Claude DeBellefeuille

Madam Speaker, that is the first time that the Chair has said the new name of my riding. I would like to thank my colleague. Every time I listen to him, I feel as though I am getting a lesson in economics. I myself did not study economics, so I am always learning. It is no small thing to have someone with a Ph.D. in economics in the House. When he speaks, his facts are supported by his knowledge and research. I will give him the last word because the questions and comments period is drawing to a close. What message does he want parliamentarians here in the House to take away from his speech?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Csur co-op, a social economy enterprise that embodies the best of community-based entrepreneurship and regional innovation in Vaudreuil-Soulanges. For the past two decades, Csur has been harnessing local resources to carry out ambitious projects that benefit our community. Thanks to its members' determination, the co-op has helped improve access to high-speed Internet in several rural parts of our region that were neglected by the major providers. With nearly 200 kilometres of fibre optic infrastructure, Csur's network now serves 10 municipalities. Another Csur initiative is the Marché Écolocal, a market that supports our local producers while strengthening our regional economy. There, now everyone knows my favourite place to buy groceries. I salute the founders, employees, volunteers, board members and partners who have contributed to this remarkable success. On behalf of the people of Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, I congratulate the Csur co-op on 20 years of success.

Mr. Speaker, this government is subverting democracy by shutting down the debate on Bill C-22. Even though it has a majority, integrity demands proper scrutiny before we pass a bill that allows the surveillance of all citizens, the seizure of data without authorization and the tracking of phones. To add insult to injury, the closure motion also imposes a retroactive deadline for the submission of amendments. What a coincidence: The deadline was precisely when the Liberal members proposed their amendments. This is an utterly reprehensible case of parliamentary insider trading. Will they stop this shift toward authoritarianism?

Mr. Speaker, I always listen carefully to my colleague from Winnipeg North, and I do not know why he feels the need to shout like that. When I have my earpiece in, I find it hard to hear the interpretation. I know he is a passionate person, but still, I struggle to sit through his entire speech. I disagree with him on some things. He can attack the Conservatives all he wants, but he forgot to mention that the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and civil society groups had many questions and concerns about part 2 of the bill. It is not just the Conservatives, but also many groups in society that were questioning Bill C-22. Also, filibustering is a parliamentary tool that can be used when it becomes clear that the party in power is unwilling to negotiate or co-operate. What does my colleague have to say to the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, which have called on the government to split Bill C-22 in two?

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C-25 includes changes to the names of electoral districts. The new name of my electoral district will be “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. It will be easier to pronounce, but it will be less melodious for those who take pleasure in saying my riding's name. I am pleased to rise to speak to Government Business No. 13. I have a lot to say, but please allow me to digress briefly. We are soon going to adjourn for the summer, and I would say a certain fatigue has set in in the House. We are wrapping up our work this week, and one thing we do not say often enough is that, while we work hard, we could not do it without the support of our staff. Tonight, I would like to thank my assistant, Racim, who was brand new to Parliament Hill. He came here with me this fall and learned on the job. We had never analyzed a bill together or done clause-by-clause consideration together, so we learned together. Tonight, I want to say how happy I am with his work, his loyalty, his effort and his perseverance. It must be said that we put in long hours, especially heading into a break, to wrap up all the bills. I am part of a very hard-working and thorough caucus. We work hard and diligently, always with the common good in mind, to do everything we can to improve bills, to assess whether they are in Quebec's best interests and to develop proposals. It is all the better if they are in Canadians' best interests too. Racim and I work with a great team, and we are also building relationships with the other political parties. We have worked with the Conservatives and the Liberals, and we have also worked with an NDP colleague and our colleague from the Green Party. We joined forces to improve Bill C-22. I will say this straight away: This bill is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation I will have had the privilege of working on in my time as a member of Parliament, because it brings about fundamental change. Incidentally, I would like to apologize for stumbling over my words and making a few minor slips. I am a bit tired. Yesterday, we sat until midnight, and as everyone knows, I am no spring chicken. I am 62 years old, so I am tired this evening. I hope everyone will forgive my little slips—

