Debates of Feb. 25th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the Elderly

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments.

I worked in the health sector for 20 years, more specifically in long-term care homes for seniors.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I was an MPP, so I understand how important collaboration is. However, one thing is for sure now: When people call my riding office, they tell me that I need to do something. We need to address long-term care services in Ontario and all across Canada. That is what the federal government plans to do.

I think that Canada-wide standards are important if we want to protect our beloved seniors and keep them, and all Canadians, safe and healthy.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting listening to the member. She talked a lot about promises made, but very little about promises kept.

One of the issues I have heard time and again from seniors is the cost of living increases, the cost of the carbon tax. With the cancellation of Keystone XL, there were seniors who finally did not have to choose between buying groceries and paying their bills because they had a boarder, a local worker, in their home. There are tremendous challenges faced by seniors across our country.

Specifically, the member mentioned the resources provided to not-for-profit organizations across the country. One of the challenges faced by many organizations in my constituency, because I represent a large rural area, was they did not have access to those supports because they were rural. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that question has two parts. The member talked again about carbon pricing. In the community I represent, there is not a single senior who does not fear climate change. Seniors listen to the science and see how our government can do more to improve their lives and the lives of our future generation.

The other aspect is the fact that some organizations across our great country, which is so big, did not have access to some of the most important financial help that was available. I am very sorry, and that is why we are continuing our efforts to help people all over Canada, in rural, urban and suburban, just like Orleans, the community I represent.

I was very happy that the leadership of the local United Way reached out to over 100 organization all over Ottawa and Eastern Ontario. They came together to share, and they all share the same: the need to have resources. I was happy that we came forward to help them.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like every step along the way, the Liberal responses to a crisis are a dream deferred. The hon. member said she worked 20 years with seniors. She talked about them fearing poverty. The seniors in my community are facing poverty.

What would she say to my seniors who are 65, who worked their entire lives waiting for retirement, who now have to hold on and struggle to the Liberals' definition at 74? Will she support this motion today that calls on the government to increase OAS for all seniors from 65 onward?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have always found some of these aspects very interesting. I understand the member represents his community, and I am sure, very well. Some seniors are facing poverty. This is why I am so happy. I did not have a chance, unfortunately because of the distraction, to share all the measures that have been put in place since 2015 to help, knowing that over 900,000 seniors have benefited from actions we took. This is very important for me and I know for our government as well.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

We have heard a lot today about the financial situation of seniors. I would have liked to have all day to talk about all of the calls my office gets from constituents. Although our riding offices are closed, Internet access is not always great and we are working virtually, I feel compelled to give my speech, which will naturally reiterate everything that we have been calling for for so many years.

Today we are debating the motion moved by my esteemed colleague from Shefford. The members of the Bloc Québécois have always stood up for seniors and always will.

Let us go back in time to the 2019 election campaign, when the Liberals promised to increase old age security benefits by 10% when seniors turn 75, not 65. They reiterated their intention of increasing these benefits in the September 2020 throne speech. We have sadly heard nothing since.

The old age security program is the main vehicle by which the federal government supports seniors by offering people aged 65 and over a minimum income. The two programs are the old age security benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. I think this is well known, but it bears repeating. Taxpayers who are eligible for the goods and services tax credit, the GST credit, are entitled to a one-time payment ranging from $443 to $1,160, with an average payment of $375 for a single person and $510 for a couple. That is not enough in this day and age, in light of the rising cost of living and the impact of the pandemic. It is easy to see.

Of course, supports are welcome in these most difficult times, but they should benefit every member of society, including workers, families, businesses and, of course, seniors. However, these are one-time payments.

What we are asking for in our motion is welcomed by senior groups. We heard in previous speeches that we were giving incorrect information. Here are the facts.

The FADOQ network is the largest seniors' organization in Canada, with 550,000 members, 705 clubs and 16 regional groups, as well as around 17,000 volunteers, which is quite something. Seniors prefer stability and predictability, especially when they have a fixed income. Seniors in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle really feel overlooked. I would be remiss if I did not mention the outrageous cost of Internet access, that is, when it is available at all, which is rarely the case, just as cell coverage is also problematic. There is a huge challenge.

That said, what should the government do? Let me repeat it today for the umpteenth time: The government should invest to provide more financial assistance to all citizens, especially to seniors, through the community services network.

Also, in order to mitigate the risk of people being deprived of the guaranteed income supplement, it should be possible to file an automatic income tax return. A person who fails to file a return loses the supplement. Taxpayers should be able to automatically validate their tax return, without any action needed on their part, as long as the information has not changed in comparison to the previous year.

Ten years ago, I was working as a political assistant for Ms. Deschamps, who sat in this House, and it was a major issue. People who did not act would not receive the supplement. They were not entitled to it. The situation is still the same in 2021.

Quebec's seniors can count on the Bloc Québécois. As the government keeps saying, we will keep working and making progress. Let me talk about that progress.

Twenty years ago, back in 2001, the Bloc called for automatic enrolment in the guaranteed income supplement at 65 based on people's tax returns. We are still calling for that, and we will keep calling for it until it is done.

In 2007, the former member for Laurentides—Labelle toured Quebec, meeting with seniors, groups and associations. Following the tour, a number of findings were formulated, and the Bloc decided to take action by introducing a bill to improve the lives of seniors in Quebec.

In 2009, the National Assembly, under a Liberal government, unanimously called on the federal government to implement the Bloc Québécois's proposals. That is a big deal. Who made that happen? The Bloc Québécois.

Here is some of the real progress that came out of that.

There was automatic renewal for claimants in 2014, as well as automatic enrolment for people on their 65th birthday, which began in 2018. This is in addition to the increase of more than $110 per month, an increase of $50 after the 2011 election and more than $60 after the 2015 election, not counting the automatic annual indexing. As of 2013, people who receive an old age security pension also receive notices to register for the guaranteed income supplement.

Is that not progress? I think this proves that we are there for our seniors and always will be.

Less than a week before the throne speech was delivered, Mr. Legault and Mr. Ford issued a joint call on September 18 for a significant increase in federal funding to help cover the rising costs of health care, but they did not specify the amount they wanted. As my colleague mentioned earlier, all the provinces as well as Quebec are demanding an increase. They called for a $28-billion increase in health transfers, to increase Ottawa's share of health care funding from 22% to 35%.

With the ongoing pandemic, the federal government has committed to transferring $19 billion to the provinces and Quebec, including $10 billion for health-related expenditures. For Mr. Legault and Mr. Ford, the provinces need sustainable funding, not just one-time assistance.

I could go on and on about this, but I have only a minute and a half left, so I would like to take a moment to talk about a recent forecast by the Conference Board of Canada that we heard about today.

Health care spending will increase at an average annual rate of 5.3% until 2030-31. That is worrisome. We must do something in response. Approximately 46% of this average annual increase will be due to inflation, 18% to population growth, 19% to population aging, and the remaining 17% to better access to care and improvements to the health care system.

In closing, I want to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's proposals. I will keep repeating it even if I have to say it hundreds of times. It is about increasing OAS by $110 a month for all citizens 65 and over; the guaranteed income supplement needs to be increased by $50 a month for single individuals and by $70 a month for couples. People everywhere are unanimously calling for a 35% increase in the annual contribution to health transfers and for that contribution to be ongoing.

This requires the annual federal transfer to go from $42 billion to $70 billion and for it to increase by 6% every year thereafter.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we had been listening only to interventions by the Bloc Québécois today, we would think that nothing has been done for seniors over the last number of years and in particular in the past year, during the pandemic.

My question for the member from the Bloc is very simple. Does she agree that seniors have received meaningful increases to benefits over the last year that have made an impact in their lives, particularly during the global pandemic?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

They received a one-time payment of $500. That was short-term relief. What else can they expect?

A simple calculation shows us that they ended up with just a few bucks. It is not for nothing that we are asking for an increase of $110 a month. It is to help lift them out of their vulnerable situation and to increase their spending power. Although the government has been acting on an ad hoc basis throughout the pandemic, this has been a problem for a long time.

In the Bloc, we want to look at the future of our seniors. We will not back down.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I think there is another major problem: the carbon tax.

Let me explain. I represent a senior community called Sandycove Acres. There are almost 3,000 seniors in this community who are finding it difficult to pay their bills. With the carbon tax being implemented on home heating, many of them are paying, in some cases, $20 to $30 more a month. I have seen the bills. Any gains that are made with the OAS or the guaranteed income supplement are being eroded by the cost of the necessities of life, like home heating and others.

Would the member agree that seniors should be exempt, at a minimum, from the carbon tax so they can enjoy a good quality of life and not see an erosion of their income?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into statistics because I gave enough of them in my speech.

However, I do want to point out that the amount given to these seniors, who opened doors for us and to whom we are indebted, is equivalent to 1%.

If we take into account all of the money that was spent to save everyone's skin, including the amount of the current debt, 1% is a minimal cost.

Out of respect for our seniors, we should be thinking about their future. Let us take action to deal with the pandemic, but let us also watch over them for the coming decades.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker brought up some really important points, particularly on the automation of filings. I cannot help but think about how much money goes unclaimed by our seniors every year simply because things are not automatically filed. We heard from the government that a couple of hundred piddling dollars to our seniors in the middle of a global pandemic was enough because they could rely on Liberal charity.

Does the member want to tell us why the Bloc believes seniors deserve the dignity of a permanent increase directly and automatically at 65 rather than being forced out by Liberal policies that kick the can for another 10 years while they are in their final years? Does the hon. member from the Bloc agree that seniors deserve respect at 65 and should not have to rely on Liberal charity?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker.

People are being told that, if they do not have enough money, there are other resources available to them, such as food banks and community services and support. Come on. It is shameful how these people are being treated when they do not have the means to survive.

That is basically saying that we accept that they are in a vulnerable situation. It is saying that they need to make use of other resources rather than making minimum payments on their account balance and spending 30% to 50% of their budget on housing.

One-time assistance is one thing. However, out of respect for seniors, that increase should be given to everyone aged 65 and over. That is non-negotiable, given everything that seniors have done for our communities.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, I was thinking about how to approach this issue, and it occurred to me that perhaps the best way was to start with a story. I hope members will see where I am going with it.

People refer to themselves as their father's child. I am my grandmother's child. I was raised by my grandmother. She played a rather important role in my life. I can say that I am the youngest pensioner in Canada. I received my pension at the age of 14, when my grandmother received her old age security at the age of 65. I was 14 and I told my friends that I did not need to get a job, I did not need to mow lawns because I had my grandmother.

The reason I am telling this story is that seniors are the ones who generally teach us the values that will be important to us. Our parents do this, but so do our grandparents. My grandmother instilled in me values that I hold to this day. Generosity is definitely one of them and so is the the sharing of wealth.

How can we impart these values of generosity and sharing of wealth in political life? Many years later, I understood that perhaps it could be done through social programs. That was part of what I did as a teacher. I gave social workers a course on social policy, and I saw the re-emergence of the same type of generosity and sharing of wealth that my grandmother had taught me. I rediscovered them in, among other things, the policies that I implemented in the Government of Quebec. What comes to mind immediately is Quebec's family policy, which is very generous.

With regard to social policies, the unfortunate thing, perhaps, is that old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are a federal responsibility.

There is no denying that I am sovereignist and I am critical of the government, but I get the impression that successive federal governments are a bit cheap. As the adage goes, you can tell how important equality is to a government by the way it treats the most vulnerable.

If we look at that adage today, we might say that this government has a lot of work to do when it comes to equality. I say that because when we look more closely at the basic income seniors receive, those who receive only the guaranteed income supplement and the old age security pension are just a few dollars away from the poverty line.

I cannot understand how we can be collectively okay with that in an advanced society. The values that my grandmother instilled in me are such that I think this is an aberration and if we take our work as parliamentarians seriously, it is something we should address. I say that by way of an introduction knowing full well that there is a rather simple solution.

What we are proposing today through this motion, and what we have been wanting for some time now is an increase of $110 a month for the OAS. The guaranteed income supplement, or the GIS, would increase by $50 for single individuals and $70 for couples. I do not think that is too much to ask. What is so daunting in the government's eyes about this proposal? I was wondering earlier why they would not accept this proposal. Is it because it comes from the Bloc Québécois? It would be petty of me to say that.

Furthermore, I see the situation we are in and the crisis we have come through, and I must say that there have been some startling goings-on in this Parliament. During the crisis, there was the $900-million WE Charity scandal. Is that what we call helping the most vulnerable? I do not believe so. Then there are the political parties—I have a Conservative friend who is nodding, and I thank him for that, but he may well stop after he hears what I am about to say. There are political parties that saw fit to dip into the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, and they have yet to repay those benefits.

There must be some disillusioned seniors watching this. What kind of logic is there in refusing to increase the old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments? I really do not understand. I am eager to hear my Liberal colleagues' questions on this matter.

In the debate on seniors, there is the whole issue of a livable income, but for me there is also a another very important aspect, and that is health care.

There is a storm coming, and every region, not just Quebec, will have to face it. The population is aging across Quebec. Canadian society is aging. An aging population means a health care system under pressure. If the current crisis has taught us one thing, it is that we are not prepared. Quebec has a ways to go. We saw how some things were not up to par in long-term care homes, and that is putting it kindly.

I want to figure out with my fellow members of this House why some things were not up to par. I believe it has to do with health care funding. Health care funding in Canada is an absolute train wreck. I want to point out that fiscal imbalance is a defining characteristic of health care funding. The Séguin report was tabled by a Liberal minister, not a PQ minister. Yves Séguin was a Liberal minister. In the report he submitted to the National Assembly, he demonstrated that the Canadian federation is broken.

The Canadian federation is broken because the federal government keeps bringing in more than it spends. During a crisis, the federal government usually balances its books at the expense of provinces by lowering their transfer payments. This has happened twice, most notably in the early 1990s under the Mulroney government. Canada was in a precarious position and Mr. Mulroney slashed health and education transfers. In doing so, he managed to balance his budget, more or less.

However, the world champion in every respect, the man who pioneered what some analysts call Canadian neoliberalism, is Paul Martin. Year after year, Paul Martin said that he was going to draft his budget in black and not red. He pulled surpluses out of his hat. I remember that. My whole life is based on what happened after the 1995 referendum. Immediately after the referendum, in 1995-96 and 1996-97, Paul Martin cut health transfers by about $2 billion. That is huge.

That decision completely tore apart the Quebec health care system. Today, the crisis we are going through is partly due to the cuts to health transfer payments in 1996-97 and 1997-98. It made taking care of seniors more difficult, and we are still feeling the effects of that today.

If we wish to directly improve the quality of life of seniors, we must increase the health transfer payments. I will conclude with that. The House leader repeated several times that seniors are not an area of jurisdiction. I heard him say that many times. It is quite convenient for him to use those words to evade his responsibility. In the years to come, there will be pressures on the public purse. I am sure that Conservatives and Liberals will be tempted, once again, to solve their deficit problems by reducing transfer payments to the provinces. However, the best thing they can do, if they care about seniors at all, is to listen to the Government of Quebec and increase health transfers so as to cover 35% of expenditures.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a whole lot of discussion today about transfers of money from the federal government to the provincial governments, and Quebec in particular.

I am looking at today's motion and I do not see anything about that. If it is so important to the member, why is today's motion not on that instead of what it is on?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my esteemed colleague had listened to what I said, he would understand that in my view the issue of health care is inextricably linked to the well-being of seniors.

I spoke earlier about the aging population, which will require more health services in the future. That goes without saying. Proper funding is essential to ensure that seniors have access to good services.

If the member wants to talk more about that, I can give him a primer on social policy. I will be happy to do it.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, today we are supposed to be talking about the financial situation of the elderly. They built this country; we all know that. We all door knock here, all 338 of us, and we see some desperate situations when we do. Seniors are hanging on, especially single ones, in their homes and do not want to go to the food bank. They are too proud, but unfortunately this situation is facing a lot of seniors today. They are not getting by. I see it in Saskatoon—Grasswood every week. Yes, there are some who are snowbirds and are enjoying their golden years, but the golden years do not exist for the majority of seniors in this country.

How can we make it better for seniors who have built this country over the decades?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The first thing that needs to be done is to increase old age security by $110 a month and the guaranteed income supplement by $50 a month for single people and $70 a month for couples.

If we do not want to be seen as being phony-baloney, our primary concern should be to ensure that seniors are living more than just a hair's breadth above the poverty line.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, seniors have been facing high costs for rent, food and medications. We must increase the OAS, the GIS and the CPP to make life more affordable for seniors. I want to thank the member for his and his Bloc colleagues' advocacy in favour of permanently increasing old age security starting at age 65.

Talking to seniors in my riding of Victoria, I know that this kind of increase could make a real difference. In the pandemic, seniors have been facing increased risks with isolation and financial hardship, but they are also facing horrific conditions in long-term care. We know there are more deaths and often inadequate standards of care in privatized long-term care.

In addition to supporting seniors by pushing for increases to the OAS, does the member agree that we need to take profit out of long-term care?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that was an interpretation error, but there is no profit in CHSLDs. They are public institutions. My colleague was probably talking about private residences for seniors. There is certainly some work to be done in that regard.

I also believe that the crisis showed us that some services are inadequate. If we really want to work on that, better funding for public institutions is needed. It seems that the best thing to do in that regard is to increase health care transfers by 35%.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Jean, who is participating virtually, would like to ask a question, so I am going to give her my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. There was no indication of that before, but I see it now.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who was asking why the Bloc Québécois was not proposing a motion on health transfers.

I would like to ask my colleague from Jonquière if he remembers that the Bloc did introduce a motion on that topic in December and that the Liberal members were the only ones who voted against it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely remember.

It is in fact quite interesting. We do not have the take the word of a sovereignist member of Parliament for it. One only has to look at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 2013 report to see that the disaster was foreseeable.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly wrote in 2013 that, if nothing was done, the provinces would run a deficit because the cost of health care is huge. More than 44% of the yearly budget of the Government of Quebec is spent on health care.

If nothing is done, year after year, the provinces will pile up debt while the federal government will be wallowing in surpluses created by not sending transfer payments to the provinces.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fredericton, Women and Gender Equality; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, International Trade.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we did have a discussion on health transfer taxes as a result of an opposition motion that the Bloc Québécois brought forward in December. It did not pass, yet here they are still talking about it. That was my point, that the Bloc members are continually and repeatedly harping on the same issue over and over again They bring a motion before the House like they did in December to talk about the health transfers. The House debated it. We voted against it. Then they brought forward this other motion about seniors today and we are supposed to be debating it, but I hear members from the Bloc Québécois talking about health transfers. Yes, we certainly did debate and discuss that issue in December, but here they are, still talking about it.

Nonetheless, it is an honour today to rise to talk to this issue. I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. That said, I really am glad to talk about what this government has been able to accomplish on seniors' behalf and why, as a result of that, I do not think this motion is necessary given the incredible supports provided by the government to seniors throughout our communities.

Am I by any means suggesting that the mission is accomplished or that everybody is in a great position? Absolutely not. Our work will never be done in taking care of our seniors because, as has been pointed out by many members in the House today, our seniors are the ones who laid the groundwork and framework for the incredible quality of life we have today. Whether we talk about our grandparents, our great grandparents or our parents, these are people who have done so much and inspired us to do so much for our children and for future generations so that every successive generation can have a better quality of life than the ones before. If it were not for that simple desire of human nature to improve the quality of life for future generations, what else would there really be for us in terms of our existence, for lack of a better expression?

Before I get into some of those supports that have been provided by the government, I will note what others have indicated, which is extremely germane to the motion before us today as we talk about supports for seniors. I am perplexed, as many other members are, how the Bloc Québécois is bringing forward a motion to support seniors with $110 per month when they voted against a throne speech that had in it a number of measures to make sure that we could improve the quality of life of seniors.

The member for Shefford has mentioned on a number of occasions that they voted against the throne speech because of the long-term care standards that the federal government wants to establish. I am sorry, but a throne speech is not a be-all, end-all document for every single individual. The entire purpose of why 338 of us come from across the country is to participate in debate in order to find compromise. If the Bloc Québécois is saying today through the member for Shefford that the sole reason they voted against the throne speech was based on their desire for national long-term care standards, I am perplexed by that. For starters, national long-term care standards, any standard that would be set up by a national government within our Constitution, certainly would only be laying the framework. It would not necessarily imply that they need to be imposed upon a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. We do not have to look that far to see the reality of that being implemented.

Look at our building code for example. We have a national building code, but it does not mean that the provinces have to adopt it, and, indeed, Quebec and Ontario have not adopted it. They have their own standards when it comes to buildings.

If we hold the two documents next to each other, we will see they are probably about 99.9% identical. The standards set by the national government are held to such high regard that they are adopted by other levels of government, because there is so much benefit in having the vast resources of a national government to create such standards. I am perplexed by the argument from members of the Bloc Québécois that they would not support a throne speech over one small item that happens to be contained therein.

I also really take offence to the NDP comments I have been hearing today. In particular, one member keeps referring to “Liberal charity” as though the Liberal government is extending, on its own and solely at the Liberal Party's discretion, what resources are put into place for seniors in Canada.

We come to the House as a minority government. Liberal members cannot dictate the terms of the supports that are put out there. At least in a minority government, those supports are done through various parties coming together to collaborate. The NDP voted in favour of the throne speech, if I remember correctly. If the member in the House today who has continually referred to it as “Liberal charity” is referring to what the Liberal government is providing, then he is complicit in providing that charity because he voted in favour of the throne speech and the budget that helped implement a number of these measures.

I want to talk briefly about some of the needs of seniors and how those are changing. It has been mentioned in the House a few times today that the needs of seniors are changing as a result of people's life expectancy. If my statistics are correct, the life expectancy of a woman today is 84 years old. For a man it is 80 years old. That is remarkable. That has to do with the incredible advances humankind has made and the quality of life we enjoy here in Canada. What we know about those statistics is this. Statistically speaking, there are more single women living in poverty. A lot of seniors continue to work. Those who do, do not always work because they have to, although unfortunately there are times when they do. There are times when seniors choose to work because they want to continue working. My father is a perfect example. He did not want to stop working at the age of 65, and continued working into his seventies before deciding to retire.

What we know, and what I was getting at, is that women in particular, statistically speaking, are working for lower wages. Women are working in a lot of jobs that have been direly affected by the pandemic in one way or another, such as retail, hospitality and various front-line services. Senior women in the work force have been affected twofold, in that they work a lot more in front-line jobs and jobs directly impacted by the demands the pandemic has created, and have been affected by lay-offs and other effects.

I see I have already burned through my time. I will have to be more careful about how I go on. I will say this. I believe this government has done a number of incredible things. Regarding this pandemic alone, $350 million has been given to charities, $9 billion to the United Way, which has been distributing money throughout individual communities, $100 million to the food banks and $50 million to the new horizons for seniors program.

This government has demonstrated that it is there for seniors and that it will continue to be there for seniors. I do not see this motion as any more than the Bloc trying to play and perhaps create a political wedge for the government. I respect its need to do that, but I disagree with it.