Debates of June 3rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, extortion has increased significantly. I believe extortion is up more than 80%. The member is quite right that the Liberals removed mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences including armed extortion, robbery with a firearm and weapons trafficking. It was not because the courts instructed the government to do so or because they were found to be unconstitutional but because the Liberals ideologically opposed mandatory minimum penalties.

Over these past 10 years, they have a record of being soft on crime time and time again, and this bill is another example of it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view.

The amendments I am referring to simply remove the violence criterion from the procedural safeguards for crimes committed between intimate partners, without replacing it with a targeted alternative criterion.

What does my colleague think?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

In short, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. For example, there was an opportunity to fix section 810 orders at committee. I believe there were amendments brought forward that would have done that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against those amendments, just like they voted against every amendment to put in place robust guardrails around this escape valve with respect to mandatory minimum penalties.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question from the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past that when the Conservatives have gone against mandatory minimums in cases that the Supreme Court has held are unconstitutional, there have been floods of litigation after. As a result, people did not get convictions, and so it is really important—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the minister. I did say a very short question.

I will allow the member to respond in under 20 seconds.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen a path. I think it is a flawed path, but it is a path nonetheless, and that is to provide for an escape valve. The question becomes, if this is an exceptional valve, in exceptional circumstances, why not define what those circumstances are? Why leave it completely—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is also a privilege to rise, as I always do on matters of justice and the Criminal Code, in support of victims.

That is one thing that distinguishes the approach my Conservative colleagues and I take to crime and justice matters from that of the Liberals. We look out for the rights of victims, and they look out for the rights of offenders. We root our approach in the facts on the ground, what law enforcement advocates say, what members of law enforcement say and what victims advocates say. They rely on legal theory and, so often in doing so, ignore the gruesome realities of some of the most heinous acts of crime we see in our country.

A lot of the discussion about mandatory minimums for sexual offences, for example, such as child sexual exploitation and abuse material, was exacerbated when there was, last year, a horrendous Supreme Court of Canada decision called the Senneville decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that for someone possessing thousands of images and videos of children as young as four being subjected to brutal sexual acts, a one‑year mandatory minimum sentence in that case was cruel and unusual punishment because of some “reasonable hypotheticals” in which someone else, in an entirely different set of circumstances, might be charged, under what the court said were more sympathetic terms, with possessing child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

Conservatives offered a very reasonable solution: to reinstate the mandatory minimums for people trafficking in and possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material; and to defend them with the notwithstanding clause, a tool in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms given to legislatures to ensure that the will of the people and, indeed, basic decency are upheld in our laws.

Now, Bill C‑16, the government has said, was its answer to this. To be fair, members of the Liberal Party have certainly expressed disgust with the facts of the Senneville and Naud case, but where we diverge is that their answer to this is a bill that would give all judges a so-called safety valve, to say that a mandatory minimum sentence seems like it might be cruel and unusual punishment in a certain case and, therefore, they will not apply it. “Mandatory minimum penalty” has three words. The first is “mandatory”. If we give judges a safety valve to unilaterally declare, on their own terms, that they do not need to uphold the mandatory minimum, it is no longer mandatory. It is not even a minimum. In some cases, it is not even a penalty.

Why that is so important here is that in the Senneville and Naud case, the trial judge made that very determination. The trial judge thought that the mandatory minimum penalty for these two men, who between them possessed thousands of images of young boys and girls being subject to acts I will not read in the House, was cruel and unusual punishment. That judge would have availed themselves of the very safety valve the Liberals are now seeking to enshrine in Bill C‑16.

Why is this so particularly troubling? I am very proud of some of the work that the justice committee, on which I have the great privilege of sitting, did on Bill C‑16. In fact, I am proud of some of my own amendments, which have been adopted into this bill. An example is the way the bill deals with those who are victimized by intimate images being distributed. This is a horrible crime that we see affecting more and more Canadians, especially young Canadians. I have spoken about this with high school students, who just accept this now as a fact of life. This is something that we need to have a very strong response to in the Criminal Code.

We also see, through emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, the dissemination of deepfakes, or deepnudes as they are sometimes called: artificially generated images and videos that look very real, showcasing someone in a state of undress or engaging in a sexually explicit act. These things are disseminated and shared and victimize people in much the same way that the sharing of actual non-consensual intimate images does. This is important because the law needs to catch up with the technology.

I heard from witness testimony. I spoke to women's advocates in particular, like Liz Brown from Valora Place in St. Thomas, and Jennifer Dunn from the London Abused Women's Centre. I spoke to Chief Thai Truong, chief of the London Police Service, and Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service. I spoke to people including a personal friend of mine who was herself a victim of an artificially generated nearly nude image's being shared. What happens is that these images are shared, and oftentimes the most important thing is for the image or video to be taken off-line, so one of the amendments I put forward at the justice committee would force tech giants to remove this material within 48 hours. I am grateful I had support for that from my Liberal colleagues.

