Louise Thibault

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 5th, 2008]

With regard to the report entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries” published by the Advisory Group of the National Roundtables on CSR and the Canadian Extractive Industry on March 29, 2007: (a) does the government intend to promptly respond to the roundtable members; (b) will the government act quickly on all the recommendations presented; and (c) what is the government’s official position on implementing the recommendations resulting from this process?

[March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the least one can say is that this has been an evening of very brief remarks, at least on the government's part, even though according to the rules for the adjournment debate, each side should have spoken for four minutes. However, I am just as glad that the other side did not talk for four minutes because the Conservatives' tactic is never to give answers during question period or the late show.

The question was a simple one. The government spent millions on advertising that it said would reach seniors at curling rinks. Why did the government not use that money to make an earnest effort to reach the people who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement and to make sure they knew they were entitled to it? That is the government's responsibility.

The question was a simple one. I do not need to hear yet another secretary of state toot her own horn. Better that she not reply at all. That would be less insulting to the seniors I represent and to seniors across Canada.

[March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to use this adjournment debate to return to an issue I raised last November. I denounced the Service Canada advertisement in which two retired people literally bump into a Service Canada counter on a curling rink. When I saw that commercial on television, I was outraged that the Conservative government was spending fantastic amounts of money on advertising instead of allocating that money to really helping seniors. We are aware that there are still a great many seniors who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but do not know it. If we looked for them perhaps we would find them.

Despite the surplus available to the government; despite its obligation to redistribute that collective wealth, the financial situation of thousands of seniors whose only income is the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits continues to get worse. As we know, thousands of seniors are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but do not know it. In fact, they are being deprived of it. Even though the government has made some changes in its procedures, it is not enough.

The government must employ the resources necessary to reach these people who could receive the guaranteed income supplement. Service Canada staff should be out on the ground to find these people and help them fill out the forms. This is local work that demands a serious and sustained effort. The staff certainly will not find destitute seniors in curling rinks.

The government must administer public funds prudently and without seeking to advance its political interests. Taxpayers' money should go to those who need it and not to advertising agencies.

When we think of the insufficient benefits, when we know that seniors whose only income is those benefits are living below the poverty line, and that thousands of people who are eligible are not receiving benefits, that kind of waste on advertising is unacceptable and shameful.

Who could serious claim that such advertising is effective? It does not deal in any way with the problems of older people, whom it is exploiting.

From the Auditor General’s report of November 2006, we have learned, and I quote:

Human Resources and Social Development Canada and Service Canada have limited information on why potentially eligible seniors do not apply for the GIS. The two organizations also lack data collection mechanisms that would reveal whether outreach activities translate into applications received.

That being the case, how can the Conservative government have gone on blissfully believing that the ads would really connect with those seniors? Why did the Conservative government not take more effective measures to ensure that it would reach seniors in need?

In the end, the formula is the same from one government to the next: look like it is doing something without actually doing it or intending to achieve results. Not only is that upsetting, it is unacceptable.

[Old Age Security Program, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to draw these two hours of debate to a close, first by thanking all our colleagues who spoke and shared their points of view. Although we do not all hold the same opinion, this democratic exercise will at least have had the advantage of allowing citizens, seniors in particular, to see what their representatives truly stand for.

Canadians will also have had the opportunity—unfortunately, in one sense—to listen to the Conservative nonsense on two occasions. And I would like to say to Canadians that one never gets used to it, although that is no consolation. I will never get used to the fact that a government with the means does not have the will to safeguard Canadians against poverty and to help them live with dignity.

My motion contains possible solutions. It asks the government to accept the principle of a program review, based on specific, although not exhaustive, suggestions that will stop us from aggravating the poverty of our most disadvantaged seniors.

In the budget adopted this evening, the government included an exemption on the first $3,500 of income in calculating the guaranteed income supplement. This exemption is certainly modelled after the last part of my motion, although it is quite a bit less generous.

However, the problem has to be seen from a wider angle. The new measure in the budget will help seniors who want to continue working, but the budget contains nothing new for single seniors living in poverty.

The government had the resources to give them a significant increase that would at least have brought them above the poverty line.

My motion is supported by the signatures of more than 7,000 people throughout eastern Quebec, who want the people in charge of the program and the people in Parliament to think about the extremely distressing situation of seniors who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement. The voice of the people is speaking.

