Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑319

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject for me. One of the three objectives with which I came into politics is a secure retirement income. Twelve million working Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. We have already reformed CPP. I am in support of targeted benefits for seniors and other disadvantaged Canadians who are in need. I do not understand the logic of providing additional income to Canadians who have very high incomes, even seniors in retirement.

What is the reasoning for giving additional funds to, say, seniors who have a retirement income of more than $100,000? Why not target the support to the people who really need it?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say this to my colleague. What is the retirement age, in the Liberals' view? Is it 65 or 75?

We hear that some seniors have a harder time working. Not everyone can work. The retirement age was set at 65. It is a universal program. Creating two age categories and two separate amounts in a universal program is called a loophole and age discrimination. It is called ageism. Let us not forget that OAS is taxable. Those who need it the least will pay taxes. That is how the program works.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must acknowledge that the member for Shefford has been leading this fight since she entered politics, and I applaud her work.

Now, the Bloc Québécois is presenting itself as the only party defending seniors, but that is not true. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada voted for Bill C-319. I think it is important to set the record straight.

The cost of living has exploded, we all recognize that. We met people throughout our ridings this summer and again this past weekend. People are telling us they are drowning. This government has racked up a $1.441‑trillion deficit. This Prime Minister has run up double the debt of all the other prime ministers in Canadian history. This is serious.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Why does the Bloc Québécois insist on keeping this government in power? Why is the Bloc Québécois once again asking—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I must allow the hon. member for Shefford to answer the question. I am sorry, but there is very little time left.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are not keeping the government in power. We are not here to replace one government with another. We are here to get this bill passed. Also, there was no record to set straight. I have always said that there was a majority vote at second reading and that the Conservatives voted in favour of this bill. I thank them.

This bill has already made its way through the House. After a majority vote, there was a unanimous vote. The Bloc Québécois is very close to achieving this major gain for seniors. We are not here to replace one government with another. We are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers. The money in question amounts to 0.57% of the budget, which is nothing. It represents $16 billion over five years. Think of all the money that was funnelled into bad programs or money taken from where it should not have been taken. Just think of all the assistance provided to oil companies. Do they really need it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will give another member the opportunity to ask a question.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with the member at committee and really admire her work raising the reality of invisible work, which is mostly done by women.

Many women who visit me are caregiving at the ages of 65 to 74, and expenses are piling up. I wonder if the member would share why it is so important for the Liberal government to make sure that those aged 65 to 74 have additional income.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which leads me to a final comment about senior women.

During a press conference a while back, the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, came out in support of the bill. At one time, women could not amass as much capital or prepare for a comfortable retirement. Those women are now between 65 and 74 and are practically penniless. Even so, if their income is just above the set threshold, they are not eligible for the GIS. They are struggling financially, and this is what often keeps them vulnerable. I therefore urge all members to adopt the bill for these women.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to address a crucial matter that affects both the dignity and well-being of our seniors. I invite all my colleagues to consider the importance of a royal recommendation for Bill C-319, which seeks to amend current legislation to increase the full pension amount. By asking the government to act quickly, we are affirming our commitment to our seniors by ensuring they receive the financial support they need to live with dignity and respect. It is time to make their voices heard and take action for a better future.

This Bloc Québécois demand is reasonable and in the best interests of both Quebec's and Canada's seniors. We have received dozens of emails from seniors across Canada thanking the member for Shefford for her hard work in restoring fairness for those who built our society. I would also like to thank her personally. Passing this bill will improve seniors' quality of life. We will see the impact of this measure very quickly.

One of our initiatives back home, and also a campaign promise, was to set up an advisory committee with seniors. We then held a series of public consultations with these seniors to identify the challenges and, at the same time, seek their support. My colleague, the member for Shefford, met with seniors, particularly seniors from Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, to hear what they had to say about her bill.

I am rising in the House on behalf of seniors to stop the injustice against them and to do the right thing. I proudly salute the work of the important people by my side in a cause I hold dear. I would like to mention one of them by name, Gérard Thomas, who is here in Ottawa at the moment. He is a member of my advisory committee and executive team, and he has come all this way today to help send a strong message to the government. He wanted to be part of the demonstration that took place in front of Parliament. He is a man of action, devoted to a cause. He wants things to change. He does not accept the status quo. This was particularly evident during our discussions with seniors. He accompanied me to several of these public consultations to hear what people had to say. I thank him for his commitment. It really motivates me.

