Bill C-282 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

International Trade

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we want is for the Liberals to talk to the senators, because the senators' priority should be to approve bills passed by the elected members. Everything else comes second. Democracy comes first.

Two senators whom no one knows and no one voted for are blocking the will of all the parties to pass Bill C‑282. I would remind the House that if the bill does not pass by October 29, the Liberals will have to answer to Canadians. It is therefore in their best interest to rouse the Senate, whether to protect our farmers or their own posteriors. Will they get on with it?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, our party has always supported supply management. Our party supported Bill C‑282, which is at issue here. We are waiting for the other chamber to pass Bill C‑282.

However, we have not heard much from the party opposite. The members of the official opposition have been fairly quiet on this issue. I hope that they, too, will make some calls to their Conservative colleagues on the other side.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Senate is thumbing its nose at farmers. Here is the proof. Bill C‑282, which contains only one provision and which was supported by all parties in the House, has been stuck in the Senate for over a year. The Senate has taken over a year to examine a single provision that seeks to protect supply management. By way of comparison, do members know how long the Senate took to pass Bill C‑76, which was passed yesterday? It took three days.

Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, two senators appointed by the Liberals, are blocking Bill C‑282. They are thumbing their noses at farmers and at all of us here, the elected officials. Will the Liberals ask them to stop?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals do not want to fall by October 29, they had better start standing up for farmers.

Bill C-282, which has just one clause and protects supply management, has been stuck in the Senate for more than a year. Why? It is because Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, two unelected wannabe kings, both appointed to the Senate by the Liberals, are deliberately blocking a bill supported by the majority in the House.

Will the Liberals ensure that the senators respect democracy and pass Bill C‑282?

International Trade

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, one that will allow him to keep trying to stay in the job. Bill C‑282, the supply management bill, has been in the Senate for a year and a half. The bill contains just one section. The unelected, illegitimate Senate seems to be leading the Prime Minister around by the nose.

It is his senators, the ones he appointed, who are standing in the way. Will he instruct them to respect democracy and our choices as elected representatives?

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑319

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

It is a privilege to rise in the House to debate the Bloc Québécois motion, which reads as follows:

That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

It is important for Canadians watching at home to remember that such motions are not binding on the government. That said, it is important to discuss the measures in Bill C‑319 and the Bloc Québécois's other demands. As everyone knows, this is once again a minority Parliament. We usually go vote by vote, and the Bloc Québécois has made two requests. As a member of Parliament who is not a member of the Privy Council, I will share my perspective on what I believe to be the best way forward.

I want to begin by sharing a thought. I represent the small riding of Kings—Hants, where the issue of supply management is extremely important. My riding is home to largest concentration of supply-managed farmers east of Quebec. I was rather surprised to see that the Bloc Québécois motion did not include any measures or considerations regarding the importance of supply management. I was also rather surprised to hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois raise this important point last week. He also talked about how important it is for all parliamentarians and the government to protect the supply management system. It is very important for our farmers, but also for our food security.

Personally, I have some concerns about the U.S. presidential election and the position of the next U.S. Congress on the issue of supply management. I was in Washington this summer. It is not just one American party. It is not just the Democrats or just the Republicans. Representatives of both parties will have the opportunity to raise the issue of greater access to the Canadian market. It is very important for our parliamentarians to educate themselves and to resist this idea, because our supply management system is more important. The Conservatives are taking a very weak position in this respect. Many Conservative members voted against Bill C-282, which sought to protect supply management. All of the other MPs, especially the Liberals, were in favour of the bill and of protecting supply management.

I want to remind farmers in my riding and other ridings in Nova Scotia that it is important to keep an eye on the Conservatives.

In the past, Conservative governments have allowed cuts to accessing the system, willingly, without necessarily negotiating it away.

There are a lot of seniors in Kings—Hants. They are important, and they are the type of seniors, by and large, who are blue-collar workers. They are seniors who have worked in forestry. They have worked in agriculture. They have worked in the type of industries where they may not have large pensions, unlike people in other areas of the country and maybe in bigger urban centres.

I have taken great pride, over the five years I have had the privilege of being the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, to try to be an advocate in this space, because we do have to make sure that our seniors have a dignified retirement and that we are taking measures to support seniors across the country, including indeed, for me, right at home in Kings—Hants. Our government has been there.

Our government has been there, and there are a few things I want to point out to my hon. colleagues.

When Mr. Harper was in government, he was proposing to actually move the retirement age up from 65 to 67, such that seniors in Kings—Hants would not have been eligible for old age security or the guaranteed income supplement until age 67, had the Conservatives had their way. Of course our Minister of Seniors has pointed out that Mr. Harper made that decision and policy choice at the World Economic Forum.

However, we are the government that actually brought the retirement age back to 65. We have invested in old age security for those who are age 75 and up, and I know that is part of the conversation piece, representing over $3 billion a year in new investments for seniors. We have also supported long-term care facilities.

We have invested in dental care. I had the opportunity to talk to some of my constituents, who have said to me, “Look, I haven't had the opportunity to have my teeth cleaned in over five years. I haven't been able to visit a dentist, because I just can't afford it.” Our government, with the support of the majority of members of Parliament, actually created a program where now close to 80% of dentists across the country are participating. That is extremely important, as it is a measure that supports not only health care for seniors but also affordability.

The members who voted against the measure, namely the Conservatives, like to talk about seniors, but when it comes to the measures that actually support them, they vote against them. The member for Carleton talks about pensions and the member for Burnaby South, yet he is not willing to support seniors' dental care in my riding of Kings—Hants or anywhere else in the country. He says it does not exist, but almost a million Canadians now have benefited from the program, notably our seniors.

Let us talk about the threshold before there are clawbacks. Our government has been increasing the amount of money that a senior can earn before it is clawed back on the guaranteed income supplement or on their old age security cheque, which is important. We had moved that from $3,500 up to $5,000, and now it is 50% more, from $5,000 to $10,000. That is great; however, I would like to see the government do more.

Hopefully in the fall economic statement, in the budget, we can see it go even higher, because for seniors who are still able and wanting to contribute by working, we do not want there to be an impediment to their doing so because they are worried about losing their seniors' benefits. Therefore we need to go higher, and I believe that the government has the ability to do so and will do so in the days ahead. We will see where our other hon. colleagues stand on that.

Let us talk about the health care investment. When I talk to seniors, I hear that they worry about health care. We have been there as a government to step up. However, the Conservatives voted against it.

The point I want to make is that, as it relates to seniors, I am proud of the record the current government has. We have one of the lowest poverty rates of seniors in the world, which matters. This is not just a feeling, an emotion, but a fact. Are there challenges out there that we have to continue to address? Absolutely there are, and I may not agree with the entirety of the motion before the House here today as it relates to doing something to support seniors between 65 and 74.

However, I think that particularly for our lower-income seniors between ages 65 and 74, we have to be there to make sure we can support them. In fact it is in the Liberal platform to make sure we can identify those seniors who would be on the guaranteed income supplement, to support them in the days ahead.

When we look at the Bloc's voting record on support for seniors, it immediately becomes clear that they do not really care about seniors' needs. The Bloc voted against dental care for seniors, against lowering the retirement age, and against increasing the GIS.

Generally speaking, the initiatives in this bill are good, but it is important to understand that, with regard to the motion that the Bloc Québécois is moving today, it is very difficult and very rare for a government to grant a royal recommendation.

I would love to be able to have one of my hon. colleagues step up and ask me a question.

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-319

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by inviting the House to recognize the importance of the discussions we are going to have, beyond the context in which this conversation is happening.

Bills with a budgetary component that are introduced by a party that is not in office require royal recommendation, which can only be obtained by the executive branch. That may sound like a platitude of little importance, but without royal recommendation, Bill C-319 cannot become law.

This bill seeks to ensure fairness when it comes to retirement pensions for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. The government is the one that created this discrimination by increasing pensions only for seniors aged 75 and up. We will come back to the government's reasons for such a surprising decision. This bill also enables retirees to earn $6,500 rather than the current maximum of $5,000 without being penalized with respect to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc Québécois has set two conditions for propping up a government in dire straits and not pulling the rug out from under it. We made no bones about the fact that this was an opportunity to make gains for a very large pool of Quebec seniors, but also to protect supply management, Quebec's agricultural model and prospects for the next generation of farmers, once and for all. Each time a trade agreement is being negotiated, the government promises that it will not put supply management back on the table until it puts it back on the table. That has to stop.

