House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 346
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 346
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.
I rise for the 46th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Community members of Swan River are struggling with the rising rate of crime in their area. They feel the threat that this crime poses to the community's safety and economic stability.
Since 2015, violent crime has risen by 32% and gang-related homicides by 92%. The people of Swan River demand to be heard, since in the last five years, the town's crime severity index has increased by over 50%.
The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail for violent repeat offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and communities.
I support the good people of Swan River.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to support improving regional cellular coverage, which is critical for public safety. Access to cell phones is fundamental to land use. Cellular connectivity is a real social, community and economic driver for a modern society. The lack of coverage in some areas of Sainte-Lucie-des-Laurentides causes service issues for residents. Cellular connectivity enables our municipality to develop, thereby contributing to the social and economic vitality of our region. The Government of Canada has a mandate to provide cellular coverage to its citizens.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions on different topics.
The first is with respect to safety on our roads. The petitioners note that the best-selling passenger vehicles in Canada are pickup trucks and SUVs, which are characterized by tall, blunt hoods. They recognize that the increasing weight and hood height of pickup trucks and SUVs pose significant dangers to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and occupants of smaller vehicles.
The petitioners describe the increased risk to other road users based on the additional weight of these larger vehicles. They note that Canada's motor vehicle safety standards currently only assess safety for drivers and occupants, neglecting the safety hazards that vehicles pose to other road users, including those I mentioned before, like pedestrians and cyclists.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to do two things. The first is to require vehicle safety testing that evaluates risks posed by vehicles to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and those in smaller vehicles. The second is to improve safety requirements for vehicle size and weight.
Mr. Speaker, we have not had much time for petitions in this place as of late, so I appreciate the additional time.
My second petition is one I have presented before. Some 22% of Canadians have a disability and no building code in Canada currently mandates that housing be accessible. The petitioners describe the implications this has, like hallway medicine and the forcing of folks out of dwellings. More needs to be done to ensure that folks with disabilities have better access to quality, dignified housing across the country.
The petitioners have two very specific calls to action. The first is calling on the Government of Canada to amend the national building code to make universal design mandatory in all multi-unit housing developments across the country. The second is requiring that public funds for housing be delivered for universally designed housing and accessible housing.
Questions on the Order Paper
Request for Emergency Debate
Situation in Lebanon and Israel
[S. O. 52]
I wish to inform the House that I received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona to rise and make a brief intervention.
Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for an emergency debate to allow parliamentarians to address the crisis in Lebanon. Many of us represent constituents who are terrified and whose families are trapped in this conflict, and we must discuss what Canada can do to promote a ceasefire in the region.
On Monday evening, Israeli forces began a ground incursion into Lebanon. This follows a week of heavy bombing in densely populated Lebanese cities by Netanyahu's extremist government. Rockets have also been launched toward northern Israel by Hezbollah, a listed terrorist organization under Canadian law. The use of explosive weapons across Lebanon and Israel is causing massive civilian casualties, particularly of children. Thousands have fled for safety, and a ground incursion risks escalating this conflict further, threatening a wider regional war. Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues.
This issue is urgent and greatly distressing to many Canadians. The Lebanese community in Canada includes between 200,000 and 400,000 people, and there are around 45,000 Canadians currently in Lebanon. Canada has offered extremely limited evacuation assistance, including commercial flights, many of which have been cancelled. At least two Canadian citizens have been killed in the past week.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Many Canadians around the country expect the government to stand up and help Canadians abroad and to alleviate the extreme stress and trauma that so many Canadians are feeling right now.
[Speaker's Ruling]
Government Orders
[ Business of Supply]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-319
That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by inviting the House to recognize the importance of the discussions we are going to have, beyond the context in which this conversation is happening.
Bills with a budgetary component that are introduced by a party that is not in office require royal recommendation, which can only be obtained by the executive branch. That may sound like a platitude of little importance, but without royal recommendation, Bill C-319 cannot become law.
This bill seeks to ensure fairness when it comes to retirement pensions for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. The government is the one that created this discrimination by increasing pensions only for seniors aged 75 and up. We will come back to the government's reasons for such a surprising decision. This bill also enables retirees to earn $6,500 rather than the current maximum of $5,000 without being penalized with respect to the guaranteed income supplement.
The Bloc Québécois has set two conditions for propping up a government in dire straits and not pulling the rug out from under it. We made no bones about the fact that this was an opportunity to make gains for a very large pool of Quebec seniors, but also to protect supply management, Quebec's agricultural model and prospects for the next generation of farmers, once and for all. Each time a trade agreement is being negotiated, the government promises that it will not put supply management back on the table until it puts it back on the table. That has to stop.
Since 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to significantly increase the purchasing power of seniors aged 65 and over, who built Quebec and are behind the prosperity we are all blithely enjoying. Purchasing power, those magic words everyone uses, is all well and good until there is a price tag on it. When it costs something, suddenly purchasing power becomes too expensive. I will come back to that.
The Bloc Québécois was asking for that in 2019, before the pandemic. When I became leader of the Bloc Québécois, we made it a priority because it was a no-brainer. Then the pandemic hit and caused a kind of pre-inflation for retirees, with everything costing more due to their isolation and vulnerability. When actual inflation struck, affecting everyone, it hit the most vulnerable even harder. Interest rates started climbing. If I may be so bold as to mention the agricultural sector, there were increased environmental concerns. The agricultural model has been jeopardized, and the next generation of farmers is facing uncertainty.
The Bloc Québécois put forward two solutions that are good for Quebec and not bad for Canada, which is great. Both solutions are legislative, not to mention very advanced in terms of parliamentary procedure. Within a timeline now set at four weeks, the House of Commons, the Senate and the government could go through all stages of Bill C‑319 on seniors and Bill C‑282 on supply management. Both bills could receive royal assent, despite how archaic and outdated it is to think that we need the royalty to support a bill that stems from the democratic process.
If the fact that all the parties in the House have voted in favour of both these bills at one point or another does not get them passed within the next four weeks, we must ask ourselves whether somewhere, someone who shall remain nameless has not been a hypocrite. If nothing else, we will be able to test this out.
The recent sequence of events has created a fair amount of turmoil, it must be said. The New Democratic Party opted out of its alliance with the Liberal Party of Canada, although it is fair to ask whether this is actually the case. The days ahead, maybe the weeks ahead if not the months ahead, will determine the accuracy of this statement.
The Bloc Québécois captured the by-election in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. This seismic event shook the pillars of a temple that was not as solid as was once thought. There was a motion by the official opposition to bring down the government, all because Joe wanted to be prime minister instead of Jack, even though he might not be so different from Jack because he has no program. Naturally enough, the Conservative motion fizzled out. Next came our proposal for seniors and farmers, which we are taking up today.
I would remind the House that this remains a minority government. Replacing it without a program, without an election platform, failing to tell voters what they would do with the mandate they are seeking, this is not an end unto itself. It would change nothing. It means nothing and it gives people no idea about what would come after. I can never get over the fact that the most comprehensive program presented to voters by the parties in this Parliament is the one put forth by the lone party not interested in forming the government. It is so ironic, but we are simply doing our job.
If the government does not accede to our terms, we will get the message and embark on negotiations, which will not necessarily be enjoyable but whose end purpose will be clear. We will negotiate with the other opposition parties to bring down a government that will have abandoned the very notion of being useful to millions of Canadians and Quebeckers.
A number of things were said, but they are not necessarily based in fact. The government maintains control over the parliamentary agenda. It has the power to decide which subjects will be taken up and when, and when opposition days will take place. It still has a tremendous amount of control. It might still have some kind of understanding with the New Democratic Party. The government can also prorogue Parliament. The government can send the Prime Minister to talk to the Governor General for five minutes in English and an election will be called.
The government can also respect the clear will of a massive number of people and take into account the fact that we have not tried to turn this into a divisive issue. The Bloc Québécois has a bit of influence on the political or moral objective of this. In fact, the subject we have proposed is not controversial in Parliament. Some might have preferred this to be a controversial subject. At times there are some who hope for failure to justify their political posturing. We have more maturity than that.
We have proposed something for our most vulnerable, who were vulnerable before the pandemic, who were vulnerable during the pandemic and who are even more vulnerable during this inflation crisis, which also has repercussions on housing.
The government partially indexed the pensions of Canadians aged 75 and over on the pretext that they needed this more than other seniors. While not entirely false, this justifies nothing. It did not index the pensions of those aged 65 to 74. The real reason seems to be that the government, cruelly cynical in its approach, is telling people to burn through their private pension and if they are still alive once their money runs out, they will be given some more. There is something cruel about this message. It seems beneath an institution that should, above all, exhibit statesmanship.
That is really what this is about. The government told us our ask would cost a lot, so we are going to have some fun with this. It would cost $3 billion a year and $16 billion over five years. When we hear that, we all just beat our heads against the wall. Fine.
However, during that same period, no matter how many ways they try to conceal it, Ottawa will be giving between $50 billion and $80 billion to the oil companies, who do not need it. Some of the wealthiest companies in the world, supported by one of the wealthiest banking systems in the world, are going to receive for their shareholders, who are among the wealthiest in the world, between $50 billion and $80 billion over five years. Then we are being told that seniors do not deserve to get $3 billion a year.
In response to that obscenity, I am telling the government to take at least $3 billion from the money it is giving to the oil companies and, through them, to the banks in Toronto, take a bit more from Edmonton and Toronto and give it to seniors in Canada and Quebec, whose purchasing power has been shrinking for years.
Since the oil companies are the ones benefiting the most, it is not surprising that the Conservatives, the great defenders of government austerity, are mum on this lavish, excessive, wild spending that is often supported by bad science.
We are talking about a lot of people here. Let us put numbers to it. There are one million people 65 to 74 in Quebec that some people are saying no to. The $3 billion we are talking about for all of Canada would serve four million Canadians, including one million Quebeckers. They seem far more important to me than some oil companies and a couple hundred shareholders.
We could be hardheaded and cynical and look at it through an electoral lens. Just for fun, let us say no to one million Quebeckers. Let us think about it. We will be helping one million Quebeckers, and beyond that, since we are happy to help others with our motion, a total of four million Canadians, which is no small thing. The merits need to be considered, but I cannot help but think that some people's approach is more cynical.
We have been told that we should talk about immigration, and I would like to settle that. We originally talked about giving Quebec all powers over immigration. We even talked about holding a referendum to get them. Now we are halfway through something that we hardly know how to calculate, given that there is more than one kind of immigration and even more than one kind of temporary immigration. We still maintain that Quebec should be given all immigration powers, and we have not backed down or shrunk from our position.
However, if we had chosen to debate a motion about immigration, language, secularism or ending the religious exemption for hate speech and incitement to violence, the NDP would naturally have sided with the Liberals, since that is where they reside ideologically. It is no surprise, as we all know. That is not a criticism in terms of the current debate. At no political cost, the NDP and the Liberals would have voted together. That would be the best way of guaranteeing that the government stayed in power until 2025, and perhaps well into 2025.
The best way to achieve the opposite of that, of what some people claim to want, was to choose a divisive topic that offers no real gains, a topic that no one in any capital could ever claim is nationalistic. I think we made the right choice, and we are forcing everyone, all the caucuses, to really think about what they are going to do here. The Bloc Québécois has wind in its sails and has put forward a meaningful proposal.
There is another issue that we would not have solved by going back to immigration because it is just smoke and mirrors. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say they are going to reduce the Liberal target of 500,000 immigrants per year. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say that they reject the McKinsey-led century initiative, which is basically the storyline of James Bond's Spectre. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say they are going to cede all immigration powers to Quebec.
Most of all, I have never heard the Conservatives dare say any one of these three things in English, because the cost for Ontario would be horrific. I have to say that, in this major war going on mostly in Ontario, the Conservatives are trying to please exactly the same people as the Liberal Party.
Let me get back to something simple: the actual intention, the common good and statesmanship. I assume that no one in Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton or even Quebec City thinks that $80 a month or $1,000 a year for one million people in Quebec and three million people in Canada is nothing. It is more than the government's dental care program, which interferes in our jurisdiction. No one really thinks that the Bloc Québécois is asking for nothing. Anyone who seriously thinks that needs to listen to what we are saying, so let us pay attention to the words. Words have meaning and they can also have a price.
Bill C‑319 will immediately improve the quality of life of four million people, including those who want to help mitigate the labour shortage, which is still affecting many businesses. Bill C‑282 will ensure that supply management is no longer compromised in our trade agreements. All of the discussions and both bills put forward by the Bloc Québécois are currently at an advanced stage. Everyone voted in favour of them at one point or another. These bills help Quebec, and not at the expense of Canada.
If these bills are not passed and do not get royal assent within four weeks exactly, we will assume that the government has rejected this opportunity to help four million people, in addition to farmers; a lot of people stand to gain from this. Given the extreme vulnerability of the government and its principal ally, we will act accordingly.
Make no mistake, we are prepared to do what we have to do. We have the funds, the issues, the program and the candidates. We are ready to go. It is not what we would prefer in the short term. It is not what Quebeckers would prefer in the short term. However, everyone understands that, if the government does not demonstrate its usefulness and open-mindedness very soon, we will trigger an election no later than October 29.
Mr. Speaker, we have often heard Bloc members say that they vote for whatever is good for Quebec.
Why, then, did the Bloc Québécois vote against changing the program's age of eligibility from 67 to 65? This is on top of the GIS increase. We increased the GIS at the very start of our term. Today, we are talking about increasing the pensions of the most vulnerable seniors, those aged 75 and over. Then there is the dental care program on top of that.
Why has my colleague decided to vote against these wonderful bills when they are good for Quebec and Quebeckers?
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not too interested in handing over $2 billion to private insurance companies. That is not our business model.
I would also like to say that every time the government comes up with something moderately appealing, something we do not outright dismiss, it comes with a megadose of mismanagement, interference, disrespect, disdain for the provinces and disdain for Quebec, and a claim that the federal government is the best at everything, when in fact everyone can see that it is really the worst in terms of doing nothing at all.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the leader of the Bloc Québécois in the House today. That does not happen often.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I would like to remind the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and all members not to mention the presence or absence of members. As members know, we all have work to do for our constituents, and sometimes that prevents us from being here. All hon. members are always working on behalf of their constituents.
The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment and I apologize.
I would like to inform the leader of the Bloc Québécois that the Conservative Party of Canada voted in favour of this bill. We care about the well-being of seniors. In the leader's speech, he said he wanted to know more about the Conservative Party of Canada's election platform. We also look forward to unveiling our election platform. For now, it is important to understand what has happened over the past few months. The Liberals have caught on to some of our party's actions, intentions and desires and, unfortunately, they ran with them.
I simply want to know what is going to happen on October 30, the day before Halloween. Will Canadians be headed towards an election? The Bloc Québécois has issued an ultimatum, but it does not have the power or the legitimacy it needs. Could my colleague comment on that?
Mr. Speaker, since I am a good boy, I will not refer to those who are absent, but I would like to point out that I have invited the Conservative leader to debate with me many times outside this chamber, but he has always been completely absent.
That being said, I am pleased that the Conservative Party is still planning to support the Bloc Québécois in its efforts to help seniors, as it has done from the start. Perhaps we will vote the same way on this. That has happened in the past, whatever they may say. If this does not work, then perhaps we will also be voting the same way to bring down this government.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are going to support the bill, but it is the bare minimum approach, which ultimately we feel is not very creative. Seniors deserve better. We need to think beyond the 10% increase in OAS. We need to think about providing dignity of life and an approach that supports universal public drug coverage, dental care and initiatives like basic income.
The leader of the official opposition has had years to deliver for Quebec, and with an election looming, it would appear today that he seems desperate to show he could be relevant. When the Bloc has the opportunity to finally support the people of Quebec, whether it be getting dental care, pharmacare or supporting seniors, it refuses to do so.
Can the leader of the Bloc please explain to the House why he waited so long to deliver results for Quebeckers, when he could have been supporting NDP initiatives like dental care, pharmacare and basic income?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there has been too much interference, as well as some incompetence, on the part of the government. We have become so used to it that we do not always mention it. The care that he is talking about falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. It is as simple as that.
I agree with my colleague that this is not enough. We have been asking for more from the start and we have not given up on that. I am pleased to know that the NDP will support us, but it needs to do so for more than just three days and this cannot just be for show. Supporting the Bloc Québécois's measure means recognizing that, if the government does not attach a royal recommendation to these two bills, then we will say “Thank you very much and so long” and the opposition parties will bring down this government. That is what I want to know from the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc Québécois leader about the major gap between the well-being of seniors and that of young people. Of course, the climate crisis springs to mind. Only the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party remain deeply committed to the issue of climate emergency. We are the only ones who do not flip-flop depending on the political situation.
Has my esteemed colleague, the Bloc leader, looked at the study by Generation Squeeze, a group at the University of British Columbia, which says that our country and our fiscal situation are more beneficial to seniors than to young people?
Mr. Speaker, I have not read the study, but I have heard about it. I do have some reservations, however. Over the past few days, I have heard people go so far as to say that playing catch up and returning some purchasing power to seniors will be terrible for young people. Quebec's young people—and I am very happy about this—have a standard of living, a level of prosperity and a level of wealth that we never could have imagined. I am not that old but, that said, I am starting to shrink a little. They have a standard of living that even the generation in between did not envision at the time. That makes me happy, but I think the people who built it deserve to be properly compensated and properly treated for doing so.
As for climate change, let me say that it is quite possible that the next few days will demonstrate the Bloc's deep commitment to fighting climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for his wonderful presentation on Bill C‑319. First of all, I would like to say that a young man in his twenties named Samuel Lévesque was the first person who asked me to take action for seniors and sign a petition to address this unacceptable inequality between seniors in the name of intergenerational equity.
A few weeks ago, I went to the riding of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation to meet with seniors' groups. I also visited the riding of Sherbrooke, which is also represented by a member of the governing party. Finally, I went to the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which is represented by a Conservative. Every single time, people asked me to do something. They did not understand why the government had created two classes of seniors, why it had brought on this unacceptable inequality between “young seniors” and “old seniors”.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I like the idea of a “young senior”. We will talk about that later. However, I did not understand the government's approach. I have never understood why the government did not move quickly on our request. On the face of things, we thought it seemed fair. There was also something extremely cynical about creating a form of discrimination. The government's intent to oppose discrimination of any kind actually caused discrimination, with a significant impact on quality of life.
Bill C‑319 became all the more important in a pandemic or post-pandemic context because the capacity, purchasing power and level of distress of many seniors were exacerbated by the pandemic, inflation and the impact on housing. I have never understood the government's lack of compassion and courage in this situation. Of course, I condemn such discrimination.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House on such an important issue: our seniors. There are a couple of thoughts that come to mind right away.
Having listened to the leader of the Bloc Party, I would encourage him and his caucus to take a look at some of the policy positions they have taken on programs that are having a positive impact on seniors in every region of the country. We saw it in the form of a question in regard to the dental program, as an example, where there are tens of thousands of seniors who have directly benefited by the program, including in the province of Quebec. Let us think also of the potential of a national pharmacare program. It is something I have been a long-time advocate for. One of the biggest benefactors is our seniors.
These are initiatives the Government of Canada has taken because it is supporting Canadians in every region through providing good-quality, socially progressive programs. The programs are of great benefit to our seniors. Unfortunately the Bloc has made the decision to vote against the programs.
It was interesting that the leader of the Bloc said that he has an agenda or a plan for whenever the election happens. I suggest the leader of the Bloc Party revisit the party's position on these social programs. The federal government does have a role to play; we have seen that in the past. Where did the old age supplement and the guaranteed income supplement come from? What about the CPP and its parallel in the province of Quebec?
The government, since the Prime Minister took the reins and put together a cabinet with a solid caucus, brought forward programs and initiatives through the budget to really enhance life for our seniors, to be there at a time in which people are retiring, in which there are medical costs and the ability to work is somewhat more limited. This includes the age 75-plus 10% increase on OAS.
The programs and initiatives are not just driven by the Liberal caucus or the Prime Minister. They are the types of issues on which all of us have received a great deal of feedback in our constituencies and have brought here to the House of Commons.
I will be splitting my time.
I want to look at some of the initiatives the government took in 2015-16. One of the very first was the dramatic increase to the guaranteed income supplement. That particular initiative lifted literally thousands of Canadian seniors, the poorest of them, out of poverty. Opposition members did not support it.
We can look from the very beginning to today at the types of things the Liberals have done. Let us think in terms of the pandemic. Stating the obvious, during the pandemic, we gave one-time payments to people receiving OAS and even more, in terms of the size of the payment, to people who were receiving the GIS. Even more than that, we enhanced many of the services that seniors receive through non-profit organizations, again as a way to support our seniors. The party, generally speaking, has been exceptionally forward-thinking in dealing with the seniors of Canada.
People ask why we would do it for those aged 75 and above. A few things instantly come to mind.
It was an election platform issue. The Liberal Party of Canada, in an election, said that if we were elected into government, we would increase the OAS by 10% for those seniors aged 75 and above. We fulfilled that election platform commitment. That is a positive thing.
People ask why we would only do it for those aged 75 plus. Many discussions took place at the grassroots and constituency levels. If we look at the needs of seniors, we find that, as we age and get to 75 plus, our retirement funds, our mobility and our ability to supplement our income are not as great. These are the types of reasons that drove the policy decision that we needed to ensure that those aged 75 plus would in fact receive more money. It was exceptionally well-received.
What about the individuals facing retirement? I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper, as the then prime minister, did absolutely nothing for those individuals. In fact, one of his initiatives, when he was in Davos, was to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. One of the first actions we took back in 2015-16 was to reverse that decision, returning the age of retirement to 65 from 67. That was something we did virtually immediately.
If we look at the importance of seniors and the issues they are facing, such as health care, they are very concerned. If we look at what is happening in provinces today on issues such as hip and knee replacements, there is a litany of different aspects of health care that are so critically important to seniors. No government and no prime minister has made more of a commitment toward a national health care system than the current Prime Minister and government have, with $198 billion over 10 years. That is not to mention the emphasis we have put on things such as long-term care, hospice care, mental health and the need for pharmacare; we now have legislation for pharmacare.
This caucus does not need to be lectured about caring for seniors. We have been caring for our seniors from day one, and we will continue to care for our seniors well into the future. If we look at the many budgetary and legislative measures that we have taken as a government, they clearly demonstrate that our government supports our seniors.
We are not alone. There are many other non-profit organizations out there that do fantastic work. For example, I think of the New Horizons for Seniors program, which is throughout all the different communities, as well as the volunteer organizations ensuring that there are all forms of activities for our seniors. The provinces, municipalities and indigenous leaders all play a very important role in being there for our seniors.
As a national government, we stepped up to the plate to demonstrate strong leadership with respect to our seniors. I can assure every Canadian who is following this debate, or anyone who is interested, that the current government and Prime Minister are committed to being there for our seniors, as we have been from day one and will be today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we have studied Bill C-319 in committee, and we have heard from witness after witness about how the carbon tax has impacted their household expenses. Seniors, who have worked their entire lives to contribute to society, created a retirement plan that no longer has the ability to make ends meet.
Is it not time that Canadians have their say? I am asking the hon. member across the way to call for a carbon tax election and let seniors decide.
Mr. Speaker, that is a mouthful. I can say that some of the biggest beneficiaries of carbon rebates are, in fact, seniors who are on a fixed income; they receive a rebate four times a year. More than 80% of Canadians receive more money back from the carbon rebate than they actually pay in terms of the carbon tax. The sad reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada knows this, but that does not stop them from going out and telling lies to Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for saying the word “lie”.
The hon. member knows the power of that word, and I am glad he withdrew it right away. However, I will ask the hon. member, and all hon. members, this: Please do not go to that line. We must make sure that we have pointed, passionate debates that still fall within the parameters of acceptable parliamentary language.
The hon. member for King—Vaughan is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate being called a liar, because this is what I hear from seniors in my riding. I do not—
Let me reassure the hon. member for King—Vaughan, no one appreciates that. She is justified, and that is why the hon. member withdrew his comment. The Speaker accepts the withdrawal, and as you just heard, encourages all people to not go to that line. Do not skate close to that line, and then we will all have better debates.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using that word and that expression, but we should keep in mind this point: If we follow what the Conservative Party of Canada is putting out in its social media, it gives the impression that seniors of Canada will benefit from cutting the carbon tax. I would suggest to the hon. members, as would the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that one of the biggest pieces of fake information out there is related to the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. Seniors actually benefit from it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my question will be short, clear and simple: Will my colleague vote for or against the motion?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague across the way, as I said in my comments, that the Bloc really need to look internally and take a look at what they are doing on such issues as the dental care program. This program is helping many people, including seniors, in the province of Quebec. Many individuals would also be helped by the pharmacare program. These are the types of programs that are helping seniors. I would encourage my friends—
Given the length of the question, the hon. member has overshot his time.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not want to bother you, because you seem busy.
The member's answer completely misses the point. I asked him a question: is it yes or no?
That is clearly a matter of debate.
Hon. colleagues, again, it is Tuesday, the first day of this parliamentary week. I hope we can start again.
[English]
The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be supporting the bill, but we know it is a bare-minimum approach. Seniors deserve better. In addition to a 10% increase to the OAS, we need to think about providing a life with dignity, which includes universal drug coverage, dental care and such initiatives as basic income. New Democrats are asking for a grace period for old age security; if seniors are unable to file their taxes, there are detrimental impacts.
Will the member and the Liberal Party support the NDP's calls to have a one-year grace period for seniors who are unable to file their taxes so that they can qualify for the GIS and have the bare-minimum income they so desperately need?
Mr. Speaker, virtually from 2015 and 2016, we took a very open-minded approach in dealing with issues affecting seniors. In a very real and tangible way, we then brought forward different types of programs that advanced and encouraged our seniors, such as the dental care program, the pharmacare program, the enhancement of the GIS, ongoing support during the pandemic and the enhancement of many different non-profit organizations.