On that note, it is time to address the real issues. During our tour to meet with Abitibi-Témiscamingue's seniors, we travelled from Témiscamingue to Pikogan, via Sainte‑Germaine‑Boulé, Authier‑Nord, Rouyn‑Noranda, Amos and La Sarre. We visited all four regional county municipalities in my riding, including both towns and villages. We met and listened to people in the communities. I would like to share some of their conclusions with the House.

Before I get into that, however, maybe I should give members some background information about seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region where we are fortunate to be able to count on an organization called L'Observatoire. This vital organization provides statistical data on the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. Frankly, supporting this type of organization is crucial, and the federal government should commit to funding it, but that is a debate for another day.

Currently, one in five people is over the age of 65, and of these, 60% are between 65 and 74. This means that the majority of seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue will be affected by the Bloc Québécois's bill. In recent years, our towns and villages have started celebrating their 100th anniversaries, meaning that many people were born and raised here. These people broke the land and cleared the way for Abitibi-Témiscamingue. They settled here. It is a very different picture from that of seniors in other regions.

Did my colleagues know that 38% of seniors in our region do not have a degree? That explains why the average income is lower for seniors in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. This also explains why services should be better adapted to this clientele. We have to go back to what my father called compassionate management. We have to manage relations with seniors at a human level and go back to listening. This does not end with a period or a comma. That is something we heard a lot from seniors.

There are clear differences in income between men and women. That is still absolutely shocking today. A man's income is roughly $43,000, while a woman's is $30,000, for a difference of $13,000 annually. Fully 58% of senior women depend on government transfers.

According to the figures obtained by L'Observatoire, the average pension received by women in Quebec is $400, compared to $650 for men. Increasing OAS also directly addresses this problem, especially when we know that one in four seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue lives below the low-income threshold. One strong message from seniors that makes me proud is the desire to stay and remain in the community. We heard that.

Two years ago, as part of my riding newsletter, I sent out a petition about supporting Bill C-319 before it was introduced. It called for an end to inequity and demanded equity for seniors aged 65 to 74 by increasing the old age pension. It would have amounted to about $110 a month. In response, I received not a dozen or a hundred, but more than 5,000 leaflets in the mailbox at our office. The first few days, we were pleased with the success of our initiative, but every day we got more in the little green boxes we have in the office. There are seven boxes, which hold about 5,000 petitions. It is heartbreaking, because people are not living in dignity. People are living in poverty, and that needs to be addressed. Once again, I tip my hat to my colleague from Shefford for prioritizing this message.

The people in Abitibi-Témiscamingue are proud. Whether it is Barraute, Sainte‑Germaine‑Boulé, Authier‑Nord, Chaze or Béarn, every village inspires pride. Statistics show that 78% of seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have a strong or very strong sense of belonging in their community.

One of the issues that was raised during my tour was aging at home. This takes additional income, because everything costs more these days. Local health care services are also going to have to adapt in order to allow seniors to age at home.

The purpose of this motion is simple. We want concrete, rapid results that have a real impact on the lives of over one million people across Quebec, real people. Across Canada, it is nearly four million people.

It is exhausting to see so much public money going to bad corporate citizens, while seniors have to live on fixed incomes that are no longer enough. The government's choices do not always align with the needs of seniors and the general public. As I have said several times in the House, the government needs to stop taking seniors for granted and trying to put square pegs into round holes. Seniors are not numbers.

One program that comes to mind is New Horizons for Seniors. Volunteer organizations, many of which are supported by seniors, are required to come up with proposals, submit applications and fill out dozens of pages of forms and paperwork. That is very commendable, but instead of increasing funding so they can do what they do better, they are expected to take on an incredible amount of accountability. Things need to be simpler. That is what seniors tell us. That is also one of my heartfelt pleas.

The Bloc Québécois chose seniors. I want to mention three things that emerged from my analysis of public consultations with seniors in my riding: seniors' working conditions, family caregivers and public transit solutions.

This government could look closely at a number of other things. The current labour shortage is an opportunity. Right now, the employment rate for seniors in my region is 10%. Seniors want to work. They want to take on low-key jobs, but when they do, anything they bring in with one hand they have to shell out with the other. Nobody wins when that happens.

