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 Recipients' eligibility could be withdrawn once they began receiving other pension payments.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?