We continue to look at ways to support seniors. We understand and appreciate their needs, and that is one reason we even continue to look at the things that support our seniors indirectly, not only directly. One thing I should have made quick reference to when I referred to Stephen Harper is the CPP. As a government, we actually worked with the provinces and achieved, for a generation, a change to the CPP. Upon individuals' retirement, they will have even more money coming to them through CPP.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our government's approach to seniors has been very thoughtful. In my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, we are very involved in projects to help seniors, whether with respect to old age security, lowering the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 or, now, the dental care program. We have also brought in the New Horizons for Seniors program. In Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, we have been the champions for many years and the seniors in my riding have benefited from that.
It is important to me to speak today about some of the measures we have put in place and to remind the House of the significance of our actions to support seniors. As a government, we restored the age of eligibility for retirement to 65 from 67, preventing more than 100,000 future seniors from plunging into poverty. We also put thousands of dollars back into their pockets and increased the guaranteed income supplement by up to $947 a year. That helped almost 900,000 seniors, many of whom live in my riding.
We also increased the earnings exemption for the guaranteed income supplement from $3,500 to $5,000, and extended it to self-employment income, which was not even on the agenda. We also granted an additional 50% exemption on employment and self-employment earnings between $5,000 and $15,000, and it is important to remember that the exemption for seniors, up to $5,000 of employment income, still exists. If seniors want to work between the ages of 65 and 74, they do so mostly to avoid isolation and meet people. They also want to earn a little extra money. It is a good way to stay in shape and improve their quality of life.
Our government also enhanced the Canada pension plan. This was a gradual process, involving a small increase in contributions to the plan by today's workforce. That means higher benefits for these future pensioners. When I entered the labour market, many more people were contributing to our pension funds. Given the aging population, this is a concern that involves additional responsibilities for a government.
It is especially important to remember that we also permanently increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. By doing so, in the first year alone, we gave $800 more to retirees receiving a full pension. Who are these people? They are vulnerable seniors, mostly women, and mostly widows. A large percentage are also people living with a disability. Some 59% of these seniors earn less than $30,000 a year. Giving seniors aged 75 and over a 10% increase was a good measure.
If I may digress a little, I would like to talk a bit more about old age security. After all, this subject has been front and centre in our debates since 2015. Ever since I was elected we have been talking about the OAS, and we have put several measures in place. The OAS program plays a crucial role in income security for seniors, who deserve all our attention. These are our builders. They led the way in terms of the jobs we have today. The next generation also depends on them in terms of being able to do a good job.
OAS benefits consist of three things. First, there is the basic old age pension, which is paid to everyone who is 65 years of age and older who meets the residence requirements. Second, there is the guaranteed income supplement for low-income recipients of the old age security pension. This supplement was increased when I began my term.
Lastly, there are the allowances for low-income Canadians aged 60 to 64 who are the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients or who are widows or widowers. As people age, they tend to have lower income and face higher health expenses, which is a problem. This can be due to the onset of an illness or disability. Therefore, seniors face increasingly difficult obstacles, making them increasingly vulnerable, since some are less and less able to supplement their income with paid employment. They run the risk of depleting their personal savings and becoming widows or widowers.
I was at one time the parliamentary secretary to the minister of seniors, and I had the opportunity to meet with hundreds of seniors, organizations and groups. I am aware of seniors' needs: We listened to them and, in 2022, we increased the OAS for seniors aged 75 and over, when they are most vulnerable. We know that it was a very expensive measure, but it was worth it for our seniors. We wanted to give them more financial security later on in life, when they are more financially vulberable.
This increase improved the financial security of 3.3 million seniors, more than half of them women, as I said earlier. This increase is an important component of the financial support for seniors offered by the old age security program. In 2022-23, we paid out $69.4 billion in benefits to 7.1 million pensioners. This includes almost $54 billion in OAS benefits, and more than $16 billion in GIS benefits.
If I may remind my colleagues, benefits are indexed four times a year. We realize these are not huge amounts, but at least pensions are indexed to the consumer price index, or CPI, every three months. That means that benefits increased by 1.3% for the last quarter of 2024, a 2.8% increase over the previous year.
It is important to remember that the Old Age Security Act contains a guarantee that benefits will never decrease, even if the CPI goes down. We will always maintain pension amounts based on the CPI.
That is it for old age security. It goes without saying that this is a measure that makes life more affordable for older Canadians. That being said, our measures to make life more affordable for seniors do not stop there. We need to do more.
As we all know, we put in place several other measures that have borne fruit. The grocery rebate put hundreds of dollars back into the pockets of low-income seniors. The six-month doubling of the GST credit payment provided seniors with an average of $225. The $500 payment to nearly 2 million low-income tenants, a number of them seniors, helped cover the cost of housing. This too is part of the measures put in place by the government.
There is also the Canadian dental care plan, which I was eager to talk about. This plan offers care to low-income seniors. I recently did a major tour of my riding, criss-crossing the region to meet with seniors. We are proud to have listened to them. Seniors have a pressing need for dental care. This measure, which we implemented for seniors, has been a godsend. It was a very good decision to help seniors overcome this oral health crisis. Oral health is essential to overall physical health. It works hand in hand with proper nutrition and contributes to better self-esteem. This plan has worked.
For many years we have helped Canadian seniors integrate into their communities. This dental care plan is yet more evidence of what we are doing for seniors.
In fact, this year we are marking the 20th anniversary of the New Horizons for Seniors program. I championed this program in my riding, and I can assure members that seniors have benefited from it. They talk about it to this day. We are in the midst of the selection process for the program, and I am proud of this. Once again, this program seeks to help our seniors break out of their isolation. Our government is proud of this assistance.
Madam Speaker, that was an interesting speech, but it totally left out one aspect, one word, one verb: “divide”. This Liberal government did something that no one saw coming and, to my knowledge, we have not seen it in any other democratic countries. It divided seniors up by distinguishing between those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 74 and over. Why divide seniors up?
Madam Speaker, there is no question of dividing our seniors up. We know how important they are.
I have had my Quebec FADOQ membership card since I turned 50. I have been in at least four clubs since then. I am only 58 now, and I am considered a senior. Who decides who gets a senior's card? Some people are seniors at 65 years old. People in Quebec are seniors at 60 years old. My colleague was in the National Assembly. He knows very well that the age of eligibility for a pension was 60 in Quebec. Why create a division between 65-year-olds and 60-year-olds? Why did his government decide to grant this pension?
When I was elected, my colleague's federal government wanted to raise the retirement age to 67. Why create a division among seniors at 67? The first thing our government did was roll back the retirement age to 65.
It is not a question of dividing seniors up. It is a question of providing help to seniors aged 75 and over, to the ones who are most vulnerable, to women, to people with disabilities, to the Quebec women who defended their families, raised several children and worked hard at home but do not have a pension. That is why we decided to help seniors aged 75 and over, especially women.
Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. Right now, we are hearing about all the measures the Liberals put in place to help seniors.
What I want to know is, will the Liberals vote for or against the Bloc Québécois's motion to increase pensions for seniors aged 65 to 74? Are they for or against the motion? I just want a plain answer.
Madam Speaker, my colleague must know that we are in the middle of a debate and that there will be a vote at the end. That is how it works. Let me just explain to her how the House of Commons works. In the House of Commons, a member proposes an idea, we debate it, and then at the end, we vote.
My colleagues will see at the end of the debate how we are going to vote. I will, however, say that we have taken concrete action to help seniors in Quebec and across Canada, whether they are young seniors, 60 years old, 65 years old or 75 years old.
Madam Speaker, perhaps my colleague does not know how the House of Commons works. We usually try to answer questions.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I agree with the Bloc that more needs to be done for seniors in Quebec and across the country, and we could do it by taking even just a fraction of the money that the government currently gives to the oil and gas industry every single year.
A fair criticism of what is being proposed is that OAS is provided to seniors all the way up to just over $148,000 of income, with limited recovery taxes in advance of that. Another way of supporting seniors is boosting the guaranteed income supplement, both the threshold and the minimum amounts, so that any additional dollars go to seniors with the lowest incomes across the country.
Can the parliamentary secretary comment in this debate, which he has mentioned he is keen on, on whether his level of support would increase if the proposal was to deliver the $3 billion per year to increases to GIS versus OAS?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, in politics it is easy to say we can move $3 billion from one line item to another. I would like to ask my colleague if we should cut $3 billion from the dental care plan, which we just launched and is working very well, and redirect that money to seniors. Should we take $3 billion from somewhere else, like the breakfast program we want to set up so that young Canadians start their school day with a full belly? Should we take $3 billion out of that?
It is easy in politics to betray what we believe in and move $3 billion around. We are here to talk about our seniors and their well-being. Everything our government has put in place for our seniors has been beneficial to them, regardless of their age group.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.
We are gathered here today to talk about seniors. Canadian society owes seniors a tremendous debt. Canadian families owe seniors a tremendous debt. Seniors are the ones who built the country we live in, a country that has unfortunately been broken over the past 10 years but that nevertheless makes us proud to be Canadian, prouder than ever, in fact, in the face of the challenges that lie ahead.
Seniors are community builders. It is thanks to them that this country is prosperous, although it is not as prosperous as it could be. We owe seniors our respect.
Madam Speaker, I am sure it is the same in your riding. On weekends, when we meet with charitable groups, when we do the rounds in our ridings, we meet a lot of senior volunteers. Where would our country be without volunteers? It would be even worse off than it has been for the past nine years. Seniors step up. They do all kinds of volunteer work in each of our ridings. We can never thank them enough.
That is why seniors are economically vulnerable. It has been reported that 1.6 million Canadian seniors are low-income. It is especially challenging because they are on a fixed income and inflation has been so brutal for them these past few years.
That inflation was created and fuelled by this government's fiscal irresponsibility. Just a few minutes ago, I heard the Liberal member talk about taking money from here or there. The thing is he is forgetting is that this money is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets. This government has proven over the last nine years that it cannot control its spending. It spends with zero sense of responsibility and thinks that it is no big deal how much it spends, because the budget will balance itself, as the Prime Minister once said.
This government has saddled us with a chronic deficit of over $500 billion. Whenever we buy something, we have to pay the goods and services tax, the GST. Those watching this debate should know that every penny paid in GST goes purely toward servicing the interest on this government's debt. None of the GST goes toward programs to enhance Canadians' well-being. It merely serves to pay for this government's senseless, out-of-control spending. This drives up inflation.
Inflation is one of seniors' worst enemies, given that they live on a fixed income. When inflation surges, as it has over the last few months and years, it has a direct impact on seniors. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the governor of the Bank of Canada have acknowledged that fact. That is why a government needs to be much more prudent when dealing with public finances.
Earlier, I asked my colleague a question about dividing up seniors. Three years ago, the government tabled a budget that created two categories of seniors: people between the ages of 65 and 74, and people 75 and older. What was its rationale? Why did it divide up seniors? Why did it create one class of seniors that gets more than the other?
Only the Liberals could have dreamt up such an idea. It is so sad to see the impact this has had. I am sad to say that when I chat with seniors and listen to what they have to say, because listening to them is our first duty, some tell me they thought it was very cruel of this government to create these two categories. Why would one senior deserve more than another based solely on their age? After all, they are both retirees.
It is very sad to see this government taking advantage of a situation. It made things worse for many seniors. If it were truly interested in helping seniors, it would have acted completely differently. However, to help seniors, one must understand their reality.
I do not know how many times people 65 and over have approached me in a store or on the street to tell me they wish they could keep working, not full-time, but two or three days a week, so they could keep their hand in, see other people, do some work, contribute to society, and share and pass on their know-how. After spending 40 years at a job, people have knowledge they can share and pass on to the next person, the next generation. They can mentor others two or three days a week.
Unfortunately, today's tax rules penalize work, so some people would rather stay home because going out to work would cost them money. These tax measures could be fixed with the stroke of a pen by a government that really valued work and that wanted to help seniors who are interested in staying active and passing on their knowledge. That is the basis of our party's approach, but unfortunately, it is what the government has been completely denying, especially over the past nine years, despite having the opportunity to do something about it.
We need this kind of mentorship for the next generation. To be honest, when I go to a service business like a hardware store, I tend to gravitate toward the employees with grey hair. I feel like they will be better able to advise me on a purchase, to make sure I am getting the right thing. That is what seniors bring to the table. Penalizing seniors aged 65 and over who want to work two or three days a week is not the right thing to do.
The same goes for fixing the tax measures. In some cases, with the GIS, people get less because they will pay more income tax later on. People often bring this up when we meet on the weekends or when they call my riding office looking for clarification. People should not be penalized. These measures can be corrected with the stroke of a pen in a budget if the will is there. Unfortunately, this government has failed in that respect. Moreover, with the stroke of a pen, it decided to separate seniors into two groups: older seniors and younger seniors.
It is a shame to see that today's seniors are struggling. Every generation has its challenges, but it is important to understand that this generation of seniors has had some very big challenges. Many of them were born during the Great Depression and went through it. They lived through the hardships of war. Although Canada was not invaded, people here still had to suffer through rationing. These are the people who built and created post-war wealth. These are the people who are responsible for the baby boom, the period when families had lots of children, who then contributed to the country's prosperity. The least we can do for seniors is to respect their choices and their lives. Too often, we have seen this government introduce inflationary measures, which have cost seniors dearly. This must be taken into account.
Soon, I expect, when we have a chance to express our opinion on this government and decide Canada's future, people will remember its reckless, out-of-control spending and belief that the budget would balance itself. They will remember that it is going to take us decades to pay that off. Today, our debt has topped over $500 billion, in large part due to this inflationary government, aided and abetted by the Bloc Québécois 189 times. Each time, when confidence in the government hung in the balance, the Bloc Québécois gave the government its support. We saw it do so again recently for the 189th time.
Today, the Bloc Québécois will have an opportunity to vote on another confidence motion.
I can assure you that we, on this side of the House, have no confidence in this government. We will have to wait and see whether the Bloc Québécois will give this government its vote of confidence for the 190th time, or not.
[English]
Madam Speaker, a number of Conservatives across from me were part of the Stephen Harper government when it made the decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 in order to collect OAS.
Could the member clearly indicate that former prime minister Stephen Harper and those Conservative MPs at that time made a bad decision, and that in no way will the Reform-Conservative party raise the age of retirement from 65?
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the privilege and the honour to sit with the Right Hon. Stephen Harper. Those were great years for Canada, and we were in a great economic position. Unfortunately, after nine years of the current government, it has destroyed all the good work that was done by Mr. Harper.
My hon. colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the age of eligibility going from 65 to 67. Does he remember Mr. Bill Morneau, the former finance minister of the Liberal government? What did he write in his book a few years before? He said that we should apply for it at 66-year-olds.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech because there was a lot of content. It is probably because he was speaking to a Bloc Québécois motion. It is also our job to provide content. I am very pleased to hear that.
There was something a little less convincing at the end of his speech, when he was talking about voting. The only answer that I can give him is that when it comes to voting on content and not replacing one party in government with another, we will be there. If it is not good for Quebec and if it is an intrusion, we will be there. There is nothing to worry about.
I would like to come back to the best part of his speech, when my colleague talked about the motion and the respect we owe seniors. I agree with most of what he said. One of the interesting points he made was that the government is penalizing retirees who want to work but cannot. He said that he has met with a lot of them. I have met with a lot of them too. I could even give the names of people who say that if they worked two days, it would be like working for free because their income would be cut.
The bill would increase the exemption from $5,000 to $6,500, but I think other things could be done as well. I invite my colleague to tell me about his party's plans and vision. For example, could a tax credit be established up to a certain threshold that would be complementary to the GIS exemption?
This will be of interest to people aged 65 and over.
Madam Speaker, I think the member is trying to break down a door that we had already opened, meaning that we too want to encourage employment. We want to reward work, not penalize it.
Unfortunately, not only has the current government done nothing for nine years, but it has made things worse with its inflationary policies. Worse still—and the member may not want to hear this, but facts are facts—the Bloc Québécois has voted to support this government 189 times.
How can a sovereignist have confidence in this Liberal government which, just a week ago, asked what purpose the Bloc Québécois serves in Ottawa?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would agree with one point, that the Liberals have a long way to go before seniors will be able to live with the dignity and respect they need and deserve.
However, one point that the member across brought up was around the fact that the Conservatives, when they were in government, made it harder for seniors to retire by raising the age to access OAS from 65 to 67. I know this was brought up, but I am not hearing a clear response as to why the Conservatives expect seniors across Canada to think that the Conservatives would do any better, when they made the largest cut ever to Canada's public pension system, made retirement more difficult for Canadians and pushed thousands of seniors into poverty. How can the Conservatives justify it, or even think that Canadians would trust them to do any better?
Madam Speaker, if those members want to know where Canadians are, and if they trust us, they can just call an election and repeat what their leader said three weeks ago, which was that he had no confidence in the government. However, suddenly, when it is time to vote, the New Democrats vote confidence in the government. Shame on them.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the Bloc Québécois motion to pressure the Liberal government. However, if the Bloc Québécois really wants to put pressure on the Liberal government, all it has to do is vote with us, the Conservatives, this afternoon to defeat this government. Otherwise, the Bloc Québécois will continue to be known as the “Liberal Bloc” for some time to come, if not forever. As the saying goes, heaven is blue and hell is red. There is nothing worse than the pact that the Bloc Québécois wants to make, which will hold the public hostage and keep everyone under pressure.
I would like to talk about the Canadian dream. Forty years ago, young, hard-working families were able to settle down, buy a home, start a family, eat well, buy all of the necessities required for a good life and take vacations. All of this was possible thanks to the honest work of honest people who, day after day, got up in the morning to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Unfortunately, for the past nine years, day after day, extreme policies, like the carbon tax and other tax measures, have been taking more and more money out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Now, the work is not worth doing and hard work is not fairly compensated.
People are being penalized for working, because it is costing far too much in taxes, thanks to the Liberal government's inflationary policies and the myriad of expenses that this Prime Minister has incurred in recent years. Despite our best efforts, our country's debt has reached such a level that future generations will be forced to use a lot of the money they earn at work to pay the interest on the debt. All of the revenue from the GST goes toward paying the interest on the debt. That means there is a lot less money to spend on social services.
Let us come back to our seniors. I would like to pay tribute to all of our Canadian seniors who worked all of their lives, who worked hard to give us the Canadian society that we have now. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is undoing all of that work with its bad policies. Our seniors believed that all of the sacrifices that they made over a lifetime of hard work would mean that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have a good future, a promising future, in Canada. That was the Canadian dream.
Today, the Bloc Québécois is once again using smoke and mirrors by threatening to pressure the government, while knowing full well that it will hypocritically support this incompetent Liberal government yet again. The Bloc Québécois is trapped by its own promise to leave the Liberal government in power because it has issued the October 29 ultimatum. The vote on this Bloc Québécois opposition motion will probably take place on Thursday of this week, and it will not bring down this government. No need to worry, we can rest easy. Because of the “Liberal Bloc”, there will not be an election until October 29.
I would like to point out that the only thing the Bloc Québécois will achieve today is perhaps grab some headlines. It certainly is not defending the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. I truly believe that we need a change in government, and that is in the best interests of our country. The Bloc Québécois's pernicious strategy right now is to draw attention to potential electoral gains in the coming weeks and months, unfortunately targeting a vulnerable population. Unfortunately, it still aims to achieve more in the House, but it will never be enough for it to form government. Then again, if it would align itself with the next Conservative government, we could make substantial progress for all Canadians, for the Bloc Québécois and for all Quebeckers.
I am reaching out as I repeat here in the House that, if the Bloc Québécois truly intends to bring down the Liberal government, I invite it to vote with us this afternoon and send a strong message that the Bloc Québécois is ready to work with the next Conservative government for all Canadians and Quebeckers.
The Bloc Québécois makes no secret of the fact that it is a sovereignist party. It has repeated that many times here in the House. Its real dream is to return to Quebec City, to the National Assembly, to go back to its parent company, the Parti Québécois, and work on sovereignty. We must all work together in the interest of all Canadians and the Canadian federation. The Bloc Québécois is merely a refuge for Parti Québécois members when they do not have a lot of seats in Quebec City. We might say that here in Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois is the senate of the Parti Québécois in Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois is being totally hypocritical. It is funded with money from all Canadian taxpayers who have to work hard to serve the entire Canadian nation. This is a huge scandal.
The Bloc Québécois also insists on keeping this government on life support. The treatment is becoming overly aggressive. The Bloc Québécois's attempt at bargaining has very little chance of succeeding. It comes at the expense of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are calling for real change. The Conservative Party will improve the quality of life of all Canadians, at a time when the rising cost of living is affecting every single person. We are committed to improving the lives of seniors who have worked hard all their lives and deserve to live with dignity. That is why we previously voted to move forward with Bill C-319. However, the fact that the Bloc is now holding it out in exchange for keeping this dying government alive shows it is a political ruse with very little chance of success. If the Bloc Québécois really cared about people, it would instead support a Conservative non‑confidence motion and change the leadership of our country.
However, we in the Conservative Party support the principle that we need equality among seniors and that we have previous generations to thank for this country's prosperity. We owe them nothing less than our eternal gratitude and the means to live a dignified life. Seniors' vulnerability is therefore a very important issue, but the Bloc Québécois's strategy serves no purpose.
Everyone in Canada is struggling right now. Young adults are no longer able to buy their first home because rents have doubled in the past nine years. I am also thinking of the middle class, who are feeling the impact of the carbon tax, and the small business owners affected by the increase in the capital gains tax, which threatens the investments they hope to use as a retirement fund.
The Bloc Québécois must vote to bring down this government, especially since many of its nationalist voters are unhappy that it is using an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec to keep the most centralizing Prime Minister in history afloat. All of a sudden, the Bloc Québécois has forgotten how fiercely anti-Quebec the current Prime Minister has been when it comes to the French language, immigration, respect for jurisdictions, and many other issues.
It is high time to call an election. It is still difficult to understand why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to that. It is either because of its close ties with the Liberals or because of a strong bias against the Conservatives. At the same time, we know how many seats the Bloc Québécois had in the House when we were in power, so we can understand their reluctance. Quebec was respected and even recognized as a nation by the Right Hon. Stephen Harper in 2006. The Bloc Québécois is not unfamiliar with contradictions. This so-called anti-monarchist party is calling for a royal recommendation to move its bill forward. Now the House has seen it all.
A Conservative government will act for the common good of all Canadians by lowering taxes, so that hard work pays off again for our waitresses, truck drivers and plumbers, so that those who work more get more.
We are going to incentivize municipalities to speed up building permits, cut building taxes and free up land for development, while axing the taxes that block construction.
We are going to cap population growth so that the housing stock grows faster than our population.
We are going to fix the budget with legislation that requires the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. We will eliminate consultants, whose excessive fees were supported by the Bloc Québécois. We will eliminate red tape, waste and big handouts to multinational corporations that take money out of our country.
We will also stop the crime, not by banning hunting rifles, as the Bloc and the Liberals want to do, but by cracking down on criminals and strengthening border security.
Finally, we will rebuild the Canadian dream, creating a country where hard work brings home a more powerful paycheque to pay for food, housing and gas in safe communities where anyone can do anything with hard work.
That is our agenda, and that is what we are going to offer Canadians. I urge the Bloc Québécois to use common sense.
Madam Speaker, there is plenty of ineptitude I could capitalize on, but I will try to focus.
The member has the audacity to say that today's motion is purely a publicity stunt that serves no purpose, yet his party has pledged to vote in favour of it. I want to thank the Conservative members for voting in favour of seniors today. However, I find it hard to understand how, in a logical speech, a member can stand up and say that this is just a stunt that will serve no purpose and is not in the interests of seniors.
Is the member saying that a 10% increase in the OAS starting at age 65 is pointless? Is that what he is telling me?
I imagine that there are some seniors listening. The member really should answer.
Madam Speaker, if my colleague is actually serious and really wants to put pressure on the Liberal government—which does not seems to have any concerns about the Bloc Québécois—all he has to do is vote with us this afternoon. All he has to do is vote for our motion of non-confidence in the government. It just might give the government a scare.
Madam Speaker, I think that today's debate is much appreciated. I agree that we must support our seniors. I think that since we are marking National Seniors Day today, this is a good debate to have. However, I would like to ask a question. I know that my colleague will not answer my question, but I will still try to ask him a simple question.
Is moving a motion during an opposition day the right way to request a royal recommendation? Is it the right way to ask the government to give a royal recommendation? I would like to know.
I do not always agree with the Bloc Québécois. I like having the 10 provinces and three territories in my country, Canada. I do not agree that we should separate our country, but I know that the Bloc Québécois followed the rules and I just want to know if its way of asking the government for a royal recommendation is the right way.
Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is highly relevant. Very few precedents exist for private members' bills that received a royal recommendation. If the Bloc Québécois had really been sincere, its motion would have demanded that the government incorporate the spirit of Bill C‑319 in the next budget or in an amendment to the budget. The Bloc Québécois would have done that today if it was serious, but it is only stalling for time. It wants media attention to make itself heard across Quebec.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice the member generally has a lot more oomph in his interventions in the chamber, and today it did not seem to be quite as exciting as usual. I was wondering if that might be because of the fact that we know the Conservative Party is threatening to make cuts to necessary supports seniors rely on. Can the member share with the chamber today why the Conservatives are saying that they would cut, for example, the essential diabetes medication and devices many seniors rely on in their day-to-day just to survive?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I think she made up some fake news. What we are telling Canadians is that we are going to save a dollar for every new dollar we spend on Canadians. That is how every Canadian family manages their own budget, and we are going to do exactly the same across Canada.
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives said that they were going to support this motion. It will generate an extra $3-billion expenditure. However, the Conservatives also said that for every new expenditure, they would make cuts.
What are the the Conservatives going to cut to make up for the $3 billion in spending included in this motion?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
The NDP support the motion because, unlike Conservatives and Liberals, we believe that every Canadian deserves to live with dignity. This callous and cruel Liberal government does not. This patriarchal vision is how the Liberals govern. They hoard and keep resources for themselves, along with their corporate friends and allies, leaving Canadians behind. Most obvious in this patriarchal culture is the cruel perpetuation of the oppression and abuse of indigenous peoples.
On the day after the day to take time to reflect on truth and reconciliation, the calls for justice for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls are still unmet, and women continue to go missing. The killing of indigenous people by RCMP and law enforcement over the past months led to an emergency debate in the House a couple of weeks ago.