Since 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to significantly increase the purchasing power of seniors aged 65 and over, who built Quebec and are behind the prosperity we are all blithely enjoying. Purchasing power, those magic words everyone uses, is all well and good until there is a price tag on it. When it costs something, suddenly purchasing power becomes too expensive. I will come back to that.

The Bloc Québécois was asking for that in 2019, before the pandemic. When I became leader of the Bloc Québécois, we made it a priority because it was a no-brainer. Then the pandemic hit and caused a kind of pre-inflation for retirees, with everything costing more due to their isolation and vulnerability. When actual inflation struck, affecting everyone, it hit the most vulnerable even harder. Interest rates started climbing. If I may be so bold as to mention the agricultural sector, there were increased environmental concerns. The agricultural model has been jeopardized, and the next generation of farmers is facing uncertainty.

The Bloc Québécois put forward two solutions that are good for Quebec and not bad for Canada, which is great. Both solutions are legislative, not to mention very advanced in terms of parliamentary procedure. Within a timeline now set at four weeks, the House of Commons, the Senate and the government could go through all stages of Bill C‑319 on seniors and Bill C‑282 on supply management. Both bills could receive royal assent, despite how archaic and outdated it is to think that we need the royalty to support a bill that stems from the democratic process.

If the fact that all the parties in the House have voted in favour of both these bills at one point or another does not get them passed within the next four weeks, we must ask ourselves whether somewhere, someone who shall remain nameless has not been a hypocrite. If nothing else, we will be able to test this out.

The recent sequence of events has created a fair amount of turmoil, it must be said. The New Democratic Party opted out of its alliance with the Liberal Party of Canada, although it is fair to ask whether this is actually the case. The days ahead, maybe the weeks ahead if not the months ahead, will determine the accuracy of this statement.

The Bloc Québécois captured the by-election in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. This seismic event shook the pillars of a temple that was not as solid as was once thought. There was a motion by the official opposition to bring down the government, all because Joe wanted to be prime minister instead of Jack, even though he might not be so different from Jack because he has no program. Naturally enough, the Conservative motion fizzled out. Next came our proposal for seniors and farmers, which we are taking up today.

I would remind the House that this remains a minority government. Replacing it without a program, without an election platform, failing to tell voters what they would do with the mandate they are seeking, this is not an end unto itself. It would change nothing. It means nothing and it gives people no idea about what would come after. I can never get over the fact that the most comprehensive program presented to voters by the parties in this Parliament is the one put forth by the lone party not interested in forming the government. It is so ironic, but we are simply doing our job.

If the government does not accede to our terms, we will get the message and embark on negotiations, which will not necessarily be enjoyable but whose end purpose will be clear. We will negotiate with the other opposition parties to bring down a government that will have abandoned the very notion of being useful to millions of Canadians and Quebeckers.

A number of things were said, but they are not necessarily based in fact. The government maintains control over the parliamentary agenda. It has the power to decide which subjects will be taken up and when, and when opposition days will take place. It still has a tremendous amount of control. It might still have some kind of understanding with the New Democratic Party. The government can also prorogue Parliament. The government can send the Prime Minister to talk to the Governor General for five minutes in English and an election will be called.

The government can also respect the clear will of a massive number of people and take into account the fact that we have not tried to turn this into a divisive issue. The Bloc Québécois has a bit of influence on the political or moral objective of this. In fact, the subject we have proposed is not controversial in Parliament. Some might have preferred this to be a controversial subject. At times there are some who hope for failure to justify their political posturing. We have more maturity than that.

We have proposed something for our most vulnerable, who were vulnerable before the pandemic, who were vulnerable during the pandemic and who are even more vulnerable during this inflation crisis, which also has repercussions on housing.

The government partially indexed the pensions of Canadians aged 75 and over on the pretext that they needed this more than other seniors. While not entirely false, this justifies nothing. It did not index the pensions of those aged 65 to 74. The real reason seems to be that the government, cruelly cynical in its approach, is telling people to burn through their private pension and if they are still alive once their money runs out, they will be given some more. There is something cruel about this message. It seems beneath an institution that should, above all, exhibit statesmanship.

That is really what this is about. The government told us our ask would cost a lot, so we are going to have some fun with this. It would cost $3 billion a year and $16 billion over five years. When we hear that, we all just beat our heads against the wall. Fine.

