Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing the people of Roxboro, Île-Bizard, Pierrefonds and Dollard-des-Ormeaux a happy national holiday. I would very much like to be with them this evening to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day at Île-Bizard, as I did so often when I was a teenager, but it will not be possible this year.

Many of my colleagues today expressed their regrets about not being able to be in their ridings, to which the MPs on the other side of the House replied several times by saying it was their own decision. Unfortunately, this allegation is very different from reality, which is not surprising. Indeed, since the beginning of this debate, we have heard a great many unfair accusations and phony arguments from the Conservatives.

For example, they have used the economic crisis to justify the need to act quickly, when it was the government itself that imposed the lockout. The Hon. Minister of Laboursaid on June 15 that she had not received many complaints about the rotating strikes. Another example was from my colleague on the right telling us that they were worried about the viability of Canada Post. And yet, he knows full well that Canada Post earned $281 million in revenue last year. This money goes into the coffers or is invested to modernize the corporation’s infrastructure and equipment, and it all created employment here. We could also point to the fact that we receive excellent service from Canada Post and that our stamps are among the least expensive in the world.

In another phony argument, the legitimacy of the union’s decisions are being attacked. We heard this a lot today. Who is surprised that the Conservatives are taking advantage of this situation to launch a smear campaign in an effort to demonize any workers who organize?

And yet, as the MP for Hochelaga explained earlier today, the union consulted its members about the mandate they wanted to give it. The members voted and the union obtained 94% support going into the negotiations. And yet it would appear that my colleagues on the other side of the House, who boast of receiving support from 40% of the population, are claiming that they have a clear and strong mandate. The union received 94% support to conduct these negotiations.

The Conservatives are also hiding behind reports from worried citizens. They read many such comments to us, and it is touching, but they never say anything about those who support Canada Post employees. Some people might be surprised to hear it, but there are indeed people who support the striking employees, and take them coffee and food. There are also worried workers awaiting the outcome of this dispute, and wondering how the government will react when the time comes for them to negotiate their own working conditions.

I am nevertheless sensitive to the fact that a number of people are suffering because of the work stoppage at Canada Post. I am trying to be very clear. Although we are standing up today for the workers, those at Canada Post and all others who fear for their future working conditions, we are just as mindful of public concern about the lockout at Canada Post, among business owners, people waiting for their cheques and everyone else. We are well aware of that.

That brings me to another false line of debate all too often raised by the Conservatives. They accuse us of prolonging the closure of Canada Post and of not working with the government in the interests of citizens. That is a red herring. Let us get something clear here: the NDP wants postal services to resume just as much as the Conservatives do. No one is in favour of stopping postal services—no one. What we are denouncing today and what is intolerable to us is the way in which the Conservatives want to resolve this dispute.

We are opposed to this bill on the resumption and continuation of postal services. We are not opposed to the resumption of postal services, but rather to the working conditions that this bill imposes on workers, to this government's way of rejecting the workers' right to negotiate.

To sum up, the members opposite have said this is a situation that no one wanted. That's true; we agree. So let us stop the false debates, let us stop the lockout and let us resume the negotiations now.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has just spoken about wages, and the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles also spoke about working conditions. I spoke to the union representative in my riding yesterday, who said that there had been a 1,000% increase in work-related injuries after their assignments had changed recently, requiring them to simultaneously deliver many things other than envelopes.

These work-related injuries are likely to increase, under the new conditions Canada Post would like to impose. Employees, therefore, have good reason to want to negotiate their working conditions.

I would like to ask my colleague whether, as the members on the other side of the House claim, we are opposed to the resumption of services or whether we are fighting against the manner in which this is being done and the fact that it is becoming impossible for workers to bargain for their working conditions.

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to draw on my experience in the field to talk about what is being done in the community for seniors.

Pierrefonds—Dollard has many seniors' organizations. There are organizations to help seniors, but there are also seniors who start up organizations themselves to create their own social networks in order to help each other out and to break out of isolation. People are taking charge of the situation themselves and if we give them the means, they can regain control of their own lives and improve society considerably. The volunteers are doing an incredible job, but they are exhausted. They cannot do all this alone. They need us. We are here for them. We just need to remember that.

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

In Pierrefonds—Dollard, we know what it is like to deal with shortcomings in health care. We do not have any major hospitals. We have many health care and social services centres instead and they all have incredibly long lineups. When the hon. member was talking about the high cost of drugs, I immediately thought of the mother who has to fight to get her medication after learning she has cancer while also fighting for her daughter who is involved in her community. One might think that the government would provide help in that situation, but people still have to fight to get the services and quality of life they are entitled to in a country like Canada.

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

I am pleased to rise today to deliver my first speech in the House. As many others have done, I would like to take the opportunity to offer my thanks to those who were so helpful to and supportive of me, including my family, of course. Some of my family members even campaigned for me outside my riding. They were behind me 100%. They believed in change and, this year, they did not give in to the feeling that their vote would not change much. The same party had represented Pierrefonds—Dollard for a very long time. This year, the people believed and rightly so, because this time, each vote made a difference in Pierrefonds—Dollard.

I want to thank all of the community groups and organizations that I visited. Collège Gérald-Godin disproved the myth that youth are not involved in politics. I had lively discussions with people of all ages from the various cultural groups in the riding. I want to thank all those who had lively discussions with their friends and family about politics. Everyone in Quebec agrees that it was an exciting campaign. It is always nice to see people getting involved.

Finally, I would like to thank the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard for the trust they placed in me, in the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and in the NDP team. I want to thank them for their trust, of course, but I also want to thank them for being a source of inspiration for me.

