“The government is running a huge deficit and spending $43 billion on an oil pipeline. This will not lower gas prices for people in Quebec. The government should explain why it is spending this money on oil instead of clean electric power.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain the government’s approach. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years. This year, they are projecting another huge deficit, probably close to $80 billion. The upcoming budget will once again run a deficit. The government likes to talk about the cost of living and the little measures it is putting in place, but the big measure it is proposing in terms of investment is to spend $43 billion of public funds on a new oil and oil sands pipeline, which will be used to export oil but will do nothing to reduce the price at the pump for Quebeckers who are struggling to get by. Can my colleague explain to me why the government is not using that money to help Quebeckers phase out fossil fuels and speed up electrification, which is something that has already begun? I do not understand the government’s approach. It is keeping us shackled to oil and making us even more dependent on it. How can the government justify doing that?”

“Many seniors cannot afford rent and food, and more of them are becoming homeless. The government only gave a pension raise to people aged 75 and older. I want the House to pass our bill to give that same 10% pension increase to seniors aged 65 to 74.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets. Both inflation and the housing crisis are hitting older Canadians particularly hard. The cost of living continues to climb, yet many seniors are living on fixed incomes so their purchasing power is eroding. A few months ago, Radio-Canada broadcast a report on retirees who were no longer able to pay the rent at their retirement home. It was reported that, since January 2025, Quebec’s administrative housing tribunal has ordered the eviction of at least 30 tenants in private retirement homes across the province for unpaid rent. That is just for the first half of the year. Given that 53% of people aged 65 and over live on less than $35,000 a year and that a third of older people have less than $25,000 a year at their disposal, it is clear that the ability to pay $1,680 a month for a room, not including services or meals, is by no means a given. The report also demonstrated that the situation is difficult even for those who are better off. For example, rent for a one-bedroom apartment, with services, can be as much as $3,900 a month. This is a major social problem. A Leger poll for Le Journal de Montréal found that a majority of Quebeckers aged 50 and up are worried about not having enough money for retirement. As an example of this reality, the article tells the story of a woman who was a personal support worker before she had to care for her father and then her husband while they were ill. The article says that now, at 69, she finds herself in a very financially insecure position. With rent and food prices soaring, the Quebec pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and old age security no longer provide enough income. According to the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, half of those aged 60 and up live below the viable income threshold as defined by the Institut de recherche et d’informations socioéconomiques. Le Journal de Montréal reports that 24% of households made up of people aged 65 and up live in housing that is considered unacceptable because it fails to meet CMHC’s three standards for affordability, suitable size and adequacy. I would remind members that CMHC is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At a time when homelessness in general is on the rise throughout Quebec and Canada, homelessness among seniors is a growing issue. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités indicated that, based on the count conducted on the night of October 11 to 12, 2022, it is estimated that 6.5% of people who are experiencing visible homelessness were aged 65 and older and 29% were between the ages of 50 and 64. La Presse published an article on this sad subject a few weeks ago entitled “Homelessness crisis - On the street for the first time at age 65, 70 and 75”. It begins as follows, “Difficult to quantify but impossible to ignore: The Quebec commissioner of health and well-being is concerned about the fact that an increasing number of seniors in Quebec are becoming homeless for the first time in their lives. People on the ground are describing the situation as a humanitarian crisis.” Speaking of homelessness, I would like to remind the House that over 12,000 people in Quebec are homeless. What was once a big city problem has now spread to all regions of Quebec. People are suffering. They are hungry. They are at risk every day and they are dying. As we, unfortunately, learned yesterday, two homeless people have lost their lives. Of course, I want to express my deepest condolences those individuals’ loved ones on behalf of my party and all members of the House, I am sure. Quebec’s new government and its new premier are making the fight against homelessness a national priority. I wish the Prime Minister would follow their lead. Just today, La Presse published an editorial under the headline, “The homelessness crisis: On the street, from the cradle to the grave”. The article reads, “Women, children, seniors. Homelessness affects everyone. Across the province, there are 12,077 people experiencing homelessness, a 20% increase in three years.” It also reminds us that “the proportion of homeless people aged 50 and over is 35.5%. Of those individuals, 17% were experiencing homelessness for the first time.” Urgent action is therefore needed. This is a national emergency, and we are calling on the government to do so much more. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, Canada ranks among the industrialized countries reporting the sharpest drop in purchasing power in retirement. Its net pension replacement rate is 47.3% of pre-retirement income. In other words, the transition to retirement involves a significant drop, by more than half, in the average standard of living. In comparison, the OECD average is 65.5%. In other words, when people here reach retirement age, their income is halved, while in other countries, on average, people retain two-thirds of their income. Of the 45 countries studied, Canada ranked 39th on coverage provided by mandatory public and private plans, far behind countries like the Netherlands at 86.6%, Spain at 80.6%, Portugal at 73.8% and Austria at 74.1%. Canada even placed behind the United States, which came in at 50.5%, despite the fact that income inequality is nevertheless very pronounced there, as we know. We must act now. Seniors need better protection against a decline in their standard of living. In Quebec, nearly four in 10 people aged 65 and older rely on the guaranteed income supplement to meet their needs. Historically, poverty among seniors declined thanks to government transfers. However, since the 2000s, the situation for seniors has been deteriorating relative to that of other age groups. This trend can be attributed in part to Ottawa’s decision to de-index the old age security pension from wage growth. In 1971, OAS represented 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it is only 12%. It has fallen from 20% to 12%. To correct this injustice, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase in this benefit for several years. In 2023, Justin Trudeau’s government agreed to an increase, but only for people aged 75 and older, leaving out 1.1 million Quebeckers aged 65 to 74 and thereby creating two classes of seniors. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for this increase to be extended to people aged 65 to 74. Before the last election, a motion to that effect had even been passed in the House of Commons during a minority Parliament. The government, however, refused to act on it. Today, the Bloc Québécois is back on the offensive. My colleague and friend, the member for Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, introduced Bill C-261, which seeks to increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74 and to raise the employment income exemption for the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement by $1,500. This bill is essentially the same as the one introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, in the previous Parliament, and which was supported by a majority of members through a motion in the House. The debate on this bill has just started. The position taken by Liberal MPs, who now hold a majority, will serve as a true test of their credibility regarding their commitment to the dignity of seniors and affordability. Obviously, the response to inflation, the housing shortage, particularly the shortage of affordable and public housing, and the loss of purchasing power among the most vulnerable goes beyond the scope of this bill. For now, unfortunately, the government is more interested in shielding multinational corporations that use tax havens from taxation, propping up the fossil fuel industry with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, and skyrocketing its military spending. U.S. President Donald Trump is scary, but that is no reason to bow down to him, and it should not be used as an excuse to neglect the most vulnerable people, particularly seniors who are hard hit by inflation and, of course, people experiencing homelessness. Unfortunately, Quebec still depends on decisions made here in Ottawa, where concern for social inequality, homelessness, and the precarious situation of seniors appears far less pronounced. In a context of fiscal imbalance and the concentration of financial resources at the federal level, Quebec’s ability to act remains limited, and there is no denying that we are truly not masters in our own house. I hope my colleagues from Quebec will take note of that.”

“The government should bring back its energy-saving programs, like money for better home insulation. Instead of spending billions on oil pipelines in the west, federal energy money should support clean power and conservation.”