However, during that same period, no matter how many ways they try to conceal it, Ottawa will be giving between $50 billion and $80 billion to the oil companies, who do not need it. Some of the wealthiest companies in the world, supported by one of the wealthiest banking systems in the world, are going to receive for their shareholders, who are among the wealthiest in the world, between $50 billion and $80 billion over five years. Then we are being told that seniors do not deserve to get $3 billion a year.

In response to that obscenity, I am telling the government to take at least $3 billion from the money it is giving to the oil companies and, through them, to the banks in Toronto, take a bit more from Edmonton and Toronto and give it to seniors in Canada and Quebec, whose purchasing power has been shrinking for years.

Since the oil companies are the ones benefiting the most, it is not surprising that the Conservatives, the great defenders of government austerity, are mum on this lavish, excessive, wild spending that is often supported by bad science.

We are talking about a lot of people here. Let us put numbers to it. There are one million people 65 to 74 in Quebec that some people are saying no to. The $3 billion we are talking about for all of Canada would serve four million Canadians, including one million Quebeckers. They seem far more important to me than some oil companies and a couple hundred shareholders.

We could be hardheaded and cynical and look at it through an electoral lens. Just for fun, let us say no to one million Quebeckers. Let us think about it. We will be helping one million Quebeckers, and beyond that, since we are happy to help others with our motion, a total of four million Canadians, which is no small thing. The merits need to be considered, but I cannot help but think that some people's approach is more cynical.

We have been told that we should talk about immigration, and I would like to settle that. We originally talked about giving Quebec all powers over immigration. We even talked about holding a referendum to get them. Now we are halfway through something that we hardly know how to calculate, given that there is more than one kind of immigration and even more than one kind of temporary immigration. We still maintain that Quebec should be given all immigration powers, and we have not backed down or shrunk from our position.

However, if we had chosen to debate a motion about immigration, language, secularism or ending the religious exemption for hate speech and incitement to violence, the NDP would naturally have sided with the Liberals, since that is where they reside ideologically. It is no surprise, as we all know. That is not a criticism in terms of the current debate. At no political cost, the NDP and the Liberals would have voted together. That would be the best way of guaranteeing that the government stayed in power until 2025, and perhaps well into 2025.

The best way to achieve the opposite of that, of what some people claim to want, was to choose a divisive topic that offers no real gains, a topic that no one in any capital could ever claim is nationalistic. I think we made the right choice, and we are forcing everyone, all the caucuses, to really think about what they are going to do here. The Bloc Québécois has wind in its sails and has put forward a meaningful proposal.

There is another issue that we would not have solved by going back to immigration because it is just smoke and mirrors. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say they are going to reduce the Liberal target of 500,000 immigrants per year. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say that they reject the McKinsey-led century initiative, which is basically the storyline of James Bond's Spectre. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say they are going to cede all immigration powers to Quebec.

Most of all, I have never heard the Conservatives dare say any one of these three things in English, because the cost for Ontario would be horrific. I have to say that, in this major war going on mostly in Ontario, the Conservatives are trying to please exactly the same people as the Liberal Party.

Let me get back to something simple: the actual intention, the common good and statesmanship. I assume that no one in Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton or even Quebec City thinks that $80 a month or $1,000 a year for one million people in Quebec and three million people in Canada is nothing. It is more than the government's dental care program, which interferes in our jurisdiction. No one really thinks that the Bloc Québécois is asking for nothing. Anyone who seriously thinks that needs to listen to what we are saying, so let us pay attention to the words. Words have meaning and they can also have a price.

Bill C‑319 will immediately improve the quality of life of four million people, including those who want to help mitigate the labour shortage, which is still affecting many businesses. Bill C‑282 will ensure that supply management is no longer compromised in our trade agreements. All of the discussions and both bills put forward by the Bloc Québécois are currently at an advanced stage. Everyone voted in favour of them at one point or another. These bills help Quebec, and not at the expense of Canada.

If these bills are not passed and do not get royal assent within four weeks exactly, we will assume that the government has rejected this opportunity to help four million people, in addition to farmers; a lot of people stand to gain from this. Given the extreme vulnerability of the government and its principal ally, we will act accordingly.

Make no mistake, we are prepared to do what we have to do. We have the funds, the issues, the program and the candidates. We are ready to go. It is not what we would prefer in the short term. It is not what Quebeckers would prefer in the short term. However, everyone understands that, if the government does not demonstrate its usefulness and open-mindedness very soon, we will trigger an election no later than October 29.

