Bill C-319 (Historical)

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

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

Old Age Security Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of King—Vaughan. Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing forward this important piece of legislation and for contributing to the discussions on supporting seniors across the country.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the seniors who built this country. As many members know, I was fortunate enough to be raised by my grandmother and my great-grandmother. They taught me some of life's most valuable lessons. They taught me the importance of helping neighbours, living within one's means, saving for a rainy day and leaving things better than we found them. Like so many grandparents across the country, they led by example.

Seniors built the community that we live in. They raised families, started businesses, volunteered countless hours and contributed to the prosperity we enjoy as Canadians. After a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to retire with dignity and financial security, yet, for too many seniors today, that promise is increasingly out of reach. Canada is in the midst of an affordability crisis that is placing real pressure on fixed incomes. Housing costs have risen sharply. Grocery prices remain elevated and everyday essentials from utilities to transportation continue to strain household budgets. For seniors, there is no flexibility to simply earn more so that they can keep more. When prices rise, their purchasing power falls. This is the reality facing seniors across King—Vaughan and across this country.

That is why Bill C-261 is so important. In 2021, the government increased old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. What that decision did was create two classes of seniors. A senior who is 74 years old receives one level of support, while a senior who is 75 receives another. The question many seniors have asked me is simple. Why? Why is one senior considered more deserving than another? Why does affordability suddenly become a problem at age 75 but not at age 74?

The reality is that inflation does not care how old someone is. The cost of groceries is the same. The cost of heating a home is the same. The cost of filling a prescription is the same. Many seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 are facing exactly the same challenges as seniors over the age of 75. They are living on fixed incomes and watching the cost of everyday necessities continue to rise.

Over the past several years, I have spoken with seniors across the country. I have heard from people who are cutting back on groceries. I have heard from seniors who are delaying medical appointments, postponing home repairs and worried about whether their retirement savings will last.

What concerns me the most is that many of the seniors facing the greatest financial pressures are those living alone. A single senior does not pay half the rent because they are one person. They do not pay half the hydro bill or half the property taxes. A single senior often faces higher costs relative to their income because there is only one with whom to share those expenses. Many of these seniors are widows. Many are women who spent decades raising families, caring for loved ones, and contributing to the communities. A 68-year-old widow living alone can face the same affordability challenges as someone who is 76 years old.

The bill would also increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. This is another important measure. Many seniors choose to continue working. Some do so because they enjoy staying active. Others do so because they want to supplement their retirement income due to the affordability crisis the Liberal government has caused. Conservatives believe work should be rewarded, not punished. Seniors who are able to, want to and choose to work should be able to earn and keep more of their money without the clawbacks. At a time when many sectors continue to face labour shortages, experienced seniors bring tremendous value to workplaces through mentorship, training and leadership. We should be encouraging their contributions, not discouraging them.

Recent data reinforces just how widespread the impact of the cost of living crisis on these seniors has become due to the Liberals. According to Food Banks Canada's 2025 HungerCount report, seniors now account for 8.3% of all food bank clients, up from 6.8% in 2019. At the same time, food banks are seeing more than 2.2 million visits in a single month, breaking all records.

The National Institute on Aging has also warned that financial vulnerability among older adults is increasingly driven by structural factors, such as housing costs, inflation and living alone. In particular, single seniors, especially older women, face a significantly higher risk of economic insecurity due to fixed incomes and the rising cost of essentials. Together, these findings show that affordability pressures are not limited to a narrow age group but are affecting seniors broadly across Canada, regardless of whether they are 65, 75 or 85 years old.

I recognize that this bill faces challenges. Like its predecessor, Bill C-319, this bill will likely require a royal recommendation because it involves new public spending. I hope that my Liberal colleagues in government will recognize this session that affordability challenges do not begin at the age of 75. Seniors deserve fairness, and that means ensuring that support is available to all seniors who are struggling with the rising cost of living due to Liberal mismanagement.

Conservatives have consistently stood up for seniors. Conservatives believe they should be able to afford groceries, medication and housing. Conservatives believe that if they choose to continue working, they should be rewarded rather than penalized by the government. Conservatives believe that after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve a government that respects their contributions and understands their challenges.

As Parliament considers this bill, I hope members remember the senior who often falls through the cracks, the widow living alone, the senior renting on a fixed income, and the older Canadian who has done everything right but is struggling to keep up with the rising costs due to the affordability crisis that the Liberal government has created. Bill C-261 would not solve every challenge facing seniors, but it would help restore fairness to a system that currently treats some seniors differently simply because of their age.