“Madam Speaker, there is obviously a lot of work to do when it comes to energy efficiency. The Bloc Québécois believes that energy efficiency relates to the environment and climate change. In Quebec, we are fortunate to have clean electricity, which is basically produced by hydro power. That is a big advantage, and we have a role to play in the economy of tomorrow. We think it is unfortunate that, here at the federal level, most of the funding to support energy development goes to western Canada’s oil and gas industry. There was talk of $43 billion for a new pipeline. We do not think that is the right way to go when it comes to developing the economy of tomorrow. There is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to energy efficiency. This includes, for example, better home insulation, more efficient energy use and energy conservation. The federal government used to have programs in place in this area, and we would like those programs to be reinstated. That would be a step in the right direction.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 29 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government spent a lot of money over the last ten years to fight poverty. But housing became much less affordable and homelessness got worse. I want the prime minister and his ministers to use the next budget to fix this housing crisis.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his question and his speech. It is true, time flies. Where did those 11 years go? There is still a lot of work to be done. Of those 11 years, 10 were under the Trudeau government, a period marked by significant spending aimed at reducing poverty and improving affordability. Some examples include child benefits and the reinstatement of housing investment. However, I feel that housing affordability has ultimately worsened. In my speech, I spoke about homelessness. Unfortunately, over the course of those 10 years, homelessness has increased dramatically. Housing has become far less affordable. While there was undoubtedly a genuine desire to improve the situation, some of the policies may not have been sufficiently grounded in facts and statistics. Despite relying on expert advice, we have ended up in a situation where people who are struggling to make ends meet have seen their circumstances worsen. That is a problem. I hope that the current Prime Minister, together with ministers from the previous government, will be able to put forward measures, in the next budget, for example, to address the situation, particularly with regard to homelessness and the housing crisis.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support government spending on affordable and social housing. However, this money comes from old promises, and problems remain. For example, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation refused to give up land to build social housing.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. I am fortunate to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Industry. I applaud the fact that the government is investing in housing, particularly affordable housing and hopefully social housing. We will have to see how the new government in Quebec City will work with Build Canada Homes, the Crown corporation. We will see if that changes the situation. The announced amounts to date come from previous commitments. Some good things have been done, but there have been a number of obstacles. I am thinking in particular about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which refused to transfer land to build social housing. As a result, we continue to put—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government is spending money on oil companies and pipelines instead of helping regular people. Most big oil companies are foreign-owned and already make billions. The government should stop funding oil and gas. It should spend that money on health care, education, pensions, housing, and industries hurt by American tariffs, like forestry and aluminum.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always a bit daunting to rise after my colleague from Joliette, not only because he always does his research, but because people often mix us up. Could it be because of the names Joliette and Jonquière? I do not know. Maybe it is the beard. In any case, there is one easy trick for telling us apart: The member for Joliette has long hair and he is a communist, which I am not. The Conservative opposition day concerns the affordability crisis. As I was looking over the motion this morning, I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the notion of crisis. As members know, my former passion was philosophy. More specifically, Hannah Arendt’s Crisis in Culture and Edmund Husserl’s The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology come to mind. Both of them came up with a fairly exhaustive definition of the notion of crisis, which I believe could assist our discussion today. If one wanted to give a very simple definition of the notion of a crisis, one might talk about a decisive moment or a turning point. Anyone who has a heart attack knows full well that that is a decisive moment and a turning point. The same is true in the case of appendicitis, because at least it can lead to a diagnosis. That is often how it is presented in the social sciences and philosophy. It means getting a diagnosis, but it also means discovering all the flaws that exist, whether in a social system, a political system, an economic system, a religious system or a scientific system. That is what the notion of a crisis allows us to do. If one wanted to diagnose the crisis we are currently experiencing, a fairly straightforward conclusion would appear pretty quickly. What is causing runaway inflation today is a combination of geopolitical conflicts, which are putting pressure on energy prices, as well as the trade dispute with the United States. I think everyone would agree on that diagnosis today. However, let us take a closer look at the federal government’s diagnosis. Take, for example, the tariff crisis, which has had a significant impact on inflation. As we know, two sectors have been particularly hard hit by the tariff crisis: the aluminum and forestry industries, which are facing tariffs of 50% and 45% respectively. These industries have still not received any support. Together with forestry industry representatives, we proposed to the government a program to offset countervailing and anti-dumping duties. Everyone would have been happy if the government had put that program in place, but the government turned a deaf ear. It is the same thing with aluminum. Until just recently, the forestry industry was asking the government to help forestry companies, which are really struggling. They have yet to see a single penny from the programs that have been put in place. The government agreed to lower the threshold to $1 million, but these hard-working people have still not seen a penny from the federal government’s support program. It is the same thing with the aluminum industry. What would have helped in these extremely difficult circumstances? Negotiations with the United States. We have made compromises, such as the concessions we made in the area of culture, but we have not gotten anything in return. Until very recently, I kept hearing many people in government say that we need to use more Quebec aluminum. I would tell them that it was a great idea, but that we were missing a crucial piece of equipment: a rolling mill. Eventually, the penny dropped and they realized the problem was more complicated than they originally thought. Aluminum ingots cannot be used in their raw form. They must undergo initial processing in a rolling mill. However, Canada does not currently have one. We rely on facilities in the United States. We are at their mercy. The government is starting to look into this. I find the government’s diagnosis of the tariff crisis highly problematic, and I will explain why. What has the government done in response to the tariff crisis? It has rolled out the red carpet for the oil and gas sector. Just look at all the tax breaks announced in recent budgets. There is a lot of talk about projects of national interest. There is the new pipeline that the government wants to promote as a project of national interest. Who does it actually serve? It is important to get the diagnosis right when we are in a crisis. I want to remind the House that, unlike the aluminum and forestry sectors, the oil industry is one of the few sectors that has not been affected by the tariffs. For a sector with no tariffs in place, the government’s diagnosis is that it could use another pipeline. Does the government think that building another pipeline will generate more wealth that will improve housing accessibility, grocery affordability or seniors’ benefits? I am not really sure. When we take a closer look, it is clear that this approach makes no sense. It makes no sense because the government’s stated rationale for building a new pipeline is to reduce its dependency on the United States and develop new markets. Let me ask a fairly simple question: Where do our energy exports go? Fully 91% of our crude oil exports go to the United States. Last year, 91% of our exports went to the United States. In committee, I asked representatives from international trade and deputy ministers if there was a plan, if there was any intention to bring that percentage down and if the pipeline would be used to develop new markets in Europe or Asia. They had no idea. Their plan is to build a new pipeline that will primarily serve U.S. interests. When we look at where our exports go, it quickly becomes clear that most of them go to the United States. The government’s response was to say that it will build a pipeline for a tariff-free product to help the Americans while we are in the midst of a tariff crisis. This raises another fairly simple question: Who owns the oil companies? Who stands to profit from this? It turns out that 80% of the major oil companies are foreign-owned and 60% of those are American-owned. In other words, 60% of the big companies that want us to pay for pipeline infrastructure are owned by Americans. They do not want to pay for it themselves. The federal government’s response is to build a pipeline that will support American energy security and benefit Americans. The numbers are alarming. I feel like I am always saying the same thing, but I will say it anyway. From 2021 to 2024, we are talking about $131 billion in profits for the oil sector. Of that $131 billion, $80 billion went to major shareholders in the oil and gas sector as dividends. That amounts to $12.5 billion leaving Canada every year, with most of it going to the United States. What is the message here? The government is saying that even in the midst of a tariff crisis, we should help the greedy oil and gas industry. That way, maybe they will be able to make even more money. Let me remind members that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project cost $34 billion, and now they want to build a new pipeline that will cost $43 billion. It is absolutely outrageous. What is the smart thing for the federal government to do? In times of crisis, the public interest demands that we support the most vulnerable, not the greedy oil and gas industry, but the most vulnerable. Earlier, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan spoke about seniors. The public interest would require that we invest in the social safety net as well as in health care and education. The Quebec government’s share of health care funding is now 42% of its budget. The federal government would rather invest in the oil and gas sector than transfer money to the provinces to support the health sector. Supporting the health sector also means supporting mental health, which could even help tackle the difficult issue of the homelessness crisis. That is obviously not what the federal government is choosing to do. What did the federal government decide to do in response to the crisis? It decided to invest in gas and oil. I really want my colleagues to think carefully about this. If all that money were used to invest in transfers to the provinces, to increase old age security, to invest in education and to support our most vulnerable, I think we would be much better off. We would be able to build homes and meet people’s needs instead of meeting the needs of the greedy oil and gas sector. I am out of time, so I cannot even get into the fiscal imbalance. I will sit down before I lose my temper.”

“The government should not spend public money on oil pipelines. That money helps oil companies, not the provinces. These companies should pay for their own projects instead of making taxpayers take the risk, especially while the industry is cutting jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, what good does it do the provinces to spend $34 billion on a pipeline and now to invest another $43 billion in a new pipeline? Does it generate such fabulous revenues that the provinces end up swimming in economic benefits? Definitely not. The people raking in the profits today are the oil and gas companies. Why are they unwilling to pay for their own infrastructure? The one fundamental principle of capitalism is that a capitalist stakes their own money. They are the ones taking the risk. Now, the federal government is taking the risk on behalf of an industry, the oil and gas industry, that is destined to disappear within the next 30 years, using Quebeckers’ and Canadians’ money. Worse still, the biggest unions recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and said they are seeing an increase in production in the oil and gas sector, but a decrease in jobs. The gall of these people, to be willing to invest in automating their processes so they can get by with fewer employees, but unwilling to pay one damn penny for their infrastructure. If the member for Winnipeg North is fine with that, I think we have a serious problem.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →