Carole Freeman

[Nineteenth Annual Suicide Prevention Week, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the 19th annual Suicide Prevention Week, and the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic brought to our attention the suicide rate among seniors.

Four out of ten people who commit suicide are 50 or older. Between 1977 and 1997 the number of suicides among people aged 65 and older increased by 85%. In addition, according to the figures of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec for 2006, the proportion of people aged 50 and over who took their own lives rose from 27% to 40%. The saddest of all is that researchers who study aging believe that this rate will be two and a half times higher in the next 35 years.

One of the risk factors is financial difficulties, and this is backed up by Mr. Vallerand, who was a director of a suicide prevention centre. He also fears that the economic crisis will increase that trend.

That is why it is very important to provide our seniors with all the support they need.

[Seniors, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, seniors were the big losers in the most recent budget. Needy seniors who receive only the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement will live below the poverty line.

What does the Minister of Finance have to say to the President of FADOQ, who stated “we are not talking about a fortune, but of a minimum income that everyone should be guaranteed in a society that claims to respect its seniors”?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

I agree; it really is completely backward, as my colleague from Compton—Stanstead said.

This shows a complete lack of respect for the Quebec nation, which was recognized by this House. Its culture is not being recognized and attempts are being made to impede its development. By impairing its culture in this way, its economic development is also being impaired, since the cultural industry as a whole is so important to our economic success.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The budget we have seen does not provide the funds needed for culture in Quebec. Everyone knows how important that industry is for us and how important it is for Quebec to disseminate our culture around the world.

As my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert said, it is strange that funding is being cut for our artists touring abroad, while funding is given for productions and artists from other countries.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

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.

[The Conservative Government, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the last person in whom we can have confidence. The Conservative Party has been facing one embarrassment after another. In light of the Schreiber-Mulroney affair, in light of the Cadman affair, in light of his dispute with Elections Canada about the in and out affair, how can the Prime Minister believe that anyone at all would have confidence in him?

[The Conservative Government, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the media are reporting that, contrary to his testimony before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Fred Doucet, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, was very aware of the backroom deals going on in the Airbus affair. These revelations explain why the Prime Minister delayed setting up a public inquiry commission at the time. He was plainly trying to cover up the whole affair.

Does the Prime Minister now realize that his lack of transparency has lost him the confidence of the House?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In fact, I must rectify something in her preamble, where she said the Bloc was very close to the NDP. We most certainly need to clarify that a little. We represent the people of Quebec and the nation of Quebec, but we do not share the centralist views of the NDP. What we want is to regain our power, while the NDP wants to centralize power, and this is really the total opposite of our fundamental positions.

Since my allotted time is coming to an end, I will close with this: on the economic level alone, as far as our manufacturing and forestry sectors are concerned, we must really call for major investments. As I said in my speech, we of course are calling for all of the suffering disadvantaged and marginal members of society to be given proper support in this Speech from the Throne.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

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

The issue of culture is vital for the Quebec people, and they have taken to the streets to condemn all of these cuts. Quebeckers feel that culture is fundamental. Culture is the soul of our nation, it is our identity. Yet the Conservatives have inexplicably made draconian cuts to culture. Everyone has asked for explanations, asked about the reasoning and the need behind the cuts. No one has yet dared to answer and, when asked for information, the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the previous Parliament refused to give an explanation as to why the cuts were necessary.

Culture is not only our identity in Quebec, it is also an important economic engine. Everyone knows that Quebec culture is known around the world. It is possibly the most widespread of all Canadian culture. Think about Cirque du Soleil, Céline Dion and all of the people who make an incredible mark through their innovation and genius. Think about cinema and writers. The Conservatives made brutal cuts, and I think that the people of Quebec have made it quite obvious that they will not accept that kind of treatment and that they will continue to refuse to allow anyone to trample their identity, their culture and their nation.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Before doing so, I would like to take this first opportunity to send a warm thank you to the voters of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for their continued trust. They gave me a very strong mandate with a margin of 15,000 votes. I thank them.

Their trust is an honour. I will proudly represent every single citizen in my riding during this 40th Parliament. I will defend their interests and the consensus of the Quebec nation. Thank you again to all. Congratulations, Madam Speaker, on your appointment.

For several weeks we have been tracking the serious global financial crisis which, sooner or later, will affect the businesses and citizens in our regions. Having seen what is being done elsewhere in the world to counter this global recession, people expect the federal government to play a decisive role in supporting them and getting the economy back on track as soon as possible.

