Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:21 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Mégantic—L'Érable relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #865

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that the volume of earpieces will now be reset. Members using their earpiece at this time will have to adjust the volume.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, by the member for Edmonton Griesbach concerning comments made during question period that same Wednesday.

Midway through question period that day, at a point when the Chair was standing and calling the House to order, heckles coming from one side of the House could be heard. The source of the comment was not immediately apparent to the Chair, nor was it to the editors of the Debates, who attributed them to “an hon. member”.

After question period, the member for Edmonton Griesbach rose on a point of order, claiming that the comments were clearly homophobic, and asking the Chair to look into the matter. Several other members referred to this specific situation the following day, on Thursday, September 26, pressing the Chair to rule on it. At some point, accusations were made directly toward the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who was suspected to have said the alleged words.

Just before question period last Thursday, the Chair made a ruling dealing with decorum and unparliamentary language. The Chair will repeat one of the quotations used in that ruling.

As indicated on page 624 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote: “In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.”

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan rose and admitted to having made the statement in question, but explained the context in which it was made and his intentions in making it. He maintained that his comment was meant to criticize government spending and that no slur was intended.

Of course, comments that are clearly meant to denigrate someone due to their sexual orientation, or make insinuations about someone's sexual orientation, would not be acceptable in the House. While the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has vigorously denied that this was his intent, and the Chair is prepared to take him at his word, I would invite him to reflect upon how how his comments could have been interpreted and to recognize that they provoked disorder.

The situation underscores certain principles that should govern our actions in the chamber: first, the importance of not shouting out comments across the floor, and second, to avoid jokes that others could interpret as hurtful or offensive. We all have a responsibility to choose our words carefully. It is in this context that I will invite the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to withdraw his remarks and to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

I thank all members for their attention.

Alleged Unparliamentary Language—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am also now ready to rule on the point of order raised on September 27, 2024, by the member for Edmonton Strathcona concerning an alleged personal insult made by the member for Calgary Heritage during a statement delivered pursuant to Standing Order 31.

In her intervention, the member for Edmonton Strathcona alleged that the member for Calgary Heritage used a personal insult directed at the member for Burnaby South earlier that day in his statement. She noted that the Chair had made a ruling recently about personal insults directed towards other members. She suggested that the member for Calgary Heritage should be asked to withdraw his comment and apologize.

As I indicated in my ruling of September 26, 2024, I remain very concerned about the tendency to use overly personal criticism and insults. I also concluded my ruling, found at page 25926, of the Debates, by inviting, and I quote, “members to be more judicious in their choice of words and behaviour. If they are not, the Chair will have no choice but to discipline those members who persist in their unparliamentary behaviour.”

The Chair has reviewed the statement made by the member for Calgary Heritage and finds certain words indeed constituted a personal attack on the member for Burnaby South.

The member for Calgary Heritage should have been aware that his words were problematic as I had warned one of his colleagues a few days before during Statements By Members against using the exact same terms. As I have stated before, there are ways to make our point without resorting to personal insults. As a result, the member for Calgary Heritage will not be recognized until such time as he withdraws his offending words.

I thank all members for their attention.

The hon. member for Don Valley West is rising on a point of order.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to your first ruling, I am not questioning it; however, I do have a question that I would like to raise in the House with respect to it, which is on the application of the sexual harassment policy of the House of Commons with respect to the way members treat each other.

We have all taken extensive training in sexual harassment. One of the key parts is that intent does not play into findings in those proceedings, but it is how someone receives them that matters, even though someone says that they have no intent. Therefore, I would like the Speaker to reflect on that to see whether the workplace sexual harassment policy applies in the chamber or whether it applies just outside the chamber.

It is a genuine question, and you can take time. I do not know the answer to it, but we did sit in many sessions with respect to sexual harassment training. I think the hardest thing for me to get in my head was that I might say something that I do not think causes offence, but if it is heard that way, then I need to own it. I just do not know whether that actually applies in the House or not.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Don Valley West for rising on this important distinction. I want to make sure that the hon. member understands that the sexual harassment policy applies outside the House. It is one where, as quite rightly pointed out, it is not the intent of the comment but of course how it is received that matters. However, again, that applies outside the House.

If members want to have the policy explicitly applied to debates in the House, then I would invite them to raise that through the appropriate channel, namely the procedure and House affairs committee.

The hon. member from Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, flowing from the rulings you just gave, where you indicated that you would not recognize members who refused to withdraw remarks, you ordered the Prime Minister to withdraw his libellous and baseless personal accusations, and he refused to do so. You gave him multiple opportunities. If you check Hansard for that day, you will see that he in fact did not withdraw the term or the phrase that you ordered him to, and he ignored your ruling.

We would expect that the same application would be made on the government as you have just made on the opposition. I hope that you will come back to the House with a ruling on the question, because it is a very similar situation as to what you have just ruled on. I would formally request that you look at Hansard from that day. I am sure you will see that the Prime Minister ignored your direction and did not withdraw his remarks. The same sanction should apply on both sides of the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for raising that point of order.

At the time, if I recall, the Chair felt that the comments had been withdrawn, but I will check Hansard and come back to the House if necessary.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same point of order, we have to be somewhat cautious with respect to us being able to review Hansard and then come back citing it. My interpretation of what had taken place that day was very similar to what your interpretation was at the time. At times, it is not just the word that is spoken, but also everything else that goes along with that word. The manner in which it is expressed, for example, should also be taken into consideration. It is more so a cautionary note and we have to be careful, for example, saying, “four weeks ago so-and-so said this and now I am coming back to reflect on that.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to follow up on one of the points of orders that was brought up already, in which a member had asked that the Prime Minister retract a statement. If I understand correctly, the Leader of the Opposition was asked to retract a statement and has also not done that yet. I could be mistaken, but if that is the case, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition also retracts the offensive statement that you have asked him to retract.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair has heard many comments on this and I will come back to the House after advisement, if necessary.

I see the hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still grappling with your first ruling.

So I can understand the ruling and its application, and the rules in the House and the decorum that is required for the House, when someone makes a comment about the Prime Minister that he should hold hands with another individual of the same gender and go into the bathtub together, it is within order in the House and that we should not take it in any other way? Do I understand this correctly?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will invite the hon. member to take a look at the ruling I made a couple of minutes ago. I would be happy to provide her with a copy of that and then we will have an opportunity to have a further discussion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing a very interesting and very important topic.

We are touching on two important issues. The first is the situation of our seniors. The second is the state of our public finances, especially when the government is dealing with certain constraints that might limit what it can do with the programs it wants to develop.

In all honestly, I do not think we can accuse the Bloc Québécois of being opportunistic about this. We can accuse the Bloc Québécois of a lot of things. As my colleague from Honoré-Mercier often used to say, we can accuse the Bloc Québécois of picking fights, but in this case, we cannot accuse the Bloc Québécois of being opportunistic. It has been calling for this for quite some time now. It has been consistent about these demands. However, and I will come back to this later, I think we can accuse the Bloc Québécois of improvising a bit on this issue.

As for the member for Shefford, in my opinion, she comes across as truly sincere. Seniors are certainly very important to her. She is a strong advocate for them. She stands up not only for seniors in Quebec, but also for those in Canada as a whole. In fact, she is very supportive of seniors from the rest of Canada. We might wonder if that support could one day lead to support for federalism. Who knows? I remain hopeful.

The first thing I want to point out about the Bloc Québécois's position is that the Bloc knows very well that age 75 was not chosen arbitrarily as the threshold for the OAS increase. It was not picked out of a hat. There is a certain logic behind choosing 75 as the age when the OAS is increased.

There are exceptions, but the situation of people 75 and over differs from that of people under 75. For example, the data show that people 75 and older are more likely to outlive their savings, to be unable to work, to be widowed and to have greater health care needs. One telling statistic is that half of seniors over 75 have a serious disability, 57% are women and four in 10 are widowed. In short, the situation of seniors 75 and over is, as a rule, different from that of seniors under 75. We try to be precise when setting a threshold, but it is tough. There are always exceptions.

The retirement age was set at 65 a long time ago. One might even say that it is a bit of an arbitrary number. Why not 63, 62 or 60? It is hard to be absolutely precise about everyone's situation, but decisions still have to be made.

It is also important to note that old age security is not the only program where the amount of benefits changes with age. Take, for example, the Canada child benefit, which decreases at age six. Obviously, the government decided that this benefit would decrease starting at age six, not at age five or seven. Setting a threshold at which a benefit changes is not unprecedented.

Yes, the OAS could be increased for those under 75. Many programs that are very important to the well-being of Canadians could also be enhanced, such as the Canada child benefit, which I mentioned. It is a program to reduce child poverty. In a world with no budget limits, of course we would always want to do more for everyone.

