House of Commons Hansard #148 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-292. The bill strengthens Criminal Code protections for human trafficking survivors by holding traffickers accountable, protecting vulnerable witnesses, addressing justice system gaps and improving survivors’ ability to be heard. 100 words.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Affordability Crisis Members debate a Conservative motion asking the House to recognize that the Liberals have governed for 11 years and Canada faces an affordability crisis. Conservatives cite rising costs for housing, food and fuel and call for spending restraint, tax relief and fewer barriers to development. Liberals acknowledge cost pressures but defend measures such as tax cuts, food and child-care programs, and housing investments, arguing the motion offers no solutions. Bloc and NDP members highlight seniors’ poverty, homelessness and workers’ wages. 47400 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40 Members debate whether media reports disclosing details of Bill C-40 before MPs reviewed it breach parliamentary privilege, with the NDP supporting the opposition’s request for a Speaker’s ruling. 400 words.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives focus on the cost-of-living crisis, citing rising Thanksgiving food costs, food bank demand, and housing unaffordability. They allege conflicts of interest in a heat-pump rebate, criticize defence procurement, and question the government’s handling of foreign interference and a suspected spy. They also oppose the crab quota for France and call for tougher action against fentanyl trafficking.
The Liberals highlight affordability measures, including home heat-pump rebates and benefits for families, while defending housing construction and infrastructure investments. They promote renewable energy and high-speed rail, defend defence procurement and military spending, and point to red-tape reductions for farmers. They also discuss foreign-influence transparency, ocean protection and health-care collaboration.
The Bloc condemn Bill C-39 as a sweeping rollback of environmental protections, Indigenous consultation, labour rights and other safeguards, warning it could fast-track pipelines for oil companies. They also highlight rising greenhouse gas emissions and urge Liberal MPs to oppose the bill.
The NDP urge restored health transfers and sustained primary-care funding to improve access and ease hospital pressure.
The Greens demand fulfilment of the 2029 shutdown promise for open-net salmon farms, citing First Nations and wild salmon advocates.

Business of the House Members exchange Thanksgiving wishes and discuss affordability, with Conservatives criticizing taxes and energy legislation while Liberals cite benefit payments and fuel-tax relief; the House also sets upcoming business and approves an extended sitting to consider Bill C-38. 700 words.

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act Report stage of Bill C-219. The bill modernizes Canada’s sanctions laws and human-rights framework, adding grounds to address transnational repression and other threats, requiring annual reporting on human-rights efforts, and setting timelines for the forfeiture of seized assets. Following committee amendments and cross-party support, it passes third reading. 7100 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Grocery affordability Warren Steinley says rising grocery prices are driving people to discuss “microlooting” and asks Ryan Turnbull whether grocery prices have fallen. Turnbull acknowledges grocery costs are a challenge but cites tax cuts, benefits, school meals and child-care savings that help household budgets. Steinley argues many families cannot access subsidized child care and some face extra fees; Turnbull says provinces must deliver on agreements to expand spaces.
Fiscal targets and parental leave Grant Jackson challenges Ryan Turnbull over the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s projection that the operating budget will not balance by 2028-29; Turnbull says the government is on track to balance it a year early. Garnett Genuis proposes more flexible parental leave, but Turnbull answers the question on notice about jobs and fiscal policy instead.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni that there is nothing to vote against in the motion.

I wonder, if we are going to have a day spent debating something foolish, if the member for King—Vaughan would agree with me that since we have more billionaires in Canada than ever, we should hold the world's first trillionaire to account. Elon Musk said yesterday that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec should separate. I wonder if we could get a day's debate, thanks to the Conservatives, that since Elon Musk wants to live on Mars, we pass a resolution that we send him there as soon as possible.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for what Elon Musk wants to do, but I can tell the member one thing. The Conservatives on this side of the House are concerned about Canadians. Every single one of us, in every single one of our ridings, hears about the importance of affordability. Our concern right now is to give them a Thanksgiving and cut the taxes. Let us make it happen for everybody.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I have quite a bit to say about the motion that the opposition has brought forward. I kind of wish I had more time on it, quite frankly, because there is so much there.