Another amendment I put forward was one making it so that the definition of “intimate image” would not exclude things based on a technicality. We changed it to include “nearly nude”. This was, again, something that was brought forward in testimony we heard from witnesses. We also added, and this came from previous work that my colleague the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill did in her bill, Bill C‑216, a definition specifically of artificial intelligence-generated material, which would ensure that new technology is captured by what we are trying to do here. We would not need to come back as members of Parliament to the drawing board because we find that the law does not actually capture all the cases we are seeing.

As we were working on this, I was very proud. This was an example of all parties working together to support victims. However, as we got through the clause-by-clause process on Bill C‑16, we realized that the big sticking point remaining was the Liberals' own poison pill, making it so that their so-called restoration of mandatory minimum penalties would not be, in fact, a restoration at all. They would be allowing any activist judge who fundamentally does not even believe in carceral sentences, which, sadly, we have seen a fair bit of in the justice system, to unilaterally declare that they do not think a mandatory minimum is appropriate. This would take away the “mandatory” of mandatory minimum sentences and ensure that the very people who commit these heinous acts we are talking about, and not just acts of a sexual nature but breaking any criminal laws really, are actually able to get a pass.

This is something that I feel we need to say, in the strongest possible terms, we will not stand for, and it is with a great deal of regret that I say this is what the Liberals have done to Bill C‑16. I have a great deal of regret that these provisions that I am very proud of and that I can stand up here and say would help victims are embedded in a bill alongside other things that would actually make things far worse for victims of crime. The bill now has this poison pill that the Liberals would not address, which would basically take any mandatory minimum sentence, including minimums that have not even been declared to be unconstitutional by a court, and subject it to the so-called safety valve, which means it would become optional. It would become discretionary.

Interestingly enough, I spoke about what some of these circumstances would be at committee with justice department officials. When judges are formulating their picture of the circumstances of an offence and an offender, the officials indicated that one's immigration status could actually be captured by the bill. If a mandatory minimum sentence would jeopardize someone's status as a resident of Canada, someone who is not a citizen and is convicted of a criminal act, that could be factored into a judge's saying that a mandatory minimum is no longer appropriate. The justice minister said something different, and herein lies the problem. If the minister and the department officials are not even on the same page about what this safety valve would do, how can any judge looking at it, even in good faith, take it and make laws and decisions that are going to support victims?

We will always stand up for victims. That means listening to them and advocating for them, but it also means advocating for a justice system that does not let perpetrators and offenders, including those behind some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, get a pass. It is regrettable that this is what this Liberal bill, Bill C‑16, would now do.

Bill C-16—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.

Old Age Security Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

moved that Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very moving to have the privilege of introducing a bill that one cares about. I will be reading my speech because I want to share my message in full and I do not want to run out of time.

For a society to live in peace, its citizens must live with confidence. They have to feel certain that their government is taking care of them, that it is working for their well-being and that it is keeping its promises. When a person retires, that is the moment of truth. That is when the unspoken agreement between the citizen and the state must be honoured. It should be the time to reap the rewards of decades of hard work, a time of dignity, not a time of mere survival. However, today, too many new retirees await this freedom with a sense of dread.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am calling on my esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens to correct an injustice. We are living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, one that prides itself on its social safety net, its values, its compassion and its commitment to mutual support. However, today, we are seeing this safety net become ever more fragile. There are more and more holes in it. We are abandoning the very people who built our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. We spend our lives imagining a retirement where we want for nothing, where we can have a well-deserved rest and where we can live out our lives in complete security.

However, for thousands of new retirees, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement no longer constitute the promised safety net. Instead, they are life rafts and they are taking on water. We are not talking about charity here. We are talking about a social contract. These men and women paid their taxes for 40 or 50 years. They contributed to the country's economic success. They raised the generation that is now leading Quebec. The implicit promise was simple. If people worked hard and contributed to the common good, then the state would make sure that they wanted for nothing as they grew old. We are way off the mark.

Not only are we way off the mark, but it is now clear that the Liberal government did not keep this promise—one among many, some might say. Young retirees are being forced to keep working just to make ends meet. Is this the sneaky way that the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have found to effectively raise the retirement age, without anyone noticing? If so, it is dishonest and unworthy of the office.

This government tried to address the discontent but only managed to create an even greater injustice. It officially established two classes of retirees by deciding to increase OAS by 10% for those over the age of 75. On the one hand, we have older seniors, who are deemed worthy of additional assistance, and on the other, we have young retirees aged 65 to 74, who are essentially being told to fend for themselves. What is the logic behind that discrimination? At the grocery store, does inflation ask how old the customer is? Are rent, gas or heating costs lower when someone is 70 than when they are 76? What happens on the night before a retiree turns 75? It takes just as much air to blow out 65 candles as it does 75.

The government says that seniors aged 65 to 74 are still active and can work to supplement their income. This is an insult to those who have had physically demanding careers and who, let us face it, are worn out. Asking a 68-year-old construction worker, warehouse worker or restaurant server to go back to work just to pay for groceries is not really a solution. It is an admission of failure. It means accepting that the government has failed in its duty.

