Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let us pick up where we left off the last time we met. I had spoken with the Prime Minister about the funding for some of the measures that had been put forward. Much to my chagrin, the whole issue of help for seniors remains, and I will not back down. Such a measure could be funded—or potentially funded—by halting certain tax avoidance practices that cost the Canadian government hundreds of millions of dollars. The exact number depends on which study or source you consult, but we can all agree that it is an enormous amount of money that is eluding the Canadian government through perfectly legal, yet entirely immoral, means. However, other rich and highly industrialized countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark and Poland, are refusing to make their programs available to companies that engage in tax avoidance.
We will come back to the matter because it strikes me as rather fundamental, especially at a time when so many are asking whether we can really afford to provide all these measures. Personally, I am more inclined to ask whether we can afford not to provide all these measures. By taking this action, the government is, of course, protecting its own revenues in the future. Nevertheless, that is obviously no excuse to leave potentially billions of dollars in the hands of the same companies that always benefit, companies that will bountifully pass the riches on to their shareholders.
That brings me back to seniors. I invited the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to work together, and I want to extend that invitation again. I would like to highlight the fact that working together was effective when it came to wage subsidies. Working together was effective when it came to support for students. Working together was effective when it came to additional supports for the social economy. In many ways, the government and the opposition have achieved better results by working together than if the government had gone off and decided everything on its own.
As we all know, seniors 65 and older, who make up 19% of Quebec's population, are far and away the people most vulnerable to the health risks of this crisis. They are also the people most vulnerable financially speaking, and by a wide margin. What is more, seniors are isolated, not just physically, but also socially. The places that are home to high numbers of senior residents are closed to outsiders. Not to mention, many seniors are isolated technologically, given that they are less familiar with the tools that make it possible to communicate with the rest of the world.
For some people, simply having to fill out the application for the Canada emergency response benefit is a heck of a challenge. Radio-Canada had something about it on its website this morning. I repeat my appeal to work together, because a lot of people so far have received assistance that we, too, feel is necessary. It would be an exaggeration, however, to say that everyone got something. In a very open and forthright way, we worked together to put this assistance in place.
Bear in mind that recipients of the Canada emergency response benefit will get $2,000 a month and that eventual recipients of the Canada emergency student benefit will likely qualify for $1,250 a month, while old age security recipients collect just $613 a month. No doubt, people will say that seniors do not have the same needs and obligations when it comes to transportation and child care. I can appreciate that, but they do not deserve a third of what a recipient of the Canada emergency response benefit gets. By giving others two to three times more, the government clearly recognizes that $613 is not sufficient. Obviously, the cost of groceries has gone up and a good many services are no longer available to seniors. Therefore, we need to do something to help seniors, and the Bloc is adamant about that—make no mistake.
I have lost track of how long I have been speaking, but I would like to revisit the assistance planned for students.
We are voting tomorrow on a piece of legislation that will bring in a measure sought by the Bloc Québécois. The NDP made a tremendous contribution as well.
It is out of the question that young people across Quebec and Canada—who will not get jobs in arts, culture or tourism, working in festivals and restaurants—have nothing to get by on immediately and no way to save money to live on during the school year. Something had to be done. A measure is in the works, and we support that.
Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois wants the legislation to include a provision that gives Quebec the right to opt out with no strings attached and with compensation. Since the measure is meant for students, it involves education. None of the 297 members participating in this meeting is an education minister—because education is not in the federal domain. This is a form of intrusion, then. Nevertheless, I accept it. It was not Quebec's wish, perhaps for administrative reasons or expeditiousness.
However, Quebec raised concerns, chambers of commerce raised concerns, farmers raised concerns and municipalities raised concerns. I am not convinced that the measure is a disincentive to employment, because I think young people want to work just as much today as they did back when I was young. Still, people are worried that the measure discourages young people from working.
The Bloc Québécois is therefore proposing a measure that could be added to the original motion and have the effect of strongly encouraging employment. If, as is the case in other areas, the first $1,000 earned by a student was not deducted from their benefit, that, right there, would be a strong incentive. In addition, though, if—similar to employment insurance—for every additional dollar earned, 50¢ came off the benefit and the other 50¢ stayed in the student's pocket, the incentive to work would be very strong indeed.
We think that would alleviate the concerns of Quebeckers and demonstrate to farmers that they would have access to labour. The same goes for municipalities and chambers of commerce, which represent a large number of small and medium-sized businesses. That is what we are proposing, and it makes the measure even more beneficial.
We are all worried about the public purse. Eventually, we are going to have to pay the piper. In that regard, what we are proposing could save the government tens of millions of dollars. We also think this add-on could apply to the Canada emergency response benefit, in its current form, serving as a way to incentivize work, bolster the economy and, to a lesser extent, create potential tax revenue. We therefore encourage the government and other parties to consider the measure, which would probably serve all areas under Quebec's and Canada's jurisdiction well.
I assume I am almost out of time, but other issues that need to be addressed are research, tourism, culture, fisheries and trade. Those are all areas that require our attention, but not always with a view to committing more money. Adjustments can be made, since there is indeed a limit to just how deep into collective debt we can drive Quebeckers and Canadians. I think we will have to take that approach in terms of public finances. Soon, we will have to prohibit any spending that does not have a direct impact on economic development or the economic recovery. Those are two fundamental categories. The first obviously involves infrastructure. There is significant pressure from municipalities on that front, but there is also direct support for economic development, which, starting now, should be geared towards forward-looking sectors, more than they were before, especially oil and gas. Those who work in oil and gas should not be sitting on the bench. We can get back to where we were. Any future investment, any future development, must be geared towards renewable energy and green technology, with the huge export markets they represent.