Thank you to Véro, a mother who is waiting for her youngest to be in grade two before she returns to work. In the meantime, as a single mother, she does an impressive and thorough job of budgeting. She is wondering if she should go back to school to try and get her high school diploma.

Thank you to André, the young 72-year-old man who runs a seniors' social group. He puts all his energy into that group. He told me, among other things, that he was happy to still be living in his own home and to be mobile enough to be active in his community. Although he tries to think about it as little as possible, he is afraid of the day when he will be very dependent on our health care system.

Thank you to Samina, who looks after her sick mother and who has been hoping for many years that a family member will be able to join her in Pierrefonds to help her support her family. Thank you to all those who shared their stories with me and told me about their concerns and their priorities. They will motivate me every day to come to this place and speak on their behalf.

People of Pierrefonds, Île-Bizard, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and Roxboro, you can rest assured that you will not be disappointed. I will work hard to carry out the mandate that you gave me on May 2, and I will be your voice here in Ottawa.

I will start today by asking the government to do more to get seniors out of poverty. This year, in February 2011, the government sat down with the National Seniors Council to listen to what seniors had to say about the issues that are most important to them. The government said it would be a good way to work with people from the community to find solutions to the concerns and needs of seniors. However, the measures announced in the budget are far from satisfactory. On the one hand, the government is putting on a good show to bolster its image and make it look as though it cares about our seniors; on the other hand, the proposed measures indicate that the government is not truly interested in putting forward tangible measures to improve the well-being of seniors. The National Seniors Council has reason to feel betrayed, manipulated and insulted.

The recommendations made by the National Seniors Council are clear. After consulting the public and conducting a number of studies, it decided to propose to the government five areas for action that could significantly help low-income seniors.

First, and I am citing the council here, it proposes to address the impact of the cost of living and—more specifically—the cost of energy and food, on low-income seniors; provide more accessible and affordable housing; ensure that more seniors maintain their independence; and ensure that low-income seniors have all the necessary access to needed health services and supplies without a negative impact on their income.

In short, these areas touch on issues that are important to the NDP.

One thing we proposed throughout our campaign was to reduce the cost of heating. We advocated for home care and the building of multi-generational homes. We spoke about increasing accessible and affordable housing. These are the issues we are defending.

Unfortunately, not all the parties are defending these issues. The government plans to invest $300 million to enhance seniors' income. Taken out of context—and I am thinking here of my friends Véro, André and Samina—this may certainly seem like a huge amount. The government is well aware of this fact and is taking advantage of it. The government is bragging about this measure as though it were a generous gift. However, appearances can be deceiving and what the government is promising is actually far from generous.

Let us look at this $300 million from another perspective. Approximately one-third of seniors who are living in poverty would be eligible for this additional assistance. That means that two-thirds of people age 65 and over who are living in poverty would not receive any help. I do not know if you talked to people as I did during my campaign, but I often heard them asking how this assistance would change their everyday lives. I met with people who were disillusioned by politics because they thought that, no matter who they voted for, it would not have any effect on their actual problems and their everyday lives. By implementing this measure, the government is telling those people that they were right and that, if they are seniors living in poverty, they may in fact not see any change in their income.

There is another way of looking at this $300 million. The maximum amount a person can receive—and we are talking here about seniors who are the hardest hit by poverty—is approximately $70 a month, which is less than $2 per day for seniors in the deepest poverty.

Is anyone reassured knowing that these seniors will have an extra $2 a day? Personally, I am not. How can the government be proud of this measure? I have to wonder who among the Conservatives would be willing to go and visit any seniors living in poverty and tell them what they will be getting.

I once worked in a community-based organization that advocates to help people living in poverty improve their quality of life. So if anyone is brave enough to do such a thing today, they can come and see me and I will give them some telephone numbers. I can arrange meetings so they can tell these seniors what the government is going to do for them. I would not feel good telling them about all this.

According to the NDP's calculations, we need to invest about $700 million a year to significantly reduce poverty among seniors. Once again, this amount might sound huge, but we must think of the millions of dollars given to the most profitable corporations and to banks. The government justifies its decision to limit spending by saying it wants to balance the budget, but let me remind the House that this would not involve any additional spending, but rather making different choices and investing money for people, where it can really make a difference.

Basically, what we are proposing here today would allow us to significantly reduce poverty among seniors.

I hope our proposal will resonate with everyone here today.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in its budget, the government talks about helping businesses and entrepreneurs, but who will truly benefit from this help? Some people are worried, and that is understandable. We need only look at the billions of dollars that have been given to the most profitable companies.

In my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard, there are many small family businesses. They are very common in my riding. I would like to know what this government plans to do for these businesses in my riding.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my hon. colleague talking about a budget that really reflects the concerns of Canadians, and I have to wonder.

Hearing my colleague's comments, I could not help but think of a single mother I met during the election campaign who is living in poverty and who was recently diagnosed with cancer. Long before her diagnosis, this woman had to fight to have access to health care, proper treatment and affordable drugs. She still has to fight today, although one would think the opposite given her situation. One would think she should be getting the help she needs and that she deserves.

How can the member call this budget a complete success when it does not offer sufficient measures to work with the provinces to improve public health care?

[Seniors, June 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, almost half the women over 65 who live alone have incomes below the poverty line. This government boasts about helping seniors, but it is giving crumbs to only a third of seniors in need.

Why is this government abandoning two-thirds of seniors in need, the majority of whom are women living alone?