We in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. That is why, since 2021, we have been making every effort to put an end to the injustice caused by these two classes of seniors. We are often told that this would be financially unsustainable. We are told that increasing pensions for people aged 65 to 74 would cost the public purse billions of dollars. That is true. It is a significant amount.

However, what is the cost of not doing it? How much does it cost our health care system when a senior eats poorly because fruit and vegetables have become a luxury? How much does social isolation—which leads to depression—cost? How much does the loss of dignity cost? It is not just a matter of compassion; it is also a matter of public health and safety.

Thorough research has provided irrefutable evidence that the most egalitarian societies are the ones that fare the best. I am not going to mince words: The harms caused by inequality affect women first and foremost. Once again, women are statistically the ones who have the lowest pensions. They are the ones who live the longest in solitude. By refusing to help seniors aged 65 to 74, this government is perpetrating a form of economic harm against our mothers and grandmothers. It is taking the women who kept our society going—often from the shadows, often without pay—and putting them in a vulnerable position. Causing them anxiety about the future is truly unworthy of this House.

Study after study clearly proves it. When the wealth gap is narrowed, crime falls significantly and confidence rises. Mental illness declines. Obesity, chronic stress and violence—especially violence against women—decline. Conversely, the wider the wealth gap, the sicker the body politic.

Colleagues, for a society to live in peace, it takes confidence. I said it before and I am saying it again. However, poverty among seniors undermines that confidence. It creates anxiety not only for retirees, but also for their children and grandchildren, who see their own future as a threatening prospect, rather than a comfortable one. How can they trust a government that cheats their parents and flouts the social contract?

By allowing seniors' spending power to collapse, the government is making a conscious decision to increase future social costs. It is opting for more people in hospital beds, more psychological distress and more insecurity. Of course, there are those who will solemnly claim that the cupboard is bare, that the debt is too big. Honestly, that is a risible argument.

When it comes to finding millions of dollars to subsidize oil and gas giants, who do not need financial support, the money seems to appear out of thin air. When it comes to buying a pipeline in western Canada that will never serve our interests, the cheque book is often wide open. When the big banks are making record profits while raising fees on consumers, the government looks the other way. When billions of dollars end up in tax havens without being taxed, we are told it is really complicated. It is so complicated to get the money back from the tax havens.

However, when a 72-year-old grandmother asks for what she is entitled to, namely enough money to pay her heating bill, just like her 76-year-old neighbour, suddenly everyone has to be responsible. They pull out the calculator and talk to us about fiscal discipline. This is not really a problem of revenue. It is a problem of choice. It is a political choice, a political decision. Clearly, this government's choices are not the same ones the public would make. The government prefers to help those who pollute, those who make massive profits, and neglects those who built Quebec. As someone who devoted her entire career to seniors, I think that is completely outrageous.

We are not asking for the moon. We are asking the government to honour a social contract. Is it too much to ask to maintain what little balance still remains? I repeat: Our seniors are not asking for charity. They are demanding respect. What we are seeing today is a government that is deliberately and knowingly choosing to create and maintain two classes of seniors: one that deserves to be helped and another that is left to fend for itself. This age-based discrimination is unworthy of a modern society. The people that my colleagues and I represent think that this is unacceptable, and I am sure that many members of the House from all political parties agree with them.

We are not here to beg for favours. We are here to correct an injustice and appeal to every member of the House's sense of reason. For a society to live in peace, it must treat those who built it with respect. What is needed now is more than just rhetoric on election day or during an election campaign. What folks need are cheques that will cover groceries and rent.

It is time to stop seeing retirees as a budgetary burden or an expense column in an Excel spreadsheet. They are our society's collective memory. They are our roots, and it is absurd to cut off the water supply to our roots under the pretext of saving money. In the name of dignity, we call on the government to stop its petty calculations. It needs to stop dividing people. It needs to stop dividing seniors. We need to give them back what they entrusted us with.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Many citizens heard that today would be quite a memorable day in my career as a member of Parliament. Seriously, over the past week, I have received hundreds of letters, emails and notes encouraging me to continue on this path, because seniors know that their living conditions and their dignity are not being respected at all.

People in my riding, as well as the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, the largest seniors' group in Quebec, representing several thousand people, are making this their top demand. I also spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and with retirees from Quebec, who share the same demand. It is not too complicated. They are asking for fairness and justice. They are calling on the government to correct this age-based inequity and discrimination.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues. In the last Parliament, my colleague from Shefford sponsored Bill C‑319, which went through a lengthy legislative process. Although it died on the Order Paper, a number of members in the House supported that bill. We hope the House of Commons shows the same cohesion and consensus again.