Genocide of indigenous people in Canada is well documented. For women, it was about erasing them through death and enfranchisement. Their legal rights, identities and connections to their communities were targeted based solely on their gender, and that continues today. I recently raised in committee a report, which was presented to metro Vancouver-elected officials many years ago, called “Red Women Rising”. The indigenous presenters from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver said that no indigenous woman should be homeless on her own land, yet that is what is happening today.
Conservatives are no better. Racist John A. Macdonald and the Conservatives created the Indian Act and residential schools. Macdonald is quoted as saying this about his Indian agents: “the agents as a whole…are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense”. Reducing expense has always been the will and culture of the House when the NDP were not within it. The NDP is the only party that believes everyone is equal in this country and that everyone deserves to share in its abundant resources.
Women and children have always been the targets of white patriarchy and the lack of government investment. Today, when we talk about old age security, it too is rooted in the vision, shared by the Liberals and the Conservatives, of controlling and defining the family. Women are affected by low pensions because the House decided that they should stay home, should not be part of employment insurance, should not be working outside of the home, and were not able to earn an equal income to men. Now, 75 years after the Employment Insurance Act was put into place, women do not have the same rights as men. Women are affected by low pensions because they are not able to earn an income equal to that of men. They work in the not-for-profit sector and in caregiving, which pay much less. Do members know why? It is because they are women's careers, according to patriarchy.
I think about those caregivers, who had reduced earning potential and are now affected by a reduced OAS because they could not earn the same income as a man. I think about the 65- to 74-year-olds who the Liberals have decided do not deserve to have the same pension, do not deserve the measly $73 more that these Liberals are refusing them. They have to wait until they are 75 for that extra $73.
Women took the time and off-ramped their careers to stay at home and raise their families because it was so discriminatory out there in the workforce. My own mother tells the story of when she was pregnant and working in a doctor's office. She was told to rest every day at lunch and had to go and lay down. After her tummy started to show a bump, they told her she could not come to work anymore.
I think now about caregiving and how caregiving has come around. We now know that many people who are aged 65 to 75 are actually working in care homes, caring for elders, and then doing unpaid care at home. The Liberal government thinks that 65- to 75-year-olds should be at work. We did not want them at work in the forties, fifties and sixties, even in the seventies, but we want them at work now. In 2024, we want them at work. It is not acceptable.
StatsCan recently did a study of employment by choice versus necessity for seniors. It broke it up by those 65 to 75 and 75-plus. The Liberals actually did a study on why one should stay at work when one is 65. Through this study, they found that 20% of seniors aged 65 to 74 worked due to necessity. That is good news for the Liberals because now they can say that we need to stay at work, that, because they have made housing and food so expensive, they want us to stay at work.
For immigrant seniors, that percentage is even higher. I will take a moment here to say that the most at-risk people aged 65 to 75 are men who rent. They need to stay at work to keep their housing. It is an absolutely cruel and callous housing policy of the Liberal government's, and the Cons are worse on housing. They lost 800,000 affordable housing units and they want the power back. Forget it. We cannot afford to lose another 800,000 units of housing.
The Cons do not care about people. They voted against dental for seniors. I was just at a dinner this weekend at a church. There was a number of people who approached me to thank me for the dental care program. They have actually been able to get their teeth fixed. The Conservatives are voting against diabetic medication. Have any of them ever had an aging parent with diabetes who cannot afford their medication? It is life-threatening, yet they vote against pharmacare. They voted to deny pensioners aged 65 to 75 their hard-earned pensions while they can take theirs at 55. These Conservatives and Liberals, sitting MPs, when they leave the House, will be able to take their pension at 55.
I think about the leader of the Conservative Party, who has a whole diatribe about pensions right now. That member would take pensions in the millions and has the audacity to come in the House to say that he is not going to feed kids, not going to give us any diabetic medication and not care if we live in a tent. It is not just that. This is gross and sickening: in B.C., the Conservatives are taping people living in tents and putting it out on social media for their own gain. It is absolutely sickening. The Cons want people living in poverty so that they can gain power.
I want to talk about this bill and the royal recommendation needed. I totally agree. The callous and cruel Liberal government would not give a royal recommendation for the Canada disability benefit. How many times have I tried to get the government to provide an adequate income for persons with disabilities with the Canada disability benefit, and it said no? Do members know what the minister and the parliamentary secretary said to me over and over again? They said to keep pushing. It is really shameful. Why does the government need to be pushed for people to live not in poverty?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member across the way is referring to Conservatives in the Conservative caucus by using the word “Con”, which has a very negative connotation to it. It is unparliamentary, and I would hope that she would use the proper terminology, which is “Conservatives”, and correct her statements from now on.
There is no judgment on whether it is parliamentary or not parliamentary, but I would advise the hon. member to use the proper name for the party.
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know that our Conservative friends have found some sensitivity about the abbreviation of their name, which has been known to be in public usage for quite some time. They are the Conservative Party, which is “Con” for short. Anything else is simply ridiculous.
I would encourage them to continue to pay attention—
Let us just remind ourselves of the proper names of the parties on both sides of the House.
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that every time I have said “Cons” in the House, there is a fury in the back, with them saying, “She shouldn't be saying that.”
The reality is that the Conservatives are the worst users of language I have ever seen. I was disgusted last week with what they said and how they acted in the House. It shows how they care more about how they are being portrayed than actually making sure people are not living in poverty.
I will close by saying that far too many seniors are now unhoused. Medications continue to be expensive, and across Canada, too many seniors cannot afford to pay their costs of living. They are making choices that hurt their health because the Liberal government and the Conservatives are cruel and callous.
The NDP protects seniors and, as a government, we would fix unfair taxation, support seniors with adequate income and support persons with disabilities with adequate income—
We are out of time.
Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.
Madam Speaker, since 2015-16, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have been there in a very real and tangible way. We are the only political party in the chamber that has consistently voted in a progressive nature.
I will use this as an example: The Canada disability benefit did not exist until we brought it in, and now the member criticises it because it is not enough. The point is, it did not exist.
We understand and appreciate that we have brought in a multitude of progressive programs. It would be wonderful to be able to give a million dollars to every Canadian. It would be wonderful, but we cannot do that.
Would the member not recognize that, in supporting our seniors, there are direct ways and indirect ways to do it? It is something that we have consistently done from 2015 through to today.
Madam Speaker, again, there is that whole patriarchal view of who is allowed to keep the wealth. We know that the Liberals have given millions of dollars to their corporate buddies, corporate friends and corporations, but when it comes to people, they are not interested.
I would just remind the member that, if it were not for the NDP bringing forward a unanimous motion to the House to get the Canada disability benefit on the agenda, Canadians would still be waiting.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a technical question about interference.
The NDP and the Bloc Québécois have very similar visions when it comes to social democracy and income sharing. The only difference, which is quite annoying and significant, has to do with the mechanics of it. The NDP is very centralist.
The dental care program that the New Democrats managed to put in place with the help of the Liberals does not respect what already existed in Quebec. We were simply asking for a transfer to ensure that all of the money would be invested in the structure that already exists in Quebec. Quebec already had a dental care plan, and it could have been made more generous.
The NDP often talks about corporate greed. I would like my colleague to tell us about the $2 billion that Sun Life collects from the dental care program. Would it not have been better to have a public plan and to have used that $2 billion for public services?
[English]
Madam Speaker, it was the vision of Tommy Douglas that every Canadian would have a universal and free health care system.
If we were to rely on provinces to administer that health care, dental care and pharmacare, we would see what is happening in Conservative provinces in the country where people are being denied. In Alberta, they said no dental care. In Ontario, they have done a terrible job of keeping health care public. They are privatizing our health care.
Canadians deserve better than what Conservative governments and these provincial Conservative governments are offering.
Madam Speaker, I visited many seniors groups throughout the summer, and one of the things that they have told me is the fact that inflation has gotten out of control. The current Liberal-NDP government has spent money like it is nobody's business, yet we continue to see increases in the carbon tax, making it unaffordable for seniors.
Why is the NDP-Liberal government propping them up, instead of calling for a carbon tax election?
Madam Speaker, I have heard the member talk before about her vision of the family unit and what a family should look like, and it is the policies of members like her that have put us in the position we are in today with OAS, where women do not get equal income because these policies have kept them at home. I will not be going back in time, and I certainly will not be supporting any of the Conservatives' old-school thoughts on what a traditional family looks like and how women should stay at home.
Madam Speaker, I give a big thanks to the member for her ongoing advocacy and work in this chamber.
I appreciate the points the member is making on the ongoing disproportionate impacts on women, and I will ask her to speak to how policies that are not putting seniors first disproportionately impact women.
Madam Speaker, for diabetes medication, so many seniors in my community have come to me and said that it is costing them thousands and thousands of dollars a year. They are limiting how much medication they are taking to control their blood sugar.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's important discussion, since it has to do with our country's seniors.
However, while I have the floor of the House for a few minutes, I would like to point out that the NDP, like many tens of thousands of families in Quebec and Canada, is extremely concerned about the situation in Lebanon. My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona asked for and was granted an emergency debate in the House to discuss the alarming situation in Lebanon, particularly in the south, where there has been heavy bombardment in the last few days. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and forced to flee. Some days, there have been hundreds of civilian victims, among them many women and children. The situation is critical, and there is a risk of regional conflagration. The NDP will call on the federal government to do everything in its power to bring about a de-escalation and ceasefire, save human lives and put measures in place to bring Canadian citizens home from Lebanon. Canadians with families in Lebanon are extremely concerned about the fate of their loved ones and want them to be brought back to Canada for their safety. Incidentally, I spoke on the phone this morning with people from the Montreal area who are worried about their loved ones and are trying to get them home. The discussion or debate later today will be extremely important for us to find out the intentions of the Liberal government regarding the alarming situation in Lebanon for civilians, particularly in southern Lebanon.
The subject that we are discussing today as a result of an opposition day motion is important because it has to do with the plight of seniors across Quebec and Canada. I am pleased to speak to this subject, because this situation has been a cause for concern for years. The motion before us talks a lot about the discrimination that the Liberal government created between two classes of seniors, seniors aged 75 and up and those aged 65 to 74. This difference did not exist anywhere else before. However, in 2021, the government increased the old age security pension for people aged 75 and up. We applaud that measure. It was a good thing, given that many of our seniors are living, or trying to survive, in terrible poverty. We are not opposed to that increase, especially since I was horrified to learn that it was the first real increase in the OAS since 1973, the year that I was born. It has been a while. My beard has turned white. Apart from indexing adjustments to try to keep pace with inflation, no government had made any real increase to old age security for 50 years, so this extra help is very welcome. I even think that it shows respect for our seniors. However, what about seniors aged 65 to 74? Why has the Liberal government abandoned them?
There is no inherent logic to it, except perhaps a cost issue. If that is the case, then the Liberals need to say so. Is it just a matter of money, and is it just because they lack the courage to go get the money where it is in order to help our seniors living in poverty and to lift them out of it? The NDP will obviously support the motion before the House today, because we think that it is the right thing to do in the fight against poverty, in support of seniors and in a fairer and more equitable society. Then we can go back and talk about the way of going about it, which is something that we may have some doubts about. Seniors are being hit hard by the rising cost of living and rising rents. There are seniors who are underhoused, with some living in their cars, trucks or tractor-trailers because they can no longer afford housing and because there is no affordable housing left, due to the 1993-94 cuts that were never restored, and there is a lack of investment in community-based social housing and housing co-operatives. Housing is an issue that really hits home for many of our seniors, who are sometimes in practically unlivable apartments that are health hazards and can cause a whole bunch of other problems.
We often talk about the cost of groceries. The Liberals' total inaction on the cost of groceries is truly appalling. I remember quite well when the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said that he was going to summon the CEOs of the major grocery chains to give them a piece of his mind. He wanted to ask them to do something, but they did nothing. In the end, nothing changed. Then, we found out that these CEOs had gone back to their offices, said they had a meeting with the minister, but that it was not going to change their pricing policies in the slightest. As a result, we saw the price of groceries skyrocket and seniors struggling to feed themselves properly.
In our work as MPs, we meet with many groups, community organizations and individual people. Some of these people are quite desperate and need help from all levels of government. One of the things my office does, and I believe other MPs do the same, is take part in tax clinics every year. In doing so, we really help the poorest of the poor. Along with other members of my team, I volunteer with Revenu Québec. When I sit down at a desk and look at the income of someone who receives only old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, I seriously wonder how that person manages to survive. No one can live on such a woefully inadequate amount. It is distressing that we are letting our seniors down and consigning them to poverty when there are simple, effective ways to make their lives better.
What I am pleased about is the fact that the work of the NDP caucus in recent years has helped seniors in a meaningful way. During the 2021 general election, we campaigned on the fact that a human being's health extends from head to toe, and that there is no reason why some parts of the body should be covered, but not others. We said that we would go to Ottawa, to Parliament, and fight for a dental care program. At first, everyone said that it would be impossible, that it would cost too much, and that the federal government would never agree to it. However, we came to this minority Parliament and used our leverage to force the Liberals to do something they had always refused to do. Before the 2021 election, they voted against dental care.
The Bloc Québécois also voted against dental care. As for the Conservative Party, there is no telling what they would do if unfortunately they were ever to come to power. They could do away with the program.
Our gamble paid off, and the program is a major win for seniors. Parliament decided to prioritize them. In all three phases of the dental care program, seniors were given priority, thanks to the NDP. Today, over 3.5 million people are enrolled in the program. According to the latest figures that I have seen, 645,000 people, the vast majority of them seniors, have benefited from the program. They have been to the dentist, and their treatment has been fully or partly covered. I spoke to one lady who received two sets of dentures free of charge. I spoke with another lady who saved $2,900 on her bill.
That is real. We kept our promise, and that is something that I am extremely proud of.
I am also proud of the fact that of the nearly 700,000 people who have been to the dentist, 205,000 are Quebeckers. In other words, 32% of the people who have benefited from the program are from Quebec. Quebec represents 23% of the population. I find it a bit odd to hear the Bloc Québécois criticize the dental care program when it is Quebeckers who are taking advantage of it the most out of all the provinces. I would like to make a small correction: when people say that Quebec already had a dental care program, that is not true, since it is a program only for children under 10. For older people, seniors, teenagers and adults, there was absolutely nothing. We wanted that to be done, we wanted to help people in a meaningful way. We are very proud of this.
There is also the framework for pharmacare. Too many seniors in this country are making agonizing choices between rent, food and drugs, which is having an impact on their health. People could have access to drugs and equipment for diabetes, for example. Millions of people are going to benefit. That is something meaningful that the NDP has offered to people. I could answer my colleagues' questions during the few minutes that are left.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is similarly concerned that the Canada disability benefit cuts off at age 65. The NDP joined us in calling for the Canada disability benefit legislation to be amended, because a disability does not end at 65 and neither should the Canada disability benefit.
Can the member comment on the NDP's support for continuing the Canada disability benefit above the age of 65? If we are going to talk about seniors with low incomes across this country, we need to talk about seniors with disabilities, who continue to disproportionately live in poverty.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Green Party colleague for his question, which is very compassionate. As social democrats, we in the NDP share his concern.
If we want to help a person with a disability, we have to do it for their entire lifetime. My colleague is perfectly right in saying that a person's disability does not end at 65 and that just because old age security exists does not mean that we should stop providing targeted assistance for specific circumstances.
On the contrary, let us add all of that up. If, later on, we find that things are not quite fair and that changes are needed, the tax system can always be adjusted, but punishing seniors with disabilities is not the way to create a better society.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the NDP will be voting in favour of the motion, and the Conservatives said the same thing. As for the Liberals, they have been refusing to tell us all morning. We still do not know what they intend to do. We are still in the dark. They are saying that seniors are very important, but they are not telling us what they are going to do about it.
How does my colleague explain the Liberals' refusal to commit? They voted for this measure at one stage and against it at another. I am having a hard time understanding all of this.
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I too am very interested in knowing where the Liberal government is at the moment. It is a minority government. I get the impression that the Minister of Finance is dealing with a hot potato and does not know what to do with it.
I would say to my Bloc Québécois colleague that it is a bit risky to bet on a royal recommendation to get help for seniors. I am not sure that it is the best way. It is a bit strange because, in doing so, the Bloc Québécois is submitting to the goodwill of King Charles. That is quite unusual. This assistance could be included in the fall economic statement, for example.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has had years to deliver for the people of Quebec, and with an election looming it seems like the leader of the Bloc Québécois is a little bit desperate to show that he is relevant. In fact he voted against the NDP's dental care plan, which has already helped 162,677 Quebeckers get dental care. He voted against the pharmacare act, which would have helped thousands of seniors living with diabetes in Quebec.
Why does the hon. member think the Bloc Québécois has waited so long to join the NDP's efforts in finally supporting seniors, including those living in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
It is true that the Bloc Québécois sometimes find themselves in a peculiar situation, because they do not want federal programs to succeed, which would undermine the case that they generally make. They think that it is a bad thing to have dental care delivered by the federal government. I have attended about 30 public meetings on dental care in the Montreal area, and people are thrilled to receive this assistance. It amounts to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. It will improve things for people who did not have access to a dentist, not only in terms of health, but also in terms of human dignity. I am therefore very proud to have helped put it in place, knowing that it is directly helping tens of thousands of Quebeckers.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have been observing the House for a really long time. I find it fascinating that women are not being seen in this place. We know how opposition days work. We know, when it comes to questions being asked by a party, who should have the opportunity and who should not. You have been in the chair and you have said it.
Today you have demonstrated, now as a third Speaker in the chair, that I am not being seen, and I will tell you that I am very disappointed in that. With that said, I will ask my question.
[Translation]
We want to debate a number of things here today, and we know that there are rules and ways to move bills forward. In this motion, the Bloc Québécois is asking for a royal recommendation. I would just like to know if my colleague believes that using an opposition day to ask the government to obtain a royal recommendation is the proper way to go about that, or should we instead find other ways to obtain the support of several members to move bills and measures Canadians need forward?
I know that seniors have done so much here in Canada, and I am grateful to them for that. However, I would also like to know if my colleague feels that everyone should receive the same amount of benefits, or should vulnerable individuals get more than others.
Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed my skepticism about the method being used, but I am not going to answer my colleague's question and give her such an easy out.
I will, however, take this opportunity to question the Conservatives' vote on the motion. I find it odd that the Conservatives have decided to vote in favour of the motion for purely partisan reasons and to annoy the government considering that, when they were in government, they made cuts in health transfers to the provinces and raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. The Conservatives are no friends of seniors. On the contrary, they will make cuts to seniors' services and pensions if they ever get back in power.
I find it rather odd that the Conservatives are saying that they will vote for the Bloc's opposition motion.
[English]
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later this day, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
[Translation]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑319
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the charismatic and charming member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is going to captivate us with his vast knowledge and legendary enthusiasm. Are we saving the best for last? We shall see.
I have so much to say. So many questions have been raised. First of all, the Liberals asked a number of times whether seeking royal assent on an opposition day is the right approach. Why not? An opposition day gives the opposition parties a chance to put a given topic on the agenda. On the one hand, we have a Liberal government that makes promises and does nothing, or does very little very slowly, promising sunny days ahead but delivering nothing. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives who want us to replace the Prime Minister with the Leader of the Opposition. If that is meant to happen, it will happen in due course. What we want, however, is substance.
We looked at the current situation and asked ourselves what issues we could push forward in the coming weeks and months. We did not choose the topic of immigration because, as my leader said this morning, we knew very well that the NDP would support this vote. What we want is to deliver something and show that we will no longer tolerate this government's inaction. We need action, not just lip service. What we are calling for today, with this request for royal assent, is concrete action. It is that simple. If we do not ask for it this way, how will we ask for it? Should we accost the government members in the hall and beg? They will keep saying, “Yes, in two weeks”, hoping to put us off until Christmas.
The vote following this opposition day will force the government to take a stand. That is why, in the motion, we are asking for royal assent. When I hear members say that it is ironic that the Bloc Québécois is calling for royal assent, what am I supposed to say? Until proven otherwise, we are stuck within the Canadian federal system. Rather than sitting at home and complaining as we watch the federal government act against the interests of Quebec, we thought that we could co-opt this government, go to the federal Parliament and be the voice of Quebec until Quebec is a country. That is what we are doing. However, we have to work within the institutions in place, or else we do not get any results. The Liberals can continue to poke fun at the fact that we are asking for royal assent, but that does not make us monarchists at all. There is no need to worry. On the day that we get to leave this country, we will be very happy. That day is coming.
What is today's topic? As I said, we in the Bloc Québécois wondered what we could gain. We looked at reasonable, sensible, intelligent bills that had the support of the majority in the House of Commons. That is another important factor.
Earlier, the Conservative member for Lévis—Lotbinière, if I am not mistaken—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, it was him. I was right. He is applauding me, and that does not happen very often. Mark this day on the calendar.
Earlier, this Conservative member was criticizing us for working for gains. He criticized us for receiving media attention. There are seniors here on Parliament Hill today. The group from my riding includes people aged 72, 75 and so on. It is not just people under 75 who want to see this change, but everyone who believes in justice and fairness. These people have driven a little over three hours to get here, and I am sure there are others who have driven even further. They will drive back the way they came, which means they will have driven a total of six or seven hours. That is a lot for an older person. Why are they doing this? Why are they here? Why do they feel so strongly about this? They know that MPs work for them, so they decided to come support us. That is nice. Does that mean we get more media attention? Yes, but it is not just a photo op. It is to put pressure on the government.
What are we talking about today? We are talking about this vote and a possible election call in the event of a non-confidence vote. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about gains.
Some television commentators are saying that the amount we want to give retirees adds up to about $1,000 a year, or $1,200 for those entitled to more. Obviously, each case is different. For someone who earns less than $30,000 a year, $1,000 a year is a huge amount. It makes all the difference when it comes to choosing which size or brand of product to buy at the grocery store. It makes all the difference when setting the thermostat in an apartment. That is what it does. We are talking about allowing the people who built Quebec, who worked all their lives and who deserve a decent standard of living, to live with dignity, free from stress at the end of every month. That is what we are talking about. When it comes right down to it, today, we are not talking about the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. We are talking about seniors. Can we give those people a decent standard of living?
We are not asking for much. We could have asked for a lot more, but as I explained at the beginning of my speech, we have asked for things we can get, things that are already in the works and that will really make a difference.
The old age security issue was voted on unanimously in committee. The committee that studied the bill voted unanimously. Representatives of the Liberal government sit on that committee. Basically, the purpose of the motion seeking royal assent for the bill is to stop hypocrisy. The aim is to keep members from voting and saying that they support seniors, that they have always been there for seniors and that they will continue to be there for seniors, while refusing to grant royal assent behind closed doors.
Our decision to shine a light on this issue is not a PR exercise. We are applying political pressure to achieve a specific result. I want to achieve this. I think seniors deserve better than the stress of running out of money in the last 10 days of the month. To me, that is unacceptable. Ten minutes is obviously not a lot of time, but I could have talked about my many years of experience acting for my father under his power of attorney. He passed away last year. He rests in peace, but I want to salute him even though he is no longer physically with us. I sometimes had to make major, unexpected outlays because his independence and health were declining and his home needed to be adapted. My father worked for Canadian National and had a good pension. As a result, I was lucky enough not to have too much trouble managing his affairs. We were able to give him decent care. However, I constantly thought about people with no money. I wondered how they managed. Today we are voting on a matter of human dignity. This is not just for show. We are leveraging our opportunity to gain something.
The other important gain we are trying to make is protection for supply management. I would remind members that this issue received the support of nearly 80% of duly elected members of the House. The bill in question has been languishing in the Senate since June 2023, collecting dust. This week, the members of this committee are again deciding to conduct long-term studies without prioritizing the bills duly voted on by a majority of the elected members of the House of Commons. That is undemocratic. They are just trying to hold up the bill until the election is called, so they will not have to vote on it. That is another thing we are pushing the government on, since it is the one that appointed 80% of these senators. We are asking the government to talk to them. I think it could talk to them more often and ask them to move faster.
We are going to ask the same thing for Bill C‑319. That is why we need to hurry up, get it passed and send it to the Senate. A private member's bill that involves spending needs government approval. It needs to leave this chamber with that approval and a message to the Senate that it needs to be passed quickly. We will not wait another year and a half for Bill C‑319 to pass. We have to be serious.
These two bills can pass quickly. Our agriculture industry needs it, and seniors need a decent standard of living.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member said he wants real results. Seniors have benefited from the national dental care program, with over 750,000 patients in every region of the country, including Quebec. That is a real result. Seniors are benefiting from that program.
Can the member explain why the Bloc does not support our seniors receiving that dental care program?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to answer the question thus: intrusion, encroachment, duplication of structures. Quebec already has a dental plan that applies to children and so on. If Quebec had received the money directly, as it requested, it could have improved its services.
Instead, the Liberal government decided to give $2 billion to a private insurance company, Sun Life, which lines its pockets to administer a program, rather than create a public insurance plan. That $2 billion would have been used by now if the Liberals had listened to the Bloc's recommendations. That is the reason.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé and offer my sympathy regarding his father. We all face that reality, and his remarks brought back memories of my own family.
This government has been in power for nine years. The member has been watching this government day after day for five years. Just two weeks ago, the leader of this government stood in the House and twice asked what the Bloc Québécois is good for. In just a few hours, the member will have the opportunity to show whether or not he still has confidence in the government.
How can he, a proud Quebecker and staunch sovereignist, still have confidence in the spend-happy Liberal government, which is intruding into provincial jurisdictions and completely fails to respect the wishes of the Bloc Québécois?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting question.
If the government does not respect the wishes of the Bloc Québécois, it will show in the next few days through old age security and supply management bills.
My colleague talked about the vote on the non-confidence motion. As I said earlier during my speech, the Bloc Québécois wants to vote on content. Since the Liberal-NDP agreement ended, the Conservatives have been proposing a vote that would put the leader of the Conservative Party in the Liberal Party leader's place. What do we stand to gain? The Conservatives need to get down to business and show us some content. If they are serious about their endeavour, they need to move a motion that we can support. Earlier on, we spoke about smoke and mirrors. That is more or less what happens when motions like this are introduced. We have to be careful.
