Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

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

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé is a learned MP and he often brings a perspective that helps improve material conditions not just for Quebeckers but for people across the country. Being in proximity to the hon. member has helped me gain an understanding.

I visited Montreal not too long ago and when I was in stores, I do not recall there being a special lane for seniors 75 and up. I do not recall inflation impacting a special portion of the population in Quebec, and certainly not in Hamilton, where seniors are seeing rates of poverty that far outpace the rest of the region.

Can the member perhaps expand upon how ridiculous it is that after a lifetime of work, people aged 65 to 75 have been shafted by the Liberal government?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. I appreciate having deep discussions with him about what Quebec is and why we want independence. It is always interesting to talk to him.

His question will allow me to expand on something. It is a profound injustice. Do members know what is behind this scheme? I think the government decided that it was going to increase old age security to 75, that it would cost less, that it would allow the government to give more money to its friends, the oil companies, and at the same time, that it would encourage people aged 65 who do not have enough money to work.

That is not a good way to do it, because it is not fair. Just because someone is 65 does not mean they have not been sick and have had the same opportunities as other social classes. There are people who have worked very hard physically all their lives and are no longer able to do so at the age of 65 or 66. They need the pension. This government decision is putting them in the poor house.

My colleague is quite right to point out that there are not two lines at the checkout counter. The price is the same for everyone. Right now, these people are suffering and feeling anxious at the end of the month.

We want to put an end to that. The royal recommendation must be given.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that October 1 is National Seniors Day. We could not have picked a better theme for this debate.

When I think of the issue of seniors, I always immediately think back to 1980. Members will recall that on the eve of the referendum campaign to counter René Lévesque's Mouvement souveraineté-association, the Canadian health minister at the time said ad nauseam that seniors would lose their pension if the “yes” camp won. She even threatened to immediately make $4 billion in cuts if Quebec became a country. At the time, the government was led by the Liberal Party of Canada, which was led by a Trudeau.

We see that in 2024, while Ottawa refuses to increase the pension for all seniors in a context where their purchasing power is plummeting, it is our presence in Canada that is threatening the dignity and quality of life of seniors. We will remember. We have to face the facts, and they paint a grim picture indeed. The population is aging. There are now more people 65 and over than children under 15. An estimated 25% of the population will be 65 and up in 2030.

According to the most recent statistics, 52% of old age security pensioners aged 65 to 74 and 60% of those aged 75 and up have an income of less than $30,000. The gap between the median income of seniors aged 65 and the rest of the population has quadrupled in 20 years. That means that, over the years, seniors' income growth has not kept pace with workers' income growth.

When we add the context of inflation to this bleak picture, the situation becomes dire. Between September 2021 and September 2022, the price of food went up by 10%. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 7% year over year. That is the tragedy of a world where inflation is wreaking havoc upon us like a vengeful spirt.

It is not true to say that only older seniors have more expenses. Younger retirees have to pay for housing and home maintenance, and they often own cars while they are still in the workforce. The cost of medication is the same whether a person is 18, 65 or 75. The same goes for the cost of groceries. Leisure activities and medical needs can also cost a lot. It is a gross generalization to say that only people aged 75 and up have more expenses.

Ottawa, the capital where inertia and indifference intertwine in a macabre synergy, has responded with shameful mediocrity and employed nothing but ad hoc measures. Budget 2021, as members will recall, included an OAS increase, but only to seniors aged 75 and over. Consequently, the vast majority of seniors, who are between 65 and 74, were left behind. It took two years for the Liberals to finally follow through on this promise, which dates back to 2019. In August 2021, a one-time cheque for $300 was sent to seniors, again only to those aged 75 and over. This was on the eve of the September 2021 elections. Barring a rather providential coincidence, the stunt was as crude as it was disgraceful.