We as a government are very much listening to what Canadians are saying. We are listening and taking action. That is a very important thing to say at the outset, because virtually from day one, we have been bringing forward programs to deal with the affordability issue in Canada. Canada is not alone in dealing with affordability issues. As a government, led by the Prime Minister, we are addressing the issue head-on. I am going to list things we are doing to accommodate that.

Before I get into that, though, I will provide a bit of commentary. I have been around Parliament Hill for a number of years now, much like the leader of the Conservative Party, and never before have I seen this. I do not know how best to describe it. Is it laziness? I do not know what drove the Conservative Party to bring forward this opposition motion. The Green Party leader just indirectly made light of it, but it is true. There really is zero merit to this opposition motion. I like to think that the members of the opposition could be a bit more creative.

Conservatives talk about how long the Liberals have been in government. Let me tell them how long it has been since the Prime Minister was elected on April 28, 2025. That is 500 days. Contrast that to the over 5,000 days that the Leader of the Opposition has been around. If Conservatives want to do a comparison, I will do that. I will provide a detailed comparison so the people following this debate will better understand the degree of silliness and lazy opposition we see across the way and will see that we on the government benches are not only listening to what our constituents are saying but bringing their ideas and thoughts to the House of Commons, and actually acting on issues such as affordability.

I challenge the leader of the Conservative Party on why the Conservatives continue to vote against Liberal initiatives dealing with affordability while at the same time being critical of the government for not taking actions on affordability. The Conservative Party does not make any sense. It really and truly does not. We can stop and think about how Conservatives behave inside the chamber and their voting patterns. On the one hand, they say they are concerned about affordability and are listening to Canadians.

Let me give a good, tangible example. I have raised this one in the past. The Prime Minister and the government made a commitment to the children of Canada, 400,000 children. We are now making the national school nutrition program permanent. That program will provide food for the tummies of 400,000 children across the country. What kind of response have we gotten from the Conservative Party? We have had Conservatives call it a garbage program. We have had them say it is a non-existent program and that children are not being fed, but I can tell the House that it is having a real, tangible impact in every member's constituency.

As I have said before, this is not a new issue. It has been an issue since I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, back in 1988. We have a Prime Minister who has seen the merit of having this and bringing it in as part of affordability, ensuring that children are able to learn with some nutritious food as a part of their diet. There were many situations, even back in the eighties and nineties, when children were going to school on an empty stomach. We are doing two things at the same time, and the Conservatives voted against them.

Let us look at another initiative to give a break and deal with affordability. There is the program for first-time homebuyers, which got rid of the GST. That is a substantial saving for those individuals looking at purchasing a home for the first time.

It does two things. One is make it more affordable. The other is help build a stronger economy through our construction industry. That means more Canadian lumber and Canadian steel. It means having more engagement with our skilled labour and unionized workers.

I could talk about the dental program and how many seniors on fixed incomes have benefited from that particular program. These are seniors living in every member's riding across the country. That helps in terms of disposable income. It makes life more affordable. As with the school program, the Conservatives continue to vote against programs such as that.

We have the groceries and essentials benefit. It is a program that puts a substantial increase of money into the pockets of individuals who are at the middle and lower-end income levels, more so than the multi-millionaires in our society, to deal with the affordability issue.

Members of the Conservative Party talk about tax breaks. This Prime Minister and this government have delivered on tax breaks. The very first action taken by our Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax. That was the first action by this Prime Minister under a new government following the election results in April last year. If we fast-forward to the spring economic update, there was the excise tax relief on gasoline. There is a great deal of benefit, and it is not only on the issue of affordability.

Canadians have recognized that one of the ways we can support the Canadian economy is by looking and travelling around Canada. Indirectly, it not only helps with the affordability issue but also encourages and promotes interprovincial and provincial travel for vacations and things of that nature.

There are a number of initiatives. I did not mention the income tax break from 15% to 14%, but now I will. There are 22 million Canadians who benefited from that tax break.

Those are initiatives that deal with just affordability, and they are not all of the initiatives, but all of them have taken place since we got a new Prime Minister and a new government for the people of Canada.