The Canada disability benefit could also be increased. The maximum has not been reached. The government just introduced this new benefit, and we are working with the provinces to ensure that, if it is enhanced, the provinces will not reduce their investments. We have to be fairly strategic with the provinces, but ultimately, the goal is to provide a much more generous benefit. We could achieve this more quickly and aim for an even higher maximum. This is another program that could be improved.

The child care program could also be improved. Why should child care cost $10 instead of $7, $6 or $5?

Federal health transfers could also be increased. The Bloc Québécois always accuses us of underfunding Canada's health care systems. It blames the federal government for not doing enough. However, a study published two or three weeks ago compared the rate of growth in federal health transfers to the rate of growth in provincial health spending, and it found that federal spending was growing faster than provincial spending on health, so I think we are already doing a lot, but obviously in a world with no limits, we could do more.

The other thing to understand is that seniors have always been the government's priority. Our government has done a lot for seniors. We introduced a dental care program that greatly benefits seniors. I regularly receive emails from seniors thanking our government for introducing this program. We are also going to introduce pharmacare, which will also greatly help seniors.

It is about balance within a limited financial framework.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, never have I heard such a distressing speech about arbitrariness and relativism.

They seem to be trivializing what seniors, the various FADOQ groups and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées have been asking for. He is a member from Quebec, but he does not hear these people. When people have worked hard all their lives, sometimes the aches and pains start to appear between the ages of 65 and 74.

My colleague spoke about health transfers. What was called for was $280 billion over 10 years, not $46 billion in new money over 10 years. Sun Life incurs $2 billion in administrative costs for its dental care program. They cannot say that they do not have any money. The money is there: $83 billion for the oil companies and $34 billion for Trans Mountain. It is all about priorities.

Is the hon. member telling me that, because there may also be an increase elsewhere, it would be too much to invest where people need it? There could be savings in the health care system, because these people would not be as sick.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that there are budget constraints. Members often talk about Canada's deficit. In my opinion, it is a reasonable deficit because it pays for various programs to provide support to many people.

However, according to the Bank of Canada, if the deficit were to increase any further, it could throw fuel on the inflationary fire. Members should ask themselves whether inflation would serve the interests of seniors on fixed incomes.

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

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis praised the Bloc Québécois members, to my great surprise. He is on a charm offensive. I understand that he is trying to court them to become federalists, but I think he is wasting his time, since they are separatists.

However, he is justified in wondering about the Bloc Québécois, because it voted nearly 200 times on $500 billion in budgetary appropriations.

I have a simple question for my colleague. What did the Liberal government promise the Bloc Québécois members in return for giving it a blank cheque, Quebeckers' money, to spend recklessly and lose control? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government did not promise the Bloc Québécois anything. I have no other answer for my colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, I just heard the member say that he is concerned about the deficit. I wonder if that is why 65- to 74-year-olds are being forced by the Liberal government to stay at work, so their taxes can come off the federal debt. Is that why the Liberals have a two-tier system?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, no, that is not why.

The government did its homework. It did an analysis of the demographic situation facing seniors. There were some hard facts about how life changes quite drastically in some ways after the age of 75. For some people, it would not be at age 75, but at age 74. For others, it would be at age 80. We are looking at a general rule here that things become a little tougher for seniors after the age of 75, and the government is just trying to help those who need a little extra help.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by answering the member for Lac‑Saint‑Louis by paraphrasing what my colleague from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said: True power is independence. I wanted to remind the member of that.

I am not sure how to approach this issue any more, because, since we came to the House in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been talking about the importance of equity among seniors and the importance of increasing the old age security pension for all seniors, not just for those aged 75 and up. That is what seniors in our communities are asking for. We are simply being consistent with who we are and what we have been saying in the House for more than four years now, nearly five years.

First, I will remind the House of the Bloc Québécois's position on seniors. For the past two summers, I have been listening to people's opinions and travelling all over Quebec as part of my work on Bill C‑319. I will conclude my remarks by explaining what has led us here today, why we are having this opposition day that seeks to increase pressure on the government and remind it that it absolutely must give this bill royal recommendation.

I also want to apologize to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I got carried away thinking about my colleague's speech earlier and forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I apologize for that. I know that someone is listening carefully to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue today. I will come back to that. As I said, I am not handling this portfolio alone. The Bloc Québécois leader and member for Beloeil—Chambly decided to make this issue a priority, but the entire caucus is helping me wage this fight for fairness for seniors. I would not be able to do this without my colleagues' help and support. I want to sincerely thank them.

