Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Terrebonne.

Today is a very special day. October 1 is National Seniors Day in Quebec. In Salaberry—Suroît, as in the rest of Quebec, people have organized all kinds of events to celebrate seniors, thank them and recognize the work they do.

People tend to forget what a tremendous asset seniors are to communities. They volunteer with most of the community organizations that serve the least fortunate and most vulnerable. People tend to talk about seniors as folks who need services, a millstone around society's neck in their ever-increasing numbers. I myself have never seen things that way. I see seniors as a tremendous asset. Seniors enable communities to grow, thrive and develop a deeper sense of solidarity. Seniors create solidarity.

Today is a special day because October 1 is the day we celebrate seniors everywhere, but it is also the Bloc Québécois's opposition day, and we are once again dedicating it to seniors. We are seeking a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319. We are devoting an entire opposition day to debating this matter because we want the government to understand how important it is to grant a royal recommendation so we can end discrimination between two classes of seniors. Today is a special day not only because October 1 is National Seniors Day and the Bloc Québécois's opposition day featuring Bill C‑319, but also because seniors are demonstrating on Parliament Hill. Some 200 seniors from all over Quebec were on the Hill today to lend their support to Bill C‑319. Their demand was clear: an end to discrimination between two classes of seniors. I have never seen such a thing.

There is a wise old man in my riding who was in the group. He is a wise old man, a community organizer, a trade unionist. He celebrated his 80th birthday this year. He was on the Hill. I asked him, of all the protests that he has taken part in over the course of his life to improve the lot of others, whether this was the first time he had attended a protest as a senior to demand that 65-year-olds be given the same rights as 75-year-olds. He told me yes. I congratulate him. He deserves a lot of credit for driving two and a half hours from my riding to come to the Hill this morning at the age of 80.

There are about a dozen of my constituents in the gallery—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

I do not believe that my colleague, who has some parliamentary experience, has the right to refer to the galleries in Parliament.

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

Members do not have the right to mention whether someone is present in the gallery, but they can thank people for being present during the discussion taking place on the floor.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member took fiendish delight in calling me on that. Maybe he wants to be the whip in the next Conservative government.

The debate we are having on this opposition day is very important. The Bloc Québécois did not conjure this out of thin air. As everyone knows, this has been one of its priorities since 2019. Just this morning, our position was endorsed by the president of the FADOQ network, the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, which represents nearly 600,000 Quebec seniors. There is also the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, the AQDR, which advocates for retirees' rights. I am pleased to say that two delegates from the Valleyfield-Suroît branch of the AQDR, Lucie and Benoit, came here today to speak out against this terrible injustice on behalf of their organization.

The Bloc Québécois cannot understand how the Liberals across the way do not see this as an injustice. When people turn 65, they pay the same rent as when they turn 75. They have the same basic expenses as 75-year-olds, be it at the grocery store or the pharmacy.

Not everyone 65 and over has the ability to work. I am very active in my riding and I meet a lot of seniors in a year. They all talk about the rising cost of living. They all tell me that they are having a tough time making ends meet and that they have to make tough choices. They do not understand this government's decision to increase OAS by 10% for people 75 and up, but not for people aged 65 to 74. In Salaberry—Suroît, nearly 20% of the population is 65 or up. They do not all have the privilege of having a private pension in addition to the payments from the Quebec pension plan and old age security.

There are seniors who worked hard all of their lives, without missing a day of work, and it was not always under the best conditions. I am thinking of Ghislaine, who worked all of her life at La Lanterne restaurant in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. She started young and stopped at 65. Both her knees and hips were finished. Her body was tired from working so hard, but she worked. Even so, she had to find a little job to make ends meet, because her pension was not enough, and neither was the guaranteed income supplement. When we call for fairness among seniors aged 75 and up and seniors aged 65 to 74, this is not just something that we pulled out of a hat.

I am also thinking of Normand, who turned 65 and who works as a packer at the Ormstown grocery store to make ends meet. Normand battled cancer. When a person earns a small salary and receives a small pension and then they have to stop working to fight cancer and they do not have enough money to pay their bills, it is very stressful. It can even interfere with their recovery.

When I think about the condition that our seniors, who built our nation find themselves in, I think of an old adage that says one can judge a society by the way it treats its seniors. Lucie Mercier asked me to talk about this in my speech. According to Judith Gagnon of the AQDR, how well we look after our parents, our ancestors, our predecessors, our most vulnerable citizens and those who built our nation defines who we are and where we are going, and an aging population only reinforces how important the proverb is.

We hope that all parties in the House will do the right thing and support Bill C‑319, and that the government will take responsibility and get a royal recommendation so that it can be passed and enacted. This means that all seniors aged 65 and over will have the same amount on their old age pension, and the income that can be earned per year before GIS benefits are reduced will increase from $5,000 to $6,500.

Seniors are making a heartfelt plea to the Liberal government today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is articulating that a senior who is 85 years old should receive the exact same amount of money as a senior who is 65 years old. I appreciate what the member is saying. However, surely to goodness, she would recognize that there is quite a considerable discrepancy between an average 85-year-old compared with an average 65-year-old in terms of medical requirements, retirement savings and so forth. Would she feel there is any obligation?

Would she not agree that a truly national pharmacare program and dental program would help seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member opposite is raising doubts about the universal old age security system. Under a universal plan, everyone 65 and up gets the same old age pension. If people have more income, that is dealt with through taxes.

Now, it sounds like my colleague is saying, loudly and clearly, that Canada's old age security system is no longer a universal system and that he is okay with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that I say every chance I get in my riding, it is that we are where we are here in Canada thanks to our seniors. That is very important. I think that my colleague and I share that view.

We also share the same view when it comes to the cost of living. I think that since this government has been in office, over the last nine years, the cost of living has gone up. The list is long, and this could be said over and over. I think that people are aware that everything is more expensive because of this government.

Therefore, why is the Bloc Québécois propping up this government? After all, this is a minority government.

Furthermore, what is going to happen on October 30? The Bloc has been scaring people by claiming that October 29 is the ultimatum date, or else they will trigger an election. However, that is just not true. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what to make of these two questions.

On the first, I think that what is clear to Quebeckers, and the message has been heard loud and clear, is that before putting the Leader of the Opposition in charge of the country, I know that my constituents and Quebeckers want us to work on securing a better old age pension for our seniors.

Now, will there be an election? I do not know whether there will be one, but what I do know is that the Bloc members are determined to withdraw their confidence as soon as it is clear that the Liberals are abandoning seniors, farmers, and supply management.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Bloc Québécois that more needs to be done for seniors in Quebec and in my community as well. This government can do it by reducing the massive subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

My question is about the best way to do it. The Bloc Québécois wants to increase the old age security base amount, which provides benefits with little variability to seniors who earn of up to just over $148,000 a year. While the guaranteed income supplement is intended to provide seniors with monthly geared-to-income support, low rates still leave many people living in poverty at a time when the cost of living is rising.

Why not focus on increasing the monthly guaranteed income supplement amounts and further increase the income threshold to ensure that additional funds are directed to the seniors who need it most?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, who is always so thorough in the way he asks questions.

There are many other ways to support seniors. I think that the Bloc Québécois, in its last election platform, also suggested tax incentives, among other things. I think that when someone purports to run a progressive or social-democratic government, choices also have to be made. What we understand about the current government is that it has deliberately chosen to lose billions of dollars to tax evasion and invest billions of dollars in the Trans Mountain pipeline. These are difficult choices that the government has made, but they are still choices. We are responsible for the choices we make. Right now, we are not calling into question the universal old age security pension plan. I understand that my colleague would agree with that.

What we are saying is that Canada can afford to provide seniors aged 65 to 74 with the same monthly old age security pension. We know it can, but this means making the right social-democratic choices. I have a feeling that it may not necessarily be prepared to support our motion being debated today. This makes me really sad because this means that it is making it loud and clear that it is abandoning the most vulnerable seniors.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a matter of fairness, justice, and respect.

Being a senior in Quebec and Canada simply should not mean living in poverty. Although history is forever repeating itself and is almost always worse, let us look at the history of the old age security program.

The program was created in Canada in 1927. The Liberal government of Mackenzie King, the man who spoke to ghosts, set up the program in that dismal year, and it would expand significantly in the decades that followed. In an attempt to counter the constant criticisms of the Conservatives, who opposed the welfare state, successive governments have, from the start, tried to restrict access to pensions as much as possible. Humiliating measures known as the means test were implemented way back in 1927.

Here are some of the bright ideas the government had at the time. To qualify for assistance, parents had to prove that their children could not support them financially. Government officials even went so far as to encourage some elderly parents to sue their children for maintenance. Recipients' eligibility could be withdrawn once they began receiving other pension payments. Payments were even recovered through claims against the estate of dead recipients. Fortunately, these measures were abolished. However, the back-and-forth between expanding the plan to fight poverty and implementing measures to restrict access in order to reduce costs continued throughout the 20th century.

Why am I going over the complex history of the old age pension program? Because that back-and-forth continues to this day. Hounded by those who oppose all spending and have zero interest in fighting poverty, the Liberals came up with an all-new approach. They created two classes of seniors. People might be surprised to hear a sovereignist remind the party in power about what is in the Constitution, but under section 94A of the Constitution, old age pensions are indeed a federal responsibility.

I would like to focus on the issue of jurisdiction. Canada was first created as a confederation. In a confederation, the provinces hold most of the power. Quebeckers were told they could govern their province in peace, without too much interference. Later, a federation was imposed on them without asking their opinion. Just like that, the Canadian federation was born, with a nice lie told at the starting gate so the francophones would not rise up.

In English Canada, however, the measure did not meet with unanimous approval. Why make concessions to the losers? The Constitution of 1867 was therefore based on a lie designed to reconcile the irreconcilable: on the one hand, the Quebec people's desire for self-determination, and on the other, the desire for unity of the citizens of British origin. That is the whole history of the federal system in a nutshell: a tug-of-war between those who believe the real power is in Quebec City and those who believe the real power is in Ottawa.

It is ironic that a separatist MP has to remind the House yet again of how the Canadian Constitution works, whereas the government never misses an opportunity to remind us that the Constitution must not be touched and to say that all the issues related to it do not matter to Canadians and Quebeckers or that Quebeckers do not care about jurisdictions.

As it turns out, the Liberals are no longer federalists because they no longer believe in the federation and the separation of powers. Everything the Liberals and the NDP said all morning was about interference. They said they support dental insurance and programs that interfere in our jurisdictions. As my leader says, interference plus incompetence equals the Liberals.

Here are a few examples of incompetence and interference. When the figures are adjusted for population growth, Canada now has 25% more federal civil servants per capita than eight years ago. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, total spending on employee wages has grown by $21 billion since the Prime Minister came to power. The most recent figures pegged it at $60 billion. Another nearly $15 billion per year went to consulting firms. We know that consultants are needed to provide expertise that the government lacks. However, it makes no sense to increase the number of federal employees to that extent while giving tens of billions of dollars to consulting firms.

After that, they say there is no money for seniors.

Among other recent examples is the more than $13 million doled out to GC Strategies alone for the ArriveCAN app. Another $190,000 was spent on food and planes for the government's Indo-Pacific tour. Impressive.

When it comes to the economy, there was the 10-year, $13‑million subsidy to Volkswagen. The Prime Minister chose to help a foreign company with profits of $34 billion, up 12.5% in one year, yet he remains unmoved by the 37% rise in bankruptcies among fully Canadian companies.

Another example of mismanagement is the fact that net debt has risen from approximately $700 billion to $1.3 trillion as of February 2024. Federal debt has risen from 31% of GDP to 42%.

As for the environment, in July 2019, when Project Reconciliation presented its first proposal to then finance minister Morneau, the estimated cost of building the Trans Mountain pipeline was over $7 billion. Since then, the bill has ballooned to $34 billion, according to the latest documents filed by the Crown corporation.

According to Environmental Defence, the federal government allocated over $20 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry in 2022 alone. We are currently studying this issue in committee: $167 million was invested in projects that were either ineligible or in a clear conflict of interest within Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

I have tons of examples like that. I could spend all day on them without even going into detail. This is a case of mismanagement, incompetence, and serious interference.

Once again, the Liberals and the NDP insist on talking about dental insurance. Why does it take a sovereignist to remind us what the Canadian Constitution says? Dental insurance is not a federal jurisdiction. For once and for all, can we put that to rest?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Where does it say it is provincial?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Health is a provincial jurisdiction.

Read the Constitution, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

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

I would simply remind the hon. member that he can ask his question after the member has finished her speech.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling him to order.

I invite the member to reread the Constitution. Jurisdiction is a simple matter. It refers to the sandbox in which the federal government can work. The best example is that, in the case of dental insurance, the government could have saved $2 billion by simply transferring the money for dental insurance to Quebec, which already has its own program.

If it wants to increase dental insurance coverage, if that is the priority, then that is fine. However, in that case, the government should transfer the money unconditionally and let the Quebec government manage its health care plan as it sees fit, with the program that already exists, not go through a private company that will ultimately provide inadequate service, because we know that it is going to be inadequate. Instead, the Quebec government needs to be given the money to manage its own jurisdictions. The Liberals need to stop talking about dental insurance and look at what they have done. This is a very good example when it comes to the economy. I have given tons of them, but this is the best one.

The government needs to prioritize the issues that are within its sandbox. Within the sandbox, there are many things that could be prioritized. However, despite the priorities within the federal government's sandbox, it decided it would rather give money, billions of dollars, to the oil companies. That is the truth.

What are the Liberals going to prioritize? I am asking them today, in this debate, whether they will continue to prioritize the oil companies or will they finally invest in seniors, people who have worked their entire lives and who deserve not to have to go to food banks to be able to eat. I am asking the Liberals to remain focused on their areas of jurisdiction, to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74, to honour their own Constitution and to be consistent. They need to either honour the Constitution or reopen it, and we will see how Quebeckers respond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the provinces have 100% jurisdiction in regard to health care, maybe the member can explain why it is that no provincial government has taken the Canada Health Act to court. Maybe she can enlighten the House as to why the Canada Health Act is allowed to exist if in fact there is no responsibility of the federal government. It seems to me that the Bloc is uncomfortable with the fact that we have a dental care program that is literally helping 700,000-plus Canadians in every region of the country, including the province of Quebec.

What would the member say about those seniors who are receiving this benefit, which helps with their disposable income? Why is she opposing a national dental care program that is helping seniors in Canada, including in Quebec?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, we do not oppose the idea of more people being covered by dental insurance. Here is what we want. If the federal government has so much money, it should transfer the money to Quebec and let Quebeckers manage it themselves. We are already doing a pretty good job. There is always room for improvement, but we are doing it fairly well.

We want the federal government to stop giving our money to private insurance companies. Give the money to the RAMQ instead and let us manage it ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Terrebonne criticized the Liberal government's hiring spree and inflationary spending. She criticized the use of outside firms and the spending related to ArriveCAN.

Oddly, the record shows that the Bloc Québécois voted nearly 200 times in favour of the government. The Bloc Québécois therefore voted for all these measures that the member is criticizing today. Why does the Bloc Québécois not want to vote in favour of our motion to call an election, the motion we are voting on today?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply because robbing Justin to pay Pierre is not a good idea. What I am saying applies only in the context of an election, of course.

To answer the question more specifically, we do not want to vote for a non-confidence motion that we believe lacks substance. We want to try to make gains because we have no guarantee, none at all, that old age security will really be increased if the Conservatives come to power. It is better to ask now and try to get it now, because we think it is very important.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion is great, although it is very late for the Bloc to be pushing for programs to assist seniors, at the eleventh hour, pretty much before a potential election, when it voted against so many programs to assist seniors. My bill for a guaranteed livable basic income was voted against by the Bloc. It voted against dental care, even though the highest number of people using it live in Quebec. It voted against the pharmacare plan.

Although I agree with my hon. colleague that we need to increase pensions, unlike the Liberals, who think that seniors are doing just fine, I am wondering why the Bloc waited until the last minute, when it has had quite a number of years to push the issue.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did not wake up today thinking about seniors for the first time. Seniors were part of our pre-budget requests in both 2023 and 2022. They were one of our priorities. This is not a sudden awakening. This has been one of our demands from the beginning. Following every budget, we wondered why the Liberal government refused to increase old age security and why it was creating two classes of seniors. That is why we are here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne on her excellent speech.

My question is very specific. Some objections were raised earlier about increasing old age security for everyone. Someone suggested that not everyone needs it. I know my colleague has a background in economics, so could she explain to the members opposite that we have a progressive tax system that will balance all that out?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. In fact, the answer was already in the question. We have a progressive tax system, so it is not true that some seniors do not need it. Yes, there is a segment of seniors who receive old age security who may need it less than others, but they receive a smaller amount. It is called a progressive tax refund. Everything is already taken into account. That problem does not exist.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

It is a privilege to rise in the House to debate the Bloc Québécois motion, which reads as follows:

That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

It is important for Canadians watching at home to remember that such motions are not binding on the government. That said, it is important to discuss the measures in Bill C‑319 and the Bloc Québécois's other demands. As everyone knows, this is once again a minority Parliament. We usually go vote by vote, and the Bloc Québécois has made two requests. As a member of Parliament who is not a member of the Privy Council, I will share my perspective on what I believe to be the best way forward.

I want to begin by sharing a thought. I represent the small riding of Kings—Hants, where the issue of supply management is extremely important. My riding is home to largest concentration of supply-managed farmers east of Quebec. I was rather surprised to see that the Bloc Québécois motion did not include any measures or considerations regarding the importance of supply management. I was also rather surprised to hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois raise this important point last week. He also talked about how important it is for all parliamentarians and the government to protect the supply management system. It is very important for our farmers, but also for our food security.

Personally, I have some concerns about the U.S. presidential election and the position of the next U.S. Congress on the issue of supply management. I was in Washington this summer. It is not just one American party. It is not just the Democrats or just the Republicans. Representatives of both parties will have the opportunity to raise the issue of greater access to the Canadian market. It is very important for our parliamentarians to educate themselves and to resist this idea, because our supply management system is more important. The Conservatives are taking a very weak position in this respect. Many Conservative members voted against Bill C-282, which sought to protect supply management. All of the other MPs, especially the Liberals, were in favour of the bill and of protecting supply management.

I want to remind farmers in my riding and other ridings in Nova Scotia that it is important to keep an eye on the Conservatives.

In the past, Conservative governments have allowed cuts to accessing the system, willingly, without necessarily negotiating it away.

There are a lot of seniors in Kings—Hants. They are important, and they are the type of seniors, by and large, who are blue-collar workers. They are seniors who have worked in forestry. They have worked in agriculture. They have worked in the type of industries where they may not have large pensions, unlike people in other areas of the country and maybe in bigger urban centres.

I have taken great pride, over the five years I have had the privilege of being the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, to try to be an advocate in this space, because we do have to make sure that our seniors have a dignified retirement and that we are taking measures to support seniors across the country, including indeed, for me, right at home in Kings—Hants. Our government has been there.

Our government has been there, and there are a few things I want to point out to my hon. colleagues.

When Mr. Harper was in government, he was proposing to actually move the retirement age up from 65 to 67, such that seniors in Kings—Hants would not have been eligible for old age security or the guaranteed income supplement until age 67, had the Conservatives had their way. Of course our Minister of Seniors has pointed out that Mr. Harper made that decision and policy choice at the World Economic Forum.

However, we are the government that actually brought the retirement age back to 65. We have invested in old age security for those who are age 75 and up, and I know that is part of the conversation piece, representing over $3 billion a year in new investments for seniors. We have also supported long-term care facilities.

We have invested in dental care. I had the opportunity to talk to some of my constituents, who have said to me, “Look, I haven't had the opportunity to have my teeth cleaned in over five years. I haven't been able to visit a dentist, because I just can't afford it.” Our government, with the support of the majority of members of Parliament, actually created a program where now close to 80% of dentists across the country are participating. That is extremely important, as it is a measure that supports not only health care for seniors but also affordability.

The members who voted against the measure, namely the Conservatives, like to talk about seniors, but when it comes to the measures that actually support them, they vote against them. The member for Carleton talks about pensions and the member for Burnaby South, yet he is not willing to support seniors' dental care in my riding of Kings—Hants or anywhere else in the country. He says it does not exist, but almost a million Canadians now have benefited from the program, notably our seniors.

Let us talk about the threshold before there are clawbacks. Our government has been increasing the amount of money that a senior can earn before it is clawed back on the guaranteed income supplement or on their old age security cheque, which is important. We had moved that from $3,500 up to $5,000, and now it is 50% more, from $5,000 to $10,000. That is great; however, I would like to see the government do more.

Hopefully in the fall economic statement, in the budget, we can see it go even higher, because for seniors who are still able and wanting to contribute by working, we do not want there to be an impediment to their doing so because they are worried about losing their seniors' benefits. Therefore we need to go higher, and I believe that the government has the ability to do so and will do so in the days ahead. We will see where our other hon. colleagues stand on that.

Let us talk about the health care investment. When I talk to seniors, I hear that they worry about health care. We have been there as a government to step up. However, the Conservatives voted against it.

The point I want to make is that, as it relates to seniors, I am proud of the record the current government has. We have one of the lowest poverty rates of seniors in the world, which matters. This is not just a feeling, an emotion, but a fact. Are there challenges out there that we have to continue to address? Absolutely there are, and I may not agree with the entirety of the motion before the House here today as it relates to doing something to support seniors between 65 and 74.

However, I think that particularly for our lower-income seniors between ages 65 and 74, we have to be there to make sure we can support them. In fact it is in the Liberal platform to make sure we can identify those seniors who would be on the guaranteed income supplement, to support them in the days ahead.

When we look at the Bloc's voting record on support for seniors, it immediately becomes clear that they do not really care about seniors' needs. The Bloc voted against dental care for seniors, against lowering the retirement age, and against increasing the GIS.

Generally speaking, the initiatives in this bill are good, but it is important to understand that, with regard to the motion that the Bloc Québécois is moving today, it is very difficult and very rare for a government to grant a royal recommendation.

I would love to be able to have one of my hon. colleagues step up and ask me a question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear that. My colleague is usually a rather sensible person, yet he just said that Bloc Québécois members do not truly care about seniors. That must be why we put this issue on today's agenda and why we are trying to get this gain. That must also be why we have been fighting for five years to get his government to act fairly and equitably toward all seniors.

We are prepared to force an election on this issue. Is my colleague prepared?