A member opposite asked if I just got here. I guess I have a lot of similarities with the leader of the Conservative Party. Both the leader of the Conservative Party and I have been around for a long time. That is why I do not have a problem doing a comparison between the leader of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister of Canada, who has been around for less than a year and a half. I have no problem at all doing that.

I will now go on to the second stage. I just talked about the issue of affordability. Do members want to talk about what has taken place? With the issue of affordability, we have the short term and the long term. The long term might be, for example, pharmacare or the dental program, or the national food program being made permanent by this Prime Minister.

There is a whole new area with regard to what we are doing to build an economy that works for all Canadians. Again, we have a Prime Minister and a government focused on building a stronger, healthier Canadian economy. Unlike what the Conservative leader says, it is not just words. Just as I illustrated regarding affordability, there are tangible actions putting money into the pockets of Canadians and increasing their disposable income. There are also tangible actions by this government and this Prime Minister that are building a stronger, healthier Canadian economy and society.

This is not by choice. All we have to do is look at the last federal election. If the Conservatives were listening to their constituents, they would have found out what I and every member of the Liberal caucus found out, which is that they are concerned about Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. These are things we should all be concerned about. At the very least, I can assure those who are listening that the government has been focused on them from day one.

I ask members to tell me the last time we saw a prime minister work as collaboratively with the provinces and indigenous leaders collectively, as well as other stakeholders, as we have seen this Prime Minister work over the last 18 months. I have been around, as I said, since 1988, starting in the Manitoba legislature, and there has not been a prime minister who has worked as collaboratively with stakeholders in my time as a parliamentarian. The results are there, and we continue to move forward.

We have been talking about Bill C-39. There has been a great deal of debate on Bill C-39. This bill is a very important aspect of the government's long-term and short-term agenda, because we made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to not only deal with the issue of affordability but build Canada for the future. We are talking about jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow to continue to make Canada the best country in the world to call home.

What have we done? We can take a look at some of the Prime Minister's very first actions. Even before he took his seat in the House physically, he was meeting and talking with premiers and trying to build that sense of collaboration that is necessary to be able to expand trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border.

Let us take a look at the mandate letters. Ministers in our front benches and others, even members of the Liberal caucus in the backbenches, are all on the same page. That page is to look at ways we can expand and grow Canada's economy and at the same time protect our environment, making sure that we are doing it in the right way, protecting indigenous rights and working collaboratively.

The results are there. They are tangible

We took down the federal barriers. There should be one Canadian economy. The federal barriers have been taken down to facilitate more trade between our provinces and territories. Even today, we continue to work with and encourage the provinces to do likewise and take down those interprovincial trade barriers that they need to. That has been a very high priority for this Prime Minister.

We then passed Bill C-5 to allow major projects to get up and running. If we listen to the Conservatives and the silliness that comes over from them, they say we have not built any major projects, but they built 20,000 projects. What a bunch of garbage. Let us think about it. They say they built 20,000 projects. How many of them were over $1 billion? What sort of collaboration took place between the provinces, indigenous people and stakeholders to develop major projects over $1 billion?

When you talk about 20,000 projects, I am working on projects. I want the Seven Oaks General Hospital—

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I would remind the hon. member that I am not talking about anything.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, that was a rookie mistake.

I talk about issues in my own riding. I would like the Tyndall Park Community Centre to get an expansion. I would like to see the Seven Oaks General Hospital get its emergency services restored. I am going to fight to ensure that it does. I am convinced that I will get the federal government to step up, and I want to see the province also step up on that issue.

If we take a look at health care, there are thousands of projects that the federal government is working on that will lead to houses being built, hospital capital investment and infrastructure across the province. What we are talking about in addition to that are the major projects worth multiple billions of dollars, not millions of dollars.

That is what we passed shortly after the last federal election. Over the summer, we created the Major Projects Office, where there are more than a couple of dozen projects. When we take a look at the projects, we are talking about, for example, LNG in the province of British Columbia. We are talking about copper mines in the province of Saskatchewan. We are talking about nuclear energy expansion in the province of Ontario. We are talking about the expansion of ports in Montreal. We are talking about mines in Atlantic Canada. We are talking about infrastructure and transportation expansion in northern Canada. We are talking about infrastructure in every region of the country. Those are major projects getting close to half a trillion dollars.

