SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23

May/11/23 5:49:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are two things. One of the problems with mass immigration is that when we try to look for top-notch people, we drain their countries of origin of the brains they need as much as we do. The other thing is that we are talking about francophone immigration. That is great. We can welcome francophone immigrants. As I mentioned in my speech, however, the resources are not available. We are seeing that in Ontario right now, where there is a teacher shortage in French schools. If a francophone family moves here, but there are no staff at the French schools, what will happen? They will send their children to an English school, cancelling out the impact of francophone immigration.

122 words

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

May/11/23 5:49:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is rare that I have an opportunity to debate with the member. These people are francophone and do not need to be francized. We can attract teachers who are ready to teach. They could also offer their services to Quebeckers. Why not let these people determine their own future? Why, as Canadians, should we determine what they should do and in what conditions they should live? Why not let these people vote with their feet?

78 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/11/23 5:50:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if it is so simple to bring in French teachers, why has Ontario not already done so? One has to wonder, but there is clearly no acceptable answer because there are no francophone teachers. Even if those who settle here are francophone and do not need to be francized, the government is still losing sight of the problem of anglicization and language transfer toward English. That problem will only get worse if services are not offered in French, as is currently the case. Francophone immigration in and of itself will not resolve the problem, particularly since the government's target of 4.4% francophone immigration, which has been met only once in 20 years, is insufficient to ensure that there is no language transfer toward English and that the demographic weight of francophones in Canada is maintained.

140 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/11/23 5:51:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are talking about immigration. Of course, there are many different ways we can have newcomers come to Canada and be part of those immigration levels. In fact, currently, there are many migrant workers who are already here in Canada, including undocumented individuals. At the bare minimum, we are looking at at least half a million individuals who are in that category. They are already here. They are already contributing in many ways. Would the member support the call for the regularization of these many newcomers who are already in Canada and for that to contribute to immigration level numbers?

102 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/11/23 5:52:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first things first. The fact that there are so many newcomers whose status is irregular right now only proves that the immigration system does not work, and yet the Liberals want to put more people into it. As for the regularization of undocumented workers, people who already contribute to the economy, I think that it is a path we must consider. To deal with the labour shortage, which is a multifactorial problem, we must have a multifactorial approach to finding a solution. That means, for example, that seniors should be able to work if given adequate tax incentives, that we should recognize newcomers' credentials, and that we should encourage people who have stopped working to return to the workforce. There are many solutions. We can consider automation—

