Bill C-319

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.

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

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the Bloc Québécois motion to pressure the Liberal government. However, if the Bloc Québécois really wants to put pressure on the Liberal government, all it has to do is vote with us, the Conservatives, this afternoon to defeat this government. Otherwise, the Bloc Québécois will continue to be known as the “Liberal Bloc” for some time to come, if not forever. As the saying goes, heaven is blue and hell is red. There is nothing worse than the pact that the Bloc Québécois wants to make, which will hold the public hostage and keep everyone under pressure.

I would like to talk about the Canadian dream. Forty years ago, young, hard-working families were able to settle down, buy a home, start a family, eat well, buy all of the necessities required for a good life and take vacations. All of this was possible thanks to the honest work of honest people who, day after day, got up in the morning to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Unfortunately, for the past nine years, day after day, extreme policies, like the carbon tax and other tax measures, have been taking more and more money out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Now, the work is not worth doing and hard work is not fairly compensated.

People are being penalized for working, because it is costing far too much in taxes, thanks to the Liberal government's inflationary policies and the myriad of expenses that this Prime Minister has incurred in recent years. Despite our best efforts, our country's debt has reached such a level that future generations will be forced to use a lot of the money they earn at work to pay the interest on the debt. All of the revenue from the GST goes toward paying the interest on the debt. That means there is a lot less money to spend on social services.

Let us come back to our seniors. I would like to pay tribute to all of our Canadian seniors who worked all of their lives, who worked hard to give us the Canadian society that we have now. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is undoing all of that work with its bad policies. Our seniors believed that all of the sacrifices that they made over a lifetime of hard work would mean that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have a good future, a promising future, in Canada. That was the Canadian dream.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is once again using smoke and mirrors by threatening to pressure the government, while knowing full well that it will hypocritically support this incompetent Liberal government yet again. The Bloc Québécois is trapped by its own promise to leave the Liberal government in power because it has issued the October 29 ultimatum. The vote on this Bloc Québécois opposition motion will probably take place on Thursday of this week, and it will not bring down this government. No need to worry, we can rest easy. Because of the “Liberal Bloc”, there will not be an election until October 29.

I would like to point out that the only thing the Bloc Québécois will achieve today is perhaps grab some headlines. It certainly is not defending the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. I truly believe that we need a change in government, and that is in the best interests of our country. The Bloc Québécois's pernicious strategy right now is to draw attention to potential electoral gains in the coming weeks and months, unfortunately targeting a vulnerable population. Unfortunately, it still aims to achieve more in the House, but it will never be enough for it to form government. Then again, if it would align itself with the next Conservative government, we could make substantial progress for all Canadians, for the Bloc Québécois and for all Quebeckers.

I am reaching out as I repeat here in the House that, if the Bloc Québécois truly intends to bring down the Liberal government, I invite it to vote with us this afternoon and send a strong message that the Bloc Québécois is ready to work with the next Conservative government for all Canadians and Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois makes no secret of the fact that it is a sovereignist party. It has repeated that many times here in the House. Its real dream is to return to Quebec City, to the National Assembly, to go back to its parent company, the Parti Québécois, and work on sovereignty. We must all work together in the interest of all Canadians and the Canadian federation. The Bloc Québécois is merely a refuge for Parti Québécois members when they do not have a lot of seats in Quebec City. We might say that here in Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois is the senate of the Parti Québécois in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is being totally hypocritical. It is funded with money from all Canadian taxpayers who have to work hard to serve the entire Canadian nation. This is a huge scandal.

The Bloc Québécois also insists on keeping this government on life support. The treatment is becoming overly aggressive. The Bloc Québécois's attempt at bargaining has very little chance of succeeding. It comes at the expense of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are calling for real change. The Conservative Party will improve the quality of life of all Canadians, at a time when the rising cost of living is affecting every single person. We are committed to improving the lives of seniors who have worked hard all their lives and deserve to live with dignity. That is why we previously voted to move forward with Bill C-319. However, the fact that the Bloc is now holding it out in exchange for keeping this dying government alive shows it is a political ruse with very little chance of success. If the Bloc Québécois really cared about people, it would instead support a Conservative non‑confidence motion and change the leadership of our country.

However, we in the Conservative Party support the principle that we need equality among seniors and that we have previous generations to thank for this country's prosperity. We owe them nothing less than our eternal gratitude and the means to live a dignified life. Seniors' vulnerability is therefore a very important issue, but the Bloc Québécois's strategy serves no purpose.

Everyone in Canada is struggling right now. Young adults are no longer able to buy their first home because rents have doubled in the past nine years. I am also thinking of the middle class, who are feeling the impact of the carbon tax, and the small business owners affected by the increase in the capital gains tax, which threatens the investments they hope to use as a retirement fund.

The Bloc Québécois must vote to bring down this government, especially since many of its nationalist voters are unhappy that it is using an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec to keep the most centralizing Prime Minister in history afloat. All of a sudden, the Bloc Québécois has forgotten how fiercely anti-Quebec the current Prime Minister has been when it comes to the French language, immigration, respect for jurisdictions, and many other issues.

It is high time to call an election. It is still difficult to understand why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to that. It is either because of its close ties with the Liberals or because of a strong bias against the Conservatives. At the same time, we know how many seats the Bloc Québécois had in the House when we were in power, so we can understand their reluctance. Quebec was respected and even recognized as a nation by the Right Hon. Stephen Harper in 2006. The Bloc Québécois is not unfamiliar with contradictions. This so-called anti-monarchist party is calling for a royal recommendation to move its bill forward. Now the House has seen it all.

A Conservative government will act for the common good of all Canadians by lowering taxes, so that hard work pays off again for our waitresses, truck drivers and plumbers, so that those who work more get more.

We are going to incentivize municipalities to speed up building permits, cut building taxes and free up land for development, while axing the taxes that block construction.

We are going to cap population growth so that the housing stock grows faster than our population.

We are going to fix the budget with legislation that requires the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. We will eliminate consultants, whose excessive fees were supported by the Bloc Québécois. We will eliminate red tape, waste and big handouts to multinational corporations that take money out of our country.

We will also stop the crime, not by banning hunting rifles, as the Bloc and the Liberals want to do, but by cracking down on criminals and strengthening border security.

Finally, we will rebuild the Canadian dream, creating a country where hard work brings home a more powerful paycheque to pay for food, housing and gas in safe communities where anyone can do anything with hard work.

That is our agenda, and that is what we are going to offer Canadians. I urge the Bloc Québécois to use common sense.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have studied Bill C-319 in committee, and we have heard from witness after witness about how the carbon tax has impacted their household expenses. Seniors, who have worked their entire lives to contribute to society, created a retirement plan that no longer has the ability to make ends meet.

Is it not time that Canadians have their say? I am asking the hon. member across the way to call for a carbon tax election and let seniors decide.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I like the idea of a “young senior”. We will talk about that later. However, I did not understand the government's approach. I have never understood why the government did not move quickly on our request. On the face of things, we thought it seemed fair. There was also something extremely cynical about creating a form of discrimination. The government's intent to oppose discrimination of any kind actually caused discrimination, with a significant impact on quality of life.

Bill C‑319 became all the more important in a pandemic or post-pandemic context because the capacity, purchasing power and level of distress of many seniors were exacerbated by the pandemic, inflation and the impact on housing. I have never understood the government's lack of compassion and courage in this situation. Of course, I condemn such discrimination.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for his wonderful presentation on Bill C‑319. First of all, I would like to say that a young man in his twenties named Samuel Lévesque was the first person who asked me to take action for seniors and sign a petition to address this unacceptable inequality between seniors in the name of intergenerational equity.

A few weeks ago, I went to the riding of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation to meet with seniors' groups. I also visited the riding of Sherbrooke, which is also represented by a member of the governing party. Finally, I went to the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which is represented by a Conservative. Every single time, people asked me to do something. They did not understand why the government had created two classes of seniors, why it had brought on this unacceptable inequality between “young seniors” and “old seniors”.

[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.

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?

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?

40th Anniversary of AQDR Granby

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2024, the Granby branch of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, is celebrating 40 years of fighting for the rights and dignity of seniors.

The theme of the anniversary celebration was “40 years of struggle and commitment: working together for the rights and dignity of seniors”. It was an opportunity to reflect on the progress that has been made while looking to the future with determination.

Since its inception, AQDR Granby has been defending and protecting the rights of seniors by fighting injustice and inequality with vigour and conviction. Let us celebrate the commitment and solidarity of its members and partners.

I want to point out that the AQDR has been a valuable ally when it comes to Bill C-319, which the Bloc Québécois introduced to put an end to the unacceptable inequity created by the government when it failed to provide seniors aged 75 and up and seniors aged 65 to 74 with equal OAS payments.

Together, let us put an end to this age discrimination. I wish AQDR Granby a happy 40th anniversary.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

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

I do not know why the Liberals decided to try and justify this inequity, but the numbers speak for themselves. Seniors are no better off in one broad category than in another. The cost of living is the same. I thank my colleague and her party for their support on Bill C-319. I hope this will be part of the discussions we will be having around October 29, if this injustice is not corrected.

[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.

Old Age Security Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I want to thank the sponsor, my colleague from Shefford for moving this bill.

The bill before us today is about increasing old age security by 10% for those who are between the ages of 65 and 74. These people were initially excluded by the Liberal government when the government decided to increase the OAS for seniors. The government decided to create a two-tiered system of seniors, those who were over 75 and those who were under 75. Those aged between 65 and 74 were going to be penalized and not get the increase. This is similar to what the Conservatives did when they raised the retirement age from 65 to 67.

We are seeing a pattern of both Liberals and Conservatives wanting seniors to work longer, and this was no different. Seniors deserve better. Many seniors across the country do not have the resources to deal with the high cost of housing and the increase in inflation, especially those who are on fixed incomes. They are the ones bearing the brunt of this. I would argue that seniors and people living with disabilities are feeling the pinch the most.

Increasing the exemption for income from employment or self-employment is also important in the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement, from $5,000 to $6,500, which is also incorporated into this bill. We want to make sure seniors who do wish to participate in the workforce are not being penalized. We know we need to do more, which is why the NDP put forward a dental care plan and a plan for pharmacare, so seniors are not making the choice of whether they are going to buy food or take the medicine they need.

We are going to continue to work on ideas to help lift seniors out of poverty and ensure they have the best retirement possible, and a retirement with dignity.

In 2021, when the Liberals brought in the 10% bonus for seniors 75 and over, they decided to leave some seniors out, and they created those two categories I discussed earlier.

I am hoping we can move this bill forward quickly. This is a minority Parliament. To make this minority Parliament work, this is clearly a really important aspect of that.

I also want to speak about the cost of this. I have raised this in the House of Commons many times since the Liberals brought in this two-tiered benefit for seniors and neglected those who were over 65 and under 74. I have raised this also at the government operations committee, where I have asked the former president of the Treasury Board and the current President of the Treasury Board to re-examine this. I helped her break down the numbers, because we know that she knows we have the lowest corporate taxes in the G7. That was something the Harper government did. It did not do that for small business. It lowered corporate taxes by 5%. We have seen corporate taxes drop from 28% to 15%, from the Chrétien era to today.

The Liberals have maintained that low corporate tax rate while oil and gas, big grocery and big banks have had record profits.

The Liberals have also failed to tackle the issue around tax havens. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in 2019, calculated that between $21 billion and $26 billion a year was being lost to tax havens. The ultrarich get these tax benefits, but seniors who are trying to retire with dignity are being targeted.

In 2021, it was projected that $31 billion was leaking from the Canadian economy so the ultrarich and CEOs could get off the hook again while seniors struggled to make ends meet. What did the government do? It hired more people at CRA, but the people at CRA are focusing on small business people, on people struggling to make ends meet and seniors. Seniors in my riding have come to me and told me that the government is coming after them for small amounts of money, when in fact the government could have hired auditors at CRA to target those who are manoeuvring around the tax system to benefit themselves, the super rich and these big corporations. Instead, the government is focused on everyday people, and that needs to change.

This is an excellent bill and an excellent start. I have some ideas on how we can cover it because it is projected to cost $3 billion. Back in 2015, the PBO projected that a 1% increase in corporate tax would be about $2.6 billion. I would argue that that would be around the same amount today. Therefore, a 1% increase in corporate tax would cover the costs of taking care of our seniors. What will the government do? We know the Liberals and the Conservatives. They are always going to be there for the big corporations and their friends and are not going to do that.

The NDP was able to apply pressure to increase the excess profit tax on the big banks. That was a 15% tax on profits of over a billion dollars. That generated billions of dollars, that windfall tax. The PBO did an analysis of the government applying that tax to big oil and gas, which would generate a profit of $4.2 billion.

We know that Conservatives in the U.K. charge an excess profit tax, a windfall tax, on oil and gas. We cannot even get the Liberals to do that in Canada. The oil oligarchy here is always arguing in the House of Commons about who can build more pipelines between the two of them. I can tell members that they are both good at building pipelines, but they are not good at tackling climate change. They are also not good at taking care of seniors. We know that right across the country. We are seeing that constantly. Therefore, I urge the government to look at an excess profit tax, at closing tax loopholes for the super-rich and for tax havens, and at possibly increasing the corporate tax rate. It should not be like this for seniors.

I got an email from Janice from my riding. She writes:

I must ask, why is it seniors collecting cpp and old age pensions receive less than CERB?

The federal government stated they felt $2000.00/month a livable wage yet many seniors are receiving substantially less.

Many seniors are living silently in poverty. Are there any plans to address this shameful situation?

She wrote about being excluded from the OAS increase.

Today, with the bill put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, we had the opportunity for an annual basic income. The Liberals and Conservatives could have got behind that bill. They could have, at committee, prioritized people living with disabilities and seniors, the most vulnerable in our society, but they chose not to. It would have made sense.

When I ask people in my communities whether they think we should continue the corporate welfare that is happening with tax havens, with the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, with the continued focus of CRA audits on everyday people while the big players get off the hook, and with preferential tax rates for CEOs. Everybody who I have talked to in my riding believes that we should be prioritizing taking care of our seniors and those living with disabilities. A guaranteed livable income could have done that, but the Liberals chose not to do that.

We are going to continue to come here to the House to bring forward good ideas.

I am really grateful to the Bloc for bringing forward this initiative. I do appreciate my colleague using her spot in the order of precedence to move the bill. We will be supporting this bill wholeheartedly. I hope everybody in the House does, and that we can move it quickly, because people are struggling right now. Seniors are struggling with how they are going to pay their rent, buy food and get their medicine. I am glad we are able to take some pressure off of them with dental care, but we know that, with the rising cost of inflation, they cannot keep up with it. Therefore, I hope we can move this rapidly along here today, and in the weeks ahead.

I want to thank my colleague one last time for moving the bill.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today I am here to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I have spoken on this issue in the past and appreciate the opportunity to do so again.

Our seniors deserve respect. Seniors have raised families, teaching their beliefs and values; founded businesses, employing people; taught and taken care of people; volunteered; built our country; and served our country, fighting for the freedoms we have today. Time and time again, I am told remarkable stories by seniors in Kelowna—Lake Country. There are few areas of life not touched positively by our seniors. It is clear that Kelowna—Lake Country, and really all of Canada, would not be the same without the hard work of seniors and all they have contributed over their lives and still do.

Seniors are mentors and leaders in our communities. That is why it is so unacceptable that seniors are facing the challenges they currently are. I have talked to many seniors who are very stressed and concerned. The cost of living has ballooned after nine years of the Liberal Prime Minister, causing seniors to struggle like never before just to pay for basic necessities.

Seniors in my community have reached out about how they are struggling to pay their heating bill. Many have sent me pictures of their heating bill, which includes the carbon tax. The minimum amount for the tax is set by the federal government, and the government is increasing it every year to be on track to increase it to 61¢ per litre.

Local seniors have also commented on how GST is being charged on top of the home heating carbon tax, which is a tax on a tax. This is wrong. A resident, Grant, wrote to me about his heating bill and all the taxes. He said that he used $50.18 worth of gas, yet owed $316.65. He then went on to say that he has worked since he was 12 years old, non-stop, and has paid his fair share of taxes.

I have talked to retirees who have had to go back to work and who feel sad that they cannot spend as much time volunteering or cannot donate as much to their favourite charities as they used to. I hear from seniors who are afraid to walk around their own neighbourhood that they have lived in for many years due to crime and concerns over their safety. I have talked to many seniors who are worried about their adult children making their mortgage payment and about their grandchildren who will have a tough time ever owing their own home.

Seniors have reached out to me who were just about to retire, and because of the Liberal capital gains tax increases, they have told me they will have to work longer. Seniors who are looking to retire on modest savings are finding that this is no longer possible in Canada, especially with the new Liberal tax changes. It is untenable that seniors are finding themselves priced out of the country they have built.

Here is the situation of many seniors: They worked their whole life providing for their family and contributing to this country. They have contributed economically through their job and through creating businesses. They have raised a family and volunteered in their community. They have contributed by being a good citizen by following the rules. They have saved for their retirement. However, now the golden years for many have melted away. This is not the reality that seniors deserve, yet it is the one that many of them face due to the Liberal Prime Minister and his partners in the NDP, the costly government.

Many seniors in my community struggle to make ends meet, and many are forced to choose between paying for necessities such as food and medication. One senior reached out to me and said that there is absolutely no hope for those on fixed and low income as they are being taxed to death, literally. The senior went on to say that every time they go to the grocery store, prices are going up. A senior couple from Kelowna—Lake Country reached out to me to say that living on their pensions is becoming harder and harder all the time.

This is a result of the reckless, inflationary spending of the Liberal Prime Minister, who is propped up by his partners in the NDP and, now, apparently also the Bloc.

Liberal policies have led to record inflation, with millions of Canadians now struggling to simply keep their heads above water. The standard of living continues to drop in Canada, which has experienced the worst decline in per-person income out of all the G7 countries over the last five years. Seniors on a fixed income are uniquely at risk from inflation, as fixed incomes are unable to keep up with the cost of living, which keeps growing because of all the increased spending.

It is not just in my own community that seniors are struggling, but across Canada. According to the Salvation Army, 75% of Canadians currently face challenges managing limited financial resources. Moreover, 25% of Canadians continue to be extremely concerned about having enough income to cover their basic needs, such as food and shelter. Not all seniors have paid off their mortgages, and this has led to even more stresses. The Bank of Canada recently confirmed that Canadians will see a steep jump in payments as millions of Canadians renew their mortgages over the next two years. This is just one more area in which seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, are struggling.

This legislation provides equity for all seniors, ensuring that old age security is available to those between 65 and 74 years old. Seniors aged 65 to 74 should not be treated differently than seniors 75 or older, something that has occurred under the Liberal government. As such, Conservatives support this measure as part of the legislation.

The legislation also serves to safeguard seniors from potential clawbacks within the guaranteed income supplement. It seeks to increase the exemption amount for employment income that is taken into account for eligibility. Increasing the GIS earnings exemption would minimize some of the clawbacks seniors may experience. Seniors should be able to continue to work or go back to work, if they choose to and are able to, without the loss of federal retirement GIS. Especially considering that rising inflation has had a disproportionate impact on seniors, they should not be penalized for working if they choose to and want to.

To be clear, however, I must say that the legislation will not fix the cost of living crisis or the devastating situation caused by the Liberal government. Conservatives will continue to focus on fixing the budget to get the government spending under control, as well as axing the tax and stopping the tax increases during this unprecedented cost of living crisis, which has affected seniors in my community and communities across the country.

In stopping the broken policies of the Liberals, along with their NDP and Bloc partners, common-sense Conservatives will bring back the promise of Canada: If one works hard, one should be able to get ahead and live and retire in a safe community.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which allows me to reiterate two points.

First, our request for a 10% increase for people aged 65 to 74 is not new. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois made clear, there is no room for compromise on this issue. We are going to hammer home the message. We do not want half-measures. We want 10% for people aged 65 to 74. That is our specific request. There can be no compromise.

I would like to extend an invitation to everyone, including my Conservative colleagues. If the Liberals deny our request and insist on going against the will of their own members as expressed in committee, they will have some explaining to do during the election. They will have to say why they made this choice, despite repeated requests, despite pressure from organizations on the ground, despite what we have heard, despite the testimonials from citizens that have piled up over the years as we have repeatedly made this request, and as the government stubbornly refuses to give this 10% increase to people aged 65 to 74. The Liberals will have to bear the brunt of this.

My Conservative colleagues supported Bill C‑319. The bill has moved forward, and I invite them to continue—

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I want to acknowledge her passion for Bill C‑319.

However, I am still concerned about the Bloc Québécois's October 29 deadline because I hear the Liberals, and they do not seem very open to it. They seem very calm, cool and collected. I have some concerns about the Bloc Québécois with respect to the Liberals.

Will the Liberals dangle a little carrot in front of them at the end of October? Will the Bloc Québécois take the bait and wait until the next budget? Or rather, are the Bloc Québécois members here in the House to get what they want on October 29, or else they will trigger an election?

I would like to be sure. Will the Bloc Québécois extend its deadline or will it really end this government on October 29?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have reached a crucial stage for this bill. Here is what I was thinking. Given everything that we are hearing, how should I discuss Bill C‑319 at third reading stage?

I will begin with a brief introduction and a little background.

I want to make it clear that, when I talk about Bill C-319 and age discrimination, this is something that I care a lot about. Perhaps there are people who do not know this about me, but before I became an MP, I worked for over two years at a community organization as a project manager responsible for raising awareness of elder abuse and intimidation.

I wanted to take my work on the issue of discrimination and prejudice against seniors even further. That is one of the reasons I decided to go into politics. I am not the only one who wanted to work on this issue. When I decided to go into politics, I gave it a lot of thought. I remember very well that, leading up to the 2019 election campaign, I was not the only one who wanted to do something to help seniors. The member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, wanted to bring this issue to the table in the House of Commons. While we were hoping that the Bloc Québécois would make a comeback in the House at the time, the Bloc leader already intended to bring the issue of seniors before the House, because he had noticed that the House had not talked about that issue for a long time. The House was not talking enough about seniors. Helping seniors is really part of the Bloc Québécois's DNA.

I also remember that, before I was asked to take on this campaign and bring the issue of seniors back to the forefront in the House of Commons, I worked as an assistant to a Bloc Québécois member from 2007 to 2011. I was in charge of constituent cases. I realized that the most frequent questions were about the guaranteed income supplement and the fact that it was not completely automatic and not easy for seniors to access. Bloc members were the ones who worked on this issue, determining how to make the GIS payment automatic, how to ensure that more of our eligible seniors would get it. Seniors were already on the Bloc's radar.

I took a break from politics and worked in the community. As I said, before I was elected, I worked with groups, round tables and seniors' groups. We were already talking about this discrimination against seniors back then. We were talking about how too many seniors are financially vulnerable. That topic was already being discussed. It is nothing new. We were talking about it before the Bloc Québécois came back with a vengeance in 2019.

I will briefly give some background. During the election campaign, the Liberals were already talking about increasing pensions by 10% for people aged 75 or over. I remember that we stood out early on in campaign debates because we were already arguing that creating two classes of seniors was wrong, that it was not done, and that we had to increase old age security, the universal program for everyone, starting at age 65. That is how the program operates. That is the base amount provided at retirement. This issue became the focus of the first questions we asked when the House returned in December 2019. Even then, we were asking the government about this legislation, about its plans to discriminate on the basis of age.

When we came back in early 2020, my colleague from Joliette and I met with the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec, or FADOQ, at the Olympic Stadium in Montreal as part of our pre-budget meetings. One of FADOQ's demands was to increase old age security, but for all seniors, starting at age 65. FADOQ members had also heard rumours that the government was thinking of increasing pensions for people aged 75 and over. They were the ones who asked us to champion this demand, which was a priority for them. We made it a condition for passing budget 2020.

We have made it a condition every time a budget has been tabled since the 32 Bloc Québécois members have been in the House, going back to 2019. We have made this issue a condition. Regardless of what my Conservative colleagues may think, it is also one of the reasons we did not support the government on budgetary matters. We voted against the budgets because we had set conditions. It was not just that one. We had also set conditions regarding funding for oil and gas companies. We set a lot of other conditions for various budgets over the years, but this one was always among them.

Then, the pandemic happened. Assistance was announced for everyone, except seniors. Even though they were isolated, they had to continue to pay their bills, and they, too, were affected by what was known as the COVID-19 tax, the additional fees that started being charged. Many companies had to start charging delivery fees. Seniors were affected by the pandemic too, but the government did not announce any assistance for them. We had to come back to the House. I remember those somewhat strange times at the beginning of the pandemic when we came back to Parliament. There were not very many of us here. However, we came back to ask the government to provide assistance for seniors, who had not received any help. It was good that the government helped families and businesses, but it forgot about seniors, and we had to come back to the House. In the end, what the government proposed at the time was to give seniors the much-touted one-time cheque for $300, or $500 in the case of those who were receiving the GIS. That was a partial win for seniors. They did not get as much assistance as everyone else, but at least they got something because we had come back to the House to talk about it. However, the fact remains that it was just a one-time cheque.

Time went by and the pandemic wound down, but the government did not announce any other assistance measures for seniors. We raised the issue again and proposed increasing the OAS pension for all seniors aged 65 and up. In 2021, we once again included that in our list of conditions for supporting the budget. We then tabled a first petition in the House. What is interesting is that this is an intergenerational concern. It affects all generations. A young man in his 20s, Samuel Lévesque, had contacted me to say that he did not think this discrimination was fair. His grandparents had told him that their friends who were 75 and up were getting help, but that they were not. He understood the situation and he wondered what more he could do. He ended up starting a petition.

Then an election was called, but right before that, once again, one-time $500 cheques were sent out to people aged 75 and over. Although this should have made people happy, I received emails from seniors who said they felt used and exploited. They said that these were purely vote-seeking cheques and that this one-time assistance, which consisted of a single cheque, was not what they needed. What they needed was a complete overhaul of assistance measures for seniors.

That is why we, once again, made this a key issue in the election campaign. We proposed that assistance be provided to all seniors who receive the pension starting at age 65. In early 2022, we dedicated an opposition day in the House to this issue. The Bloc Québécois used one of its opposition days to discuss this topic, to say that the government had to reconsider its plan to increase OAS only for people aged 75 and over. In the end, in the summer of 2022, only seniors aged 75 and over received the 10% increase. We did not let up. Another petition was launched calling on the government to correct this unacceptable inequity. In 2023, we even held a symposium in Granby, where people from across Quebec and civil society organizations came to share their thoughts. Once again, it became clear that the growing economic inequalities among seniors needed to be addressed.

Then, last year, we came up with Bill C-319. It was introduced in March 2023, and the first hour of debate at second reading took place in May 2023. The last hour of second reading and the vote were held in the fall of 2023. I spent the entire month of August last year touring around. I went to Amqui, in the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I went to the riding of Beauport-Limoilou. I also went to meet the people of Thérèse-De Blainville and many others. Finally, we came back to the House after that tour motivated us to take action. The tour pushed us to move forward with this bill.

That was not the first time. To go back a bit, in 2021, I remember attending some of my colleagues' nomination meetings in the Abitibi‑Témiscamingue region. There were some seniors chatting around a coffee shop. It was nice. They came to meet me and we talked. They said that we absolutely needed to eliminate this age discrimination. We also need to start removing barriers seniors face when they want to stay in the workforce. These two considerations are reflected in Bill C‑319.

Last fall, we won a majority vote in the House. That is quite something. It was a majority vote in which I even managed to convince my Conservative colleagues that the extra 10% should also go to people aged 65 to 74. People who wanted to work should be able to earn a little more without having their guaranteed income supplement clawed back. So the bill had to increase from $5,000 to $6,500 the amount people could earn without having their GIS reduced.

We had that majority vote and referred the bill to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I appeared at committee for an hour. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who sat on the committee, questioned witnesses. Thanks to that hour of testimony I had with the witnesses and my colleague's work, which I would like to commend, we managed to get a unanimous report from the committee. Even government members recognized that this unacceptable inequity had to end.

I have given a bit of the background. I have talked about the bill. Third, just quickly, I would like to say that the sums requested for this initiative are neither exaggerated nor outrageous. We have presented a bill that is realistic and achievable. The famous figure of $16 billion over five years amounts to barely $3 billion a year. At that point, it is a question of political will. The money can be found. The government can give royal recommendation by the end of third reading and acknowledge that it has the money and is capable of investing in this bill.

This is about fairness for seniors. This is about aging with dignity. This is a baseline amount. This is what seniors start their retirement with. This is the universal amount. It is unfair that there are two classes of seniors. It is unfair to classify them as “young old” and “old old”. It is not fair that these people are not on a level playing field when they retire. Of course, this is not going to solve everything. The Bloc Québécois would never claim that the bill before us is going to be a panacea and fix everything.

We hear all kinds of things. For example, we have heard that some people may not need it. Keep in mind that this is the taxable portion. The GIS is not taxable, but the OAS is. It means that people who need it less will spend a little more in their local economy and pay a little more in income tax. It gives them a little extra help. While $80 a month will not make a huge difference, some people do need it.

We have to be careful. Fully 36% of seniors are living on the GIS and the OAS. That is nothing to sneeze at, and it would be wrong to say that every other senior has no need of the extra help. It is not true that people living above the poverty line, set at a meagre $22,000 a year, are able to grow old with dignity. When a person is just above that line, they fall into a grey area where they have to wonder what help is available to them to cope with inflation.

Another factor we have to keep in mind is that seniors live on fixed incomes. These people do not see their pensions increase at the same rate as salaries, so that is problematic. Salaries are increasing much faster than retirees' fixed incomes. I want to point out that I have been touring ridings, including Liberal ridings, for two summers now. Before I even got a chance to speak, people were telling me that they went to see their MP to send a clear message that having two classes of seniors was unacceptable. I even went to Chicoutimi, to the riding of a Conservative Party member. Regardless of which party represents the riding, when I went to meet with seniors' groups, there was unanimous support for this bill. More than that, groups across Canada are writing to thank the Bloc Québécois for speaking up for seniors.

I will wrap up by saying that perhaps what these people are asking for is recognition that they are a grey force. They are tired of all the prejudice and, above all, they are tired of being seen as an economic burden. They want to be recognized as the grey power that they are.