Speaking of half a trillion dollars, let us think about when the Prime Minister of Canada hosted the world to get investment coming into Canada just last month. We saw premiers, indigenous leaders and many other stakeholders, along with multibillionaires and people who are responsible for billions of dollars of potential investment. It was a historic meeting, where Canada received, through an investment summit chaired by the Prime Minister, half a trillion dollars because of the relationships he has developed and the efforts of our ministers and members of the caucus. That is completely unheard of in Canadian history.

I have not even talked about the issue of international trade. We have passed legislation for Indonesia, Northern Ireland and England. We have other deals in the works with the Philippines and India. We have 20 other trade and security agreements with other nations. This, and a whole lot more, has all been done in the last 500-plus days that Canada has had a new Prime Minister and a new government. This includes all of the initiatives that I talked about.

That is why I say with confidence that I do not have a problem comparing the current Prime Minister to any other prime minister I have had the opportunity to work with in terms of growing a stronger and a healthier Canadian economy.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my colleague, but obviously I totally disagree. I have to highlight that he put a lot of emphasis on the last 500 days of the Prime Minister. That is fine. We remember when the former prime minister was elected in 2015. Do members remember what the member did 10 years later? He was once supportive of the carbon tax, and now he is proud to say that the new Prime Minister cancelled the carbon tax, the flagship policy of the Liberal government. He has paid respect to that and has said that things are fantastic now that we have Bill C-5 and Bill C-39. It is exactly 180° from what they have done in the last 10 years.

Does the member recognize that the 10 years under Trudeau destroyed the Canadian economy?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the simple answer to that is no. I disagree with the member opposite.

Having said that, since he wants to talk about the carbon tax, he should remember a fellow by the name of Erin O'Toole. Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party, and Erin O'Toole supported a carbon tax. There was a change in the Conservative leadership, and it is not the first time that the Conservative Party changed its attitude towards the carbon tax.

The Liberal Party selected a new leader. That new leader listened to Canadians and came out with a very strong statement dealing with the carbon tax, making the decision to get rid of it. I would think that the Conservative Party would support that idea. Canadians understand that there is a new Prime Minister and that Prime Minister has an agenda to build a stronger and healthier Canada.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain the government's approach.

The Liberals have been in power for 11 years. This year, they are projecting another huge deficit, probably close to $80 billion. The upcoming budget will once again run a deficit. The government likes to talk about the cost of living and the little measures it is putting in place, but the big measure it is proposing in terms of investment is to spend $43 billion of public funds on a new oil and oil sands pipeline, which will be used to export oil but will do nothing to reduce the price at the pump for Quebeckers who are struggling to get by.

Can my colleague explain to me why the government is not using that money to help Quebeckers phase out fossil fuels and speed up electrification, which is something that has already begun?

I do not understand the government's approach. It is keeping us shackled to oil and making us even more dependent on it.

How can the government justify doing that?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. I disagree when people make reference to the last 11 years. Canadians cannot be fooled. The Prime Minister has been in office for just over 500 days now. Leaders of political parties provide leadership on issues related to policy.

Going forward, the Prime Minister and the government will deal collaboratively with the provinces. We have hydro in the province of Quebec, where there was a major announcement and a historic amount of money invested in hydro development. In the province of British Columbia, we are working collaboratively with a different political party. We also have huge investments in two major projects, the Pacific link project and the LNG phase two expansion. Cumulatively, we are talking a great deal of money, going into the multiple billions of dollars, which is going to create tens of thousands of jobs directly, not to mention many others indirectly.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, a family should not need a spreadsheet, three government programs and a prayer to make it through a month. Simply living in Canada has become complicated and expensive.

If a Canadian works full time, pays taxes and still cannot afford a home, groceries and a future, can my colleague, who has spent 38 years in this House, tell that Canadian exactly what he is doing wrong such that he cannot get ahead?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I have not been here that long. I have actually been here for less time than the leader of the official opposition.