People need to pass on their knowledge. If we increase seniors' income, obviously without affecting their pensions, it could help them remain more active. I am convinced that everyone would come out ahead. At the same time, it would also enhance the dignity of seniors.

Another big problem is the caregivers who support seniors. Employment insurance does not adequately meet their needs. Home care is the future, yet once again, health transfers to Quebec are insufficient, if not a mere token: $1 billion instead of $6 billion. This is not working. It is time we got down to brass tacks.

To wrap up, seniors' living conditions merit special attention. That is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing with the bill sponsored by my fellow member from Shefford. It will be a major step forward for the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. She can count on my unwavering support.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, 56% of working Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. It is possible that many of them will retire directly into poverty. To address that, we have reformed the Canadian pension plan and we have introduced programs to help people in need.

I would like to ask the hon. member to give me one logical explanation, something reasonable, for why rich Canadians who are above the age of 65 should also get this benefit, which in my view, should be targeted toward the people in need. We need to support everybody who is in need, who has a shortage of income in their retirement, but why give the same benefit to the rich seniors?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member asked for something reasonable. Eliminating discrimination is reasonable. Allowing seniors aged 65 to 74 to live in dignity is reasonable. Poverty can strike at any age, but it always strikes those who do not have the means to earn extra income.

I want to bring a fundamental element into this debate. Seniors have a right to live with dignity. As things stand, the government has chosen to isolate our seniors.

I have no doubt that the government will pay a political price for that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, during their opposition day today, I would have liked to see the Bloc Québécois put more pressure on the government.

This afternoon, the Bloc again voted with the Liberal government on our non-confidence motion. That does not do much to scare the government. It is clear that the government is not at all concerned about its future.

I am still reaching out to the Bloc Québécois here because the Conservative Party has three more opposition days, which will no doubt be three more opportunities to hold a vote of confidence. The Bloc Québécois has no opposition days left. Bloc Québécois members are going to be very disappointed when the Liberals fail to follow through on their motion.

Will the Bloc Québécois agree to vote with us next time to bring down this government?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his question and outstretched hand. I think the Bloc Québécois has been very clear with its ultimatum. This is going to be a big win for Quebec seniors and for our agricultural producers.

In the current context, let us face it, I am ready to trigger an election if need be. I have done what needs to be done. If this is what it takes, we will not hesitate. I think seniors will appreciate it, too.

That said, the bill calls for increasing old age security by $60 to $80 a month. That is peanuts to the government, but it is going to make all the difference in the world if it means seniors can cope with the cost of living.

I am never going to back down on this.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very suspicious of the Conservative Party's current position on the pension increase for seniors, given the Conservatives' record of the past few years, whether on raising the age of retirement or on the cuts to health transfers to the provinces. Suddenly, the Conservatives are friends to seniors. I find that a bit suspicious, especially when their main argument is that inflationary spending has caused the increase in the cost of living. They now want to adopt a measure that adds $3 billion to federal government spending.

Does my colleague not see a certain contradiction or a certain momentary hypocrisy?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the word hypocrisy is parliamentary. I do not mean in the way the question was asked, but during question period I as a bit shocked to hear it coming from the minister. I digress.

What is deeply hypocritical is the federal government reducing the GIS, while the Government of Quebec is being a bit more generous to its seniors and increasing transfers. I am sick of receiving phone calls from people asking why they are getting just $11, why their benefits were cut, why the promised increase never came, why they have to pay back CERB in the form of taxes a few years later. They wonder if they were being bribed.

At some point it has to stop. It is a matter of dignity.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, today, October 1, is National Seniors Day. I wish all seniors in Canada and around the world a very happy day.

It is a real privilege to rise in the House to talk about our government's work to make life better and more affordable for Canadian seniors. Seniors are a growing segment of the Canadian population. It is therefore important that governments reflect on how our policies and approaches can best meet the needs of a rapidly changing demographic.

We have a wide variety of needs and desires in life. However, at the end of the day, we all want much the same things in our golden years: to maintain our independence, to stay connected to our friends and loved ones, and to age in place as long as possible. That is our government's commitment to Canadian seniors. No matter where they live, all seniors in this country should be able to age on their own terms, with dignity and choice.

