Bill C-319 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person’s employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing in the House today is not particularly edifying. I get the impression that both sides are simply trying to capitalize on the obstruction. I can confirm that it was my Conservative colleague who talked about lies. I would actually like to point out that a big one was told, specifically that the carbon tax applies in Quebec. We have a party on the other side that refuses to hand over documents and refuses to co-operate with the House.

Farmers are on the Hill today because we need to move several issues forward in the coming weeks, including protecting supply management with Bill C‑282. There is also Bill C‑319, which seeks to increase OAS by 10% for people aged 65 to 74. We have work to get done in the House. Members on both sides should stop standing in the way and shirking their responsibilities. This does nothing to advance democracy.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on top of that, the minister is using conspiracy theories to justify the fact that he has no intention of doing anything at all for seniors. He tells them that the big bad separatists have a secret plan to take away their pensions.

These are the same old scare tactics from the 1980s.

He talks about winning conditions and independence, but so do we. We believe that improving seniors' living conditions is a good thing and helps ensure their independence.

Instead of fearmongering, will the minister work for people and give a royal recommendation to Bill C-319?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, across all age groups, 79% of the population is in favour of increasing OAS, regardless of age.

No need to be between the ages of 65 and 74, everyone agrees. Why is that? It is because people respect seniors and stand with them. If we can improve the living conditions of those who need it, people are all for it. Even in the House, everyone agrees except for the Liberals.

When are they going to listen to reason, show they have a heart and give royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It really caught my attention when he talked about control of the public purse, the nation's finances.

I want to come back to a subject that is near and dear to my heart, and that is Bill C‑319, which his party supported. The government is telling us that there is not enough money to increase OAS, a program that helps seniors. How are we to feel when we see so much of taxpayers' money being wasted, when the government could easily spare the 0.57% of the budget, or $3 billion per year, needed to implement Bill C‑319 if it were not wasting so much money?

Seniors

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, seniors came to Parliament Hill to ask for a 10% increase to their pension plan. One poll tells us that 79% of the population agrees with that increase. Elected members voted in favour of it. The government just needs to give the royal recommendation to Bill C‑319, but it does not want to. Why? Because it says that this is not how things usually work.

We are talking about the plight of seniors and the government is talking about procedure. When will it stop messing around and give the royal recommendation?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House has spoken. Yesterday, it demanded that old age security be increased for people 65 to 74. It demanded that the government give a royal recommendation to Bill C‑319. This bill is the only way to permanently protect all seniors' income. It is also the only way to permanently abolish the age discrimination that seniors are experiencing.

Will the government finally listen to the will of the House, listen to the will of seniors and give a royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the will of the House is clear. Yesterday, it demanded that the government grant a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319, which increases old age security by 10% for people aged 65 to 74. This would permanently end the two separate classes of seniors.

The Liberals have a choice. They can respect the will of elected representatives, or they can learn the hard way that voters will side with seniors.

Will they grant a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319, or are they going to start brushing up their résumés?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for the work that she does on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I say that because I am especially grateful for the work that this committee did on Bill C-319. I also want to thank her for supporting fairness for seniors. She asked me questions when I appeared before the committee, and I commend her for her work on this file.

Now, I am going to come back to the subject of the report on the Canada disability benefit. As I mentioned, in my riding, there are organizations, like Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et Région, that represent people with disabilities. In the beginning, these people criticized the fact that they had not been consulted. Then they criticized the fact that, when the bill was introduced and they tried to get more information from the department, they did not get any answers. Another one of their criticisms is that it is not easy to keep track of all these credits. People are often unfamiliar with the tax credit and find it difficult to access. It is not getting to all of the people who really need it.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the challenges of making sure that people are aware of the disability tax credits, specifically?

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

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Montcalm.

In light of what I just heard from the recently appointed Minister of Labour and Seniors, I would appreciate it if he could stay a few minutes. I might get angry; I might get indignant. At the same time, I am worried. I think our minister is in a very vulnerable state. As a nurse by profession, I think he has a bit of a health problem, given the speech he just made. His whole speech worried me, because it was full of untruths, lies and partisanship the likes of which I have never heard before. That reminds me, we still have not received his new mandate letter. I am guessing that the speech he delivered today was part of it. He must be a good ambassador for the inertia of the government, his government, when it comes to federal social policies and programs. It is rare that we have the opportunity to talk about exclusively federal social programs that we are asking to be strengthened.