International Trade

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every party should be speaking out about the fact that senators are acting like elected members and obstructing the will of the House, which is to protect farmers. The Liberals should be even more motivated to do so because their fate is on the line. These unelected senators believe they have the right to decide for the Liberals. This is our appeal to the Liberals and the other parties as well.

Are they going to pressure the Senate to respect democracy and finally pass Bill C‑282?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have issued an ultimatum for supply management. That date is October 29. Yesterday, senators once again took our Bill C‑282, which protects farmers, off their agenda. The Senate has been stalling on this bill for a year and a half now, even though all parties voted for it. The Liberals should ask themselves whether they want to put their fate in the hands of some unelected senators.

Will they be making any calls to the Senate to send a clear message that if Bill C‑282 is not passed, an election will be called?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the government

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, now I understand why we get so few answers during question period. It is because we call it “question period” and not “question and answer period”.

This afternoon, perhaps we can dare to hope that the government will give us an answer. My question is very simple. I want to know if the government is going to proceed with the irreversible implementation of two bills that the Bloc Québécois has been championing for months, namely, Bill C‑319 to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74, and the famous Bill C‑282 on supply management.

Could I have an answer?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, our government supports supply management, and my hon. colleague is well aware of that. We supported Bill C-282 because, of course, we have supported and always will support supply management, unlike the Conservatives, who fell shamefully behind when important funding for supply management came to the House and voted against it.

My hon. colleague is fully aware that we have supported and will continue to support supply management.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an ultimatum. Bill C‑282 on supply management has to pass before October 29.

That should be simple. The House voted in favour of the bill, but it has been stuck in the Senate for more than a year. Yesterday, in committee, a senator asked an excellent question. He said, and I quote, “Can you explain why this bill is being held up in the Senate? It is a bill that was supported by the vast majority of members in the democratically elected House.”

The Prime Minister appointed 80% of the senators. Will he tell them that it is time to release the bill?

Government Priorities

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have until October 29 to increase OAS benefits for seniors aged 74 and under and to protect supply management. They must pass Bill C-319 and Bill C-282. Why do we want the government to pass these two bills? Mostly, because they are good for Quebeckers, but also because there is a consensus in the House. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP agree on this.

Why is the government keeping us in suspense for no reason when it could be making gains for Quebec? Will the government respond to our demands to help seniors and farmers, yes or no?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I greatly appreciate.

I would like to begin with a bit of background about when Parliament resumed. I will outline what has happened since we returned to the House. Hearing our explanation may help people better understand our reasons for voting for or against the motions moved by the Conservatives. My basic premise is that some people need to have things explained to them for a long time before they understand. I will explain things for as long as it takes.

This fall, at our caucus meetings before Parliament resumed, this was the approach we were taking. We were thinking that, for the first time in about two and a half years, the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity to capitalize on what should have been the norm for the past two and a half years, namely a true minority government.

The people decided that this would be a minority government. However, what we have seen is that it has acted like a majority government with the NDP's help, which means that the government in power did not reflect the will of the people for two and a half years. Today, after the surprise termination of the agreement at the end of the summer, things are back to normal, that is, we have a minority government that is obliged to negotiate with the other parties. The Bloc Québécois now holds the balance of power that had slipped through its fingers in recent years. However, that did not prevent us from making headway. The opposition parties play an important role in both minority and majority governments. We proved that with the bills we pushed through despite everything and which I will address a bit later.

We saw that we had the balance of power and that we had an opportunity we have not had in a while. We were not going to discard it the first chance we got. We decided to take the opportunity to get more for Quebec. In some cases, these gains will also benefit all Canadians, and I say good for them. The Bloc Québécois is not that chauvinistic.

That is why, yesterday, we set out specific goals we wish to achieve, explicit gains we want to make before a set deadline. Unlike the NDP, who tied its own hands for two and a half years, we do not intend to blindly support the government until fall 2025. We do not intend to remain uselessly patient and allow the government to refuse to make a decision for absolutely nothing when it comes to our demands.

Our two main demands concern seniors and supply management. Our deadline for achieving our demands is the end of October, which is reasonable in both cases. It is reasonable in terms of content. The two bills in question are Bill C‑319, which was introduced by my colleague for Shefford, and Bill C‑282, which was introduced by my colleague for Montcalm and other members, including the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who preceded me. These two bills have already made their way through the House. At worst they are the subject of a relative consensus and, in some cases, they received a large majority of votes.