Having said that, I can assure the member that every member of the Liberal caucus is focused on the importance of a job. Even with what is taking place between Canada and the U.S.A., we have still seen a net increase in job numbers of well over 100,000 in the last 18 months. That is with all the turmoil going on with the Trump tariffs and trade issues. It is important that we stay on an agenda that will see us grow our economy and deal with issues like affordability.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary keeps mentioning LNG Canada as a great investment. Yes, it is a $33-billion project, and it is true that the Prime Minister stood side by side with David Eby, Premier of B.C. He has so much in common with the Prime Minister. David Eby inherited a surplus of $1 billion in 2022 when he took office. He is a miracle worker. In four years, he has converted it to a deficit of $14 billion. His government has subsidized LNG Canada, and so has the federal government. The federal government deficit went from $48 billion under the Prime Minister to over $78 billion. Canada's debt is now over $1 trillion. At the same time, these two wonderful leaders, who claim to be climate champions, are driving up greenhouse gas emissions.

The only Canadian thing about LNG Canada is its name. It is no surprise that it is buying its steel from China; it is owned by PetroChina. From the get-go, the parts for the LNG plant have been fabricated in China. They are all foreign companies. There is not one Canadian owner of LNG Canada.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, there are two issues. The first one is in regard to debt. I am very sensitive to deficits. One of the things I look at, because it is something we should all take a look at, is our credit rating. If we look at the G7 countries, the most industrialized countries, we will find that Canada's credit rating is better than virtually all of them. One might be better than ours, but we can manage our finances and build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy and society at the same time.

This is not a time in which we should be cutting back and preventing projects from taking place. The projects we are talking about will provide not only jobs for today but also jobs for tomorrow and all sorts of economic opportunity, not to mention revenue into the future.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary provides us so much fuel for questions for him that I am going to run out of time even explaining some of them in point form.

He talked about affordability measures, which we opposed simply because those affordability measures added to the unaffordability crisis that we are in right now. He was first elected in 1988, he stated. He has been with the Liberal government for almost 11 years, and we have seen the cost of its ever-increasing deficits. The Liberals' original prime minister, Trudeau, promised a tiny deficit of I think $15 billion. They have blown through that, year after year after year. Now we have trillions of dollars in debt.

The parliamentary secretary talked about building the economy, but we have seen what the Liberals are doing. They are building an economy for Liberal and Brookfield friends. Will he agree and admit that Canada is in an affordability crisis?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of quick points. One is that there seems to be a preoccupation with how long I have been a parliamentarian. I can assure the member, and I will defend the leader of the official opposition, that there is a role for career parliamentarians. What is important is that we serve our constituents first and foremost, something that I take a great sense of pride in. They are my first priority and they always will be my first priority.

In regard to the other issue, the member can look at the seniors' dental program. That is a program that the Conservatives opposed.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his service. He was elected to the Manitoba legislation first in 1988, as he mentioned. It was the year I was born, a lovely year. I thank the member for his lifetime of wisdom.

Could he touch on the importance of trade as it relates to affordability, and our efforts on the trade system in general?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. We need to have trade. That is why it is so critically important that the Prime Minister continue to push, along with our Minister of International Trade, our Minister of Agriculture and others, to expand trade opportunities by looking outside of Canada.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets.

Both inflation and the housing crisis are hitting older Canadians particularly hard. The cost of living continues to climb, yet many seniors are living on fixed incomes so their purchasing power is eroding. A few months ago, Radio-Canada broadcast a report on retirees who were no longer able to pay the rent at their retirement home. It was reported that, since January 2025, Quebec's administrative housing tribunal has ordered the eviction of at least 30 tenants in private retirement homes across the province for unpaid rent. That is just for the first half of the year. Given that 53% of people aged 65 and over live on less than $35,000 a year and that a third of older people have less than $25,000 a year at their disposal, it is clear that the ability to pay $1,680 a month for a room, not including services or meals, is by no means a given. The report also demonstrated that the situation is difficult even for those who are better off. For example, rent for a one-bedroom apartment, with services, can be as much as $3,900 a month. This is a major social problem.