Our day-to-day work is not about supporting one party or another. We do not support any party. We work for Quebec and we want to make gains.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé is a learned MP and he often brings a perspective that helps improve material conditions not just for Quebeckers but for people across the country. Being in proximity to the hon. member has helped me gain an understanding.
I visited Montreal not too long ago and when I was in stores, I do not recall there being a special lane for seniors 75 and up. I do not recall inflation impacting a special portion of the population in Quebec, and certainly not in Hamilton, where seniors are seeing rates of poverty that far outpace the rest of the region.
Can the member perhaps expand upon how ridiculous it is that after a lifetime of work, people aged 65 to 75 have been shafted by the Liberal government?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. I appreciate having deep discussions with him about what Quebec is and why we want independence. It is always interesting to talk to him.
His question will allow me to expand on something. It is a profound injustice. Do members know what is behind this scheme? I think the government decided that it was going to increase old age security to 75, that it would cost less, that it would allow the government to give more money to its friends, the oil companies, and at the same time, that it would encourage people aged 65 who do not have enough money to work.
That is not a good way to do it, because it is not fair. Just because someone is 65 does not mean they have not been sick and have had the same opportunities as other social classes. There are people who have worked very hard physically all their lives and are no longer able to do so at the age of 65 or 66. They need the pension. This government decision is putting them in the poor house.
My colleague is quite right to point out that there are not two lines at the checkout counter. The price is the same for everyone. Right now, these people are suffering and feeling anxious at the end of the month.
We want to put an end to that. The royal recommendation must be given.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that October 1 is National Seniors Day. We could not have picked a better theme for this debate.
When I think of the issue of seniors, I always immediately think back to 1980. Members will recall that on the eve of the referendum campaign to counter René Lévesque's Mouvement souveraineté-association, the Canadian health minister at the time said ad nauseam that seniors would lose their pension if the “yes” camp won. She even threatened to immediately make $4 billion in cuts if Quebec became a country. At the time, the government was led by the Liberal Party of Canada, which was led by a Trudeau.
We see that in 2024, while Ottawa refuses to increase the pension for all seniors in a context where their purchasing power is plummeting, it is our presence in Canada that is threatening the dignity and quality of life of seniors. We will remember. We have to face the facts, and they paint a grim picture indeed. The population is aging. There are now more people 65 and over than children under 15. An estimated 25% of the population will be 65 and up in 2030.
According to the most recent statistics, 52% of old age security pensioners aged 65 to 74 and 60% of those aged 75 and up have an income of less than $30,000. The gap between the median income of seniors aged 65 and the rest of the population has quadrupled in 20 years. That means that, over the years, seniors' income growth has not kept pace with workers' income growth.
When we add the context of inflation to this bleak picture, the situation becomes dire. Between September 2021 and September 2022, the price of food went up by 10%. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 7% year over year. That is the tragedy of a world where inflation is wreaking havoc upon us like a vengeful spirt.
It is not true to say that only older seniors have more expenses. Younger retirees have to pay for housing and home maintenance, and they often own cars while they are still in the workforce. The cost of medication is the same whether a person is 18, 65 or 75. The same goes for the cost of groceries. Leisure activities and medical needs can also cost a lot. It is a gross generalization to say that only people aged 75 and up have more expenses.
Ottawa, the capital where inertia and indifference intertwine in a macabre synergy, has responded with shameful mediocrity and employed nothing but ad hoc measures. Budget 2021, as members will recall, included an OAS increase, but only to seniors aged 75 and over. Consequently, the vast majority of seniors, who are between 65 and 74, were left behind. It took two years for the Liberals to finally follow through on this promise, which dates back to 2019. In August 2021, a one-time cheque for $300 was sent to seniors, again only to those aged 75 and over. This was on the eve of the September 2021 elections. Barring a rather providential coincidence, the stunt was as crude as it was disgraceful.
Fortunately, it is possible to take matters into our own hands, on two fronts. Our Bill C-319 emerges as a beacon of hope amidst this darkness. To offset rising debt levels, a growing number of seniors are returning to the workforce. We therefore need to improve incentives for those who wish to return to work, especially in the context of labour shortages. Bill C‑319, which does not just propose to increase pensions, would enable seniors who would like to work a bit to do so without being penalized by increasing from $5,000 to $6,500 the exemption for income from employment or contract work taken into account in calculating the guaranteed income supplement.
The best-known part of the bill is the pension component. We also have a responsibility to provide the best possible financial security to our seniors who are choosing instead to take a well-deserved rest.
That is why Bill C‑319 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase by 10% the amount of the full pension that all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled to.
These two fronts should be able to provide these builders with a little breathing room. However, that is only if Bill C-319 passes. Furthermore, it still needs to receive a royal recommendation. These words have an inherently negative ring to my ears and to those of my Bloc Québécois colleagues. As my colleague said, we have no choice, since we are still part of this system; it is not as though we enjoy it. Besides, if anyone finds it particularly ridiculous that we are asking for a royal recommendation, then they should have voted with us when we proposed to abolish the monarchy.
Personally, I dream of a country, ours, the country of Quebec, the only country where we can feel fully ourselves, and the only one where we are fully ourselves. It will never leave anyone behind, young or old. I dream of a country that will provide the builders of yesterday, who, by the way, have yet to make their last contribution to our homeland, with the full support that they deserve. Between now and our urgent and necessary independence, we need to provide seniors with some comfort, which is what Bill C-319 proposes.
It is not clear what the Liberals will do when they vote. We now need the rest of the members. That is the beauty of a minority government, recently brought back to minority status. I call on the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Greens to show Ottawa the direction that it needs to go in, the only direction that makes sense, that of respect for our seniors.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion on this, but we all care very much about all Canadians, especially seniors. They always have a special part in the hearts of all of us. The reality is—
There is no interpretation, so I will speak in English. There is now.
The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sits on committee with me and we know each other very well.
However, on the bill he is referring to, it is an issue of royal recommendation. There are rules for us as members of Parliament. There are rules as to how the House has to govern. I had a previous bill that was called a money bill and it was rejected. It did not get a royal recommendation because it would affect the fiscal purse. The same goes for this one. We cannot blindly ignore the rules by which the House has to govern. That is my concern with the bill. It is not the content of the bill. It is the fact that the rules are set in a certain way, and we all have to respect that.
What is his answer to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there is also parliamentary practice.
First of all, it is said that in the parliamentary tradition that originated in Great Britain—and has become the Canadian tradition—Parliament is supreme. In this case, however, the executive has decided to unduly keep a bill from coming into force, a bill that it has sometimes supported, sometimes not. It is confusing. It seems to me that, based on another parliamentary practice, royal recommendation is granted much more quickly when a bill comes from the government. That is why I invite all members to put their foot down and say enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted nearly 200 times against the current Liberal government. That led to significant deficits. The Liberal government has never tabled a balanced budget.
The Bloc Québécois has also said that the government is incompetent. They said it again this morning. In May, they asked the government to call an election.
My question is quite simple. The Government of Quebec, to which the Bloc Québécois likes to stick close all the time, has asked the Bloc to not support the government and to hound it on the issue of immigration. How can it be comfortable with this situation and not vote in favour of our motion?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that we voted against the government 200 times. I guess it was a slip of the tongue. It was actually quite a bit more than that. In fact, I assume she is referring to the votes on the various credits. Obviously, we had no choice but to make it work. That does not mean we did not vote against the economic statements and the budgets. This means we did vote against this government's overall budgetary and fiscal policy.
Now, regarding the motion specifically, I will repeat what we have said many times. The government has just returned to a minority position. We are entering the third week of work since the government returned to a minority position. We still have a few tricks up our sleeves. We still have things to dig into, things to go after. That being said, if things do not work out, we are ready to drop the hammer immediately. We have said so very clearly and publicly.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the NDP has been in support of Bill C-319 since the very onset. We know that seniors deserve to be living with dignity and respect. We also know that so much more is needed for seniors today.
As far as I am aware, I have yet to see a national aging strategy put into place that addresses all the issues that are being faced by our increasingly aging population. I wonder if the member could speak to how important it is to have that strategy in place, that we have a plan moving forward and we do not see seniors continue to struggle to make ends meet.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we will always support any plan that respects our jurisdictions. In all kinds of situations in the House, we have voted in favour of creating a plan. That does not mean we will agree to it, but a plan is necessary because governing is planning. We need to be able to see the plan. Then we will debate its contents. We will look at what is good or less good, and then reach a decision. That said, the fact that our nation builders are not the focus of policies worthy of the name seems to me the sign of a flagrant lack of vision. We agree on that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is very important to speak to a topic of great importance for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and the many seniors who I have the privilege of representing in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for the great riding Waterloo.
Before I begin talking about some policy measures and so forth, I would like to give a big shout-out to the seniors in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the city of Vaughan. Many of them come from the Italian-Canadian community. They immigrated to Canada in the 1950s and 1960s. They came here and worked extremely hard. They sacrificed for their kids so they could have a brighter and better future.
I see many of these seniors at picnics in the summertime and when I am out in the community. They are our labourers, carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, road builders and construction workers. The Italian-Canadian community has contributed to building our country to be the greatest one in the world, in my humble view. I owe them a debt of gratitude and I thank them. I get to interact with them, share a few laughs with them and, most important, I get to listen to them.
My parents, Rocco, who is in his late eighties, and Vincenza, who is in her early eighties, are doing very well. They worked very hard to contribute to building our country. They also worked very hard so their three boys could have a bright future, which all three of us do. Canada chose us. It selected us to come to this country, and I always keep that in the back of my mind.
When it comes to seniors, all seniors are owed a secure and dignified retirement. I think about the measures we put in place as a government to help seniors, such as the Canadian dental care plan. We reversed the Conservative policy and restored the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement back to 65 from 67. We increased the old age security by 10%, or $800 a year annually, for over three million seniors aged 75 and over.
We enhanced the Canada pension plan to increase the CPP maximum payment by 50%, or to over $1,800 a month, for future retirees, coming together with all the provinces in our initial term. We increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, our most vulnerable seniors, the majority of which are women, up to $1,000 annually, which is benefiting a million seniors and lifting tens of thousands out of poverty.
We increased the GIS earnings exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 and a partial exemption of 50% for earnings between $5,000 to $10,000. Again, this is another measure that direct helps Canadian seniors across our beautiful country, ensuring that all seniors live in a dignified and secure retirement.
On the Canadian dental care plan, I am so happy that over 70,000 individuals in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, over 20,000 in the city of Vaughan, have now received coverage under this plan. Those numbers represent primarily seniors. If there is one measure that I know is transformational for seniors, it is the Canadian dental care plan. Many Canadians no longer have dental coverage when they retire. This fills the gap. We need to be proud of this measure and support it.
We, as a government, made a promise to restore the age of eligibility to 65 from 67 for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We kept that promise and we delivered for Canadian seniors. If that measure had been kept in place by the opposite party, seniors would have lost over $17,000, in today's dollars, in old security income for those two years. That was a wrong measure to do at the time. We fixed it. We will always have the backs of Canadian seniors.
Increasing old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75-plus benefited over 3.3 million seniors and represents $800 annually. This was not a small fiscal measure. It is $3 billion annually that comes out of the fiscal purse to support our seniors. It was the right thing to do because, as we know, when our seniors age, the cost pressures on seniors increase, their retirement savings tend to diminish a little bit, their partner may pass away and so forth.
In enhancing the Canada pension plan, the former finance minister came together with the provinces because we needed to get the provinces' agreement to sign off on changing the Canada pension plan. The Liberals did it; we delivered. Now, future retirees will go from one-quarter coverage of their earnings to a maximum pay of 15%, but it is really one-third of their earnings that will be covered under future retirement.
The other measure we promised and we delivered on was increasing the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, or nearly $1,000, for individual seniors. This assisted one million of the most vulnerable single seniors, lifting tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty.
We have accomplished much for Canadians, but there is always more work to be done. The Canadian dental care plan is another step in that direction, and so is the GIS earnings exemption. We know that many seniors wish to stay in the labour market. We want those seniors to flourish and to work. We increased the exemption amount on their earnings from $3,500 to $5,000 and the partial exemption of 50% of earnings between $5,000 and $10,000. These are concrete measures that we know help seniors. All these measures combined have strengthened Canada's retirement system, which we know depends on: pillar 1, the Canada pension plan that we all work towards and contribute to both as an employer and employee; pillar 2, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which we know benefits millions of seniors; pillar 3, which tend to be RRSPs and TFSAs that seniors can contribute to; and pillar 4, private pension plans, which many Canadians receive, including my parents, who both worked for private sector unions, and that help Canadians.
That is our retirement system, but there is always more work to do. I always welcome new ideas. We have done a lot, but we also know seniors across Canada have been impacted by global inflation. It impacted all countries around the world. We know a lot of seniors face pressures. With regard to delivering more help to seniors, we know the carbon rebate assists seniors. They receive much more than what they consume, in terms of GHG emissions and so forth. We know that has helped.
I rose last week and said Canada is the best country in the world. This is Canada's decade. Not only because of our economic policies but because of the social policies we put in place, such as the Canadian dental care plan, the Canada child benefit, our early learning and national day care plan, and the Canada workers benefit. Our social fabric has been strengthened. Yes, we have our challenges. Yes, Canadians have been pressured by global inflation, which now is back down to 2%, the bank's target rate, which, in my humble opinion, will allow the Bank of Canada to further reduce the interest rate in the months to come. It has gone down 75 basis points. I hope to see much more, and as an economist, I think it will.
We continue to do the right thing. Equally important, we continue to do it within a fiscal framework that maintains our deficit-to-GDP ratio, one of the lowest in the G20; maintains our credit at a AAA rating; maintains the finances of the country in an envious position throughout the world. We know it. We know what the economists, the IMF and the World Bank say about Canada's fiscal position. It is a strength. Anybody who has worked in the global financial markets, like myself, would know that and would say that we maintained it. We will continue to maintain it, and we are going to continue to move forward to help all Canadians, whether it is families, seniors, workers or businesses. It is great to see all these small businesses popping up and growing in the city of Vaughan. I have attended probably about a dozen new small-business openings. It is wonderful to see that confidence back. Yes, we have gone through some hard times. We had the global pandemic. We have war in Europe for the first time in 80 years. We had supply chain blocks. We had global inflation. Nonetheless, Canada is strong, and its best days are ahead of us. I know that. I believe in that and I cannot wait to keep going forth and advocating and putting forward policies that will continue to strengthen our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I still fail to understand the connection between SMEs, economic indicators and the seniors' issue. Of course, it can be connected to inflation and other things, but my colleague was telling us that everything is going well.
That means we still do not know where things stand. I will come back to my question: Will he vote for or against our motion?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. We need to support our seniors at all times.
[English]
We must support our seniors with measures that contribute to their well-being and that ensure their retirement is dignified and secure. We must always work toward those policy measures. We must always do it within a fiscal framework that allows us to do that, and that is what Canadians expect of us. That is what I expect, myself. I will continue to examine the opposition motion for what I think are good policy measures that are put forward, and I do that with all motions put forward in this House and all policy. I will obviously think about that and make sure our seniors are supported and make sure they are getting the help we want.
We have done a lot. I look forward to working with all sides of the House, including my own team, with regard to measures that will continue to support all Canadians. We owe it to them. We owe them a secure and dignified retirement, and we have put in place many measures to make the seniors' poverty rate literally the lowest it has been historically, but we know that seniors continue to need help.
Mr. Speaker, typically, gaslighting techniques include denying something when there is proof, projecting onto others and telling blatant lies. The actions of gaslighting do not match what they say. Why do I bring this up? On the weekend, we heard from a Liberal strategist who stated, “I don't see clearly what the political upside is ... to spend more [money] on seniors”.
As such, why would we believe my colleague across the way when clearly their actions do not meet their words? Their costly carbon tax is blowing a $34-billion hole in our economy, driving up the cost of living for everyone and especially those on fixed incomes.
When will this Liberal-NDP government stop gaslighting Canadians, axe the tax and call for a carbon tax election so that seniors know the true value of what they have to live with?
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is implemented and done. The reversal of the age for old age security, which was put at 67 and announced in Davos, Switzerland, is back to 65 and done, putting $18,000 in the pockets of seniors. Increasing old age security for seniors 75-plus with $800 a year, benefiting 3.3 million seniors, is done. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement by up to $1,000 for a million of the most vulnerable seniors in Canada is done. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement from $3,500 to $5,000 and then 50% from $5,000 to $10,000 is done. Sitting down with the provinces, showing leadership and enhancing and expanding the Canada pension plan for future retirees is done.
We will always have the backs of Canadian seniors. They deserve the utmost. They deserve a secure and dignified retirement, much like my parents have, and have earned, because they worked and sacrificed, and much like the community members in my riding, the seniors who came here and helped build this country. We will always have their backs of the LiUNA 183 members, the LiUNA 506 members and all the private sector construction workers. We will always have their backs, and I will always fight for them day in and day out.
Mr. Speaker, we are debating supports for seniors here today. Seniors, especially on fixed incomes, are struggling, but I just came from a human resources committee meeting where we were talking about people with disabilities. We have the new Canada Disability Benefit Act that was rolled out by this government. It is only available for maybe one-third of Canadians with disabilities, and it is only $200 a month. It is really a slap in the face to the people with disabilities who really need supports to get out of poverty.
We heard from witness after witness today that this needs to change and that we have to fix these disability supports so that the people who need them really can access them.
Mr. Speaker, many of us do not get personal in this House when we answer questions from our hon. colleagues, but we have a beautiful nephew in our family who is one of maybe six children in Canada who is suffering from a rare genetic condition. When I am with Ethan, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, I fully comprehend what they go through on a daily basis, as well as the services and support they need, not only from society and government, but from the family. I see what my in-laws and other relatives do for them.
When it comes to the disability community, there is a very broad continuum. I treat this with a tremendous amount of seriousness, as I do all issues. This one, in particular, I treat with a significant amount of emotion and passion. I see my little nephew, and I see what my brother-in-law and sister-in-law do to fight for him, what they have to go through and the obstacles they face. He was not even diagnosed in Canada with this genetic condition.
I hear the hon. member. I would like to say to all of my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House that we must always remember that we are fighting here for Canadians. We need to bring our best to work every day to make sure that all Canadians can live to their full potential and that all families have the supports they need.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here. I would like to thank my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his great speech and for sharing his time so that I too can participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the Bloc on supporting seniors. I will also be talking about the Canada pension plan.
Before I get into it, I want to share a bit about what constituents in the riding of Waterloo are sharing with me and sending to my inbox. I have had a range of emails come through, which I have really appreciated because it demonstrates that people are watching. The good people of the riding of Waterloo are watching the calibre of debate in this House. They are listening to the words being exchanged. They are noticing that they need to be concerned and that we need to have these tough discussions. Oftentimes, they talk about things that are important to them, and planning for tomorrow, the future, is always of utmost concern.
One thing that has been brought to my attention, which I have been trying to raise today on the floor of the House of Commons, is discussions on processes to advance legislation, whether it be a private member's bill or government legislation. When it comes to spending and the need for a royal recommendation, people might not recognize what a royal recommendation is for. A royal recommendation is needed when there is an expenditure the government needs to be aware of. For a private member's bill, if there is an expenditure the government needs to be aware of, it has to give a royal recommendation.
Today's opposition day motion calls on the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation be granted as soon as possible, and a private member's bill is referenced that would amend the Old Age Security Act. This is concerning. As I have been asking in the House, is this the proper mechanism for receiving a royal recommendation?
Under former prime minister Stephen Harper during the decade of darkness, the Conservative government was notorious for using the backdoor, as we say in this place, by advancing private members' bills on the floor of the House of Commons that oftentimes would threaten the rights and freedoms of individuals, hard-fought rights and freedoms. The Conservatives would do it through the backdoor, through a private member's bill.
A private member's bill requires only a limited amount of debate. It is prescribed; there is no adding to the debate. It can even become less by way of UC motion, but it cannot increase. Often, the former Conservative government compromised members in this place, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, by using that backdoor. Today, my concern, which I am raising on behalf of some of my constituents, is about that: Is an opposition day really the right way to advance a private member's bill? Is it the right way to receive public dollars to advance a benefit?
I will never challenge the work that seniors and the people who have come before us have done. They are instrumental. Today is National Seniors Day and I am very grateful to the people who have broadened my horizons.
My grandfather is not alive today, but yesterday, we went to go visit a dear friend of his, Ruprayankul, who is like a grandfather to me. I have a few people who, when my grandfather passed away way too early, came up to me and said, “Bardish, you still have a grandpa in me.” Jathra Hujadadajee is another person who is near and dear to my heart. I really value seniors. I really value the work they have done. When it comes to ensuring that seniors have adequate resources, that is important to me.
What seniors are sharing with me is that this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has done a very good job of ensuring that benefits are means-tested. This means people who need the benefit are receiving the benefit, and people who do not need the benefit are not receiving it. I will give an example: the Canada child benefit. It was a taxable benefit under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Every family with a child 18 and under would receive $100 per child, and then at tax time, that benefit would be taxed.
With the one hand, the government of the day under former prime minister Stephen Harper was giving this benefit to help Canadians raise their kids and give them the things they needed, and with the other hand, it was being clawed back, taken back. That did not make sense, because families that needed the benefit spent it to help raise their children, so we came forward with the Canada child benefit. What we said is that families with children who needed the most would receive the most, and families with children who had the most, often the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, would not receive the benefit.
I will say that the first year was tough. People really felt like the government of the day was taking something away from them. However, within a year, the good people of the riding of Waterloo said that if their neighbours were doing better, they were doing better. They appreciated that. They understood the benefit of having it be means-tested. This brings me to today's conversation. I know that certain people, especially seniors, are saying they always need more, but can we at least, as a government, ensure that people who need the most get the most?
As for the opposition day motion, I have not figured out how I am voting. I am reading my inbox and constituents' mail, so I am participating in this debate because it is important to me, but what I am hearing from some constituents is that they do not need this additional money per month. Sure, I could challenge them and say that if they do not need it, they can donate it, give it to somebody else. However, what they are saying is that this benefit needs to go to the most vulnerable. People who need this benefit should receive this benefit. People who do not need this benefit should not receive it. I thought that was quite compassionate and caring of them. It reminded me of generations before and the people who have been kind and generous enough to provide people like me opportunities. They have taken me under their wing to ensure that I, the child of immigrants, am able to maximize my abilities to contribute.
There is a concern over the tool being used to advance a royal recommendation. It is of concern to me because we have already seen the dysfunction, frankly, in the House of Commons. It has been spotlighted too many times. At some point, we need to ensure that the government of the day is held fiscally accountable, and randomly granting royal recommendations is probably not the way to do that.
I want to talk a bit about the Canada pension plan. Some might ask why. It is because it is one of the top-ranked public retirement plans in the world for seniors. For seniors in Canada, it is vital, and I would be remiss if I did not reflect upon past decisions that have been made, especially during the decade of darkness under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Not only did he close Veterans Affairs offices, but he also decided that it was necessary to raise the retirement age.
Seniors have simply never been a priority for the Conservatives. Today, they have come back to talk about their common-sense plan, but I would be remiss if I did not remind Canadians, especially people in Ontario, of former premier Mike Harris and his “common sense revolution”, which brought about Walkerton.
What else his “common sense revolution” did was shut down our hospitals. People talk about our housing issues and the crises that the country is facing today, but it was actually under former premier Harris that hospitals were shut down, including centres with support for mental health and illness. Former premier Harris, a common-sense Conservative premier, thought it was wise, rather than providing supports to these individuals, to put them in the streets and allow that to be their place of existence. We do not agree with that. We know we can do better.
The Conservative Party talks about common sense, but common sense would be supporting dental care for seniors. Common sense would be restoring the retirement age to 65. Common sense would be working to ensure that Canadians do better, not through slogans but by having respectful debate and dialogue. Those are all measures the Conservative Party does not support, and it is interesting that the Bloc also voted against them.
Today is a challenging day with this debate. I do not believe that Quebec should separate, which is one thing that I will always differ from the Bloc on, but I do know that the Bloc follows the rules. That is why asking for a royal recommendation this way is challenging for me. I just wanted to put that on the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she cares deeply about seniors, and her sincerity and candid spontaneity have often surprised me. I would like to ask her a simple question.
I am sure that there are 65-year-old seniors in her riding who do not have the privilege of having a private pension plan and who therefore have only their old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement.
In all honesty, does she not think that these 65-year-olds, in these conditions, deserve as much of an increase as those who got it at age 75?
What does she have to say to those 65-year-old seniors who are living in difficult conditions, but who did not get the 10% increase? I am curious to hear her answer.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I agree that we must help the most vulnerable seniors, but I do not agree that there is just one way to do that. The work that our government has done has helped improve the programs for the most vulnerable, including seniors. It is important. I do not think that what the Bloc Québécois is proposing is the only way to help seniors and that is why this debate is important.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked at the end of her speech about how it would be common sense for the Conservatives and the Bloc to support dental care in Canada. We obviously think this in the NDP caucus because it was our initiative, which the Liberals, I have to admit, voted against a couple of years ago. They also voted against pharmacare, and now it is common sense too. I am very happy that we are moving those things forward.
I would like to ask the question that my colleague just got. How is it common sense that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not get the same treatment as seniors over 75? They are living in the same circumstances and should get the same supports, which they desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate today. Whenever we have debates like this, it restores some of my confidence and faith in this place. What we are recognizing is that people are living longer. That is where the narrative about those aged 75 and older came from.
I have had some good conversations. I have been involved in politics since I was 13 years old. I know a lot of history and I know stories that I probably should not know. There was a time when people talked about the Canada pension plan and age 65. It was almost an unattainable age, and that is where the number came from. I always ask where we pick these numbers from, but there is a narrative and story to why they are picked. The reality is that more people are hitting age 65, and thank goodness for that.
My father had a massive heart attack during the COVID pandemic, in October 2020, and I am so grateful that he is still here with me today. I want him to live longer. I want more people to live longer. The reality is that people are living longer, so we need to ensure that our resources are able to take care of them. Should it be one size fits all or should it be means-tested to ensure that the people who need the most are getting the most and are being helped? They are the people I will continue fighting for.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said a lot of things in her speech. She kept saying that not everyone is in need. We have a progressive tax system to deal with that. Earlier I talked about my father, who had a good pension. At the end of the year, he paid back in taxes what he received. The matter is already resolved.