Bill C‑282, progressed so well that it made it to the Senate. We are therefore asking the government to perhaps make it easier, to ensure that there are no useless obstructions so that this bill can get to an irreversible point, as our leader mentioned. We want it to reach the point of no return by obtaining royal assent.

The same is true of the bill for seniors. The bill passed second reading. It was sent back to committee. The committee produced a report that received the unanimous support of the parties. There should not be any problem. This is an absolutely essential matter we are working on. This unanimity did not come out of thin air. It represents more purchasing power for seniors, regardless of their age, starting at age 65. It is the opposite of what the government was trying to do when it created two classes of seniors, when it created a difference between seniors age 65 to 74 and seniors age 75 and over.

Yesterday on Téléjournal we saw some statistics concerning seniors' needs.

It was reported that 59% of seniors aged 75 and over earn less than $30,000 a year, which is not much. In the case of seniors aged 65 to 74, that proportion is 54%. Despite all that, until recently, the government was telling us that seniors aged 65 to 74 do not need as much money as seniors who are 75 and over and that this older group really needs help. As if the cost of living were not the same for both groups. As if groceries cost less when you get to age 75. As if there were an additional discount. As if prescription drugs were less expensive.

The Bloc Québécois could not make any sense out of this and decided it was time to put an end to the discrimination. The argument that one age group has fewer needs than the other does not hold water. That is evident when we look at who is getting the GIS, and we should note that anyone receiving the GIS cannot be that well off: 39% of seniors aged 75 and over are entitled to the GIS, while 29% of seniors aged 65 to 74 qualify to receive it. Our motion will make it possible to enhance the old age pension, the OAS, which will benefit many seniors who need it, despite the arguments we have been hearing from the government that these people are not a priority.

Our measures are reasonable, and so is our deadline. We said October 29, which gives the government almost five weeks to get these bills, which are already at a late stage, passed. In the meantime, we do not intend to lose this opportunity to make gains. That means, and this is no surprise, that we will be voting against today's motion. I hope that the Conservatives understand why, if they are listening at all to what we are saying.

That is how we work. We take a logical approach. We work to make gains for our constituents. That is exactly what we are doing. If, like some people, we were only interested in ourselves, we might be satisfied with our victory in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. We might be satisfied with the polls, which show we are in a pretty good position, and decide that, if we call an election right away, it will be good for the Bloc Québécois.

No, we chose to do what is good for Quebec, as we have always done and as we will continue to do. If, for example, we make gains and obtain results with Bill C‑319 and Bill C‑282, we will not let the government walk all over us by bartering support for interference, for example. We will not vote in favour of something that is bad for Quebec because we managed to achieve something good for Quebec. We will not change who we are in future votes. I hope that both the government and the Conservatives understand that. We are telling them our strategy for the future, in case they missed that. If it is good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois votes for it. If it is bad for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois votes against it. That will never change.

When we are asked whether we have confidence in the government, the answer is that we do not trust the Liberals any more than we trust a potential Conservative government to look after Quebec's interests. It is a good thing that the Bloc Québécois is here, because the Conservatives and the Liberals are both the same. They both want to attack Bill 21, and neither have any lessons to give in terms of oil subsidies. When it comes to immigration, the war Quebec is waging may have begun with the Liberals, but we have no guarantees about what the Conservatives plan to about another one of Quebec's demands, namely, the distribution of asylum seekers, since this is at a standstill with Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. What do those provinces have in common? They all have Conservative premiers. These are the same people who are unable to respond to Quebec's needs and who are saying that Quebec needs to figure things out itself.

When we are asked whether we have confidence, the answer is no. The only confidence we have is in ourselves and our ability to make gains. That is how we are going to operate moving forward. We are also not worried about an election. We are ready. If we need to campaign in the snow, then we will bundle up and do that. There is not much that scares the Bloc Québécois.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I also have the good fortune to work with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Of course, I supported Bill C‑282, as did our government. I am well aware that the Leader of the Opposition and his local riding association have twice raised the idea of getting rid of supply management with his political party. The possibility exists that the House leader of the official opposition could become the minister of foreign affairs. He once described Brexit as a good thing.

I would like my colleague to help me understand the political game that the Conservatives are playing at the expense of farmers, specifically when it comes to Bill C‑234.