Debates of March 10th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #25

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 5 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Employment Insurance

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 5, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my whip was not paying attention when the vote came by and I would like my vote counted yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #26

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Science, Research and Innovation

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on March 9, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #27

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:01 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should as soon as possible introduce a bill providing: a 110 dollar monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement paid to pensioners; the continuation of the payment, for a period of six months, of the old age security pension and supplement to a person whose spouse or common-law partner has died; automatic registration for people 65 entitled to the guaranteed income supplement; full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who have been short-changed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since the voters of my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot first elected me in 2007 that I have had the privilege to present a motion as a member of Parliament.

The motion I have chosen to sponsor is a good example of my interest in creating bridges between the generations. I am also very pleased to have the cooperation of my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors.

Motion M-300 proposes some more specific amendments to the guaranteed income supplement. It is a reintroduction of Bills C-301 and C-490 introduced during past sessions by the Bloc Québécois. Its intention is to help our needy seniors and demonstrate our desire to improve their situation. This motion is intended as an answer to their wishes.

I cannot help but be delighted by the support of my motion by the hon. member for Laval, the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women. We are well aware that many women are affected by the current unfairness in the guaranteed income supplement program.

This motion therefore proposes four different items: automatic registration for the guaranteed income supplement; a $110 per month increase for recipients of the guaranteed income supplement; full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who have been short-changed; and a compensatory continuation of benefits to recipients of the guaranteed income supplement when a partner has died.

The tour undertaken by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to consult seniors and seniors' organizations in all parts of Quebec cast light on the poverty of seniors. They asked us to pay attention to their needs, because many of them live in real poverty. The rise in the cost of living is more likely to affect seniors as they have to pay more for drugs, essential services and housing.

Do I really need to convince my colleagues that this money will be going to the neediest of our seniors?

Our elders deserve more than the Conservatives want to give them at this time. Tax credits are all very fine, but a person has to pay income tax to be able to benefit from them.

For those most in need, the support measures proposed in my motion are essential, because these people cannot meet their basic needs. This is a form of isolation and social exclusion that can lead to other problems such as bad health, depression and dysfunction. There is no doubt that poverty can quickly strip people of their confidence, dignity and hope.

It is not uncommon to see recipients unable to fully retire, because they need to earn some additional income just to survive.

I am using the term survive, because this is indeed what it is all about.

By being unfair to them, the government is choking our seniors and keeping them in extreme poverty.

Honouring our elders is a fundamental value in our society. We must respect these people, who worked so hard for the well-being of future generations. This is a matter of dignity, social justice, respect and, above all, rights for our elderly. Personally, I believe that this dignity begins first and foremost with financial security.

For years the Bloc Québécois has been criticizing the irregularities in the federal guaranteed income supplement program, which provides supplementary income to low income seniors.

Over the past few years, an extensive operation carried out by the Bloc Québécois has helped track down some 42,000 of these people in Quebec. However, there are still about 135,000 seniors who are being shortchanged, including 40,000 in Quebec alone.

The reason why so many seniors are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement is simply the Liberals' inaction, which is now being imitated by the Conservatives.

The government says that seniors only have to register once to get this supplement. This shows the government's ignorance of the situation and of the needs of our elderly.

The 135,000 people who are not getting this money are precisely those who are not aware of the existence of that program, who do not understand the application form or who cannot fill it out properly.

The government has an obligation to track down all those seniors who were forgotten. It must immediately set up an automatic registration system. It has the means to do so, since the exchange of information with the Canada Revenue Agency is now allowed.

The $110 monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement is essential and would help our seniors improve their living conditions. Right now, the guaranteed income supplement paid to low-income pensioners does not even allow them to reach the low income cutoff. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 would help these people to at least have a revenue equivalent to the low income cutoff.

In 2006, the guaranteed income supplement was increased by $18, then by $18 again in 2007 and by $16 in 2008, for a total of $52 over three years. We are definitely not talking about exceptional generosity. Do hon. members really believe that such measures will not trigger a reaction from our seniors?

There is another problem: the Bloc Québécois found 42,000 people in Quebec who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but they will receive only 11 months' retroactivity from the federal government. When a Canadian taxpayer ends up owing money to Revenue Canada after an audit of past tax years, the government does not settle for 11 months' retroactivity; it wants every penny it is due.