Not only does Bill C‑261 seek to correct the injustice, but it also seeks to increase the GIS maximum exemption amount. It is important to clarify that. The bill provides for a 10% increase in OAS, but it also increases to $6,500 the maximum amount a person can earn before their GIS is reduced. Around 20% of seniors in my riding tell me that they are forced to work. However, for GIS recipients, any income over $5,000 is subject to a clawback. As the saying goes, that is like trading four quarters for a dollar. That is what my grandmother used to say. What do all these seniors end up doing, then? They end up working under the table or just making do, because they basically need every penny of their income to make ends meet.

In closing, I can say that this truly comes from the heart. I know that my colleague across the aisle secured a royal recommendation to pass a bill that will allow bereaved parents who have lost a child to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits. I therefore hope to convince the government that it has a great opportunity to right a wrong and, of course, grant a royal recommendation to my bill. This bill will allow seniors to live better. Above all, they will see that this injustice and discrimination have finally been addressed. It is a matter of respect, and frankly, there is no room for compromise. Again, I appeal to my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, to support Bill C-261.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, right now in Canada, clawbacks for old age security commence at $95,000, but individuals aged 65 to 74 earning up to $152,000 and those over 75 earning up to $157,000 can still receive old age security. While I understand the intent of the legislation before us today and what the member is referring to, does she not understand that the costs for old age security would exceed $100 billion within the next five years? How are my children going to pay for this monumental expense?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly offended by such arguments. It makes no sense. I do not know if all seniors 65 and older in his riding are rolling in money, but in Quebec, 1,869,000 people are 65 or older, and nearly half of them receive the GIS. Honestly, I cannot imagine repeating what I just heard to these people who are struggling to make ends meet.

I understand that the Harper government may have been a little less hypocritical. It raised the retirement age to 67. When the Liberal government took office, it lowered the retirement age, but it did so in a roundabout way. It seemed to be telling people to keep working.

I know Ghislaine—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We must move on to the next question.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to the forefront because I have been speaking to seniors. They are not retiring at 65 and they are not retiring at 75 because they cannot afford the cost of living that the Liberal government has placed on them. Even though I will be supporting this bill, which I will be speaking to shortly, we need to do better. The people who built this country deserve to retire in dignity and, right now, that is not happening. Does my hon. colleague think that maybe we should even increase the exemption for GIS to $10,000?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that warms my heart. I was wondering whether all the Conservatives were going to vote against the bill after hearing her colleague speak before her. I sincerely thank her from the bottom of my heart.

I believe that the bill increases the exemption amount to $6,500. That gives seniors who are 65 and older some flexibility if they wish to work, so that they are not penalized as much if they want to continue working.

I look forward to hearing my colleague talk about my bill. I am very pleased to hear that she will support it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We have been passing the baton to one another, and I now pass it on to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

My colleagues and I at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are currently hearing from witnesses as part of a study on senior women. We are hearing about older women finding themselves on the streets. Homelessness is on the rise. Demand for food hampers is on the rise. What we are hearing is seriously catastrophic.

In the last Parliament, with the exception of the Liberals, even the former Liberal MPs who became independent voted in favour of the bill I introduced on this subject. The Conservatives voted for it, the Green Party voted for it and the NDP voted for it.

In committee, a report was even adopted unanimously. Everyone voted in favour, including the Liberals. However, once the matter came before the House, the Liberals changed their tune and voted against it. I would like to know what my colleague expects from the vote this time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I expect the Liberals to show some compassion, realize they made a mistake and seize this opportunity to fix it.

There is no reason to vote against this bill, which will improve the quality of life for our seniors. The evidence is clear. Old age security is about $750 a month. No one would think of that as a fortune. We are not begging for anything. We are not asking for anything other than fairness for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

I look forward to hearing the government members explain why they are not supporting this bill, because there is no good reason not to. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-261 and to highlight the supports that the Government of Canada provides to seniors across the country.

After a lifetime of hard work, of investing in and building our country, Canadians unquestionably deserve to retire free from the anxiety of struggling to make ends meet. This became even more pressing in recent years. Canada and the rest of the world witnessed a rupture of unprecedented scale: a global pandemic, disrupted supply chains, overseas wars and an unstable international order. These events have all contributed to the rising cost of living, with seniors often among the most affected.

That is why the federal government is taking measures to make retirement even more affordable for Canadians. We have implemented targeted measures, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will be deposited into Canadians' bank accounts starting Friday. This benefit will provide additional support to approximately three-quarters of seniors living alone.

At the same time, Canada has one of the most reliable public pension systems in the world. This system includes old age security, which is available to all Canadians aged 65 and older, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, which provides additional support to low-income seniors who receive an OAS pension.

However, we know that as people age, their income tends to decrease, while certain expenses may increase, particularly health care costs. This situation is made all the more difficult by dint of the fact that seniors have fewer opportunities to increase their income through work. Many are therefore at risk of depleting their savings over time. That is why, in 2022, the Government of Canada introduced a 10% increase in OAS for seniors aged 75 and older.