Usually, as we just heard and as we hear in the answers we are given during question period, the government members just talk about their exploits implementing programs that have nothing to do with the federal government, but rather are the responsibility of the provinces. Take the dental care program, for example. The Bloc Québécois is being accused of being against dental care. That is not true. For seniors and young people alike, a dental care program is a good idea. We voted against the bill not because we are against dental care, but because it was another example of crass interference in a provincial jurisdiction. This program is going to cost $2 billion and be administered by private insurance companies, while Quebec's dental care program is administered by a public system. That is the Liberal government's hypocrisy, in the falsehoods it denounces. That is why we stand firm.

There is one thing to take away from today's debate on our bill, which has been defended with such passionate determination by my colleague, the member for Shefford, and has the support of my political party and all the seniors we met with in the field. The one thing to remember is that we demand fair treatment. Of course, the issue concerns dignity, but fair treatment is also at stake.

The equation is simple. The federal government introduced a program in the early 1900s called the old age security pension. It was a universal pension, with certain conditions, that started at age 65. The plan was intended for all seniors aged 65 or over, for whom OAS was viewed as a social safety net. In fact, it was praised as an important social policy at the time. Where does Canada stand today as far as the overall program goes? Canada ranks 13th in the OECD.

Restoring fairness is the purpose of our bill and the reason we are requesting a royal recommendation. What the government did for the first time ever was to make a distinction between people aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over, in a universal plan that should apply to everyone.

That is the gap we want to correct with Bill C-319. As I said in another speech, seniors are not all facing the same situation. People aged 80 and over may be living a different reality from those aged 75 and over or from those aged 70 to 75. That is not the real issue here. The question is whether the federal government believes that there are now two OAS plans: one for seniors aged 65 to 74 and one for seniors aged 75 and over.

That is nonsense because it is a question of equity. In committee, when we talked about OAS, I heard people say that seniors 65 and up have money while those 75 and up have less. People seem to lose sight of the fact that as of age 65, many seniors, including 30% or more in Quebec, start living on a fixed income. For many seniors, that is their only income. For many people in both Quebec and Canada, single women in particular, OAS provides an income that barely allows them to live in dignity. It is their only income. To cut them off from an increase is to make them poorer and even more insecure. It is also to ignore the fact that if we want to improve seniors' situation and quality of life, then we need to act now.

If we support an increase in OAS as of age 65 that allows for an adequate standard of living, as the bill proposes, we will improve these seniors' quality of life and, at the same time, the quality of life and living conditions of people 75 and up. The equation is simple. As my colleague said, there is no evidence proving that age-based discrimination in the application of a universal system will make the government understand how poor and vulnerable our seniors are.

During question period, we ran out of ways to say that the cost of living is the same whether one is an 80-year-old senior or a 65-year-old living on a fixed income like old age security. Many people are struggling to pay for clothing, housing and food, with a bit left over for leisure activities. They are avoiding that, because they do not have the money. For 10 years of their lives, they will be worried because they may have had a little nest egg, but no private plan or supplementary pension plan. They only get old age security. It is unfair to say that they can go back to work to get by, instead of saying that, out of fairness, old age security will be increased for everyone, as it should be, as it was intended to be, which would be the fair approach. A number of witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to talk about this. The Liberal government members on that committee unanimously supported this bill.

I hope that the answer we heard today from the Minister of Labour and Seniors is not the government's answer. It is a matter of fairness. There is still time for the government to be on the right side of history rather than the wrong side of history.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing big words like “hypocrisy” and “cynicism”, but I think the most cynical thing the Liberals could do would be to vote for Bill C-319 and then not give it a royal recommendation.

That way, they could say that they were in favour of the bill, but that they had to prevent it from passing because it would be too expensive. That is political cynicism. Let us talk about the measures to help seniors that the minister mentioned and that we support. We are seeing the beginning of a pharmacare program. It was the NDP that forced the minority government to deliver on that thanks to the agreement we negotiated two and a half years ago. The Liberals promised pharmacare for the first time in 1997, and it still had not been delivered.

As for dental care, it is fortunate we forced you to bring in dental care, otherwise you would have nothing to say to help seniors—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gatineau for his passionate speech. However, I think he is out of touch with reality.

To hear him tell it, all is well in Canada. Seniors have plenty of money in their pockets, the cost of living is fine, rents never doubled and everything is beautiful. Life is good, and it will stay that way. With a magic wand, everything will work itself out.

In reality, the cost of living is suffocating Canadians, Quebeckers and seniors. That is the reality. I invite him to meet with people in his riding of Gatineau and see the situation on the ground.

Earlier in his speech, he talked about hypocrisy. It is sheer hypocrisy that the Liberal government voted for Bill C‑319 but is not moving the bill forward. Why is that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted that a political party which claims to champion Quebec would object to Gatineau's meals on wheels program for seniors. Now I have seen everything.

These two programs make a real difference to seniors, and they are helping make Canada a better place to live, grow and age. That is why they are so important. After what we saw during the pandemic, we know that Canadians are looking to governments to step up and make sure our long-term care system is delivering high-quality, safe care and treatment to our seniors. That is why we transferred $1 billion to the provinces and territories in 2020 to immediately work to protect people living and working in long-term care.

However, we need longer-term solutions; our $200-billion health care deals with provinces and territories are squarely focused on that. That is why, as part of these agreements, we also signed unique aging with dignity agreements with provinces and territories to make sure our health care systems meet the needs of an aging population and the workers who make it all possible.

On a systemic level, our government will be tabling, yes, a new safe long-term care act.

Once again, this is another measure that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party opposed.

What would this act do? It would make sure we do right by seniors, their families and their care workers. It would make sure that what happened in our long-term care facilities during the pandemic never, ever happens again.

All of these supports for health care and community services are based on our government's core beliefs. We need to meet Canadian seniors where they are. We must not only be there to serve seniors today; we must be there for them tomorrow.

This requires planning. We need a thoughtful economic policy that takes into account the needs of people in the short, medium and long term, and not guesstimate policies that run counter what the numbers tell us. That is what our government did when it decided to increase old age security for seniors over 75. It was a data-driven choice, as I said earlier.

Our 10% increase in the old age security pension aimed specifically to address the increased vulnerability of seniors as they age. The facts are clear: seniors over 75 are more likely to have significant health problems and, accordingly, have higher health care expenses. In fact, health spending for seniors over 80 are on average $700 a year more than that of people 65 to 74.

Seniors in this age group are also more likely to live with a disability. In 2017, 47% of seniors 75 and up suffered from a disability, compared to 32% of seniors 65 to 74. Since only roughly 15% of seniors 75 and up continue to work, or less than half of those 65 to 74, these seniors living on a fixed income need support to cope with these increased expenses. That is why a larger proportion of these seniors is already eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and benefiting from it, according to the numbers from 2020.

We raised old age security for seniors 75 and up to increase their financial security when they need it most. Far too many seniors fall into poverty after losing their spouse or partner. The loss of a loved one is more than just a devastating time for these seniors, the majority of whom are women. Often it can also lead to a significant decline in their quality of life. In 2016, the proportion of widows who did not remarry was three times higher among people 75 and up than among people 65 to 74.

These conversations about how we can better support Canadian seniors are important. They are important because the future of aging in Canada is really everyone's future. We welcome these discussions. We welcome these kinds of debates. We welcome dialogue with all the opposition parties to discuss how we can do more to help seniors.

However, when any reasonable measure that puts money in seniors' pockets is consistently met with opposition, we can only conclude that it is cynicism, and that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party of Canada are playing politics at the expense of the most vulnerable seniors.

However, Bill C‑319 does not reflect the reality facing Canadian seniors. Our government is committed to investing in people, whether it is with child care or school food programs for children, skills training for young people entering the workforce, or dental care and pharmacare for seniors. We know that there is always more work to do, but I am proud of what our government has done since 2015, especially when it comes to advancing the interests of Canadian seniors.

Ultimately, the discussion today is not just about seniors. It affects us all. This is about the future of aging in Canada and the future that every Canadian deserves in their retirement years. After a lifetime of hard work, Canadian seniors deserve to age with dignity and choice. As a government, we will make this future a reality for every senior in this country.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to address a crucial matter that affects both the dignity and well-being of our seniors. I invite all my colleagues to consider the importance of a royal recommendation for Bill C-319, which seeks to amend current legislation to increase the full pension amount. By asking the government to act quickly, we are affirming our commitment to our seniors by ensuring they receive the financial support they need to live with dignity and respect. It is time to make their voices heard and take action for a better future.

This Bloc Québécois demand is reasonable and in the best interests of both Quebec's and Canada's seniors. We have received dozens of emails from seniors across Canada thanking the member for Shefford for her hard work in restoring fairness for those who built our society. I would also like to thank her personally. Passing this bill will improve seniors' quality of life. We will see the impact of this measure very quickly.

One of our initiatives back home, and also a campaign promise, was to set up an advisory committee with seniors. We then held a series of public consultations with these seniors to identify the challenges and, at the same time, seek their support. My colleague, the member for Shefford, met with seniors, particularly seniors from Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, to hear what they had to say about her bill.

I am rising in the House on behalf of seniors to stop the injustice against them and to do the right thing. I proudly salute the work of the important people by my side in a cause I hold dear. I would like to mention one of them by name, Gérard Thomas, who is here in Ottawa at the moment. He is a member of my advisory committee and executive team, and he has come all this way today to help send a strong message to the government. He wanted to be part of the demonstration that took place in front of Parliament. He is a man of action, devoted to a cause. He wants things to change. He does not accept the status quo. This was particularly evident during our discussions with seniors. He accompanied me to several of these public consultations to hear what people had to say. I thank him for his commitment. It really motivates me.

On that note, it is time to address the real issues. During our tour to meet with Abitibi-Témiscamingue's seniors, we travelled from Témiscamingue to Pikogan, via Sainte‑Germaine‑Boulé, Authier‑Nord, Rouyn‑Noranda, Amos and La Sarre. We visited all four regional county municipalities in my riding, including both towns and villages. We met and listened to people in the communities. I would like to share some of their conclusions with the House.

Before I get into that, however, maybe I should give members some background information about seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region where we are fortunate to be able to count on an organization called L'Observatoire. This vital organization provides statistical data on the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. Frankly, supporting this type of organization is crucial, and the federal government should commit to funding it, but that is a debate for another day.

Currently, one in five people is over the age of 65, and of these, 60% are between 65 and 74. This means that the majority of seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue will be affected by the Bloc Québécois's bill. In recent years, our towns and villages have started celebrating their 100th anniversaries, meaning that many people were born and raised here. These people broke the land and cleared the way for Abitibi-Témiscamingue. They settled here. It is a very different picture from that of seniors in other regions.

Did my colleagues know that 38% of seniors in our region do not have a degree? That explains why the average income is lower for seniors in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. This also explains why services should be better adapted to this clientele. We have to go back to what my father called compassionate management. We have to manage relations with seniors at a human level and go back to listening. This does not end with a period or a comma. That is something we heard a lot from seniors.

There are clear differences in income between men and women. That is still absolutely shocking today. A man's income is roughly $43,000, while a woman's is $30,000, for a difference of $13,000 annually. Fully 58% of senior women depend on government transfers.

According to the figures obtained by L'Observatoire, the average pension received by women in Quebec is $400, compared to $650 for men. Increasing OAS also directly addresses this problem, especially when we know that one in four seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue lives below the low-income threshold. One strong message from seniors that makes me proud is the desire to stay and remain in the community. We heard that.

Two years ago, as part of my riding newsletter, I sent out a petition about supporting Bill C-319 before it was introduced. It called for an end to inequity and demanded equity for seniors aged 65 to 74 by increasing the old age pension. It would have amounted to about $110 a month. In response, I received not a dozen or a hundred, but more than 5,000 leaflets in the mailbox at our office. The first few days, we were pleased with the success of our initiative, but every day we got more in the little green boxes we have in the office. There are seven boxes, which hold about 5,000 petitions. It is heartbreaking, because people are not living in dignity. People are living in poverty, and that needs to be addressed. Once again, I tip my hat to my colleague from Shefford for prioritizing this message.

The people in Abitibi-Témiscamingue are proud. Whether it is Barraute, Sainte‑Germaine‑Boulé, Authier‑Nord, Chaze or Béarn, every village inspires pride. Statistics show that 78% of seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have a strong or very strong sense of belonging in their community.

One of the issues that was raised during my tour was aging at home. This takes additional income, because everything costs more these days. Local health care services are also going to have to adapt in order to allow seniors to age at home.

The purpose of this motion is simple. We want concrete, rapid results that have a real impact on the lives of over one million people across Quebec, real people. Across Canada, it is nearly four million people.

It is exhausting to see so much public money going to bad corporate citizens, while seniors have to live on fixed incomes that are no longer enough. The government's choices do not always align with the needs of seniors and the general public. As I have said several times in the House, the government needs to stop taking seniors for granted and trying to put square pegs into round holes. Seniors are not numbers.

One program that comes to mind is New Horizons for Seniors. Volunteer organizations, many of which are supported by seniors, are required to come up with proposals, submit applications and fill out dozens of pages of forms and paperwork. That is very commendable, but instead of increasing funding so they can do what they do better, they are expected to take on an incredible amount of accountability. Things need to be simpler. That is what seniors tell us. That is also one of my heartfelt pleas.

The Bloc Québécois chose seniors. I want to mention three things that emerged from my analysis of public consultations with seniors in my riding: seniors' working conditions, family caregivers and public transit solutions.

This government could look closely at a number of other things. The current labour shortage is an opportunity. Right now, the employment rate for seniors in my region is 10%. Seniors want to work. They want to take on low-key jobs, but when they do, anything they bring in with one hand they have to shell out with the other. Nobody wins when that happens.

People need to pass on their knowledge. If we increase seniors' income, obviously without affecting their pensions, it could help them remain more active. I am convinced that everyone would come out ahead. At the same time, it would also enhance the dignity of seniors.

Another big problem is the caregivers who support seniors. Employment insurance does not adequately meet their needs. Home care is the future, yet once again, health transfers to Quebec are insufficient, if not a mere token: $1 billion instead of $6 billion. This is not working. It is time we got down to brass tacks.

To wrap up, seniors' living conditions merit special attention. That is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing with the bill sponsored by my fellow member from Shefford. It will be a major step forward for the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. She can count on my unwavering support.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must acknowledge that the member for Shefford has been leading this fight since she entered politics, and I applaud her work.

Now, the Bloc Québécois is presenting itself as the only party defending seniors, but that is not true. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada voted for Bill C-319. I think it is important to set the record straight.

The cost of living has exploded, we all recognize that. We met people throughout our ridings this summer and again this past weekend. People are telling us they are drowning. This government has racked up a $1.441‑trillion deficit. This Prime Minister has run up double the debt of all the other prime ministers in Canadian history. This is serious.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Why does the Bloc Québécois insist on keeping this government in power? Why is the Bloc Québécois once again asking—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by answering the member for Lac‑Saint‑Louis by paraphrasing what my colleague from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said: True power is independence. I wanted to remind the member of that.

I am not sure how to approach this issue any more, because, since we came to the House in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been talking about the importance of equity among seniors and the importance of increasing the old age security pension for all seniors, not just for those aged 75 and up. That is what seniors in our communities are asking for. We are simply being consistent with who we are and what we have been saying in the House for more than four years now, nearly five years.

First, I will remind the House of the Bloc Québécois's position on seniors. For the past two summers, I have been listening to people's opinions and travelling all over Quebec as part of my work on Bill C‑319. I will conclude my remarks by explaining what has led us here today, why we are having this opposition day that seeks to increase pressure on the government and remind it that it absolutely must give this bill royal recommendation.

I also want to apologize to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I got carried away thinking about my colleague's speech earlier and forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I apologize for that. I know that someone is listening carefully to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue today. I will come back to that. As I said, I am not handling this portfolio alone. The Bloc Québécois leader and member for Beloeil—Chambly decided to make this issue a priority, but the entire caucus is helping me wage this fight for fairness for seniors. I would not be able to do this without my colleagues' help and support. I want to sincerely thank them.

As I said, we have been trying, since 2019, to hammer home the idea that old age security is a universal program and that there must be no gaps in it based on age. Those who are 67 must be given the same amount as those who are 77. People have been talking to us about this issue since we arrived in office. As early as January 2020, groups, like FADOQ, that we met with during pre-budget consultations were telling us why it was important to increase the old age security pension for all seniors, not just for those aged 75 and up.