130 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/11/23 5:53:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint‑Jean, whose tone is just as composed as that of the member for Repentigny. That is music to my ears because today we are talking about a very important topic. This is a subject that we need to be able to talk about calmly. In the last few days, as it happens on a regular basis, there have been slip-ups, particularly when it comes to implications that it is racist to ask for an immigration policy, planning and debate. With all due respect, I urge my colleagues from all parties to avoid characterizations and all these unnecessary attacks. I am specifically directing this comment at the NDP and the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie who, for days, if not weeks, has been meeting with immigrants and portraying Quebec as a community that does not wish to welcome them and that should not be trusted. That is a fairly extreme attitude. We have been talking about the Quebec-Canada agreements all day. The government has set a line. We know that the Liberal members have been briefed and that they have a list of talking points. They keep saying that Quebec controls its immigration. One member even told us that Quebec should pull up its socks, meaning that this is our fault. However, it is true. In the past, there has been meaningful dialogue between Quebec and Ottawa. First, there was the Cullen‑Couture agreement under the Lévesque government. The reason was that the federal government was worried about a referendum. Then, there was the McDougall-Gagnon‑Tremblay agreement in 1991, which was signed in the wake of the Meech Lake accord and implemented just before the referendum. What was the reason? It was not because the federal government was being thoughtful. It was because the federal government was worried about a referendum. These agreements were established based on power relationships, and Quebec is losing power, both in its demographic weight and in its weight here in the House. That is why these agreements, which were forced by history, have been breached over the years via funding to promote the English language in Quebec and the official languages policies. Today, the federal government is openly violating these agreements with its extremely high targets that go against the initial spirit of the agreements. I have been listening to the speeches by the Liberal members, including ministers and cabinet members. It seems as though they either do not understand Quebec's situation, they do not want to understand it or they understand it but other Liberals do not want to listen. Let us ask John McCallum about it. He disagreed with the targets and he was shown the door, albeit indirectly. He is a renowned, published economist and academic, and he said that the Century Initiative's targets did not make any sense. I am willing to accept that some people do not understand. Gullibility is a forgivable fault. Nevertheless, when I hear a minister or the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell say that since Quebec controls all its immigration, it should stop whining, pull up its socks and do its job, it is absolutely unacceptable. I assume that the vast majority of people in the House passed first-grade math. When there are two targets, like when the Government of Quebec sets the target for economic immigrants at 50,000, say, and Ottawa says the total target will be 110,000, the higher number prevails. If Quebec does not change its targets and Ottawa raises its own, the number of immigrants will increase. The higher number always prevails. This is basic math. That was the basis of the Quebec-Ottawa agreements, which established certain immigration categories and gave Quebec more control and the right to opt out of certain programs with full financial compensation over time. This arrangement was supposed to continue. Originally, in the spirit of these agreements, this safety valve was not supposed to be left to the federal government. At the very least, in the spirit of these agreements, Quebec was supposed to be consulted. What is the point of telling Quebec that it can set its own economic immigration targets when the feds are going to set a total target that is three times higher and therefore pick the final number? That makes no sense. I do not doubt the intelligence of the Minister of Immigration. I hold him in high esteem. I do wonder if it is not a show of bad faith to say that to us, especially when he tells us that this does not come from McKinsey. Now, it is coming out in today's newspapers. I understand they are not quick thinkers; this has taken months. They tell us that the 100 million population idea is not a McKinsey policy. We were being told that we were conspiracy theorists, so we thought that perhaps they had asked themselves some questions, that they had gotten answers, and that perhaps their targets made sense. We took their word for it, and so we asked the question. Considering that the committee that is actually chaired by Dominic Barton set the targets, we asked them if they had done any studies, if they had looked into what impact this will have on the workforce. Analyses have been produced by Pierre Fortin, a renowned economist in the Quebec government. He is not a conspiracy theorist. Did they even consider what effect this will have on public services, child care, education, the capacity for integration? We asked them about their studies, and we realized that we were asking them questions that they themselves had not even considered. In the answers to our questions on the Order Paper, we realized that there were no studies. This may not be McKinsey policy, but when you take the McKinsey policy, put it on the table, do not ask for studies, do not ask any questions, but then implement it, now I would say I am not a super-smart guy, but that sounds like the McKinsey policy to me. It seems like a no-brainer to me. When you rely on chambers of commerce, consultants and the business community, who have real complaints about the labour shortage, and you forget about the collective aspect and fail to ask questions about the collective aspect, this does raise some questions, even though they may think differently from us. However, they did not even think of asking any of these questions. We have the proof. Now we are conspiracy theorists. We are joining conspiracy theorists like John McCallum, a minister and economist who was silenced; Pierre Fortin, a renowned, published economist and former president of the Canadian Economics Association; Benoît Pelletier, a former Liberal minister and professor at the University of Ottawa who says that the targets make no sense in a context where Quebec is a national French-speaking minority in North America; and Gérard Bouchard, who said that the federal government has no understanding of Quebec's intercultural model and that it was not considered. These people sure must be serious conspiracy theorists. We are joining conspiracy theorists like Alain Bélanger, a demographer who says that 90% of immigrants need to adopt French if we want the vitality of the language to endure. We are joining conspiracy theorists like Statistics Canada. Choose whatever indicator you like, Mr. Speaker. We do not mind. Whatever indicator we pick leads to an analysis that tells us that French is in decline. We are joining conspiracy theorists like the 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec, from all parties, whether they are nationalists, sovereignists or federalists. As for Québec Solidaire, were are not so sure what they are. We are joining conspiracy theorists like all these people. When everyone, except for the Liberal government, is a conspiracy theorist, I would like to know which of us lives in an alternate universe. I am trying to understand. I am trying to see the logic. What we are asking for is a structured plan. When we tell them that, they respond that there is a labour shortage. They tell us that these new targets will address the labour shortage over a period of 77 years. If I am told that there is an urgent problem and that we will have the same policy for 77 years, it makes me doubt that the government can fix this problem. Finally they tell us that they actually have three-year targets. They tell us that we have long-term problems, but then 77 years is changed to three years. Either they do not have a long-term vision for society, but instead are thinking of a series of short-term fixes with a series of minority governments, or they are telling us that they will never fix the problem. I find that very troubling. I would tell my colleagues from the other parties that I believe that immigration is a great asset, and I see the proof in my daily life. It is so important that it deserves a higher level of debate, where we can discuss numbers, policies and long-term integration without resorting to name-calling or Quebec-bashing, as we saw today and as we see too often. As members know, the Century Initiative is far from being the idea of the century. It is the idea of centuries past, and it reminds us of how the position of francophones in Canada has been diminished. It is part of our collective memory, and it reminds us that the respectful integration of immigrants takes place when there is respect for Quebec, consultation of Quebec, full authority for immigration, and, ultimately, independence.