I want to repeat one aspect of my speech that I believe to be important. When I spoke to my motion, I tried very sincerely to raise the tone of the debate above partisanship.

I believe I succeeded, up to a point, but unfortunately the Conservatives have been using this place for two years to engage in self-aggrandizement instead of genuinely discussing how they could make a lasting improvement in the lives of the people for whom they are responsible, and in particular seniors.

It is absolutely scandalous, given that there are thousands of seniors living below the poverty line, that the Conservatives would dare to brag that they have done a better job, in their own opinion, than previous governments.

Although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources said at the outset of her speech, and I quote, “...we welcome any input from the opposition”, she set about trying to tear down the suggestions I made, as her colleague did tonight as well, but more than anything, she went on about what she said was “good news”, that Canada has the lowest poverty rate among seniors in the world.

Not only will seniors living on the guaranteed income supplement find nothing for them here, but they will be insulted to hear things like that being said.

I am not concerned about the fact that the poverty rate for seniors is the lowest in the world, I am concerned about the fact that there is still poverty in a country as rich as this. The Conservative government is putting all its energy into reducing the debt, but if that debt is the lowest in the world, why not work on truly reducing poverty in this country?

My opposition colleagues have offered constructive criticism. Some of them wanted to quantify seniors’ lost earnings, others had problems with certain terms used, and the Liberals presented an amendment and I accepted it because it did nothing to detract from my original motion or the essence of that motion, which is obviously to improve guaranteed income supplement benefits and allow for 15 hours of work.

Beyond the words, beyond the terms, beyond the possible solutions that have been suggested, there is the intention and there is the action that can be taken. That is what my motion is about: tackling the entire problem of poverty among our seniors by providing them with dignified, honourable, decent benefits that are worthy of the name.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this motion can be achieved, it is realistic, and it is time to act. I would like once again to thank the member who seconded my motion, the member for London North Centre.

[Old Age Security Program, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, although it pains me to do so, I consent.

[Afghanistan, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the compromise on Afghanistan, which keeps Canadian troops in Kandahar until 2011, is contingent upon specific obligations.

The Conservative government must shift the Canadian Forces' mission toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

It has also committed itself to true transparency and accountability in respect of its citizens and Parliament for the three objectives of the mission. The government knows that the people will demand that these objectives be respected.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. In concrete terms, how can Canadians and MPs be assured that these undertakings will be respected?

[Afghanistan, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I must have missed something.

In view of her concerns about poppy production and given everything the Afghan people need to rebuild, recover and live in security, does my colleague not think it would be dangerous and irresponsible to leave Afghanistan?

What will happen if we send a message to NATO members now that we can join them, but at some point in the future, we are no longer happy with the mission and want to leave Afghanistan on a few months' notice?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, statistics often do not tell the whole story. According to observers, although the poverty rate among seniors has declined, some are living in increasingly alarming conditions. What kind of society do we have when our seniors are forced to turn to food banks, as is the case more and more?

The Conservative government could make a commitment right now to improve living conditions for seniors by raising the guaranteed income supplement above the poverty line.

Will the Minister of Finance include concrete measures to that end in the budget?

[Quebec Private Lumber Producers, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to mention $400 million in sales, $700 million in payroll, $4 billion in processed products, $500 million in tax revenue, 29,000 jobs and 35,000 producers, you would probably think I was referring to a rapidly expanding key area of economic activity in Canada. But the numbers I just mentioned represent the economic contribution made to the forestry sector by private lumber producers in Quebec.

However, this is becoming a thing of the past, since the Conservative government is ignoring these owners and the impact of the forestry crisis on them. Today, they are on the brink of bankruptcy, facing the inevitable and in despair. In the past two years, they have suffered a total loss of revenue of $70 million and, unfortunately, it is not over.

The government's trust fund should help them continue to develop one of our most precious natural resources, our forests, with their customary respect, professionalism and consideration for sustainable development. But such is not the case. These private lumber producers might as well not even exist as far as the Conservative government is concerned.

[Supply Management, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, supply-managed farmers are worried. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that he truly does want to safeguard supply management. But in negotiations, farmers have noticed a clear reduction in the safeguards offered by supply management.

Is the government committed to strongly opposing an increase in tariff quotas and to saying no to a tariff reduction, and will it go so far as to refuse to sign any agreement that goes against this commitment?