A Leger poll for Le Journal de Montréal found that a majority of Quebeckers aged 50 and up are worried about not having enough money for retirement. As an example of this reality, the article tells the story of a woman who was a personal support worker before she had to care for her father and then her husband while they were ill. The article says that now, at 69, she finds herself in a very financially insecure position. With rent and food prices soaring, the Quebec pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and old age security no longer provide enough income.

According to the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, half of those aged 60 and up live below the viable income threshold as defined by the Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques.

Le Journal de Montréal reports that 24% of households made up of people aged 65 and up live in housing that is considered unacceptable because it fails to meet CMHC's three standards for affordability, suitable size and adequacy. I would remind members that CMHC is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

At a time when homelessness in general is on the rise throughout Quebec and Canada, homelessness among seniors is a growing issue. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités indicated that, based on the count conducted on the night of October 11 to 12, 2022, it is estimated that 6.5% of people who are experiencing visible homelessness were aged 65 and older and 29% were between the ages of 50 and 64.

La Presse published an article on this sad subject a few weeks ago entitled “Homelessness crisis - On the street for the first time at age 65, 70 and 75”. It begins as follows, “Difficult to quantify but impossible to ignore: The Quebec commissioner of health and well-being is concerned about the fact that an increasing number of seniors in Quebec are becoming homeless for the first time in their lives. People on the ground are describing the situation as a humanitarian crisis.”

Speaking of homelessness, I would like to remind the House that over 12,000 people in Quebec are homeless. What was once a big city problem has now spread to all regions of Quebec. People are suffering. They are hungry. They are at risk every day and they are dying. As we, unfortunately, learned yesterday, two homeless people have lost their lives. Of course, I want to express my deepest condolences those individuals' loved ones on behalf of my party and all members of the House, I am sure.

Quebec's new government and its new premier are making the fight against homelessness a national priority. I wish the Prime Minister would follow their lead.

Just today, La Presse published an editorial under the headline, “The homelessness crisis: On the street, from the cradle to the grave”. The article reads, “Women, children, seniors. Homelessness affects everyone. Across the province, there are 12,077 people experiencing homelessness, a 20% increase in three years.” It also reminds us that “the proportion of homeless people aged 50 and over is 35.5%. Of those individuals, 17% were experiencing homelessness for the first time.”

Urgent action is therefore needed. This is a national emergency, and we are calling on the government to do so much more.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, Canada ranks among the industrialized countries reporting the sharpest drop in purchasing power in retirement. Its net pension replacement rate is 47.3% of pre-retirement income. In other words, the transition to retirement involves a significant drop, by more than half, in the average standard of living.

In comparison, the OECD average is 65.5%. In other words, when people here reach retirement age, their income is halved, while in other countries, on average, people retain two-thirds of their income. Of the 45 countries studied, Canada ranked 39th on coverage provided by mandatory public and private plans, far behind countries like the Netherlands at 86.6%, Spain at 80.6%, Portugal at 73.8% and Austria at 74.1%. Canada even placed behind the United States, which came in at 50.5%, despite the fact that income inequality is nevertheless very pronounced there, as we know.

We must act now. Seniors need better protection against a decline in their standard of living. In Quebec, nearly four in 10 people aged 65 and older rely on the guaranteed income supplement to meet their needs.

Historically, poverty among seniors declined thanks to government transfers. However, since the 2000s, the situation for seniors has been deteriorating relative to that of other age groups. This trend can be attributed in part to Ottawa's decision to de-index the old age security pension from wage growth. In 1971, OAS represented 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it is only 12%. It has fallen from 20% to 12%.

To correct this injustice, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase in this benefit for several years. In 2023, Justin Trudeau's government agreed to an increase, but only for people aged 75 and older, leaving out 1.1 million Quebeckers aged 65 to 74 and thereby creating two classes of seniors. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for this increase to be extended to people aged 65 to 74. Before the last election, a motion to that effect had even been passed in the House of Commons during a minority Parliament. The government, however, refused to act on it.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is back on the offensive. My colleague and friend, the member for Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, introduced Bill C-261, which seeks to increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74 and to raise the employment income exemption for the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement by $1,500. This bill is essentially the same as the one introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, in the previous Parliament, and which was supported by a majority of members through a motion in the House.

The debate on this bill has just started. The position taken by Liberal MPs, who now hold a majority, will serve as a true test of their credibility regarding their commitment to the dignity of seniors and affordability. Obviously, the response to inflation, the housing shortage, particularly the shortage of affordable and public housing, and the loss of purchasing power among the most vulnerable goes beyond the scope of this bill.

For now, unfortunately, the government is more interested in shielding multinational corporations that use tax havens from taxation, propping up the fossil fuel industry with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, and skyrocketing its military spending. U.S. President Donald Trump is scary, but that is no reason to bow down to him, and it should not be used as an excuse to neglect the most vulnerable people, particularly seniors who are hard hit by inflation and, of course, people experiencing homelessness.

Unfortunately, Quebec still depends on decisions made here in Ottawa, where concern for social inequality, homelessness, and the precarious situation of seniors appears far less pronounced. In a context of fiscal imbalance and the concentration of financial resources at the federal level, Quebec's ability to act remains limited, and there is no denying that we are truly not masters in our own house. I hope my colleagues from Quebec will take note of that.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for his speech. My father lived in Joliette; it is a very nice city.

Yesterday was Energy Efficiency Day. I would like to ask my colleague a question. Can he explain the connection between energy efficiency and affordability and how that benefits Quebeckers?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a lot of work to do when it comes to energy efficiency. The Bloc Québécois believes that energy efficiency relates to the environment and climate change. In Quebec, we are fortunate to have clean electricity, which is basically produced by hydro power. That is a big advantage, and we have a role to play in the economy of tomorrow.

We think it is unfortunate that, here at the federal level, most of the funding to support energy development goes to western Canada's oil and gas industry. There was talk of $43 billion for a new pipeline. We do not think that is the right way to go when it comes to developing the economy of tomorrow.

There is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to energy efficiency. This includes, for example, better home insulation, more efficient energy use and energy conservation. The federal government used to have programs in place in this area, and we would like those programs to be reinstated. That would be a step in the right direction.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette for another well-researched presentation. His experience as a CEGEP teacher shines through. He may return to teaching one day, but that is for the voters to decide.

On that note, next week, the member for Joliette and I will be celebrating the 11th anniversary of our first election to the House of Commons. He witnessed both the Trudeau years and the famous 500 days that the member for Winnipeg North speaks of with such fervour.

My question for my colleague from Joliette is this: What are his thoughts on the government's present characterization of the Trudeau decade, given that three-quarters of those people were around when Mr. Trudeau was, regrettably, Prime Minister of Canada?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

October 8th, 2026 / 11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his question and his speech. It is true, time flies. Where did those 11 years go? There is still a lot of work to be done.

Of those 11 years, 10 were under the Trudeau government, a period marked by significant spending aimed at reducing poverty and improving affordability. Some examples include child benefits and the reinstatement of housing investment. However, I feel that housing affordability has ultimately worsened. In my speech, I spoke about homelessness. Unfortunately, over the course of those 10 years, homelessness has increased dramatically. Housing has become far less affordable. While there was undoubtedly a genuine desire to improve the situation, some of the policies may not have been sufficiently grounded in facts and statistics. Despite relying on expert advice, we have ended up in a situation where people who are struggling to make ends meet have seen their circumstances worsen. That is a problem.

I hope that the current Prime Minister, together with ministers from the previous government, will be able to put forward measures, in the next budget, for example, to address the situation, particularly with regard to homelessness and the housing crisis.

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech and especially the fact that he focused on homelessness, which he also did yesterday during question period.

In my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, we are building housing with health support services. We are also seeing rents continue to come down. Can my colleague describe the situation in Joliette—Manawan with respect to rents and the construction of housing with health support services?

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. I am fortunate to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Industry.

I applaud the fact that the government is investing in housing, particularly affordable housing and hopefully social housing. We will have to see how the new government in Quebec City will work with Build Canada Homes, the Crown corporation. We will see if that changes the situation. The announced amounts to date come from previous commitments. Some good things have been done, but there have been a number of obstacles. I am thinking in particular about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which refused to transfer land to build social housing. As a result, we continue to put—

Opposition Motion—Affordability CrisisBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets.