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.