Louise Thibault

[Petitions, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition that in fact supports my motion M-383, calling on the government to improve the guaranteed income supplement in order to bring our least fortunate seniors above the poverty line. This petition also requests that guaranteed income supplement recipients be allowed to work the equivalent of 15 hours per week at the minimum wage of their province of residence without penalty.

Over 7,000 petitioners from all over eastern Quebec, from La Pocatière to the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and even from New Brunswick, have agreed with the appropriateness of this motion. This shows that people, whether or not they are seniors, acknowledge that our seniors need to be lifted out of poverty.

I would like to thank Mr. Paquette, head of the Carrefour des 50 ans et plus de l'Est du Québec, and all the members of the affiliated clubs who worked tirelessly to pass around the petition, as well as everyone who signed it.

[Alzheimer Awareness Month, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, January is Alzheimer Awareness Month, and I would like to focus attention on the realities facing the friends and relatives of people suffering from this devastating disease.

Forgetting is a terrible thing, but being forgotten—suddenly realizing that we are no longer part of the memory of a person who has shared much of our life, a person who made us who we are—is even more difficult to cope with. When it is no longer possible to hear echoes of shared joys and pains in quiet moments together, it is hard not to feel unfairly rejected.

Day by day, as our loved ones slowly distance themselves, they begin to live lives in which we no longer play a role. As doors close day after day, the sense of loss deepens.

I would like to thank those who have been working so hard to understand Alzheimer's disease so that one day, it can be treated. They offer hope to those confronting the loneliness, confusion and uncertainty that accompany this terrible disease.

[Request for Emergency Debate, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on January 11, I notified you in writing that pursuant to Standing Order 52, I would ask you to agree to an emergency debate today on the forestry and manufacturing crisis that, as we know, has been going on for many months in Canada and especially in Quebec. This debate would focus on the government's response to that crisis.

I am therefore making that request now. I am asking you to recognize that an emergency debate is essential today, because there is urgency. I will make four brief points.

There is urgency first because of the need to address an issue that is like a natural disaster, because all the people working in the forestry and manufacturing industries are in the same situation as people affected by ice storms, floods or forest fires. Here too, we are faced with human drama with disastrous, devastating consequences.

Second, the forestry crisis is affecting thousands of people across Canada.

Third, parliamentarians, who represent all Canadians, need to put targeted assistance in place for a targeted problem—today.

Fourth and finally, parliamentarians must hold a debate today and find a solution today for a problem that should have been dealt with months ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to me. I hope you will grant my request.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, by creating the community development trust, the Prime Minister is admitting that a major crisis has been plaguing the manufacturing and forestry sectors for far too long now. He is acknowledging that these industries cannot make it on their own, despite the efforts made by the companies and the workers. His over-confidence in market forces being able to resolve everything probably came from magical thinking or the appeal of political gains.

Why does the Conservative government not act immediately, instead of staging an electoral strategy that will take months to come into effect?

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief questions for the member who just addressed the House regarding this bill.

First of all, if I understood correctly, the provisions of this bill will allow employees and cross-border workers to benefit from the same advantages as resident workers. Is that the case?

Second, if I understood correctly, this would be valid while they are working; but will they also be protected when the time comes to retire, with respect to their pensions?

Third, I listened carefully to my colleague and I heard only positive comments. But it is important to look at the other side of the coin. Does this bill in fact have any negative aspects?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who, like many members of his party, cares deeply about the well-being of his communities. That has been clear to me since I came here, and I knew it even before I was elected.

I agree with him that the government's inaction is nothing short of scandalous in light of what is going on. I agree with what he said and I would add that I, like many others, no doubt, was dumbfounded when I discovered that the government planned to help those who were already able to help themselves. Those who are in a position to benefit from a tax cut or from a 1% GST cut are those who have money to spend.

Consumer spending is all well and good, but we should also be talking about productivity. We have to put people to work and keep them working as long as possible. However, when people are unable to work, there should be measures in place not only to improve their employability but to support them during hard times.

It is clear that given the current surpluses, especially those that were announced before we came back to the House—the $10 billion, $11 billion or $12 billion being used to pay down the debt, which is not actually a problem for Canada—we could put some of that money to work to help people who need help. That is called redistribution of wealth. That is what the government should be doing, but the Conservative government seems to have forgotten all about that particular responsibility.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments about Bill C-28. As usual, my comments will focus on how this affects the people of my riding.

Practical items that concern me the most for the people in my region have to do with the lack of serious speeches and measures from the Conservative government on Bill C-28.

I am thinking about an economic sector that is vital in my region, in particular, but also in a number of regions in Quebec and Canada, and that is the forestry sector. This sector is going through a crisis and its workers are affected by it more so than workers in other sectors. Unfortunately, there is a crisis in many other manufacturing sectors as well.

We all know that circumstantial factors contributed to making an already difficult situation even worse. In light of these circumstances and this crisis, we expected the government, which has the means to provide informed and dynamic governance, to help the people. After all, the role of government is to redistribute wealth and to be fair to all its citizens, whom it is meant to serve.

While we expected measures to help these sectors, both businesses and workers, we have seen in official documents just a small sentence, as though this were not as important—the Leader of the New Democratic Party was just talking about this a few minutes ago—as the oil sectors, the banks and high finance. Nonetheless, when it comes to sectors that are vital to the people in our regions, there are just a few words that leave a whole lot to be desired in the economic statement.