1645 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/11/23 5:53:09 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mirabel.

7 words

Mirabel

Hon. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

May/11/23 6:02:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I would like to thank my colleague. We definitely do not have the same point of view. In my community, which is not that far from his, there are many francophones and many new immigrants from western Africa and Haiti. The percentage of these immigrants has increased significantly. Why are these people settling in Quebec? It is because they have the right to continue speaking French, living in French, going to school in French and seeing their family grow in French. These people play such a significant role in building the vibrant province and country I call home, and I believe that is a good thing. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that, because for me it is obvious.

128 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/11/23 6:04:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will use this excellent question from the member for Hull—Aylmer to give a shout-out to all the African and Maghrebian students who have come to Quebec and whom I taught and helped with their integration. I can attest to the fact that they need guidance and support to integrate our culture and our society, which is generous and wants to benefit from all their skills while giving them every opportunity that all Quebeckers have. That being said, I think the member did not listen to my speech. What I can tell him is that we can have different visions, I agree. However, with all due respect, Quebec was never consulted on this file. Forcing a different vision on us does not make anyone democratic.

130 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/11/23 6:04:58 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

60 words

Deputy

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/11/23 6:06:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/11/23 6:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Monday, May 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

42 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/11/23 6:06:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:20.

20 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/11/23 6:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/11/23 6:07:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-319

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the deputy House leader of the government on April 19, 2023, regarding Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford. In a statement concerning Private Members’ Business on March 30, 2023, the Chair invited members to make arguments regarding the need for this bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In her statement, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-319 would increase the amount of the full pension for Canadians aged 65 to 74 by 10%. This increase is not provided for by the Old Age Security Act. She argued that, as a result, this charge against the consolidated revenue fund is not authorized by the act or any other. The increase in the amount of the full pension that Bill C-319 would provide to all pensioners aged 65 or older would raise public spending for purposes not currently authorized by the Act. Consequently, the Chair is of the opinion that the bill infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown and needs a new royal recommendation if it is to receive a final vote in the House at third reading. The House will soon take up the second reading motion for the bill, which can be put to a vote at the conclusion of debate on that motion. I thank all members for their attention. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

276 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/11/23 6:09:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-319

moved that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce my first bill today, Bill C-319. The summary reads as follows: This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person’s employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500. For years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic, such as isolation, anxiety and financial hardship. That said, I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. Instead, I want to present seniors as a grey force consisting of people who want to continue contributing to our society. They built Quebec, and we owe them respect. Bill C-319 is designed to improve the financial situation of seniors and is structured around two parts. In my speech today, I will first address the part of my bill that deals with increasing old age security, or OAS, and then I will address the part that deals with increasing the qualifying threshold for the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. I will end my speech by explaining a bit more about the impact inflation has on the financial health of seniors. To begin, the first part aims to eliminate the current age discrimination. In the 2021 budget, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure has created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. Seniors are not taking it lying down. The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; it affects all of them. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors. In 2021, there were 2.8 million people 75 and over compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. This opinion is shared by FADOQ and its president, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, who had this to say about the measure: “In principle, there is a good intention to provide financial assistance to seniors, but, in reality, people under 75 who are eligible for old age security get absolutely nothing.” To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice, and this bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. It is not true that the one-time vote-seeking cheque of $500 for people 75 and over in August 2021 will be of any help. Seniors even feel that they have been used. With Bill C‑319, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a 10% increase to old age security starting at age 65 for every month after June 2023. For example, at present, this increase would raise the benefits paid to single, widowed, divorced or separated persons from $1,032 to $1,135.31 every month. As for the amount paid when both spouses are retired, it would increase from $621.25 to $683.35 per month. You do not live in the lap of luxury with that amount. You certainly do not go down south, and you do not stash your money away in tax havens. Second, with inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors. Back in 2021, during the last federal election, the Bloc Québécois platform proposed to raise the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000 in order to allow those who are willing and able to continue working to do so without a significant reduction in their GIS benefit, which is derived from old age security. Given the exceptional transformation in Canada's demographics in recent decades, there are now more people aged 65 and over, and they now outnumber children under 15. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing. In fact, Employment and Social Development Canada released a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising Initiatives” in May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan. The document identifies the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors. These include a lack of education or training, health issues, and work-life balance issues due to a lack of workplace accommodations. The study then proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce. Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past. I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, the Liberals have taken half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. Currently, old age security payments are not enough to weather the affordability crisis and the dramatic price increases for housing or intermediate housing resources. Six years ago, in June 2017, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance published a report on the financial impact and local considerations of an aging population. Everyone agrees that the economic situation of households has deteriorated significantly with the pandemic, and that sudden inflation is hurting Quebeckers and Canadians. The committee's findings and proposed solutions at that time could not be clearer. It recommended: That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with its provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners, put measures in place to increase labour force participation of underrepresented groups and to better match labour demand with labour supply in order to mitigate the negative impact of population aging on the economy and on the labour market. As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the pandemic in June 2020. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect effects of this hastily put together aid. Nevertheless, small and medium enterprises are increasingly stressed out as they desperately look for workers, and about the closure of many shops and the decline in some areas. We believe that the tax contributions, the tax incentives and the income exemption rates on the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement do not entice older people to return to work because they will be denied hundreds of dollars a month. Let us not forget the sad irony of Liberal measures such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, which were considered income during the health crisis. In the end, they took away significant sums of money from the most fragile and least fortunate in the population. This aberration was finally corrected by the government in February 2022 after several months of representations by the Bloc Québécois to the Minister of Seniors when Bill C‑12 was tabled. At the time, Bloc Québécois researchers found that GIS recipients who received CERB lost 50 cents of the supplement for every dollar they received, so a tax rate of 50%, almost double that of the richest people in society. However, at the time, no one informed affected taxpayers of this dramatic impact on disposable household income. During the study for this legislation, the Bloc Québécois pointed out that this major injustice is both harmful and absurd. The FADOQ network called the situation a tragedy. Let me get back to what we are suggesting. The exemption on earnings and miscellaneous income would increase from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. That would leave an additional $1,500 in the pockets of all claimants aged 65 and older. Compared to the 2021 proposal, then, the current bill suggests an additional $500, for a total of $6,500, to offset the deteriorating economic situation. The goal of these two measures combined is to increase both the monthly base amounts and the annual working income. We believe that this will help seniors deal with inflation and the current hardships. It is the least we can do, to allow millions of people who built our communities to live with dignity. Third, I want to talk about the impact of inflation. Do not forget that old age security is taxable. The OAS and GIS amounts are revised in January, April, July and October, ostensibly to reflect the cost of living. These benefits were indexed annually until 1973. At that time, inflation was very high, particularly for fuel and food, and officials felt that quarterly indexing would better protect against unexpectedly large price increases during the year. By the summer of 2020, however, even FADOQ had decried the fact that these increases will not even buy a coffee at Tim Horton's. The consumption habits of seniors differ from those of the rest of the population. As a result, they experience different inflation. Statistics Canada studied this difference in 2005. It found that seniors spend proportionately less on transportation, gasoline or a new car, but much more on housing and food. For every $100, they spend $56, compared to $45 for all other households. Surely we all agree that housing and groceries are not luxuries. What is the impact of that inflation? From 1992 to 2004, the average annual inflation rate was 1.95% for senior-only households, compared to 1.84% for other households. Again, seniors are harder hit. I will refresh the Liberals' memory. On March 19, 2022, the Liberal member for Etobicoke North moved motion No. 45. If the Liberal Party and the Green Party are consistent with their support—14 members from these two parties jointly supported this motion—then Bill C‑319 should be adopted. I will read the text of the motion, because it is worth it: That: (a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and (b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion. On June 15, 2022, 301 members finally voted in favour this motion, while 25 voted against. Out of the 326 members present, only 25 members from the New Democratic Party voted against this motion. Seniors living on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet because their daily expenses are increasing faster than their pension payments. Old age security, or OAS, is adjusted to inflation every three months, while the Canada pension plan, or CPP, is adjusted every January. However, OAS and the CPP are not enough for some people to make ends meet. People are feeling the shock of the 10.3% year-over-year increase in the cost of food, as reported by Statistics Canada in the year leading up to September. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 6.9% year over year in September, also according to Statistics Canada. I met with some representatives from the Salvation Army this morning who told me that they too have noticed, like many other support organizations, that demand for food has doubled, and that a large portion of the demand is from seniors. It is inconceivable that this permanent increase in the OAS, which is the first since 1973, so the first in 50 years, is not indexed to inflation. We hope that this will help seniors who, as we have seen, are turning more and more to food banks. Let us remember that, in the summer of 2021, one month before the election, the federal government handed out $500 cheques to seniors who were eligible for the old age security pension to supposedly help them with affordability issues related to the pandemic. However, it is going to take a lot more than an ad hoc approach. We really need to focus on the long term. Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged. It is $666.83 a month. With that low monthly income, it is not surprising that Canada has the generation of retirees facing the greatest inequities and injustices. Since the 2019 election, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the government to increase the old age security pension for seniors as of age 65 and has been calling the government out on its discrimination and ageism against seniors aged 65 to 74, so this bill is a logical extension of our position. In closing, I would like to thank Gisèle Tassé‑Goodman from the FADOQ, Pierre‑Claude Poulin from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and Diane Dupéré from the Association québécoise des retraités et des retraitées des secteurs public et parapublic for their support of this bill. Like me, they are just the mouthpiece for seniors whose stories they hear every day. I would be remiss if I failed to mention all of the seniors groups from all over Quebec who also sent me messages of support. They think that Bill C-319 is the least we can do to give seniors a little help and bit of fresh air. One last thing: I wish the House would realize the importance of this bill, which is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is just common sense to help seniors age with dignity. Based on the feedback I have received so far, even from seniors outside Quebec, all I have to say is let us work together. Similar motions have been passed many times, including the Bloc Québécois motion calling for an increase in OAS as part of our opposition day. Only the Liberals voted against it. They were the only holdouts. This time, I am reaching out to them. I am asking them to eliminate the injustice they created and vote with us in favour of Bill C‑319. Once again, this is a matter of dignity for seniors.

2613 words

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

May/11/23 6:24:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-211 Bill C-319

Mr. Speaker, I first met the member when I was moving a bill through the House of Commons, Bill S-211, on sickle cell awareness. I know she cares. She is a good MP, and she cares about people. She talks about supporting seniors, yet Bloc members have voted against seniors in the House for years. They voted against taking the age of eligibility for retirement benefits from 67 to 65 years of age. They voted against that. I would ask the member why she felt that seniors should have to work two more years to access the benefits they deserve and which they contributed to for decades. It surprises me that someone who cares so much about seniors would vote against seniors on a regular basis.

127 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/11/23 6:25:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-319

Mr. Speaker, in case my colleagues want to tease me again, I must say that I was obviously talking about luxury. Our bill is not a luxury, it is a necessity. That being said, I wonder if my colleague is misleading the House, because the Bloc Québécois has never been against rolling back the retirement age from 67 to 65. What does he mean? Really, we are not in the least questioning the idea of setting the age at 65. We have never questioned that idea. I do not know if my colleague is misleading the House or confusing us with the Conservatives, who had raised the retirement age from 65 to 67, which caused an outcry and led people to ask that it be brought back down to 65.

134 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/11/23 6:26:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-319

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Shefford, for all the work she has done in defending the rights of seniors in the House of Commons during this Parliament. No other member in the House defends seniors' rights as much as my honourable and esteemed colleague from Shefford, especially not the parliamentary secretary, even though it is his job to defend them. I would like to ask my colleague what she has done since she was elected to the House for the first time. Can she remind us of all the work she has done with various groups, leading up to this bill she introduced to defend seniors' dignity in the House?

124 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/11/23 6:26:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-319

Mr. Speaker, do I have 15 minutes? I see that I do not. All joking aside, I am not the only one. I could name all my colleagues in this place who advocated for seniors along with the Bloc Québécois. I was given the first questions when the Bloc Québécois arrived in the House in December 2019. At the time, the Bloc Québécois was already challenging a government idea that we considered ridiculous, but above all unfair. It wanted to increase old age security, but only for those 75 and over. That was the start. After that, every time I would look to my colleague from Joliette sitting behind me. In January 2020, we met with groups of seniors as part of the pre-budget consultations before the pandemic hit. We came back to the House in April, because the government announced that it would help everyone. The Bloc was the only party to tell the government that it had forgotten about seniors. Finally, they got a cheque. They received a small one-time cheque because the Bloc came to the House to hammer home the message for more than two months until an announcement was made. Every time a budget was presented, the Bloc Québécois asked in its pre-budget submissions for this injustice to be corrected. That is not to mention the countless questions that I asked the successive ministers for seniors from 2019 to 2021 and since my re-election in 2021. We keep asking the same questions, and we have often raised this subject in the House. The reason we have come back today with this bill is that we want to exert additional pressure on the government. I hope that this time will be the right time. I hope that the government will support this bill and remedy the situation. We are reaching out and giving the government an opportunity to correct this injustice.

336 words