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for your rigour and thank you for rising to call for a little more order. I was saying that it is a great privilege for me, and I will likely never experience this again in my career, to work on a bill that will profoundly change the way we approach public safety and privacy. Basically, Bill C-22 will change investigative practices and give police better tools, but it also involves invasions of privacy. Our challenge in committee was to determine how to support law enforcement agencies so they could lay criminal charges more easily, especially in the modern Internet era, while ensuring privacy protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Honestly, this was a difficult bill to study. It quickly became apparent that the government had already made up its mind, and since it had a majority, it was hard for the opposition parties to feel that their input was valued and sought. I must say that at some meetings, other than one or two colleagues on the government side, a number of colleagues across the aisle took off their earpieces and talked among themselves, showing little interest in what we had to say. We have often heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that the Conservatives engage in a lot of filibustering. Personally, I am not in favour of filibustering. However, it is still a parliamentary tool that can be used as a last resort when one feels that, no matter what people say, the government's primary goal is to run out the clock, hold a few hours of debate, and then, after about 20 hours, bring in closure and claim that the opposition parties are wasting their time. We could have wrapped up Bill C-22 in a single sitting if, from the outset, we had known that the government had little interest in listening to both civil society and opposition members, even when they were proposing good ideas. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I was nevertheless quite fortunate. The seven amendments that were proposed, discussed, and debated were those put forward by the Bloc Québécois. Of the seven proposed amendments, only one was adopted, after being amended by the government. All the amendments I proposed came either from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Quebec Bar Association, or the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. I did not propose far-fetched amendments. They were based on expert testimony that sought to help us strike a balance. Representatives from the Barreau du Québec said, among other things, that they could live with part 1 of Bill C-22, but that part 2 was more problematic and would have required further study. My Liberal colleagues said there was no point in devoting more time to study it because the Conservatives were filibustering. However, when we have the impression that speaking is pointless because we know in advance that the government just wants to run down the clock so it can then justify invoking closure, filibustering makes sense. That is what really bothered me, because I truly wanted to study Bill C-22 thoroughly and make a valuable contribution. The minister had assured us in the House that the government was open to amendments. When the debate on Bill C-22 is finally over, in the end, very few of the opposition's amendments will have been adopted, actually not really any. I find that very disappointing. Perhaps I am too much of a dreamer, too positive and too eager to collaborate. Since securing a majority, this government comes across as far more arrogant. Perhaps it was so aggrieved from having a minority that now it is making up for that. That is broadly how I see things. There are Liberal Party members I enjoyed working with because I found them to be very sincere in their work as well. Sometimes, as members of Parliament, we have an idea and we defend it. Our whip, our leader or party authorities give us instructions. In the case of the Liberals, the Prime Minister may be the one giving instructions. Sometimes, government members have to remain silent and toe the party line. The government wanted us to pass Bill C‑22 from the get-go. What irritates me about today's motion is that it is a super closure motion. Closure motions do exist. The Speaker confirmed that it is a procedural tool. I was here in 2006 when the Conservative government was in power. The Harper government also frequently invoked closure to pass legislation. It is a strategy. However, there is something that irritated me and that I found insincere. It struck me that the government had included in its motion the requirement that amendments be submitted by Monday at 4:30 p.m., yet it moved the motion at midnight on Monday night. When I read the motion on Tuesday morning, I nearly fell out of my chair, and I was given a bit of a scolding by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. I do not think that is fair. That part of the motion is not right. In my opinion, it is unprecedented and akin to what is known in finance as insider trading. It is odd, but on Tuesday morning, I received amendments from the government. I wondered how government members knew that they could table amendments before 4:30 p.m. The reason is that they were told so. That, to me, is unacceptable. That is what irritated me the most in the Speaker's ruling on the point of order that I raised with my Conservative colleague. I was expecting a closure motion. I thought that the government would eventually want to pass the bill and would run out of patience. It never occurred to me, however, that it would do so before the parliamentary session ended. I expected it would do that in the fall, because I thought we deserved some measure of respect, and because the bill that we were preparing to pass was by no means small. I want to come back to this motion, which imposed a retroactive deadline for submitting committee amendments. I would have had to present my amendments the day before I received the motion. That is really unacceptable. I know Liberal members who serve on the same committee as I do, and I am sure that, if we had them take a polygraph, we would find out that they disagreed with this move just as much as I did. I reacted by raising a point of order