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.