We are directing support to the seniors who need it most, while recognizing that the oldest Canadians often face distinct socio-economic challenges and greater financial vulnerability. This decision was based on data and helps avoid lumping all older adults into the same category.

Evidence tells us that seniors over the age of 75 are more likely to be in vulnerable financial circumstances and more likely to need support. The decision to increase OAS by 10% was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that happen more often at age 75 and upwards.

Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. In 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those aged 65 to 74. There are also more seniors with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability compared to 32% of seniors under 75. That is quite a jump, and one that is often associated with additional costs and financial burdens.

This policy has already helped more than 3.3 million seniors. They received more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase. The benefit, of course, is indexed, and so that will continue to go up. What is more, this measure lifted almost 21,000 seniors out of poverty in 2021, and over 31,300 in 2022, the majority of whom were women. This was the right decision at the right time. It is measured, targeted and responsible.

It is just as important for payments to be reliable and timely, especially for seniors who depend on them to meet their basic daily needs.

By dedicating the necessary time and resources, we ensure that essential benefits continue to be paid on time, as Canadians have come to expect. This work ensures that all Canadians receive all the benefits they are entitled to, reliably and without interruption.

We are strengthening programs such as old age security while ensuring that they are administered reliably and effectively, particularly for those who need them most.

By 2059, seniors are expected to represent almost 25% of Canada's population. They are the fastest-growing age group, and we need to know how best to provide support. This support has never been more important.

Aside from the direct financial benefits, think about a program like New Horizons for Seniors. It makes a huge positive difference in people's lives. It allows local community groups to provide programming to enrich the lives of seniors in their neighbourhood. It helps seniors stay connected to each other and to their community. It is about creating spaces where every senior belongs. It is about supporting projects for seniors led by seniors that help them stay active, engaged and connected.

I can say that in my own riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, we have many organizations that benefit from the New Horizons for Seniors grant, including one of my favourites, the Yonge Eglinton Community Centre, that offers a tremendous range of programs for seniors, to make sure that they are local, engaged, active, meeting with one another and ultimately healthy as they age.

Since this program started in 2004, the program has funded over 45,000 projects in more than 400 communities. It reaches more than 900,000 seniors each year. Investments in the program now exceed $1 billion, and the work continues. This year, we invested $54 million to help bring more than 2,600 of those community-based projects to life.

In Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, the riding of the member who sponsored this bill, our government has funded 12 projects, representing a total investment of $238,000 going to seniors in her community.

I am also pleased to inform the House that the latest intake cycle for the New Horizons for Seniors program opened yesterday. Organizations across Canada can now apply for grants of up to $50,000. That is double the previous maximum of $25,000 to support projects that improve the well-being of seniors and strengthen their communities.

I think that, as every member of this House knows from the operation of this program in their ridings right across the country, this is exactly the type of program that is making a difference in the lives of seniors. Countless seniors talk about how the programming that comes from these grants changes their lives, has made them healthier and has made them more active in the community. It is certainly something that we continue to support wholeheartedly.

Supporting older Canadians has always been a priority for this government. It will always be a priority for this government.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of King—Vaughan. Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing forward this important piece of legislation and for contributing to the discussions on supporting seniors across the country.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the seniors who built this country. As many members know, I was fortunate enough to be raised by my grandmother and my great-grandmother. They taught me some of life's most valuable lessons. They taught me the importance of helping neighbours, living within one's means, saving for a rainy day and leaving things better than we found them. Like so many grandparents across the country, they led by example.

Seniors built the community that we live in. They raised families, started businesses, volunteered countless hours and contributed to the prosperity we enjoy as Canadians. After a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to retire with dignity and financial security, yet, for too many seniors today, that promise is increasingly out of reach. Canada is in the midst of an affordability crisis that is placing real pressure on fixed incomes. Housing costs have risen sharply. Grocery prices remain elevated and everyday essentials from utilities to transportation continue to strain household budgets. For seniors, there is no flexibility to simply earn more so that they can keep more. When prices rise, their purchasing power falls. This is the reality facing seniors across King—Vaughan and across this country.

That is why Bill C-261 is so important. In 2021, the government increased old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. What that decision did was create two classes of seniors. A senior who is 74 years old receives one level of support, while a senior who is 75 receives another. The question many seniors have asked me is simple. Why? Why is one senior considered more deserving than another? Why does affordability suddenly become a problem at age 75 but not at age 74?

The reality is that inflation does not care how old someone is. The cost of groceries is the same. The cost of heating a home is the same. The cost of filling a prescription is the same. Many seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 are facing exactly the same challenges as seniors over the age of 75. They are living on fixed incomes and watching the cost of everyday necessities continue to rise.

Over the past several years, I have spoken with seniors across the country. I have heard from people who are cutting back on groceries. I have heard from seniors who are delaying medical appointments, postponing home repairs and worried about whether their retirement savings will last.

What concerns me the most is that many of the seniors facing the greatest financial pressures are those living alone. A single senior does not pay half the rent because they are one person. They do not pay half the hydro bill or half the property taxes. A single senior often faces higher costs relative to their income because there is only one with whom to share those expenses. Many of these seniors are widows. Many are women who spent decades raising families, caring for loved ones, and contributing to the communities. A 68-year-old widow living alone can face the same affordability challenges as someone who is 76 years old.

The bill would also increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. This is another important measure. Many seniors choose to continue working. Some do so because they enjoy staying active. Others do so because they want to supplement their retirement income due to the affordability crisis the Liberal government has caused. Conservatives believe work should be rewarded, not punished. Seniors who are able to, want to and choose to work should be able to earn and keep more of their money without the clawbacks. At a time when many sectors continue to face labour shortages, experienced seniors bring tremendous value to workplaces through mentorship, training and leadership. We should be encouraging their contributions, not discouraging them.

Recent data reinforces just how widespread the impact of the cost of living crisis on these seniors has become due to the Liberals. According to Food Banks Canada's 2025 HungerCount report, seniors now account for 8.3% of all food bank clients, up from 6.8% in 2019. At the same time, food banks are seeing more than 2.2 million visits in a single month, breaking all records.

The National Institute on Aging has also warned that financial vulnerability among older adults is increasingly driven by structural factors, such as housing costs, inflation and living alone. In particular, single seniors, especially older women, face a significantly higher risk of economic insecurity due to fixed incomes and the rising cost of essentials. Together, these findings show that affordability pressures are not limited to a narrow age group but are affecting seniors broadly across Canada, regardless of whether they are 65, 75 or 85 years old.

I recognize that this bill faces challenges. Like its predecessor, Bill C-319, this bill will likely require a royal recommendation because it involves new public spending. I hope that my Liberal colleagues in government will recognize this session that affordability challenges do not begin at the age of 75. Seniors deserve fairness, and that means ensuring that support is available to all seniors who are struggling with the rising cost of living due to Liberal mismanagement.

Conservatives have consistently stood up for seniors. Conservatives believe they should be able to afford groceries, medication and housing. Conservatives believe that if they choose to continue working, they should be rewarded rather than penalized by the government. Conservatives believe that after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve a government that respects their contributions and understands their challenges.

As Parliament considers this bill, I hope members remember the senior who often falls through the cracks, the widow living alone, the senior renting on a fixed income, and the older Canadian who has done everything right but is struggling to keep up with the rising costs due to the affordability crisis that the Liberal government has created. Bill C-261 would not solve every challenge facing seniors, but it would help restore fairness to a system that currently treats some seniors differently simply because of their age.

For those reasons, I will support Bill C-261, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a simple yet fundamental question: Is it acceptable for people who have worked their entire lives, raised their families, paid their taxes and built our communities to now be living in poverty?

Bill C-261, introduced and vigorously defended by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, aims to restore fairness for seniors and allow them to live with dignity.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for OAS to be increased for all seniors, starting at age 65, because dignity does not begin at age 75. The two classes of seniors are an injustice created by Ottawa. In 2021, the federal government granted a 10% OAS increase, but only to those over the age of 75. We saw this coming and, as early as the 2019 election campaign, we criticized the idea of creating two classes of seniors. This decision created two classes of seniors: those entitled to a benefit increase and those left behind. However, the cost of groceries, housing, transportation, insurance, electricity and medications are also rising for seniors aged 65 to 74.

Quebec has approximately 1.09 million people aged 65 to 74, compared to about 875,000 people aged 75 and older. This means that the majority of seniors were excluded from this increase. The Bloc Québécois rejects this injustice. The government cannot acknowledge the vulnerability of seniors while excluding a large portion of them. The current economic reality is grim. In March 2025, nearly 744,000 Quebeckers received the guaranteed income supplement, which is a sign that many seniors are living on very modest incomes. More than 53% of Quebeckers aged 65 and older live on less than $35,000 a year. What is even more concerning is that 32.5% live on less than $25,000 a year. These are not abstract numbers. These are people who sometimes have to choose between paying their rent, buying their medication, eating properly or heating their homes.

According to the reports, some retirees are living on around $1,960 or $2,000 a month. Once the rent, electricity, insurance, telephone bills, transportation costs and medication have been paid for, there is very little left for groceries and unexpected expenses. We are talking not about comfort here, but about financial survival. The housing crisis is also affecting seniors. That, too, needs to be discussed. The housing crisis is not just affecting young families; it is also hitting seniors hard. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités reports that housing has become unaffordable for more than half of all households made up of the poorest 20% of people aged 65 and over. Nearly a quarter of senior households are living in housing that is considered unacceptable, meaning that it does not meet the criteria for affordability, quality and adequate size.

The work on homelessness from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has highlighted a reality of growing concern: Seniors are at risk of homelessness following a rent increase, eviction, separation or the death of a spouse. For a senior living on a fixed income, a rent increase of a few tens or hundreds of dollars can upend the entire financial balance. After a lifetime of hard work, no one should have to fear becoming homeless.

Poverty among seniors is also an issue in terms of health. When seniors do not have enough money, they do not cut back on frills. They cut back on essentials. They cut back on groceries. They put off buying medication. They avoid certain medical travel. They cut back on heating. They isolate themselves because they can no longer afford to go out, get around or participate in activities. Poverty among seniors thus becomes a challenge in terms of public health, food security, mental health and human dignity.

Senior women are particularly vulnerable. We hear that often. Senior women live in especially precarious situations. In Quebec, the median after-tax income for women aged 65 and over is about $24,100, compared to $34,200 for men. This difference can be attributed to careers that were interrupted, lower-paying jobs, part-time work and years spent taking care of children, loved ones or sick spouses. Senior women are also more likely to live alone, particularly once they become widowed or following a separation.

During the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's proceedings, several witnesses pointed out that financial insecurity can trap women in situations of domestic, psychological or economic violence. When a woman cannot afford to find new housing, pay a security deposit, furnish an apartment or ensure her financial security, she may remain in a dangerous situation simply because she has no other option. Increasing the income of older women is therefore not just an economic measure. It is also about safety, autonomy and protection.

The committees also highlighted the importance of having a better understanding of economic violence. Some women have never had full control over their finances. Others are financially dependent on a spouse. Some are afraid and have little savings. They might have some private retirement funds but little room to manoeuver. When retirement, a separation or the death of a spouse occurs, they end up in a highly vulnerable position. Isolation also exacerbates the situation. An isolated older adult has less access to information, less support in filling out forms, fewer networks to find housing and fewer people to turn to in a crisis. A basic income then becomes a practical tool for reducing dependence, vulnerability and isolation.

Seniors also want to contribute to our society. That is another aspect of the bill. It is important to reject the stereotype that seniors are only recipients of services. More than 170,000 Quebeckers aged 65 and over are employed. More than half work full time. On top of that, 81% of seniors consider themselves to be in good, very good or excellent health. Many want to stay active, share their experience, work a few hours, volunteer, support their family or contribute to their community. The problem is that the current system can penalize them when they want to earn some extra income. That is why the bill also proposes to increase the exemption for employment income from $5,000 to $6,500. That measure would enable seniors who want to work a little more to do so without being penalized when their benefits are calculated.

Bill C‑261 includes two primary measures. First, it increases the full OAS pension by 10% for all pensioners 65 and older. In practical terms, it allows seniors from 65 to 74 to receive the same amount as pensioners 75 and older. Second, it raises the exemption on employment income from $5,000 to $6,500 for the purposes of calculating the GIS. Both measures have the same objective: to give seniors more breathing room, to acknowledge their contribution and to allow them to live with more dignity.

I want to address some criticism. There are people who will say that this measure is too expensive. However, the real question is this: What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of homelessness among seniors? What is the cost of the preventable hospitalization of someone who lowered their dose of medication or stopped eating enough? What is the cost of social isolation? What is the cost of lowering the income of older women and forcing them to stay in abusive situations because they cannot afford to leave? Investing in seniors' incomes means preventing much more serious and costly social problems.

Others fear that the old age security increase will reduce the guaranteed income supplement. However, an increase in OAS does not affect pensions under the Quebec pension plan and does not automatically reduce the GIS. There may be specific effects depending on certain tax situations, but the measures are clearly aimed at improving the disposable income of the vast majority of seniors.

It is ultimately a matter of consistency. The government says it wants to fight poverty. It says it wants to prevent homelessness. It says it wants to support women who are victims of violence. It says it wants to encourage active aging. The government cannot claim to be fighting against the vulnerability of seniors while maintaining a policy that excludes most seniors. However, the government still refuses to correct an obvious injustice toward seniors aged 65 to 74.

In conclusion, seniors built our communities. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, supported loved ones, built businesses, sustained our regions and passed on their experience. Today, many are living on less than $25,000 or $35,000 a year, while the cost of housing, groceries, medication and essential services continues to rise. Bill C‑261 is a matter of fairness, respect and dignity. It is also a concrete response to the risks of homelessness, poverty among senior women, isolation, economic violence and the loss of purchasing power. We have a duty to correct the injustice created between seniors aged 65 to 74 and seniors aged 75 and over.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois encourages all parliamentarians to support this bill and send a clear message to seniors that they matter, that they have contributed and that they deserve to live and age with dignity. I seriously urge us to put an end to this injustice and show some dignity in the House. I hope there will be Liberals who will fight to challenge the party line and vote in favour of this bill.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about an issue that matters to Canadians in every region of our country, which is how we can better support seniors and ensure they can live and age with dignity, security and independence.

Seniors have helped build the Canada that we know today. They have raised families, built businesses, contributed to their communities, volunteered their time and strengthened our economy through decades of hard work. For example, in my riding of Honoré-Mercier, Italian Canadians helped build Rivière des Prairies decades ago, and with their hard work, built a strong community.