How will my colleague go about identifying a person who cannot work because they have arthritis and sore fingers, or even bad hips, from working in a sewing factory their whole life?
That is the appalling injustice that the Bloc Québécois is calling out today. I invite my colleague to support our bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of a debate. There is nothing wrong with actually coming to the House of Commons and having an honest debate.
I need to represent the diversity of concerns from my constituents. My inbox is not filled with messages saying, “Yes, let's increase it.” What constituents are saying is that they are not sure everyone needs this. They are not sure that this is the most fiscally responsible. They want us to have the debate and make sure their voices are heard.
I will continue ensuring that diverse voices from the riding of Waterloo are represented in this place, and that is why I will be listening closely to the debate today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Terrebonne.
Today is a very special day. October 1 is National Seniors Day in Quebec. In Salaberry—Suroît, as in the rest of Quebec, people have organized all kinds of events to celebrate seniors, thank them and recognize the work they do.
People tend to forget what a tremendous asset seniors are to communities. They volunteer with most of the community organizations that serve the least fortunate and most vulnerable. People tend to talk about seniors as folks who need services, a millstone around society's neck in their ever-increasing numbers. I myself have never seen things that way. I see seniors as a tremendous asset. Seniors enable communities to grow, thrive and develop a deeper sense of solidarity. Seniors create solidarity.
Today is a special day because October 1 is the day we celebrate seniors everywhere, but it is also the Bloc Québécois's opposition day, and we are once again dedicating it to seniors. We are seeking a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319. We are devoting an entire opposition day to debating this matter because we want the government to understand how important it is to grant a royal recommendation so we can end discrimination between two classes of seniors. Today is a special day not only because October 1 is National Seniors Day and the Bloc Québécois's opposition day featuring Bill C‑319, but also because seniors are demonstrating on Parliament Hill. Some 200 seniors from all over Quebec were on the Hill today to lend their support to Bill C‑319. Their demand was clear: an end to discrimination between two classes of seniors. I have never seen such a thing.
There is a wise old man in my riding who was in the group. He is a wise old man, a community organizer, a trade unionist. He celebrated his 80th birthday this year. He was on the Hill. I asked him, of all the protests that he has taken part in over the course of his life to improve the lot of others, whether this was the first time he had attended a protest as a senior to demand that 65-year-olds be given the same rights as 75-year-olds. He told me yes. I congratulate him. He deserves a lot of credit for driving two and a half hours from my riding to come to the Hill this morning at the age of 80.
There are about a dozen of my constituents in the gallery—
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I do not believe that my colleague, who has some parliamentary experience, has the right to refer to the galleries in Parliament.
Members do not have the right to mention whether someone is present in the gallery, but they can thank people for being present during the discussion taking place on the floor.
The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member took fiendish delight in calling me on that. Maybe he wants to be the whip in the next Conservative government.
The debate we are having on this opposition day is very important. The Bloc Québécois did not conjure this out of thin air. As everyone knows, this has been one of its priorities since 2019. Just this morning, our position was endorsed by the president of the FADOQ network, the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, which represents nearly 600,000 Quebec seniors. There is also the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, the AQDR, which advocates for retirees' rights. I am pleased to say that two delegates from the Valleyfield-Suroît branch of the AQDR, Lucie and Benoit, came here today to speak out against this terrible injustice on behalf of their organization.
The Bloc Québécois cannot understand how the Liberals across the way do not see this as an injustice. When people turn 65, they pay the same rent as when they turn 75. They have the same basic expenses as 75-year-olds, be it at the grocery store or the pharmacy.
Not everyone 65 and over has the ability to work. I am very active in my riding and I meet a lot of seniors in a year. They all talk about the rising cost of living. They all tell me that they are having a tough time making ends meet and that they have to make tough choices. They do not understand this government's decision to increase OAS by 10% for people 75 and up, but not for people aged 65 to 74. In Salaberry—Suroît, nearly 20% of the population is 65 or up. They do not all have the privilege of having a private pension in addition to the payments from the Quebec pension plan and old age security.
There are seniors who worked hard all of their lives, without missing a day of work, and it was not always under the best conditions. I am thinking of Ghislaine, who worked all of her life at La Lanterne restaurant in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. She started young and stopped at 65. Both her knees and hips were finished. Her body was tired from working so hard, but she worked. Even so, she had to find a little job to make ends meet, because her pension was not enough, and neither was the guaranteed income supplement. When we call for fairness among seniors aged 75 and up and seniors aged 65 to 74, this is not just something that we pulled out of a hat.
I am also thinking of Normand, who turned 65 and who works as a packer at the Ormstown grocery store to make ends meet. Normand battled cancer. When a person earns a small salary and receives a small pension and then they have to stop working to fight cancer and they do not have enough money to pay their bills, it is very stressful. It can even interfere with their recovery.
When I think about the condition that our seniors, who built our nation find themselves in, I think of an old adage that says one can judge a society by the way it treats its seniors. Lucie Mercier asked me to talk about this in my speech. According to Judith Gagnon of the AQDR, how well we look after our parents, our ancestors, our predecessors, our most vulnerable citizens and those who built our nation defines who we are and where we are going, and an aging population only reinforces how important the proverb is.
We hope that all parties in the House will do the right thing and support Bill C‑319, and that the government will take responsibility and get a royal recommendation so that it can be passed and enacted. This means that all seniors aged 65 and over will have the same amount on their old age pension, and the income that can be earned per year before GIS benefits are reduced will increase from $5,000 to $6,500.
Seniors are making a heartfelt plea to the Liberal government today.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think the member is articulating that a senior who is 85 years old should receive the exact same amount of money as a senior who is 65 years old. I appreciate what the member is saying. However, surely to goodness, she would recognize that there is quite a considerable discrepancy between an average 85-year-old compared with an average 65-year-old in terms of medical requirements, retirement savings and so forth. Would she feel there is any obligation?
Would she not agree that a truly national pharmacare program and dental program would help seniors?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member opposite is raising doubts about the universal old age security system. Under a universal plan, everyone 65 and up gets the same old age pension. If people have more income, that is dealt with through taxes.
Now, it sounds like my colleague is saying, loudly and clearly, that Canada's old age security system is no longer a universal system and that he is okay with that.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that I say every chance I get in my riding, it is that we are where we are here in Canada thanks to our seniors. That is very important. I think that my colleague and I share that view.
We also share the same view when it comes to the cost of living. I think that since this government has been in office, over the last nine years, the cost of living has gone up. The list is long, and this could be said over and over. I think that people are aware that everything is more expensive because of this government.
Therefore, why is the Bloc Québécois propping up this government? After all, this is a minority government.
Furthermore, what is going to happen on October 30? The Bloc has been scaring people by claiming that October 29 is the ultimatum date, or else they will trigger an election. However, that is just not true. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what to make of these two questions.
On the first, I think that what is clear to Quebeckers, and the message has been heard loud and clear, is that before putting the Leader of the Opposition in charge of the country, I know that my constituents and Quebeckers want us to work on securing a better old age pension for our seniors.
Now, will there be an election? I do not know whether there will be one, but what I do know is that the Bloc members are determined to withdraw their confidence as soon as it is clear that the Liberals are abandoning seniors, farmers, and supply management.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Bloc Québécois that more needs to be done for seniors in Quebec and in my community as well. This government can do it by reducing the massive subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
My question is about the best way to do it. The Bloc Québécois wants to increase the old age security base amount, which provides benefits with little variability to seniors who earn of up to just over $148,000 a year. While the guaranteed income supplement is intended to provide seniors with monthly geared-to-income support, low rates still leave many people living in poverty at a time when the cost of living is rising.
Why not focus on increasing the monthly guaranteed income supplement amounts and further increase the income threshold to ensure that additional funds are directed to the seniors who need it most?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, who is always so thorough in the way he asks questions.
There are many other ways to support seniors. I think that the Bloc Québécois, in its last election platform, also suggested tax incentives, among other things. I think that when someone purports to run a progressive or social-democratic government, choices also have to be made. What we understand about the current government is that it has deliberately chosen to lose billions of dollars to tax evasion and invest billions of dollars in the Trans Mountain pipeline. These are difficult choices that the government has made, but they are still choices. We are responsible for the choices we make. Right now, we are not calling into question the universal old age security pension plan. I understand that my colleague would agree with that.
What we are saying is that Canada can afford to provide seniors aged 65 to 74 with the same monthly old age security pension. We know it can, but this means making the right social-democratic choices. I have a feeling that it may not necessarily be prepared to support our motion being debated today. This makes me really sad because this means that it is making it loud and clear that it is abandoning the most vulnerable seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a matter of fairness, justice, and respect.
Being a senior in Quebec and Canada simply should not mean living in poverty. Although history is forever repeating itself and is almost always worse, let us look at the history of the old age security program.
The program was created in Canada in 1927. The Liberal government of Mackenzie King, the man who spoke to ghosts, set up the program in that dismal year, and it would expand significantly in the decades that followed. In an attempt to counter the constant criticisms of the Conservatives, who opposed the welfare state, successive governments have, from the start, tried to restrict access to pensions as much as possible. Humiliating measures known as the means test were implemented way back in 1927.
Here are some of the bright ideas the government had at the time. To qualify for assistance, parents had to prove that their children could not support them financially. Government officials even went so far as to encourage some elderly parents to sue their children for maintenance. Recipients' eligibility could be withdrawn once they began receiving other pension payments. Payments were even recovered through claims against the estate of dead recipients. Fortunately, these measures were abolished. However, the back-and-forth between expanding the plan to fight poverty and implementing measures to restrict access in order to reduce costs continued throughout the 20th century.
Why am I going over the complex history of the old age pension program? Because that back-and-forth continues to this day. Hounded by those who oppose all spending and have zero interest in fighting poverty, the Liberals came up with an all-new approach. They created two classes of seniors. People might be surprised to hear a sovereignist remind the party in power about what is in the Constitution, but under section 94A of the Constitution, old age pensions are indeed a federal responsibility.
I would like to focus on the issue of jurisdiction. Canada was first created as a confederation. In a confederation, the provinces hold most of the power. Quebeckers were told they could govern their province in peace, without too much interference. Later, a federation was imposed on them without asking their opinion. Just like that, the Canadian federation was born, with a nice lie told at the starting gate so the francophones would not rise up.
In English Canada, however, the measure did not meet with unanimous approval. Why make concessions to the losers? The Constitution of 1867 was therefore based on a lie designed to reconcile the irreconcilable: on the one hand, the Quebec people's desire for self-determination, and on the other, the desire for unity of the citizens of British origin. That is the whole history of the federal system in a nutshell: a tug-of-war between those who believe the real power is in Quebec City and those who believe the real power is in Ottawa.
It is ironic that a separatist MP has to remind the House yet again of how the Canadian Constitution works, whereas the government never misses an opportunity to remind us that the Constitution must not be touched and to say that all the issues related to it do not matter to Canadians and Quebeckers or that Quebeckers do not care about jurisdictions.
As it turns out, the Liberals are no longer federalists because they no longer believe in the federation and the separation of powers. Everything the Liberals and the NDP said all morning was about interference. They said they support dental insurance and programs that interfere in our jurisdictions. As my leader says, interference plus incompetence equals the Liberals.
Here are a few examples of incompetence and interference. When the figures are adjusted for population growth, Canada now has 25% more federal civil servants per capita than eight years ago. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, total spending on employee wages has grown by $21 billion since the Prime Minister came to power. The most recent figures pegged it at $60 billion. Another nearly $15 billion per year went to consulting firms. We know that consultants are needed to provide expertise that the government lacks. However, it makes no sense to increase the number of federal employees to that extent while giving tens of billions of dollars to consulting firms.
After that, they say there is no money for seniors.
Among other recent examples is the more than $13 million doled out to GC Strategies alone for the ArriveCAN app. Another $190,000 was spent on food and planes for the government's Indo-Pacific tour. Impressive.
When it comes to the economy, there was the 10-year, $13‑million subsidy to Volkswagen. The Prime Minister chose to help a foreign company with profits of $34 billion, up 12.5% in one year, yet he remains unmoved by the 37% rise in bankruptcies among fully Canadian companies.
Another example of mismanagement is the fact that net debt has risen from approximately $700 billion to $1.3 trillion as of February 2024. Federal debt has risen from 31% of GDP to 42%.
As for the environment, in July 2019, when Project Reconciliation presented its first proposal to then finance minister Morneau, the estimated cost of building the Trans Mountain pipeline was over $7 billion. Since then, the bill has ballooned to $34 billion, according to the latest documents filed by the Crown corporation.
According to Environmental Defence, the federal government allocated over $20 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry in 2022 alone. We are currently studying this issue in committee: $167 million was invested in projects that were either ineligible or in a clear conflict of interest within Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
I have tons of examples like that. I could spend all day on them without even going into detail. This is a case of mismanagement, incompetence, and serious interference.
Once again, the Liberals and the NDP insist on talking about dental insurance. Why does it take a sovereignist to remind us what the Canadian Constitution says? Dental insurance is not a federal jurisdiction. For once and for all, can we put that to rest?
[English]
[Translation]
I would simply remind the hon. member that he can ask his question after the member has finished her speech.
The hon. member for Terrebonne.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling him to order.
I invite the member to reread the Constitution. Jurisdiction is a simple matter. It refers to the sandbox in which the federal government can work. The best example is that, in the case of dental insurance, the government could have saved $2 billion by simply transferring the money for dental insurance to Quebec, which already has its own program.
If it wants to increase dental insurance coverage, if that is the priority, then that is fine. However, in that case, the government should transfer the money unconditionally and let the Quebec government manage its health care plan as it sees fit, with the program that already exists, not go through a private company that will ultimately provide inadequate service, because we know that it is going to be inadequate. Instead, the Quebec government needs to be given the money to manage its own jurisdictions. The Liberals need to stop talking about dental insurance and look at what they have done. This is a very good example when it comes to the economy. I have given tons of them, but this is the best one.
The government needs to prioritize the issues that are within its sandbox. Within the sandbox, there are many things that could be prioritized. However, despite the priorities within the federal government's sandbox, it decided it would rather give money, billions of dollars, to the oil companies. That is the truth.
What are the Liberals going to prioritize? I am asking them today, in this debate, whether they will continue to prioritize the oil companies or will they finally invest in seniors, people who have worked their entire lives and who deserve not to have to go to food banks to be able to eat. I am asking the Liberals to remain focused on their areas of jurisdiction, to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74, to honour their own Constitution and to be consistent. They need to either honour the Constitution or reopen it, and we will see how Quebeckers respond.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, if the provinces have 100% jurisdiction in regard to health care, maybe the member can explain why it is that no provincial government has taken the Canada Health Act to court. Maybe she can enlighten the House as to why the Canada Health Act is allowed to exist if in fact there is no responsibility of the federal government. It seems to me that the Bloc is uncomfortable with the fact that we have a dental care program that is literally helping 700,000-plus Canadians in every region of the country, including the province of Quebec.
What would the member say about those seniors who are receiving this benefit, which helps with their disposable income? Why is she opposing a national dental care program that is helping seniors in Canada, including in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, we do not oppose the idea of more people being covered by dental insurance. Here is what we want. If the federal government has so much money, it should transfer the money to Quebec and let Quebeckers manage it themselves. We are already doing a pretty good job. There is always room for improvement, but we are doing it fairly well.
We want the federal government to stop giving our money to private insurance companies. Give the money to the RAMQ instead and let us manage it ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Terrebonne criticized the Liberal government's hiring spree and inflationary spending. She criticized the use of outside firms and the spending related to ArriveCAN.
Oddly, the record shows that the Bloc Québécois voted nearly 200 times in favour of the government. The Bloc Québécois therefore voted for all these measures that the member is criticizing today. Why does the Bloc Québécois not want to vote in favour of our motion to call an election, the motion we are voting on today?
Mr. Speaker, it is simply because robbing Justin to pay Pierre is not a good idea. What I am saying applies only in the context of an election, of course.
To answer the question more specifically, we do not want to vote for a non-confidence motion that we believe lacks substance. We want to try to make gains because we have no guarantee, none at all, that old age security will really be increased if the Conservatives come to power. It is better to ask now and try to get it now, because we think it is very important.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the motion is great, although it is very late for the Bloc to be pushing for programs to assist seniors, at the eleventh hour, pretty much before a potential election, when it voted against so many programs to assist seniors. My bill for a guaranteed livable basic income was voted against by the Bloc. It voted against dental care, even though the highest number of people using it live in Quebec. It voted against the pharmacare plan.
Although I agree with my hon. colleague that we need to increase pensions, unlike the Liberals, who think that seniors are doing just fine, I am wondering why the Bloc waited until the last minute, when it has had quite a number of years to push the issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we did not wake up today thinking about seniors for the first time. Seniors were part of our pre-budget requests in both 2023 and 2022. They were one of our priorities. This is not a sudden awakening. This has been one of our demands from the beginning. Following every budget, we wondered why the Liberal government refused to increase old age security and why it was creating two classes of seniors. That is why we are here today.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne on her excellent speech.
My question is very specific. Some objections were raised earlier about increasing old age security for everyone. Someone suggested that not everyone needs it. I know my colleague has a background in economics, so could she explain to the members opposite that we have a progressive tax system that will balance all that out?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. In fact, the answer was already in the question. We have a progressive tax system, so it is not true that some seniors do not need it. Yes, there is a segment of seniors who receive old age security who may need it less than others, but they receive a smaller amount. It is called a progressive tax refund. Everything is already taken into account. That problem does not exist.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
It is a privilege to rise in the House to debate the Bloc Québécois motion, which reads as follows:
That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).
It is important for Canadians watching at home to remember that such motions are not binding on the government. That said, it is important to discuss the measures in Bill C‑319 and the Bloc Québécois's other demands. As everyone knows, this is once again a minority Parliament. We usually go vote by vote, and the Bloc Québécois has made two requests. As a member of Parliament who is not a member of the Privy Council, I will share my perspective on what I believe to be the best way forward.
I want to begin by sharing a thought. I represent the small riding of Kings—Hants, where the issue of supply management is extremely important. My riding is home to largest concentration of supply-managed farmers east of Quebec. I was rather surprised to see that the Bloc Québécois motion did not include any measures or considerations regarding the importance of supply management. I was also rather surprised to hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois raise this important point last week. He also talked about how important it is for all parliamentarians and the government to protect the supply management system. It is very important for our farmers, but also for our food security.
Personally, I have some concerns about the U.S. presidential election and the position of the next U.S. Congress on the issue of supply management. I was in Washington this summer. It is not just one American party. It is not just the Democrats or just the Republicans. Representatives of both parties will have the opportunity to raise the issue of greater access to the Canadian market. It is very important for our parliamentarians to educate themselves and to resist this idea, because our supply management system is more important. The Conservatives are taking a very weak position in this respect. Many Conservative members voted against Bill C-282, which sought to protect supply management. All of the other MPs, especially the Liberals, were in favour of the bill and of protecting supply management.
I want to remind farmers in my riding and other ridings in Nova Scotia that it is important to keep an eye on the Conservatives.
[English]
In the past, Conservative governments have allowed cuts to accessing the system, willingly, without necessarily negotiating it away.
There are a lot of seniors in Kings—Hants. They are important, and they are the type of seniors, by and large, who are blue-collar workers. They are seniors who have worked in forestry. They have worked in agriculture. They have worked in the type of industries where they may not have large pensions, unlike people in other areas of the country and maybe in bigger urban centres.
I have taken great pride, over the five years I have had the privilege of being the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, to try to be an advocate in this space, because we do have to make sure that our seniors have a dignified retirement and that we are taking measures to support seniors across the country, including indeed, for me, right at home in Kings—Hants. Our government has been there.
Our government has been there, and there are a few things I want to point out to my hon. colleagues.
When Mr. Harper was in government, he was proposing to actually move the retirement age up from 65 to 67, such that seniors in Kings—Hants would not have been eligible for old age security or the guaranteed income supplement until age 67, had the Conservatives had their way. Of course our Minister of Seniors has pointed out that Mr. Harper made that decision and policy choice at the World Economic Forum.
However, we are the government that actually brought the retirement age back to 65. We have invested in old age security for those who are age 75 and up, and I know that is part of the conversation piece, representing over $3 billion a year in new investments for seniors. We have also supported long-term care facilities.
We have invested in dental care. I had the opportunity to talk to some of my constituents, who have said to me, “Look, I haven't had the opportunity to have my teeth cleaned in over five years. I haven't been able to visit a dentist, because I just can't afford it.” Our government, with the support of the majority of members of Parliament, actually created a program where now close to 80% of dentists across the country are participating. That is extremely important, as it is a measure that supports not only health care for seniors but also affordability.
The members who voted against the measure, namely the Conservatives, like to talk about seniors, but when it comes to the measures that actually support them, they vote against them. The member for Carleton talks about pensions and the member for Burnaby South, yet he is not willing to support seniors' dental care in my riding of Kings—Hants or anywhere else in the country. He says it does not exist, but almost a million Canadians now have benefited from the program, notably our seniors.
Let us talk about the threshold before there are clawbacks. Our government has been increasing the amount of money that a senior can earn before it is clawed back on the guaranteed income supplement or on their old age security cheque, which is important. We had moved that from $3,500 up to $5,000, and now it is 50% more, from $5,000 to $10,000. That is great; however, I would like to see the government do more.
Hopefully in the fall economic statement, in the budget, we can see it go even higher, because for seniors who are still able and wanting to contribute by working, we do not want there to be an impediment to their doing so because they are worried about losing their seniors' benefits. Therefore we need to go higher, and I believe that the government has the ability to do so and will do so in the days ahead. We will see where our other hon. colleagues stand on that.
Let us talk about the health care investment. When I talk to seniors, I hear that they worry about health care. We have been there as a government to step up. However, the Conservatives voted against it.
The point I want to make is that, as it relates to seniors, I am proud of the record the current government has. We have one of the lowest poverty rates of seniors in the world, which matters. This is not just a feeling, an emotion, but a fact. Are there challenges out there that we have to continue to address? Absolutely there are, and I may not agree with the entirety of the motion before the House here today as it relates to doing something to support seniors between 65 and 74.
However, I think that particularly for our lower-income seniors between ages 65 and 74, we have to be there to make sure we can support them. In fact it is in the Liberal platform to make sure we can identify those seniors who would be on the guaranteed income supplement, to support them in the days ahead.
[Translation]
When we look at the Bloc's voting record on support for seniors, it immediately becomes clear that they do not really care about seniors' needs. The Bloc voted against dental care for seniors, against lowering the retirement age, and against increasing the GIS.
Generally speaking, the initiatives in this bill are good, but it is important to understand that, with regard to the motion that the Bloc Québécois is moving today, it is very difficult and very rare for a government to grant a royal recommendation.
[English]
I would love to be able to have one of my hon. colleagues step up and ask me a question.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear that. My colleague is usually a rather sensible person, yet he just said that Bloc Québécois members do not truly care about seniors. That must be why we put this issue on today's agenda and why we are trying to get this gain. That must also be why we have been fighting for five years to get his government to act fairly and equitably toward all seniors.
We are prepared to force an election on this issue. Is my colleague prepared?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, but the voting record is very clear: That member and the other Bloc Québécois members voted against dental care for seniors, against lowering the retirement age and against increasing the guaranteed income supplement.
Although I thank the Bloc Québécois for joining the game, it is a little too late.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Canadian Coast Guard
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a group of seven harvesters from my riding who went to work at sea this past July and endured a terrifying experience.
The boat, the Elite Navigator, did not arrive back home as expected. This set off a massive search effort, headed by the Canadian Coast Guard. Fifty-one hours later, and just after the crew members had used their last emergency flare, rescuers were able to locate them. I am thankful that all the men were healthy and otherwise uninjured.
Transported home by the Coast Guard, they were greeted with a hero's welcome in New-Wes-Valley by hundreds of people.
The story speaks to the importance of the Coast Guard, and I am proud of the investments our government has made to new lifeboat stations around the coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador to monitor and support mariners in distress.
I want to express my appreciation to all involved in this search and rescue mission, as well as my relief that the “lucky seven” are back home. I welcome the boys home.
King Charles III Coronation Medal Recipients
Mr. Speaker, it was an immense honour to spend time with two extraordinary Canadian Forces veterans from Kamloops and to present them with the King Charles III Coronation Medal. They played pivotal roles in the D-Day efforts.
Zach Bourque, a 101-year-old Royal Canadian Air Force veteran, served with unwavering dedication as a supply technician, defending Britain's coast during these critical moments. His courage and commitment during D-Day are nothing short of inspiring.
I had the profound privilege of awarding the same medal to John Kuharski, a veteran who bravely stormed the shores of Juno Beach during the D-Day invasion. At 104 years of age, he can still recount that day in great detail.
I extend my deepest gratitude to Zach and John. Through their incredible service and sacrifice, they have helped preserve the values and freedoms that define our great Canadian way of life. They are true heroes. We are forever indebted to them. I thank them for their service.
Retirement Congratulations
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute today to an exceptional citizen of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne and someone I am proud to call a friend.
Dan Lamoureux first joined Riverside School Board 26 years ago, serving as chair of its council of commissioners for the last decade. During his tenure, he was instrumental in making Riverside one of the highest-performing school boards in Quebec, with a graduation rate of 88.5%.
Dan was previously president of the Quebec English School Boards Association, where he played a key role in ensuring the survival of Quebec’s English-language school boards. Demonstrating a lifetime of service, Dan was a firefighter for the City of Westmount, a frequent volunteer in Greenfield Park and a strong advocate for the English language community in Quebec, serving as president of the QCGN.
As Dan begins a well-deserved retirement, I am sure he is looking forward to spending more time with his sons and grandsons, as well as his wife, Joanne; I am sure she already has a list of projects for him to do.
I am sorry I cannot be at Dan's retirement party this evening, but I wanted to recognize his incredible contributions and wish him all the best.
Académie Ste-Thérèse Student Council
Mr. Speaker, today we are pleased to welcome 40 elected student council members from Académie Ste-Thérèse, a high school in my riding.