As I said, we have been trying, since 2019, to hammer home the idea that old age security is a universal program and that there must be no gaps in it based on age. Those who are 67 must be given the same amount as those who are 77. People have been talking to us about this issue since we arrived in office. As early as January 2020, groups, like FADOQ, that we met with during pre-budget consultations were telling us why it was important to increase the old age security pension for all seniors, not just for those aged 75 and up.

We then made that a priority when each budget was tabled. For each budget, we made it clear to the government that we would not vote in favour of the budget if it did not meet this expectation of the groups on the front lines. Even though there may have been other worthwhile measures in the budget, we would not vote for it if it did not contain this measure, which local seniors' groups call for. That is one of the reasons.

We have set other priorities at other times. I would like to once again mention supply management, which is now a priority, but has been before too. We have also mentioned the environment. We have mentioned other concerns, but the issue of seniors came up in our pre-budget requests for every budget. Since we did not get a response from the government, we did not vote in favour of the budgets.

In early 2021, I met with representatives of SOS Dépannage, a food bank located in Granby, in the riding of Shefford. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of this organization's employees. Representatives of the food bank called me in to their office to show me the numbers they were seeing and alert me to the fact that more seniors were applying for food assistance because they were having trouble making ends meet on a fixed income. I also want to say that, no, seniors were not going to food banks to request medical assistance in dying. That is not why the people at SOS Dépannage had me come in to their office. It was to make me aware of the difficult financial realities seniors were facing.

The first petition that we presented came from Samuel Lévesque, a young man in his 20s. As a believer in intergenerational equity, he felt that it was unfair to separate seniors into two classes. He understood very well what was at stake, and he hoped that when he retired, there would be no gap, no two classes of seniors, and that he would receive the same amount as seniors aged 75 and over. Two other petitions were presented following this one.

Last year, SOS Dépannage even came to support me at the launch of my tour. We held a press conference at its office. Its representatives explained why they thought Bill C‑319 could help seniors seeking food assistance. One senior even came on behalf of Eastern Townships community groups to seek support for Bill C‑319. At the press conference we held to launch the second year of my tour on Bill C‑319, the volunteer centres providing services to seniors came to explain why they so desperately needed this bill to receive a royal recommendation and royal assent. I would also give a nod to other colleagues. I toured everywhere. I remember having a lovely meeting over coffee with a group of seniors in Rouyn-Noranda in 2021. They had made me aware of the issue of the two classes of seniors. They were very open and spoke to me frankly about their financial situation.

In 2023, we also organized a conference. The bill did not exist yet in February 2023, but it was the fruit of that conference. My caucus colleagues and other colleagues took part in that day of reflection. People involved in a research chair on inequality came to talk to us about seniors' needs and the growing gap between the least fortunate seniors, who were getting poorer. They did a good job of explaining who can live with dignity on $22,000 a year. Roughly a third of seniors live on fixed incomes alone, in other words, old age security plus the guaranteed income supplement. OAS is the universal program. What is being done for all those who are just above that threshold, for those who do not receive the GIS or extra help because their income is just above $22,000? They are not rich, and a 10% increase could improve their situation.

In the summer of 2023, I travelled to a dozen ridings across Quebec, covering more than 10,000 kilometres. I got out there to find out what seniors needed. I heard about housing. I heard about food. I heard about the need for a decent social life, the need to get out a little. After that, I also did some tours on the margins of the pre-session caucuses. I visited Sherbrooke last fall and Chicoutimi at the beginning of the year. Each time, I heard about the need to correct the unacceptable inequity created by the government, that is, these two classes of seniors. This summer, I travelled to 11 ridings, covering over 8,000 kilometres. All this is to say that we are able to prioritize the bill because it has made progress, because at some point along the way, it has been supported. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it received the unanimous support of the parties on the committee, and at second reading, the majority of members in the House voted in favour. It has gone through many stages already, and it is important.

We saw it this summer. Seniors are struggling so much that the smallest cuts to the GIS are really affecting their life choices. They are struggling to eat properly. We are talking about basic needs. This bill is receiving support from across Canada. I get emails from seniors in Ontario who are concerned about their financial situation. I am getting emails from everywhere from Saint John's to British Columbia. I see that support as confirmation. We have prioritized an issue that was making good progress in the House and that meets Quebec's expectations, and so much the better if seniors elsewhere can also benefit from it.

I want to say one last thing. This past weekend, a researcher on aging confirmed to me that seniors need this bill, that this 10% increase should be given to all seniors aged 65 and over, and that we need to think about how seniors can work with fewer obstacles in their way. Support is coming from everywhere, including community groups, civil society and researchers.