Since 2015, despite opposition from the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, our government has taken significant steps to strengthen the financial security of this country's seniors, including restoring the age of eligibility for OAS and the GIS to 65, after the previous Conservative government raised it to 67 in Davos. Our government also increased the GIS to give low-income single seniors up to $947 more per year, despite opposition from the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois.

The rising cost of living and global inflation are affecting all Canadians: seniors, students, young families, everyone. That is why, when we took steps to put money back into the pockets of Canadians, we made sure to take into account the specific needs of our seniors. We doubled the GST tax credit for six months and sent $500 payments to nearly two million renters to help them cope with the cost of housing, despite the relentless efforts of the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Once again, they voted against these measures.

We implemented the Canadian dental care plan for over 750,000 Canadians, starting with seniors. It is frightening. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives would have deprived 750,000 Canadians of the dental care that they need. That is the hypocrisy we are witnessing in the House today.

Bloc members—sovereignists, separatists—want a snap election so that a Conservative government can take power. According to the Bloc, a Conservative government will create the winning conditions needed for their sovereignty project to see the light of day. What kind of impact would their project have? First, it would threaten OAS for all seniors in Quebec. What the Bloc Québécois does not want to admit to Quebec's seniors is that their sovereignty plan and their opportunistic little plot would hurt Quebec's seniors. Such is the irony of today's debate.

The changes we have made have truly improved the lives of Canadian seniors. These changes remain true to the retirement security systems we have relied on for many years. It is not a question of blowing them up in an attempt to find new solutions, but of strengthening them and ensuring that they keep on meeting seniors' diverse and ever-changing needs. This includes strengthening one of the cornerstones of Canada's public retirement income system, old age security.

Old age security gives Canadian seniors peace of mind in their retirement years. It provides essential income security to millions of Canadians every year, particularly low-income recipients of old age security who are also entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.

As I said earlier today, $71 billion will be transferred to seniors' pockets over the next five years through the increases and enhancements from the Liberal Party of Canada. We know that the older seniors get, the more financially vulnerable they become. Their incomes decline as they age, and they often have to spend more to cover their health costs. They also face greater financial risks due to an increased risk of health problems, the loss of a spouse or partner, and the possibility of outliving their savings. This financial vulnerability only worsens when seniors have a reduced ability to supplement their income through paid work. This is particularly true for seniors aged 75 and over.

When we increased the OAS by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over, it was the first permanent increase since the 1970s. It was a historic change aimed at meeting the financial needs of some of the most vulnerable seniors in our communities. Providing full pensioners with an $800 supplement in the first year alone strengthened the financial security of 3.3 million seniors, 56% of whom are women. It was an important step in making life better and more affordable for Canadian seniors. We know, however, that there is still work to be done.

It is rather cynical of the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, to accuse us of having a two-tier system when we used evidence and data to improve old age security. There needs to be greater improvement for those with greater need. This was proven by studies, statistics, sources of information. This decision was made based on evidence and data and with the greatest compassion. It is absolutely absurd to hear the Bloc Québécois say that it is a two-tier system. We are the party that has improved and secured pensions in Canada the most. What has the Bloc Québécois done?

Whether on the guaranteed income supplement, housing or dental care, we have systematically met with resistance from the Bloc to support seniors, including the most vulnerable seniors in Canada. That is hypocrisy. They should be ashamed to rise in the House and talk about a two-tier system. Never has a Canadian government been there more for seniors than this government formed by the Liberal Party of Canada. Today the Bloc Québécois is being mistrustful, cynical, hypocritical and opportunistic.

That is why our government continues to invest in the lives of seniors in this country. Investment in our pharmacare program will help one in four Canadians and one in five seniors living with diabetes, so they can monitor, test and treat their diabetes without worrying about the cost. They would have to worry about the cost if the Conservatives and the Bloc got their way; those parties would be against that too. Investment in our dental care program, opposed by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, has not only helped over 750,000 Canadians get the care they need but will also support 200,000 Quebec seniors.

Again: this will help 200,000 Quebec seniors.

The uptake on this new program has been nothing short of phenomenal. In just five months, 750,000 Canadians and counting have gotten their teeth cleaned by a hygienist for the first time in years.

They have gotten new dentures after wearing old ones for decades. They have had that toothache looked at after simply living and suffering through the pain. They have gained the confidence to smile again after avoiding the dentist's office down the street because they needed to put food on the table for their family.

Those are real numbers. Those are real statistics, but they mean little to the Conservative Party and to the Bloc Québécois; it is just an abstraction. They mean a lot to the people who are benefiting from them. These folks over here want to fool and deceive Canadians out of getting the care they deserve, but they will find the Liberal Party in their way. We will be sure to keep reminding folks to sign up and get the care they are entitled to. As long as we're here, dental care is a reality in this country.

However, the things so many of us seek in our senior years, such as independence and staying connected to the people around us, are not just things that health care programs alone can solve. That is why I am so proud to see funding from the New Horizons for Seniors program reach senior-serving organizations and communities across Canada every year. New Horizons helps seniors fight social isolation, be included in their communities and live enriched lives. From curling clubs in Prince Edward Island to senior centres in the Yukon, the program helps seniors to be more connected and active members of their community. As more and more seniors have also chosen to age in their own homes, we have also launched the age well at home initiative.

This is another measure the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party opposed.

This offers up the helping hands that seniors sometimes need to make it possible. That means supporting local food delivery programs and those helping seniors shovel snow in the winter.

You oppose direct investments in meals on wheels in Gatineau. You oppose direct investments in seniors in Montreal, at the Chic Resto Pop. You oppose—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

I think he just realized what he was doing, but I simply want to remind my colleague that he has to address his comments through the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the minister to address his comments directly to the Chair, who has nothing to do with these debates.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted that a political party which claims to champion Quebec would object to Gatineau's meals on wheels program for seniors. Now I have seen everything.

These two programs make a real difference to seniors, and they are helping make Canada a better place to live, grow and age. That is why they are so important. After what we saw during the pandemic, we know that Canadians are looking to governments to step up and make sure our long-term care system is delivering high-quality, safe care and treatment to our seniors. That is why we transferred $1 billion to the provinces and territories in 2020 to immediately work to protect people living and working in long-term care.

However, we need longer-term solutions; our $200-billion health care deals with provinces and territories are squarely focused on that. That is why, as part of these agreements, we also signed unique aging with dignity agreements with provinces and territories to make sure our health care systems meet the needs of an aging population and the workers who make it all possible.

On a systemic level, our government will be tabling, yes, a new safe long-term care act.

Once again, this is another measure that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party opposed.

What would this act do? It would make sure we do right by seniors, their families and their care workers. It would make sure that what happened in our long-term care facilities during the pandemic never, ever happens again.

All of these supports for health care and community services are based on our government's core beliefs. We need to meet Canadian seniors where they are. We must not only be there to serve seniors today; we must be there for them tomorrow.

This requires planning. We need a thoughtful economic policy that takes into account the needs of people in the short, medium and long term, and not guesstimate policies that run counter what the numbers tell us. That is what our government did when it decided to increase old age security for seniors over 75. It was a data-driven choice, as I said earlier.

Our 10% increase in the old age security pension aimed specifically to address the increased vulnerability of seniors as they age. The facts are clear: seniors over 75 are more likely to to have significant health problems and, accordingly, have higher health care expenses. In fact, health spending for seniors over 80 are on average $700 a year more than that of people 65 to 74.

Seniors in this age group are also more likely to live with a disability. In 2017, 47% of seniors 75 and up suffered from a disability, compared to 32% of seniors 65 to 74. Since only roughly 15% of seniors 75 and up continue to work, or less than half of those 65 to 74, these seniors living on a fixed income need support to cope with these increased expenses. That is why a larger proportion of these seniors is already eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and benefiting from it, according to the numbers from 2020.

We raised old age security for seniors 75 and up to increase their financial security when they need it most. Far too many seniors fall into poverty after losing their spouse or partner. The loss of a loved one is more than just a devastating time for these seniors, the majority of whom are women. Often it can also lead to a significant decline in their quality of life. In 2016, the proportion of widows who did not remarry was three times higher among people 75 and up than among people 65 to 74.

These conversations about how we can better support Canadian seniors are important. They are important because the future of aging in Canada is really everyone's future. We welcome these discussions. We welcome these kinds of debates. We welcome dialogue with all the opposition parties to discuss how we can do more to help seniors.

However, when any reasonable measure that puts money in seniors' pockets is consistently met with opposition, we can only conclude that it is cynicism, and that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party of Canada are playing politics at the expense of the most vulnerable seniors.

However, Bill C‑319 does not reflect the reality facing Canadian seniors. Our government is committed to investing in people, whether it is with child care or school food programs for children, skills training for young people entering the workforce, or dental care and pharmacare for seniors. We know that there is always more work to do, but I am proud of what our government has done since 2015, especially when it comes to advancing the interests of Canadian seniors.

Ultimately, the discussion today is not just about seniors. It affects us all. This is about the future of aging in Canada and the future that every Canadian deserves in their retirement years. After a lifetime of hard work, Canadian seniors deserve to age with dignity and choice. As a government, we will make this future a reality for every senior in this country.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have rarely heard a minister make a speech so full of political posturing and crass partisanship. That is not at all representative of what a minister who is dignified should be when dealing with seniors who are suffering.

Was the $34 billion for Trans Mountain evidence-based? Was the $83 billion in tax credits to oil companies evidence-based? Was the $2 billion in administrative costs for dental insurance evidence-based?

Never in the House has there been a vote specifically and strictly on reducing the age of eligibility for the pension from 67 to 65. That was included in budgets in which we wanted more for Quebec seniors and Quebec seniors.

This minister is not telling the truth. He is playing politics. If that is the government's response to what we are asking for today, then clearly he needs to get out in the communities. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to us that he has no interest in the truth.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have just seen a perfect illustration of how the Bloc Québécois works. Everything we just heard was for show. Why is the Bloc putting on such a show? It is simply so it can cover up its plans for the future. It is obvious.

Sometimes, I think Bloc Québécois members do not realize that their vote is recorded on paper. It is true, they voted against dental care for seniors, a program that is saving thousands of people in my colleague's riding hundreds of dollars.

Imagine, they voted against increasing the GIS for Canada's most vulnerable seniors. The Bloc Québécois decided it was wholeheartedly against that idea. It is against pharmacare, housing for seniors, and the list goes on.

I am incredulous at the fact that sovereignists hoping to promote their cause would come here to the House out of opportunism and political cynicism and try to throw us off the scent. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gatineau for his passionate speech. However, I think he is out of touch with reality.

To hear him tell it, all is well in Canada. Seniors have plenty of money in their pockets, the cost of living is fine, rents never doubled and everything is beautiful. Life is good, and it will stay that way. With a magic wand, everything will work itself out.

In reality, the cost of living is suffocating Canadians, Quebeckers and seniors. That is the reality. I invite him to meet with people in his riding of Gatineau and see the situation on the ground.

Earlier in his speech, he talked about hypocrisy. It is sheer hypocrisy that the Liberal government voted for Bill C‑319 but is not moving the bill forward. Why is that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I invite my colleague to tour Gatineau with me. He will see that it is a lot of work to follow me around my riding, visiting seniors in particular.

Second, I remind the member that we voted against this bill at second reading.

Third, we have never claimed to solve all the problems. We know that we are facing a cost-of-living challenge. We also know that there are needs we can target, such as poor seniors, lack of dental care, and medication. We can target these things and address them one at a time.

What do we run up against, however? We run up against opposition from the Conservative Party. I have never understood the position of the members from the Conservative Party of Canada who come into the House every day and talk about inflationary spending.

What is inflationary spending? It is dental care, the guaranteed income supplement, pandemic assistance, housing assistance, grocery assistance, the GST tax credit. Some $71 billion will be injected in OAS over the next five years. That is inflationary spending. Canadians had better watch out, because the Conservatives are going to cut all that.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing big words like “hypocrisy” and “cynicism”, but I think the most cynical thing the Liberals could do would be to vote for Bill C-319 and then not give it a royal recommendation.

That way, they could say that they were in favour of the bill, but that they had to prevent it from passing because it would be too expensive. That is political cynicism. Let us talk about the measures to help seniors that the minister mentioned and that we support. We are seeing the beginning of a pharmacare program. It was the NDP that forced the minority government to deliver on that thanks to the agreement we negotiated two and a half years ago. The Liberals promised pharmacare for the first time in 1997, and it still had not been delivered.

As for dental care, it is fortunate we forced you to bring in dental care, otherwise you would have nothing to say to help seniors—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that I am “you” here in the House.