Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on affordability and help for seniors. A Conservative member asked what the government will do for seniors who cannot access the federal dental plan yet help pay for it through their taxes. The Liberal parliamentary secretary replied that the government has made life more affordable through family payments, pension increases, income tax cuts, and a pause on fuel taxes, and pointed to GDP growth, job gains, wages rising faster than inflation, new trade agreements, and investment commitments. The Conservative member then questioned the cost of the government’s spending programs compared with cutting taxes; the reply again cited economic figures and the government’s response to trade pressures.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

4 statements

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative
“Life costs too much, and the government is not helping many seniors. A senior in my riding wrote to me because she and her husband cannot get the federal dental plan, but their taxes still pay for it. I want the government to explain what it will do to help seniors like her.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in and ask for more with respect to the answer I received back in the previous session on affordability. I know my colleague from Whitby is going to respond to the question I am going to ask him. We have had a lot of good, partisan sparring back and forth over the years, for a long time. I am going to bring this down to a constituent level because I just received an email from a senior lady in my riding at 2:03 p.m. this afternoon. I am going to read this and talk about the affordability issues people are facing so we can have a conversation, on a real constituent basis, about what is going on in people’s daily lives. It says, “I’m 74. My husband is 75. We get nothing extra from the federal government. When I say ‘we’, I mean the seniors who have paid income taxes on all the money we’ve scrimped and saved over our working years while paying for our children’s child care and food. This money was to see us through our retirement years. All that hard work so we can enjoy our golden years was for what? We still have to scrimp and save so we can afford food and shelter. “The Liberals keep going on about how much they’ve done for everyone, including the seniors, so they can afford to pay for food. This is a lot of poppycock. They say, ‘Look at how many are registered for the seniors dental program.’ That is all fine and dandy, but how many of those registered actually qualify? This is the number that really matters. My husband and I are registered, but our combined income means we don’t qualify. If it was not for investments we saved for over 40 years, we would not be able to afford to retire. To make matters worse, the investment income is all taxable. “Sorry for the long rant. I just get so frustrated when the Liberals keep saying that they’re helping us but everything keeps going up and our income stays the same. Keep up the good work. Janet.” What I am wondering for Janet is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Warren Steinley: There is heckling from the other side, which is interesting. Mr. Speaker, she said they do not qualify for the dental program, if the Liberal members would listen to what I say. This is what the Liberals do. They dismiss what everyday Canadians are talking about and the issues they are facing. I want to ask this of my friend from Whitby, who I think is here for the right reasons, though we have different opinions. Every day in question period, the Liberals get up and say, “Oh, but there’s a dental program.” For seniors like Janet and her husband, because of their retirement income, they do not qualify, so they do not get anything. They are frustrated seniors who are not really seeing any of the benefit of these programs, but their income is being taxed, and that is going to pay for programs for other people. They are in a really tough situation. What would Ryan say to Janet right now?

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“Our government has made life more affordable by giving families more money, raising pensions, cutting income taxes, and pausing fuel taxes. The Conservative member keeps voting against these supports. He should explain to the people who voted for him why he opposes tax cuts and help for families.”
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the Canada child benefit?”

    Said 7 times by 3 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan and I have enjoyed some good partisan sparring, which is part of the sport of the House. I know that the member opposite is a good sport in that regard. We have had many disagreements, but we both respect one another at the end of the day, and I appreciate him for that. Our government understands that we are strongest when we take care of one another and we ensure that everyone has a chance to get ahead. That includes our seniors, but it also includes all of the population, and our government is really working to make life more affordable for all Canadians. I cite the groceries and essentials benefit that is helping 12 million Canadians with payments. It was the GST rebate, as members will note, but it has been significantly increased. It pays out an average of $1,890 for a dual-income family, the average family, so that is not insignificant support. It is actually quite significant for many families. The amount to be paid is going to increase 25% over five years, beginning in July, and the top-up is indexed to inflation. This means payments will go out every year to match future increases in the consumer price index. This is just one of many things we have done. There is also the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and many more. The member opposite mentioned dental care. We also increased OAS by 10% for our seniors in a previous iteration of our party. Those are significant changes that have improved the social safety net in Canada and helped families right across the country. Let us talk about tax cuts. The first thing the government did under the current Prime Minister was an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We suspended the fuel excise tax over the summer, and just recently we tabled legislation to extend that for another five months until January 2027. I am sure the member opposite can agree that those are tangible, cost-saving measures. I know that his constituents did not send him here to vote against those types of measures and then stand up the next moment and claim that the Liberals are not doing enough for vulnerable people in this country. Can the member opposite explain to his constituents why he votes against every affordability measure that enhances support for seniors, for families, for single mothers and for all Canadians, with broad-based measures that are cutting taxes for Canadians? It seems to me that tax relief is something the Conservatives have advocated for. We have only eliminated, suspended, cut and reduced taxes under the Prime Minister’s leadership. Why would the member opposite oppose tax relief for his constituents?

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative

Linked statement

“The member used to support the carbon tax until it became unpopular. He also voted against cutting the gas tax several times when Conservatives asked for it, even though the government supports it now. I want him to tell us how much it would cost to cut taxes instead of spending money on all these government programs.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 67 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “until he found it not to be beneficial to his election options”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the member’s responses. He and I will debate another day how many times he voted in favour of the consumer carbon tax and how he was one of the main cheerleaders for the consumer carbon tax until he found it not to be beneficial to his election options. He realized that it was very unpopular, so then instead of being for it, he was against it. I also agree with the cutting of the gas tax. We talked about that for years and years, but last session, the member voted four or five times against cutting the gas tax, when the Conservatives brought a motion forward that resembles Bill C-38, which the Liberals just brought forward, so he also voted against that not so long ago. The member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I do like to have this debate back and forth because he did talk about a whole suite of programs. How much would it cost the Liberals to cut taxes so people had more money in their pockets and not have some of those programs?

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“Our economy is growing even though we face trade challenges. The economy grew by 3.3% last quarter, and we added 217,000 new jobs. Wages are growing faster than inflation. We also signed 20 new trade deals, and big funds have promised $500 billion to invest in Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 7 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that we are in a trade war. The country is facing significant headwinds, and we have used the fiscal capacity we have responsibly to invest in the Canadian economy, which is growing. There was 3.3% GDP growth in the last quarter, which is significant. The government diversified trade by signing 20 new trade agreements. Jobs have grown at twice the pace they have in the United States, with 217,000 net new jobs in Canada. Wages have outpaced inflation. We have had two consecutive months of real GDP per capita growth. That is not to mention the $500 billion in new commitments from Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to deploy their capital here in Canada to help that capital build the infrastructure and grow the economy that all Canadians need so they can have a better standard of living.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 143

  1. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 111 statements
  2. Oral Questions Condolences 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Taxation 7 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Public Safety 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 18 statements
  8. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Transportation 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Taxation 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 9 statements
  15. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 6 statements
  16. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 65 statements
  17. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Taxation 12 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act 14 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements