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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit disturbed by everything I am hearing in the House today.

The NDP had an opportunity to help people who really needed it by continuing to support us on Bill C‑319 to increase pensions. Instead, the New Democrats have continued to support this spendthrift government with measures that do not really help people. Our leader even said that, at some point, someone would get tired of this marriage. Clearly, the former finance minister started to find this marriage with the NDP a little too onerous, because of its demands. As a result, we are stuck and we cannot help people. For example, we could continue to talk about the bill to help seniors. It was a much cheaper measure. My colleague from Joliette talked about it in his speech. The New Democrats like to brag about the dental care program when, just last Friday, people came to my office to complain about it.

Why did the NDP continue to support a government that is now completely dysfunctional, only to suddenly call for the Prime Minister's resignation?

It makes no sense.

Veterans Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, what an extremely interesting exchange we are having. Since I am critic for the status of women, I have heard about this issue, this injustice. The question asked by the Conservative member who spoke previously is interesting. It reopens the debate on how unpaid labour can be better recognized. Caregivers who have to care for someone else when they retire is indeed one example of unpaid labour.

Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie's Network of Women Parliamentarians. We discussed the fact that, unfortunately, women are still too often penalized in retirement. I will not even mention the debate on Bill C‑319. So many women have written to me saying that a 68-year-old woman cannot get the same pension as a 78-year-old woman. It makes no sense. My colleague supported Bill C‑319, and I hope that her party will continue to support the Bloc Québécois's bill.

This is all just common sense. The clause by which women are discriminated against after age 60 and are not entitled to the pension makes no sense. That was in the Bloc Québécois's 2021 platform. We will continue to advocate for this clause to be abolished. I know that my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will give a magnificent speech later on this topic.

This is more of a comment than a question. I do not understand. Right now, I realize that, at least when we discuss committee reports in the House, we can discuss important issues. It needs to stop. Something needs to be done now. Let us abolish this provision.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy. I almost feel like I am among family. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is here. My friend from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is here, also. It is like being back in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. I feel good and confident.

As far as the motion of non-confidence in the government is concerned, I think that the Bloc Québécois's course of action is fairly clear and understandable: We say what we do and we do what we say.

On day one, going back to September 25, the leader of the Bloc Québécois gave the government an ultimatum. Our goal was to protect seniors and our farmers. We gave the government a chance to come to terms with us and ensure that its minority government would hold. Unfortunately, when it came to Bill C‑319 on increasing pensions and Bill C‑282 on supply management, the government refused to listen. Instead, it proposed measures that seem to have come back to bite it today.

On the subject of the $250 that excluded seniors in particular, people would not believe how much feedback I have gotten on that and how much it increased cynicism. Never in my time in the House, since 2019, have I heard so much about an issue. The same thing goes for the GST. I have heard from many business owners who said the measure was crazy and that they do not have the resources to change their entire system. This is what the government wanted to do.

It was clear from that moment on that if the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity, we would bring down the government. It should come as no surprise to the House that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the motion before us. Why? It is because I truly believe that the government cannot be trusted.

That being said, I am being a bit mischievous. The question of whether we can trust the government is interesting, but there is another one too, namely whether we can trust the leader of the official opposition.

I thought why not give the leader of the official opposition a dose of the same medicine he gave the leader of the NDP. In a past life, I taught at a university. I quite liked discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is kind of what we are seeing in the motion. What the Conservative Party is doing is taking the NDP leader's statements to show that if he wants to be consistent with his statements then he should bring down the government. The Conservatives are absolutely right about that. If the NDP wants to be consistent with the statements it makes, it should bring down the government.

Another rather interesting issue is whether we can have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition if we analyze his discourse and statements. That is what we are going to try to do. I am going to use a lot of quotes. The Conservatives should be happy about that since the content comes entirely from their leader.

The first reason that was widely put forward by the leader of the official opposition for bringing down the government is the infamous issue of wokeism. I will give some examples. My colleagues will see where I am going with this.

Last week, on November 26, during the emergency debate on U.S. tariffs, the member for Carleton, leader of the official opposition, said the following:

The woke political agenda is dividing us and distracting us from our work. Young men and women want nothing to do with the woke agenda. They want to fight for our country. They want to be proud of the Canadian flag.

We are going to get rid of the woke political agenda....

We will have a warrior culture, not a woke culture.

In a moment, I am going to try and define what he means by a warrior culture rather than a woke culture.

I would like to read another quote by the Leader of the Opposition from the day before, November 25. He said, “Mr. Speaker, the lawless hate riot that we saw on the streets of Montreal is what happens after nine years of a woke Prime Minister pushing radical, woke identity politics, dividing people by race, gender, vaccine status, religion and more.” We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a penchant for conspiracy theories. That is another quote that shows the danger facing Canadian society, the woke danger.

I have another quote from last year. He said, “We will also bring back freedom. I know that freedom is a foundational principle of our country. The federal government wants to censor the Internet. The CRTC, a woke agency, wants to impose its values on Quebeckers.” In the same quote, the leader of the official opposition talks about the “Minister of Canadian Heritage, and...other woke bureaucrats here in Ottawa, who will control what Quebeckers can see and say on the Internet.”

I am going to provide a summary of the woke threat. When the leader of the official opposition talks about radical identity politics, when he talks about politics that divide people by race and religion and when he talks about politics that seek to impose values on Quebeckers, the following question comes to mind: Who is doing that in Quebec? Who is acting woke in Quebec? The answer is fairly simple. Who represents that position? Guess what? Usually, it is the people who are against Bill 21, the state secularism law. Bill 21 governs religion in the public sphere. In Quebec, when we talk about someone who is woke, we are talking about people who are against Bill 21 and who have a view of minorities that goes against the Quebec national minority. We have a definition of what wokeism is in Quebec.

Let us now try to look at what the leader of the official opposition is telling us about Bill 21. On numerous occasions, he said, and I quote, “I'm against Bill 21.” He has also said, “If I were a Quebec politician, I would vote against it in the legislature. If anyone proposed it federally, and I do not see that happening, I would vote against it. I believe in religious freedom.”

That is the leader of the official opposition's interpretation. This woke culture is one of his main reasons for wanting to bring down the government. I would like to point out that, here in Ottawa, the Leader of the Opposition is against woke culture, but when he gets to Quebec, he himself is actually woke. The leader of the official opposition, from Quebec's perspective, is woke. That somewhat conflicting piece of information is pretty important. If Quebeckers want to make up their minds about the Conservative Party's policy directions, I would suggest that is a bit more complex than the slogans we hear day after day in the House. At the very least, perhaps the leader of the official opposition could explain what makes those who are woke in Canada different from those who are woke in Quebec. Is this the solitude of the two wokes? Possibly, but it is clear that the leader of the official opposition's intentions are not in line with Quebec's aspirations.

Another crucial topic for the leader of the official opposition is inflation and its repercussions. The leader of the official opposition has often talked to us about the many ways inflation is negatively impacting Canadian society, which is broken. The leader of the official opposition often tells us that Canada is broken and the budget needs to be fixed. Canada is broken, and his solution is to fix the budget. By way of illustration, I would refer members to a misleading ad that the leader of the official opposition aired some time ago. It featured a Quebec family talking about how they could not pay their mortgage. Later, it emerged that this was not the case. It was a generic image, and the family was very angry with the Conservative Party.

This family said that they absolutely were paying their mortgage but were being portrayed in the media like a family of idiots, all because the Conservative party leader had decided to make them characters in his fantasy world. People will also remember the infamous video about the leader of the official opposition's idealized vision of Canada the day he appeared in a white cowboy hat. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean thought he was the singer from the Village People. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is always ready to dance. His jaw soon dropped when he realized it was actually the leader of the official opposition, especially after all the over-the-top statements that came next.

What struck me the most was how the leader of the official opposition used the issue of medical assistance in dying. The leader of the official opposition linked medical assistance in dying to inflation, the recession, and the financial struggles that some people are facing. On June 7, 2023, the Leader of the Opposition said, “Those going to The Mississauga Food Bank and seeking help with medical assistance in dying, not because they are sick but because they are hungry, have never had it so good”. According to the leader of the official opposition, some people in Mississauga were going to food banks and were so hungry that they were requesting medical assistance in dying.

On May 15, 2023, he said, “One in five is skipping meals because they cannot afford the inflationary carbon tax on food.” Now there is another link. I will come back to that later, because the carbon tax is another pet project of the Leader of the Opposition. He went on to say, “1.5 million are eating at food banks, and some are asking for help with medical assistance in dying because they cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.” Personally, I have yet to meet anyone who has requested medical assistance in dying because they were hungry. Maybe one day, the Leader of the Opposition will introduce us to those people. I asked him a question earlier after his speech, and he explained that it was meant to be an ode, that it was his version of poetry. I am very familiar with Miron, and I understand many poets, but I still do not understand the poetry of the leader of the official opposition.

Lastly, we have scurvy. After medical assistance in dying came the resurgence in scurvy. In February 2024, the leader of the official opposition said, “There is the re-emergence of illnesses that were long ago banished, like scurvy, because people have become malnourished under the Prime Minister's impoverishing policies.” If members are following what I am saying, it seems we have people who are asking for medical assistance in dying because there is nothing left to eat. Others are not asking for medical assistance in dying, but they have scurvy because they do not have anything to eat. If Canada is not broken, then one has to wonder what is happening. We are truly at a crossroads.

It does not stop there. I have often criticized the leader of the official opposition by saying that he is not presenting any solutions, but he is. I want to tell the House about the leader of the official opposition's solutions to inflation. I found some quotes. I looked long and hard and I managed to find some quotes showing that the leader of the official opposition does have some solutions. Here is one of his first solutions to inflation: Canadians can embrace cryptocurrency to “opt out of inflation”.

It is a pretty interesting sleight of hand. The Leader of the Opposition is always telling us to take control of money away from bankers and politicians and give it to the people. Here is another quote from the Leader of the Opposition: “We're going to give people the freedom, the FREE-DOM to choose their own currency without the Bank of Canada stepping in to print money and devalue the currency.” Finally, the Leader of the Opposition tells us that to stop inflation, to stop people from asking for medical assistance in dying and to stop people from getting scurvy, the solution is Bitcoin. It is pretty ingenious. Perhaps Bitcoin is the solution for domestic policy, but the other solution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is to get out of Davos.

Apparently Canada is at a disadvantage because of a global conspiracy that is partly responsible for inflation. In a fundraising email, the leader of the official opposition said, “It's far past time we rejected the globalist Davos elites and bring home the common sense of the common people.” He is not a globalist.

Here is another quote from the leader of the official opposition. During a speech he gave in British Columbia in July 2023, he said, “There will be no mandatory digital ID in this country, and I will ban all of my ministers and top government officials from any involvement in the World Economic Forum”.

That is one way to square a circle. Conspiracy theories say there will be digital ID. The people at the World Economic Forum are controlling whole governments like puppets. The leader of the official opposition has a solution: Bitcoin. He will also terminate the government's involvement in the World Economic Forum. There are solutions.

The famous carbon tax is another key element to understanding what is driving the leader of the official opposition to defeat the government. Every member ends their intervention by saying that we need a carbon tax election. I will note that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They may have a theme specific to Quebec, but clearly the leader of the official opposition is not addressing Quebeckers when he talks about that.

I will provide an example that is just fantastic. On September 25, the leader of the official opposition said, “Let us talk about education. The carbon tax will cost Saskatchewan schools $204 million. That is the equivalent of approximately 2,000 teachers losing their job, all to pay tax to heat schools in cold Saskatchewan winters.”

The leader of the official opposition often does that. He talked to us about a nurse who lost her job because of the cost to heat the hospital. He also talked about teachers losing their job because of the cost to heat the schools. The worst example was on September 24. The leader of the official opposition had a stroke of genius when he talked about “nuclear winter”. That is incredibly dangerous. The leader of the official opposition said, “What he actually wants to do is quadruple the carbon tax, which will grind our economy to a halt. It will be a nuclear winter for our economy.” There will be no more heating. If we listen to the Liberals, there might be no more teeth because there will be no more dental insurance. It is a mess. Canada is truly broken.

When the leader of the official opposition gave his speech today, I told myself that he had the solution. The leader of the official opposition has the solution, because he has told us before about the famous electrician who captures lightning and sends it through a copper wire to light up the rooms we are in. I think that this electrician could also heat schools and hospitals. I am sure he could do that. That is the answer. All we have to do is find more of these electricians who capture lightning. They will be able to heat our schools and hospitals. It will be great. That is once again a great solution from the leader of the official opposition.

Of course, I will skip over those things that pertain specifically to oil. I will, perhaps, digress briefly to talk about law and order, something that the opposition leader talks a lot about. However, there is one thing that he seems to gloss over. During the trucker protests, the opposition leader said, “I was at an overpass as the truckers went by, and what I saw were cheerful, patriotic and optimistic Canadians who want their freedom back and want their livelihoods back.” I think that goes well with his theme of law and order.

I will end my speech by saying that, after two years of this Leader of the Opposition, he is not worth the cost or the pollution. The Bloc Québécois, a party of staunch sovereignists, will eliminate funding for oil companies, increase pensions for people over the age of 65, stop hate speech and defend supply management. When is the election?

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, according to the Auditor General, the federal government has no data it can use to determine whether its programs, like old age security, are meeting seniors' needs.

It seems to know for certain that $3 billion for increasing seniors' pensions is too much. At the same time, this same government is telling us that $6 billion in election goodies is just fine. No party agrees with these election goodies. However, all parties agree on increasing seniors' pensions.

Instead of improvising and thinking only of the next election, when will the government make the right choice and give Bill C-319 a royal recommendation?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to present two petitions in support of my colleague from Shefford's Bill C‑319. These petitions seek to put an end to the injustice, unfairness and discrimination towards people aged 65 to 74. One of these petitions was signed by 403 people and the other was signed by 91 people who support this bill, which I hope will pass because we owe it to seniors.

Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by addressing some of the people in my riding.

I want to acknowledge the people who are still fighting for employment insurance reform, because they are already in the spring gap. They will not make it to Christmas. Never mind Christmas trees and all that; they will not even be able to put food on the table, not until April. They know all about vulnerability. Earlier, members were talking about sloppy, temporary half measures and so on, but these people have been waiting for more than 20 years, probably since the Axworthy reform, for a way to make it to the end of the year. That is why I want to acknowledge them and thank them for keeping up the fight, because this is another battle the entire Bloc Québécois is fighting.

I also want to acknowledge the people in my riding who live in remote communities. The government is talking about a 5% tax holiday for two months. However, there are people in my northern riding who live in isolated areas where there are no roads. There are sometimes boats and planes in the winter. Otherwise, people have to use snowmobiles to get around. These people are already struggling to afford groceries and the cost of living. They do not just need a 5% tax break so that they can buy a lavish amount of food or a case of champagne. I want to recognize the Canada Post employees who are on strike, but also the residents of the Lower North Shore, who are having a hard time right now because Canada Post is the only carrier in their area and one of the things it delivers is food.

That said, these are really tough times for everyone. It is not necessary to broaden our perspective to know that this bill is a bad piece of legislation. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou explained that earlier, perhaps more calmly than I am now. I know she is very passionate and outspoken. She said that the bill is very flawed and that we cannot afford to support it.

First of all, people are going on and on about the idea of essentials. I have been hearing about all kinds of lists throughout the day. For example, a puzzle and a pair of dice are now essentials. This bill seeks to remove the 5% tax on dice, which will apparently bring great relief to part of the population for two months.

I know that is a ridiculous example. Not everyone is in a position to read bills, but I am, and I really have to wonder why the list contains toys and other items that will save people maybe a few pennies off the purchase price.

Of course, members have talked about food. My colleague talked a lot about that. This measure will not really help anyone. It will cover candy, catering services, alcohol, prepared foods, which are more expensive because they are prepared, and restaurant meals. I heard the party opposite say over and over again that, now, people will be able to go out to restaurants. For a family, dinner at a restaurant costs $100, $150 or sometimes even $200. For a family of four, five or six, going to a restaurant does not just cost $20. I have a family of six, and it is a lot more expensive than that. This measure does not cut it. This is not the kind of help that people need.

People here in Ottawa are living in a bubble. Perhaps the government should get out into the real world sometimes, rather than hastily cobbling a bill together without really thinking about how that bill will actually affect people. Then it might understand that this bill is not a real solution for ordinary folks.

My colleague opposite talked about heating, and I agree with him. Perhaps heating is an essential when compared to some of the items listed in the bill.

The Bloc Québécois has a problem with a second aspect of the bill. We tried as hard as we could to find a way to improve it, but we cannot amend the bill. We are in the House and things are moving very quickly. I saw it. Members were practically trying to keep me from speaking by saying that there was not really time for one last speech. Meanwhile, we had time for quite a few bells today. That is exactly why we need to take the time.

It is a technical issue. We are here as legislators to reflect and propose new ideas. We are not here simply to oppose in a foolish and stubborn way, but to oppose in order to improve things. Even if we are not voting in favour of the bill, the government still needs to listen the legislators. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment. I know that there are other parties that agree with this amendment proposed by my colleague from Shefford, who is calling for the bill to be studied in committee and for the Minister of Finance to come testify.

Legislation cannot simply be introduced like that. All of this was clearly improvised. Earlier, one of my colleagues from the Conservative Party said that December 14 was too late to buy a Christmas tree, even if it will supposedly be cheaper then. When a measure arrives this late, it is obvious that it was thrown together quickly in the hope that it will not be so bad and no one will notice the glaring flaws. That is truly what is happening. The Bloc Québécois would have liked to simply discuss it, but that is not going to happen. I can say that I had a taste of that medicine earlier.

I would also like to talk about other aspects, like business owners, for instance. This subject has come up a number of times, here and there. It is true that, as a society, Quebeckers are strong supporters of small businesses. My constituents on the north shore are no exception, and I cannot help but think about these businesses.

The government is proposing a measure, but it is not thinking about how things work in the real world. In a bar, it is not that easy to know what percentage of alcohol is going into a cocktail. Will it be exempt from the GST or not? Should bartenders start measuring everything proportionally to make sure they are really following the rules? Again, it may sound far-fetched and absurd, but we need to think of every possibility when drafting bills in order to see where the blind spots are.

It sounds like a great idea. Then again, I do not know if alcohol counts as an essential, although I do want to encourage our business owners. I thought of a joke there, but I am not going to share it. I was going to say that maybe alcohol is an essential for those who have to think about this bill. There, I said it. Still, we have to think about the blind spots and try to identify what is not working in the bills to help businesses. Walmart and Costco are not the only ones that will be selling discounted products. Sometimes I get the impression that the government is only thinking about them.

Where I live, we have a Walmart, but no Costco. We have some very small businesses too. These small businesses are going to have to change their programming, and that does not happen with a snap of the fingers. Changing programming takes technicians. Where are people supposed to find technicians when there is already a shortage of technicians? On top of that, this all needs to be done right across the country. That requires technicians, and they do not work for free. Then they have to come back again mid-February to do exactly the same thing. Small businesses have fewer staff and will be forced to take on an extra burden at their busiest time of the year. People may be getting a 5% tax break to go to a restaurant, which amounts to a $5 discount, but businesses are having to spend $3,000 out of pocket to implement this measure.

I would like to remind the government that businesses are owned by people. These are people who put their heart and soul into their business all the time, who work seven days a week, who are trying to improve their companies, who also have to hire people and who also have families. They are also going to be affected.

In light of all that, I am wondering whether this is really going to be worth it. The government has not considered all these consequences. They did not think it all through, so they assumed it would be easy. My colleague gave a detailed list of all the difficulties that businesses could face. They will have to identify which products are be tax-free. It could be tough.

I heard a government member say earlier that adult diapers would be exempt from the GST. I would have liked to ask him about that again. I checked the bill. I could not find it in there. I do not know where he saw that.

If it is hard for a government member to keep straight the contents of the bill he is defending, and if the government does not want us to study it in committee because it wants to move really quickly, why should we pass something like that? The member does not even know what is in his own bill. I do not have the bill in front of me. Let us say I have it here.

How are the businesses back home going to sort this out? How are the parents or the people buying the products going to sort this out? Are they going to walk around with a copy of the bill in their hands and look at the shelves and ponder whether the item is truly a soft toy with accessories? That is how it is worded in the bill. Are they going to check whether an item matches what is written in the bill? Is a parent really going to do that? In the bill, books are GST-exempt, but cut-out books are not. The parent will have to check the books to see if there are any cut-outs or stickers.

It will get complicated. I think it is too daunting. Consumers might not want to bother doing all that for the sake of 30¢. Maybe people will decide to take the item anyway because it is what they want, so who cares if it is not GST-exempt. I do not know if this measure is going to be as effective as the government thinks.

Members have been talking a lot about families. That makes sense. As my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou said, it is the holiday season. Of course, not everyone celebrates Christmas, but it is the holiday season. Yes, there will be celebrations and family gatherings, so we want to help people. At the same time, the date is arbitrary. The list of goods that will be exempt from the GST and the timing are both very arbitrary.

I am the mother of three children, two of whom are over the age of 14. Parents are well aware that there are certain times of year that are more difficult, and I want to stress the word “times”. Ideally, there should be a GST exemption on children's clothing year-round. That is a huge burden on families. Let us not forget that, every year, in August and September, we hear about how expensive back-to-school time is. Lunch boxes, school bags, school supplies, clothing: all of those things are expensive. Then, of course, parents have to pay to register their children in this or that activity. In short, yes, back to school is a very expensive time of year, and Christmas is too, so we need to ask ourselves another question. Is this measure needed only at Christmastime?

I saw costumes included on the list of products in the bill. Maybe people need costumes. In any case, there is a big difference between costumes and clothing. What do people really need? What is the government really trying to give people?

Once again, it all boils down to the same thing. I apologize for repeating myself, but there is no thinking behind this. I have not talked about it yet, and I myself do not understand why. It is probably because the idea behind the bill was not properly thought out.

It was not about making a perfect bill. The goal was probably just to grab some media attention by telling people that the government was going to hand out a goody, a big treat. People were led to believe that it was a treat. Anyone with any sense at all quickly realized that this makes no sense. It is really just electioneering, but they are trying to pass it off as a treat. I almost said they are giving people a trick instead of a treat. It is too easy to make puns with this bill.

I am about to wrap up. Maybe we need to think about other things. This measure tells people to spend money on things that are not necessarily useful. I am not saying people do not want to go to a buffet every now and then for a festive occasion, or that they do not feel like cooking some nights because they are exhausted. Sometimes I pick up a rotisserie chicken at the grocery store, and that is on the list of GST-exempt products. It happens to us, too.

That said, is spending really saving? They say they want to help people. Are people really saving when they are spending money or when the government is trying to make them spend more? As I said before, these are not essential things. The Liberal-NDP government is so proud of itself, but this is not actually saving.

Besides saving money, the other thing we are interested in this evening is not the GST part, it is the part that has been set aside for the time being, the $250 cheque. I hope we can get back to that, because I have just as much or more to say about it. It is a measure that excludes people. The GST measure excludes things that people might appreciate having a discount on. It excludes some products that could really help people. The $250 cheque excludes some people outright.

It excludes people who do not have a lot of money, like seniors and students. Students may decide not to work during the year so that they can focus on their studies. It also excludes people with disabilities. It excludes people and actually penalizes them, if members can believe it, for not currently being in the labour market.

When people need housing, when they need food, when they need clothing—we cannot forget Maslow's advice to always go back to basics—a bill like this one, or a one-time cheque for $250 that goes to a select number of people, is not what they need.

I would like to talk about the amount. The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill for seniors, Bill C-319, presented by my colleague from Shefford. It seeks to end discrimination. I just talked about discrimination when I spoke about the people who may be excluded from receiving the $250 cheque, but the same holds for seniors. We want to restore fairness and fix the situation, but the government refuses.

It says this would make the measure way too expensive. However, between the $250 cheques and the $1.7 billion, at a minimum, for the GST break, that is already double what the Bloc Québécois was asking for. This may be a clue that what the government is really trying to do with its tax break and its $250 cheque—which should of course be coming soon, although we might not get it until April—is simply buy votes.

As I read the bill, something occurred to me. It is important to have a sense of humour. People are going through a tough time. Our constituents are struggling. When a bill like this comes along and we get the impression that what will be exempt from GST is what people might need to celebrate Christmas and New Year's Day, or perhaps even the Epiphany, since the measures will be in effect until February, it occurred to me that it is a good thing this was not introduced at Easter.

Imagine if the bill had been introduced at Easter. What goodies would they have given out? We would have had tax-free chocolate eggs, little pet bunnies and maybe yellow, purple and pink clothing. I am being sarcastic, but when a bill like this comes along, it is not hard to believe that this was the degree of thought that went into it. It is all about buying votes.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that says a lot about Liberal values. As they see it, giving money to a couple earning $300,000 a year and giving nothing to seniors is fair and equitable.

The Liberals see the Conservatives scoring political points without having any sense of social justice or solidarity with people who are struggling, so they decided they would copy that strategy, since it seems to be paying off.

The government needs to get its values straight. On the one hand, we have a $250 cheque that no party agrees with. On the other hand, we have Bill C-319 to increase the OAS, which all the parties agree with.

Why are the Liberals not making the right choice?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government introduced its GST holiday bill and set aside the $250 cheques that it had promised to everyone except seniors and those who are struggling the most. It should take this opportunity to take a step back and seriously rethink its priorities. This government is prepared to spend $6 billion to buy votes, but it refuses to improve the old age security pension for seniors 65 to 74, even though this would address the injustice they are suffering, not to mention cost half as much.

Will it give Bill C-319 a royal recommendation instead of trying to buy votes?

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 43

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, this evening we are debating a bill. As we, Bloc Québécois colleagues, talk to each other about our meetings with constituents in our ridings, we have come to realize that many people are angry about this. Even experts on the economy have said that it is a bad idea.

In these inflationary times, the Bloc Québécois pointed out that it has long been calling for action to help the most vulnerable get by; it is calling for solutions. However, the devil is in the details, as we say in Quebec. The more we go through the bill, the more we realize that it completely misses the mark.

At first, I must confess, even I was naively taken in by this mirage. When I got home last Thursday evening, I thought that I would hear about this measure and that it might make a few people happy. Instead, as soon as I got back to my riding, I learned that constituents were unanimously disappointed. They were not fooled. To add to what was said by my colleague, the member for Joliette, people linked this measure to another one-time cheque mailout. In 2015, the Harper government gave cheques to families; in 2021, the Liberal government did the same. At the time, we could tell that an election was coming. This government sent out cheques to seniors, but only to those aged 75 and over.

I will take the time to talk about seniors. My colleague from Joliette said that he may not have touched on that in his speech. I know that there is nothing about seniors in the bill that we are talking about this evening, but the fact remains that the two subjects were addressed at the same time. I want to mention the fact that seniors will be excluded from the $250 cheques. I will also come back to what could have been done with the $6.3 billion in question and give the government some ideas, in case it does not have any. Finally, I will close by mentioning some other opponents of this bill.

First, let us talk about the fact that seniors are unanimously opposed to this. Last weekend, we read the information that was starting to come out about this announcement, and we were shocked to realize that seniors were once again being forgotten. That is right. There will be no cheques for retirees, students, people with disabilities or others who could use the money. However, everyone with a taxable income of up to $150,000 could get an election gift of $250. What a display of cynicism and crass opportunism. It is shameful.

As early as last weekend, I was in contact with seniors' groups. In fact, it all happened quite quickly. It culminated in seniors' groups coming to Parliament Hill today to criticize the fact that they are once again being ignored by the government. Earlier this week, FADOQ spoke out to explain why giving this cheque only to working Canadians is a bad idea. Unfortunately, its members are not the only ones who feel that way.

I would like make a quick aside. I want to commend my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for reiterating in an interview this morning that this measure is a bad idea. That is coming from a former member of the Liberal government's cabinet, but I digress.

I want to come back to the FADOQ:

The federal government abandons retirees

The federal government has once again demonstrated its disregard for retirees by excluding them from its one-time $250 payment, a measure announced on November 21^st. This payment, called the Working Canadians Rebate, will be distributed next spring and is reserved for workers with an individual net income of less than $150,000 in 2023.

FADOQ spoke out on behalf of its members and retirees in general and communicated their displeasure and dissatisfaction to the offices of the Minister of Finance..., the Minister of Seniors..., as well as the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Quebec lieutenant.... Our president, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, urged them to include seniors in this program to correct an inequity.

Today on Parliament Hill, three more groups came to speak out. Micheline Germain, president of AREQ-CSQ, said, “If someone had told me that I would one day have to advocate for retirees to be eligible for a $250 cheque meant to help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living, I would not have believed them”.

That is how ridiculous this situation is. It is not as if inflation affects only workers. Furthermore, it is not as if there are not that many vulnerable retirees in Quebec.

The Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, which advocates for retirees and pre-retirees, reiterated what the research chair on inequality said at the Bloc Québécois conference on the financial situation of seniors. The AQDR pointed out that nearly half of Quebec seniors do not have a livable income. Seniors have fixed incomes, and for far too long, those incomes have not been keeping up with wage growth.