For those reasons, I will support Bill C-261, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

moved that Bill C-261, 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, it is always very moving to have the privilege of introducing a bill that one cares about. I will be reading my speech because I want to share my message in full and I do not want to run out of time.

For a society to live in peace, its citizens must live with confidence. They have to feel certain that their government is taking care of them, that it is working for their well-being and that it is keeping its promises. When a person retires, that is the moment of truth. That is when the unspoken agreement between the citizen and the state must be honoured. It should be the time to reap the rewards of decades of hard work, a time of dignity, not a time of mere survival. However, today, too many new retirees await this freedom with a sense of dread.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am calling on my esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens to correct an injustice. We are living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, one that prides itself on its social safety net, its values, its compassion and its commitment to mutual support. However, today, we are seeing this safety net become ever more fragile. There are more and more holes in it. We are abandoning the very people who built our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. We spend our lives imagining a retirement where we want for nothing, where we can have a well-deserved rest and where we can live out our lives in complete security.

However, for thousands of new retirees, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement no longer constitute the promised safety net. Instead, they are life rafts and they are taking on water. We are not talking about charity here. We are talking about a social contract. These men and women paid their taxes for 40 or 50 years. They contributed to the country's economic success. They raised the generation that is now leading Quebec. The implicit promise was simple. If people worked hard and contributed to the common good, then the state would make sure that they wanted for nothing as they grew old. We are way off the mark.

Not only are we way off the mark, but it is now clear that the Liberal government did not keep this promise—one among many, some might say. Young retirees are being forced to keep working just to make ends meet. Is this the sneaky way that the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have found to effectively raise the retirement age, without anyone noticing? If so, it is dishonest and unworthy of the office.

This government tried to address the discontent but only managed to create an even greater injustice. It officially established two classes of retirees by deciding to increase OAS by 10% for those over the age of 75. On the one hand, we have older seniors, who are deemed worthy of additional assistance, and on the other, we have young retirees aged 65 to 74, who are essentially being told to fend for themselves. What is the logic behind that discrimination? At the grocery store, does inflation ask how old the customer is? Are rent, gas or heating costs lower when someone is 70 than when they are 76? What happens on the night before a retiree turns 75? It takes just as much air to blow out 65 candles as it does 75.

The government says that seniors aged 65 to 74 are still active and can work to supplement their income. This is an insult to those who have had physically demanding careers and who, let us face it, are worn out. Asking a 68-year-old construction worker, warehouse worker or restaurant server to go back to work just to pay for groceries is not really a solution. It is an admission of failure. It means accepting that the government has failed in its duty.

We in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. That is why, since 2021, we have been making every effort to put an end to the injustice caused by these two classes of seniors. We are often told that this would be financially unsustainable. We are told that increasing pensions for people aged 65 to 74 would cost the public purse billions of dollars. That is true. It is a significant amount.

However, what is the cost of not doing it? How much does it cost our health care system when a senior eats poorly because fruit and vegetables have become a luxury? How much does social isolation—which leads to depression—cost? How much does the loss of dignity cost? It is not just a matter of compassion; it is also a matter of public health and safety.

Thorough research has provided irrefutable evidence that the most egalitarian societies are the ones that fare the best. I am not going to mince words: The harms caused by inequality affect women first and foremost. Once again, women are statistically the ones who have the lowest pensions. They are the ones who live the longest in solitude. By refusing to help seniors aged 65 to 74, this government is perpetrating a form of economic harm against our mothers and grandmothers. It is taking the women who kept our society going—often from the shadows, often without pay—and putting them in a vulnerable position. Causing them anxiety about the future is truly unworthy of this House.

Study after study clearly proves it. When the wealth gap is narrowed, crime falls significantly and confidence rises. Mental illness declines. Obesity, chronic stress and violence—especially violence against women—decline. Conversely, the wider the wealth gap, the sicker the body politic.

Colleagues, for a society to live in peace, it takes confidence. I said it before and I am saying it again. However, poverty among seniors undermines that confidence. It creates anxiety not only for retirees, but also for their children and grandchildren, who see their own future as a threatening prospect, rather than a comfortable one. How can they trust a government that cheats their parents and flouts the social contract?