Fortunately, it is possible to take matters into our own hands, on two fronts. Our Bill C-319 emerges as a beacon of hope amidst this darkness. To offset rising debt levels, a growing number of seniors are returning to the workforce. We therefore need to improve incentives for those who wish to return to work, especially in the context of labour shortages. Bill C‑319, which does not just propose to increase pensions, would enable seniors who would like to work a bit to do so without being penalized by increasing from $5,000 to $6,500 the exemption for income from employment or contract work taken into account in calculating the guaranteed income supplement.

The best-known part of the bill is the pension component. We also have a responsibility to provide the best possible financial security to our seniors who are choosing instead to take a well-deserved rest.

That is why Bill C‑319 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase by 10% the amount of the full pension that all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled to.

These two fronts should be able to provide these builders with a little breathing room. However, that is only if Bill C-319 passes. Furthermore, it still needs to receive a royal recommendation. These words have an inherently negative ring to my ears and to those of my Bloc Québécois colleagues. As my colleague said, we have no choice, since we are still part of this system; it is not as though we enjoy it. Besides, if anyone finds it particularly ridiculous that we are asking for a royal recommendation, then they should have voted with us when we proposed to abolish the monarchy.

Personally, I dream of a country, ours, the country of Quebec, the only country where we can feel fully ourselves, and the only one where we are fully ourselves. It will never leave anyone behind, young or old. I dream of a country that will provide the builders of yesterday, who, by the way, have yet to make their last contribution to our homeland, with the full support that they deserve. Between now and our urgent and necessary independence, we need to provide seniors with some comfort, which is what Bill C-319 proposes.

It is not clear what the Liberals will do when they vote. We now need the rest of the members. That is the beauty of a minority government, recently brought back to minority status. I call on the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Greens to show Ottawa the direction that it needs to go in, the only direction that makes sense, that of respect for our seniors.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion on this, but we all care very much about all Canadians, especially seniors. They always have a special part in the hearts of all of us. The reality is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is no interpretation, so I will speak in English. There is now.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sits on committee with me and we know each other very well.

However, on the bill he is referring to, it is an issue of royal recommendation. There are rules for us as members of Parliament. There are rules as to how the House has to govern. I had a previous bill that was called a money bill and it was rejected. It did not get a royal recommendation because it would affect the fiscal purse. The same goes for this one. We cannot blindly ignore the rules by which the House has to govern. That is my concern with the bill. It is not the content of the bill. It is the fact that the rules are set in a certain way, and we all have to respect that.

What is his answer to that?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is also parliamentary practice.

First of all, it is said that in the parliamentary tradition that originated in Great Britain—and has become the Canadian tradition—Parliament is supreme. In this case, however, the executive has decided to unduly keep a bill from coming into force, a bill that it has sometimes supported, sometimes not. It is confusing. It seems to me that, based on another parliamentary practice, royal recommendation is granted much more quickly when a bill comes from the government. That is why I invite all members to put their foot down and say enough is enough.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted nearly 200 times against the current Liberal government. That led to significant deficits. The Liberal government has never tabled a balanced budget.

The Bloc Québécois has also said that the government is incompetent. They said it again this morning. In May, they asked the government to call an election.

My question is quite simple. The Government of Quebec, to which the Bloc Québécois likes to stick close all the time, has asked the Bloc to not support the government and to hound it on the issue of immigration. How can it be comfortable with this situation and not vote in favour of our motion?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that we voted against the government 200 times. I guess it was a slip of the tongue. It was actually quite a bit more than that. In fact, I assume she is referring to the votes on the various credits. Obviously, we had no choice but to make it work. That does not mean we did not vote against the economic statements and the budgets. This means we did vote against this government's overall budgetary and fiscal policy.

Now, regarding the motion specifically, I will repeat what we have said many times. The government has just returned to a minority position. We are entering the third week of work since the government returned to a minority position. We still have a few tricks up our sleeves. We still have things to dig into, things to go after. That being said, if things do not work out, we are ready to drop the hammer immediately. We have said so very clearly and publicly.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the NDP has been in support of Bill C-319 since the very onset. We know that seniors deserve to be living with dignity and respect. We also know that so much more is needed for seniors today.

As far as I am aware, I have yet to see a national aging strategy put into place that addresses all the issues that are being faced by our increasingly aging population. I wonder if the member could speak to how important it is to have that strategy in place, that we have a plan moving forward and we do not see seniors continue to struggle to make ends meet.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will always support any plan that respects our jurisdictions. In all kinds of situations in the House, we have voted in favour of creating a plan. That does not mean we will agree to it, but a plan is necessary because governing is planning. We need to be able to see the plan. Then we will debate its contents. We will look at what is good or less good, and then reach a decision. That said, the fact that our nation builders are not the focus of policies worthy of the name seems to me the sign of a flagrant lack of vision. We agree on that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to speak to a topic of great importance for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and the many seniors who I have the privilege of representing in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for the great riding Waterloo.

Before I begin talking about some policy measures and so forth, I would like to give a big shout-out to the seniors in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the city of Vaughan. Many of them come from the Italian-Canadian community. They immigrated to Canada in the 1950s and 1960s. They came here and worked extremely hard. They sacrificed for their kids so they could have a brighter and better future.

I see many of these seniors at picnics in the summertime and when I am out in the community. They are our labourers, carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, road builders and construction workers. The Italian-Canadian community has contributed to building our country to be the greatest one in the world, in my humble view. I owe them a debt of gratitude and I thank them. I get to interact with them, share a few laughs with them and, most important, I get to listen to them.

My parents, Rocco, who is in his late eighties, and Vincenza, who is in her early eighties, are doing very well. They worked very hard to contribute to building our country. They also worked very hard so their three boys could have a bright future, which all three of us do. Canada chose us. It selected us to come to this country, and I always keep that in the back of my mind.

When it comes to seniors, all seniors are owed a secure and dignified retirement. I think about the measures we put in place as a government to help seniors, such as the Canadian dental care plan. We reversed the Conservative policy and restored the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement back to 65 from 67. We increased the old age security by 10%, or $800 a year annually, for over three million seniors aged 75 and over.

We enhanced the Canada pension plan to increase the CPP maximum payment by 50%, or to over $1,800 a month, for future retirees, coming together with all the provinces in our initial term. We increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, our most vulnerable seniors, the majority of which are women, up to $1,000 annually, which is benefiting a million seniors and lifting tens of thousands out of poverty.

We increased the GIS earnings exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 and a partial exemption of 50% for earnings between $5,000 to $10,000. Again, this is another measure that direct helps Canadian seniors across our beautiful country, ensuring that all seniors live in a dignified and secure retirement.

On the Canadian dental care plan, I am so happy that over 70,000 individuals in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, over 20,000 in the city of Vaughan, have now received coverage under this plan. Those numbers represent primarily seniors. If there is one measure that I know is transformational for seniors, it is the Canadian dental care plan. Many Canadians no longer have dental coverage when they retire. This fills the gap. We need to be proud of this measure and support it.

We, as a government, made a promise to restore the age of eligibility to 65 from 67 for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We kept that promise and we delivered for Canadian seniors. If that measure had been kept in place by the opposite party, seniors would have lost over $17,000, in today's dollars, in old security income for those two years. That was a wrong measure to do at the time. We fixed it. We will always have the backs of Canadian seniors.

Increasing old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75-plus benefited over 3.3 million seniors and represents $800 annually. This was not a small fiscal measure. It is $3 billion annually that comes out of the fiscal purse to support our seniors. It was the right thing to do because, as we know, when our seniors age, the cost pressures on seniors increase, their retirement savings tend to diminish a little bit, their partner may pass away and so forth.

In enhancing the Canada pension plan, the former finance minister came together with the provinces because we needed to get the provinces' agreement to sign off on changing the Canada pension plan. The Liberals did it; we delivered. Now, future retirees will go from one-quarter coverage of their earnings to a maximum pay of 15%, but it is really one-third of their earnings that will be covered under future retirement.

The other measure we promised and we delivered on was increasing the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, or nearly $1,000, for individual seniors. This assisted one million of the most vulnerable single seniors, lifting tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty.

We have accomplished much for Canadians, but there is always more work to be done. The Canadian dental care plan is another step in that direction, and so is the GIS earnings exemption. We know that many seniors wish to stay in the labour market. We want those seniors to flourish and to work. We increased the exemption amount on their earnings from $3,500 to $5,000 and the partial exemption of 50% of earnings between $5,000 and $10,000. These are concrete measures that we know help seniors. All these measures combined have strengthened Canada's retirement system, which we know depends on: pillar 1, the Canada pension plan that we all work towards and contribute to both as an employer and employee; pillar 2, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which we know benefits millions of seniors; pillar 3, which tend to be RRSPs and TFSAs that seniors can contribute to; and pillar 4, private pension plans, which many Canadians receive, including my parents, who both worked for private sector unions, and that help Canadians.

That is our retirement system, but there is always more work to do. I always welcome new ideas. We have done a lot, but we also know seniors across Canada have been impacted by global inflation. It impacted all countries around the world. We know a lot of seniors face pressures. With regard to delivering more help to seniors, we know the carbon rebate assists seniors. They receive much more than what they consume, in terms of GHG emissions and so forth. We know that has helped.

I rose last week and said Canada is the best country in the world. This is Canada's decade. Not only because of our economic policies but because of the social policies we put in place, such as the Canadian dental care plan, the Canada child benefit, our early learning and national day care plan, and the Canada workers benefit. Our social fabric has been strengthened. Yes, we have our challenges. Yes, Canadians have been pressured by global inflation, which now is back down to 2%, the bank's target rate, which, in my humble opinion, will allow the Bank of Canada to further reduce the interest rate in the months to come. It has gone down 75 basis points. I hope to see much more, and as an economist, I think it will.

We continue to do the right thing. Equally important, we continue to do it within a fiscal framework that maintains our deficit-to-GDP ratio, one of the lowest in the G20; maintains our credit at a AAA rating; maintains the finances of the country in an envious position throughout the world. We know it. We know what the economists, the IMF and the World Bank say about Canada's fiscal position. It is a strength. Anybody who has worked in the global financial markets, like myself, would know that and would say that we maintained it. We will continue to maintain it, and we are going to continue to move forward to help all Canadians, whether it is families, seniors, workers or businesses. It is great to see all these small businesses popping up and growing in the city of Vaughan. I have attended probably about a dozen new small-business openings. It is wonderful to see that confidence back. Yes, we have gone through some hard times. We had the global pandemic. We have war in Europe for the first time in 80 years. We had supply chain blocks. We had global inflation. Nonetheless, Canada is strong, and its best days are ahead of us. I know that. I believe in that and I cannot wait to keep going forth and advocating and putting forward policies that will continue to strengthen our country.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I still fail to understand the connection between SMEs, economic indicators and the seniors' issue. Of course, it can be connected to inflation and other things, but my colleague was telling us that everything is going well.

That means we still do not know where things stand. I will come back to my question: Will he vote for or against our motion?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. We need to support our seniors at all times.

We must support our seniors with measures that contribute to their well-being and that ensure their retirement is dignified and secure. We must always work toward those policy measures. We must always do it within a fiscal framework that allows us to do that, and that is what Canadians expect of us. That is what I expect, myself. I will continue to examine the opposition motion for what I think are good policy measures that are put forward, and I do that with all motions put forward in this House and all policy. I will obviously think about that and make sure our seniors are supported and make sure they are getting the help we want.

We have done a lot. I look forward to working with all sides of the House, including my own team, with regard to measures that will continue to support all Canadians. We owe it to them. We owe them a secure and dignified retirement, and we have put in place many measures to make the seniors' poverty rate literally the lowest it has been historically, but we know that seniors continue to need help.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, typically, gaslighting techniques include denying something when there is proof, projecting onto others and telling blatant lies. The actions of gaslighting do not match what they say. Why do I bring this up? On the weekend, we heard from a Liberal strategist who stated, “I don't see clearly what the political upside is ... to spend more [money] on seniors”.

As such, why would we believe my colleague across the way when clearly their actions do not meet their words? Their costly carbon tax is blowing a $34-billion hole in our economy, driving up the cost of living for everyone and especially those on fixed incomes.

When will this Liberal-NDP government stop gaslighting Canadians, axe the tax and call for a carbon tax election so that seniors know the true value of what they have to live with?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is implemented and done. The reversal of the age for old age security, which was put at 67 and announced in Davos, Switzerland, is back to 65 and done, putting $18,000 in the pockets of seniors. Increasing old age security for seniors 75-plus with $800 a year, benefiting 3.3 million seniors, is done. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement by up to $1,000 for a million of the most vulnerable seniors in Canada is done. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement from $3,500 to $5,000 and then 50% from $5,000 to $10,000 is done. Sitting down with the provinces, showing leadership and enhancing and expanding the Canada pension plan for future retirees is done.

We will always have the backs of Canadian seniors. They deserve the utmost. They deserve a secure and dignified retirement, much like my parents have, and have earned, because they worked and sacrificed, and much like the community members in my riding, the seniors who came here and helped build this country. We will always have their backs of the LiUNA 183 members, the LiUNA 506 members and all the private sector construction workers. We will always have their backs, and I will always fight for them day in and day out.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating supports for seniors here today. Seniors, especially on fixed incomes, are struggling, but I just came from a human resources committee meeting where we were talking about people with disabilities. We have the new Canada Disability Benefit Act that was rolled out by this government. It is only available for maybe one-third of Canadians with disabilities, and it is only $200 a month. It is really a slap in the face to the people with disabilities who really need supports to get out of poverty.

We heard from witness after witness today that this needs to change and that we have to fix these disability supports so that the people who need them really can access them.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of us do not get personal in this House when we answer questions from our hon. colleagues, but we have a beautiful nephew in our family who is one of maybe six children in Canada who is suffering from a rare genetic condition. When I am with Ethan, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, I fully comprehend what they go through on a daily basis, as well as the services and support they need, not only from society and government, but from the family. I see what my in-laws and other relatives do for them.

When it comes to the disability community, there is a very broad continuum. I treat this with a tremendous amount of seriousness, as I do all issues. This one, in particular, I treat with a significant amount of emotion and passion. I see my little nephew, and I see what my brother-in-law and sister-in-law do to fight for him, what they have to go through and the obstacles they face. He was not even diagnosed in Canada with this genetic condition.

I hear the hon. member. I would like to say to all of my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House that we must always remember that we are fighting here for Canadians. We need to bring our best to work every day to make sure that all Canadians can live to their full potential and that all families have the supports they need.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here. I would like to thank my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his great speech and for sharing his time so that I too can participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the Bloc on supporting seniors. I will also be talking about the Canada pension plan.

Before I get into it, I want to share a bit about what constituents in the riding of Waterloo are sharing with me and sending to my inbox. I have had a range of emails come through, which I have really appreciated because it demonstrates that people are watching. The good people of the riding of Waterloo are watching the calibre of debate in this House. They are listening to the words being exchanged. They are noticing that they need to be concerned and that we need to have these tough discussions. Oftentimes, they talk about things that are important to them, and planning for tomorrow, the future, is always of utmost concern.

One thing that has been brought to my attention, which I have been trying to raise today on the floor of the House of Commons, is discussions on processes to advance legislation, whether it be a private member's bill or government legislation. When it comes to spending and the need for a royal recommendation, people might not recognize what a royal recommendation is for. A royal recommendation is needed when there is an expenditure the government needs to be aware of. For a private member's bill, if there is an expenditure the government needs to be aware of, it has to give a royal recommendation.

Today's opposition day motion calls on the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation be granted as soon as possible, and a private member's bill is referenced that would amend the Old Age Security Act. This is concerning. As I have been asking in the House, is this the proper mechanism for receiving a royal recommendation?

Under former prime minister Stephen Harper during the decade of darkness, the Conservative government was notorious for using the backdoor, as we say in this place, by advancing private members' bills on the floor of the House of Commons that oftentimes would threaten the rights and freedoms of individuals, hard-fought rights and freedoms. The Conservatives would do it through the backdoor, through a private member's bill.

A private member's bill requires only a limited amount of debate. It is prescribed; there is no adding to the debate. It can even become less by way of UC motion, but it cannot increase. Often, the former Conservative government compromised members in this place, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, by using that backdoor. Today, my concern, which I am raising on behalf of some of my constituents, is about that: Is an opposition day really the right way to advance a private member's bill? Is it the right way to receive public dollars to advance a benefit?

I will never challenge the work that seniors and the people who have come before us have done. They are instrumental. Today is National Seniors Day and I am very grateful to the people who have broadened my horizons.

My grandfather is not alive today, but yesterday, we went to go visit a dear friend of his, Ruprayankul, who is like a grandfather to me. I have a few people who, when my grandfather passed away way too early, came up to me and said, “Bardish, you still have a grandpa in me.” Jathra Hujadadajee is another person who is near and dear to my heart. I really value seniors. I really value the work they have done. When it comes to ensuring that seniors have adequate resources, that is important to me.

What seniors are sharing with me is that this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has done a very good job of ensuring that benefits are means-tested. This means people who need the benefit are receiving the benefit, and people who do not need the benefit are not receiving it. I will give an example: the Canada child benefit. It was a taxable benefit under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Every family with a child 18 and under would receive $100 per child, and then at tax time, that benefit would be taxed.

With the one hand, the government of the day under former prime minister Stephen Harper was giving this benefit to help Canadians raise their kids and give them the things they needed, and with the other hand, it was being clawed back, taken back. That did not make sense, because families that needed the benefit spent it to help raise their children, so we came forward with the Canada child benefit. What we said is that families with children who needed the most would receive the most, and families with children who had the most, often the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, would not receive the benefit.

I will say that the first year was tough. People really felt like the government of the day was taking something away from them. However, within a year, the good people of the riding of Waterloo said that if their neighbours were doing better, they were doing better. They appreciated that. They understood the benefit of having it be means-tested. This brings me to today's conversation. I know that certain people, especially seniors, are saying they always need more, but can we at least, as a government, ensure that people who need the most get the most?

As for the opposition day motion, I have not figured out how I am voting. I am reading my inbox and constituents' mail, so I am participating in this debate because it is important to me, but what I am hearing from some constituents is that they do not need this additional money per month. Sure, I could challenge them and say that if they do not need it, they can donate it, give it to somebody else. However, what they are saying is that this benefit needs to go to the most vulnerable. People who need this benefit should receive this benefit. People who do not need this benefit should not receive it. I thought that was quite compassionate and caring of them. It reminded me of generations before and the people who have been kind and generous enough to provide people like me opportunities. They have taken me under their wing to ensure that I, the child of immigrants, am able to maximize my abilities to contribute.

There is a concern over the tool being used to advance a royal recommendation. It is of concern to me because we have already seen the dysfunction, frankly, in the House of Commons. It has been spotlighted too many times. At some point, we need to ensure that the government of the day is held fiscally accountable, and randomly granting royal recommendations is probably not the way to do that.

I want to talk a bit about the Canada pension plan. Some might ask why. It is because it is one of the top-ranked public retirement plans in the world for seniors. For seniors in Canada, it is vital, and I would be remiss if I did not reflect upon past decisions that have been made, especially during the decade of darkness under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Not only did he close Veterans Affairs offices, but he also decided that it was necessary to raise the retirement age.

Seniors have simply never been a priority for the Conservatives. Today, they have come back to talk about their common-sense plan, but I would be remiss if I did not remind Canadians, especially people in Ontario, of former premier Mike Harris and his “common sense revolution”, which brought about Walkerton.

What else his “common sense revolution” did was shut down our hospitals. People talk about our housing issues and the crises that the country is facing today, but it was actually under former premier Harris that hospitals were shut down, including centres with support for mental health and illness. Former premier Harris, a common-sense Conservative premier, thought it was wise, rather than providing supports to these individuals, to put them in the streets and allow that to be their place of existence. We do not agree with that. We know we can do better.

The Conservative Party talks about common sense, but common sense would be supporting dental care for seniors. Common sense would be restoring the retirement age to 65. Common sense would be working to ensure that Canadians do better, not through slogans but by having respectful debate and dialogue. Those are all measures the Conservative Party does not support, and it is interesting that the Bloc also voted against them.

Today is a challenging day with this debate. I do not believe that Quebec should separate, which is one thing that I will always differ from the Bloc on, but I do know that the Bloc follows the rules. That is why asking for a royal recommendation this way is challenging for me. I just wanted to put that on the record.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she cares deeply about seniors, and her sincerity and candid spontaneity have often surprised me. I would like to ask her a simple question.

I am sure that there are 65-year-old seniors in her riding who do not have the privilege of having a private pension plan and who therefore have only their old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement.

In all honesty, does she not think that these 65-year-olds, in these conditions, deserve as much of an increase as those who got it at age 75?

What does she have to say to those 65-year-old seniors who are living in difficult conditions, but who did not get the 10% increase? I am curious to hear her answer.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I agree that we must help the most vulnerable seniors, but I do not agree that there is just one way to do that. The work that our government has done has helped improve the programs for the most vulnerable, including seniors. It is important. I do not think that what the Bloc Québécois is proposing is the only way to help seniors and that is why this debate is important.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked at the end of her speech about how it would be common sense for the Conservatives and the Bloc to support dental care in Canada. We obviously think this in the NDP caucus because it was our initiative, which the Liberals, I have to admit, voted against a couple of years ago. They also voted against pharmacare, and now it is common sense too. I am very happy that we are moving those things forward.

I would like to ask the question that my colleague just got. How is it common sense that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not get the same treatment as seniors over 75? They are living in the same circumstances and should get the same supports, which they desperately need.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate today. Whenever we have debates like this, it restores some of my confidence and faith in this place. What we are recognizing is that people are living longer. That is where the narrative about those aged 75 and older came from.

I have had some good conversations. I have been involved in politics since I was 13 years old. I know a lot of history and I know stories that I probably should not know. There was a time when people talked about the Canada pension plan and age 65. It was almost an unattainable age, and that is where the number came from. I always ask where we pick these numbers from, but there is a narrative and story to why they are picked. The reality is that more people are hitting age 65, and thank goodness for that.

My father had a massive heart attack during the COVID pandemic, in October 2020, and I am so grateful that he is still here with me today. I want him to live longer. I want more people to live longer. The reality is that people are living longer, so we need to ensure that our resources are able to take care of them. Should it be one size fits all or should it be means-tested to ensure that the people who need the most are getting the most and are being helped? They are the people I will continue fighting for.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said a lot of things in her speech. She kept saying that not everyone is in need. We have a progressive tax system to deal with that. Earlier I talked about my father, who had a good pension. At the end of the year, he paid back in taxes what he received. The matter is already resolved.

How will my colleague go about identifying a person who cannot work because they have arthritis and sore fingers, or even bad hips, from working in a sewing factory their whole life?

That is the appalling injustice that the Bloc Québécois is calling out today. I invite my colleague to support our bill.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of a debate. There is nothing wrong with actually coming to the House of Commons and having an honest debate.

I need to represent the diversity of concerns from my constituents. My inbox is not filled with messages saying, “Yes, let's increase it.” What constituents are saying is that they are not sure everyone needs this. They are not sure that this is the most fiscally responsible. They want us to have the debate and make sure their voices are heard.

I will continue ensuring that diverse voices from the riding of Waterloo are represented in this place, and that is why I will be listening closely to the debate today.