In my opinion, when we talk about this central role, we need to keep in mind that a government is not a business. A government exists to serve and protect the people. It is there to prevent people from suffering needlessly from this widespread financial crisis.

As I listened to the broad statements in the throne speech on November 19, I was expecting that the government would take action on the economy to help people get through these difficult times. I believed it would act in the best interests of the people. But, sadly, people are going to have to be patient and bite the bullet.

My leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, took the words right out of my mouth when he described the throne speech as insensitive. The speech is particularly insensitive because it all but ignores the poorest members of our society. And I am not even talking about how the consensuses of the Quebec nation are simply ignored. This speech is insensitive, all the more so because of the many important issues it fails to address, including seniors. Not only do our seniors continue to be deprived of government pension money that is owed them, but they are left out of the throne speech.

People who spent their whole lives saving for their retirement are worried today when they see their savings threatened by the global financial crisis. What is the government proposing to do to carry out its fundamental duty to protect our seniors? Nothing. Not one word.

The government may turn its back on seniors, but the Bloc Québécois and I will not, because we understand the urgent needs that seniors and their associations shared with us when we toured Quebec during the summer and fall of 2007. We got a very clear message: seniors have become impoverished in the past decade. Even though pensions and the guaranteed income supplement have generally increased in step with the consumer price index, it does not reflect the real circumstances in which pensioners and GIS recipients live.

In fact, the cost of living for seniors tends to be affected more by the cost of drugs, health care services and housing. In order to establish an acceptable quality of life for our seniors and to restore their dignity, the Bloc Québécois developed four important approaches that were included in Bill C-490: increase by $110 per month the amount of the guaranteed income supplement; continue paying the benefits, for a period of six months, to a surviving spouse; automatically enrol people over 65 who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement; and ensure full retroactive payment of the guaranteed income supplement for all those who were shortchanged.

Not only will we continue to defend with equal fervour our seniors' legitimate demands to improve their quality of life, but we are also thinking of those who have been cheated by their pension funds. Clearly, we should raise the age limit from 71 to 73 for converting RRSPs and registered pension plans into taxable annuities and RRIFs.

I said earlier that I was disappointed by the direction taken in the throne speech and total silence regarding protection of the most vulnerable. My colleagues and my constituents are well aware of the great interest I take in all matters of justice, and especially social justice. One thing is clear and I think it was quite deliberate: the major omissions are all social issues.

I note that apart from seniors, the glaring omissions in this throne speech concern women, people with inadequate housing, older workers, the unemployed, the cultural industry, francophones outside Quebec, students and others in the education system who are waiting for $800 million to be reinvested to remedy the fiscal imbalance, and non-profit economic development organizations.

This is certainly not mere coincidence. I am sad to say that I see once again the same groups of people that were ignored by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. It is quite simply disheartening.

I would also add that it is not just the most disadvantaged people who are bearing the cost of the Conservative government's insensitivity. There are consensuses in the Quebec nation that have again been ignored in this throne speech. They alone could provide the subject for a lengthy speech, but I will simply name those I find most urgent.

First, there are the cuts to culture and to economic development organizations. In Quebec, the consensus is that culture is one of the fundamental pillars of our identity and must be protected.

Second, there are the repressive laws to be applied to young offenders. In Quebec, the consensus is that we focus on rehabilitation and that our system is working well, since we have one of the lowest crime rates in North America. Punishment instead of prevention, to reduce crime, is absolutely not acceptable.

Third, there is the creation of a federal securities commission. In Quebec, the consensus is that we already have our own and it is fine that way.

Fourth, there is the fact that the Kyoto protocol is not mentioned. In Quebec, the consensus is that we have chosen the Kyoto protocol route, and not some sort of compromise or inaction.

Finally, there is the rejection of our own affirmation by reducing Quebec's political weight in Parliament and creating new intrusions into areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. In Quebec, the consensus is that we are in the best position to define our needs, and that affirming our identity in our institutions is necessary if we want our culture to be able to survive.

There are many other instances of insensitivity that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois have discussed at length in their speeches, to demonstrate the point to which the consensuses in Quebec are still being jeopardized by this government.

I will close by saying that I, with all the Bloc members, will not be supporting this throne speech, for all of the reasons I have stated.