SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 195

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23
The Deputy Speaker
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23
Ms. Andréanne Larouche
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border