We then made that a priority when each budget was tabled. For each budget, we made it clear to the government that we would not vote in favour of the budget if it did not meet this expectation of the groups on the front lines. Even though there may have been other worthwhile measures in the budget, we would not vote for it if it did not contain this measure, which local seniors' groups call for. That is one of the reasons.

We have set other priorities at other times. I would like to once again mention supply management, which is now a priority, but has been before too. We have also mentioned the environment. We have mentioned other concerns, but the issue of seniors came up in our pre-budget requests for every budget. Since we did not get a response from the government, we did not vote in favour of the budgets.

In early 2021, I met with representatives of SOS Dépannage, a food bank located in Granby, in the riding of Shefford. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of this organization's employees. Representatives of the food bank called me in to their office to show me the numbers they were seeing and alert me to the fact that more seniors were applying for food assistance because they were having trouble making ends meet on a fixed income. I also want to say that, no, seniors were not going to food banks to request medical assistance in dying. That is not why the people at SOS Dépannage had me come in to their office. It was to make me aware of the difficult financial realities seniors were facing.

The first petition that we presented came from Samuel Lévesque, a young man in his 20s. As a believer in intergenerational equity, he felt that it was unfair to separate seniors into two classes. He understood very well what was at stake, and he hoped that when he retired, there would be no gap, no two classes of seniors, and that he would receive the same amount as seniors aged 75 and over. Two other petitions were presented following this one.

Last year, SOS Dépannage even came to support me at the launch of my tour. We held a press conference at its office. Its representatives explained why they thought Bill C‑319 could help seniors seeking food assistance. One senior even came on behalf of Eastern Townships community groups to seek support for Bill C‑319. At the press conference we held to launch the second year of my tour on Bill C‑319, the volunteer centres providing services to seniors came to explain why they so desperately needed this bill to receive a royal recommendation and royal assent. I would also give a nod to other colleagues. I toured everywhere. I remember having a lovely meeting over coffee with a group of seniors in Rouyn-Noranda in 2021. They had made me aware of the issue of the two classes of seniors. They were very open and spoke to me frankly about their financial situation.

In 2023, we also organized a conference. The bill did not exist yet in February 2023, but it was the fruit of that conference. My caucus colleagues and other colleagues took part in that day of reflection. People involved in a research chair on inequality came to talk to us about seniors' needs and the growing gap between the least fortunate seniors, who were getting poorer. They did a good job of explaining who can live with dignity on $22,000 a year. Roughly a third of seniors live on fixed incomes alone, in other words, old age security plus the guaranteed income supplement. OAS is the universal program. What is being done for all those who are just above that threshold, for those who do not receive the GIS or extra help because their income is just above $22,000? They are not rich, and a 10% increase could improve their situation.

In the summer of 2023, I travelled to a dozen ridings across Quebec, covering more than 10,000 kilometres. I got out there to find out what seniors needed. I heard about housing. I heard about food. I heard about the need for a decent social life, the need to get out a little. After that, I also did some tours on the margins of the pre-session caucuses. I visited Sherbrooke last fall and Chicoutimi at the beginning of the year. Each time, I heard about the need to correct the unacceptable inequity created by the government, that is, these two classes of seniors. This summer, I travelled to 11 ridings, covering over 8,000 kilometres. All this is to say that we are able to prioritize the bill because it has made progress, because at some point along the way, it has been supported. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it received the unanimous support of the parties on the committee, and at second reading, the majority of members in the House voted in favour. It has gone through many stages already, and it is important.

We saw it this summer. Seniors are struggling so much that the smallest cuts to the GIS are really affecting their life choices. They are struggling to eat properly. We are talking about basic needs. This bill is receiving support from across Canada. I get emails from seniors in Ontario who are concerned about their financial situation. I am getting emails from everywhere from Saint John's to British Columbia. I see that support as confirmation. We have prioritized an issue that was making good progress in the House and that meets Quebec's expectations, and so much the better if seniors elsewhere can also benefit from it.

I want to say one last thing. This past weekend, a researcher on aging confirmed to me that seniors need this bill, that this 10% increase should be given to all seniors aged 65 and over, and that we need to think about how seniors can work with fewer obstacles in their way. Support is coming from everywhere, including community groups, civil society and researchers.