I am not speaking only about workers and what could be very legitimate expectations regarding employment insurance. I am speaking of course for workers who have been laid off, in particular. I am thinking of employability measures that will keep our forestry workers on the job, as well as our businesses.

We all know that in our various communities, our towns, municipalities and regions, thousands of jobs are being lost. We now know that, in many cases, there have been temporary closures in the forestry sector, but we also know that, quite often, they will unfortunately not be temporary. Some closures could be permanent. Given the lack of timely support and vision, municipalities and towns are being put at risk of devitalization, for which the people will pay the price.

While firm action was needed to allow these businesses in the forestry sector, among others, to reposition themselves, modernize, diversify and become more competitive, absolutely nothing has been done. This is unacceptable for everyone involved, since the possibilities were and are significant.

What is the government doing? As I said earlier, with one short sentence, it thinks it will console someone or that perhaps no one will even see it. The Conservative government—and this has already been clearly and eloquently stated—is nevertheless offering considerable tax cuts for businesses that are already thriving.

Clearly, in the provinces and sectors affected by this measure—let us be honest, there are more of them in the west than in the east—businesses and employees will benefit from it.

This is an easy solution. It is certainly not a sign of a government possessed of the vision and the will to use the means available to it to provide enlightened governance by demonstrating that it is concerned about all sectors of the economy, does not play favourites, is not in league with anyone and is fair to everyone. What I find striking, as I just said, is the degree to which these tax cuts will benefit companies that are doing well and making a profit, including, above all, oil companies.

To switch gears, I would like to talk about something I care deeply about, as do many of my colleagues, I am sure. The government failed to take the opportunity to help thousands of people who make up an entire demographic: our seniors. Unfortunately, I am talking about poor seniors. I am talking about seniors who are on fixed incomes because for various reasons, they were unable to put any money aside for retirement even though they worked hard. These people live on their old age pension and their guaranteed income supplement. They receive about $1,100 a month, which places them well below the poverty line.

Here is one example from my riding. Given the cost of living and the poverty line in the Rimouski region, our seniors' annual income is about $4,000 or $5,000 below the poverty line. To add insult to injury, they found out too late, because they were not informed, that they were entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement. To top it off, the previous government, the party that is now the official opposition, granted them just 11 months of retroactivity.

The new government—the adjective “new” has been used for some time by the other side of the House—had the chance to do something, to make an important decision for our seniors everywhere in Canada. There is nothing partisan or sovereignist about it—I am bringing this forward on behalf of everyone. This government had the opportunity to do something. However, once again, absolutely nothing was done.

In February, I will have the opportunity to table a motion in this House. I hope that this will spur a large number of my colleagues to reflect on the appalling situation of our mothers, grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, in short, our seniors. They are the ones who built this society and who are largely responsible for who we are and what we have today. At the very least, out of respect for them, we could provide an income that is above the poverty line.

I see that some colleagues have such an interest in this matter that they have been overcome by laughter.

Before I conclude, I would like to suggest to my colleagues in this House that they read a few pages from a very revealing book. It may prove to be a way of learning French but it is also a way to broaden almost everyone's horizons. This book was written by the well known author, Riccardo Petrella. He has just written a new book, Pour une nouvelle narration du monde. Just before these holidays, I believe that the members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the other parties, as well as the three independents, would benefit from broadening their horizons and realizing that we can look at our world from a different perspective. We can believe in solidarity and sharing, and not just in globalization, competition and in market forces that are completely out of control.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to give us his views on an issue that affects many of us: the situation of our seniors. This situation is very disturbing, because we know that thousands of seniors are living well below the poverty line. Earlier, the member made comments about democracy. He just made other comments about the surplus.

I would like to know whether he believes, as many of us do, that the government should be focusing on rectifying the lack of action, the fundamental lack of concern about increasing the guaranteed income supplement and making decent retroactive payments to those people who were shortchanged. Bill C-28 does not address this issue.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like his colleagues on that side of the House so often do, the hon. member was just singing the praises of the Conservative government's vision, which aims primarily to put more money in the pockets of those who already have it. People who have money should not be criticized. They already have money and, of course, the factors that some people would like to improve in terms of tax measures and consumption incentives directly benefit those people.

A very important segment of our society is our seniors. As we know, those who receive only old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are living below what is called the “low income” bracket, a euphemism for “poverty”.

When will some very practical, concrete steps be taken to give these people an income, these people who have nothing else, in order to lift them above the poverty line? When will we see some recognition of the fact that seniors have unfortunately been swindled over the years, because they knew nothing about the guaranteed income supplement or any real retroactivity, although when certain people were on this side of the House, they were in favour of these measures? These are two very simple questions. When is someone really going to help our seniors and allow them to live in dignity?

[December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have a very hard time swallowing the word “pride” every time I hear it, which they say as though they themselves invented it. During an adjournment debate, instead of expanding on a question that was sincerely raised on behalf of an important segment of the population, that is, our seniors, if the representatives of the Conservative government in this House want to give us a lesson on pride, we could play with words for some time.

The question I had asked, which I will ask again here this evening and to which I hope to receive a response, wondered why this responsibility is not being handed over to the people who are closest to our seniors—if committees are needed, let us strike committees—people who know the field very well?