This is the student council's 13th year, and its members, who are with us today, actively encourage young people to take part in democratic life by generating debate on social and political issues and by coming up with projects and activities by and for students. I appreciate their engagement, and I also appreciate the teachers and administrators who support this undertaking.
I have a little advice for these young parliamentarians: parliamentary work is not always easy, but it is essential and so very stimulating. It is a privilege to serve the people who elect us, and it is a tremendous privilege to welcome these young parliamentarians. I wish them all the best for their term in office.
[English]
National Seniors Day
Mr. Speaker, October 1 is recognized as Seniors Day in Canada and all around the world. Today, we celebrate seniors across our country and acknowledge the significant contributions they have made to our families, our communities and society at large. From fighting for our freedoms to building the railroad, highways, schools and hospitals, as well as creating vibrant community centres and gathering places, seniors have helped build the great country Canada is today.
This National Seniors Day, I would especially like to acknowledge the formation of the Canadian Senior Living Association. The CSLA is a group of provincial associations across the country that advocate for seniors on a national scale to address their issues. I say congratulations to the Canadian Senior Living Association on its launch and happy National Seniors Day to our seniors. I thank them for all they have done and continue to do.
Hugh Michael Greene
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Hugh Michael Greene. Hugh immigrated to Alberta with his family in 1928. A centenarian, he was 101 years old at the time of his passing.
A living definition of a gentleman, Hugh loved his family, community and country, and he brought honour to all his deeds.
After graduating from Wetaskiwin high school, he joined the RCAF, where he served in England and Germany until 1946.
When he returned home from the air force, he married the love of his life, Doris. They called Ponoka their home for more than 65 years. Together they raised five children; they had five grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. I am so glad that Hugh and Doris were recently able to celebrate their 75th wedding anniversary.
He is remembered in the Ponoka community as one of the last veterans of the Second World War. He was the embodiment of Canada's greatest generation. Royal Canadian Legion branches across our country recently put their flags at half-mast to honour Hugh, who once served as the Legion's Dominion president.
On behalf of a grateful community and nation, I thank Hugh for a life well lived. May my friend rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, it was an immense honour to spend time with two extraordinary Canadian Forces veterans and present them with the King Charles III Coronation Medal. They played invaluable roles in the D-Day efforts.
Zach Bourque, a 101-year-old Royal Canadian Air Force veteran from Kamloops, served with unwavering dedication as a supply technician, defending Britain's coast during those critical moments. His courage and commitment during D-Day are nothing short of inspiring.
I had the profound privilege of awarding the same medal to 104-year-old John Kuharski, a veteran who bravely stormed the shores of Juno Beach during the D-Day invasion. He can still recount those details with tremendous clarity.
I extend my deepest gratitude to Zach and John. Through their incredible service and sacrifice, they have helped preserve the values and freedoms that define our great nation. We are indebted to them. I thank them for their service.
Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, today we reflect on the significance of both Truth and Reconciliation Day and Seniors Day, honouring the profound history and contributions that have shaped our Canadian identity.
Yesterday, we reflected on the resilience and the contributions of the first nations, Inuit and Métis people and organizations in Richmond Hill, such as Odeiwin. I speak with sincere gratitude for its important work as an indigenous-led not-for-profit that provides vital employment and education programs across York Region.
As we celebrate National Seniors Day today, I recognize leaders, including the Mon Sheong Foundation and the Caribbean North Charities Foundation. They are crucial in helping seniors in my riding age well at home, stay informed and connected, and live with dignity and security.
In recognizing both days, we embrace the lessons of our past while fostering compassion and unity in the present.
[Translation]
Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Vaudreuil-Soulanges
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Vaudreuil-Soulanges chamber of commerce and industry, the CCIVS, as it celebrates its 30th anniversary.
For three decades, this vital organization has been an important resource for our business community. It helps foster economic growth, innovation and collaboration in our region. From connecting entrepreneurs to stimulating local development, the CCIVS has been instrumental in transforming the economic landscape of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. Its dedication and hard work have created many opportunities that have allowed our small businesses to grow.
As we celebrate this milestone, I would like to recognize the exceptional leadership of the CCIVS's staff, members and partners. May the coming years bring them prosperity and success.
[English]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up.
Today is Seniors Day, and it is an honour to serve as the shadow minister for seniors. Seniors have dedicated their lives to the prosperity of our country. They have made incredible sacrifices in order to provide for their families and plan for the future.
Seniors should be able to retire on their savings and enjoy their golden years in peace and financial security. Seniors' retirement income is simply not keeping up with the pace of the cost-of-living crisis. The continuous increase of the carbon tax affects the price of groceries, gas and home heating. This is the reckless record of the NDP-Liberal government on seniors.
The Conservatives will promote financial securities and create policies that do not penalize seniors and that encourage meaningful connections for our valued seniors. It is time for a carbon tax election, so Canadians can decide.
National Seniors Day
Mr. Speaker. today is National Seniors Day. Seniors, older Canadians and elders have lived and contributed to our country for 50, 60 or even 100 years. Yesterday, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I saw the great respect indigenous communities accord their elders, one of many indigenous practices that would lead to the betterment of our society.
I would like to recognize some of our local organizations that support seniors: CHATS; Crescent Village; Richmond Hill and Elgin West Seniors club; Aurora Seniors; Italian, Tamil and Indian seniors clubs; Mon Sheong; and Seniors for Climate Change, who are demonstrating right now.
Our government's support for seniors is solid and enduring: OAS, GIS, dental care, pharmacare, the caregiver credit, aging in place. We will never put a singular ideological focus on a balanced budget ahead of support for older Canadians, who have not only helped build Canada, but can continue to make Canada the best country on earth. To my 89-year-old parents and all seniors across Canada, I thank them and wish them a happy Seniors Day.
[Translation]
Bloc Québécois
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, along with thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers, have lost confidence in this Prime Minister and are afraid of what an opportunistic Bloc may do. The NDP kept this government on life support for months, and now the Bloc Québécois is the one flip-flopping, hypocritically trying to blackmail the government until October 29.
In its eagerness to save this costly, centralizing Prime Minister, the Bloc Québécois is showing no concern whatsoever for the fate of Quebeckers. It is keeping him in power even though he is constantly encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.
The Liberals will callously put 1,400 jobs at risk with the Liberal boreal caribou order. The Bloc Québécois failed to negotiate the revocation of the order. The only party working to save the forestry sector is us, the Conservative Party.
As the worst negotiator in history and the worst party for the Quebec nation, the Bloc Québécois is ready to sell its soul instead of giving Canadians the country they deserve. Will the Bloc Québécois vote to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime?
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. Canadians are finding the dream of Canada shattered. A country where we could once find a good job, buy a home in a safe neighbourhood, afford groceries, access reliable health care and pay fair taxes is slipping away.
The Liberal-NDP government's reckless spending and socialist agenda have committed economic vandalism. GDP per capita is down. Unemployment rates, especially for our youth, are up. Household debt is up and taxes are up, all this when Canada, under the Liberals, starts at third base and they act like they are hitting a triple. We are rich in talent. We have the talent and the resources, and we should be hitting a home run.
Canada is mired in economic vandalism, but common sense will lead us home. We will cap spending, axe taxes, reward work, build homes, uphold families, stop crime, secure borders, rearm our forces, restore our freedom and unite our people. Canada, let us hit a home run and bring it home.
Dental Care
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the transformational impact of the Canadian dental care plan, which has already benefited over 750,000 Canadians, including over 5,000 residents of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, and that number continues to rise.
This initiative has made essential dental services accessible, reducing the financial burden on families and promoting better oral health.
[Translation]
The plan does not just cover urgent dental needs. It also supports preventive care, thereby helping our fellow citizens maintain their smiles for years to come.
Let us continue to support and expand this vital program by strengthening our commitment to the health and well-being of all Canadians.
[English]
Anti-Semitism
Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark one year since the October 7 attacks on Israel. This was the single deadliest day Jewish people have faced since the Holocaust, and it forever changed their world.
On October 7, Hamas terrorists took 251 civilians hostage while killing over 1,200 people, including eight Canadians: Judih Weinstein, Vivian Silver, Ben Mizrachi, Netta Epstein, Shir Georgy, Adi Vital-Kaploun, Alexandre Look, and Tiferet Lapidot. May their memories be a blessing.
In the year since, Jewish Canadians have faced an alarming rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes, with vandalism, bomb threats and open calls for violence against Jews. Jewish Canadians wearing a Magen David or a yarmulke in public or placing a mezuzah outside their homes face harassment and threats to their safety, all with the added stress of ongoing deadly rocket attacks targeting friends and family in Israel.
Jewish Canadians are calling for action. We know all too well the dire consequences of turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism. It is time to work together, to demand the return of all hostages and to chart a path toward a just and lasting negotiated peace for all.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, as coincidence would have it, the Bloc Québécois's opposition day calling for a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319 happens to fall on October 1, the International Day of Older Persons.
The bill aims to restore equality among all seniors and eliminate this gross unfairness. We have to recognize that people on fixed incomes are directly affected by inflation and need an increase in their old age security as of age 65. We must not leave them financially vulnerable, since poverty unfortunately does not wait until people turn 75.
We also need to let seniors keep working if they want to, without being unduly penalized. We need to recognize their diversity, but also think collectively about their place in our society. We owe them our respect. They are the ones who built Quebec.
Let us take a day to consider how much they contribute. We have a duty to treat them with the utmost respect and to ensure that the social safety net is always there to let them to age with dignity.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. The Prime Minister's economic vandalism is making Canadians poorer with every passing year. Per capita GDP is lower than it was nine years ago and shrinking.
Since 2015, Canada has had the worst per capita GDP in the G7. We are down 2%, while the U.S. is up 8%. That is what nine years of capital flight looks like. We have abundant land and resources, and great workers, but Canada no longer has the tools and the technology to compete because of capital flight.
Since 2015, half a trillion dollars has shifted from Canada to the United States, especially in the energy industry. Investments are leaving Canada to create high-paying jobs building mines, factories, pipelines and houses in the United States.
From 2001 to 2014, it was Canada that won the investment tug-of-war with the U.S. That is why we need a Conservative government now to clean up the Liberal government's economic vandalism and make up for nine lost years.
Anti-Semitism
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night is the beginning of the Jewish new year. Normally, this is a festive time, one of joy and celebration. However, this year there is a shadow. The last year has been an annus horribilis for Jews.
Next week is the anniversary of October 7, a day Hamas attacked Israel, slaughtered over 1,200 people and kidnapped hundreds of others. Then a wave of anti-Semitism swept across the world, people here at home telling Jews to go back to Poland, firing shots into our schools, yelling hateful slogans outside our community buildings, setting up encampments on university campuses and attacking our support for Israel.
I pray this new year is a better one. I pray for a world where Israel can defend itself from Iranian and Hezbollah missiles without being condemned, and one where it can live securely in peace with its neighbours. I pray for a Canada where Jewish Canadians can feel safe again, as all governments take real action to confront anti-Semitism.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
New Member
New Member Introduced
Mr. Louis‑Philippe Sauvé, member for the electoral district of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, introduced by Mr. Yves‑François Blanchet.
I invite the hon. member to take his seat.
Colleagues, before we proceed to oral questions, I want to say that, since returning from the summer recess, many questions and comments in the House have gone too far.
[English]
I am going to ask all members to please let the person who is speaking ask the question and let the person who is responding respond, and to slow down their heckling in question period.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the “Liberal Bloc”, which doubled the debt and increased taxes, seniors are having a hard time paying their bills. A record number of them are being forced to go to food banks to put food on the table. They are struggling to pay the rent after the cost of housing doubled. They are seeing that their children and grandchildren are unable to buy a home like before.
Will the government agree to our common-sense plan to fix the budget and axe the tax so that our seniors can pay their bills with dignity?
Mr. Speaker, Canadian seniors remember all too well the Conservative government's policy on seniors. They remember Prime Minister Harper announcing in Davos that the retirement age should be 67.
When it comes to grandchildren, Canadian seniors support our national child care program for their grandchildren. We will work for seniors and their grandchildren.
Forest Industry
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is still picking fights with the Government of Quebec. Instead of standing up for the Quebec nation, he says he is glad an order might be issued against the forestry sector. Quebec's environment minister says the opposite. I would like the Bloc Québécois to be more assertive than it is being right now.
Will the Prime Minister listen to common sense and permanently cancel the order against the forestry sector?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader mentioned picking fights. He is the one who insulted Quebec municipalities by calling them incompetent. Will he apologize for calling Quebec's municipalities and, indirectly, all their employees and the Government of Quebec, incompetent? Let us not forget that, during his term as minister responsible for housing, he built six affordable housing units.
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the famous carbon tax Carney became conflict of interest Carney when the Prime Minister named him to be effectively the phantom finance minister to advise on economic policy while he presides over a massive multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation that sought 10-billion Canadian tax dollars to take over our pension system.
He got a $2-billion loan for a friend, and now we have learned that the economic task force he heads up has only one person. Is he not a walking, talking conflict of interest?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are glad to get economic advice from smart former Canadian central bankers like Mark Carney and like Steve Poloz, who is doing some great work advising us on how to encourage Canadian pension funds to invest more in Canada.
Meanwhile, on that side of the House, they get their foreign policy advice from Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson. They should be ashamed of themselves. The people of Ukraine certainly know what is going on.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, today the very courageous and common-sense Premier of New Brunswick launched a renewed lawsuit against the quadrupling carbon tax. He is pointing out that the carbon tax would force the layoff of nurses, doctors and teachers because of the extra costs it would impose for operating schools and hospitals.
Instead of requiring courts to decide on the quadrupling carbon tax, why will the Prime Minister not let the people decide in a carbon tax election?
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the Leader of the Opposition gave me an opportunity to talk about the price on pollution.
We made a great announcement just a few minutes ago, and that is that small businesses in the province of New Brunswick, which he was talking about, that have one to 499 employees are going to get rebates of $43,413. In the province of Ontario, which we both represent, a business of one to 499 employees can get a rebate of nearly $300,000. They are going to get that money directly in their bank accounts by the end of the year.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago today, Tehran-backed terrorists unleashed the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Ever since, they have continued to push this genocidal aim. Today, hundreds of rockets came from Tehran towards Israel, forcing millions into shelter. Two terrorist attacks were carried out.
The Prime Minister has talked out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one group, and the opposite to another. Will the Prime Minister state clearly that Israel has the right to defend itself by defeating Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRGC and all the other terrorists?
Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the attacks by Iran against Israel today, and of course we condemn them unequivocally.
These attacks from Iran will only serve to further escalate the situation in the region. That is why I have been in contact with my Israeli counterpart this morning. I have been in contact with many G7 foreign ministers, as well as Arab countries' foreign ministers.
This is a very dangerous time for the Middle East, and we need to make sure that this war stops.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals do not want an election, they need to support seniors fairly. That is why seniors' groups are here on the Hill today. FADOQ is here with its Mauricie branch, as well as the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, or AQRP, the Outaouais branch of AREQ and the Table de concertation régionale des aîné-e-s des Laurentides. They are here to make sure the federal government puts an end to the two classes of seniors. They are here to demand a 10% increase in old age security for seniors aged 74 and under.
Will the government finally listen to them?
Mr. Speaker, we are a little incredulous at everything the Bloc Québécois is saying, when we know what it voted against. It voted against dental care, which is currently saving hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians hundreds of dollars. We are incredulous at the fact that the Bloc Québécois voted against enhancing and increasing the guaranteed income supplement, which helps the poorest seniors. Yes, we are incredulous at the hypocrisy of a Bloc Québécois that voted against seniors.
Mr. Speaker, today is National Seniors Day. Let us just say that it is not the best day to avoid answering questions about old age security, especially when seniors' representatives are watching us. We will give the Liberals another chance. Time is of the essence. They have until October 29 to stop depriving seniors 74 and under of a 10% OAS increase. It seems to me that National Seniors Day would be a heck of a good day for the Liberals to finally be able to say yes to seniors.
Will they grant a royal recommendation for Bill C‑319, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I want to wish a happy National Seniors Day to everyone, including the people from the Outaouais branch of AREQ who are here, according to the member for La Prairie. The member for La Prairie rises every day, but he seems to forget that when we voted to lower the retirement age to 65, he voted against that. He wanted to keep the retirement age—
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, it is another injustice and another day in court for the Liberals. Two Ontario first nations are suing the government for its discriminatory underfunding of fire services in their communities. With climate change and aging infrastructure, first nations are at a higher risk.
Instead of wasting more time in court, will the Liberals stop their discrimination against first nations, truly commit to reconciliation and deliver the funding needed to save lives?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is right. We all have to do more to protect the lives of indigenous people, in particular first nations children who are many times more likely to die in a house fire than their non-indigenous counterparts. That is why we have invested over $136 million for first nations' self-determined projects to reduce the risks of fire, including making homes safer and ensuring equipment is available and working.
Mr. Speaker, indigenous people have a right to culturally informed community health care when they need it. Due to failed health care policies under the Liberal and Conservative governments, nearly 10 years since the release of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, health care gaps for indigenous people have widened.
Why will the Prime Minister not listen to indigenous experts and leadership to design a health care system that ensures access to this basic human right?
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the government has done with the renewed health transfers, separate money and $2 billion dedicated to first nations leaders who are working on health transformation and self-determined health care services across this country. On top of that, there is another 10 years of funding for the First Nations Health Authority to continue to plan and deliver health services for first nations people in B.C. We will get this work done together.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote one of the world's most credible news organizations on financial and economic matters. A headline from the Financial Times of London on May 10, 2024, reads: “'Breakdown nations' like Canada have a lesson for the world: Canada leads nations which have suffered a sharp decline in per-capita GDP”.
I have a simple question: Does the government agree that Canada leads nations that have suffered a sharp decline in per capita GDP?
Mr. Speaker, what the government agrees with is that Canada was the first G7 country to lower interest rates for the first time. Canada was the first G7 country to lower interest rates for a second time, and Canada was the first G7 country to lower interest rates for a third time. The government also knows that wages in Canada have outpaced inflation for 19 months in a row. Meanwhile, inflation, which was 2% in August, has been within the Bank of Canada's target range.
Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has become the first central bank to cut rates because Canada has become the first leading economy to go through an economic contraction. Again, the Financial Times, for which the finance minister once worked, said, “Canada’s GDP per capita has been [shrinking] 0.4 per cent a year since 2020, the worst rate” for any developed economy in the top 50.
Does the government agree that Canada's per capita GDP is shrinking at the worst rate of any of the top 50 economies?
Mr. Speaker, our government knows that what matters to Canadians is inflation. That is why it is so important that inflation was 2% in August and that it has been within the Bank of Canada's target range all of this year. It is because of that progress that interest rates in Canada have come down three times.
That is real relief to homeowners. That is real relief to businesses. That is real relief to anyone who wants to buy a home. All the Conservatives know how to do is talk Canada down.
Mr. Speaker, the government loves to tout its economic record, but the results are simply underwhelming. Canada has the worst housing inflation among its peers and the worst performance in per capita income among the G7. The gross fixed capital formation has not increased in a decade, and R and D spending as a per cent of GDP is at its lowest point in 20 years. It is no wonder young Canadians and businesses are packing up in search of better economic opportunities and higher standards of living.
When will the government admit that its economic policies are putting the future of Canada at risk?
Mr. Speaker, what I find so interesting about these Conservatives is that the only thing they know how to do is talk Canada down. A couple of months ago, the only thing they wanted to talk about was inflation, but we have good news on inflation, and with that good news on inflation comes good news on interest rates.
On this side of the House, we celebrate good news for Canada and Canadians. On that side of the House, all they want to do is break things and cut.
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the minister is not persuaded by my comments, but perhaps she might listen to economist Trevor Tombe, who wrote, “If Canada had simply kept pace with the U.S. over the past two years, our economy would be 8.5 percent larger.” That is $6,200 per person richer we would be. Trevor Tombe says that this is an incentive for Canadians and businesses to move south of the border in search of greater economic opportunities and higher standards of living.
When the Deputy Prime Minister says that her economic plan is working, is this what she means?
Mr. Speaker, we did even better than that. We have attracted $60 billion of investment in this country. Even Bloomberg put Canada ahead of China for the battery ecosystem.
We have the talent. We have the ecosystem. We have the critical minerals. We have the renewable energy. We have access to the market. Let us talk about possibilities. Let us talk about opportunities. Let us talk about Canada in the 21st century.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Colleagues, as we know, question period is of a limited time, which I have been reminded of many times. I have allowed this to go on, but if we have to interrupt all the time, we might get to the point where we need to end a question due to a little heckling. Therefore, I will ask hon. members to please not do so.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that the economic vandalism committed by this Liberal government, with the backing of the Bloc Québécois, stopped.
Under this Prime Minister, Canada has experienced the worst growth in income per capita, or GDP, of any prime minister since 1930. In fact, Canada's growth in real income per capita has been the worst in the G7 since 2015: minus 2% in Canada, plus 8% in the United States. That means a lower standard of living for all Canadians, including seniors who no longer have enough money to pay their rent or bills.
When will this “Liberal Bloc” give a thought to seniors and end its economic vandalism?
Mr. Speaker, I have noticed something very interesting about the Conservatives. A few months ago, the only economy-related word that the Conservatives knew was the word “inflation”.
Today, however, we have good news about inflation. In August, inflation was 2%. All year long, inflation has stayed within the Bank of Canada's target range. This is good news for Canada and for Canadians, but all the Conservatives want is bad news.
Okay, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about that. Seniors, Canadians and Quebeckers are no longer able to put food on the table. Why? The cost of food has gone up, the cost of rent has gone up, and everything has gone up because of this government's inflationary policies, which the Bloc Québécois supports.
Seniors built Canada. In their Canada, hard work was rewarded.
Why would the “Liberal Bloc” want to keep sabotaging seniors' retirement by raising their taxes over and over?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
I encourage the hon. member for La Prairie not to speak before he is recognized.
The hon. Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
Mr. Speaker, we do indeed respect seniors. That is why we have always been there for them. However, seniors understand that we need to invest in the future as well. Canadians understand that.
That is why we have been able to attract generational investments to Quebec. Take, for example, Moderna, which set up shop in Laval. Ford and GM are in Bécancour.
We brought Quebec into the 21st-century automotive industry. We need to thank our workers and the people who built this country. They can count on us to set Canada up to thrive in the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is making October 29 its ultimatum on behalf of seniors.
Their representatives are in Ottawa today to support our efforts. The FADOQ is here, and so is its Mauricie association. The Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, is here. The Association québécoise des retraités des secteurs public et parapublic, or AQRP, is here. The Académie des retraités de l'Outaouais is here. The Table de concertation régionale des aînés des Laurentides is here.
They are all here to end discrimination against seniors and to call for a 10% increase in old age security for seniors aged 74 and under. They expect a clear answer.
Will the government give a royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about the Bloc Québécois's hypocrisy. The member for Shefford should know that in the province of Quebec, 13,300 people are eligible for the dental care program. They are saving hundreds and hundreds of dollars.
The member voted against dental care for vulnerable seniors in Quebec. Shame on her.
Mr. Speaker, if what the minister is saying were enough, FADOQ, AQRP, AQDR and many other groups would not be in Ottawa today. However, they are here to demand a 10% increase in OAS for seniors under the age of 74.
All seniors deserve the same support when they are facing the same rising cost of living. Everyone understands that. They certainly do not deserve to be divided into two classes of citizens. It is time the Liberals put an end to their age-based discrimination.
Will they grant royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?
Mr. Speaker, no party in the House has done as much for seniors in Canada and Quebec as the Liberal Party of Canada, despite the push back from the opposition—the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois. What did they vote against? They voted against the dental care program, the GIS and additional housing for vulnerable seniors.
The Bloc Québécois voted against all that. Now, what are they accusing us of? The Bloc Québécois should apologize.
Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of Older Persons, the Bloc Québécois would also like to highlight the work of community organizations that support retirees.
It is inexcusable that they are being denied funding from the age well at home program. It is inexcusable that the government is starving our organizations and depriving Quebec seniors of the money and services that are rightfully theirs. It is inexcusable that the feds are bickering over jurisdictions with Quebec at the expense of seniors.
Will the feds finally transfer to Quebec its share of the funding and stop holding seniors hostage?
Mr. Speaker, we are particularly proud of the age well at home pilot project. It is a government priority for seniors to stay at home and live independently.
We have transferred the funds to all provinces and sent Quebec 60% of its funding. There are a few projects left. The Quebec government just needs to check a box and it is ready to go. Organizations such as the volunteer centres and Montreal's Chic Resto Pop will get their money.
[English]
Government Accountability
Mr. Speaker, in the latest conflict of interest from a government of serial ethical lawbreakers, the Prime Minister wants his buddy Mark “carbon tax” Carney's company to be in charge of $10 billion of Canadians' pension dollars. He does not want him to be subjected to any of the conflict of interest rules: all the power, all the money, but none of the accountability.
After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up for carbon tax Carney and the Prime Minister. Why do they not just call a carbon tax election?
Mr. Speaker, it is another week and another tired line from the Conservatives.
When it comes to Canadians who disagree with their vision of the country, instead of allowing for that disagreement to happen, the Conservatives attack them personally and try to bring them down. We have seen this time and time again from Conservatives, whether it is the news media like CBC or CTV or whether it is eminent Canadians who give of themselves.
The Conservatives only have one objective, and that is to tear down Canadians who do not share their beliefs.
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the member wants to deflect from the Prime Minister, who was twice found guilty of breaking ethics laws himself, and that is why he is trying to protect his buddy, carbon tax Carney, from the ethical rules that would, of course, call into question this $10 billion of Canadians' pensions that they want to let him get his hands on, in exchange for what? It is for advice that he is going to give them from Bay Street that everyone on Main Street can just eat cake when they cannot afford any more of his rising carbon tax.
It has been nine years of the failed NDP-Liberal policies. Canadians are out of money and they are out of time. When can we have an election?
Before the hon. House leader gives her answer, I did hear a comment out of turn. I think it was from a minister, though I could not figure out who it was. I will ask members again to please not take the floor unless recognized by the Chair.
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, again what we see from the Conservative members of Parliament is that they just cannot handle being criticized.