Second, what could this money have been more usefully spent on?

The money could have been spent on increasing old age security pensions. We have been calling for a 10% increase for seniors aged 65 to 74, like the one for seniors aged 75 and up, for more than two years now.

Poverty does not wait for people to turn 75. Needs are growing, and food banks are no exception. My thoughts are with SOS Dépannage, an organization back home in Granby. That organization recently told me that more and more seniors are requesting food assistance. A temporary GST pause is not going to help them.

On the occasion of the last homelessness day, I read that homelessness was on the rise, including among seniors and students. My measure is less expensive and better targeted. We calculated that Bill C-319 would cost $3 billion. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois said in his speech today, the other $3 billion could have been used for housing or to address homelessness.

The GST holiday is not a targeted, meaningful measure that will help families get through the inflationary crisis. As my colleague from Joliette mentioned, there are other measures that would have done more to help families, such as the GST credit.

The most expensive budget item and biggest worry for families is housing and access to home ownership. I attended a housing conference in Granby last Friday, where housing experts talked about the ineffectiveness of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and the problems it is having.

I want to reiterate that $3 billion could go to Bill C‑319 and the other $3 billion could be invested in social and community housing. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert toured Quebec and wrote a report on housing that sets out a dozen great recommendations for the federal government. I toured Quebec to talk about Bill C-319. There was strong support in Quebec for both of our projects.

I am not even talking about the funding for the Reaching Home strategy, which should be increased. In fact, Quebec is still waiting for its share so that it can work on the homelessness file. Assistance was promised for cities that are having issues with supervised encampments. They are still waiting.

Third, there are other problems stemming from the GST pause. Last Thursday evening, the chamber of commerce and industry told me that this will cause problems. My colleague from Joliette explained it very well. A family services organization called Maison des familles Granby et région said that this is just a band-aid solution that is not going to help vulnerable families in the long term. The executive director wants to have dinner with me soon so we can talk about it. The tourism body Commerce tourisme Granby région warned that there will be issues for businesses, which will have to reprogram cash registers. For example, ATLAS&CO sells children's gifts and holiday products. First of all, not all products in the store will be exempt from GST. What is more, the holiday season is approaching. This is peak season for retailers, but they will be busy reprogramming their registers, all while there is a labour shortage. This is a big problem.

Then there are the elected municipal officials who got less money than expected from the federal gas tax fund. Municipal infrastructure is needed to help with the housing crisis. The federal government needs to do its part, instead of dumping all the work onto Quebec and the municipalities.

I want to make one last point. This debate underscores more than ever the importance of the bill I introduced. The Bloc Québécois is once again calling on the government to give a royal recommendation to the bill that puts an end to having two classes of seniors and increases old age security by 10% for those aged 65 to 74.

According to the OECD, Canada is one of the industrialized countries where people experience the biggest drop in purchasing power when they retire. Clearly, this is a major problem. I do not want the government to tell me that it is too expensive. I do not want it to tell me that it cannot afford it because all the money is tied up in the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Basically, we are asking the government to focus on its responsibilities and, above all, its central mission, which is to protect people, especially pensioners aged 65 to 74. The government has deliberately overlooked them once again in favour of priorities that will do nothing to really help families and workers. Let us not forget that social housing and homelessness are crucial issues, not to mention all the harmonization problems between the various provinces and Quebec.

Since I am running out of time, I will now inform the House that I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding the following:

“(g) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it study the subject-matter of the bill and, for the purposes of this study, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance shall be ordered to appear before the committee, for at least three hours, at a date and time to be fixed by the Chair of the committee, but not later than Friday, December 13, 2024.”

On that note, I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

Seniors

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister says she wants support from people who care about social justice, which rules out some people in the House. Why do we not finish the discussion on Bill C‑319, which is for pensioners? The Liberals themselves voted in favour of it. Why does the minister not tinker with the eligibility rules for the cheques in order to give some to people who really need it, like pensioners, without increasing the overall cost?

Old Age Security

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, I would like to table an important petition concerning Bill C‑319, which would increase OAS for people aged 65 to 74 to the same amount paid to people aged 75 and over, and would also increase the GIS by $1,500. Indeed, 79% of Canadians agree. The ball is now in the government's court. The petition has been signed by 1,450 petitioners.

I have another petition containing 388 signatures, and I am tabling petition e‑5054 which contains 7,154 signatures. I know that my colleagues are tabling others too. This is an important issue. The deadline is tomorrow, October 29. The petitioners I met with all summer want the government to take action. The dignity of seniors hangs in the balance. Really, what is the government waiting for to finally help seniors?

I present these petitions on behalf of everyone who cannot understand why there are still two classes of seniors.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting petition e-5054, which has been signed by 228 citizens of my riding to signify their support for the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. The citizens are calling on the government to provide a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319 in order to increase OAS by 10% for people aged 65 to 74 and to raise the maximum amount of income that can be earned without affecting GIS from $5,000 to $6,000.

Seniors

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, who is flying the Liberal plane?

It is October 21. There are eight days left to pass Bill C‑319 and increase OAS for seniors; otherwise, the Liberals are risking an election. The idea of increasing pensions is supported by the Conservatives, the NDP and 79% of the population. Even the Liberals in committee agree.

There is clearly no one flying the Liberal plane. Everyone supports this initiative, but nothing is being done about it. The deadline is eight days away.

Is that why the Liberals want their leader out?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, we are wondering why the Liberals are seeking a fourth term when their plan for society is to withhold income from one million Quebec seniors. They are out of touch, and the public is starting to notice.

We will say it again: The Liberals have until October 29 to pass Bill C‑319 and increase the pension for people aged 65 to 74. Time is flying by, especially since the Senate is in no hurry to get things done these days.

Are the Liberals really that eager to defend their disregard for seniors to voters?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the beginning of the speech given by my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères in which he put enormous pressure on me to deliver a quality speech. I will do my best not to disappoint him.

Honestly, there are several reasons why I am happy to speak on this subject today. First, it affords me the opportunity to comment on the question of transparency, accountability and the moral duties we must carry out when we agree to serve our constituents in the House of Commons.

Maybe I was naive, but when I decided to get involved in politics, I had principles and values, among them respect for institutions. I am convinced that we 33 Bloc Québécois members share this value and the desire to do our jobs while respecting institutions. Imagine that, a sovereignist Bloc member is saying that we are here to do our job while respecting the rules of the Parliament of Canada.

One of these rules is that it is up to the House to decide certain things, for example, the documents it wants to have in its possession, the documents it wants to obtain in various situations. Regardless of the situation, the fact remains that it is up to the House to determine the relevancy and necessity of obtaining some document or another. This is not a decision that the House may take and the government can treat as it sees fit. It is incumbent upon the government to respect the will of the House.

The Liberals are arguing that the RCMP says that this would be injecting politics into a police investigation, and that if it wants documents it has the means of requesting them. There is truth in that, but what we are asking for and what we agree on is that an order by the House Speaker be respected. Regardless of the Liberal members' arguments on this motion of privilege, the fact remains that it boils down to a ruling by the Speaker following a request by the House of Commons and its members.

I do not understand why they insist on obstructing. I do not understand why they keep doing as they please and determining what is and is not relevant in the Speaker's rulings. Honestly, I fail to understand the strategy.

Maybe they have something big to hide. Maybe they are trying to protect something big. Who knows. I do not even care to get into the theories about the scandal. The Conservatives have led the way on that, but they are in no position to lecture anyone about such things. If it is something they are trying to hide, it must be one whale of a secret. They are risking the survival of their fragile government, and they are delaying proceedings that could help them gain a friend until the holiday season.

This will hardly come as a scoop but there are currently two Bloc Québécois bills being used as preconditions for the Bloc's support of the Liberal government. The clock is ticking on both bills, and time is running out. If passed and implemented by October 29, they could guarantee the Bloc's support of this government until at least the holiday season, because both bills would be good for seniors aged 65 to 74 in Quebec and across Canada. I am talking about Bill C‑319, introduced by my colleague from Shefford, which has the support of all seniors groups. In a Canada-wide survey, 79% of respondents supported this Bloc demand. I do not understand why the Liberals are stubbornly dragging their feet on these important proceedings.

The other piece of legislation, every bit as important and another of the Bloc's demands in exchange for supporting the government—until the holidays, anyway—is Bill C‑282, which seeks to exclude supply management from any future trade negotiations. The bill is currently being blocked in the Senate by senators Boehm and Harder, whose arrogance defies comprehension.

One of the senators went so far as to insult my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, when he appeared before the Senate committee two weeks ago. The senator called him “special”, but not in a very flattering way. This unelected senator criticized the hard work of a member who has worked for years with farmers and agricultural producers in the supply management system to craft a quality piece of legislation. It was insulting. Both senators are blocking the democratic process, and that is shameful. I make no bones about it, I find that shameful.

When we ask the Liberals questions in the House, they respond as though we were born yesterday and have just fallen off the turnip truck. They say they have no control over senators they appointed to the Senate, that these are independent senators. Sure. No one thinks that Liberal appointees to the Senate are purely independent.

Frankly, I do not get their strategy, especially since the last time I checked the polls, the Liberals were at 22% nationally and were projected to capture 53 seats. That means that if the numbers hold up, 107 Liberal members will be gone after the next election. If it were me, I would want to work with the people reaching out and extending a hand, but I will not try to get inside their heads. It is a shame that we find ourselves today with a question of privilege that prevents us from advancing important work for seniors and farmers, not just in Quebec but in Canada as a whole. I do not understand.

Today we are discussing an issue of transparency, respect, jurisdiction and accountability that is an obligation for any public office holder and, by extension, a government. These are concepts the Liberals have a lot of difficulty with.

This is a government that has not come to terms with its minority status, as my colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères mentioned earlier. It has no respect for parliamentary rules and traditions. There is no better illustration than the number of times it has invoked closure to restrict parliamentary privileges in the House since 2021, at the beginning of its alliance with its NDP friends. I did a quick search up to the beginning of June, and it is not even up to date. At the start of June, we were up to 48 closure motions since the NDP-Liberal marriage. These 48 closure motions allowed the Liberals to circumvent 72 bill stages.

I hear the Conservatives say it is wrong for the government to have gagged them 48 times. I would caution them against complaining too loudly, because between 2011 and 2015, the Harper government invoked closure 104 times. It imposed a gag order on the House 104 times to push through its ideas and bills at the expense of democracy.

As an aside, the most odious part of all this, the worst example, the worst denial of democracy, the worst shirking of parliamentary rules was the indefinite imposition of a hybrid Parliament. Normally, this is something that is done by consensus, with frank, non-partisan discussions among the parties. Traditionally, changes that are so important to the workings of Parliament are made through consensus.

However, the Liberals decided once again to bargain this away in return for some sort of support for some sort of project, because I am guessing that some members preferred watching parliamentary proceedings from their home computer in their comfy clothes, while throwing another load of laundry into the washing machine and making spaghetti sauce for dinner. I find that sad. We deserved a healthy, thoughtful debate on how to improve the way we do things here in the House of Commons.

In short, I find it absurd that we keep talking, talking, talking about transparency with a government that is on its last legs and that we will remember for issues such as WE Charity, for which it went as far as proroguing Parliament to prevent us from getting to the bottom of things. We do not even know how bad the scandal was; we can only imagine. We had so much trouble getting answers about the laboratory in Winnipeg. We still remember that. ArriveCAN was not that long ago. The government gave over $60 million to two dopes working out of their basement. It is crazy. That is financial mismanagement.

At the same time, the fiscal imbalance means that Quebec and the provinces are having an even harder time, year after year, fulfilling their obligations, financing their health care and education systems, and providing housing for newly arrived immigrants and asylum seekers.

The situation is untenable. There are more and more scandals, each of which costs taxpayers a fortune. Frankly, the situation is unjustifiable and inexcusable.

[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 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.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if what the minister is saying were enough, FADOQ, AQRP, AQDR and many other groups would not be in Ottawa today. However, they are here to demand a 10% increase in OAS for seniors under the age of 74.

All seniors deserve the same support when they are facing the same rising cost of living. Everyone understands that. They certainly do not deserve to be divided into two classes of citizens. It is time the Liberals put an end to their age-based discrimination.

Will they grant royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is making October 29 its ultimatum on behalf of seniors.

Their representatives are in Ottawa today to support our efforts. The FADOQ is here, and so is its Mauricie association. The Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, is here. The Association québécoise des retraités des secteurs public et parapublic, or AQRP, is here. The Académie des retraités de l'Outaouais is here. The Table de concertation régionale des aînés des Laurentides is here.

They are all here to end discrimination against seniors and to call for a 10% increase in old age security for seniors aged 74 and under. They expect a clear answer.

Will the government give a royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Seniors Day. Let us just say that it is not the best day to avoid answering questions about old age security, especially when seniors' representatives are watching us. We will give the Liberals another chance. Time is of the essence. They have until October 29 to stop depriving seniors 74 and under of a 10% OAS increase. It seems to me that National Seniors Day would be a heck of a good day for the Liberals to finally be able to say yes to seniors.

Will they grant a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319, yes or no?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as coincidence would have it, the Bloc Québécois's opposition day calling for a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319 happens to fall on October 1, the International Day of Older Persons.

The bill aims to restore equality among all seniors and eliminate this gross unfairness. We have to recognize that people on fixed incomes are directly affected by inflation and need an increase in their old age security as of age 65. We must not leave them financially vulnerable, since poverty unfortunately does not wait until people turn 75.

We also need to let seniors keep working if they want to, without being unduly penalized. We need to recognize their diversity, but also think collectively about their place in our society. We owe them our respect. They are the ones who built Quebec.

Let us take a day to consider how much they contribute. We have a duty to treat them with the utmost respect and to ensure that the social safety net is always there to let them to age with dignity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member took fiendish delight in calling me on that. Maybe he wants to be the whip in the next Conservative government.

The debate we are having on this opposition day is very important. The Bloc Québécois did not conjure this out of thin air. As everyone knows, this has been one of its priorities since 2019. Just this morning, our position was endorsed by the president of the FADOQ network, the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, which represents nearly 600,000 Quebec seniors. There is also the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, the AQDR, which advocates for retirees' rights. I am pleased to say that two delegates from the Valleyfield-Suroît branch of the AQDR, Lucie and Benoit, came here today to speak out against this terrible injustice on behalf of their organization.

The Bloc Québécois cannot understand how the Liberals across the way do not see this as an injustice. When people turn 65, they pay the same rent as when they turn 75. They have the same basic expenses as 75-year-olds, be it at the grocery store or the pharmacy.

Not everyone 65 and over has the ability to work. I am very active in my riding and I meet a lot of seniors in a year. They all talk about the rising cost of living. They all tell me that they are having a tough time making ends meet and that they have to make tough choices. They do not understand this government's decision to increase OAS by 10% for people 75 and up, but not for people aged 65 to 74. In Salaberry—Suroît, nearly 20% of the population is 65 or up. They do not all have the privilege of having a private pension in addition to the payments from the Quebec pension plan and old age security.

There are seniors who worked hard all of their lives, without missing a day of work, and it was not always under the best conditions. I am thinking of Ghislaine, who worked all of her life at La Lanterne restaurant in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. She started young and stopped at 65. Both her knees and hips were finished. Her body was tired from working so hard, but she worked. Even so, she had to find a little job to make ends meet, because her pension was not enough, and neither was the guaranteed income supplement. When we call for fairness among seniors aged 75 and up and seniors aged 65 to 74, this is not just something that we pulled out of a hat.

I am also thinking of Normand, who turned 65 and who works as a packer at the Ormstown grocery store to make ends meet. Normand battled cancer. When a person earns a small salary and receives a small pension and then they have to stop working to fight cancer and they do not have enough money to pay their bills, it is very stressful. It can even interfere with their recovery.

When I think about the condition that our seniors, who built our nation find themselves in, I think of an old adage that says one can judge a society by the way it treats its seniors. Lucie Mercier asked me to talk about this in my speech. According to Judith Gagnon of the AQDR, how well we look after our parents, our ancestors, our predecessors, our most vulnerable citizens and those who built our nation defines who we are and where we are going, and an aging population only reinforces how important the proverb is.

We hope that all parties in the House will do the right thing and support Bill C‑319, and that the government will take responsibility and get a royal recommendation so that it can be passed and enacted. This means that all seniors aged 65 and over will have the same amount on their old age pension, and the income that can be earned per year before GIS benefits are reduced will increase from $5,000 to $6,500.

Seniors are making a heartfelt plea to the Liberal government today.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Terrebonne.

Today is a very special day. October 1 is National Seniors Day in Quebec. In Salaberry—Suroît, as in the rest of Quebec, people have organized all kinds of events to celebrate seniors, thank them and recognize the work they do.

People tend to forget what a tremendous asset seniors are to communities. They volunteer with most of the community organizations that serve the least fortunate and most vulnerable. People tend to talk about seniors as folks who need services, a millstone around society's neck in their ever-increasing numbers. I myself have never seen things that way. I see seniors as a tremendous asset. Seniors enable communities to grow, thrive and develop a deeper sense of solidarity. Seniors create solidarity.

Today is a special day because October 1 is the day we celebrate seniors everywhere, but it is also the Bloc Québécois's opposition day, and we are once again dedicating it to seniors. We are seeking a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319. We are devoting an entire opposition day to debating this matter because we want the government to understand how important it is to grant a royal recommendation so we can end discrimination between two classes of seniors. Today is a special day not only because October 1 is National Seniors Day and the Bloc Québécois's opposition day featuring Bill C‑319, but also because seniors are demonstrating on Parliament Hill. Some 200 seniors from all over Quebec were on the Hill today to lend their support to Bill C‑319. Their demand was clear: an end to discrimination between two classes of seniors. I have never seen such a thing.

There is a wise old man in my riding who was in the group. He is a wise old man, a community organizer, a trade unionist. He celebrated his 80th birthday this year. He was on the Hill. I asked him, of all the protests that he has taken part in over the course of his life to improve the lot of others, whether this was the first time he had attended a protest as a senior to demand that 65-year-olds be given the same rights as 75-year-olds. He told me yes. I congratulate him. He deserves a lot of credit for driving two and a half hours from my riding to come to the Hill this morning at the age of 80.

There are about a dozen of my constituents in the gallery—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the NDP has been in support of Bill C-319 since the very onset. We know that seniors deserve to be living with dignity and respect. We also know that so much more is needed for seniors today.

As far as I am aware, I have yet to see a national aging strategy put into place that addresses all the issues that are being faced by our increasingly aging population. I wonder if the member could speak to how important it is to have that strategy in place, that we have a plan moving forward and we do not see seniors continue to struggle to make ends meet.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that October 1 is National Seniors Day. We could not have picked a better theme for this debate.

When I think of the issue of seniors, I always immediately think back to 1980. Members will recall that on the eve of the referendum campaign to counter René Lévesque's Mouvement souveraineté-association, the Canadian health minister at the time said ad nauseam that seniors would lose their pension if the “yes” camp won. She even threatened to immediately make $4 billion in cuts if Quebec became a country. At the time, the government was led by the Liberal Party of Canada, which was led by a Trudeau.

We see that in 2024, while Ottawa refuses to increase the pension for all seniors in a context where their purchasing power is plummeting, it is our presence in Canada that is threatening the dignity and quality of life of seniors. We will remember. We have to face the facts, and they paint a grim picture indeed. The population is aging. There are now more people 65 and over than children under 15. An estimated 25% of the population will be 65 and up in 2030.

According to the most recent statistics, 52% of old age security pensioners aged 65 to 74 and 60% of those aged 75 and up have an income of less than $30,000. The gap between the median income of seniors aged 65 and the rest of the population has quadrupled in 20 years. That means that, over the years, seniors' income growth has not kept pace with workers' income growth.

When we add the context of inflation to this bleak picture, the situation becomes dire. Between September 2021 and September 2022, the price of food went up by 10%. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 7% year over year. That is the tragedy of a world where inflation is wreaking havoc upon us like a vengeful spirt.

It is not true to say that only older seniors have more expenses. Younger retirees have to pay for housing and home maintenance, and they often own cars while they are still in the workforce. The cost of medication is the same whether a person is 18, 65 or 75. The same goes for the cost of groceries. Leisure activities and medical needs can also cost a lot. It is a gross generalization to say that only people aged 75 and up have more expenses.

Ottawa, the capital where inertia and indifference intertwine in a macabre synergy, has responded with shameful mediocrity and employed nothing but ad hoc measures. Budget 2021, as members will recall, included an OAS increase, but only to seniors aged 75 and over. Consequently, the vast majority of seniors, who are between 65 and 74, were left behind. It took two years for the Liberals to finally follow through on this promise, which dates back to 2019. In August 2021, a one-time cheque for $300 was sent to seniors, again only to those aged 75 and over. This was on the eve of the September 2021 elections. Barring a rather providential coincidence, the stunt was as crude as it was disgraceful.

Fortunately, it is possible to take matters into our own hands, on two fronts. Our Bill C-319 emerges as a beacon of hope amidst this darkness. To offset rising debt levels, a growing number of seniors are returning to the workforce. We therefore need to improve incentives for those who wish to return to work, especially in the context of labour shortages. Bill C‑319, which does not just propose to increase pensions, would enable seniors who would like to work a bit to do so without being penalized by increasing from $5,000 to $6,500 the exemption for income from employment or contract work taken into account in calculating the guaranteed income supplement.

The best-known part of the bill is the pension component. We also have a responsibility to provide the best possible financial security to our seniors who are choosing instead to take a well-deserved rest.

That is why Bill C‑319 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase by 10% the amount of the full pension that all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled to.

These two fronts should be able to provide these builders with a little breathing room. However, that is only if Bill C-319 passes. Furthermore, it still needs to receive a royal recommendation. These words have an inherently negative ring to my ears and to those of my Bloc Québécois colleagues. As my colleague said, we have no choice, since we are still part of this system; it is not as though we enjoy it. Besides, if anyone finds it particularly ridiculous that we are asking for a royal recommendation, then they should have voted with us when we proposed to abolish the monarchy.

Personally, I dream of a country, ours, the country of Quebec, the only country where we can feel fully ourselves, and the only one where we are fully ourselves. It will never leave anyone behind, young or old. I dream of a country that will provide the builders of yesterday, who, by the way, have yet to make their last contribution to our homeland, with the full support that they deserve. Between now and our urgent and necessary independence, we need to provide seniors with some comfort, which is what Bill C-319 proposes.

It is not clear what the Liberals will do when they vote. We now need the rest of the members. That is the beauty of a minority government, recently brought back to minority status. I call on the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Greens to show Ottawa the direction that it needs to go in, the only direction that makes sense, that of respect for our seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was him. I was right. He is applauding me, and that does not happen very often. Mark this day on the calendar.

Earlier, this Conservative member was criticizing us for working for gains. He criticized us for receiving media attention. There are seniors here on Parliament Hill today. The group from my riding includes people aged 72, 75 and so on. It is not just people under 75 who want to see this change, but everyone who believes in justice and fairness. These people have driven a little over three hours to get here, and I am sure there are others who have driven even further. They will drive back the way they came, which means they will have driven a total of six or seven hours. That is a lot for an older person. Why are they doing this? Why are they here? Why do they feel so strongly about this? They know that MPs work for them, so they decided to come support us. That is nice. Does that mean we get more media attention? Yes, but it is not just a photo op. It is to put pressure on the government.

What are we talking about today? We are talking about this vote and a possible election call in the event of a non-confidence vote. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about gains.

Some television commentators are saying that the amount we want to give retirees adds up to about $1,000 a year, or $1,200 for those entitled to more. Obviously, each case is different. For someone who earns less than $30,000 a year, $1,000 a year is a huge amount. It makes all the difference when it comes to choosing which size or brand of product to buy at the grocery store. It makes all the difference when setting the thermostat in an apartment. That is what it does. We are talking about allowing the people who built Quebec, who worked all their lives and who deserve a decent standard of living, to live with dignity, free from stress at the end of every month. That is what we are talking about. When it comes right down to it, today, we are not talking about the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. We are talking about seniors. Can we give those people a decent standard of living?

We are not asking for much. We could have asked for a lot more, but as I explained at the beginning of my speech, we have asked for things we can get, things that are already in the works and that will really make a difference.

The old age security issue was voted on unanimously in committee. The committee that studied the bill voted unanimously. Representatives of the Liberal government sit on that committee. Basically, the purpose of the motion seeking royal assent for the bill is to stop hypocrisy. The aim is to keep members from voting and saying that they support seniors, that they have always been there for seniors and that they will continue to be there for seniors, while refusing to grant royal assent behind closed doors.

Our decision to shine a light on this issue is not a PR exercise. We are applying political pressure to achieve a specific result. I want to achieve this. I think seniors deserve better than the stress of running out of money in the last 10 days of the month. To me, that is unacceptable. Ten minutes is obviously not a lot of time, but I could have talked about my many years of experience acting for my father under his power of attorney. He passed away last year. He rests in peace, but I want to salute him even though he is no longer physically with us. I sometimes had to make major, unexpected outlays because his independence and health were declining and his home needed to be adapted. My father worked for Canadian National and had a good pension. As a result, I was lucky enough not to have too much trouble managing his affairs. We were able to give him decent care. However, I constantly thought about people with no money. I wondered how they managed. Today we are voting on a matter of human dignity. This is not just for show. We are leveraging our opportunity to gain something.

The other important gain we are trying to make is protection for supply management. I would remind members that this issue received the support of nearly 80% of duly elected members of the House. The bill in question has been languishing in the Senate since June 2023, collecting dust. This week, the members of this committee are again deciding to conduct long-term studies without prioritizing the bills duly voted on by a majority of the elected members of the House of Commons. That is undemocratic. They are just trying to hold up the bill until the election is called, so they will not have to vote on it. That is another thing we are pushing the government on, since it is the one that appointed 80% of these senators. We are asking the government to talk to them. I think it could talk to them more often and ask them to move faster.

We are going to ask the same thing for Bill C‑319. That is why we need to hurry up, get it passed and send it to the Senate. A private member's bill that involves spending needs government approval. It needs to leave this chamber with that approval and a message to the Senate that it needs to be passed quickly. We will not wait another year and a half for Bill C‑319 to pass. We have to be serious.

These two bills can pass quickly. Our agriculture industry needs it, and seniors need a decent standard of living.

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

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is highly relevant. Very few precedents exist for private members' bills that received a royal recommendation. If the Bloc Québécois had really been sincere, its motion would have demanded that the government incorporate the spirit of Bill C‑319 in the next budget or in an amendment to the budget. The Bloc Québécois would have done that today if it was serious, but it is only stalling for time. It wants media attention to make itself heard across Quebec.

[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.

Finance

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member and also interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

It being 6:59 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Before the House proceeds to Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to the decision made on Thursday, May 11, 2023, a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, since the bill would appropriate part of the public revenue.

Accordingly, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the question will only be put on the motion for third reading of the bill if a royal recommendation is submitted in due time.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I think my leader was clear, and that mirrored what I said here. Second, October 29 is the date that was chosen based on the fact that we will be discussing Bill C-319 later today and proceeding to the vote next week. This bill will then be sent to the Senate. We chose this date to ensure that everything would be passed here by then. That is the analysis that took place.

As for opposition days, there are plenty of ways for us to proceed. We will keep an eye on that, of course.

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

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to learn this afternoon that we were going to discuss the Standing Committee on Finance's report on the pre-budget consultations from February.

Although the report was tabled in February, most of the work was done the previous fall. We worked very long hours in committee, where we heard from many witnesses so that we could take all aspects and needs of Quebec's economy and, of course, Canada's economy into account.

We even toured the provinces during the two break weeks. During the first break week, in October 2023, we went to the Maritimes, and during the break week in November, we visited all the other provinces, starting in Quebec and ending in British Columbia. There is nothing like going out into the community and hearing directly from the people. It gives groups and witnesses a chance to take part in the discussions and tell us about their needs and their realities. It makes our work easier so that we can better sense and understand what is happening on the ground.

Members may be wondering what a member of the Bloc Québécois could possibly be doing travelling all over Canada and listening to organizations in other provinces. First, their needs may overlap with those of Quebec. Second, we also invited all of the organizations that defend the rights of francophones in all of the provinces of Canada. That gave us the opportunity to make contacts, gain a better understanding of francophones' realities and see how they are often isolated and have to fight to continue speaking one of the two official languages. There is still a lot of work to be done. Obviously, we continue to stand in solidarity with Franco-Canadians and always will.

From our consultations, we developed a series of recommendations that we presented to the government. Obviously, we are in constant contact with the government. The minister even has staff who follow the work in committee and who can see what recommendations may be made in the future. It is an important job to keep the minister and her team informed of the needs of the Canadian economy and also of Quebec's economy, which is what matters to the Bloc Québécois.

The report begins by noting that all the recommendations must be read and considered “in accordance with the powers of each jurisdiction”. This is an important show of respect in regard to interference. It serves as a reminder to the government that, when the political system was developed, the decision was made to create a federation. That was the compromise. In fact, we know that John A. Macdonald and his friends wanted a legislative union where everything would be decided in Ottawa, but others disagreed. For Quebec to get on board, there had to be levels of government that were equally sovereign in their own areas of jurisdiction.

However, what I have seen in the House since 2015—and this was also the case in previous years—is that the government is clearly tempted to constantly grab new powers, to centralize power, to want to make all the decisions. This goes against legal instruments and, more importantly, it flies in the face of respect for my nation, the Quebec nation. The very beginning of the report, therefore, reiterates the importance that all recommendations be made with respect for each government's areas of jurisdiction.

When my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I asked the parliamentary secretary questions, we brought up a recommendation that we care about in the report currently under discussion. A majority of elected members in committee, including the Liberals, passed this recommendation. I would like to quote it.

It recommends that the government:

Increase the Old Age Security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74 and review the method for indexing to account for wage growth in Canada.

In barely half an hour, the House will discuss the bill introduced by my esteemed colleague from Shefford precisely to support an OAS increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. In its report, the Standing Committee on Finance advised the government and all members to support this bill. That is very important. In fact, all the parties supported the bill. The problem is that the government must give the royal recommendation to allow the bill to be studied further.

The Bloc Québécois told this government, which is now a minority government, that if it wants our support for the next few months, it has to support Bill C-319 by giving it a royal recommendation. That is very important. It is a very important measure. It is about dignity.

We look forward to hearing the government's response, which will tell us whether we will continue working in the House for the well-being of seniors and young retirees in Quebec and across Canada, or whether we should hop on our buses and go talk to everyone and find out how many Liberal members will be left in the House after the election. The choice is up to the government.

We are talking about seniors aged 65 to 74 because the government increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. That is great, but if the pension had been increased starting at age 65, I would be clapping with both hands. However, since the increase is only for 75 and up, I can only clap with one hand, because the job is only half done. Now a significant inequity needs to be corrected.

Why do we want to enhance the OAS? It is a federal support program, and there are not a lot of those. This is a jurisdictional matter. When the program was created, the idea was to index it annually to the average wage. For decades, that did not happen. The pension ended up being too small to enable seniors to live with a modicum of dignity. A top-up was required, and one was provided for seniors 75 and up, but there is still a huge gap for those 65 to 74. Now seniors are divided into two classes: those who are entitled to dignity and those who are not. Why is this happening? It is unacceptable.

My parents are 71 and 72. The physical health, well-being and financial security of people who are between 65 and 74 varies quite a bit. That is where the idea for a universal program came from. Under this program, those who earn a lot of money do not get the full pension because they have enough money. However, the program is there to help those who have needs. That is the point of a social program. The OAS should be indexed to the increase in the average wage to allow seniors to retain that dignity.

There may be some people in that age bracket who had very physically demanding jobs and who are physically unable to continue working. They need to rest, and that rest is well deserved. We need to be there for those men and women. I mention women here because, quite often, the people who do not have a private pension plan, RRSP or employer pension plan are women.

Often they are women because, when we ask people to be caregivers, to lend a hand and to make a contribution, unfortunately, in our society, there is still a lot of inequity. Too often, women are the ones who are asked to make sacrifices for the well-being of others. When elderly parents need a caregiver, very often, it is a woman who quits her job to help her parents.

During that time, she is not contributing to the Quebec pension plan, if she lives in Quebec, or to the Canada pension plan. She cannot contribute to a private plan either. Then, if her husband gets sick, she is the one who will once again sacrifice her job and her career to take care of him. It is often the same thing with children.

Quite often, it is women who make these sacrifices and have to forgo the more dignified retirement they might have had. Social programs such as the OAS are there to support them. Statistics show that senior women who live alone are overrepresented among the poor. It is important to restore fairness and justice.

Women often give of themselves to support the well-being of others, so the least we can do is restore some balance with a social safety net to catch them. We need to give seniors aged 65 to 74 something. We need to increase the OAS, which was not indexed to inflation or the average wage. It is a matter of dignity. It is one of the federal government's core responsibilities, so we are asking it to take action.

All parties supported the measure, and it is up to the government to give royal assent. The Bloc Québécois sees this as a matter of confidence in the government. Is the government there to help people? Is it there to help people in need within the limits of its jurisdiction? If so, this is a golden opportunity to prove it. Our confidence in the government will depend on it.

I am the finance critic and my counterpart is the Minister of Finance. Like most of her colleagues, she is particularly talented at extending congratulations, boasting, networking and maintaining good relations. While that may often save time, it does not result in any serious work or specific commitments. That is why, this morning, my leader, together with the party officers, announced that we are setting a deadline. If this bill is not in force by October 29, if it has not received a royal recommendation and royal assent by that date, we will work with the other opposition parties to discuss whether we still have confidence in the government. It is a matter of dignity.

Furthermore, the Minister of Finance told me that this bill would cost an estimated $3 billion a year. She said that it is expensive, that it is a lot of money. Well, that is what governing is all about. Governing means making choices.

We have resources. How do we allocate them? What do we spend them on? Three billion dollars a year is expensive, yet the Trans Mountain pipeline cost $34 billion. That is very expensive for a heavily polluting industry whose companies earn record profits, astronomical profits. Most of the dividends paid out by these companies leave Canada and go to other economic interests. It is an industry that does not need money, but the government gives it $34 billion to help it out. However, $3 billion is apparently too much to spend on seniors aged 65 to 74, who are often women living alone. Does the government work for the oil lobbies, or does it work for people in need? That is what we are wondering, and its decision on the royal recommendation will give us an answer.

I talked about the $34 billion for Trans Mountain, compared to the $3 billion a year needed to increase the OAS. I would also like to talk about the Minister of Finance's plan for what she calls a “green economy”. We see right through that. We know this government's newspeak. In its newspeak, “green economy” means “support for fossil fuel industries”. Its plan to provide $83 billion over the next few years has multiple components, but it essentially involves programs made to measure for the oil and gas industry, which, I repeat, has no need of government support, is highly profitable and rakes in record profits year after year.

Catherine McKenna, the Liberal Party's former environment minister, said it better than anyone, I think. The oil and gas industry needs no support. We paid $34 billion for Trans Mountain and $83 billion for programs like carbon capture. Does the industry need that? The government says that it does and that this $83 billion is more important than $3 billion for seniors, who, as I said, are often women living alone who need this money to maintain a modicum of dignity.

Governing is about making choices. The government is now a minority government. If it wants to dance with us, it needs to stop serving this extremely profitable industry that does not need support. Instead, it needs to focus on the people who actually need support, as we are proposing in Bill C-319, which will be debated shortly, within the limits of its jurisdiction. That is very important.

The $83 billion includes carbon capture. The oil sands industry is getting help to set up small modular nuclear reactors to heat the sands, which will help it save on gas. The gas could be exported, because that is so environmentally friendly, using the new Coastal GasLink pipeline. It could also be used to make hydrogen, because that $83 billion also includes a tailor-made plan to transform the gas saved thanks to the nuclear reactors into hydrogen, which can then be exported.

Is that the government's vision for the future, its green vision?

Meanwhile, it says that investing $3 billion a year for seniors aged 65 to 74 who need it is too expensive. Among the OECD countries, which are basically the 30 richest countries, Canada is near the bottom in terms of the gap between pre- and post-retirement income. This is called the replacement rate. This means that Canada is basically the country where a person's income drops the most when they stop working and retire. That has to change.

The reason Canada is doing so poorly is that the existing social programs were not indexed. The government needs to ensure the dignity of its citizens within the limits of its jurisdictions. In this case, we are talking about the OAS, which falls under federal jurisdiction. Past governments failed in their duty by refusing to index the OAS, gradually undermining seniors' dignity. The government topped up the payments for seniors aged 75 and up, but it decided to abandon another class of seniors, those aged 65 to 74. This is now a matter of confidence for the Bloc Québécois. It is a matter of dignity. The OECD data remind us that Canada has fallen very far behind and is doing very poorly in this area.

Three billion dollars a year is a fair amount of money, but baby boomers are about to retire in droves. Given the very low replacement rate, their income will drop, which will have an indirect impact on the entire economy. What will their consumption levels look like? If they have access to a decent income, they will be able to maintain minimum consumption levels and help keep the economy running smoothly. If not, then we could experience an economic slowdown.

In this regard, I would like to remind members of the situation in Japan. Japan's population has been aging at a faster rate than in other countries. The economy has stagnated faster than elsewhere, with sluggish growth rates and deflation, because seniors, who no longer need to buy new cars and new homes, will limit their consumption. It is partly a cultural choice, but that does not always explain it; Japan also has poverty issues that have led the entire economy to stagnate since the nineties. That needs to be looked at. It is a matter of dignity, but it is also a matter of ensuring a well-functioning economy.

I will stop here for the part of the report that supports our Bill C‑319, which we will debate in exactly 18 minutes from now. However, I will make one last point in the minute I have left.

It concerns another recommendation in the report that has to do with supply management. That recommendation, which was supported by the Liberal members who form the government, reads as follows:

Make no further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations by supporting Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

The bill has gone through all the stages. It is now before the Senate. I hope the Senate moves quickly to pass it. I hope the government and the Liberal members here are talking to their friends in the other place. They do not sit very often but, for once, they have a very important job to do. We need to pass Bill C-282 as quickly as possible in order to implement it, as the majority of members of the Standing Committee on Finance expressed in the report we are discussing here.

For too long, our farmers have borne the brunt of trade agreements. For too long, we have chosen to sacrifice our farmers in order to ink a deal. For us, land use means respecting our farmers and, in this case, respecting supply management.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the question asked by my friend, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

As the parliamentary secretary said, we will be discussing Bill C‑319 shortly. However, what is in Bill C‑319 is also in the report we are discussing. A majority of the committee, including the Liberals, supported this measure. For Bill C‑319, we need a royal recommendation from the government.

The parliamentary secretary represents the government. Will he commit to providing the royal recommendation, yes or no?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues talked a lot about scandals. I am not sure if it is a scandal or if I should question the Conservatives' word, but when Bill C-319 was at committee, the entire committee voted in favour of the bill. Now that things are getting much more serious with this bill, it seems like the Conservatives are getting cold feet.

Can the member assure me that the Conservatives are not getting cold feet and that they are in favour of increasing old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is thrilled to see that the NDP-Liberal coalition appears to have come to an end. The people elected a minority government in 2019 and did not give anyone a blank cheque in 2021. The Bloc Québécois has a lot of weight when it comes to promoting Quebec's priorities and interests.

With the NDP-Liberal alliance, we again found ourselves with a government that completely ignores Quebec, its needs, its priorities and the consensuses reached by the National Assembly. There has been a growing centralization of decision-making power and, as a result, Canadians are deciding what is done in Quebec. There has also been a repeated rejection of Quebec's positions as expressed in unanimous resolutions in our National Assembly. Normally, when the National Assembly is unanimous, there is nothing more to be said.

I will start with a few examples.

There are the infrastructure programs. Quebec has requested the federal government to transfer the amounts unconditionally, since this is not federal infrastructure and Quebec must be free to manage its own land as it sees fit. The federal government has ignored this request. Worse yet, they added insult to injury by creating a federal department in charge of provincial infrastructure and municipalities. Even the Leader of the Opposition tried to get tough on municipalities.

There are the housing programs. Quebec asked that Ottawa respect its jurisdiction and simply help improve its programs. Not only did the Liberal-NDP alliance ignore that, but Quebec got burned and received less than its share of the money spent on new federal programs.

Quebec has repeatedly rejected federal interference through a myriad of unanimous resolutions. Every one of them has been ignored by the federal government, which continues to increase the number of federal strategies in areas that are not under its jurisdiction. Take, for example, the labour force, federal strategies addressing various aspects of health care, and the rejection of Quebec's consensus on advance requests for MAID. As the critic for seniors, I hear a lot about this last point.

Then we have the inadequate transfers to Quebec, which are not increasing quickly enough to meet the population's needs. This results in overcrowded classrooms and a health care system that is close to its breaking point. More substantial health transfers are urgently needed.

There again, they developed a whole range of federal programs in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction with money that should have been used to properly fund Quebec's essential programs. I will give an example. Last June, we criticized the age well at home initiative, a program launched by the federal government through the back door during its last campaign in Quebec. Lastly, Quebec groups do not have the money they should have. The Quebec minister responsible for seniors is asking that the funds be transferred. She has a home care plan but no, the federal government wants to set conditions.

All this is happing while the federal government, which barely provides Canadians with any services, managed to find the funding to hire 109,000 additional federal public servants whose main duty appears to be to tell Quebeckers what to do. In committee, I asked why we were outsourcing more. I did not get an answer.

The fiscal and environmental policy is largely focused on the needs of western Canada, with $83 billion in tax credits to the oil companies, plus $34 billion of our money pumped into the Trans Mountain pipeline. I will get back to this later. I would like people to stop telling me that we do not have enough money to implement Bill C-319.

Second, there have been changes in the House. The constituents of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun did well by Quebec last week by electing the Bloc Québécois candidate, adding to Quebec's voice and its political weight. I hope that we will be able to welcome our 33rd member of the Bloc Québécois soon.

The Bloc Québécois wants to know whether the government has taken note of this change and whether there will be a realignment that will allow Quebeckers to get something from the government soon. Only then will we be able to determine whether the government should fall or whether it should be given a little more time to fix its mistakes and take our priorities into account. We want more for Quebec. Rather than blindly opposing or supporting the Liberal or Conservative parties, the Bloc Québécois wants to move forward with issues that Quebeckers care about. If it is good for Quebec, we will support it. If it is not good for Quebec, we will reject it. This is nothing new; it is not a surprise. We have always been very clear where we stand. It is not as if we woke up one morning and decided on that.

In 2021, our campaign slogan was simply “Québécois”, or “Quebeckers”, to make it clear that, for us, only Quebec matters. In 2019, it was “Le Québec, c’est nous”, or “We are Quebec”, to indicate that we were the ones who would carry the Quebec consensus. In 2015, it was “On a tout à gagner”, or “We have everything to gain”, to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois was going to work to make Quebec win in Ottawa and achieve gains for Quebec. Today we are giving this government one last chance to earn our trust, to take immediate action for Quebeckers.

Fourth, let us talk about priorities. As a first step, we are calling on the new minority government to give royal recommendation to Bill C-319, which would put an end to the two classes of seniors and increase old age security by 10% for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

Old age security is one of the rare truly federal social programs. While the federal government meddles in many things, it has neglected its primary responsibilities. We want to give the government a chance to realign itself, assume its basic responsibilities and enable seniors to live a decent life.

According to the OECD, Canada is one the industrialized nations where the population faces the greatest decline in purchasing power on retirement. We could do much better. I do not want to hear that it costs too much. It would cost $3 billion a year. That represents 0.57% of government spending.

Earlier, my hon. colleague from La Prairie aptly said that it is not the cost that is stopping the government; it just has other priorities. There is the $34 billion to buy and build the Trans Mountain pipeline and the $83 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Do they really need it? The government paid $2 billion to Sun Life, a private company, to run the federal dental insurance plan when this could have been done for free with a transfer to Quebec. It is an area under Quebec's responsibility.

We are asking the government, which is now a minority government, to focus on its responsibilities. Its central mission is to protect our people, especially retirees between the ages of 65 and 74, the people it deliberately set aside in favour of its own priorities, which are not Quebeckers' priorities. The rest will be judged on merit.

We will oppose even the slightest interference, including on a confidence vote. If the government ever contradicts the unanimous will of Quebec's National Assembly in the slightest, we will oppose it, including on a confidence vote. When we find that the government has failed to recognize its minority status and the importance of heeding the Bloc Québécois's demands, which are widely supported in Quebec, we will pull the plug. Doing so today, before we even know whether the government is cognizant of the new reality, would amount to taking a decent retirement income away from Quebec seniors.

What is more, we promised farmers that we would do everything in our power to protect supply management. As the member for Shefford, I have no choice but to say it. The members for Montcalm, Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will be in the Senate tomorrow morning to encourage senators to quickly pass our Bill C-282, which was passed by the House almost a year and a half ago. This bill would prevent any future government from creating new breaches in the supply management system for farmers in Quebec. That is crucial. These are real issues facing real people, not the frenzied spectacle that the Conservatives are putting on today.

Voting in favour of the Conservatives' motion would be irresponsible and unworthy of the mandate Quebeckers gave us to defend them. As members of Parliament, our work is to represent and defend our constituents. That is why we were elected.

The Conservatives' motion has nothing to do with any issue whatsoever. In fact, the Conservatives' motion is just a game. We have all seen the polls, and we know that the current government is nearing its end. What is more, we are eager to ask Quebeckers again for their support. We have always done everything we can to show them we are worthy of their trust. That is what we are doing once again today. Given the results of the LaSalle—Émard—Verdun by-election, we have nothing to fear on that account.

However, it is far from certain that a new government will be for the best. Every time the Conservative Party talks about public policy, it is to ask for the elimination of the carbon tax outside Quebec. There is absolutely nothing for Quebeckers in that.

Claiming that the Bloc Québécois has become friends with the federal Liberals is just nonsense. We trust Quebeckers, but the House of Commons and the federal government are controlled by Canadians. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois has no faith in any government in the federal system. Today's motion would have us choose between the Liberals and the Conservatives in Canada, but we choose Quebec. We want more for Quebec. Right now, we are trying to help our people. Then we will decide if it is worth it, but not today.

A majority of the House of Commons passed Bill C-319 in principle. After a detailed study of the text, the committee unanimously returned it to the House of Commons for final passage, which could happen within the next few weeks.

There is, however, a problem. Since the bill involves spending, the government has veto rights. We are asking the government to lift its veto and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319 so Parliament can pass it at third reading. In committee, the members from all parties voted in favour of the bill. However, today, when it comes time to buckle down and implement the bill, the Liberals and Conservatives appear to be hesitating. I remind you that the first part of the bill aims to eliminate discrimination based on age. Let us put an end to this unacceptable inequity.

In the 2021 budget, the Liberals created two classes of seniors. People aged 75 and over saw their pension increase by 10%. People between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. It is time to put an end to this. I am not the only one saying it: Every seniors' group I have talked to in my two-year tour agrees. I see my colleagues. I met with seniors in Mirabel, Terrebonne and Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Everyone agrees, including the people at FADOQ. Enough is enough. Let us put an end to this unacceptable inequity. Let us give the government one last chance. We must seek royal recommendation for the dignity of seniors.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford.

In 2021, the people made a choice. Canadians and Quebeckers chose a minority government. It was simply a renewal of what was in place between 2019 and 2021. I was leader at the time, and I can say that things were going well. For two years, we negotiated and discussed. Despite COVID‑19, I thought we worked well together and our approach succeeded in improving life for Quebeckers.

Then, the NDP and the Liberals cobbled together a majority with no respect for what had happened during the election. That is when the attacks on Quebec and on provincial jurisdictions began. For the first time in history, excessive centralization became a fact of life. Despite its difficulty in managing its own responsibilities, this government started poking its nose into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. In the meantime, the NDP were doing cartwheels, wild with delight, claiming that it was the right thing to do considering the NDP's dream of seeing the provinces disappear. The New Democrats, as Mr. Duceppe once said, are just Liberals in a hurry.

Now, the situation has revolved back to the one we anticipated during the 2021 election, a minority government. One thing is very strange, however. The NDP, self-proclaimed champions of the environment, forged ties with a government that spent $83 billion on dirty oil from western Canada. The NDP supported that government. Someone will have to explain that to me, as well.

Let us return to the topic at hand. For three weeks now, the government has found itself in a true minority status. The Bloc Québécois will try to increase its influence over this government. The Bloc will try to negotiate in an effort to make things better for Quebeckers. What is good for Quebec is good for the Bloc Québécois. That is what we believed, and we have been shouting it from the rooftops.

There is a list of things we would like to accomplish.

First, there is Bill C‑319, which will definitively put an end to this government's discriminatory treatment of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

Another priority of ours is to ensure that the bill on quotas receives royal assent so that protection is built into international agreements. There are 6,000 Quebec businesses and 100,000 workers that depend on this bill in part. We will work to finally get that bill passed and implemented.

Another important issue is distribution of asylum seekers. The government, which finally issued its mea culpa, must offer a solution that allows Quebeckers to catch their breath. It must enhance the services offered to all Quebeckers and to newcomers as well, so that they receive better service from this government. That is the position of the Bloc Québécois

Now we have this Conservative motion is before us. The Conservatives say that it is the best new thing since sliced bread, but at some point we will all have to wake up and realize that this motion, which arrived in week two of this session and in week three of this newly minority government, has come upon us awfully fast. We in the Bloc could choose to trigger elections. In an upset last week we captured a stronghold riding, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. We have the wind in our sails, and that is the truth. We have been at the top of the polls for some time now. We are potentially in a position to make gains.

Like excited poodles hearing their owner come home, we could pull the trigger on elections. The reason we in the Bloc Québécois are exercising restraint is that our goal is not to improve our own situation. Although our members, candidates and apparatus are all ready, we are here for Quebeckers. Our work is to do what is best for them at this time, and that happens to be establishing a dialogue with a minority government, which has to reach agreements with the various opposition parties. Obviously, there is no agreement possible with the Conservative Party, so that leaves the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

That is one of the reasons why we will be voting against this motion. The second reason is that there will be plenty of non-confidence votes between now and Christmas, and we see no need to hit the ground running. We will have plenty of opportunities. What we are saying is that we should give them a chance. And by “them”, we mean the Liberals. They take their sweet time on occasion, but we are going to give them a chance to show us they can earn our confidence, or, more precisely, Quebeckers' confidence. Needless to say, this is a limited-time offer. As I was saying, this government has one year left, at most. That, then, is the second reason why we will be voting against this motion. To recap, the first reason is that we want to make gains for Quebec and the second is that there is no rush; there will be other votes between now and Christmas. According to our calculations, there will be five to seven votes following this one.

There is a third reason why we will be voting against this motion. We are watching the Conservatives talk and we are not exactly convinced we want to see them take power that quickly. When we hear the Leader of the Opposition, a compulsive sloganeer if there ever was one—I mean, he spits out slogans like there is no tomorrow—we see that he basically says nothing. He offers no solutions, only slogans. We do not find this reassuring. When we listen to him speak and ask the Conservatives whether they have a plan for Quebec, their answer is no, they do not have a plan for Quebec. As far as they are concerned, Quebeckers are Canadians, and if Canadians find reasons to vote for them, Quebeckers will too. Does the idea of a distinct society ring a bell with them?

In some cases our position in Quebec differs from Canada's. There is a reason the Bloc Québécois is here. The Conservatives say it is no big deal that they are not doing anything special for Quebec. I asked the Conservatives' Quebec lieutenant if the Conservatives had a plan. He seemed taken aback by the idea of having a plan. Ten seconds later, he woke up and I heard him say with a straight face: There is no plan for Quebec, what is good for Canadians is good for Quebeckers.

We might wonder what the Quebec lieutenant is good for. What a useless role that is, being the Conservatives' Quebec lieutenant, honestly. When people want to know what the Conservatives' position is on Quebec, that is no way to handle it. The slogan king is going to start to say just about anything. It is time to limit discussions: simple question, simple answer. Otherwise, everyone gets mixed up. Even his Quebec MPs are often confused because they would like him to say things about Quebec, but the things he says are never good.

The Conservative leader just told us that they are not centralists like the Liberals. In the same breath, he says that mayors are idiots and that he is going to cut housing funds unless they do things the Conservatives' way. However, they claim they are not centralists. What else could it be called? They say they are not centralists, but they support the third link in Quebec City. If Quebeckers want a tramway instead, they will not get a cent from the federal government. A large part of the federal government's money, however, comes from Quebec. In that case, it should be returned to Quebeckers. But no, the Conservatives do not believe in public transit. They prefer a third link, but they are not centralists, not a bit.

The Act respecting the laicity of the State is universally supported in Quebec. There are some Quebecker who are against secularism, but almost all of them say that it is up to Quebeckers to decide and that the federal government should mind its own business. Instead, here is what the federal government is doing: It is using tax dollars collected from Quebeckers to hire lawyers to take the Government of Quebec to court over this law. When we tell the Conservative leader that he should oppose the government challenging a law that was democratically passed by the Quebec National Assembly, his response is that he, too, would challenge that law. What then is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives?

Let us talk a bit about health transfers. Quebec has made request after request. The Liberal government put together an agreement that really upset Quebeckers. They were going ballistic and coming to blows on buses. One would think maybe the Conservatives would do better, but no. They are saying that they think that the health agreement is fine the way it is.

I could go on for a long time. However, the idea of replacing the Liberal government with a Conservative one is not all that enticing. What would it take? It is not—

Seniors

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

Mr. Speaker, we will say it again. The Bloc Québécois votes against all interference against Quebec, whether it is on its own or mixed into a tasteless salad.

The Liberals voted for Bill C‑319; let them take responsibility and implement the legislation so that retirees are no longer the victims of an injustice they created. I may vote a little less often, but I am voting a little more intelligently and consistently.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑319 is a Bloc Québécois bill that eliminates discrimination in the retirement benefits granted to seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and over. It allows them to earn $6,500 instead of $5,000 without losing the guaranteed income supplement.

In committee, the Liberals voted in favour of the bill, the Conservatives voted in favour of the bill and the NDP voted in favour of the bill. Now we need to ensure that the bill is implemented with something called a royal recommendation. Will the Liberals secure the royal recommendation and help seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to answer the leader of the official opposition's questions, but I will answer them with this. His party came fourth in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, with 12% of the vote.

That said, nothing has changed, except that we will have to make room for one more seat. We continue to work on the seniors file. Will the government follow through on its vote in favour of Bill C-319 and implement this legislation, which everyone in the House voted for?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I went all over Quebec again this summer to talk about Bill C-319. Everyone agrees that it is unfair that seniors aged 74 and under receive 10% less than other seniors. Everyone except the Liberals agrees that grocery bills do not discriminate based on age.

That is why this is a key issue for the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers understand the problem. Quebeckers understand what we are doing.

Will the Liberals finally understand this as well and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's demand is simple: We want the House to pass our Bill C-319, which would increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 64 to 74 by 10%. It is so simple and it makes so much sense that all of the parties supported our bill in committee. All that is missing is the will of the government.

Since all the parties agree that we should increase the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74, will the government do the right thing and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319?

Main Estimates 2024-25

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of people who need help, my colleague just mentioned families. However, another group that needs help is seniors, and something that they are calling for is the passage of Bill C-319, which his party supported both in the House and in committee.

There are people who need extra help, and that includes seniors. Of course, families need help, but seniors are also asking to be treated fairly. The government decided to only increase the pensions of seniors aged 75 and up, but financial insecurity does not wait for people to turn 75. Seniors are asking for a little more old age security income.

Does my colleague still support this bill, as his party has from the start?

Online Harms Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to speak in front of the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who does outstanding work and who just gave a wonderful speech. I will see what I can add to it. I may get a little more technical than she did. She spoke from the heart, as usual, and I commend her for that. I also want to thank her for her shout-out to Bill C-319. People are still talking to me about Bill C‑319, because seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 feel forgotten. We will continue this debate over the summer. In anticipation of this bill's eventual return before the House, we will continue to try to raise public awareness of the important issue of increasing old age security by 10% for all seniors.

I have gotten a bit off today's topic. I am the critic for seniors, but I am also the critic for status of women, and it is more in that capacity that I am rising today to speak to Bill C-63. This is an issue that I hear a lot about. Many groups reach out to me about hate speech. They are saying that women are disproportionately affected. That was the theme that my colleague from Drummond and I chose on March 8 of last year. We are calling for better control over hate speech out of respect for women who are the victims of serious violence online. It is important that we have a bill on this subject. It took a while, but I will come back to that.

Today we are discussing the famous Bill C‑63, the online harms act, “whose purpose is to, among other things, promote the online safety of persons in Canada, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online and ensure that the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act”. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice. I will provide a bit of context. I will then talk a bit more about the bill. I will close with a few of the Bloc Québécois's proposals.

To begin, I would like to say that Bill C‑63 should have been introduced much sooner. The Liberals promised to legislate against online hate. As members know, in June 2021, during the second session of the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals tabled Bill C-36, which was a first draft that laid out their intentions. This bill faced criticism, so they chose to let it die on the Order Paper. In July 2021, the government launched consultations on a new regulatory framework for online safety. It then set up an expert advisory group to help it draft a new bill. We saw that things were dragging on, so in 2022 we again asked about bringing back the bill. We wanted the government to keep its promises. This bill comes at a time when tensions are high and discourse is strained, particularly because of the war between Israel and Hamas. Some activists fear that hate speech will be used to silence critics. The Minister of Justice defended himself by saying that the highest level of proof would have to be produced before a conviction could be handed down.

Second, I would like to go back over a few aspects of the bill. Under this bill, operators who refuse to comply with the law, or who refuse to comply with the commission's decision, could face fines of up to 8% of their overall gross revenues, or $25 million, the highest fine, depending on the nature of the offence. Bill C‑63 increases the maximum penalties for hate crimes. It even includes a definition of hate as the “emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The bill addresses that. This legislation includes tough new provisions stipulating that a person who commits a hate-motivated crime, under any federal law, can be sentenced to life in prison. Even more surprising, people can file a complaint before a provincial court judge if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is going to commit one of these offences.

Bill C-63 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to receive complaints regarding the communication of hate speech. Individuals found guilty could be subject to an order. Private conversations are excluded from the communication of hate speech. There are all kinds of things like that to examine more closely. As my colleague explained, this bill contains several parts, each with its own elements. Certain aspects will need a closer look in committee.

Bill C-63 also updates the definition of “Internet service”. The law requires Internet service providers to “notify the law enforcement body designated by the regulations...as soon as feasible and in accordance with the regulations” if they have “reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence”.

Bill C-63 tackles two major scourges of the digital world, which I have already discussed. The first is non-consensual pornographic material or child pornography, and the second is hate speech.

The provisions to combat child pornography and the distribution of non-consensual pornographic material are generally positive. The Bloc Québécois supports them. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports part 1 of the bill.

On the other hand, some provisions of Bill C‑63 to fight against hate are problematic. The Bloc Québécois fears, as my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît explained, that the provisions of Bill C‑63 might unnecessarily restrict freedom of expression. We want to remind the House that Quebec already debated the subject in 2015. Bill 59, which sought to counter radicalization, was intended to sanction hate speech. Ultimately, Quebec legislators concluded that giving powers to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, as Bill C‑63 would have us do with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, would do more harm than good. The Bloc Québécois is going with the consensus in Quebec on this. It believes that the Criminal Code provisions are more than sufficient to fight against hate speech. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is representing the consensus in Quebec and reiterating it here in the House.

Third, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that Bill C‑63 be divided so that we can debate part 1 separately, as I explained. This is a critical issue. Internet pornography has a disproportionate effect on children, minors and women, and we need to protect them. This part targets sexual content. Online platforms are also targeted in the other parts.

We believe that the digital safety commission must be established as quickly as possible to provide support and recourse for those who are trying to have content about them removed from platforms. We have to help them. By dividing Bill C‑63, we would be able to debate and reach a consensus on part 1 more quickly.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 also contain provisions about hate speech. That is a bit more complex. Part 1 of the bill is well structured. It forces social media operators, including platforms that distribute pornographic material, such as Pornhub, to take measures to increase the security of digital environments. In order to do so, the bill requires social media operators to act responsibly. All of that is very positive.

Part 1 also talks about allowing users to report harmful content to operators based on seven categories defined by the law, so that it can be removed. We want Bill C-63 to be tougher on harmful content, meaning content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent. As we have already seen, this has serious consequences for victims with related PTSD. We need to take action.

However, part 2 of the bill is more problematic, because it amends the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences for hate crimes. The Bloc Québécois finds it hard to see how increasing maximum sentences for this type of crime will have any effect and how it is justified. Introducing a provision that allows life imprisonment for any hate-motivated federal offence is puzzling.

Furthermore, part 2 provides that a complaint can be made against someone when there is a fear they may commit a hate crime, and orders can be made against that person. However, as explained earlier, there are already sections of the Criminal Code that deal with these situations. This part is therefore problematic.

Part 3 allows an individual to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for speech that foments hate, including online speech. As mentioned, the Bloc Québécois has concerns that these provisions may be used to silence ideological opponents.

Part 4 states that Internet service providers must notify the appropriate authority if they suspect that their services are being used for child pornography purposes. In short, this part should also be studied.

In conclusion, the numbers are alarming. According to Statistics Canada, violent hate crimes have increased each year since 2015. Between 2015 and 2021, the total number of victims of violent hate crimes increased by 158%. The Internet is contributing to the surge in hate. However, if we want to take serious action, I think it is important to split Bill C‑63. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for a long time. Part 1 is important, but parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be studied separately in committee.

I would like to acknowledge all the work accomplished on this issue by my colleagues. Specifically, I am referring to the member for Drummond, the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We really must take action.

This is an important issue that the Bloc Québécois has been working on for a very long time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized to share my time with the hon. member for Shefford, who does essential work for the Bloc Québécois on issues having to do with seniors. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government that Bill C‑319, which was introduced by my colleague, was unanimously adopted in committee with good reason. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% starting at age 65 and change the way to guaranteed income supplement is calculated to benefit seniors.

There is a lot of talk about that in my riding. This bill is coming back to the House and the government should make a commitment at some point. We are asking the government to give royal assent to Bill C‑319. In other words, if the bill is blocked again, seniors will understand that the Liberals are once again abandoning them. I am passionate about the cause of seniors, and so I wanted to use my speech on Bill C‑63 to make a heartfelt plea on behalf of seniors in Quebec and to commend my colleague from Shefford for her work.

Today we are debating Bill C‑63, which amends a number of laws to tackle two major digital scourges, specifically child pornography, including online child pornography, and hate speech. This legislation was eagerly awaited. We were surprised that it took the government so long to introduce it.

We have been waiting a long time for this bill, especially part 1. The Bloc Québécois has been waiting a long time for such a bill to protect our children and people who are abused and bullied and whose reputations are jeopardized because of all the issues related to pornography. We agree with part 1 of the bill. We even made an offer to the minister. We agree with it so completely, and I believe there is a consensus about that across the House, that I think we should split the bill and pass the first part before the House rises. That way, we could implement everything needed to protect our children, teens and young adults who are currently going through difficult experiences that can change their lives and have a significant negative impact on them.

We agree that parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be discussed and debated, because the whole hate speech component of the bill is important. We agree with the minister on that. It is very important. What is currently happening on the Internet and online is unacceptable. We need to take action, but reaching an agreement on how to deal with this issue is not that easy. We need time and we need to debate it amongst ourselves.

The Bloc Québécois has a list of witnesses who could enlighten us on how we can improve the situation. We would like to hear from experts who could help us pass the best bill possible in order to protect the public, citizens and groups when it comes to the whole issue of hate speech. We also wonder why the minister, in part 2 of his bill, which deals with hate speech, omitted to include the two clauses of the bill introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly. I am talking about Bill C-367, which proposed removing the protection afforded under the Criminal Code to people who engage in hate speech on a religious basis.

We are wondering why the minister did not take the opportunity to add these clauses to his bill. These are questions that we have because to us, offering this protection is out of the question. It is out of the question to let someone use religion as an excuse to make gestures, accusations or even very threatening comments on the Internet under these sections of the Criminal Code. We are asking the minister to listen. The debates in the House and in committee are very polarized right now.

It would be extremely sad and very disappointing if we passed this bill so quickly that there was no time to debate it in order to improve it and make it the best bill it can be.

I can say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill at second reading. As I said, it is a complex bill. We made a proposal to the Prime Minister. We wrote to him and the leader. We also talked to the Minister of Justice to tell him to split the bill as soon as possible. That way, we could quickly protect the survivors who testified at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the other Parliament. These people said that their life is unbearable, and they talked about the consequences they are suffering from being victims of sites such as Pornhub. They were used without their consent. Intimate images of them were posted without their consent. We are saying that we need to protect the people currently going through this by quickly adopting part 1. The committee could then study part 2 and hear witnesses.

I know that the member for Drummond and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this idea during committee of the whole on May 23. They tried to convince the minister, but he is still refusing to split the bill. We think that is a very bad idea. We want to repeat our offer. We do not really understand why he is so reluctant to do so. There is nothing partisan about what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. Our focus is on protecting victims on various platforms.

In closing, I know that the leaders are having discussions to finalize when the House will rise for the summer. Maybe fast-tracking a bill like this one could be part of the negotiations. However, I repeat that we are appealing to the Minister of Justice's sense of responsibility. I know he cares a lot about victims and their cause. We are sincerely asking him to postpone the passage of parts 2, 3 and 4, so that we can have more time to debate them in committee. Most importantly, we want to pass part 1 before the House rises for the summer so that we can protect people who are going through a really hard time right now because their private lives have been exposed online and they cannot get web platforms to taken down their image, their photo or photos of their private parts.

We are appealing to the minister's sense of responsibility.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House one day to say that the Prime Minister and I finally agree on a constitutional issue. A careful reading of this budget makes it clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are no longer federalists. Like the Bloc Québécois, they now oppose the idea of dividing responsibilities between the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and those of the House of Commons.

Let us take a closer look at the definition of federalism. According to the late Benoît Pelletier, the hallmark of a federation is that federal institutions have sovereignty in their areas of jurisdiction, while the provinces have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction. We in the Bloc Québécois do not subscribe to Canadian federalism, but since our party was created, we have always fought to protect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction until Quebec becomes independent. How could anyone conclude that the Liberals still believe in Canadian federalism after seeing the dozens of encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions featured in this budget?

That means that most members in this House do not believe in Canadian federalism. That is great news. However, rest assured that is where the similarities end. The Liberal Party is running a country that is unable to provide passports within a reasonable period of time, unable to make sure its public servants get paid and even unable to properly equip an invaded ally without neutralizing its own army's capabilities. This same party is now claiming that it wants to show the provinces and Quebec how to manage their health care systems, for instance.

The Liberals have interfered so much that they have run out of areas to infringe upon. If the Prime Minister loses a a few more points in the polls, will he suggest changing the code of conduct for child care centres or will he interfere in how Hydro-Québec operates? Oh, wait. He has already done that. Believe it or not, when the Bloc Québécois comes up with its pre-budget requests, we do our homework and we request things that actually fall under federal jurisdiction.

Here is what we asked for. We asked for the federal government to give Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation from any new federal program in areas under the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Obviously, that is not in the budget. We also asked for the federal government to increase old age security starting at age 65, which is what my esteemed colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 seeks to do. Obviously, that is not in the budget either.

We also asked the government to put an immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies, including tax measures, and to support clean, renewable energy instead. Everyone knows that tax credits are a pretty deceptive way of subsidizing an industry that is already very rich and that is making billions in profits on the backs of taxpayers. It is actually very difficult to figure out exactly how much those tax credits are worth. Obviously, this budget does not end fossil fuel subsidies.

We had another request as well. We asked the government to pay Quebec what it owes for asylum seekers. That is certainly not in the budget. Quebec is still asking for the $900 million it spent welcoming asylum seekers after the feds opened the borders. Quebec welcomed them and worked hard to integrate them, but we are still waiting to be reimbursed.

Lastly, Quebec asked the government to transfer the housing budget. The federal government is unfortunately taking over in the housing crisis. Instead of transferring the money to Quebec and the provinces, the federal government is now imposing conditions, not only on Quebec and the provinces, but also on municipalities. For example, it wants to impose conditions related to density around college and university campuses. That is direct interference in municipalities' jurisdiction over city planning. That is next-level jurisdictional encroachment.

Let me recap what is in this budget, because none of the Bloc Québécois's requests are there. On April 16, the Government of Canada tabled its budget. First, it mentions a negative budgetary balance of $40 billion for 2023-24, $39.8 billion for 2024-25 and $38.9 billion for 2025-26, which is not that far off. The trend continues before reaching a projected deficit of $20 billion in 2028-29. The government is therefore choosing to rack up debt for itself, for Canadians and for Quebeckers in the years to come, of course, with no plan to balance the budget, which is alarming. The government is therefore deciding to tax the public more, as with the increased capital gains tax. However, it is taking on as much debt as ever. I laid out the figures. Our debt remains the same. The government is going to get a little more money, but it is going to keep taking on more debt.

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I want to commend my NDP colleague for initiating this debate on a guaranteed livable basic income.

We need to know how to recognize the social issues in our society, such as guaranteeing everyone enough income to live. In Quebec, there are studies that talk about a livable income, which is more than a minimum income. This type of income is supported by Quebec's Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques. That, too, is an interesting concept. No matter what region a person lives in, they need more than just a basic income. That is where the concept of livable income comes from. We addressed this issue during the study of Bill C‑319, which pertains to seniors.

All that to say, I do not believe that prosperity alone will bring about equality or equity. It takes robust social measures to ensure income equality in our societies.

As many know, no matter what it is called, be it guaranteed minimum income or universal allowance, this idea is not just being championed by the left. The right has also has also used it in its own way, saying we should dismantle social programs and give everyone a basic income. That, too, is a vision.

In Quebec, similar discussions have taken place regularly, particularly since the 1960s, when labour activists promoted them. Then the pandemic hit and nine million jobs suddenly vanished, laying bare just how fragile the system is. EI used to be a social safety net, but sadly, it no longer plays that role. During that time, we saw just how many people fell through the cracks.

These debates are ongoing in Quebec, in the other Canadians provinces and internationally. In Quebec, as I said, we have been having this debate since the 1960s.

Sorry about the noisy papers.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 is currently at committee stage.

We in the Bloc Québécois want just and equitable social safety nets. That is why we are calling on Ottawa to strengthen its own social safety net programs.

As far as old age security is concerned, Canada is currently faring poorly among the OECD countries. Moreover, the federal government has seen fit to increase old age security by 10% for people 75 years and over, excluding those who qualify for OAS upon turning 65. Those seniors are getting no support and no increase.

That is a disgrace.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like his opinion on a certain budget matter. Nothing in this budget addresses the situation facing our seniors by trying to correct what was done before. In fact, the government created two classes of seniors: Those aged 65 to 75 and those 75 and over.

Bill C‑319, however, was studied, unanimously passed in committee and sent back to the House last March. It is awaiting a third reading, passage through the Senate and royal assent. I would like to know whether my colleague and his party plan to vote in favour of Bill C-319 so that it can be passed quickly.

Otherwise, if the Conservative Party were to form the next government, what position would it take on the situation of seniors?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the member justify the fact that he voted in the House in favour of Bill C‑319, which gives seniors over the age of 65 an increase in their old age security pension, yet there is nothing to that effect in the budget? The budget talks about housing, and seniors also have difficulty finding affordable housing.

How can he justify the fact that his government, after voting in favour of the bill in the House, did not bother to eliminate this discrimination, this double standard for seniors, even though that was part of the budget expectations we presented to the minister? What was he waiting for?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague praising the budget, but I would rather talk about the people who were completely overlooked in this budget. I would even say that it adds insult to injury.

Not only did the government still not budget for the increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74, as urgently called for by the Bloc Québécois in a pre-budget request, not only did it fail to allocate funding for Bill C-319, but there is nothing for seniors.

No, I do not want to hear about measures for housing. These measures for housing are not aimed specifically at seniors. Seniors have specific requests. There is nothing in this budget for them. They have been overlooked. This only adds insult to injury.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to an issue that my colleague touched on in his speech, which is the vulnerable situation seniors are in. I would like to come back to it because, this morning, in the House, I had the honour of tabling the report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. At that committee, my colleague's party and all the parties in the room unanimously recognized that we need to increase old age security for seniors. This could actually put money back into seniors' wallets and pockets.

Does he support his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities who voted for Bill C-319?

Will he continue to pressure the Liberals, not just on the carbon tax, but to think about other solutions to help people in vulnerable situations, including seniors, by increasing old age security for all seniors and address this inequity between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over?

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, concerning Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding the amount of the full pension, which I and all the members of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, are advocating for.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendment.

I sincerely thank the committee for its work and for allowing me to present the report this morning.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, members from all parties—Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc—unanimously voted to do away with two classes of seniors when it comes to receiving old age security.

Members will recall that the government had decided to limit benefit increases to those aged 75 and over only. In committee, MPs from all parties voted to do away with this terrible idea. Now, the government just needs to give royal recommendation so that we can do away with these two classes of seniors.

Will the government give royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I are both on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, so we work together on issues relating to the status of women.

Another file that interests both of us is seniors. She is her party's critic for seniors. We have had a number of very interesting conversations. I completely agree with what she said on the subject. This economic update lacks measures for seniors. There is nothing in it for them. The Bloc Québécois has long been asking the government to do something for seniors. That is one of the Bloc's priorities, and it is one of the things we have asked for in economic updates and budgets. Seniors have been getting poorer and poorer for too long.

Next week, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will begin its study of Bill C‑319.

Will the Conservative Party actually do what seniors are asking them to do, seniors like the ones from Saguenay and Chicoutimi that I met with just last week? They want the House to pass Bill C‑319 to make things fairer for seniors. They do not want seniors to be divided into two classes, those under 75 and those 75 and over.

Fall Economic Statement

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can agree today that the word urgent does not come to mind after this economic statement.

The situation for our local media is urgent. Last week in my riding I went to Sherbrooke, where the media were gathered and calling on the government to take action. There is nothing.

The homelessness situation is urgent. This week, Granby is organizing a forum on social housing. These people do not need to be dumped on or for the government to interfere in their jurisdiction. They will come up with solutions. The government should have contributed its share of the effort for housing within its own jurisdiction.

The Canada emergency business account repayment situation is urgent. I am getting ready to go out with the Haute‑Yamaska chamber of commerce and industry. The NDP said that it also wanted this measure to help our businesses get through next year to prevent 20% to 30% of bankruptcies.

The situation for seniors is also urgent. The NDP voted in favour of my Bill C‑319, which called on the government to do something in this inflationary context where seniors on a fixed income are especially affected. They needed help. Every senior 65 and over should be getting a higher pension.

My NDP colleague supported my last two points. Where in the fiscal update are the CEBA repayment issue and the seniors issue, if the NDP managed to negotiate something with the government?

Pensions

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a majority of members in the House voted to support Bill C‑319 in principle. The bill endeavours to end the two-tiered approach to old age security benefits. All seniors who are 65 years of age or more require more help from the federal government to cope with runaway inflation and their drastically reduced purchasing power.

The outstanding contributions that seniors have made to developing Quebec and Canada cannot be overstated. At a time when they need the federal government's support, they are separated into two classes: the one that we help and the other that we turn our backs on. The lack of acknowledgement and compassion this shows is appalling.

The battle for Bill C‑319 is not over, but a first step has been taken. If the government pays attention to the work ahead, it will hear what seniors have to say, their complaints and their calls for help, and it may finally see reason. We hope so. We are heading in the right direction. The only thing missing is support from the Liberals.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. If seniors were satisfied with the federal government, groups representing them such as AREQ, the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale and the Table de concertation des aînés du Québec would not be on the Hill today. They are here to ask the government to support Bill C‑319. Seniors themselves are the ones telling us that Bill C‑319 will make a difference in their lives. They are the ones saying that only a fair pension increase for all seniors will get them out of their precarious situation. That is what seniors expect from the Liberals.

Will they finally listen and support Bill C‑319?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals committed a serious injustice when they created two classes of seniors by refusing to increase the old age pension for seniors 65 to 74. Today, they have an historic opportunity to correct this injustice that they created. They can ensure that every senior is treated fairly in light of the spike in the cost of living and the economic uncertainty.

Will they support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑319 and end the two classes of seniors by increasing the pension for all seniors 65 and over?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives' concern. I agree that we need firm control of our public finances. Obviously, predictability is a must.

However, we also need to recognize that some people require extra support because of inflation. Apart from the carbon tax, what seniors want, especially those who are affected by inflation, is a 10% increase in old age security benefits for all seniors starting at age 65. The Conservative critic for seniors said it was unfair not to provide the 10% increase to all seniors at age 65.

I am reaching out to my colleague and urging her to take the first step and provide a little extra help to seniors in need. I am asking her to vote for Bill C‑319 tomorrow.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her speech, my colleague mentioned how important it is to support people. We can all agree on the need for better control of the public purse, but we have to recognize that inflation affects some people more than others.

I am reaching out to my colleague. Tomorrow, there will be an important vote on Bill C-319, which would increase old age security for every senior 65 and older. Groups in Quebec have been asking for this. I visited them all this summer. I keep getting letters of support for this bill. Tomorrow, my colleague will have an opportunity. I do not want to hear any administrative arguments worthy of a banana republic. Last time, I heard someone argue that OAS could not be increased for everyone at age 65, that it was impossible because it had just been increased for people 75 and older, so technically, there would be no way to increase it for people starting at age 65. What kind of nonsense is that? OAS is available to every senior starting at age 65.

I hope my colleague will seize that opportunity tomorrow and vote for the bill.

Criminal Code

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to once again speak to this bill. I already spoke to it at second reading, and I want to reiterate what I said at that time: The Bloc Québécois intends to support Bill C‑295.

This bill warranted review in committee. It should be passed and brought into force as quickly as possible. Negligence toward anyone in our life is wrong. Negligence toward our seniors and most vulnerable is shameful.

Our seniors were the victims of terrible treatment during the 2020-22 lockdown. They were often abandoned in institutions with a lack of services, a lack of staff or staff who were ill equipped. They were shuffled from one institution to another. They were considered to be in the margins, people we did not need to take care of like they deserved. They were cut off from their loved ones. Many of them died without even having their close family, children or spouse with them. That is unacceptable. Often, they were not properly fed or fed at irregular hours. They were mistreated.

Collectively, our behaviour was unbecoming. We were like ungrateful children. This must never ever happen again. In Quebec, we have legislation to address this issue, an Act to combat maltreatment of seniors and other persons of full age in vulnerable situations. I mentioned earlier that I hoped that the federal government would model its legislation on the Quebec law, and I think it did so in some regards.

Bill C‑295, which has been moved for adoption, was amended in committee. That is why we wanted to study it in committee. There were things in the bill that bothered us. We worked hard in committee, and I thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the work we did. Many, if not all, of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois were adopted. Now we have a bill that seeks to improve living conditions for our seniors and the most vulnerable among us, whether by reason of age, illness, mental disorder or disability. I think that it does us credit to think of these people during our deliberations here in the House.

These people will now be protected when they live in long-term care facilities. Situations like the ones that occurred between 2020 and 2022 were already prohibited and liable to prosecution. Now, both the owners and the officers of long-term care facilities will be personally responsible for providing necessaries of life to residents of the facilities. Again, we are talking about seniors and people with disabilities or mental disorders, people who are sick. They need us. We needed them at one time. Now, they are the ones who need us. It is wrong not to take care of them.

I therefore welcome this bill with a certain amount of pride. I hope it is not used to prosecute people for contravening its provisions, but rather to encourage them to respect what is now enshrined in law and what should be the minimum we are required to do for some of our most vulnerable citizens. One of the main responsibilities of any government or society is to treat seniors with dignity, respect and fairness. Bill C-295 tells us that we must do just that. We cannot be negligent toward our seniors or toward people who need us without being subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code.

That is not all. Their economic well-being also deserves attention. The federal government must provide the transfers that the provinces have been demanding for far too long now. These transfers are necessary for Quebec and the other provinces to properly administer health care services. In response, the federal government tells us that it intends to set conditions on its transfers and dictate the way we care for the less fortunate. Where, when and how this should be done, the federal government has no idea. The federal government does not manage any hospitals, long-term care homes or health facilities, except those catering to veterans.

The expertise exists not in Ottawa, but in Quebec City. I think that setting conditions on health transfers is outrageous. It does not mean that seniors in long-term care are going without food or baths. It means that the people in charge of these health services are being deprived of the financial means they need to meet the needs of these citizens properly. That is also unacceptable. I think that if the federal government and Parliament want to look into the well-being of the less fortunate, economic aspects should not be overlooked. We have been talking about this for years, and I am fairly certain the talking is not over. I would be very surprised if cheques were sent out next week, but I can promise that we will be there keeping an eye on things. The health care system matters.

That is not all. There are health transfers, but there is also the economic well-being of seniors. As we saw recently, the federal government decided to make seniors aged 65 to 75 poorer. The government acknowledged that needs had increased. God knows they have, and quite a bit more than the government was willing to acknowledge. It gave a 10% increase to seniors aged 75 and over, while leaving retired seniors aged 65 to 75 to fend for themselves. However, all of our laws recognize that people in that age bracket are seniors. This is an unacceptable decision, one we have also frequently criticized in the House, and we will continue to do so.

We have an opportunity to fix this inequity. My colleague, the member for Shefford, is sponsoring Bill C-319, which we will have to vote on in the near future, probably when we return from the parliamentary break week or before the holidays. We hope it will be as soon as possible.

On the one hand, the bill proposes to increase pensions by 10% for all seniors aged 65 and over, across the board, regardless of their age, sex or race. Everyone who is 65 or over and living in Canada should be entitled to the 10% increase. People know very well, as I do, that the 10% increase does not even come close to covering the added economic burden resting on our seniors' shoulders. Groceries cost nearly twice as much and rents are skyrocketing. We are having to strike committees to look into the issue. We are out of ideas for how to stem these increases. Seniors are getting a 10% increase, which is not much at all, so the least we can do is give it to all seniors.

On the other hand, Bill C‑319 also proposes to increase from $5,000 to $6,500 the maximum income a retiree can earn with no penalty clawed back from their pension. That, too, seems reasonable to me. It is the least we can do. We want to tell people that they have a right to their pension, but should they decide to work a little to make ends meet, we will not penalize them for it. I think it would be shameful to penalize them when the pension we are giving them amounts to crumbs.

We can talk about Bill C‑295 and the need for us to properly take care of the most vulnerable, seniors, people with intellectual deficiencies, the sick and persons with disabilities in our long-term care facilities. We can talk about transferring money to the provinces and Quebec that is needed to provide adequate health care services in our hospitals and we can talk about the need to provide equitable and basic economic conditions to seniors. In any case, we are talking about taking care of the least fortunate among us. It does not seem right to have to talk about it here. This is something we should be doing, no questions asked, without even having to vote. This should already be in effect. Let us hope this gets done.

In closing, I would remind the House that a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Let us prove ourselves worthy of our seniors. Let us prove ourselves worthy of the benefits of the society in which we live.

National Seniors Day

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, October 1, we will celebrate the International Day of Older Persons and National Seniors Day.

The purpose of this day is to raise public awareness about issues related to seniors, such as aging and abuse. It is an important day on the calendar to appreciate the contributions that seniors make to society.

This year in particular, it is also an opportunity to take an important step toward helping seniors by eliminating age discrimination. Next week, we will debate the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑319.

The bill will correct an inequity between people aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over by increasing old age security for all seniors. In the context of inflation, people living on a fixed income, such as seniors, are among those who pay the highest price. Ottawa needs to correct its error.

Let us not miss this opportunity. Let us set partisanship aside and vote for Bill C‑319.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, I would like to express my firm commitment to protecting and respecting the rights of the elderly.

About one in six people over the age of 60 suffered some form of abuse in 2022. Elder abuse is a worrying reality that requires a collective response. There are many types of elder abuse, including ageism, one of the most common forms of discrimination.

With Bill C‑319, which I introduced, we hope to break down this age barrier by increasing old age security for all seniors starting at 65.

This is an important day in Quebec, which already has an action plan to fight elder abuse. Greater health transfers would help Quebec do more.

We must work together to create a society that respects and protects seniors. Let us wear our purple ribbons today and commit to promoting the dignity and well-being of seniors.

Bill C-319—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the deputy House leader of the government on April 19, 2023, regarding Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford.

In a statement concerning Private Members’ Business on March 30, 2023, the Chair invited members to make arguments regarding the need for this bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In her statement, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-319 would increase the amount of the full pension for Canadians aged 65 to 74 by 10%. This increase is not provided for by the Old Age Security Act. She argued that, as a result, this charge against the consolidated revenue fund is not authorized by the act or any other.

The increase in the amount of the full pension that Bill C-319 would provide to all pensioners aged 65 or older would raise public spending for purposes not currently authorized by the Act. Consequently, the Chair is of the opinion that the bill infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown and needs a new royal recommendation if it is to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.

The House will soon take up the second reading motion for the bill, which can be put to a vote at the conclusion of debate on that motion.

I thank all members for their attention.

Bills C-318 and C-319

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to your statement of March 30, respecting the 15 new items of Private Members' Business added to the order of precedence on March 10, 2023.

In particular, I am rising to raise two arguments respecting the financial prerogative of the Crown and whether two Private Members' Business bills infringe upon the Crown's prerogative in this regard.

Without commenting on the merits of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents, sponsored by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, sponsored by the member for Calgary Shepard, I submit that both of these bills require royal recommendation.

Bill C-318 seeks to add a new type of special benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy through the Employment Insurance Act, as well as making corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code. Since the bill would add a new type of benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, it would need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. These new benefits are not currently contemplated in the Employment Insurance Act and would authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund for purposes and in a manner not authorized by any statute. I therefore submit that, absent of royal recommendation, the bill should not be put to a third reading vote.

Bill C‑319 proposes to increase the amount of the full pension for Canadians aged 65 to 74 by 10%. This increase is not provided for under the Old Age Security Act, and the charge against the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose is not authorized by that act or any other. I therefore maintain that, without a royal recommendation attached to the bill, Bill C‑319 should not be put to a vote at third reading.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The Chair would like to make a statement concerning the management of Private Members' Business. As members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned.

Following each replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair reviews items so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views on the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Following replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items on Thursday, March 16, two bills concern the Chair. One is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents) standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The other is Bill C‑319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford. The Chair is of the view that these bills may need a royal recommendation.

Members are therefore invited to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for Bills C-318 and C-319 at the earliest opportunity.

I thank the members for their attention.