SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 49

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)
  • Mar/30/22 2:28:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time talking about what is in the NDP-Liberal agreement, but we should also talk about what was left out, and that is seniors. This agreement leaves seniors by the wayside. Even though rising grocery prices are hitting them harder than anyone else, nothing will be done to protect their income until 2027. That is especially true for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, who are also not entitled to an OAS increase. This agreement makes the creation of two classes of seniors a done deal. I would like to know one thing. Whose decision was it to dump seniors? Was it the Liberals, the NDP or both?
118 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)
  • Mar/30/22 2:30:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, one need not be good at math to understand that, when the cost of living goes up, the first to suffer are people on fixed incomes, the seniors aged 65 to 74 who have been denied the OAS increase by the NDP and the Liberals. Food prices have gone up by 7.4%. That is not as bad for seniors aged 75 and over whose OAS has gone up by 10%, but for those 74 and under, there are some groceries they can no longer afford. That is their reality. Why did the NDP and the Liberals sign a contract that abandons these seniors?
106 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22
Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)
  • Mar/30/22 4:06:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, it is rather odd to hear the minister say that this is an important bill and that he is imposing closure. If it is an important bill, we must discuss it and express our opinions. Five Bloc members have spoken about this bill. This is happening against a backdrop of increasing incidents involving firearms in Quebec. The minister knows this. He is from Verdun. He should know that this is a serious problem in Quebec, that we must come up with some useful and intelligent solutions, and that we must have some room for debate. The Bloc Québécois proposed splitting the bill because it dealt with diversion measures as well as minimum sentences. These are two different matters. We would have liked to have had more debate, because we must have an intelligent discussion. We need a bill that will fix the problems we have on the ground once and for all. The minister is well aware of this. My question is simple. Why have they decided to move closure when people, especially in Quebec, expect us to do our due diligence?
188 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border