While I am here, I would also like to wish Italian seniors in my riding a happy Italian Heritage Month.

Seniors deserve a retirement that is secure, dignified and supported by strong public programs. Over the past several years, the federal government has taken steps to strengthen Canada's retirement income system and improve the financial security of older Canadians. We increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over, responding to data that showed that the older people get, the more expenses they have.

We have also strengthened the Canada pension plan, helping future retirees receive higher pension benefits. In fact, in the recent spring economic update, our government signalled our plans to reduce Canada pension plan contributions to 9.5%.

Additionally, recognizing the rising cost of living, we provided targeted support to Canadians. Measures such as pausing the federal fuel excise tax, cutting income tax for middle-class Canadians and investing in housing, infrastructure and the economy are helping Canadians across the country no matter their age.

It is important to acknowledge the intent behind Bill C-261. All members of the House share the goal of improving the well-being of seniors. For example, I think of my colleague from Winnipeg North, who is probably one of the strongest advocates for seniors and inspires us all here today. We recognize that many seniors face financial pressures and that income security remains a critical issue. However, it is also important to ensure a balanced and sustainable approach to the Canadian pension system so that it continues to benefit generations to come.

When our government increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older, that decision was informed by evidence showing that older seniors generally face greater financial vulnerability. As Canadians age, they are more likely to experience declining health, increasing health care-related expenses and reduced opportunities to supplement their income through employment. They are also more likely to outlive their savings and other retirement resources. This is a sound decision supported by data.

With respect to the proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, we recognize the value of helping seniors who choose to remain in the workforce. Many older Canadians continue to work part-time, whether to supplement their income, remain active or just maintain social connections. That is why in 2019, the federal government increased the GIS work exemption to $5,000, allowing seniors to keep receiving their full pensions without being penalized for taking up some time to supplement their income.

Canada's population is aging. The number of seniors is growing rapidly, including in my own riding, and expenditures on the retirement income program continue to increase. This reality requires thoughtful policy decisions that balance the importance of our public pension system with the current workforce, which supports it and expects it to be there for them when they retire.

Our government knows that supporting seniors and investing in younger Canadians are not competing priorities. We can and must do both. That is why we have supported measures such as strengthening and protecting retirement benefits for seniors while also investing in housing, skills training, education and affordability measures that help younger Canadians build secure futures and grow the economy.

Every member of the House wants seniors to live with dignity and financial security. We all share a commitment to ensuring that older Canadians receive the support they need. For the generations that built this country, that commitment remains unwavering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, as we were not sure I would have enough time.

I would like to thank my two colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, who spoke so eloquently, as well as my colleague from King—Vaughan, who gave a really poignant speech about seniors. She is able to do so because she travels around many ridings. As the Conservative Party of Canada's critic for seniors, she is well aware of everything to do with seniors and what affects them, especially when it comes to the cost of living.

I think that, in the House, we all have an opportunity in front of us. As members of Parliament, we have an opportunity to use our power to correct a situation that is hurting seniors aged 65 and over. I hope we all have enough dignity and foresight to show compassion and take action.

The problem is very simple. In 2021, the Liberal government decided to take an important step, make a meaningful gesture, by increasing the pensions of seniors aged 75 and older by 10%. However, it stopped halfway. The government omitted a significant portion of seniors from its approach, namely people aged 65 to 74. They were completely excluded from this increase. That created inequity and an unusual situation. As parliamentarians, as people who meet with seniors all the time, we cannot allow this situation to continue. We absolutely must use this opportunity to fix this.

Our Bloc Québécois colleagues tried to do so once. Everyone here agreed, except the Liberals. The bill died on the Order Paper because it required a royal recommendation, since it involved spending.

My colleague worked tirelessly to reintroduce a bill. Since we are so stubborn, we decided to support it once again. We are giving our colleagues on the government side an opportunity to take action and get it right.

Seniors are not asking for a handout. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, who have contributed to society and who, at age 65, need an income, especially during these very difficult times when the cost of living has skyrocketed to levels not seen in 40 years. While their fixed incomes remain the same, the cost of living continues to add to their headaches. Between paying for food, medication and housing, seniors can no longer make ends meet.

What the bill says is that we will be fair and fix the situation. Someone somewhere made a mistake, and we are going to fix it. We will allow seniors aged 65 to 74 to receive the same increase, an increase of 10%, as was granted to seniors aged 75 and over in 2021.

Another interesting approach in the bill is that it gives seniors who want to continue working the opportunity to do so without being penalized because their income is too high. That plays a role in determining the amount they can receive under the GIS.

The bill tabled by Mrs. DeBellefeuille proposes an increase from $5,000 to $6,5000 to accurately reflect the situation of many seniors who decide to work. Some work because they have to in order to make ends meet. Others do so to keep up their spirits and stay in good health. Still, it is not right for the government to creep up from behind and take their money.

I congratulate my colleague.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind the hon. member that she cannot use the names of her colleagues in the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.