By allowing seniors' spending power to collapse, the government is making a conscious decision to increase future social costs. It is opting for more people in hospital beds, more psychological distress and more insecurity. Of course, there are those who will solemnly claim that the cupboard is bare, that the debt is too big. Honestly, that is a risible argument.

When it comes to finding millions of dollars to subsidize oil and gas giants, who do not need financial support, the money seems to appear out of thin air. When it comes to buying a pipeline in western Canada that will never serve our interests, the cheque book is often wide open. When the big banks are making record profits while raising fees on consumers, the government looks the other way. When billions of dollars end up in tax havens without being taxed, we are told it is really complicated. It is so complicated to get the money back from the tax havens.

However, when a 72-year-old grandmother asks for what she is entitled to, namely enough money to pay her heating bill, just like her 76-year-old neighbour, suddenly everyone has to be responsible. They pull out the calculator and talk to us about fiscal discipline. This is not really a problem of revenue. It is a problem of choice. It is a political choice, a political decision. Clearly, this government's choices are not the same ones the public would make. The government prefers to help those who pollute, those who make massive profits, and neglects those who built Quebec. As someone who devoted her entire career to seniors, I think that is completely outrageous.

We are not asking for the moon. We are asking the government to honour a social contract. Is it too much to ask to maintain what little balance still remains? I repeat: Our seniors are not asking for charity. They are demanding respect. What we are seeing today is a government that is deliberately and knowingly choosing to create and maintain two classes of seniors: one that deserves to be helped and another that is left to fend for itself. This age-based discrimination is unworthy of a modern society. The people that my colleagues and I represent think that this is unacceptable, and I am sure that many members of the House from all political parties agree with them.

We are not here to beg for favours. We are here to correct an injustice and appeal to every member of the House's sense of reason. For a society to live in peace, it must treat those who built it with respect. What is needed now is more than just rhetoric on election day or during an election campaign. What folks need are cheques that will cover groceries and rent.

It is time to stop seeing retirees as a budgetary burden or an expense column in an Excel spreadsheet. They are our society's collective memory. They are our roots, and it is absurd to cut off the water supply to our roots under the pretext of saving money. In the name of dignity, we call on the government to stop its petty calculations. It needs to stop dividing people. It needs to stop dividing seniors. We need to give them back what they entrusted us with.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Many citizens heard that today would be quite a memorable day in my career as a member of Parliament. Seriously, over the past week, I have received hundreds of letters, emails and notes encouraging me to continue on this path, because seniors know that their living conditions and their dignity are not being respected at all.

People in my riding, as well as the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, the largest seniors' group in Quebec, representing several thousand people, are making this their top demand. I also spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and with retirees from Quebec, who share the same demand. It is not too complicated. They are asking for fairness and justice. They are calling on the government to correct this age-based inequity and discrimination.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues. In the last Parliament, my colleague from Shefford sponsored Bill C‑319, which went through a lengthy legislative process. Although it died on the Order Paper, a number of members in the House supported that bill. We hope the House of Commons shows the same cohesion and consensus again.

Not only does Bill C‑261 seek to correct the injustice, but it also seeks to increase the GIS maximum exemption amount. It is important to clarify that. The bill provides for a 10% increase in OAS, but it also increases to $6,500 the maximum amount a person can earn before their GIS is reduced. Around 20% of seniors in my riding tell me that they are forced to work. However, for GIS recipients, any income over $5,000 is subject to a clawback. As the saying goes, that is like trading four quarters for a dollar. That is what my grandmother used to say. What do all these seniors end up doing, then? They end up working under the table or just making do, because they basically need every penny of their income to make ends meet.

In closing, I can say that this truly comes from the heart. I know that my colleague across the aisle secured a royal recommendation to pass a bill that will allow bereaved parents who have lost a child to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits. I therefore hope to convince the government that it has a great opportunity to right a wrong and, of course, grant a royal recommendation to my bill. This bill will allow seniors to live better. Above all, they will see that this injustice and discrimination have finally been addressed. It is a matter of respect, and frankly, there is no room for compromise. Again, I appeal to my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, to support Bill C-261.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

It makes no sense.

Veterans Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

Why are the Liberals not making the right choice?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 43

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to come back to the FADOQ:

The federal government abandons retirees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the motion be amended by adding the following:

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

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

Seniors

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

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

Old Age Security

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

Seniors

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, who is flying the Liberal plane?

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

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

Is that why the Liberals want their leader out?