because this goes against my values. It is the government's right to impose closure if it so chooses. It can do that. However, I think it was wrong of the government to include this retroactive deadline. We wanted to improve the bill, but that proved difficult. I asked questions. I am not a lawyer or a computer scientist. Quite a bit of expertise was required just to be able to ask relevant questions about this bill. I wanted to delve deeper into the subject, but that was not easy. I would have liked to hear from software architects, for example. I would have liked to hear from IT experts who could explain to me encryption and the consequences of weakening encryption. I would have liked for someone to explain this to me. If we store data for a year, are we creating back doors? Back doors are created to make the work of police officers easier, but do they also give cybercriminals access to that data? There were civil servants at committee to answer our questions, but they are not IT specialists or IT experts. They drafted a bill in line with the government's expectations. I wondered why it was so urgent. I have asked this question many times. My colleagues here in the House who have worked on this with me know that. Police have been waiting for this bill for 30 years, so here is what I asked them: Would it be an issue if we dealt with part of it now and finalized the bill a little later, given that it is such a big undertaking? I could sense some pressure. I am going to put forward a hypothesis about that pressure. I do not have any inside information, so this just is a hypothesis. I think much of the pressure is coming from the United States, which would like to share intelligence with Canada. Currently, we cannot exchange information because Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes that cannot do so. With the lawful access bill, we will be able to share intelligence with other Five Eyes nations. However, I have issues with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said. He is telling us that Canada is lagging behind. What exactly are we comparing ourselves to? The United Kingdom does not have a charter protecting people's rights, and neither does the United States. They have street cameras in the U.K. that film people. It is a country that intrudes heavily on people's privacy, so, to me, it is not a model. It is even worse in the United States. It is the Wild West over there. They say that the other Five Eyes nations are scolding us because we are lagging behind and cannot share intelligence. We are comparing ourselves to countries that are not necessarily models when it comes to protecting privacy. We are also hearing about Australia, where things are happening as we speak. In fact, as part of the study, we received 100 written briefs and 70 or 75 letters from members of the public. I think there were about four submissions in favour of the bill. The rest of the submissions were against the bill, either in part or in full, but often only partially. I learned a lot from reading those briefs, because we did not have a chance to ask any questions of the representatives from the Five Eyes or Australia. Australia is actually reviewing its legislation on lawful access because it has been abused. There have been incidents that should never happen again. People in the United Kingdom are also reconsidering things, and civil society is taking action. My question, then, is why are we rushing this? The prime example always given is that, if lawful access had been in place, a criminal who abused children could have been arrested. We are also told that it would have been easier to stop an organized network of pedophiles operating on the Internet. I asked if that means that such criminals cannot be arrested today, because we do not have a law on lawful access on the books. The answer is no. That said, it is true that such arrests are difficult, and I do not want anyone to think that I am against lawful access. We think that police tools need to be modernized and that they should be up to the task of countering cyber-attacks. Most serious crimes often take place online. Criminals have more advanced tools than the police do. The police need more advanced, more suitable and more modern tools to stop the crimes being committed today. However, that is no reason to rush things to the point of not taking the time to hear certain witnesses. I will give an example. The Privacy Commissioner came to testify before the committee. He spoke as though we already had his brief in hand. His brief contained amendments. There is a major problem with the translation service. It took two weeks to translate some of the briefs and provide them to the committee in both official languages. We did not receive them in a timely manner because the work wrapped up so quickly. We did not have the opportunity to review them or even invite certain witnesses. In my opinion, the commissioner is a leading authority on privacy protection, because that is his mandate. We did not have the opportunity to ask him about his amendments because we did not have them in front of us. However, he had submitted his brief a week in advance, and when he testified, no one had received it. We then asked the government if the commissioner could come back. What was happening was that department officials were completely dismantling all of the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy to understand why I was a little skeptical. I wondered if the commissioner and his team had really been that wrong. We asked for unanimous consent for him to return, just to defend his amendments, which we had not had a chance to review, but the Liberals refused. There were plenty of small gestures the government members could have made to signal their openness. It would then have been justified for them to get all worked up over the Conservative filibuster, but honestly, I saw plenty of outstretched hands. There were proposals from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives. They were all rejected out of hand. I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed working with my colleagues. I learned a lot. I also want to take the time I have left to thank the interpreters. I am a unilingual francophone. When I am in a committee meeting that starts at 3:30 p.m. and ends at midnight, it is hard for me. It is much easier with support from the interpreters. I want to thank all the interpreters who worked on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its study of Bill C‑22. We worked very hard, and they worked very hard too. Without them, my participation would not have been as meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I appreciate her thoroughness a great deal. I spoke about that earlier. I ended my speech by saying that I would really have liked him to come back. I think that would have been a good thing for everyone, including members of the government. From the start, however, I sensed that the dice were loaded and that we were basically marking time, because there was not a lot of interest. I am not blaming committee members; as I said, there are party lines and members sometimes do things that they would not have necessarily chosen to do. However, I want to highlight that the Canadian Association of Journalists is concerned about this bill. It wonders whether journalistic sources, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists themselves could face threats. I find that disappointing, because I would have liked to have heard from the association's representatives and to have explored these questions, which came to me after reading their brief. Unfortunately, we were unable to invite them because the study period was so short that it prevented us from hearing what they had to say.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very wise question. Like every country, we are facing cyber-attacks from foreign entities, particularly India and China. We need to ensure that we have robust tools, and Internet providers must do the same. The bill provides some protections and imposes cybersecurity protection requirements on telecommunications service providers. That is what we did with Bill C-8. It also requires important collaboration to support the work of law enforcement. We agree with that. It is one of the good things about the bill. I have to admit that I agree with the government members, and I think that there is a consensus on that. There is nobody here who does not want to support law enforcement in their work and who does not want to give the police modern tools with which to carry out their duties, but it is hard to draw a line between ensuring public safety and ensuring some degree of privacy protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words. I think she is brave, because she came during the clause-by-clause study, like my NDP colleague did. They did not have the right to speak, but they were there, hard-working and rigorous, and they proposed amendments. I have a lot of respect for these two members. I think that the reason for the haste is pressure from the United States. That is speculation, I do not have the truth, but I think that there is this push coming from the United States so that we can share intelligence also. It is all well and good to share intelligence with Canada, but the other countries would like Canada to share some in return. We are under pressure from a country that has no concerns about privacy protection. Obviously, I wish I had had more time to call witnesses I was unable to question. There are people who were not consulted by the government. Let me give an example. The chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency was not consulted by the government when it drafted this bill. The chair was forced to submit proposed amendments herself because the government did not see any significant role for her to play. I was disappointed. During her testimony, the chair, Ms. Deschamps, recommended amendments to us, and we will likely deal with them during our clause-by-clause consideration.

Madam Speaker, I would like to return the compliment to my colleague from Vancouver East. It has truly been a pleasure. Yes, that is true. Together, often alongside the Conservatives, we tabled the same amendments, particularly regarding the threshold for obtaining information. We both believe that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a high enough threshold. Our political parties, along with the Conservative Party, are calling for a much higher threshold, namely “reasonable grounds to believe”.

It certainly did, Madam Speaker. I think even the Privacy Commissioner was disappointed that we did not have his brief or his amendment recommendations before us when he testified before the committee. Having that information would have allowed us to make better use of his presence right then and there by asking him more specific questions so that he could defend his amendments. Madam Speaker, I think it was a mistake on the part of government members not to agree to invite him back so that we could give him another opportunity to defend his amendments, which, in my view and that of the New Democrats and the Conservatives, were very important.

Mr. Speaker, shutting down debate on Bill C-22 is an abuse of power. Everyone agrees that an overhaul is needed of this bill, which makes it easier to spy on people intrudes on their privacy. It forces companies to collect data on citizens and hand it over to the police. It forces telecommunications companies to track people at all times, without their consent. Basically, the federal government wants to create a backdoor into all of our phones. How can the government quash debate in order to rush through a bill that goes this far?

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order raised earlier by the member for York—Durham. What we have before us today is not just a programming motion, it is a dangerous precedent, an abuse of the procedural power of the majority. Government Business No. 13 introduces a retroactive deadline for amendments to be tabled in committee, which is, to my knowledge, unprecedented and highly inconsistent with the very spirit of our rules. Let us be clear: A rule that sets a deadline that has already passed is not an organizational tool. It is a trap. When a government uses such a mechanism to close down debate, it is not managing the business of the House; it is taking it away. The power to schedule work exists to allow for expedited consideration of bills in accordance with the Standing Orders, not to deprive members of their fundamental right to amend, discuss and improve a piece of legislation. Some government members seem to have had the opportunity to table their amendments before the deadline, when the deadline was not known to all the other members. This is serious. That gave those members an unfair advantage over members of the opposition. This procedural imbalance is unacceptable. In a House where every member is supposed to have the same rights, I would say that is unacceptable. Parliamentary procedure is not a weapon at the government's disposal; it is the framework that protects all members of Parliament, notably against the tyranny of the majority. This sort of manoeuvre does not constitute good parliamentary administration; it is an abuse of procedure. Previous rulings by the Chair are relevant here because they highlight a fundamental point: The House cannot, on the pretext of efficiency, run roughshod over the legislative stages. The Chair must protect not only the form but also the integrity of the process. When a motion actually prevents members from carrying out their duties, the Chair must declare it inadmissible. Otherwise, we open the door to a precedent whereby the government will henceforth be able to set retroactive rules, reserve benefits for its own members and then close the door to any correction. We cannot mince words here. This is not merely a procedural innovation; it is an abuse of process. It is an attempt to circumvent the normal parliamentary scrutiny of an important bill—very important, in fact. This is precisely the sort of situation that the Chair must prevent if it is to preserve the credibility of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, this government is showing a lack of empathy for seniors and community organizations with its hasty reform of the New Horizons for Seniors program. Its attitude is jeopardizing hundreds of projects that break seniors' isolation and encourage them to have an active social life. The federal government should be thanking the volunteers who dedicate their time and effort to these projects, not treating them like potential fraudsters. All these organizations want is for the government to delay its reform to ensure that seniors are not left behind. Will the government delay the reform?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister was concerned that the House might adjourn on Friday, June 19 without having passed Bill C-14. There are still five sitting days left next week, and I was really under the impression that Bill C-14 would pass following the normal process by June 19. I am having a hard time understanding this time allocation motion.

Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years at the helm of Le Pont du Suroît, Marc André Bédard is taking a well-deserved retirement. He leaves behind an exceptional legacy of commitment, compassion and professionalism. He devoted his career to supporting people living with a loved one affected by mental illness, offering a listening ear, clinical support and hope to many families. Thanks to his inclusive and caring leadership, Le Pont du Suroît has become an essential organization in our community. Recognized as an outstanding professional, Marc André Bédard also succeeded in extending his expertise well beyond our region, across Quebec and elsewhere. His inspiring career and his dedication have had a lasting impact on the lives of many. I thank him for this remarkable contribution. He is truly a wonderful person and a dear friend. Crossing paths with him has been a real privilege. I wish Marc André a happy retirement with his beautiful partner Sylvie.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he recently celebrated his first year as an MP, and I imagine he has not yet had the opportunity to work closely on specific projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. I have been an MP for several years now, and I can say that CMHC was a fairly important body for vetting business plans, as well as for ensuring that social housing meets various standards, particularly energy efficiency standards, and that our new housing meets the highest construction standards in terms of both sustainability and development. I would like my colleague to clarify this for me, because I do not really understand. Essentially, Build Canada Homes is taking the place of CMHC. Will the CMHC's expertise be transferred to Build Canada Homes?

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague, the Bloc Québécois whip. I would like my colleague to talk to us about the diversity of social housing in Quebec. There are housing co-operatives and non-profit organizations that manage social housing buildings for people with disabilities or seniors. There is also social housing or low-income housing for seniors. I understand that other provinces do not have as much diversity. This diversity is Quebec's strength. I would like my colleague to tell us about one of Quebec's demands. Quebec would like to see funds set aside to allow alternative housing networks to flourish. When I think of Build Canada Homes, I tend to think that we are talking about housing in partnership with private entities, which might exclude community organizations, for example.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford, who really knows her stuff, as members can see. She always speaks so eloquently and focuses on the common good. She is well versed in this issue. I would like to learn more about the amendments the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see adopted to further improve the situation. Can she explain to me why, in her view, the government rejected these amendments?

moved that Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is always very moving to have the privilege of introducing a bill that one cares about. I will be reading my speech because I want to share my message in full and I do not want to run out of time. For a society to live in peace, its citizens must live with confidence. They have to feel certain that their government is taking care of them, that it is working for their well-being and that it is keeping its promises. When a person retires, that is the moment of truth. That is when the unspoken agreement between the citizen and the state must be honoured. It should be the time to reap the rewards of decades of hard work, a time of dignity, not a time of mere survival. However, today, too many new retirees await this freedom with a sense of dread. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am calling on my esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens to correct an injustice. We are living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, one that prides itself on its social safety net, its values, its compassion and its commitment to mutual support. However, today, we are seeing this safety net become ever more fragile. There are more and more holes in it. We are abandoning the very people who built our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. We spend our lives imagining a retirement where we want for nothing, where we can have a well-deserved rest and where we can live out our lives in complete security. However, for thousands of new retirees, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement no longer constitute the promised safety net. Instead, they are life rafts and they are taking on water. We are not talking about charity here. We are talking about a social contract. These men and women paid their taxes for 40 or 50 years. They contributed to the country's economic success. They raised the generation that is now leading Quebec. The implicit promise was simple. If people worked hard and contributed to the common good, then the state would make sure that they wanted for nothing as they grew old. We are way off the mark. Not only are we way off the mark, but it is now clear that the Liberal government did not keep this promise—one among many, some might say. Young retirees are being forced to keep working just to make ends meet. Is this the sneaky way that the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have found to effectively raise the retirement age, without anyone noticing? If so, it is dishonest and unworthy of the office. This government tried to address the discontent but only managed to create an even greater injustice. It officially established two classes of retirees by deciding to increase OAS by 10% for those over the age of 75. On the one hand, we have older seniors, who are deemed worthy of additional assistance, and on the other, we have young retirees aged 65 to 74, who are essentially being told to fend for themselves. What is the logic behind that discrimination? At the grocery store, does inflation ask how old the customer is? Are rent, gas or heating costs lower when someone is 70 than when they are 76? What happens on the night before a retiree turns 75? It takes just as much air to blow out 65 candles as it does 75. The government says that seniors aged 65 to 74 are still active and can work to supplement their income. This is an insult to those who have had physically demanding careers and who, let us face it, are worn out. Asking a 68-year-old construction worker, warehouse worker or restaurant server to go back to work just to pay for groceries is not really a solution. It is an admission of failure. It means accepting that the government has failed in its duty. We in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. That is why, since 2021, we have been making every effort to put an end to the injustice caused by these two classes of seniors. We are often told that this would be financially unsustainable. We are told that increasing pensions for people aged 65 to 74 would cost the public purse billions of dollars. That is true. It is a significant amount. However, what is the cost of not doing it? How much does it cost our health care system when a senior eats poorly because fruit and vegetables have become a luxury? How much does social isolation—which leads to depression—cost? How much does the loss of dignity cost? It is not just a matter of compassion; it is also a matter of public health and safety. Thorough research has provided irrefutable evidence that the most egalitarian societies are the ones that fare the best. I am not going to mince words: The harms caused by inequality affect women first and foremost. Once again, women are statistically the ones who have the lowest pensions. They are the ones who live the longest in solitude. By refusing to help seniors aged 65 to 74, this government is perpetrating a form of economic harm against our mothers and grandmothers. It is taking the women who kept our society going—often from the shadows, often without pay—and putting them in a vulnerable position. Causing them anxiety about the future is truly unworthy of this House. Study after study clearly proves it. When the wealth gap is narrowed, crime falls significantly and confidence rises. Mental illness declines. Obesity, chronic stress and violence—especially violence against women—decline. Conversely, the wider the wealth gap, the sicker the body politic. Colleagues, for a society to live in peace, it takes confidence. I said it before and I am saying it again. However, poverty among seniors undermines that confidence. It creates anxiety not only for retirees, but also for their children and grandchildren, who see their own future as a threatening prospect, rather than a comfortable one. How can they trust a government that cheats their parents and flouts the social contract? By allowing seniors' spending power to collapse, the government is making a conscious decision to increase future social costs. It is opting for more people in hospital beds, more psychological distress and more insecurity. Of course, there are those who will solemnly claim that the cupboard is bare, that the debt is too big. Honestly, that is a risible argument. When it comes to finding millions of dollars to subsidize oil and gas giants, who do not need financial support, the money seems to appear out of thin air. When it comes to buying a pipeline in western Canada that will never serve our interests, the cheque book is often wide open. When the big banks are making record profits while raising fees on consumers, the government looks the other way. When billions of dollars end up in tax havens without being taxed, we are told it is really complicated. It is so complicated to get the money back from the tax havens. However, when a 72-year-old grandmother asks for what she is entitled to, namely enough money to pay her heating bill, just like her 76-year-old neighbour, suddenly everyone has to be responsible. They pull out the calculator and talk to us about fiscal discipline. This is not really a problem of revenue. It is a problem of choice. It is a political choice, a political decision. Clearly, this government's choices are not the same ones the public would make. The government prefers to help those who pollute, those who make massive profits, and neglects those who built Quebec. As someone who devoted her entire career to seniors, I think that is completely outrageous. We are not asking for the moon. We are asking the government to honour a social contract. Is it too much to ask to maintain what little balance still remains? I repeat: Our seniors are not asking for charity. They are demanding respect. What we are seeing today is a government that is deliberately and knowingly choosing to create and maintain two classes of seniors: one that deserves to be helped and another that is left to fend for itself. This age-based discrimination is unworthy of a modern society. The people that my colleagues and I represent think that this is unacceptable, and I am sure that many members of the House from all political parties agree with them. We are not here to beg for favours. We are here to correct an injustice and appeal to every member of the House's sense of reason. For a society to live in peace, it must treat those who built it with respect. What is needed now is more than just rhetoric on election day or during an election campaign. What folks need are cheques that will cover groceries and rent. It is time to stop seeing retirees as a budgetary burden or an expense column in an Excel spreadsheet. They are our society's collective memory. They are our roots, and it is absurd to cut off the water supply to our roots under the pretext of saving money. In the name of dignity, we call on the government to stop its petty calculations. It needs to stop dividing people. It needs to stop dividing seniors. We need to give them back what they entrusted us with. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Many citizens heard that today would be quite a memorable day in my career as a member of Parliament. Seriously, over the past week, I have received hundreds of letters, emails and notes encouraging me to continue on this path, because seniors know that their living conditions and their dignity are not being respected at all. People in my riding, as well as the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, the largest seniors' group in Quebec, representing several thousand people, are making this their top demand. I also spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and with retirees from Quebec, who share the same demand. It is not too complicated. They are asking for fairness and justice. They are calling on the government to correct this age-based inequity and discrimination. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues. In the last Parliament, my colleague from Shefford sponsored Bill C‑319, which went through a lengthy legislative process. Although it died on the Order Paper, a number of members in the House supported that bill. We hope the House of Commons shows the same cohesion and consensus again. Not only does Bill C‑261 seek to correct the injustice, but it also seeks to increase the GIS maximum exemption amount. It is important to clarify that. The bill provides for a 10% increase in OAS, but it also increases to $6,500 the maximum amount a person can earn before their GIS is reduced. Around 20% of seniors in my riding tell me that they are forced to work. However, for GIS recipients, any income over $5,000 is subject to a clawback. As the saying goes, that is like trading four quarters for a dollar. That is what my grandmother used to say. What do all these seniors end up doing, then? They end up working under the table or just making do, because they basically need every penny of their income to make ends meet. In closing, I can say that this truly comes from the heart. I know that my colleague across the aisle secured a royal recommendation to pass a bill that will allow bereaved parents who have lost a child to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits. I therefore hope to convince the government that it has a great opportunity to right a wrong and, of course, grant a royal recommendation to my bill. This bill will allow seniors to live better. Above all, they will see that this injustice and discrimination have finally been addressed. It is a matter of respect, and frankly, there is no room for compromise. Again, I appeal to my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, to support Bill C-261.