It is the same way Conservatives treat the media. When the media asks them tough questions about what they are putting forward in terms of their agenda for Canadians, what do they do? They attack them. This is what they do with the media. This is what they do with eminent Canadians. This is what they do with any Canadian who does not share their vision for Canada.
We should be talking up Canada and talking up Canadians instead of talking them down, like the Conservatives do.
Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals announced that Mark Carney, the chair of Brookfield, a trillion-dollar corporation whose interests span the entire federal government, would be setting Canada's economic policy. Then news broke that Brookfield had been lobbying for a federally funded, multi-billion dollar investment fund that it would manage. Then, over this past weekend, Mark Carney sent out a fundraising email blast via the Liberal Party's donation list. That is interesting.
Did the Liberals or Brookfield clear any of this with the lobbying commissioner?
Again, Mr. Speaker, what we see from the Conservatives is when Canadians do not share their vision of Canada, they talk them down. They try—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I am going to ask members again to please not take the floor until they are recognized by the Chair.
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons from the top.
Mr. Speaker, it is okay, I understand this response makes them uncomfortable because they know it is true.
When it comes to Canadians who do not share their vision of Canada, what do Conservative members of Parliament do? They talk them down. They try to bring them down. They do not like having people push against their agenda. They do not like it when they are asked tough questions. When intelligent people do not share their vision of Canada, they try to take them down instead of having that debate.
Mr. Speaker, Grifols, a big pharma company, recently gained approval from Canadian Blood Services, which is regulated by the Liberal government, to acquire Canadian plasma resources, a critical source of blood products for Canadians, but this summer, reports said that under this contract, Canadian blood plasma products could be sold abroad for profit by Grifols, something that could jeopardize supply in Canada. Guess which company has been in takeover talks with Grifols this whole time? It is Brookfield.
Is that why the Liberals did not clear Carney with the lobbying commissioner?
Mr. Speaker, Canada is known everywhere in the world as being absolutely one of the best jurisdictions to manage blood supply, and that is something that we are absolutely committed to continuing. I think that casting aspersions and trying to manufacture things is something we are used to from the other side, but that reputation that we have won, hard-earned, to make sure that when Canadians need blood it is there for them and it is there for them safely, is something that we are going to continue, unabated, to be committed to.
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets has been keeping his voice down, but it has been regular, so I am just going to ask him to please not do that.
The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has the floor.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, residential school survivors and their families deserve answers. We know that truth comes before healing. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on all levels of government and churches to hand over all records, but survivors still face barriers, missing records, delays and disappointments. Why is this government failing to give survivors and their families access to the truth?
Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to acknowledge the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and the many commemorations that took place across this country.
Since 2015, when the truth and reconciliation report's calls for action came to the government, we have been working toward enacting all 94 calls for action. We will continue to work with survivors in order to ensure that there is truth, justice and accountability.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis in Edmonton rages on, and indigenous people are disproportionately impacted. The latest reports show that Edmonton's homeless population has jumped by 1,300 people since the start of the year. To make matters worse, last winter's amputations due to frostbite skyrocketed by 162%. With colder temperatures approaching, people are going to lose limbs or die.
Will the Liberals continue to stand by and watch alongside Danielle Smith, or will they finally build the homes people in Edmonton desperately need?
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of nothing happening under the previous Conservative government, we launched the national housing strategy, and we have been working with communities, with first nations leaders and with indigenous organizations to ensure that people have access to the kinds of housing they need.
We are not going to stop until every person in this country knows that there is someplace they can turn to as winter approaches.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, September 30 marks one of the most important days on the Canadian calendar. For generations, indigenous peoples had to conceal their cultures, languages and true identities. The results, both past and present, led to the devastating consequences faced by families and communities and gave way to intergenerational trauma, the impacts of which are still found immensely in our country today. Yesterday, communities across Canada came together to honour survivors and their relatives and to commit to doing our part on this journey toward truth and reconciliation.
I ask the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to share his reflections with the House on the importance of this day and the work ahead.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the work of my friend from Winnipeg.
Yesterday was the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and over the last several days I have had the opportunity to listen to many survivors who spoke about the enormous loss that they feel. I also have had the chance to speak to many who have been working toward advocating and toward finding truth for the loved ones who never came home.
This afternoon we raised the survivors' flag right here on the Hill, and I ask all Canadians to reflect on this day and to ensure that they do their part toward reconciliation.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Liberal-NDP costly coalition, grocery prices are up 27%, gas prices are up 40% and now new data from Equifax shows that credit card debt is up too. The average Canadian now has $4,300 on their credit card, the highest on record since the last recession.
Why are these Liberals using their carbon tax to inflate the price of everything, punishing families and forcing them to take on more debt just to get by?
Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to have the chance to talk about our carbon rebates and our policies on credit cards because today we announced that later this month, thanks to the government's negotiations with credit card companies, the fees that small businesses have to pay are going down. That is good news for small businesses across the country.
What else is good news? Small business owners are going to get big carbon rebates. That member of Parliament, like me, is an Ontario MP. An Ontario business owner with 10 employees is going to be getting 4,000—
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister might be the only person left in the world who thinks paying more tax makes a person richer and somehow stops climate change. The carbon tax is not about the environment, and it is certainly not about affordability. It is about getting more money for her spending addiction. Even Catherine McKenna admits that the Liberals' plan was always to spend Canadians' money.
It is clear that the Liberals have run out of money. They are going to raise the tax, over and over again, to 61¢ a litre as two million people use a food bank. How many more people will face poverty before the Liberals reverse course?
Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives a number: 69 million cars in avoided pollution. That is our number on this side of the House. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would do nothing to fight climate change, pollution would be even worse and emissions would be 41% higher than with what we have been doing. We are working to fight climate change. We are working to support Canadians to create the economy of the 21st century. The Conservatives have nothing to offer.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberals are desperately trying to convince Canadians they are better off paying a higher and higher carbon tax. However, the truth hurts. It appears that food inflation is not a global issue; it is an NDP-Liberal issue. According to the “Food Professor”, because of the carbon tax, wholesale food prices in Canada are up 34% in every single category and are 37% higher than they are in the United States.
Will the Prime Minister just admit he was wrong about his carbon tax and call a carbon tax election?
Mr. Speaker, it seems Conservatives are now starting to listen to economists, and they quoted Trevor Tombe. Let us hear what Trevor Tombe has to say about carbon pricing and the price of food: “While concern around affordability is clearly warranted, climate policies are not a significant driver of the rising cost of living. Nor will removing policies such as carbon pricing materially improve the situation.”
Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberals just cannot handle the truth. The truth is that Canadians are being forced to food banks in record numbers. Even the Liberal member for Winnipeg North said that when we attribute the increase in food prices of 34% to the carbon tax, that is absurd.
Data from the “Food Professor” show that the Liberals are wrong. What is absurd is increasing the carbon tax when nine million Canadians do not know where their next meal is coming from. Will the Prime Minister admit their tax plan is the carbon tax and call a carbon tax election, so Canadians can put food on the table?
Mr. Speaker, being a farmer myself, I know what it is like for farmers to be on the front line of climate change. Our farmers face devastating storms like hurricane Fiona, which tore down barns and killed cattle. We have floods and fires right across the country. This is one of the reasons food prices are so high.
The government put a price on pollution that works. Also, in my hon. colleague's riding, the average farmer would receive $1,800 a year as a carbon rebate. I know the Conservative Party of Canada—
The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member for Foothills, who has just had two questions, can have more questions if they could work that out with their leadership, but not at this time. I will be happy to recognize the hon. member for Foothills when he stands up on his feet when it is time for the people from his political formation to get a question.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is affecting all seniors. There are not two grocery bills, one for those 65 to 74 and one for older seniors. There are no age-based discounts for housing, clothing or medication. However, people aged 65 to 74 receive 10% less OAS. Everyone understands that this is unfair.
Will the Liberals put an end to this injustice, or are we all going to head on out in our campaign buses?
Mr. Speaker, when the member for Thérèse-De Blainville had the chance to help vulnerable seniors, including 7,300 in her own riding, save hundreds of dollars, she voted against it. That is hypocrisy. Now she wants to lecture us on her opportunistic policies.
We are there for seniors. The Liberal Party of Canada supports seniors. It is the Bloc Québécois that—
Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak, I would like to thank the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for placing their trust in me. I will do everything I can to be worthy of it.
Today, I am proud to back the Bloc Québécois's ultimatum on behalf of seniors. The Liberals have two options: they can increase old age security for those aged 74 and under, or they can call an election right now. I would remind them that it did not go so well for them last time.
Will the government choose seniors or will it choose its demise?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order.
For the second time today, I will ask the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier not to speak while a member is speaking.
The hon. Minister of Labour and Seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I can assure him that I heard him loud and clear, despite the fact that he will be excluded from a position of power until the end of his days in this House.
Over the next five years, our government will spend more on old age security to protect the incomes of retirees than any previous government. For my colleague's information, that is $71 billion more in seniors' pockets thanks to the Liberal Party of Canada.
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. The government is forcing families to pay more for gas, groceries and home heating at a time when they can least afford it. Now the Province of New Brunswick is taking the Liberals to court to hold them accountable for the money their carbon tax is making off the backs of everyday Canadians.
Will the government listen to Canadians and scrap its carbon tax, or will it finally let Canadians choose in a carbon tax election?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite can remind some of the members of his own bench that they asked Premier Higgs to go with the federal system because people get more money back, and that is exactly what the premier did. The Premier of New Brunswick decided to go with the federal system because more people in New Brunswick get more money back than what they pay in carbon pricing.
Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals would rather talk about anything else than the fact that their 61¢ per litre carbon tax would mean Canadians would have among the highest fuel prices in the world. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the Liberals' carbon tax costs Canadians more than they get back. Canadians have no confidence in the Prime Minister or in his costly carbon tax.
When will the Liberal government get out of the way so Conservatives can finally axe the tax?
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the vast majority of Canadian families get more money back than they pay. That has been validated by 300 economists, very much including Trevor Tombe, who Conservatives like to quote these days as an economist of record.
Not having a climate plan or an economic plan for the future would have dire implications for the people who live in Atlantic Canada. These folks, the Conservatives, oppose the Atlantic accord and the work being done to launch an offshore wind industry and a hydrogen industry to ensure we are creating good jobs and economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada. They have no plan for the climate. They have no plan for the economy.
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of NDP-Liberals, tax is up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up for this costly coalition's carbon tax scam. Nine premiers are now against the Liberal carbon tax. Today in New Brunswick, Premier Blaine Higgs is challenging this scam in court. Provinces do not get a rebate for heating schools and fuelling ambulances. Carbon taxes are not revenue-neutral when provinces and municipalities end up paying more for essential services.
Will the Green-Liberal-NDP coalition axe the tax, or keep making health care and education more expensive?
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec and across Canada, we are dealing with a housing crisis that is having an impact on people's lives. We need to build more housing more quickly to help Quebeckers and Canadians access affordable housing that meets their needs.
Can the Minister of Public Services and Procurement explain to the people of my riding, Lac-Saint-Louis, what our government is doing to create more affordable housing across the country?
Mr. Speaker, you know that the Conservative leader built six affordable housing units during his entire tenure as minister responsible for housing. What is more, we searched for them all summer and could not find them. Then he added another layer, saying that building affordable housing, including for seniors, on federal property is a form of communism. The good news is that we are going to build 250,000 housing units on federal land over the next few years.
Forestry Industry
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment's emergency order is an attack on forestry workers in some 30 communities. It will be a disaster. It will kill at least 1,400 jobs, destroy lives and devastate the economy of Quebec's regions.
The Bloc Québécois voted once again to keep this government in power. This illustrates how out of touch they are with the realities of our regions.
Is the “Liberal Bloc” aware of just how disastrous the order will be for Quebec communities?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that we have come to the table with half a billion dollars in potential investments in Quebec, in the regions, in the forestry sector, for forestry workers and for indigenous communities. We are just waiting for the Quebec government to come to the table with us to talk. We want to find a solution. The Conservatives have nothing to offer, whether for the environment, the economy or jobs.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's environment minister is in Ottawa today. Like all Canadians, he is completely at a loss to explain the reason for imposing an order in council that will throw our workers out on the street. Like the Conservatives, he is calling on the government to immediately withdraw this threat and leave Quebec's jurisdictions to Quebec. On this issue, the Bloc Québécois, which claims to be the defender of Quebec's jurisdictions, is missing in action.
Will the government finally accept, once and for all, that the order in council is a disaster in the making?
Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleague, once again, that at the end of 2022, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a joint letter stating that Quebec would submit a caribou recovery plan by June 2023. Here it is October 1, 2024, and we are still waiting for that plan. All we are asking is for Quebec live up to its commitments. We are ready to work with Quebec on finding solutions.
Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister, the leader of the Bloc Québécois likes to entertain us with imaginary tales to try to justify his relevance. For example, on X, he is always selling himself as a hero, the one who put a stop to the order in council that would jeopardize the forestry industry, including in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, the North Shore and Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
The reality, however, which we found out from the Quebec environment minister this morning, is that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Environment and Climate Change want to shut down the industry. They have no other option. The Bloc Québécois is not much help.
Once again, will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change put an end to his radical order in council once and for all?
Mr. Speaker, experts, environmentalists, forestry workers and first nations all agree that the future of forestry in Quebec and elsewhere in the country depends on the health of the forest and on the health of the caribou. We cannot have one without the other. The only people who do not understand that here are the members of the Conservative Party of Canada.
[English]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, today is National Seniors Day, a day to celebrate and thank seniors across the country. Our government knows the importance of promoting the health and well-being of seniors. That is why we make investments toward programs and services for them.
Can the Minister of Health update Canadians on what we are doing to protect and support the health of seniors across this country?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for St. John's East for her tireless advocacy in championing the health of seniors in this country.
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the 13 agreements signed in every jurisdiction in the country on aging with dignity, helping seniors to age at home and improving our long-term care facilities. Critically, those agreements include, for the first time, common indicators so we can see progress in data and see how provinces are doing. Obviously, there is work to ensure that hundreds of thousands of seniors get dental care, as well as what we are doing with pharmacare.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council has declared a state of emergency in every single one of its 14 nations' territories. The lack of mental health support, treatment, recovery and harm reduction services is causing irreparable harm. The Liberal government has failed to deliver the urgently needed supports, and young and older people are paying the price. Indigenous people continue to die at a higher rate than non-indigenous people. This is not reconciliation. Action is needed now.
When will the Liberals stop with the empty words and deliver the urgent funding that the Nuu-chah-nulth people need to save lives?
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the path that our government has been on, working hand in hand with first nations and indigenous leaders to ensure that programs and services delivered by first nations and indigenous people are available to their members so that people can heal from the trauma of colonization, something that just yesterday our government stood up with many survivors across the country to acknowledge. This has deep impacts on communities, and we will continue this hard work together.
Mr. Speaker, Liberals spent yesterday professing support for first nations, the same first nations that the government is currently fighting in court over something as basic as clean drinking water. Canada's lawyers are saying,“Canada does not owe any legal obligations or duties to operate [first nations] water systems.” They even say that when ministers make promises, it is just context-specific and can be ignored. This is the Liberal approach to reconciliation: promise clean drinking water to first nations and then direct lawyers to fight first nations in court on clean drinking water.
Will the Liberals cut the hypocrisy, stop fighting Shamattawa and other first nations in court and deliver clean drinking water once and for all?
Mr. Speaker, it is really heartening to hear the member of Parliament from the NDP speak so eloquently about the need to move quicker on alleviating long-term boil water advisories across this country. Since we have taken office, we have lifted over 145 long-term boil water advisories and prevented well over 200. We are going to continue that hard work. I assume her comments mean she is going to support this new legislation and ensure it has safe passage through the House.
Mr. Speaker, I had a member's statement under Standing Order 31 today and that statement had to be delivered twice. It was to salute two veterans, one who is 101 and one who is 104, in my riding. Both times, there was quite a bit of noise in the chamber for what I had hoped to be a very solemn salute to these two living veterans who lived through D-Day.
I bring this to the Chair's attention in hopes that, especially when people are giving heartfelt members' statements like this one on our veterans, there is a bit more quiet.
I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. It is an important point on the importance of Standing Order 31.
I know that Statements by Members is usually the time that members are coming from committee and entering the House. I would encourage all members to take their seats quietly so that members can give their declarations appropriately and share these important issues and this important time with their constituents.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government
The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion.
It being 3:21 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Mégantic—L'Érable relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 865)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart (Toronto—St. Paul's)
Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake)
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 121
NAYS
Members
AlghabraAli
Anand
Anandasangaree
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Sauvé
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 207
PAIRED
Nil
I declare the motion defeated.
I wish to inform the House that the volume of earpieces will now be reset. Members using their earpiece at this time will have to adjust the volume.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.
[English]
Points of Order
Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, by the member for Edmonton Griesbach concerning comments made during question period that same Wednesday.
Midway through question period that day, at a point when the Chair was standing and calling the House to order, heckles coming from one side of the House could be heard. The source of the comment was not immediately apparent to the Chair, nor was it to the editors of the Debates, who attributed them to “an hon. member”.
After question period, the member for Edmonton Griesbach rose on a point of order, claiming that the comments were clearly homophobic, and asking the Chair to look into the matter. Several other members referred to this specific situation the following day, on Thursday, September 26, pressing the Chair to rule on it. At some point, accusations were made directly toward the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who was suspected to have said the alleged words.
[Translation]
Just before question period last Thursday, the Chair made a ruling dealing with decorum and unparliamentary language. The Chair will repeat one of the quotations used in that ruling.
As indicated on page 624 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote: “In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.”
The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan rose and admitted to having made the statement in question, but explained the context in which it was made and his intentions in making it. He maintained that his comment was meant to criticize government spending and that no slur was intended.
[English]
Of course, comments that are clearly meant to denigrate someone due to their sexual orientation, or make insinuations about someone's sexual orientation, would not be acceptable in the House. While the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has vigorously denied that this was his intent, and the Chair is prepared to take him at his word, I would invite him to reflect upon how how his comments could have been interpreted and to recognize that they provoked disorder.
The situation underscores certain principles that should govern our actions in the chamber: first, the importance of not shouting out comments across the floor, and second, to avoid jokes that others could interpret as hurtful or offensive. We all have a responsibility to choose our words carefully. It is in this context that I will invite the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to withdraw his remarks and to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
I thank all members for their attention.
Alleged Unparliamentary Language—Speaker's Ruling
I am also now ready to rule on the point of order raised on September 27, 2024, by the member for Edmonton Strathcona concerning an alleged personal insult made by the member for Calgary Heritage during a statement delivered pursuant to Standing Order 31.
In her intervention, the member for Edmonton Strathcona alleged that the member for Calgary Heritage used a personal insult directed at the member for Burnaby South earlier that day in his statement. She noted that the Chair had made a ruling recently about personal insults directed towards other members. She suggested that the member for Calgary Heritage should be asked to withdraw his comment and apologize.
[Translation]
As I indicated in my ruling of September 26, 2024, I remain very concerned about the tendency to use overly personal criticism and insults. I also concluded my ruling, found at page 25926, of the Debates, by inviting, and I quote, “members to be more judicious in their choice of words and behaviour. If they are not, the Chair will have no choice but to discipline those members who persist in their unparliamentary behaviour.”
The Chair has reviewed the statement made by the member for Calgary Heritage and finds certain words indeed constituted a personal attack on the member for Burnaby South.
[English]
The member for Calgary Heritage should have been aware that his words were problematic as I had warned one of his colleagues a few days before during Statements By Members against using the exact same terms. As I have stated before, there are ways to make our point without resorting to personal insults. As a result, the member for Calgary Heritage will not be recognized until such time as he withdraws his offending words.
I thank all members for their attention.
The hon. member for Don Valley West is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to your first ruling, I am not questioning it; however, I do have a question that I would like to raise in the House with respect to it, which is on the application of the sexual harassment policy of the House of Commons with respect to the way members treat each other.
We have all taken extensive training in sexual harassment. One of the key parts is that intent does not play into findings in those proceedings, but it is how someone receives them that matters, even though someone says that they have no intent. Therefore, I would like the Speaker to reflect on that to see whether the workplace sexual harassment policy applies in the chamber or whether it applies just outside the chamber.
It is a genuine question, and you can take time. I do not know the answer to it, but we did sit in many sessions with respect to sexual harassment training. I think the hardest thing for me to get in my head was that I might say something that I do not think causes offence, but if it is heard that way, then I need to own it. I just do not know whether that actually applies in the House or not.
I thank the hon. member for Don Valley West for rising on this important distinction. I want to make sure that the hon. member understands that the sexual harassment policy applies outside the House. It is one where, as quite rightly pointed out, it is not the intent of the comment but of course how it is received that matters. However, again, that applies outside the House.
If members want to have the policy explicitly applied to debates in the House, then I would invite them to raise that through the appropriate channel, namely the procedure and House affairs committee.
The hon. member from Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, flowing from the rulings you just gave, where you indicated that you would not recognize members who refused to withdraw remarks, you ordered the Prime Minister to withdraw his libellous and baseless personal accusations, and he refused to do so. You gave him multiple opportunities. If you check Hansard for that day, you will see that he in fact did not withdraw the term or the phrase that you ordered him to, and he ignored your ruling.
We would expect that the same application would be made on the government as you have just made on the opposition. I hope that you will come back to the House with a ruling on the question, because it is a very similar situation as to what you have just ruled on. I would formally request that you look at Hansard from that day. I am sure you will see that the Prime Minister ignored your direction and did not withdraw his remarks. The same sanction should apply on both sides of the House.
I thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for raising that point of order.
At the time, if I recall, the Chair felt that the comments had been withdrawn, but I will check Hansard and come back to the House if necessary.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same point of order, we have to be somewhat cautious with respect to us being able to review Hansard and then come back citing it. My interpretation of what had taken place that day was very similar to what your interpretation was at the time. At times, it is not just the word that is spoken, but also everything else that goes along with that word. The manner in which it is expressed, for example, should also be taken into consideration. It is more so a cautionary note and we have to be careful, for example, saying, “four weeks ago so-and-so said this and now I am coming back to reflect on that.”
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to follow up on one of the points of orders that was brought up already, in which a member had asked that the Prime Minister retract a statement. If I understand correctly, the Leader of the Opposition was asked to retract a statement and has also not done that yet. I could be mistaken, but if that is the case, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition also retracts the offensive statement that you have asked him to retract.
The Chair has heard many comments on this and I will come back to the House after advisement, if necessary.
I see the hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I am still grappling with your first ruling.
So I can understand the ruling and its application, and the rules in the House and the decorum that is required for the House, when someone makes a comment about the Prime Minister that he should hold hands with another individual of the same gender and go into the bathtub together, it is within order in the House and that we should not take it in any other way? Do I understand this correctly?
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑319
[Business of Supply]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Madam Speaker, today we are discussing a very interesting and very important topic.
We are touching on two important issues. The first is the situation of our seniors. The second is the state of our public finances, especially when the government is dealing with certain constraints that might limit what it can do with the programs it wants to develop.
In all honestly, I do not think we can accuse the Bloc Québécois of being opportunistic about this. We can accuse the Bloc Québécois of a lot of things. As my colleague from Honoré-Mercier often used to say, we can accuse the Bloc Québécois of picking fights, but in this case, we cannot accuse the Bloc Québécois of being opportunistic. It has been calling for this for quite some time now. It has been consistent about these demands. However, and I will come back to this later, I think we can accuse the Bloc Québécois of improvising a bit on this issue.
As for the member for Shefford, in my opinion, she comes across as truly sincere. Seniors are certainly very important to her. She is a strong advocate for them. She stands up not only for seniors in Quebec, but also for those in Canada as a whole. In fact, she is very supportive of seniors from the rest of Canada. We might wonder if that support could one day lead to support for federalism. Who knows? I remain hopeful.
The first thing I want to point out about the Bloc Québécois's position is that the Bloc knows very well that age 75 was not chosen arbitrarily as the threshold for the OAS increase. It was not picked out of a hat. There is a certain logic behind choosing 75 as the age when the OAS is increased.
There are exceptions, but the situation of people 75 and over differs from that of people under 75. For example, the data show that people 75 and older are more likely to outlive their savings, to be unable to work, to be widowed and to have greater health care needs. One telling statistic is that half of seniors over 75 have a serious disability, 57% are women and four in 10 are widowed. In short, the situation of seniors 75 and over is, as a rule, different from that of seniors under 75. We try to be precise when setting a threshold, but it is tough. There are always exceptions.
The retirement age was set at 65 a long time ago. One might even say that it is a bit of an arbitrary number. Why not 63, 62 or 60? It is hard to be absolutely precise about everyone's situation, but decisions still have to be made.
It is also important to note that old age security is not the only program where the amount of benefits changes with age. Take, for example, the Canada child benefit, which decreases at age six. Obviously, the government decided that this benefit would decrease starting at age six, not at age five or seven. Setting a threshold at which a benefit changes is not unprecedented.
Yes, the OAS could be increased for those under 75. Many programs that are very important to the well-being of Canadians could also be enhanced, such as the Canada child benefit, which I mentioned. It is a program to reduce child poverty. In a world with no budget limits, of course we would always want to do more for everyone.
The Canada disability benefit could also be increased. The maximum has not been reached. The government just introduced this new benefit, and we are working with the provinces to ensure that, if it is enhanced, the provinces will not reduce their investments. We have to be fairly strategic with the provinces, but ultimately, the goal is to provide a much more generous benefit. We could achieve this more quickly and aim for an even higher maximum. This is another program that could be improved.
The child care program could also be improved. Why should child care cost $10 instead of $7, $6 or $5?
Federal health transfers could also be increased. The Bloc Québécois always accuses us of underfunding Canada's health care systems. It blames the federal government for not doing enough. However, a study published two or three weeks ago compared the rate of growth in federal health transfers to the rate of growth in provincial health spending, and it found that federal spending was growing faster than provincial spending on health, so I think we are already doing a lot, but obviously in a world with no limits, we could do more.
The other thing to understand is that seniors have always been the government's priority. Our government has done a lot for seniors. We introduced a dental care program that greatly benefits seniors. I regularly receive emails from seniors thanking our government for introducing this program. We are also going to introduce pharmacare, which will also greatly help seniors.
