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?

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

Minister, I am the one asking the questions today.

I asked you a very specific question. Are you willing to support Bill C‑319, which would restore fairness to seniors receiving old age security? Are you willing to support the recommendation to ensure that the bill receives royal assent?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, an important bill, Bill C‑319, seeks to ensure that everyone 65 or older receiving old age security is treated fairly. The bill would increase the pension amount by 10% to end the unfairness.

The bill would also increase the amount pensioners get to keep in their pockets before their guaranteed income supplement is clawed back. The committee had the pleasure of studying the bill, which had unanimous support.

Do you think it's important that the bill receive a royal recommendation? That is the only step left in restoring fairness for seniors.

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?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Tassé‑Goodman, the government is currently assessing whether to give a royal recommendation to Bill C‑319, which would increase old age security by 10% for people aged 65 to 74.

What arguments would you like to put forward to convince the government to give this royal recommendation?

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?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Thank you for your question.

We are in the middle of a labour shortage, and we think seniors represent a valuable pool of potential workers. That pool is open to everyone, but seniors need to be encouraged to work. We often state that, according to a Quebec Employers Council survey, about 50% of those who continue working or return to work were incentivized by tax measures.

In 2021, during the election campaign, the government committed to setting up a tax credit for experienced workers. I note, in fact, that all political parties also proposed it. Implementation of this tax measure isn’t happening quickly. As Ms. Tassé‑Goodman noted in her opening remarks, this type of tax credit was created in Quebec and was relatively successful. Since 2012, employment rates among women went up from 7% to 8%, and among men from 3% to 4%. That means this measure had an impact.

As Ms. Tassé‑Goodman was saying, if the government does not want to set up a tax credit for experienced workers, it could consider increasing the employment income exemption when calculating the Guaranteed Income Supplement. That is what is proposed in Bill C‑319. That would be worthwhile. I remind you these people are the least fortunate. It could reduce the effect of the tax trap that discourages working.

So, those are two proposals for experienced workers that we would like to see implemented.

[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.

Old Age Security Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She wrote about being excluded from the OAS increase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

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.

[Olivier Surprenant]

Ultimately, all seniors should be able to benefit from this increase so that they don't find themselves in a precarious position by being penalized if they work. We understand that some seniors can no longer return to work, but we believe that all seniors should be covered by this reform, which was submitted, I believe, last year. That is why, in our opinion, the House of Commons should swiftly adopt Bill C‑319.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

All right.

You also asked that the government swiftly adopt Bill C‑319, which deals with increasing the Old Age Security pension for people aged 65 to 74. As we know, this pension was increased for people aged 75 and over, but we're told there's no need to do so for people aged 65 to 74. However, we at the Bloc Québécois think it is necessary. Can you explain why you think it would be important to do this swiftly?

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

Thank you very much, Minister.

On another front, the Bloc Québécois has made a further request, which is to avoid creating two classes of seniors. There was an increase in the Old Age Security pension for people aged 75 or over. We would like everyone 65 and over to also receive it. My colleague Ms. Andréanne Larouche introduced Bill C-319 for that purpose. It went through second reading and was adopted unanimously by a committee. All elected representatives on that committee, from every party, voted in favour of it.

Is the government currently considering Bill C-319 to increase the Old Age Security pension for those 65 and over?

Is the government likely to agree on what appears to be the unanimous view of legislators? Does it think it will be able to support the bill?

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 amount of 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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

I see no further.... The amendment has been moved. I gave latitude in some discussion. As chair, I must rule on admissibility, as dictated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Bill C-319 seeks to amend the the Old Age Security Act by raising the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that are taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500. The amendment, as proposed by Ms. Zarrillo, attempts to increase further that amount to $13,000, which in turn would provide to some people access to a greater benefit than they would without the increased deduction, creating a new and distinct spending to be drawn from the treasury.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice Third Edition states the following on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

As precedent dictates to me as chair, in light of the advice I received, in my opinion and for the above mentioned reason, the amendment proposes to increase spending related to the old age security benefits, which imposes a charge on the public treasury to a level superior to the one already provided in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Seeing no further discussion, shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall clause 2 carry?

Mrs. Gray.

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

Mr. Chair, I would still like to make a few comments. So I'm going to talk while hearing myself talking.

It's not that I'm against people having as decent an income as possible, but I just want to remind you of the objective of Bill C‑319. The bill has two parts. The first is about increasing the old age security pension by 10% starting at age 65. We know that this increase was granted to people aged 75 and over. So that's the first objective. The other objective is to increase the amount of income that those who receive the guaranteed income supplement can earn from work without seeing that supplement reduced. That amount had previously gone from $3,500 to $5,000. We are asking in the bill that it be increased from $5,000 to $6,500.

I would remind you that the purpose of this bill is not to require people who receive an old age security pension to work. However, we need to enable those who wish to do so not to be penalized. Sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good.

You will recall that, during the testimony, Ms. Zarrillo asked witnesses if they had any amendments to propose to the bill. However, these witnesses were clear: They want the committee to support Bill C‑319 so that it can go through the steps in the House.

So I am going to vote against Ms. Zarrillo's amendment.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to clause 1. The NDP believes that the limit on the income allowed before clawback should be raised in this bill. I will read my amendment.

It is that Bill C-319, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 1 with the following:

(i) the lesser of $13,000 and the combined amount, and

(ii) if the combine amount is greater than $13,000, the lesser of $13,000 and half of the amount by which the combined amount exceeds $13,000,

I can give some explanation or an example of that if needed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are you politely telling me that you do not want to hear me twice? I get it.

I'm being told it's fine and that it's meeting the quality standards. If it does become an issue, get my attention.

Are we ready to begin clause-by-clause of Bill C-319?

(On clause 1)

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 102 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person and virtually by Zoom. You can choose to participate in the official language of your choice by using the translation services, with your headset in the room and, if you're appearing virtually, click on the world icon at the bottom of your Surface and choose the official language of your choice. I advise members to please be conscious of our translators and keep your earpiece away from the mic, as it causes popping, which can be harmful to the translators.

As a reminder as well, all comments should be directed through me, as chair. For those in the room, please raise your hand to be recognized. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon and I will recognize you.

Finally, I would like to introduce Mr. Kevin Wagdin, director, old age security policy and legislation, from the Department of Employment and Social Development. Mr. Wagdin is present to answer questions you may have, as required. As well we have legislative counsel with us for any questions on the bill.

Madame Chabot, is Madame Larouche joining us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's great. I'm glad. Does that mean it's approved? The money is spent. We go through this all the time.

Also, for the current study we're doing on Bill C-319, the cost is $17,250.

Do I have a motion for the adoption of those two budgets?

That has been moved by Mr. Collins.

Do I see agreement? If there's no agreement, you'll have to pay for your lunch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Madame Larouche will be back for clause-by-clause, and I'm sure the conversation will continue.

We'll be back on Monday, February 26, for clause-by-clause on Bill C-319. Again I would remind everyone that the deadline to submit amendments is Thursday, February 22 at noon. That was the time adopted by this committee.

As well, we have two budgets we have to deal with. You have them. They were circulated.

For the Air Canada meeting, the budget is $2,250.

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

Mr. Fragiskatos, thank you for this opportunity and I invite you to offer us your support when we adopt Bill C-319 during clause-by-clause consideration.

Like my colleague Ms. Larouche, I'm not supporting this cause just because I belong to the Bloc Québécois. Other colleagues around the table have noted the importance of fairness in various aspects of society, as Ms. Falk did when she introduced her Bill C-318 to provide leave for adoptive parents in the same way as biological parents.

We're in the same situation here. This is a fairness issue. Canada made the choice to establish an old age security pension plan. It decided that Canadians could receive benefits under the plan starting at age 65. Bravo! Many people in our society live solely on the assistance of public plans. We have heard extensive testimony on the subject.

Ms. Larouche, fairness is one of the values you advocate in Bill C-319, which is also based on the recognition of seniors' dignity, and I'd like to hear you discuss that aspect.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It's an investment because there's a cost to impoverishment. There are consequences to being forced to make hard choices at the end of the month in order to feed yourself adequately or when you have no more money to participate in activities. I always say that poverty can also have consequences.

I'd like to go back to the discussion of seniors 65 and over. As we said, that's the age of retirement that we established, and this debate concerns old age security. I invite you to stay focused on this aspect and not to wander onto measures that should be taken to address poor people under 65. It's one debate among others for which there are other benefits and solutions that we could consider.

Today's debate focuses on seniors who have worked, who have reached retirement age and who feel they're unfairly being forced to stay in the labour market. That's somewhat the message they're being sent. As I said earlier, some of them want to continue working, and that's why one aspect of the bill concerns them. However, some seniors don't want to work and are now completely forgotten by the government.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Larouche, do you feel that the government listens to what people 65 and over need and what they're experiencing?

You said that what we would like is for the committee to rally around the bill so that's reported back to the House of Commons. However, I don't think the debate we're having here is homogeneous or that the groups are homogeneous either.

We've acknowledged that the old age security pension applied to all Canadians starting at age 65. What arguments could we advance to say that money should be spent on this item but that it should be viewed as an investment in our seniors?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Since the bill would have a financial impact, the government's agreement would be needed to implement it.

Consequently, my answer to you is that it's a matter of political choices, as is true for many bills. It lets them polish their image, but they unfortunately don't follow up their words with actions. They just present a nice façade. It's what I call image-based politics, and I'd like to see a switch to action-based politics.

These aren't exorbitant amounts, as I said in my opening remarks, $16 billion over 5 years is nothing when it comes to helping the seniors who have been forgotten for so long, who are suffering from inflation and need help. It's a matter of political choices. First, you have to choose where to get the money, then where you're going to invest it.

We may well wonder, for the moment, whether the Liberals' investments are really being made in the right places and whether they shouldn't instead be made to implement bills that genuinely help people. I'm thinking of Bill C-319, for example, or the bill to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits. These are bills that would really change people's lives. We need to make the political choices to invest in the right things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'm counting on the support of a majority of members in the House, just as I did in the vote on second reading, with the obvious exception of the Liberals, who were on retreat at the time of the vote.

I'm counting on the vote on third reading to make the Liberals understand that they absolutely must help move the bill forward. If the Liberals are still on retreat, but the New Democrats, Greens, Conservatives and Bloquistes are united in acknowledging the precarious nature of seniors' financial situation, I'm counting on the powerful image of a majority vote in favour of Bill C-319 to make the Liberals realize that it's never too late to do the right thing. With this bill, we would be offering them a chance to put an end to this discrimination and to restore fairness for seniors.

I say that because seniors are angry and don't understand the government's reasons. I don't understand why the Liberals aren't hearing those messages. You can make numbers say whatever you want, but we're saying that 13% of Canadians 75 years of age and over live in poverty. So what I heard at the conference, but also during my tour—

[Paul-René Roy]

For now, I think we should leave the age at 65. I understand there are questions. Life expectancy is growing and people are often in better health compared to other eras. I understand that the labour shortage is seen as a good opportunity to raise the age of retirement. However, that should be left to the conscience of each individual. When they get to age 65, most people have been in the labour market for at least 35 years, if not more, so they have some latitude for deciding to retire. We should not force them to stay in the labour market. It must continue to be a choice that is theirs alone. For now, the age 65 threshold is the one that seems most appropriate to me.

That is why we support Bill C-319. We believe that people aged 65 to 74 have the same needs as people aged 75 and older, because the cost of living is the same for all seniors.

[Hélène Cornellier]

Thank you for your question. I hope I understood it correctly.

I'm not very well versed on this issue, but my understanding of how the guaranteed income supplement currently works is that the admissible working income is $5,000, and above that amount, the government deducts 50¢ per dollar earned from the guaranteed income supplement. For example, if you have earned income of $6,000, you have therefore earned an excess $1,000, and the guaranteed income supplement will be reduced by $500.

The guaranteed income supplement is already not very high, even when you receive the maximum. It's generally for people with very low incomes, those who are below the poverty line with the federal pension and their other income. It was added to help them. Now we're clawing back 50¢ on the dollar every time they work and earn more than $5,000. It's a bit of an aberration. It's taking away a big chunk of what we give them.

Now, Bill C‑319 asks that we raise this threshold to $6,500, which would already be a little better for seniors who are still working, often part-time, to—

[Paul-René Roy, Provincial President, Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of Parliament.

The AQRP represents nearly 35,000 retirees from Quebec's public and parapublic sectors. Our mission is to promote and defend the economic, financial, cultural, intellectual and social rights and interests of our members and all Quebec seniors.

In a letter sent to us on January 4, the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Mr. O'Regan, says the following: “As they age, seniors tend to have lower incomes and often face increased health care expenses due to the onset of illness or disability.” In the same letter, he goes on to stress that “the government will continue to take measures to support them and improve their quality of life”.

Yet, at present, the Old Age Security Act sends a very different message, since people under 75 are not entitled to a 10% increase in their old age security pension. In other words, a person under 75 with an illness or an inability to work will not see an increase in their income, simply because they are under 75, even if they don't have the physical capacity to work.

Paradoxically, the minister believes it is true that health care spending is increasing for Canadian seniors. In the same letter, he goes on to state: “This vulnerability is exacerbated by fewer opportunities to supplement their income through paid employment and the risk of depleting personal savings.”

The minister thus seems to be saying contradictory things. On the one hand, he concedes that drug costs rise with the onset of illness or disability. On the other hand, he refuses to grant a 10% increase in the old age security pension to all pensioners aged 65 or over, on the pretext that health problems and the related rise in drug costs are more likely to affect seniors aged 75 or over.

The minister seems to deny that inflation and health problems affect people under 75 just as much. To illustrate this point, I'll take the real-life case of Ms. Girard.

Ms. Girard is a 66-year-old retiree, a former public sector employee who worked in the health care field as a beneficiary attendant in Montreal. Her monthly income of $1,500 includes her Quebec Pension Plan and federal old age security pension. In an interview with the Noovo channel on October 23, 2023, Ms. Girard testified that the problem was that she had difficulty paying for her medication.

If we apply the minister's logic, Ms. Girard would not be eligible for a 10% increase in her old age security pension, since she is a retiree under 75. Yet she faces the reality of rising drug prices, just like a retired person aged 75 or over, and runs the risk of depleting her personal savings due to inflation. Like any retired person, she helped build the Canada we enjoy today, as the minister mentions in his letter.

According to a survey by Sun Life Insurance Company, one in three Canadian seniors has been greatly affected by the rising cost of living in 2023. This means that inflation is eating into the wallets of Canadian seniors aged 65 and over. In this case, we're talking about more than a third of Canadian seniors. That's why the AQRP is calling on the Liberal government to extend the 10% increase in the old age security pension to everyone aged 65 or over. The association considers it unacceptable that in a context of inflation, people under 75 should be excluded from the guaranteed income supplement exemption.

On behalf of AQRP, I am grateful for your attention. I remain at your disposal to answer your questions and hear your comments on Bill C‑319.

Thank you.

[Hélène Cornellier, Political Affairs Advisor, Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your work on Bill C‑319.

The mission of the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, is to defend equality between women and men at all levels of society. Founded in 1966, it has 5,400 members, the vast majority of whom are aged 65 or over. Over the years, it has worked on many issues, such as women's financial security, including in retirement.

Between 2020 and 2021, Statistics Canada noted a 2.5% increase in the number of people aged 65 or over living below the poverty line. This is the largest increase for any age group in Canada.

There are three main factors that affect women more than men and put them at greater risk of financial precariousness: lower income, isolation and non-recognition of unpaid work.

A study on the situation of the elderly in Quebec shows that senior women rely more than men on public retirement programs. For women, such programs account for an average of 47% of their income, compared to just 31% for men. This gap is due to lower wages earned by women, who are mostly confined to undervalued jobs; lack of pay equity and more frequent absences from the workforce due to family obligations also play a role.

In addition, other studies show that women, elderly caregivers, people on low incomes, indigenous seniors, immigrants, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and people living in rural or remote areas are more likely to experience isolation. The consequences of this isolation are not negligible, both for these people and for communities and governments in terms of services and costs.

Moreover, many older people offer help within the family, such as babysitting during school vacations or strikes, or looking after frail loved ones so that they receive the best care and can ideally remain in their own homes. This essential help for relatives is not without additional expense for the elderly, whose low incomes are, for many of them, already stretched to the limit.

For AFEAS, Bill C‑319 is a first step in reversing the discrimination towards some seniors created by the 2021 budget measure that increased pensions by 10% for those aged 75 or over, but forgot about those aged 65 to 74. This bill also aims to help seniors who are still working out of precariousness and poverty by raising to $6,500 the work income eligible under the guaranteed income supplement program.

In addition to supporting Bill C‑319, given the less favourable situation of older women, AFEAS makes the following recommendations to the Government of Canada. Firstly, it should undertake any changes to retirement programs based on a comparative analysis of their impact on both sexes. It should also base the calculation of retirement programs on personal income, not family income, to preserve women's autonomy. AFEAS also recommends that the federal government pay a supplement to the basic old-age pension to women who have taken care of children or relatives who are losing their autonomy. In addition, the federal government should index old age pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and all other retirement-related income replacement measures to the cost of living. Finally, it should ensure that public pension plans pay all retired people minimum retirement benefits equivalent to the after-tax low-income cut-off.

In closing, AFEAS would like the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to recommend the adoption of Bill C‑319, and do everything in their power to ensure that the House of Commons and the Senate do the same, and as quickly as possible. We ask for this on behalf of Canadian seniors.

I thank you all for listening.

Please note that we will submit a brief today at the end of the day.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to the amount of a full pension.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually.

I would like to take a few moments to review a couple of points before we hear from the witnesses. You have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. For interpretation in the room, you can use the interpretation services with the headset. For those appearing virtually, if you click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, you will be able to choose the official language of your choice.

If there is a disruption in interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand, or virtually use the “raise hand” icon, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. As well, I would like to remind members, especially those in the room, to please keep their earpiece away from the mic as it can cause popping on the sound system, which can cause injury to the interpreters. As much as possible, speak as slowly as possible for the benefit of the interpreters.

With us today in the room we have Mr. Ben Catenaccio, as an individual. From the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, we have Hélène Cornellier, political affairs adviser. From the Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors, we have Paul-René Roy, the provincial president.

We will begin with Mr. Catenaccio for five minutes.

Mr. Catenaccio, you can choose to make an opening statement, but if you don't, it's fine.

Do you wish to make an opening statement, Mr. Catenaccio?

[Isobel Mackenzie, Seniors Advocate, Office of the Seniors Advocate of British Columbia]

Thank you very much, and thank you to the committee for inviting my testimony.

I am the seniors advocate for the Province of British Columbia. This is a statutory office of the provincial government with a legislated mandate to monitor services to seniors, undertake systemic reviews and make recommendations to government on how to improve supports and services for B.C. seniors. In addition to health care, housing and transportation, income support is also included within my mandate.

Currently, for the most part, it is the federal government that has assumed the role of providing an income for retired Canadians through the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan.

I'm just going to give some quantification or numbers to some of the stories that previous speakers, like Laura, and speakers in previous sessions spoke to.

A Canadian retiree who is wholly dependent on their public pensions—meaning they're getting the average amount of CPP and getting a little bit of GIS and OAS—will have an annual income of $24,000 if they're 75 and under, or a little bit more than $25,000 if they're over 75.

If a senior has very little or no CPP, they'll receive the maximum GIS, and their total income will be $22,500 if they're under 75, or $23,400 if they're 75 and older.

I want to point out that in all cases, the income they will receive is well below the income of a person who's working at minimum wage in any territory or province in this country.

Most Canadian retirees do provide some private pension, either from their RRSP or their workplace pension, but the additional amount is very limited, as the overall median income—so 50% of seniors in this country—is very low.

In British Columbia, which mirrors Canada for the most part, the median income of a senior is $33,000. In our province, that is still below minimum wage, the rate at which 6% of the labour force is employed. Most stunningly, it is 65% lower than the median income of the working-age population aged 35 to 55.

Many have referred to the market-based measure of poverty, and Aiman did that as well. I would challenge that it is not the best tool to look at. Laura has spoken to some of the reasons why, but there's another reason, which is that it is a threshold where, if you're a dollar above it, you're off. When you look at seniors, they are very clustered around that poverty line. Therefore, it's counterintuitive that 7% of seniors live in poverty as defined by the market-based measure, but almost half of seniors are living on an income below minimum wage. I think that is something that is underestimated by a lot of policy-makers.

Using median incomes—not average, because they reflect a small group of higher income-earning seniors—is arguably a better measure of the actual poverty within our seniors population.

Those who have testified before me have spoken of the challenges that seniors are facing with the rising costs and with incomes that are not able to keep pace with inflation. Laura has told you the story of the senior in Ottawa, and the speakers in the session before me were also talking a lot about that.

My office does hear increasingly from seniors around affordability issues, most particularly food. For those who rent, it's the cost of rental housing, which is not surprising, given that B.C. is home to the most expensive housing market in the country.

We also do hear from a large number of seniors on dental care costs, which is why I'm so very pleased with the new federal dental plan, and I expect that this will address many of the concerns we've been hearing.

The stories we hear of seniors living with very limited incomes are, of course, very distressing. The numbers would indicate that these experiences are not only very real but being felt by a larger number of seniors than we might anticipate, particularly those two out of 10 seniors who are renters, not homeowners.

Obviously, I wholly support the provisions of Bill C-319 to raise the OAS for those aged 65 to 75 by 10%, for all of the reasons the previous speaker has spoken of, and I don't need to repeat those.

What I would do is further challenge the committee members to use their influence to look at including CPP in the earnings exemption.

In the previous session, one of your members spoke to providing an incentive for people over 65 who are able to work to continue to work. That's why we have the earnings exemption for GIS. That's true, and that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that we're penalizing those who can't work.

To put this in perspective, if I am 66 years of age, and if I defer my CPP and I earn $6,500 a year from employment, my total income will be $27,400. That's my OAS, my top GIS and my $6,500 in employment income.

If I am 72 years of age—

[Alessandro Casbarro, Co-Founder, Bridges of Love York Region]

Thank you.

My name is Alessandro Casbarro and I am honoured to represent Bridges of Love of York Region, a seniors non-profit organization committed to enhancing the lives of seniors in our community. Our organization operates on the fundamental belief that every senior deserves to age in place with dignity, independence and respect.

Bridges of Love of York Region provides snow removal and lawn maintenance services to seniors in need, allowing them to remain in their homes and age in place comfortably. Our team works tirelessly to ensure seniors have the support they need to navigate the challenges of aging while maintaining their autonomy and quality of life. Through our programs and services, we strive to create a supportive community where seniors feel valued, engaged and empowered.

In our work, we have had the privilege of engaging with countless seniors in our community and listening to their stories, concerns and aspirations. As we all know, Canada's senior population is growing rapidly. With that, the challenges they face are becoming increasingly complex. Expenses for basic necessities such as housing, utilities, groceries and health care continue to rise, often outpacing the income of our seniors, especially those reliant on fixed incomes like old age security pensions.

In recent years, we have witnessed a disturbing trend where many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to make difficult decisions between paying for essential needs and compromising their quality of life. This is particularly concerning as it directly impacts their ability to age in place with dignity and independence, which is a fundamental principle we strive to uphold.

One of the most distressing consequences of this financial strain is the prospect of seniors having to sell their homes, which they have worked so hard to obtain and maintain over the years. For many seniors, their homes represent a place of comfort, stability and cherished moments. It is where they have raised families, celebrated milestones and built their lives. The thought of having to part with their homes due to financial constraints is deeply distressing for seniors, as it not only disrupts their sense of security and stability but also severs the ties to their community and support networks. Selling one's home is often seen as a last resort for seniors—a decision made out of necessity rather than choice, one that can have profound emotional and psychological impacts.

At Bridges of Love of York Region, we firmly believe that seniors should not have to face the prospect of selling their homes simply to afford basic necessities or cover rising expenses. Our homes are more than just bricks and mortar. They are symbols of our hard work, perseverance and the memories we hold dear.

By increasing the amount of the full pension provided to seniors under the Old Age Security Act, as proposed in Bill C-319, we can help alleviate some of the financial burdens faced by seniors and ensure they can afford to remain in their homes with dignity and independence. This is not just about financial assistance. It is about honouring the contributions and sacrifices made by our seniors and affirming their right to age in place.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the profound impact that the rising cost of living has had on the well-being of our seniors and to support measures that enhance their financial security and independence. By prioritizing the needs of our aging population, we can build a more inclusive and compassionate society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will continue its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually by Zoom.

I want to take a moment to review procedure.

Those attending in the room and by Zoom have the option of speaking in the official language of their choice. Use interpretation services with the headphones in the room. Those appearing virtually can use the globe icon on the bottom of their screen and select the official language of their choice. If there's an issue with interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand or using the “raise hand” icon on your screen. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Please address all questions through the chair. To get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.

I also want to advise members in the room to keep their earpiece away from the mic when they're not using it and to keep their phone away from their microphone, because this can cause issues with the interpreters' hearing. We do not want any of them to have any issues.

I know one can get passionate from time to time, but if you can remember to speak slowly for the benefit of the translators, that would be good, as well.

With that, I would now like to introduce our witnesses for the first panel.

We welcome Mr. Pierre-Claude Poulin, of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées.

Welcome.

As well, from Bridges of Love of York Region, we have Mr. Casbarro here in the room. Welcome.

As you know, each of you has five minutes to give an opening statement.

Go ahead, Mr. Poulin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the opposition parties for allowing Bill C‑319 to pass through the House. We now have an opportunity to look at some fundamental issues that I hear less about in the discussions between the two parties.

Mr. Poirier-Monette, what is the impact of the fact that a fixed income such as the old age security pension has not been increased for seniors aged 65 to 74?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as we study Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Perhaps I can start with you, Mr. Janeiro.

Can I call you James? Okay. It's great to see you again.

I think what we're hearing here today is that obviously seniors are in dire straits. Basically, there are so many people in dire straits. Our seniors seem to be more on the vulnerable end of that position. Your testimony today was about primarily caregivers. I think a lot of us here who have aging parents—and those who are watching—know, and it hit home. I saw a lot of nods as you were giving your testimony.

This bill is saying to increase old age from $5,000 to $6,500 a year, which seems so minimal, I'll be honest with you, in a cost of living crisis, which you touched on. When have you ever seen inflation or a cost of living crisis be this bad in your time of working in this industry?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Yes, many things can be proposed.

As Ms. Tassé-Goodman said in her remarks, provisions could be added to Bill C‑319 on the method of indexing old age security, among other things. That pension is indexed to the consumer price index, or CPI, while wage growth is about an additional percentage point above that index.

Simply put, the old age security pension currently replaces about 15% of the average wage. However, because of the method of indexing this pension, the replacement rate decreases over time. Therefore, in 10, 15, 20 years, the amount of the old age security pension would represent a smaller percentage of the average salary.

This is problematic because old age security is the first pillar of retirement. It represents the universal plan, which is supplemented by the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan and personal savings. Since that is the foundation, it has to be solid.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses who have come today.

I really appreciate the gender lens that's been put on some of this in the discussion today. We know that women are punished for caring for family earlier on in their careers and there's also the wage gap. I really appreciate the light that's been shone on that.

There's also the fact that seniors are still working in paid and unpaid work, and certainly in care. There is a lot of unpaid care that's done by seniors.

This is an opportunity, as this comes to committee, to talk about amendments that could potentially come into this bill.

I will ask Mr. Janeiro first.

If there was an opportunity to amend this bill to include something else that is important at this time, is there anything that you would propose?

I also want to know your thoughts on this: The NDP has been asking for some grace period. A lot of times, seniors don't get their income tax filed on time. They can lose their entitlements because they didn't get their income tax in.

I think this might be an opportunity, as we open Bill C-319, to make sure that we also give seniors some grace period. If they become sick or they are caring for a loved one, the income tax falls to the wayside and they lose their entitlements. It seems unfair.

Mr. Janeiro, would you mind giving your thoughts on that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here to discuss this important bill. I would like to disagree with a number of the comments I've just heard, but that's not the basis of my intervention.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fair treatment for all seniors. Old age security in Canada is a universal program, subject to a few conditions. However, in my opinion, the decision was made for the first time to create a gap in the program by distinguishing people aged 65 to 74 from people aged 75 and over, without taking into account the reality of seniors. The bill corrects this unfair treatment based on age, which is a form of discrimination because it does not at all take into account the needs of people aged 65 to 74.

Ms. Tassé-Goodman, you supported Bill C‑319 long before the Liberal government decided to increase old age security, which it had promised to do, but only for seniors aged 75 and over. Not a day goes by without your members asking you when there will be fair treatment for people aged 65 to 74.

What are people telling you and what motivations lead you to support this bill?

[Professor Arthur Sweetman, Professor, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

As background, I’d like to start by considering low income in Canada.

Using the market basket measure, in 2019, 10.3% of persons in Canada fell below the low-income threshold. Those under the age of18, at 9.4%, were somewhat less likely to be low income than the average. Those between the ages of 18 and 64 had an above average low-income rate of 11.8%. Of relevance today, those aged 65 and over, at 5.7%, had the lowest likelihood of being in low income among these three age groups.

While there are individuals over age 65 who have low incomes, Canadian programs have been very successful in reducing low-income rates for this age group to below that of society as a whole.

Turning to Bill C-319, as I understand it, two changes are proposed. I will focus on them in turn.

The first will increase what I call the earnings disregards for the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. Since 2020, the two disregards have been $5,000 each. Current GIS recipients face a three-stage regime. In stage one, the first $5,000 in annual earnings have no effect on their GIS benefit; in stage two, the next $10,000 in earnings are taxed at a maximum of 50%, and second, there's $5,000 disregard. In stage three, earnings beyond $15,000 are taxed at 100% to the full amount of the GIS.

The bill proposes to increase both the stage one and stage two disregards to $6,500 while retaining the stage two tax rate of 50%. This implies that GIS recipients would be able to earn up to $6,500 per year without their GIS amount being affected and that they would then face a 50% tax rate on earnings between $6,500 and $19,500. Beyond $19,500, they would face 100% tax rate. Of course, the eligibility threshold for GIS is not much above $19,500 for a single individual.

I see two obvious motivations for this proposed change. The first would be to provide additional income to low-income seniors who are already earning more than $5,000 per year. The second would be to incentivize low-income seniors to increase their labour supply. However, among low-income seniors, those with the lowest pre-retirement incomes are least likely to work post age 65, so those with more disadvantaged backgrounds are least likely to benefit from this change.

Also, previous changes to the GIS appear to have had modest impacts on changing labour supply among GIS recipients. I suspect that this proposal would similarly have a positive but very modest impact on earnings.

Overall, while the potential policy change will probably not have much impact on extreme poverty, it will benefit those who are low income and who already earn more than $5,000 per year. I therefore see this as worthwhile since it will help some low-income working seniors. It rewards work and hopefully incentivizes it.

Turning to the second part of the bill, it proposes to increase OAS payments to those aged between 65 and 74 by 10%. Over 95% of individuals in this age category receive at least some OAS income, so this part of the policy change is not exclusively targeted at low-income seniors.

Compared to the first part of the bill, this is a much more expensive proposal for taxpayers. My best guess, derived from calculations based on an Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ report, is that this policy change would cost between 0.15% and 0.2% of GDP. This is a very rough guess, and it's also a very big number.

Further, in terms of labour market incentives, although any effect is likely to be small, I expect it to decrease rather than increase labour supply and earnings. A greater concern is that it’s not obvious that the federal government currently has sufficient fiscal capacity to undertake an expenditure such as this while simultaneously building, for example, a robust pharmacare program. I think the opportunity cost of the funds for this second policy change need to be considered very carefully. Undoubtedly Canadians’ views will differ, but I think that many, including many seniors, would find greater dignity in and prefer alternatives such as spending money on improved health care rather this non-targeted increase to OAS payments.

If, additionally, we are worried about seniors living with dignity and avoiding low income—or, more broadly than low income, avoiding poverty—then a targeted proposal would be preferable to this broad-brush approach.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, President, Provincial Secretariat, Réseau FADOQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, my name is Gisèle Tassé-Goodman. I am the president of the Réseau FADOQ.

With me is Philippe Poirier-Monette, special advisor on government relations.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to comment on Bill C‑319.

The Réseau FADOQ is a group of people aged 50 and over with more than 550,000 members. In each of our interventions at the political level, we want to contribute to improving seniors' quality of life. At the outset, I must emphasize that Bill C-319 deals with a subject that is of great concern to seniors. Not a day goes by that our members do not ask us about the old age security pension or the guaranteed income supplement. So we are bringing their voices here today, in this committee.

In July 2022, old age security was increased by 10% on a permanent basis for those aged 75 and over. Enhancing this benefit was and continues to be necessary. However, people aged 65 to 74 do not understand why they are excluded from this increase. Currently, a person under the age of 75 receiving only the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement has an annual income of $21,345. A senior in this situation has an income that puts them below the official poverty line in Canada, which is based on the market basket measure. Let's remember that this index establishes the cost of a bare subsistence basket. It excludes things like dental care, eye care, as well as the purchase of medication, which are vital expenses for seniors.

Bill C-319 proposes to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% for those aged 65 to 74. The Réseau FADOQ supports this proposal, since financial distress has no age. This amendment will enable all persons aged 65 and over to access the same full pension amount, without age-based discrimination.

The other measure proposed by Bill C-319 is an increase in the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption for recipients. Currently, it is possible for these individuals to earn up to $5,000 in employment income while collecting all of the guaranteed income supplement benefits. For earnings between $5,000 and $15,000, a partial exemption applies. Over the past few years, the Government of Canada has increased the earnings exemption a few times, and every time, the Réseau FADOQ applauded that decision. This is a measure that reduces the effects of a tax trap that discourages guaranteed income supplement recipients from remaining in the labour market. In addition, in the context of a labour shortage, this measure would be well received.

Let's not forget that, during the last election campaign, the Government of Canada promised to introduce a tax credit for experienced workers. Since that tax credit has still not been implemented, increasing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption would be a step in the right direction.

In closing, we feel obliged to address two aspects that are not affected by Bill C-319.

During the 2021 election campaign, the federal government made a commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement. Three years later, seniors are still waiting. The Réseau FADOQ encourages the Government of Canada to keep its commitment.

Finally, we must also address the shortcomings in the way old age security is indexed. This program is indexed based on the consumer price index, while wages change about a percentage point faster. As a result, federal benefits will play an increasingly smaller role in the retirement income replacement rate in the future. Our organization is asking the government to revise the indexing method for the old age security program in order to take wage growth into account.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for listening to us. We look forward to your questions. Mr. Poirier-Monette will answer questions, and I will reserve the privilege of getting involved.

Thank you.

[James Janeiro, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the invitation and the opportunity to speak this morning as part of your study on this very important bill.

I am James Janeiro and I'm with the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence. We are a pan-Canadian organization focused on caregivers, which is to say parents, siblings, friends, neighbours and the like, as well as care providers such as personal support workers and direct support professionals who support people with disabilities all across our country. Our goal is to make Canada the best place in the world to give and receive care.

The intent of Bill C-319 is to raise the pension incomes of retired Canadians. This is both timely and urgently necessary, in our opinion. The National Institute on Ageing recently released their 2023 “Aging in Canada” survey results. This survey of Canadians 50 and over has helped illuminate what caregivers across the country already know: Seniors are feeling the financial pinch resulting from the ongoing cost of living crisis. An overwhelming 70% of survey respondents reported that they are concerned with the rising cost of living, and nearly 50% worry about running out of money. Sadly, over one-third reported worrying about a reduction in pension or other government benefits.

This problem of pinched household budgets due to the cost of living crisis becomes even more urgent when the low-income senior is also a caregiver. One in four Canadians are caregivers today and half of us will be a caregiver at some point in our lives. Today, in 2024, women in Canada are just as likely as not to be a caregiver already. For many of these caregivers, financial distress is at the top of their very long list of struggles. Mercilessly increasing grocery and other bills has made an already difficult situation much worse. Recent data shows that nearly two-thirds of caregivers reported financial hardship last year due to their care responsibilities.

A recent survey conducted by us at the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence found that over two-thirds of people receiving care in Canada are themselves seniors. In addition, approximately 20% of caregivers are also seniors. Of those senior caregivers, 80% care for other seniors, such as wives, adult children, husbands or even their parents. For these seniors, struggling through the already threadbare social safety net designed to help them is part of their daily reality.

Statistically, senior caregivers are mostly women and they have likely had to take time off work at some point in their lives to have children or to care for somebody else. This means they lost out on years of CPP contributions, which continues to punish them for caring for others through lower CPP payments well into their senior years. Imagine worrying about how to pay the rent or feed your ailing wife while also bathing her and coping with cognitive decline. Unfortunately, this is the daily reality of nearly a third of caregivers in their older years, who reported some kind of economic strain due to their care responsibilities.

Seniors are crying out for solutions. We spent the last year advocating for the Canada caregiver credit to be converted into a refundable tax credit. While out of the scope of this study, it would certainly help, as would the provisions in this bill, which would go a long way towards solving the cost of living crisis for seniors.

We strongly endorse this bill. Seniors helped build Canada and are often called upon to look after others during what should be their years of rest and relaxation. The least we can do is adjust our very successful national programs like the CPP to meet the challenges of the current crisis and make sure seniors' lives are a little easier.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee is back in session.

I would like to welcome the following witnesses for the study of Bill C-319.

From the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence, we have James Janeiro, director, policy and government relations. From Réseau FADOQ, we have Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, president, provincial secretariat, and Philippe Poirier-Monette, special adviser, government relations. As an individual appearing virtually, we have Arthur Sweetman, professor, McMaster University.

We'll begin with a five-minute opening statement from Mr. Janeiro.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, I'm giving my opening remarks now, but I'll answer questions later.

Good morning, everyone.

Dear committee members, thank you for having me this morning so we can look at Bill C‑319 together. It's a relatively simple but vital piece of legislation aimed at improving the financial situation of seniors during really tough economic times.

At the heart of the bill is a two-pronged approach to addressing seniors' needs. First, the bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists in our system. This bill would increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and older are entitled to by 10%. This will correct a glaring injustice, as, since 2022, only seniors aged 75 and over have been receiving the 10% increase, leaving a large portion of all pensioners in a precarious financial situation.

Second, the bill would raise the exemption for a person's earnings taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. This means that each recipient aged 65 and older will have an extra $1,500 in their pocket each year. That's significant financial support in an environment where prices are rising exponentially.

Recognizing that this is an urgent issue is crucial. More than 7.25 million Canadian seniors and 1.8 million Quebec seniors benefit from the old age security program. Given that more than 3.7 million Canadians are between the ages of 65 and 74, enhancing the old age security program is imperative. Support meant only for people aged 75 and over helps only 2.8 million people. It is missing the mark by helping a minority of seniors and abandoning the majority of them. We need to take action to support seniors, who have made an important contribution to our society.

The facts speak for themselves. We see seniors spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and food, expenses that have gone up significantly. In addition, an alarming number of seniors find themselves in situations where housing absorbs too much of their income, making their daily lives even more difficult.

It's also important to note that poverty among seniors is a worrisome reality. In 2020, 13% of seniors were living in poverty, a rate higher than that of all other age groups. It's our responsibility to ensure that seniors can live with dignity after dedicating their lives to the well-being of our society.

Finally, we must consider the financial cost of this bill. The proposed increase in benefits represents a significant investment, estimated at $16 billion over several years, but we must consider it an investment in our society and in the dignity of seniors.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I will say that Bill C‑319 is a crucial opportunity to correct injustices and support seniors in tough economic times. We can't turn our backs on those who have given so much to our society. Approving this bill signals that we value seniors and are committed to ensuring their well-being in the years to come.

This debate and this battle have been going on for a long time. Long before I entered politics, I knew seniors were in distress. Between 2007 and 2011, I worked as a staffer, and even then I noticed that many of the people in financial distress who came to the office were seniors. After that, I worked in community groups. We talked about abuse and poverty. The message I'm sending now with this bill is that we want to help the seniors who are struggling the most and will not give in to gloomy pessimism.

Seniors who are willing and able can also help address another problem we're facing: the labour shortage. As some of them reminded us, they want to contribute to society and stay in the labour market, but, under the current system, they're penalized if they do so.

My bill would really do two essential things. One, it would allow seniors who are willing and able to keep working, since there are lots of benefits to that, and, two, it would give seniors a little extra help from their old age security pension.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

I want to point out that there's consensus on inviting the sponsor of Bill C‑319 back for the full hour that was planned. I still want to express my sincere regret that we're starting this study this way. However, I agree with inviting Ms. Larouche again.

Again, our apologies, Ms. Larouche.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

—is the minor wording change that you are moving is inconsistent and I have to rule it as inadmissible.

The only debate I'll entertain is on.... No, I'm not entertaining any because I moved to a vote.

We're calling the vote on the main motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to the order of the committee study.

I would like to welcome Madame Larouche.

Madame Larouche is appearing as a witness on Bill C-319.

Do you have an opening statement?

Yes?

You have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister O'Regan, as you said, you are also the Minister of Seniors. In your presentation, you talked about the importance you attach to the principle of aging with dignity, and we fully agree with that. However, your government made a decision concerning seniors in 2022 by giving a 10% increase in old age security only to seniors aged 75 and over.

This week, we are going to start studying Bill C-319, sponsored by the member for Shefford, meant to address this inequity and to grant a 10% increase in old age security to seniors starting at age 65, which is the age of eligibility for this program.

Will your government support that bill?

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I call the meeting to order.

I apologize. It's a reminder. Please do not have your phones on vibrate near the earpiece when you're speaking, because it will, obviously, hurt the interpreters.

Again, welcome to meeting number 94 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on June 13, the committee is continuing its study on intergenerational volunteerism.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Witnesses are appearing virtually, online, as well as here in the room.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation is available through your earpiece. If you are appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the language of your choice.

If there's an interruption in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected. I would like to again remind members to please keep their telephones and earpieces away from the mic to protect the hearing of our interpreters.

I remind all members to address their comments through the chair. Use the “raise hand” function if you're online. If you're in the room, raise your hand.

Before we go to witnesses, I wish to confirm with members a deadline to provide the clerk their list of witnesses for the study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Is there agreement that the deadline to submit witnesses be on Wednesday, December 13? We will resume the study in the new year.

Seeing no disagreement, we'll set that deadline.

One of our witnesses is in the room, and the other is appearing virtually. From Le Petit Peuple, we have Jeanne Campeau, executive director, by video conference. Welcome. From Volunteer Ottawa, we have Christine Trauttmansdorff, executive director—

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.

Old Age Security Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-319 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Pensions

[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.

Old Age Security Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, what can I say in five minutes to close out this second hour of debate at second reading of this important bill, Bill C‑319? The text of the bill amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled by 10%. It also amends the act 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.

I venture to call it “important” because that is what I have been hearing all summer. Yes, I admit that I set out on a mission this summer and travelled to all four corners of Quebec. I heard the discontent of some seniors and the despair of others, but above all, I heard people asking me to do everything in my power to ensure that the majority of MPs in the House vote in favour of Bill C‑319.

First of all, let us not forget that, for years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID‑19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic: isolation, anxiety, financial hardship, and so on.

I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. I repeat myself because I believe it: I want seniors to be treated with dignity, like the grey power they are. Right now, old age security benefits fall far short of offsetting the decline in purchasing power or the dramatic rise in housing and food costs.

With inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.

In May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan, the Department of Employment and Social Development published a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising initiatives”. After identifying the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors, the study proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce. Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Since life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past, let us make this happen.

We are also seeing the growing distress of small and medium-sized businesses that are desperately looking for workers, as well the closure of many businesses and the devitalization of certain communities and regions. We must take action.

I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, it has contented itself with half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the most difficult times of the pandemic. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect and very minimal effects of this hastily put together aid.

In budget 2021, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; they affect all recipients. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors. In 2021, there were nearly 2.8 million people 75 and over, compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice. This bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. The one-time $500 cheque for people 75 and over in August 2021 did not fix anything.

In closing, Bill C‑319 will improve the financial situation of seniors and eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists. Seniors who live on a fixed income are having trouble paying their bills because their daily expenses are going up faster than their pension benefits. Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged at $666.83 a month. Who can live on that?

The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in old age security for all seniors aged 65 and up, and has even pointed out that the government is discriminating against people aged 65 to 74.

I would like to say one last thing. The RQRA, Afeas, AREQ, AQRP and FADOQ, all of these Quebec organizations, and Quebeckers and Canadians are calling for this bill. Seniors are watching us and asking us not to make them pay the price of partisanship.

I invite my colleagues to take action for the dignity of seniors. I will see them on October 18 for the vote.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second hour of the second reading debate on Bill C-319.

I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill. It continues to spark important conversations. That is because we are constantly looking at how best to support older persons in Canada. Not everyone needs the same kind of help. Seniors themselves would agree.

To demonstrate my point, I give an example from Manchester, United Kingdom. A communications campaign in 2020 called “Valuable, not vulnerable” highlighted contributions of older people in the pandemic response. It featured those who performed jobs in person on the front lines, those who volunteered in their communities and those who took on caregiver roles. The campaign successfully countered the idea that an entire group should not be labelled as frail or vulnerable, and the slogan was picked up around the world, including here in Canada.

I bring this up because I want to underline that our government chose to raise the OAS pension for seniors 75 and over, and it was a good choice. It was based on data. It helped avoid lumping all seniors into the same category. As we know, the evidence tells us that seniors 75 and over are more likely to be vulnerable in certain circumstances. They are more likely to need more support.

As the Minister of Employment said to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, this policy step was a very big step. The decision to increase the OAS pension for older seniors was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that are known to happen more often at age 75 and upward.

Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. We know financial needs increase in this age group, and in 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those 65 to 74. There are also more women in the 75 and over category than men. As well, there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian disability survey in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability, compared to 32% of those in the younger group. That is quite a jump.

That is why our government increased the OAS pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Budget 2021 provided a one-time payment of $500 to OAS pensioners who were 75 or over as of June 2022. We then increased OAS payments for pensioners aged 75 and over by 10% on an ongoing basis as of July 2022. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They will receive more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed, so it will continue to go up.

I want to turn to another matter that has been commented on in this House and that we need to consider with Bill C-319. That is the critical work that is under way to modernize the IT infrastructure that supports the OAS program. Canada's IT infrastructure has been aging faster than the pace of repairs or replacements. By investing the time and money to fix this infrastructure, our government is ensuring key programs like the old age security program and employment insurance will continue to be delivered in the timely way Canadians deserve.

These system changes were spurred on by the pandemic. We realize a modernized benefits delivery platform is crucial so that we are able to target support when Canadians need it the most. We hope to ensure all Canadians are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled.

The timelines for Bill C-319 do not take into account the ongoing work. If passed, the bill would require complex changes to the existing OAS legacy system that would in turn jeopardize the critical deployment and stabilization of OAS onto the new platform.

The benefits delivery modernization work has been under way since budget 2021 provided nearly $650 million for Employment and Social Development Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat to undertake it. In this year's supplementary estimates (C), our government is planning for nearly $1.3 billion in expenditures related to the workforce capacity for OAS and to modernize the IT infrastructure that hosts it.

As I mentioned, Bill C-319, if passed, would require various system changes to the legacy OAS system. The earliest recommended date to introduce policy changes that would require IT system changes is after September 2025, once the deployment of OAS onto the new system has been properly stabilized.

What is more, in October 2022, the then minister of families, children and social development confirmed that safely onboarding OAS is a number one priority. The Canadian population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing age group and we need to consider how best to support them, knowing that older Canadians are valuable and that some are vulnerable, just as we would find in any age group. Bill C-319 is not ideal. Our government already has a good plan to support older Canadians, and work is under way. In fact, we have been supporting seniors since 2015.

Most recently, in budget 2023, we introduced a one-time grocery rebate to help offset the rising cost of food for eligible seniors. In addition, budget 2023 provides funds to implement the Canadian dental care plan. This plan provides dental coverage for uninsured low- to medium-income Canadians, including seniors. This means that no Canadian will ever have to choose between taking care of their oral health and paying the bills at the end of the month. These measures are in addition to the steps already taken by our government, which include returning the age of eligibility for the OAS pension and the GIS to 65 from 67; enhancing the GIS for the lowest-income seniors, which benefited 900,000 seniors and contributed to lifting 45,000 seniors out of poverty; increasing the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 plus, based on good data; and, of course, indexing all our key benefits, so they keep pace with the cost of living and never decrease.

Supporting seniors has been and will always be a top priority for the government. Our seniors have built the country that we know and love today, and they are the backbone of Canadian society. We will always have our seniors' backs.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

This bill is intended to correct a mistake made by the government, a mistake that resulted in discrimination against people aged 65 to 74 and thus created two classes of seniors.

Yes, I will boldly speak about discrimination here, not only discrimination based on age, but also discrimination based on sex. I will therefore explain to the House why the government saw fit to adopt a doubly discriminatory measure. I will show that the government’s arguments barely hold water. I will show that the measure in fact discriminates in two ways. Finally, I will explain why it is essential that this mistake be corrected.

When the government decided in 2019 to make an election promise to increase the pension for seniors 75 and over, it essentially had two arguments, only one of which was stated loud and clear.

The first argument, which is not often raised, was that the increase in life expectancy means that pensions are paid out over a longer period, which puts pressure on the pension fund and its fiscal capacity to cover the additional years of life, especially as there will be more old age security recipients than workers contributing to the fund as a result of an inverted age pyramid. This situation gives the government two choices: Raising workers’ contributions, either by increasing the number of workers or the amounts paid by those workers, or reducing the amount paid to seniors every month.

Increasing the monthly amount of the pension for seniors aged 75 and over falls into the second category, as strange as that may seem. Indeed, refusing to increase the pension for those aged 65 to 74 is a roundabout way of reducing the monthly amount they are paid, given that they are on a fixed income while their expenses keep rising. Inflation is not fixed. A dollar today is not the same as a dollar five years ago. Their income is fixed, but the costs of meeting their basic needs are not.

The second argument, the one most commonly put forward, is that people aged 75 and over have higher health-related costs. These people may need help at home, including specialized care or help with housework or meal preparation. In short, according to the government, people aged 75 and over have expenses that those aged 65 to 74 do not have. That is true in some cases, but not always.

The government has made a massive generalization, forgetting that plenty of people aged 75 and over will never need home support or specialized care. It has also forgotten that plenty of people between the ages of 65 and 74 do need specialized care and home support. That has been completely erased from the government's reasoning. These people do not receive a penny, even though their needs are just as great, if not greater, than some people aged 75 and over.

The other argument that would, according to the government, justify an increase for those aged 75 and over is that seniors aged 65 to 74 are healthy enough to work and have an income that could meet the needs they or their spouse might eventually have. This is also true in some cases, but not always.

Those over the age of 65 who want to work quickly realize that they are paying out of their own pocket to do so. This is because they are taxed at a higher rate, one that is closer to the rate paid by single people, when they have paid taxes all their lives. What is more, if they earn a little too much money or a little more—and we are not talking about astronomical amounts here—their old age pension is reduced.

We are talking here about double taxation that does nothing to encourage people to work. I would like to remind the House that the Century Initiative strongly suggested that the government encourage people between the ages of 65 and 74 to stay in the workforce. Is giving more money to people aged 75 and up another roundabout way to respond to this suggestion by the Century Initiative? One has to wonder.

As I said, those aged 65 and up who want to work and who are in good enough health to do so are held back by double taxation. Bill C-319 makes it possible for those people who want to work—and not everyone does—to do so and to earn more money before cuts are made to their old age pension. The bill would increase the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000. That is not a huge amount, but it can make all the difference for someone who does not have much income. In fact, $6,000 is practically a bonanza for such people.

Seniors should never have to work if they do not want to, if they are not healthy enough to work. It should always be a choice. These individuals have worked their entire lives, whether they were paid on the job market or they volunteered. People always forget to include the value of volunteering. It is a lot of money. Rather than paying someone $30, $40 or $50 to deliver meals, we can ask a volunteer to do it. At the same time, that volunteer helps another senior come out of isolation and ensure that the senior is in good shape. Volunteering is worth a fortune, but it is never counted in our calculations. It is invisible work.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that the government's measure to increase pensions for seniors aged 75 and over is discriminatory in two ways. It discriminates by age, and that is obvious, I think. When the old age security program was put in place, it was universal. When someone turned 65, they could start receiving their old age pension. It was universal.

Now they decide to create two categories of seniors. It is discriminatory because historically women are the ones who had lower incomes. They are the ones who often end up without an RRSP for a variety of reasons. I know a woman who had to cash in her RRSPs because she could no longer work at age 45 after a workplace accident. At 65, her RRSP was completely depleted and she was left with $600 a month to live on with a $400 rent to pay. She is still lucky that her rent is only $400, but that leaves her with just $200 for everything else.

Bill C‑319 seeks to correct this mistake that was made by the government. Let us not forget that aging is a part of life. When we help our seniors live with dignity, live well and have social activities, essentially, we are helping our own children by extension. Eventually, they will be old, like us, and will need support. We never know what life has in store for us. Becoming a senior and having to skip meals or eat soda crackers for supper is not living with dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of King—Vaughan. Today, I am speaking on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

First, let me start by stating that it is an honour to serve as the shadow minister for seniors. Seniors have built this country. They have defended democracy and freedom. They have started businesses, raised families and volunteered in the community. Seniors have led by example.

I was fortunate to have been raised by my grandmother and great-grandmother. I learned the most valuable life lessons in life: how to sun-dry my own tomatoes and make many Italian dishes, a tradition I continue today; the importance of lending a helping hand to neighbours who may be struggling; and how to save for a rainy day.

Grandparents are a vital part of the family. They teach us the importance of a strong work ethic, the value of a dollar and how to balance a budget, something of which the Prime Minister has absolutely no understanding. I owe my grandparents a debt of gratitude, and this Canadian government needs to treat seniors with respect.

The fastest-growing segment of the population is seniors. I am proud to say I have recently joined that demographic. By 2030, adults aged 65 or older will make up 23% of Canada's population, or 9.5 million.

One key element of this legislation proposes to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. To be clear, this would not help everyone, but by increasing the GIS earnings exemption, we could help to alleviate some of these challenges for those who continue to work and ensure that more of our seniors are able to sustain a more comfortable and secure retirement. Conservatives oppose severe clawbacks of seniors' GIS benefits for those who can, want to and choose to work. Increasing the earnings exemption is only fair at a time when so many seniors need cost of living relief.

Seniors have dedicated their lives to the prosperity of this country. They have made incredible sacrifices, providing for their families and planning for the future. After spending a lifetime in the workforce and giving back to Canada, seniors should be able to retire on their savings and enjoy their golden years in peace and financial security.

After eights years of the Liberal-NDP government, this is no longer possible for so many Canadian seniors. In fact, more and more seniors are having to choose between medication, food or heating their homes. Every dollar they have put away for retirement is being threatened by endless Liberal-NDP tax increases that are raising the price of everything.

Conservatives believe that seniors who have worked hard and contributed to our society throughout their lives deserve to retire with dignity and financial security. However, many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the cost of living crisis the Liberal-NDP government has created. It is the responsibility of government to reward work, especially the work done by seniors. Labour force participation of seniors can bring value to organizations through experience and mentorship, help with succession planning and mitigate social isolation, if seniors want to, are able to and choose to work.

The Liberals' choice to disincentivize work also comes during a countrywide labour shortage. A recent Auditor General's report on pandemic programs clearly laid out how, as restrictions were lifted, the programs continued disproportionally and disincentivized work. “Help wanted” signs have become all to frequent a sight, as small businesses and not-for-profits become desperate for the manpower needed to provide their goods and services.

This is not the time to punish work. Common sense Conservatives believe that work should be rewarded. Why tax away seniors' incomes if they can and want to work? Seniors are integral in sharing their knowledge and expertise with younger workers through mentoring programs, internships or training opportunities. This can help develop the skills of the next generation of workers.

This past summer, I did a tour to hear from some seniors across the country. I met one group in Nova Scotia in a mentorship program that matches seniors with young Canadians. Everyone raved of the benefits they were rewarded through this experience, and I thank my colleague Dr. Ellis for joining me on that tour.

In my riding—

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, nearly a hundred years ago, Canada's first public pension plan was established. It was 1927, and the Old Age Pensions Act was enacted. The simple goal was to ensure that men and women aged 70 and over would have a basic income. Years later, in 1952, the Old Age Security Act came into force and replaced the act of 1927.

This important change marked the birth of a pension financed by our government. Like the population of Canada, the program has grown and evolved over the years. Canadians have grown, and so has the old age security program. It goes without saying that the old age security program has adapted to the needs of Canada's elderly population and continues to do so today.

As we all know already, we increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older. This officially came into effect last year. It was the first permanent increase to the OAS pension since 1973. It is giving older seniors greater financial security now and into the future.

Most importantly, it will continue to be indexed to inflation, so that it maintains its value over time. This increase was the smart thing to do, because many seniors aged 75 and over are facing greater financial vulnerability than younger seniors are.

As they get older, many seniors must deal with health issues. Illness appears, and that entails more expenses. Many seniors are not working much or even not at all.

Not everyone benefits from a pension plan from their employer. Moreover, let us not forget the risk of finding oneself alone following the loss of one’s life partner. These are all situations that can deplete personal savings. The older we get, the more likely these situations are to happen.

For example, in 2018, among the population aged 65 to 74, more than three out of 10 Canadians had employment income. When we look at those aged 75 and older, it drops by more than half, for fewer than two out of 10 Canadians.

Now we have Bill C-319 before us. It is a great piece of legislation. However, it is clear to us that it is not in sync with the demographic information we have and that I have just given. OAS is a proven program, and so are the measures we have been taking to improve it.

Yes, the old age security program continues to evolve. This new system has been in preparation since at least 2021, even though we committed to it in our budget. It clearly became a priority in 2022, after almost two years of the pandemic, which made us acutely aware that it was high time to put in place a modernized platform for payment of benefits.

Here we are, in the middle of the modernization process. This is another reason that it is impossible for us to support Bill C-319, and I will explain.

It would not be possible to implement the bill within the specified time frame. Its implementation would require us to make complex modifications to the existing IT system. The entire essential deployment and stabilization of the old age security program on the modernized platform would then be compromised.

We cannot take such a risk. We cannot do anything that would jeopardize this modernization process.

As I said, this process is a priority. The OAS program keeps evolving, and we cannot jeopardize this evolution, this modernization. It is an integral part of the whole process we have undertaken since 2015 to improve Canadian seniors' financial security. Without a doubt, we have demonstrated how serious we are about supporting seniors.

We have an interesting debate today regarding old age security. It is a debate that allows us to see, once again, to what extent we are already taking the actions that must be taken to ensure the well-being of older Canadians.

Nearly a hundred years ago, Canada began laying the foundations of its retirement income system, and the old age security program was one of these foundations. Since then, the program has evolved to meet the needs of Canadians; today, we are ensuring that it continues to evolve in this way.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

Old Age Security Act

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to represent the good people of Windsor—Tecumseh, especially on an important issue like the one we are debating here today, so I am absolutely pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-319.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill. I think the bill that she has put before us today is an excellent example of focusing parliamentary attention in the right way on an issue that matters to Canadians. Understandably, Canadians care about seniors; they built this country and now deserve to live out their retirement years in financial security. However, it is more than that; these discussions are about improvements that better support everyone who is aging in Canada, which means all of us. The future of aging in Canada is, after all, everyone's future.

My colleague has already explained why Bill C-319 does not flow from the demographic evidence that we have, and has shown that it would work against us in a few ways. I would like to use my time to talk more generally about all the ways the Government of Canada has supported seniors financially over the past eight years, as demonstration of our ongoing commitment to ensuring seniors live a secure and dignified retirement. We have been working hard to support Canada's fastest-growing age group with the right set of programs and services. With a quarter of Canadians expected to be 65 or older by 2051, we have been working hard on many fronts to plan for the future so government can respond to their diverse needs.

Since 2015, we have restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement to 65, down from 67. It is worth pausing here for a moment to point out that, in 2012, the Conservatives introduced an awfully misguided policy that increased the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67. Not only would that have forced seniors in my riding and across Canada to work longer, but it would have robbed them of literally thousands of dollars of absolutely essential supports, and it would have plunged thousands of them into poverty.

We have a different approach, an approach that is rooted deeply in respect for our seniors. We provided a one-time, tax-free payment to help seniors with extra costs during the pandemic. We worked with provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan, increasing pensions for future retirees. We increased the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. We increased the GIS by up to $947 per year for the lowest-income seniors, benefiting close to 900,000 vulnerable seniors across Canada, and we committed to increasing the GIS further by $500 for singles and $750 for couples, which will help the lowest-income seniors make ends meet.

The government also included a series of new, targeted measures in the 2022 fall economic statement, focused on Canadians most affected by rising prices. One of those measures is doubling the GST tax credit for six months, putting an average of $225 extra back in the pockets of our seniors. We are delivering on a $500 payment to nearly two million low-income renters, many of whom are seniors struggling with the cost of housing. The grocery rebate introduced in this budget will again, no doubt, make a difference in the lives of so many seniors, and I cannot overlook that budget 2023 introduced dental coverage to seniors who need it most.

I am proud of the measures we have taken to improve the overall health and quality of life of older Canadians and our seniors.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to rise for the people of Timmins—James Bay to talk about a very important issue. That is the situation facing senior citizens in this country and the systemic failure to ensure that those who built this nation are able to retire and live in the dignity they deserve.

I was just speaking today with the head of the Cochrane food bank. We are attempting to get supplies of food up into Fort Albany First Nation, which has been under evacuation because of flooding. They tell us the shelves are empty. If we go into the grocery stores in northern Ontario, the bins where people used to fill up with food are nearly empty. The cost of living crisis is hitting seniors more than anyone. They have nothing to show for it, other than these incremental increases that might buy them a Tim Hortons coffee but are not going to put food on the table at this time.

We have to look at the larger picture in terms of the absolute failure we see when seniors need us. They are the people who raised us, built our society, brought us up from being children to adults; however, when need us, we are not there. I look at what happened with COVID in the privatized long-term care facilities and the absolute squalor that elders were left in and died in. It was so bad that the army was sent into Quebec in order to try to keep people alive. We send the army into disaster zones; we should not be sending them into facilities that are run by provinces to protect and to look after senior citizens.

We saw this in Ontario, where the death rates in the privatized care homes were staggeringly high. Afterwards, Doug Ford built this iron ring of protection around all those investors so that they would not be held accountable for failing to keep seniors alive during the pandemic.

I was talking to a widow today who needs to get her teeth fixed. She has a right to have dignity. She should not have to get plates put in. She wants to have her teeth fixed, but it is an $8,000 bill. We have the Conservatives filibustering and trying to stop seniors from getting dental care. The Bloc Québécois members are supporting the attack on senior citizens in this country getting dental care. I cannot think of anything more shameful than that.

I do not know if the Bloc members or the Conservatives ever knocked on a door, but when I knocked on door after door, I talked to seniors, who said to me that they cannot afford to have their teeth fixed. Some people might think this is not that important, but it is so important for their dignity and their sense of health. This is why New Democrats pushed for a national dental care plan that, this year, includes senior citizens. The Bloc members and the Conservatives can fight this all they want, but we will make sure that by the end of this year, we can phone those widows back. We can tell them the $8,000 bill they are facing that they cannot afford to pay will be paid. They deserve it, and they deserve better.

We are very interested in Bill C-319 and this issue of fixing the shortfalls in the pension, but obviously, it would not go far enough. I remember just a few years ago when Stephen Harper flew to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he announced that Canadian seniors had it a little too good. He was going to increase the age of eligibility for the old-age pension. He did not bother to tell Canadians that. He went to tell the world's elites at the World Economic Forum. He went to tell Klaus Schwab, to whisper in his ear, that Canadian senior citizens were getting too good a deal, and he was going to raise the age.

The Liberals ran on it, saying that they were going to fight that. They said, “We are going to make sure that we restore the age.” Then what did the Liberals do in their budget? They created two classes of senior citizens. They told all our senior citizens aged 74 and under, “Tough luck, get by, it is not too bad.” They told them they had their health, and they said they were going to give a small incremental increase to those aged 75 and older.

Just before inflation hit, I was underground in a gold mine in Timmins. That is tough work, and I met a 70-year-old man working the jackleg drill. People have to be in the best health to run a jackleg drill, because it does massive destruction to the body. He told me that at 70 years old, he had to go back underground to work the drills because he could not afford to look after his sick wife.

That is the situation in Canada. To say that, because he is under 75, he does not need a top-up to his pension is an insult. It is also an insult to say that if we just top up those at 65 to where they are at 75, it will get them through in a time of high inflation, because it is not going to get them through. Any senior citizen will tell us that. What we need are much broader systemic changes to deal with an aging population and the way that we have failed. Certainly, the issue of access to dental care is an important first step.

We also need a housing strategy that works. It is not a housing strategy when the member for Stornoway, who lives off the taxpayer's dime with his personal chef, goes on about how all the gatekeepers have stopped any building. He is attacking the municipalities for being gatekeepers. That is not going to get us housing. What we need is seniors housing. We need a national plan to build seniors housing that is co-operative, reasonable housing. The Liberals promised that. We have never seen so many promises about housing, but where are they? We have not seen it. That is a systemic failure.

With respect to the inability of people to feed themselves at a time of high inflation, and the pitiful amount of money they get in old age security, is a broader, more systemic issue that has to be addressed. We have to rethink the CPP. We have to look at the ability of people, while they are working, to add to their own old age security funds so that, if they are working and saving, that fund will go with them wherever they retire. That is contrary to the member for Stornoway, who by the way has a 19-room mansion. He calls it a tax. Investing in pensions is not a tax. The Conservatives keep saying that because they do not want to put the basic funds in place to have a proper pension.

We need to look at a properly funded pension system, so I look at Bill C-319, and we will certainly support it going forward. It is an incremental step, a baby step, along a long path, but it does not get us there. What gets us there is saying that we cannot live as a society with values when seniors are out on the streets begging, which I see on Elgin Street now. There are senior citizens and widowed grandmothers begging on the streets because they cannot pay their outrageous rents or the cost at the grocery stores, as there is not enough in their pensions. I think we need a broader discussion, one that is across party lines, on how we reform CPP so people can make investments into a public pension, not a privatized RRSP. I know a lot of people who have tried to put money into RRSPs and have told me they will never be able to retire because it will never be sufficient, so we have to address those shortfalls.

We have to send an important message now to senior citizens to admit that Canada has failed them, and is failing them, but that it is not going to continue to fail them. At a time of high inflation, high costs, high rents, high medical costs and the need for access to either pharmacare or dental care, Canada needs to do for them what they did for us. They held us in their arms, raised us and took on immense sacrifices so we could be the society that we are today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I’m speaking on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

First, let me start by saying that our seniors deserve our respect and gratitude. They have worked hard to build our country, serve our country standing up for democracy and freedoms, raise families, start businesses, contribute through their careers over decades, volunteer, and serve and contribute to our communities in so many ways before and during retirement. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for all that they have done over their lifetime. We also need to fully recognize the cost of living challenges facing our seniors now, including the affordability of retirement.

As they age, seniors can face many challenges, including financial insecurity, health issues and social isolation. I hear increasingly from seniors who are deeply concerned about their ability to maintain the quality of life they expected when they were younger. That is why Conservatives are committed to ensuring seniors are top of mind when considering policies that will affect what was supposed to be their golden years.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2019, over 1.6 million Canadian seniors were living in low-income households. That's more than 15% of the senior population. That was even before 40-year record-high inflation and the unprecedented increasing of interest rates, eight times in one year, by the Bank of Canada. Not all seniors have paid off their mortgages, and this is creating a crisis for many. Many seniors are struggling to make ends meet, and many are forced to choose between paying for necessities such as food, fuel, shelter and medication. I hear this all the time in my community.

One senior I know who lived on the edge of town had to sell his home because he simply could not afford to heat his home and the gas to drive his vehicle. It was heartbreaking for him. I just talked to him the other day, and he said he was depressed. Of course I encouraged him to reach out to seek help as I was genuinely concerned about him. Another reached out to me to say he cannot afford to visit family and his quality of life has diminished. Another said he cannot afford to replace his vehicle.

One key part of this legislation proposes to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. To be clear, this will not help everyone. However, this increase would help seniors, who are able to and want to, continue to work while keeping more in their pockets than they would have been able to because their earnings would have been clawed away. By increasing the GIS earnings exemption, we can help to alleviate some of these challenges for some people and ensure that more of our seniors are able to sustain, and for some, perhaps enjoy a more comfortable and secure retirement.

Conservatives believe that seniors who have worked hard and contributed to our society throughout their lives deserve to retire with dignity and financial security. However, many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the cost of living crisis.

Made-in-Canada inflation by the high-tax, high-debt, high-spend Liberals has hit some seniors the hardest. There are many people in our society, but some seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, are among those hurting the most. They are forced to choose between a warm home and a full fridge. Food banks usage across the country, including in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, is up over 30%. I heard from a senior recently from my community who said he usually donates to the food bank and now he cannot believe that he is a client.

Liberal financial policies have led to higher inflation. This has been stated by the former governor of the Bank of Canada and by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Seniors' retirement income is simply not keeping up to the pace of this cost of living crisis, which is cutting into the savings of seniors. High inflation rates, interest rate hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax, which affects the price of groceries, gas and home heating, are the real record of the Liberal government on seniors. It is the responsibility of the government to reward work, especially the work done by seniors.

Conservatives oppose severe clawbacks of seniors' GIS benefits for those who are able to, want to and choose to work. Increasing the earnings exemption is only fair at a time when so many seniors need cost of living relief and a sense of connection with their community.

Many seniors feel increasingly isolated in their own towns and cities, and some have struggled with financial insecurity because of the record inflation. According to a survey by the National Institute on Aging, 72% of Canadians aged 70 years and older became more concerned about their financial well-being in the last several years.

Labour force participation of seniors can bring value to organizations through experience and mentorship, help with succession planning and, maybe for some, mitigate social isolation, if seniors want to, are able to and choose to work. The Liberals' choice to disincentivize work also comes during a countrywide labour shortage. A recent Auditor General’s report on pandemic programs clearly laid out how, as restrictions were lifted, the programs continued disproportionally and disincentivized work. “Help wanted” signs have become all too frequent a sight, as small businesses and not-for-profits become desperate for the manpower needed to provide their goods and services.

Now, more than ever, is not the time to punish work. Working should be rewarded, and this is common sense. Why tax away a senior’s income if they are able to and want to work? Seniors are integral in sharing their knowledge and expertise with younger workers through mentoring programs, internships or other training opportunities. This can help develop the skills of the next generation of workers.

On this side of the House, we are committed to standing with seniors, and we believe that this increase to the GIS earnings exemption is a step in not taking their ability to earn an income if they are able to, choose to and want to, and without it being taxed away.

In closing, I want to reiterate our commitment to our seniors and to ensuring that they have the financial security and support they need to enjoy their retirement years. We believe increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, earnings exemption is one step in reaching this goal. This would help seniors who are able to, choose to and want to work, such as having a part-time job, which can keep more of their money in their pockets without affecting other benefits. This increase would help ensure that low-income seniors have additional income to meet their basic living expenses, again, if they want to, are able to and choose to work. It would reduce the impact of clawbacks. Why are we punishing seniors?

As Canada continues to face a labour shortage, the government cannot continue to be a gatekeeper of economic recovery. We must make sure that work is rewarded and encouraged, not punished, if people want to work and choose to work. I also recognize the value of intergenerational connections and the importance of seniors remaining active and engaged in their communities. That is why Conservatives support policies that encourage seniors to share their knowledge and skills with younger generations through work mentoring, as well as through volunteering and community programs.

In conclusion, we are committed to honouring and supporting seniors in Canada. We will continue to work towards policies that promote financial security, that do not penalize seniors and that promote meaningful connections for our valued seniors.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-319. I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill.

Private members' bills play an important role in focusing parliamentary attention on issues of concern to Canadians. Last spring, for instance, we had bills on mandatory immunization, employment insurance for adoptive parents, school food programs and, just recently, a bill to amend the Criminal Code for vulnerable adults.

Seniors are the backbone of Canadian society. They are our parents, our grandmothers and our grandfathers. They are our mentors and loved ones. They are our former teachers, our bosses and our leaders. Seniors built our amazing country and they deserve to live out their retirement without worrying about their financial security. I want to speak today to all the measures our government has delivered that support Canadian seniors.

Increasing old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75 was the right thing to do, because it was delivering targeted support to those who need it the most. We know that the older seniors get, the more likely they are to experience higher costs due to the onset of illness or disability and increased health-related expenses. The facts and data support the government's decision, because here, on this side of the House, we, unlike some of the other parties in this place, make decisions based upon data and facts.

Let us turn to the numbers to get an idea of how our government's plan has been effective in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are hard at work supporting those who need it most. In 2020, 39% of seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement, compared to 29% of those aged 65 to 74. There are also more women in the over-75 age group than men, and there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group as well. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, in 2017, 47% of seniors over the age of 75 had a disability, compared to 32% under the age of 75. This evidence tells us that seniors over the age of 75 are more likely to be in vulnerable circumstances. This means that they are more likely to need additional support, so that is exactly what the government delivered.

Conscious of the facts, our government made the responsible decision to make a historic increase to the old age security pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Let us be clear: This was a huge win for seniors. This change represented the first increase to OAS in 50 years. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They received more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed to rise with the cost of living, so it will continue to go up.

However, we did not stop there. Since 2015, we have implemented a range of targeted actions that have not only contributed to the lowest poverty rates among seniors in Canadian history, but also positioned Canada as a country with one of the lowest poverty rates in the world for seniors. In fact, one of the very first things the government did after we were elected was reverse the reckless Conservative plan to increase the age of retirement. We immediately lowered the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS, from 67 back to 65, allowing Canadians to retire sooner. This put hundreds of thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadian seniors. Bill C-29 was the budget implementation act in 2016. When we look at the voting record, the Conservatives voted against it and the Bloc voted against it. That is where the vote was for the return from 67 to 65 in 2016.

We also raised the guaranteed income supplement by almost $1,000 a year, which helped nearly one million vulnerable single seniors. We know that many seniors want to continue to work past retirement. That is why we extended eligibility for the GIS earnings exemption to include self-employment income and increased the exemption by over 40%, to enable seniors who wished to continue working to do so. On top of all this, we are ensuring that those benefits keep up with the cost of living. In fact, over the past year, OAS and GIS have actually increased by 7.1%, while CPP and QPP have increased by 6.5%. We are proud of our record, which shows that, year after year, we have strengthened seniors' financial security, while lifting hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty.

Of course, there is much more work to do. That is why we are bringing the largest expansion of health care in 60 years by providing uninsured seniors access to high-quality dental care. I sincerely hope that the member across the way who is moving the bill will vote for our budget so that she can support seniors with dental care.

We are always better when we work together. I encourage members across the way, including the Bloc, to work with us to support seniors in Quebec and across Canada. However, time and time again, Bloc members are choosing politics over supporting seniors. We can just look at the voting record, and I'll give a few more examples. I just mentioned dental care for seniors, but they have also already voted against the early stage of the budget, and I assume they are going to vote against the budget when it is ready to be voted on. There was also lowering the age of retirement, with Bill C-29, the Budget Implementation Act, in 2016; strengthening the GIS; and our OAS increase that supports the most vulnerable seniors. These are things that they voted against.

However, people should not worry. While opposition parties are playing political games, we are going to stay focused on delivering real results for seniors from coast to coast to coast.

Canada's population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic, and we need to be thoughtful in our approach to supporting them. We will continue to be proud of the record that we have in supporting seniors.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

moved that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce my first bill today, Bill C-319. The summary reads as follows:

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.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic, such as isolation, anxiety and financial hardship.

That said, I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. Instead, I want to present seniors as a grey force consisting of people who want to continue contributing to our society. They built Quebec, and we owe them respect.

Bill C-319 is designed to improve the financial situation of seniors and is structured around two parts. In my speech today, I will first address the part of my bill that deals with increasing old age security, or OAS, and then I will address the part that deals with increasing the qualifying threshold for the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. I will end my speech by explaining a bit more about the impact inflation has on the financial health of seniors.

To begin, the first part aims to eliminate the current age discrimination. In the 2021 budget, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure has created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. Seniors are not taking it lying down.

The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; it affects all of them. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors.

In 2021, there were 2.8 million people 75 and over compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. This opinion is shared by FADOQ and its president, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, who had this to say about the measure: “In principle, there is a good intention to provide financial assistance to seniors, but, in reality, people under 75 who are eligible for old age security get absolutely nothing.”

To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice, and this bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. It is not true that the one-time vote-seeking cheque of $500 for people 75 and over in August 2021 will be of any help. Seniors even feel that they have been used.

With Bill C‑319, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a 10% increase to old age security starting at age 65 for every month after June 2023. For example, at present, this increase would raise the benefits paid to single, widowed, divorced or separated persons from $1,032 to $1,135.31 every month. As for the amount paid when both spouses are retired, it would increase from $621.25 to $683.35 per month. You do not live in the lap of luxury with that amount. You certainly do not go down south, and you do not stash your money away in tax havens.

Second, with inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors.

Back in 2021, during the last federal election, the Bloc Québécois platform proposed to raise the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000 in order to allow those who are willing and able to continue working to do so without a significant reduction in their GIS benefit, which is derived from old age security.

Given the exceptional transformation in Canada's demographics in recent decades, there are now more people aged 65 and over, and they now outnumber children under 15. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.

In fact, Employment and Social Development Canada released a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising Initiatives” in May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan. The document identifies the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors. These include a lack of education or training, health issues, and work-life balance issues due to a lack of workplace accommodations. The study then proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce.

Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past.

I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, the Liberals have taken half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. Currently, old age security payments are not enough to weather the affordability crisis and the dramatic price increases for housing or intermediate housing resources.

Six years ago, in June 2017, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance published a report on the financial impact and local considerations of an aging population. Everyone agrees that the economic situation of households has deteriorated significantly with the pandemic, and that sudden inflation is hurting Quebeckers and Canadians. The committee's findings and proposed solutions at that time could not be clearer. It recommended:

That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with its provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners, put measures in place to increase labour force participation of underrepresented groups and to better match labour demand with labour supply in order to mitigate the negative impact of population aging on the economy and on the labour market.

As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the pandemic in June 2020. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect effects of this hastily put together aid. Nevertheless, small and medium enterprises are increasingly stressed out as they desperately look for workers, and about the closure of many shops and the decline in some areas.

We believe that the tax contributions, the tax incentives and the income exemption rates on the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement do not entice older people to return to work because they will be denied hundreds of dollars a month.

Let us not forget the sad irony of Liberal measures such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, which were considered income during the health crisis. In the end, they took away significant sums of money from the most fragile and least fortunate in the population. This aberration was finally corrected by the government in February 2022 after several months of representations by the Bloc Québécois to the Minister of Seniors when Bill C‑12 was tabled.

At the time, Bloc Québécois researchers found that GIS recipients who received CERB lost 50 cents of the supplement for every dollar they received, so a tax rate of 50%, almost double that of the richest people in society. However, at the time, no one informed affected taxpayers of this dramatic impact on disposable household income. During the study for this legislation, the Bloc Québécois pointed out that this major injustice is both harmful and absurd. The FADOQ network called the situation a tragedy.

Let me get back to what we are suggesting. The exemption on earnings and miscellaneous income would increase from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. That would leave an additional $1,500 in the pockets of all claimants aged 65 and older. Compared to the 2021 proposal, then, the current bill suggests an additional $500, for a total of $6,500, to offset the deteriorating economic situation. The goal of these two measures combined is to increase both the monthly base amounts and the annual working income. We believe that this will help seniors deal with inflation and the current hardships. It is the least we can do, to allow millions of people who built our communities to live with dignity.

Third, I want to talk about the impact of inflation. Do not forget that old age security is taxable. The OAS and GIS amounts are revised in January, April, July and October, ostensibly to reflect the cost of living. These benefits were indexed annually until 1973. At that time, inflation was very high, particularly for fuel and food, and officials felt that quarterly indexing would better protect against unexpectedly large price increases during the year. By the summer of 2020, however, even FADOQ had decried the fact that these increases will not even buy a coffee at Tim Horton's.

The consumption habits of seniors differ from those of the rest of the population. As a result, they experience different inflation. Statistics Canada studied this difference in 2005. It found that seniors spend proportionately less on transportation, gasoline or a new car, but much more on housing and food. For every $100, they spend $56, compared to $45 for all other households. Surely we all agree that housing and groceries are not luxuries.

What is the impact of that inflation? From 1992 to 2004, the average annual inflation rate was 1.95% for senior-only households, compared to 1.84% for other households. Again, seniors are harder hit.

I will refresh the Liberals' memory. On March 19, 2022, the Liberal member for Etobicoke North moved motion No. 45. If the Liberal Party and the Green Party are consistent with their support—14 members from these two parties jointly supported this motion—then Bill C‑319 should be adopted.

I will read the text of the motion, because it is worth it:

That:

(a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion.

On June 15, 2022, 301 members finally voted in favour this motion, while 25 voted against. Out of the 326 members present, only 25 members from the New Democratic Party voted against this motion.

Seniors living on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet because their daily expenses are increasing faster than their pension payments. Old age security, or OAS, is adjusted to inflation every three months, while the Canada pension plan, or CPP, is adjusted every January. However, OAS and the CPP are not enough for some people to make ends meet.

People are feeling the shock of the 10.3% year-over-year increase in the cost of food, as reported by Statistics Canada in the year leading up to September. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 6.9% year over year in September, also according to Statistics Canada.

I met with some representatives from the Salvation Army this morning who told me that they too have noticed, like many other support organizations, that demand for food has doubled, and that a large portion of the demand is from seniors. It is inconceivable that this permanent increase in the OAS, which is the first since 1973, so the first in 50 years, is not indexed to inflation. We hope that this will help seniors who, as we have seen, are turning more and more to food banks.

Let us remember that, in the summer of 2021, one month before the election, the federal government handed out $500 cheques to seniors who were eligible for the old age security pension to supposedly help them with affordability issues related to the pandemic. However, it is going to take a lot more than an ad hoc approach. We really need to focus on the long term.

Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged. It is $666.83 a month. With that low monthly income, it is not surprising that Canada has the generation of retirees facing the greatest inequities and injustices.

Since the 2019 election, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the government to increase the old age security pension for seniors as of age 65 and has been calling the government out on its discrimination and ageism against seniors aged 65 to 74, so this bill is a logical extension of our position.

In closing, I would like to thank Gisèle Tassé‑Goodman from the FADOQ, Pierre‑Claude Poulin from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and Diane Dupéré from the Association québécoise des retraités et des retraitées des secteurs public et parapublic for their support of this bill. Like me, they are just the mouthpiece for seniors whose stories they hear every day. I would be remiss if I failed to mention all of the seniors groups from all over Quebec who also sent me messages of support. They think that Bill C-319 is the least we can do to give seniors a little help and bit of fresh air.

One last thing: I wish the House would realize the importance of this bill, which is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is just common sense to help seniors age with dignity. Based on the feedback I have received so far, even from seniors outside Quebec, all I have to say is let us work together. Similar motions have been passed many times, including the Bloc Québécois motion calling for an increase in OAS as part of our opposition day. Only the Liberals voted against it. They were the only holdouts. This time, I am reaching out to them. I am asking them to eliminate the injustice they created and vote with us in favour of Bill C‑319.

Once again, this is a matter of dignity for 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.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to your statement of March 30, 2023, 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.

[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.

Old Age Security Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to introduce a bill to improve the financial health of seniors.

This bill essentially contains two parts. The first part aims to eliminate the discrimination that currently exists on the basis of age. We are asking that all seniors receive the 10% increase in old age security starting at age 65, not just those aged 75 and over. The second part aims to raise the eligibility threshold for the guaranteed income supplement to $6,500, without cutting it, for seniors who decide to remain in the workforce.

With these two measures, which increase both the basic amount and the working income of seniors, we aim to ensure that they can better cope with inflation. That is the least we can do to allow seniors to live in dignity.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)