Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Committees of the House, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a report that contains six recommendations. For example, it is recommended that the Minister of Health continue to dialogue and engage with her partners, and it is suggested that the government continue to work with industry and that Health Canada continue to promote healthy lifestyle choices.

I cannot understand how a committee could have so many hearings with experts who have innovative ideas on how we can do better in health care and then the committee arrives with a report with six recommendations that suggest we continue what is already being done.

Therefore, perhaps the chair of the health committee could tell me how many interesting hearings they had in that committee on that subject and what the role of her committee was, because it does not seem obvious to me when I read the report the government produced.

[Taxation, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives came to power, they showered their rich corporate friends with tax cuts. As a result of these favours, last year, these businesses paid the same amount in taxes as they paid six years ago.

But what about Canadians, the people the government is supposed to be working for? Last year, my constituents paid $8 billion in service charges. That is $2 billion more than in 2005.

Over the past four years, their tax contributions to government revenues have increased by $40 billion. The Conservatives told us that their policies would create wealth, but if that is truly the case, who is benefiting? The reality is that six years later, people are more in debt.

The personal debt rate has reached record highs because salaries have not increased and good jobs are hard to come by. The Conservatives could try to restore a balance to encourage our prosperity, but instead, they are wasting their time making up stories about the NDP.

Frankly, Canadians deserve better, and in 2015 the Conservatives will get what is coming to them.

[Safe Food for Canadians Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. He mentioned that amendments suggested in committee were simply dismissed, even though the opposition parties worked hard to develop those amendments.

Earlier today we were debating Bill C-44. What I find funny is that although everyone agreed on the principle of the bill, the opposition's suggested amendments were also rejected, without any real argument or debate.

That is unfortunate, because the NDP has been clear that Bill S-11, as it stands right now, might not have prevented the major beef recall we had recently—the largest beef recall in Canada's history—or the 22 deaths resulting from the 2008 listeriosis crisis.

The amendments proposed by the opposition deserve to be seriously considered, which the Conservative government did not do. That is unfortunate. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I really liked that he focused so much on the nuances of the committee's study of Bill C-44.

The NDP proposed eight amendments that apparently were not taken very seriously by the Conservative Party. That is unfortunate. The NDP listened to the testimony and worked on amendments. These amendments were rejected or dismissed, but nevertheless, the NDP will support Bill C-44, because we believe it is a good first step.

The Conservatives often use the demagogic argument that the NDP is opposed to this or that. I think that today is proof of the NDP's good faith and its desire to work together with the government. Even though the Conservatives are not receptive to the work we are doing on this side of the House, we are prepared to look at all of the options and to support initiatives that truly help families, victims and people in need.

I would like my colleague to comment on that and talk in more detail about the amendments that were proposed in committee and their relevance.

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. It clarifies the improvements that could be made to this bill and the level of collaboration that was achieved, or not, in committee. Unfortunately, it was not.

The parties essentially agreed: additional help needs to be provided to families dealing with illnesses or very unfortunate events, or the disappearance or kidnapping of a loved one. We are pleased to be able to address such a serious issue with this bill.

My colleague has a great deal of expertise in employment insurance. I would like her to say a few words about the fact that in 2011, in their platform, the Conservatives said that funding for this measure would come from general revenues and not from employment insurance premiums. The Conservatives have broken that promise. What are the potential threats and consequences? What does my colleague think about this?

[Petitions, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today about the Experimental Lakes Area.

The petitioners who signed this petition ask the government to recognize the importance of the Experimental Lakes Area. They ask the government to reserve the decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area and also to continue to provide adequate resources to the Experimental Lakes Area.

[Pensions, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Resolute Forest Products workers and retirees are worried that their pension fund is in jeopardy. Earlier this week, the company announced the elimination of 111 jobs at the plant in Grand-Mère, and in Clermont, the workers still do not know whether they will return to work.

Canada is one of the only OECD countries that provides no protection for workers' pension funds when an employer goes bankrupt or becomes insolvent.

What are the Conservatives waiting for? When will we see a bill to protect the pension funds of Canadian workers?

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at present, too many seniors are living in poverty in Canada. In a country like ours, that is unacceptable. We can choose to help these people get out of poverty and we are capable of doing that, but we certainly will not achieve that by raising the old age security eligibility age from 65 to 67.

At present, any senior citizen who is receiving the guaranteed income supplement and old age security as their only income is living below the poverty line. The government is not implementing the measures that are needed to ensure that seniors can continue to contribute fully to their community and live with dignity. We should not accept the fact that a senior, today, has to choose between paying rent, buying food and buying prescription drugs. That this is tolerated is indecent. We have the power to do things differently. For example, the government could increase the guaranteed income supplement for everyone who needs it. Another measure would be to protect pensions. The government could also strengthen protection for pensions in bankruptcy cases, but it is not doing that.

We have a number of suggestions for protecting seniors’ financial security. We hope to see a little more openness on the part of the government in this regard in future.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is true that the elderly who are new immigrants or who do not speak French or English have certain specific vulnerability factors that must be considered. The committee heard from Dr. Butt, the executive director of the Social Services Network, who spoke about Bill C-36. She said we must make sure that seniors receive the services they need to access the legal system, know the rights they have here in Canada, know they can trust the police, have access to information and to services, and are able to surmount the language barrier, which really is a problem.

The elderly who are new immigrants to Canada are more vulnerable. We must ensure that they, too, are entitled to their dignity and have access to services. So far, I have not heard of any government measures that take these specific issues into account.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a very interesting one. It is true that, if the government is serious when it says it wants to tackle the issue of the abuse suffered by the elderly these days, there are still many things to be done.

They talk about prevention and intervention. If action is needed to prevent elder abuse, some consideration must be given to the factors that make them vulnerable. What are they? One of those factors is poverty. The government has raised the age at which seniors can receive old-age security from 65 to 67. The elderly are left destitute and their poverty persists. This will not help resolve the issue of elder abuse.

Let us take another example. The elderly rely heavily on the health care system at certain times in their lives. Well, when the percentage of provincial health transfers expected is cut back, serious questions need to be asked about whether the health care system will be available and reliable when people have to depend on it.

I could give you many other examples, such as affordable housing. It is important to make sure that the elderly have access to affordable and appropriate housing. Lack of affordable housing can make them more vulnerable. I would like to point out that one is not necessarily vulnerable because one is a senior. If we really want to resolve the issue of elder abuse, consideration must also be given to factors that increase vulnerability and the incidence of abuse, and this government, at this point in time, is increasing these vulnerability factors, which really is a shame.