Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are talking about standing up for seniors. Ms. McLean, we met in June in connection with your position as the Secretary of State for Seniors. I told you about my concerns that the government was completely overlooking people between the ages of 65 and 74. When it comes to the responsibility for seniors' issues, some are wondering why the government created a secretary of state position rather than a ministerial position. What message was the government trying to send in appointing someone who has less power than a real minister? That's my first question.
Second, the Liberals are responsible for an unacceptable inequity, by creating two classes of seniors: young seniors and old seniors. Keep in mind that, starting at age 65, people collecting their pensions are living on fixed incomes. What's more, just like those 75 and older, people between the ages of 65 and 74 are grappling with rent increases, food inflation and higher drug prices, but they weren't entitled to an increase in their old age security pension or guaranteed income supplement. We introduced Bill C‑319, legislation that sought to raise the guaranteed income supplement exemption from $5,000 to $6,500 before the clawback kicked in. If you're saying that those under 75 can work, as you seem to be, then they shouldn't be penalized for doing so.
Madam Secretary of State, what is your time frame for raising the exemption for income that a senior may receive without having their guaranteed income supplement reduced? That would help level the playing field for seniors who choose to work.
When are you going to eliminate the inequity between these two classes of seniors?