It is about balance within a limited financial framework.
Madam Speaker, never have I heard such a distressing speech about arbitrariness and relativism.
They seem to be trivializing what seniors, the various FADOQ groups and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées have been asking for. He is a member from Quebec, but he does not hear these people. When people have worked hard all their lives, sometimes the aches and pains start to appear between the ages of 65 and 74.
My colleague spoke about health transfers. What was called for was $280 billion over 10 years, not $46 billion in new money over 10 years. Sun Life incurs $2 billion in administrative costs for its dental care program. They cannot say that they do not have any money. The money is there: $83 billion for the oil companies and $34 billion for Trans Mountain. It is all about priorities.
Is the hon. member telling me that, because there may also be an increase elsewhere, it would be too much to invest where people need it? There could be savings in the health care system, because these people would not be as sick.
Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that there are budget constraints. Members often talk about Canada's deficit. In my opinion, it is a reasonable deficit because it pays for various programs to provide support to many people.
However, according to the Bank of Canada, if the deficit were to increase any further, it could throw fuel on the inflationary fire. Members should ask themselves whether inflation would serve the interests of seniors on fixed incomes.
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis praised the Bloc Québécois members, to my great surprise. He is on a charm offensive. I understand that he is trying to court them to become federalists, but I think he is wasting his time, since they are separatists.
However, he is justified in wondering about the Bloc Québécois, because it voted nearly 200 times on $500 billion in budgetary appropriations.
I have a simple question for my colleague. What did the Liberal government promise the Bloc Québécois members in return for giving it a blank cheque, Quebeckers' money, to spend recklessly and lose control? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Madam Speaker, the government did not promise the Bloc Québécois anything. I have no other answer for my colleague.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I just heard the member say that he is concerned about the deficit. I wonder if that is why 65- to 74-year-olds are being forced by the Liberal government to stay at work, so their taxes can come off the federal debt. Is that why the Liberals have a two-tier system?
Madam Speaker, no, that is not why.
The government did its homework. It did an analysis of the demographic situation facing seniors. There were some hard facts about how life changes quite drastically in some ways after the age of 75. For some people, it would not be at age 75, but at age 74. For others, it would be at age 80. We are looking at a general rule here that things become a little tougher for seniors after the age of 75, and the government is just trying to help those who need a little extra help.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by answering the member for Lac‑Saint‑Louis by paraphrasing what my colleague from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said: True power is independence. I wanted to remind the member of that.
I am not sure how to approach this issue any more, because, since we came to the House in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been talking about the importance of equity among seniors and the importance of increasing the old age security pension for all seniors, not just for those aged 75 and up. That is what seniors in our communities are asking for. We are simply being consistent with who we are and what we have been saying in the House for more than four years now, nearly five years.
First, I will remind the House of the Bloc Québécois's position on seniors. For the past two summers, I have been listening to people's opinions and travelling all over Quebec as part of my work on Bill C‑319. I will conclude my remarks by explaining what has led us here today, why we are having this opposition day that seeks to increase pressure on the government and remind it that it absolutely must give this bill royal recommendation.
I also want to apologize to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I got carried away thinking about my colleague's speech earlier and forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I apologize for that. I know that someone is listening carefully to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue today. I will come back to that. As I said, I am not handling this portfolio alone. The Bloc Québécois leader and member for Beloeil—Chambly decided to make this issue a priority, but the entire caucus is helping me wage this fight for fairness for seniors. I would not be able to do this without my colleagues' help and support. I want to sincerely thank them.
As I said, we have been trying, since 2019, to hammer home the idea that old age security is a universal program and that there must be no gaps in it based on age. Those who are 67 must be given the same amount as those who are 77. People have been talking to us about this issue since we arrived in office. As early as January 2020, groups, like FADOQ, that we met with during pre-budget consultations were telling us why it was important to increase the old age security pension for all seniors, not just for those aged 75 and up.
We then made that a priority when each budget was tabled. For each budget, we made it clear to the government that we would not vote in favour of the budget if it did not meet this expectation of the groups on the front lines. Even though there may have been other worthwhile measures in the budget, we would not vote for it if it did not contain this measure, which local seniors' groups call for. That is one of the reasons.
We have set other priorities at other times. I would like to once again mention supply management, which is now a priority, but has been before too. We have also mentioned the environment. We have mentioned other concerns, but the issue of seniors came up in our pre-budget requests for every budget. Since we did not get a response from the government, we did not vote in favour of the budgets.
In early 2021, I met with representatives of SOS Dépannage, a food bank located in Granby, in the riding of Shefford. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of this organization's employees. Representatives of the food bank called me in to their office to show me the numbers they were seeing and alert me to the fact that more seniors were applying for food assistance because they were having trouble making ends meet on a fixed income. I also want to say that, no, seniors were not going to food banks to request medical assistance in dying. That is not why the people at SOS Dépannage had me come in to their office. It was to make me aware of the difficult financial realities seniors were facing.
The first petition that we presented came from Samuel Lévesque, a young man in his 20s. As a believer in intergenerational equity, he felt that it was unfair to separate seniors into two classes. He understood very well what was at stake, and he hoped that when he retired, there would be no gap, no two classes of seniors, and that he would receive the same amount as seniors aged 75 and over. Two other petitions were presented following this one.
Last year, SOS Dépannage even came to support me at the launch of my tour. We held a press conference at its office. Its representatives explained why they thought Bill C‑319 could help seniors seeking food assistance. One senior even came on behalf of Eastern Townships community groups to seek support for Bill C‑319. At the press conference we held to launch the second year of my tour on Bill C‑319, the volunteer centres providing services to seniors came to explain why they so desperately needed this bill to receive a royal recommendation and royal assent. I would also give a nod to other colleagues. I toured everywhere. I remember having a lovely meeting over coffee with a group of seniors in Rouyn-Noranda in 2021. They had made me aware of the issue of the two classes of seniors. They were very open and spoke to me frankly about their financial situation.
In 2023, we also organized a conference. The bill did not exist yet in February 2023, but it was the fruit of that conference. My caucus colleagues and other colleagues took part in that day of reflection. People involved in a research chair on inequality came to talk to us about seniors' needs and the growing gap between the least fortunate seniors, who were getting poorer. They did a good job of explaining who can live with dignity on $22,000 a year. Roughly a third of seniors live on fixed incomes alone, in other words, old age security plus the guaranteed income supplement. OAS is the universal program. What is being done for all those who are just above that threshold, for those who do not receive the GIS or extra help because their income is just above $22,000? They are not rich, and a 10% increase could improve their situation.
In the summer of 2023, I travelled to a dozen ridings across Quebec, covering more than 10,000 kilometres. I got out there to find out what seniors needed. I heard about housing. I heard about food. I heard about the need for a decent social life, the need to get out a little. After that, I also did some tours on the margins of the pre-session caucuses. I visited Sherbrooke last fall and Chicoutimi at the beginning of the year. Each time, I heard about the need to correct the unacceptable inequity created by the government, that is, these two classes of seniors. This summer, I travelled to 11 ridings, covering over 8,000 kilometres. All this is to say that we are able to prioritize the bill because it has made progress, because at some point along the way, it has been supported. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it received the unanimous support of the parties on the committee, and at second reading, the majority of members in the House voted in favour. It has gone through many stages already, and it is important.
We saw it this summer. Seniors are struggling so much that the smallest cuts to the GIS are really affecting their life choices. They are struggling to eat properly. We are talking about basic needs. This bill is receiving support from across Canada. I get emails from seniors in Ontario who are concerned about their financial situation. I am getting emails from everywhere from Saint John's to British Columbia. I see that support as confirmation. We have prioritized an issue that was making good progress in the House and that meets Quebec's expectations, and so much the better if seniors elsewhere can also benefit from it.
I want to say one last thing. This past weekend, a researcher on aging confirmed to me that seniors need this bill, that this 10% increase should be given to all seniors aged 65 and over, and that we need to think about how seniors can work with fewer obstacles in their way. Support is coming from everywhere, including community groups, civil society and researchers.
[English]
Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject for me. One of the three objectives with which I came into politics is a secure retirement income. Twelve million working Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. We have already reformed CPP. I am in support of targeted benefits for seniors and other disadvantaged Canadians who are in need. I do not understand the logic of providing additional income to Canadians who have very high incomes, even seniors in retirement.
What is the reasoning for giving additional funds to, say, seniors who have a retirement income of more than $100,000? Why not target the support to the people who really need it?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would say this to my colleague. What is the retirement age, in the Liberals' view? Is it 65 or 75?
We hear that some seniors have a harder time working. Not everyone can work. The retirement age was set at 65. It is a universal program. Creating two age categories and two separate amounts in a universal program is called a loophole and age discrimination. It is called ageism. Let us not forget that OAS is taxable. Those who need it the least will pay taxes. That is how the program works.
Madam Speaker, I must acknowledge that the member for Shefford has been leading this fight since she entered politics, and I applaud her work.
Now, the Bloc Québécois is presenting itself as the only party defending seniors, but that is not true. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada voted for Bill C-319. I think it is important to set the record straight.
The cost of living has exploded, we all recognize that. We met people throughout our ridings this summer and again this past weekend. People are telling us they are drowning. This government has racked up a $1.441‑trillion deficit. This Prime Minister has run up double the debt of all the other prime ministers in Canadian history. This is serious.
I have a simple question for my colleague. Why does the Bloc Québécois insist on keeping this government in power? Why is the Bloc Québécois once again asking—
I must allow the hon. member for Shefford to answer the question. I am sorry, but there is very little time left.
The hon. member for Shefford.
Madam Speaker, we are not keeping the government in power. We are not here to replace one government with another. We are here to get this bill passed. Also, there was no record to set straight. I have always said that there was a majority vote at second reading and that the Conservatives voted in favour of this bill. I thank them.
This bill has already made its way through the House. After a majority vote, there was a unanimous vote. The Bloc Québécois is very close to achieving this major gain for seniors. We are not here to replace one government with another. We are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers. The money in question amounts to 0.57% of the budget, which is nothing. It represents $16 billion over five years. Think of all the money that was funnelled into bad programs or money taken from where it should not have been taken. Just think of all the assistance provided to oil companies. Do they really need it—
I will give another member the opportunity to ask a question.
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with the member at committee and really admire her work raising the reality of invisible work, which is mostly done by women.
Many women who visit me are caregiving at the ages of 65 to 74, and expenses are piling up. I wonder if the member would share why it is so important for the Liberal government to make sure that those aged 65 to 74 have additional income.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which leads me to a final comment about senior women.
During a press conference a while back, the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, came out in support of the bill. At one time, women could not amass as much capital or prepare for a comfortable retirement. Those women are now between 65 and 74 and are practically penniless. Even so, if their income is just above the set threshold, they are not eligible for the GIS. They are struggling financially, and this is what often keeps them vulnerable. I therefore urge all members to adopt the bill for these women.
Madam Speaker, we are here today to address a crucial matter that affects both the dignity and well-being of our seniors. I invite all my colleagues to consider the importance of a royal recommendation for Bill C-319, which seeks to amend current legislation to increase the full pension amount. By asking the government to act quickly, we are affirming our commitment to our seniors by ensuring they receive the financial support they need to live with dignity and respect. It is time to make their voices heard and take action for a better future.
This Bloc Québécois demand is reasonable and in the best interests of both Quebec's and Canada's seniors. We have received dozens of emails from seniors across Canada thanking the member for Shefford for her hard work in restoring fairness for those who built our society. I would also like to thank her personally. Passing this bill will improve seniors' quality of life. We will see the impact of this measure very quickly.
One of our initiatives back home, and also a campaign promise, was to set up an advisory committee with seniors. We then held a series of public consultations with these seniors to identify the challenges and, at the same time, seek their support. My colleague, the member for Shefford, met with seniors, particularly seniors from Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, to hear what they had to say about her bill.
I am rising in the House on behalf of seniors to stop the injustice against them and to do the right thing. I proudly salute the work of the important people by my side in a cause I hold dear. I would like to mention one of them by name, Gérard Thomas, who is here in Ottawa at the moment. He is a member of my advisory committee and executive team, and he has come all this way today to help send a strong message to the government. He wanted to be part of the demonstration that took place in front of Parliament. He is a man of action, devoted to a cause. He wants things to change. He does not accept the status quo. This was particularly evident during our discussions with seniors. He accompanied me to several of these public consultations to hear what people had to say. I thank him for his commitment. It really motivates me.
On that note, it is time to address the real issues. During our tour to meet with Abitibi-Témiscamingue's seniors, we travelled from Témiscamingue to Pikogan, via Sainte‑Germaine‑Boulé, Authier‑Nord, Rouyn‑Noranda, Amos and La Sarre. We visited all four regional county municipalities in my riding, including both towns and villages. We met and listened to people in the communities. I would like to share some of their conclusions with the House.
Before I get into that, however, maybe I should give members some background information about seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a region where we are fortunate to be able to count on an organization called L'Observatoire. This vital organization provides statistical data on the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. Frankly, supporting this type of organization is crucial, and the federal government should commit to funding it, but that is a debate for another day.
Currently, one in five people is over the age of 65, and of these, 60% are between 65 and 74. This means that the majority of seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue will be affected by the Bloc Québécois's bill. In recent years, our towns and villages have started celebrating their 100th anniversaries, meaning that many people were born and raised here. These people broke the land and cleared the way for Abitibi-Témiscamingue. They settled here. It is a very different picture from that of seniors in other regions.
Did my colleagues know that 38% of seniors in our region do not have a degree? That explains why the average income is lower for seniors in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. This also explains why services should be better adapted to this clientele. We have to go back to what my father called compassionate management. We have to manage relations with seniors at a human level and go back to listening. This does not end with a period or a comma. That is something we heard a lot from seniors.
There are clear differences in income between men and women. That is still absolutely shocking today. A man's income is roughly $43,000, while a woman's is $30,000, for a difference of $13,000 annually. Fully 58% of senior women depend on government transfers.
According to the figures obtained by L'Observatoire, the average pension received by women in Quebec is $400, compared to $650 for men. Increasing OAS also directly addresses this problem, especially when we know that one in four seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue lives below the low-income threshold. One strong message from seniors that makes me proud is the desire to stay and remain in the community. We heard that.
Two years ago, as part of my riding newsletter, I sent out a petition about supporting Bill C-319 before it was introduced. It called for an end to inequity and demanded equity for seniors aged 65 to 74 by increasing the old age pension. It would have amounted to about $110 a month. In response, I received not a dozen or a hundred, but more than 5,000 leaflets in the mailbox at our office. The first few days, we were pleased with the success of our initiative, but every day we got more in the little green boxes we have in the office. There are seven boxes, which hold about 5,000 petitions. It is heartbreaking, because people are not living in dignity. People are living in poverty, and that needs to be addressed. Once again, I tip my hat to my colleague from Shefford for prioritizing this message.
The people in Abitibi-Témiscamingue are proud. Whether it is Barraute, Sainte‑Germaine‑Boulé, Authier‑Nord, Chaze or Béarn, every village inspires pride. Statistics show that 78% of seniors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have a strong or very strong sense of belonging in their community.
One of the issues that was raised during my tour was aging at home. This takes additional income, because everything costs more these days. Local health care services are also going to have to adapt in order to allow seniors to age at home.
The purpose of this motion is simple. We want concrete, rapid results that have a real impact on the lives of over one million people across Quebec, real people. Across Canada, it is nearly four million people.
It is exhausting to see so much public money going to bad corporate citizens, while seniors have to live on fixed incomes that are no longer enough. The government's choices do not always align with the needs of seniors and the general public. As I have said several times in the House, the government needs to stop taking seniors for granted and trying to put square pegs into round holes. Seniors are not numbers.
One program that comes to mind is New Horizons for Seniors. Volunteer organizations, many of which are supported by seniors, are required to come up with proposals, submit applications and fill out dozens of pages of forms and paperwork. That is very commendable, but instead of increasing funding so they can do what they do better, they are expected to take on an incredible amount of accountability. Things need to be simpler. That is what seniors tell us. That is also one of my heartfelt pleas.
The Bloc Québécois chose seniors. I want to mention three things that emerged from my analysis of public consultations with seniors in my riding: seniors' working conditions, family caregivers and public transit solutions.
This government could look closely at a number of other things. The current labour shortage is an opportunity. Right now, the employment rate for seniors in my region is 10%. Seniors want to work. They want to take on low-key jobs, but when they do, anything they bring in with one hand they have to shell out with the other. Nobody wins when that happens.
People need to pass on their knowledge. If we increase seniors' income, obviously without affecting their pensions, it could help them remain more active. I am convinced that everyone would come out ahead. At the same time, it would also enhance the dignity of seniors.
Another big problem is the caregivers who support seniors. Employment insurance does not adequately meet their needs. Home care is the future, yet once again, health transfers to Quebec are insufficient, if not a mere token: $1 billion instead of $6 billion. This is not working. It is time we got down to brass tacks.
To wrap up, seniors' living conditions merit special attention. That is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing with the bill sponsored by my fellow member from Shefford. It will be a major step forward for the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. She can count on my unwavering support.
[English]
Madam Speaker, 56% of working Canadians do not have a workplace pension plan. It is possible that many of them will retire directly into poverty. To address that, we have reformed the Canadian pension plan and we have introduced programs to help people in need.
I would like to ask the hon. member to give me one logical explanation, something reasonable, for why rich Canadians who are above the age of 65 should also get this benefit, which in my view, should be targeted toward the people in need. We need to support everybody who is in need, who has a shortage of income in their retirement, but why give the same benefit to the rich seniors?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the member asked for something reasonable. Eliminating discrimination is reasonable. Allowing seniors aged 65 to 74 to live in dignity is reasonable. Poverty can strike at any age, but it always strikes those who do not have the means to earn extra income.
I want to bring a fundamental element into this debate. Seniors have a right to live with dignity. As things stand, the government has chosen to isolate our seniors.
I have no doubt that the government will pay a political price for that.
Madam Speaker, during their opposition day today, I would have liked to see the Bloc Québécois put more pressure on the government.
This afternoon, the Bloc again voted with the Liberal government on our non-confidence motion. That does not do much to scare the government. It is clear that the government is not at all concerned about its future.
I am still reaching out to the Bloc Québécois here because the Conservative Party has three more opposition days, which will no doubt be three more opportunities to hold a vote of confidence. The Bloc Québécois has no opposition days left. Bloc Québécois members are going to be very disappointed when the Liberals fail to follow through on their motion.
Will the Bloc Québécois agree to vote with us next time to bring down this government?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his question and outstretched hand. I think the Bloc Québécois has been very clear with its ultimatum. This is going to be a big win for Quebec seniors and for our agricultural producers.
In the current context, let us face it, I am ready to trigger an election if need be. I have done what needs to be done. If this is what it takes, we will not hesitate. I think seniors will appreciate it, too.
That said, the bill calls for increasing old age security by $60 to $80 a month. That is peanuts to the government, but it is going to make all the difference in the world if it means seniors can cope with the cost of living.
I am never going to back down on this.
Madam Speaker, I am very suspicious of the Conservative Party's current position on the pension increase for seniors, given the Conservatives' record of the past few years, whether on raising the age of retirement or on the cuts to health transfers to the provinces. Suddenly, the Conservatives are friends to seniors. I find that a bit suspicious, especially when their main argument is that inflationary spending has caused the increase in the cost of living. They now want to adopt a measure that adds $3 billion to federal government spending.
Does my colleague not see a certain contradiction or a certain momentary hypocrisy?
Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the word hypocrisy is parliamentary. I do not mean in the way the question was asked, but during question period I as a bit shocked to hear it coming from the minister. I digress.
What is deeply hypocritical is the federal government reducing the GIS, while the Government of Quebec is being a bit more generous to its seniors and increasing transfers. I am sick of receiving phone calls from people asking why they are getting just $11, why their benefits were cut, why the promised increase never came, why they have to pay back CERB in the form of taxes a few years later. They wonder if they were being bribed.
At some point it has to stop. It is a matter of dignity.
Madam Speaker, today, October 1, is National Seniors Day. I wish all seniors in Canada and around the world a very happy day.
It is a real privilege to rise in the House to talk about our government's work to make life better and more affordable for Canadian seniors. Seniors are a growing segment of the Canadian population. It is therefore important that governments reflect on how our policies and approaches can best meet the needs of a rapidly changing demographic.
We have a wide variety of needs and desires in life. However, at the end of the day, we all want much the same things in our golden years: to maintain our independence, to stay connected to our friends and loved ones, and to age in place as long as possible. That is our government's commitment to Canadian seniors. No matter where they live, all seniors in this country should be able to age on their own terms, with dignity and choice.
Since 2015, despite opposition from the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, our government has taken significant steps to strengthen the financial security of this country's seniors, including restoring the age of eligibility for OAS and the GIS to 65, after the previous Conservative government raised it to 67 in Davos. Our government also increased the GIS to give low-income single seniors up to $947 more per year, despite opposition from the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois.
The rising cost of living and global inflation are affecting all Canadians: seniors, students, young families, everyone. That is why, when we took steps to put money back into the pockets of Canadians, we made sure to take into account the specific needs of our seniors. We doubled the GST tax credit for six months and sent $500 payments to nearly two million renters to help them cope with the cost of housing, despite the relentless efforts of the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Once again, they voted against these measures.
We implemented the Canadian dental care plan for over 750,000 Canadians, starting with seniors. It is frightening. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives would have deprived 750,000 Canadians of the dental care that they need. That is the hypocrisy we are witnessing in the House today.
Bloc members—sovereignists, separatists—want a snap election so that a Conservative government can take power. According to the Bloc, a Conservative government will create the winning conditions needed for their sovereignty project to see the light of day. What kind of impact would their project have? First, it would threaten OAS for all seniors in Quebec. What the Bloc Québécois does not want to admit to Quebec's seniors is that their sovereignty plan and their opportunistic little plot would hurt Quebec's seniors. Such is the irony of today's debate.
The changes we have made have truly improved the lives of Canadian seniors. These changes remain true to the retirement security systems we have relied on for many years. It is not a question of blowing them up in an attempt to find new solutions, but of strengthening them and ensuring that they keep on meeting seniors' diverse and ever-changing needs. This includes strengthening one of the cornerstones of Canada's public retirement income system, old age security.
Old age security gives Canadian seniors peace of mind in their retirement years. It provides essential income security to millions of Canadians every year, particularly low-income recipients of old age security who are also entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.
As I said earlier today, $71 billion will be transferred to seniors' pockets over the next five years through the increases and enhancements from the Liberal Party of Canada. We know that the older seniors get, the more financially vulnerable they become. Their incomes decline as they age, and they often have to spend more to cover their health costs. They also face greater financial risks due to an increased risk of health problems, the loss of a spouse or partner, and the possibility of outliving their savings. This financial vulnerability only worsens when seniors have a reduced ability to supplement their income through paid work. This is particularly true for seniors aged 75 and over.
When we increased the OAS by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over, it was the first permanent increase since the 1970s. It was a historic change aimed at meeting the financial needs of some of the most vulnerable seniors in our communities. Providing full pensioners with an $800 supplement in the first year alone strengthened the financial security of 3.3 million seniors, 56% of whom are women. It was an important step in making life better and more affordable for Canadian seniors. We know, however, that there is still work to be done.
It is rather cynical of the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, to accuse us of having a two-tier system when we used evidence and data to improve old age security. There needs to be greater improvement for those with greater need. This was proven by studies, statistics, sources of information. This decision was made based on evidence and data and with the greatest compassion. It is absolutely absurd to hear the Bloc Québécois say that it is a two-tier system. We are the party that has improved and secured pensions in Canada the most. What has the Bloc Québécois done?
Whether on the guaranteed income supplement, housing or dental care, we have systematically met with resistance from the Bloc to support seniors, including the most vulnerable seniors in Canada. That is hypocrisy. They should be ashamed to rise in the House and talk about a two-tier system. Never has a Canadian government been there more for seniors than this government formed by the Liberal Party of Canada. Today the Bloc Québécois is being mistrustful, cynical, hypocritical and opportunistic.
[English]
That is why our government continues to invest in the lives of seniors in this country. Investment in our pharmacare program will help one in four Canadians and one in five seniors living with diabetes, so they can monitor, test and treat their diabetes without worrying about the cost. They would have to worry about the cost if the Conservatives and the Bloc got their way; those parties would be against that too. Investment in our dental care program, opposed by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, has not only helped over 750,000 Canadians get the care they need but will also support 200,000 Quebec seniors.
[Translation]
Again: this will help 200,000 Quebec seniors.
[English]
The uptake on this new program has been nothing short of phenomenal. In just five months, 750,000 Canadians and counting have gotten their teeth cleaned by a hygienist for the first time in years.
They have gotten new dentures after wearing old ones for decades. They have had that toothache looked at after simply living and suffering through the pain. They have gained the confidence to smile again after avoiding the dentist's office down the street because they needed to put food on the table for their family.
Those are real numbers. Those are real statistics, but they mean little to the Conservative Party and to the Bloc Québécois; it is just an abstraction. They mean a lot to the people who are benefiting from them. These folks over here want to fool and deceive Canadians out of getting the care they deserve, but they will find the Liberal Party in their way. We will be sure to keep reminding folks to sign up and get the care they are entitled to. As long as we're here, dental care is a reality in this country.
However, the things so many of us seek in our senior years, such as independence and staying connected to the people around us, are not just things that health care programs alone can solve. That is why I am so proud to see funding from the New Horizons for Seniors program reach senior-serving organizations and communities across Canada every year. New Horizons helps seniors fight social isolation, be included in their communities and live enriched lives. From curling clubs in Prince Edward Island to senior centres in the Yukon, the program helps seniors to be more connected and active members of their community. As more and more seniors have also chosen to age in their own homes, we have also launched the age well at home initiative.
[Translation]
This is another measure the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party opposed.
[English]
This offers up the helping hands that seniors sometimes need to make it possible. That means supporting local food delivery programs and those helping seniors shovel snow in the winter.
[Translation]
You oppose direct investments in meals on wheels in Gatineau. You oppose direct investments in seniors in Montreal, at the Chic Resto Pop. You oppose—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
I think he just realized what he was doing, but I simply want to remind my colleague that he has to address his comments through the Chair.