I myself handled files for seniors who were being told to pay back overpayments from the department. The department has occasionally used pretty ruthless measures to recover such overpayments. But the government does not settle for 11 months' retroactivity; it collects every penny of the overpayment. That is a striking example of how the government takes advantage of the most vulnerable.

I should add that full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement would cost some $12 billion. We know that the government has recorded surpluses in the neighbourhood of $10 billion over the past few years. It might have been nice for some of that money to go to our seniors, who are becoming both more numerous and poorer.

It is just disgusting to see so much money spent on the military—$17.1 billion for the purchase of helicopters, planes and other equipment—on top of the billions Ottawa has given to “poor” oil companies. The Conservatives should be ashamed of their plan to reduce taxes on oil companies to 15% over the next five years, while reducing the tax rate to 22% for SMEs that have been hit hard by the economic crisis. Thanks to the government, oil companies will get $2 billion worth of tax breaks in 2009. But they do not see this as scandalous.

Why does the government not want to invest a little more in our seniors? Seniors' associations have also asked that guaranteed income supplement co-beneficiaries be allowed to continue collecting benefits for six months after a spouse's death. Currently, surviving spouses receive just one month of benefits after their spouse's death, which is a heavy penalty.

I want to make it clear that this compassionate payout will last for just six months. It is not permanent. The goal is to enable seniors going through a grieving process to create a more stable situation for themselves.

An individual who loses his or her spouse has to think about whether or not they will move or how they will maintain or keep the family home. These questions have to be asked. This compassionate measure shows a bit of humanity in dealing with our seniors. I am also convinced that my colleagues from all parties recognize our responsibility towards those who made us what we are and who expect our appreciation.

When in opposition, the Conservatives supported Bill C-301, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois before the 2005 election was called. All Conservative members in this House voted for the bill. In order to demonstrate their sincerity, and thus honour the position taken previously, I urge them to support my motion now that they are in government.

The government can count on Quebec, which it has recognized as a nation. Members of the Bloc Québécois have known for a long time that our role is to defend the most disadvantaged. Rest assured that in a sovereign Quebec our seniors would not be penalized. The National Assembly of Quebec has adopted a unanimous motion in support of seniors who do not receive the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled. More than ever I will promote an independent Quebec that will respect our seniors. The guaranteed income supplement is intended for the most vulnerable. Our seniors wish to live with dignity. It is a question of social justice, rights and what is due to our seniors.

Our seniors built the Quebec of today and my generation will build the Quebec of tomorrow. These are intergenerational bridges.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on the fine speech she gave concerning our seniors. As she so clearly pointed out, for several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to have this principle recognized, to acknowledge our seniors and ensure they have enough income to live their lives with dignity.

I wonder if the member would not agree that, regardless of everyone's personal opinion, our current economic climate actually presents the perfect opportunity to invest this money in our seniors, who are so deserving of it, in order to stimulate our economy. As we all know, if these people had even the slightest increase in their incomes, they could really benefit from that and spend money in their communities. I would like to know her thoughts on this.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his speech. He was, moreover, the sponsor of the motion the Conservatives supported when in opposition.

In response to his question, raising the income provided to our seniors would be of great help to their situation. We know that many seniors are having to make a choice between paying for food or paying for medicine. This can end up costing the state more because it will have to look after seniors who have become sicker than necessary because they cannot afford to buy their medicines.

I, and all of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, want to see our seniors live in dignity. That is why I am calling upon all of my colleagues here in the House of Commons to support my motion.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly well intentioned and is heading in the right direction. Seniors who have worked hard and contributed to the growth and development of our communities and country are well deserving.

There were a number of initiatives in the last budget, pension income splitting and others. In budget 2009 there was a $1,000 increase to the age credit, $400 million over two years for the construction of social housing, long-tenured worker benefits of $500 million, and $60 million over three years for the targeted initiative for older workers. There was a series of initiatives in the budget with respect to older workers.

The member asked for support of her motion. Why is it that she did not support the budget which contained some very significant benefits for older workers and seniors, benefits that they surely could have used? How is it that the member and her party opposed those very initiatives in the budget?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear what the hon. colleague across the way has had to say. It gives me an opportunity to repeat what I said. He did not really get the intent of my motion. He refers to intentions but this government needs more than intentions; it needs to take action.

He speaks of measures to help seniors but those are measures for people with incomes. Tax credits only affect people who pay income tax. The measures in my motion are to help people living with minimum incomes that do not even bring them up to the poverty line. I saw none of those measures in the budget presented by the Conservatives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce may ask a very short question.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but what strikes me as interesting is she mentioned the lowest income earners, those in the most need. In our economic action plan we enhanced our working income tax benefit. We added dollars to retrofit affordable housing, to create new housing, housing for seniors and housing for those who are disabled, and yet she said that she does not want to support the budget.

I ask the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has only 15 seconds.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is talking to me about tax credits for workers. Is he saying that he wants seniors to go back to work? What he is saying is completely ridiculous. He is mixing up two files. I am talking about a motion to help the poorest among us, and he is telling me that they should go back to work to get credits from his government—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member speak for and against a subject that would help seniors and older workers in a number of ways that I and the hon. member have listed. It is certainly something that would have been worthy of support, but she is focused on her particular motion and I would like to speak to that.

I would speak in support of our public pension programs and the good work the Conservative government has been doing for some time to help seniors. Since its first day in office, our government has been absolutely committed to improving the lives of seniors. We have done that by making seniors' issues a priority and by sticking to improved programs such as the GIS the member referred to, so we can do an even better job of serving Canadians.

A great deal has already been done to translate this commitment into reality. For example, since taking office we have increased the GIS by $36 per month for unattached seniors and $58 per month for couples in January 2006 and January 2007. These monthly increases to the GIS amount to a 7% increase over and above regular indexation to compensate for the increase in the average wage. The total cost of this measure alone is $2.7 billion over five years.

We have also increased the GIS earnings exemption from $500 to $3,500, so that many working pensioners can now keep up to an additional $1,500 in GIS benefits.

We also passed Bill C-36, legislation that makes it much easier for seniors to apply for and receive their GIS payments. This change allows seniors to make a one-time application for the GIS and receive it year over year as long as they are eligible, provided they file annual tax returns.

To help encourage seniors to apply for GIS benefits which they may be entitled to, we send out application forms to low-income seniors identified through the tax system. These efforts have helped to put benefits in the hands of more than 328,000 additional seniors.

For seniors who do not file income tax returns, we have undertaken aggressive targeted outreach efforts to reach seniors who may be eligible for GIS. These efforts range from setting up information booths at events to working closely with the volunteer sector and first point of contact service providers. Targeted groups include newcomers, persons with disabilities, aboriginals and the homeless.

Our support for seniors has not stopped there. We have also provided more than $1 billion in tax relief each year to Canadian seniors through pension income splitting and enhancements to the age and pension income credits. This amounts to a significant amount of dollars.

More recently, through our economic action plan, we have introduced measures that will also help seniors in many additional ways. For example, we are increasing the age credit by $1,000 for 2009 and beyond to allow eligible seniors to receive up to an additional $150 in annual tax savings.

We are investing an additional $60 million over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers program. We are expanding the number of potentially eligible communities to include older workers in small cities.

We are providing $400 million over two years through the affordable housing initiative for the construction of housing units for low-income seniors.

Canada can be proud that the poverty rate among Canadian seniors has declined dramatically over the last 25 years. In fact, the average income for seniors in that time has doubled.

Canadians can also be proud that we already have one of the lowest levels of poverty among seniors of any country in the industrialized world, at around 5%. It is quite a remarkable figure. This makes us the envy of many other nations, including Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom.

That being said, there is always room for improvement. Our government will continue to work to ensure that the needs of all seniors, including low-income seniors, are adequately met.

Let me turn to the motion before us today. Given the size and complexity of the GIS program, upon which many of our most vulnerable citizens depend, it is vital that each and every change being considered be examined thoroughly. Careful consideration must be given to impact and cost.

With that in mind, I would like to take a few moments to examine the proposals contained in today's motion and how they might affect the GIS program and the people it benefits.

To begin with, there is a proposal to increase monthly benefits by $110, a move which could cost as much as $2 billion a year. The motion also calls for unlimited GIS retroactivity which, by some estimates, could cost as much as $3 billion. These two measures alone would cost several billions of dollars. We are talking about huge sums of money, especially given the economic times we are living in right now.

It is important to note that GIS benefits are already paid retroactively for up to one year. The current one year retroactivity provision is at least on par with, and in some cases superior to, retroactivity provisions for similar programs in other Canadian and international jurisdictions. For example, retroactivity provisions for the Alberta seniors benefit, British Columbia's senior's supplement, and Ontario's guaranteed annual income system allow for a one year retroactivity limit. This is also the case for the Canada pension plan.

The current one year retroactivity provision contained in the OAS act is even more generous than similar programs in other countries. For example, Australia's age pension, New Zealand's superannuation and Sweden's guaranteed old age pension provision provide for no retroactivity. Social assistance programs such as Alberta works, Nova Scotia's income assistance program and Ontario works also have no retroactivity provisions.

In this regard, I would like to point out that the previous Liberal government was in agreement with this particular point. Here is what the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, on November 18, 2005, had to say on this issue:

With respect to retroactivity, I think it is more important that this program be totally consistent with existing provincial income supplementation programs. On the issue of retroactivity for one year, there is no discrepancy between this program and the provincial programs, which are income supplementation, security or support programs.

It is also very important to note that full retroactivity could also mean increased costs to the provinces and territories whose income supplement programs are based on eligibility for the GIS.

All that said, we must keep in mind that there are already two exceptions when retroactive payments can be made beyond one year: first, when the applicant would have been incapable of expressing the intent to apply for benefits; and second, when an administrative error has occurred or erroneous advice was given.

This motion also proposes paying six months of a deceased person's pension to the survivor. While this proposal seems reasonable at first glance, it is important to note that the GIS is already adjusted for changes in family status following the death of a partner since many low income seniors become eligible for GIS or an increase in that supplement due to the fact that they are now single income individuals. Furthermore, both the Canada and Quebec pension plans contain survivor benefit provisions that help seniors in such situations.

Last but not least, this motion proposes eliminating the requirement to apply for GIS benefits, which is also difficult since the information available from the Canada Revenue Agency is often insufficient to determine eligibility. In this regard, the former Liberal member for Ahuntsic and former parliamentary secretary to the minister of social development said that doing away with the application process would:

--unreasonably burden the governmental retirement system administratively, technically and financially...Without the application process and income verification, the system would be open to abuse. In addition, we would not have enough information to determine entitlement for seniors who, for instance, do no file tax returns. This would also substantially increase the risk of errors within the system.

Those words are from a Liberal predecessor of mine on this very topic. These comments were made in this House on October 24, 2005.

The onus for making an application must continue to rest with the applicant. Thankfully, as I have mentioned, due to the actions of this government, our seniors now only have to apply once for the GIS benefit.

For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot support this motion. While the proposals are well intentioned and we cannot disagree with the intent of the motion, the reality is that implementing these measures would require enormous financial investments and would have widespread ramifications and implications for other government programs, both at the federal and provincial levels.

As such, I would urge all members of this House to work with the government as we continue to ensure that our policies, programs and services meet the needs of Canada's seniors in a responsible manner. We will continue to do that and we will continue to look at ways to enhance their benefits. It must be at a progressive rate and at a time that the government decides.

Therefore, I would ask members not to support this motion.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 300, an extremely important motion that has been put forward. I know everyone in the House cares a lot about seniors. We are very concerned with how they are aging and whether or not they are receiving sufficient support. Granted, there are some that do because they have private pensions and lots of support, but there are others like those my hon. colleague referred to who do not have that kind of support system and need to rely more and more on government support.

For the viewers who are watching, I would like to read the motion. It says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should as soon as possible introduce a bill providing: a 110 dollar monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement paid to pensioners; the continuation of the payment, for a period of six months, of the old age security pension and supplement to a person whose spouse or common-law partner has died; automatic registration for people 65 entitled to the guaranteed income supplement; full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who have been short-changed.

There are a many things in this motion and clearly the member is very concerned about a variety of areas. She certainly tried to cover them all in one motion, which I think will be quite complex and difficult to deal with in its entirety. It would be an interesting thing to have a study and see where it all fits.

For the people watching at home who are trying to understand how the House of Commons processes work, M-300 is only a motion. It is a general expression of desires and intents. It is not a bill and would never become a bill. It would never become a law unless the government chose to introduce it as such and that is the core point of the motion. It is asking the government to introduce a bill that would increase all of the areas I have referred to. If this motion were to pass and as time passes, it would not actually force the government to do anything. I say this just so we are honest and not misleading those who are watching to think that if the government were to do this, we would suddenly get all those increases. It does not quite work that simply. This is just the beginning of a process, asking the government to introduce a bill that would do that.

Seniors across Canada need and deserve our help to ensure their dignity and quality of life, especially in these tough economic times. My colleagues and I are committed, and I believe we are all committed in the House, to working very hard on behalf of Canada's seniors. We will strive to protect their pensions and invest in their well-being to our greatest possible extent. The Liberal Party has a strong record of enhancing benefits for seniors. We know that seniors need and deserve our help to ensure their health, security, dignity and quality of life.

When I go back to my riding every weekend, I end up meeting with lots of seniors and talking to them about a variety of issues. I rarely fail to hear about how difficult it is to manage. I asked a question in the House today on behalf of Mario, one of my constituents, who called and said that his property taxes, hydro and gas bills are going up. He asked me how he was supposed to pay all of these bills. His pension is not going up. If it goes up 1.2% or whatever the cost of living is, that clearly is not enough to offset the many expenses that he is trying to deal with. Of course, seniors are going to come to their parliamentarians or elected officials and ask for help because they cannot manage on whatever they have in their savings plus their pensions and the GIS. It is not enough.

Hence, the motion I am speaking to today again tries to address many of those needs that I expect my colleague has heard in her own riding while talking to her own constituents. In doing a bit of an analysis on this motion, it looks like it would cost well in excess of $1.5 billion over the current budget. As much as we would like to do a lot of things, I think we have to be practical and reasonable in many aspects of looking at these things.

The Bloc members will never be in government so they can introduce, say and ask anything they want. They do form a very useful purpose at times by flagging issues. They are raising issues of concern and it is our job to respond in the appropriate way.

At this particular time, when we are dealing with a recession, it would be extremely difficult, I would suggest, to find $1.5 billion, if not an extra $2 billion to meet the needs no matter how much someone would want to do that.

Clearly, the motion could be referred to the human resources committee that would take a detailed look at just how we could more effectively benefit our seniors. Whether it was with this motion or in some other way, I think it is probably something that all of us would like to see done.

I have talked to some of the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities and they have indicated their desire to look more intently on just what seniors are receiving and what we might be able to do to assist them.

We certainly would have preferred it if the Conservatives had not spent the cupboard bare with their previous budgets and their fall economic and fiscal updates, eliminating the rainy day fund that we always had there for difficult times. It would have been helpful if that had been there, but it is not there any longer and we have to deal with what we have to deal with.

The previous Liberal government made great progress for Canada's seniors. Our constant goal was to enhance the quality of life for all seniors. We must always remember that this great country we live in was built by seniors that we have today.

I am currently the critic for veterans as well as seniors and pensions. Talking to many of these veterans has been quite an experience, listening to the stories they tell me, and being reminded about just who built this country that we get to enjoy and that we will leave for our grandchildren to enjoy.

In the last Liberal budget 2005, we had many great initiatives for Canadian seniors. Our budget made significant investments in seniors' programs from health care to income security, from retirement savings to assistance for caregivers. That is another very important area that needs some serious attention from the government as well. We have an aging population and more and more caregivers are also struggling themselves. We need to be addressing that area.

The guaranteed income supplement provides low income seniors with a benefit that ensures a basic level of income throughout their retirement years. In 2004 the Liberal government made a commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $1.5 billion over the next five years. However, budget 2005 went above and beyond that commitment. We announced that we would increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors not by $1.5 billion but by $2.7 billion over two years.

It was a period of good economic times. We were managing the country well. The economy was strong and we had surpluses. We chose to turn around and put that surplus toward seniors, so that they would have the benefits and we would assist their lives and make their quality of life a little more comfortable.

Seniors are and want to remain very active members of our society. We introduced the new horizons program, which had been a program around 10 years ago that was reintroduced by the Liberals in order to provide opportunities to make sure that seniors were having the opportunity to get out to exercise and socialize. A big important part of wellness is the ability to be out and interact with other people, attend bingo games and card games. I visit my riding frequently and visit the seniors who seem to be having the time of their lives, going on trips and enjoying themselves.

That budget also provided $13 million over five years to establish a new national seniors secretariat, so that we could focus more on just exactly what was going on with seniors. They continue to be very concerned about pensions, about the health care system, pharmacare, housing, and many of the difficulties that people face that are on a fixed income. Our government clearly was committed to all of these things.

In closing, the Liberal Party remains steadfast in our support for our seniors and ensuring the best quality of life possible for them. I would hope that our human resources committee is able to study some of these very issues.

As I said earlier, it is easy for the Bloc to come forward with these kinds of unrealistic motions because they know they will not have to be responsible at the end of the day.