vary depending on the senior's income.
With respect to the poorest seniors, FADOQ, a network that protects the interests of Quebec seniors, has highlighted an important fact: seniors who have no income other than old age security and the guaranteed income supplement live below the poverty line.
In Quebec alone, 500,000 people collect varying amounts through the guaranteed income supplement. That means that half a million people will not receive any direct assistance because the government is refusing to improve the guaranteed income supplement.
The Bloc Québécois has once again made specific requests for this budget: an incremental increase in the seniors' supplement and graduated retroactivity for those eligible for the guaranteed income supplement who were swindled by the government. Taken together, these measures would have cost $2.5 billion over two years.
Of course, we are still asking for automatic enrollment for seniors who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. This is what all seniors' advocacy groups want, and their demands cannot be ignored.
I would like to say a few words about social housing, which is a critical need in my community. The Bloc Québécois said that it wanted the federal government's budget to invest $2 billion additional dollars each year for construction, renovation and conversion of affordable social housing. But the government is proposing $2 billion over two years, or half of what we requested.
Of this amount, $400 million will go towards constructing social housing for low-income seniors and $75 million will go towards construction of social housing for the disabled, which is not nearly enough in these times.
The budget makes no mention of social housing for the poorest families, for example, two- or three-bedroom units.
In Châteauguay alone, a city in my riding, the municipal housing bureau told me that 143 households were still waiting for affordable social housing. Half of these households are made up of single mothers and the other half are seniors. And that is just one medium-sized city in Quebec.
The reality is that a significant number of Quebec families cannot afford to buy a house, which is the case for these 143 households that I mentioned. The lack of a true policy for constructing affordable housing remains a serious flaw in this budget.
I will finish by saying that the Bloc Québécois and I will assume our responsibilities and will vote, without hesitation, against this unfair budget that does not respond to Quebeckers' priorities.
It is also clear to me that the proposed budgetary measures will help the wealthiest in our society more so than the poorest who are hard hit by this recession.
Voting in favour of the budget or allowing it to pass in one way or another would be to abandon Quebec and the poor in our society, when those are two causes that I represent and defend fervently. It would go against my political beliefs and my reason for being here.