44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, the member claims that I have crossed the floor to join the Liberals. That is an entire misrepresentation of reality and it is a violation of my privilege.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 5:36:17 p.m.
- Watch
That is really not a point of order. We are getting into debate.
I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, be it across the floor or at committee, when Bill C-11 gets there, I wonder what the coalition partners are going to ask. How are they actually going to scrutinize the bill when their partner, the Liberal government, is proposing it? In the case of Bill C-10, we did see some questioning from the NDP on that government bill, and ultimately, thankfully, Bill C-10 was defeated. I have less hope for this bill.
I have less hope for the freedoms that Canadians have relied on and expect to have in their country. After the bill passes, we will have an Internet tsar that will tell us what we can and cannot post and what content we can watch. Meanwhile, I have highlighted how problematic it is that through technology we are going to be able to do an end run around that.
What would this bill actually accomplish? I believe that in the end it is going to limit people's choices, not expand them. It will not expand a creator's ability to tell Canadian stories, and that is what needs to happen first. We will see when this bill gets to committee.
I know some members have questions for me and I am going to cede my time and allow them to ask those questions and have a proper debate. I do hope that we have a proper debate at committee, because we have heard from too many Canadians that the bill is wrong.
To the Canadians who are watching, please consider contacting your Liberal or NDP-Liberal government MP at their office and explain why this censorship bill is not right for Canada.
281 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member think that CanCon regulations in radio in the early 1970s took away Canadians' freedom? He should remember that this was a time when we did not have the alternative of listening to music on the Internet through YouTube and such. Basically, all we had was mainstream radio.
Does he think those regulations were bad for the Canadian music industry? Does he think those regulations were bad for freedom in Canada?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the context of what we are debating and what we should do based on radio, such as AM radio, I do not think even the member would listen to radio anymore. I would say it is in my car. How it relates to this bill is that it limits the ability for consumers to post their content on social media. That is what I am against, and it is what this bill unfortunately would accomplish for our landscape.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative friends and it seems that there is something they do not understand. The way things currently work is that everything goes to the people at the top. Everything goes to the biggest stars on the web, whether they are video or music stars.
I will give an example. Pierre Lapointe, who is hugely popular, has said that for one million streams of his song Je déteste ma vie on Spotify, he only received $500. At this time, artists on Spotify are paid on a pro rata basis. The company tallies up all the streams in a given month, and the artist receives a payment based on their average. In addition, 80% of the streams on digital platforms involve 20% of the titles on offer.
Unless we pass legislation, even Quebec's biggest stars will not be paid much for major hits that are listened to by a lot of people. We must pass legislation. We cannot rely on market forces because that just does not work.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the question is about whether it is a free market. I would say we need to encourage more competition, be it from Spotify or even from a specific one for Quebec. Let the market decide if there is a need for those players. I do not think regulation is going to accomplish what the member wishes it would do. I would say to our creators that we have to compensate the creators for the content they make, but we need to do it in a way that we are not regulating all aspects of their lives. When a country starts regulating Spotify and all other potential streaming services, I believe that is a country I would not want to live in. I would rather open the doors and encourage more platforms to come forward and share Canadian stories than tell a private company what it can and cannot play.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the pandemic, the independent music sector has seen its revenues decline by $233 million and musicians' revenues have fallen by 79%. At the same time, we are seeing web giants paying almost no taxes in Canada and not contributing their fair share of profits to support the funding of Canadian cultural content.
Will my colleague please clarify whether he will continue to protect web giants at the expense of Canada's independent music sector?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we need to provide an environment that other platforms are attracted to so that our artists can get their product to market. I think that is a better approach than regulating the Internet.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to get my colleague's thoughts on the concerns being raised by YouTube and Michael Geist, foremost expert in Canada on the Internet and e-commerce, concerning the threat that Bill C-11 would be forcing streaming platforms to push Canadian content. It sounds great, but as a consequence it may actually downgrade that content abroad, which I think would be very concerning to our online content creators.
Can I get the member's thoughts on that?
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we need to help artists get their products to the international markets. This bill would hurt their chances, because other countries might decide to bring in their own censorship bills that would hurt our artists' attempts to enter their markets.
I believe it is better to let it flow freely, to let artists perform and make offerings to the people and let the market decide.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
As we know, it is not permitted under our rules for members to take photographs in the House of Commons. I have here a photograph taken about an hour ago by the member for Saint John—Rothesay and posted on his Instagram account. I wonder if perhaps the member and all members can be reminded not to take photographs in the House.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 5:43:48 p.m.
- Watch
As we know, those in the press gallery are the only ones who can take photos in the chamber. I may have an opportunity to talk to the member for Saint John—Rothesay in due course, but no photographs are allowed to be taken on the floor when the mace is in the blocks.
It being 5:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 5:44:40 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That:
(a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and
(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 5:45:26 p.m.
- Watch
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about seniors, who have contributed throughout their lives to our country, society and the economy. Seniors have worked tirelessly, served Canada and communities with dedication, raised families and paid taxes. They deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry.
However, far too many seniors remain concerned about their retirement savings running out. They are worried about not being able to live independently in their own homes. None of us can be okay with this. I am always grateful for the opportunity to listen to seniors' groups in Etobicoke North, the Asian Humberwood Seniors, Caribbean Seniors' Social Club of Toronto, Democratic South Asian Seniors Association, Humberwood Seniors, South Asian Seniors, St. Andrew's Senior Club and Sri Lankan Tamil Seniors Group of Etobicoke.
I love to listen to their stories, benefit from their wisdom, and hear what they need. During the last election in Etobicoke North, I spoke to senior after senior over the telephone. One of the highlights of the election was when a woman who used to sing in Welsh choirs and teach singing sang Pure Heart in Welsh to me over the telephone.
With such joy came real heartache. The overwhelming issue I heard during the last election was that seniors need help to ensure a dignified retirement. This was vastly different from my previous four elections, when the overriding issues were jobs and the economy. Some seniors I spoke to were in their 90s and even their early 100s, and had served during the Second World War. One was a 48th Highlander who said that eight decades ago, they had stepped up for their generation and for future generations, and that their motto is Dileas Gu Brath, which means “faithful forever”.
I spoke to women who had worked in the war effort. I spoke to teachers who had taught generations of young Canadians for over three decades. I also spoke to many women who had not only worked and cared for their families but also cared for numerous extended family members as they aged, some for over decades, and with no remuneration. I spoke with some who had recently lost their partners and were worried if their savings would be enough to carry them through.
Some seniors stress that, in their words, they had done everything right and had saved for their retirement because they had the means. Not everyone does. However, they were forced to take out money from their registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs, when they did not need the money, when they were not sick, when they had not lost a partner, or when they did not need care.
However, when they really needed the money, it had been depleted through mandatory withdrawals or, in some cases, was gone altogether. They said that while their costs were always increasing, their RRIFs were forever decreasing.
Their challenges did not end there. Sometimes RRIF withdrawals pushed seniors into a higher tax bracket and could even result in clawed back old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. For seniors in non-profit housing, withdrawals could mean increased rent because rent is tied to income.
Today, when Canadians turn 71, they must convert their registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, to RRIFs and begin making mandatory withdrawals at a set rate. Seniors are concerned that the current rates do not reflect that people are working longer than ever before, the length of retirement is generally longer and life expectancy is increasing. When they are forced to draw down on their savings, they risk outliving their funds, and that problem is compounded by lower rates of returns.
I hope that colleagues in the House can come together to start a national conversation around registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. Specifically, Motion No. 45 asks the government to undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates and registered retirement income funds, and record its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months.
All Canadians matter, and they matter throughout their lives. The job of governments is to provide the support Canadians need across their lifespan. We are either seniors today or, hopefully, seniors-in-waiting. We are all in this together. The well-being of older members of our society must be a concern to all of us.
There will be those who ask why we need another study. In this case, requesting a comprehensive study is a good first step to starting a national conversation; focusing attention on RRIFs; collecting evidence; hearing about the realities Canadians are living today, more than two years into a pandemic; and, most importantly, having the government come back to the House within 12 months with real recommendations and options to help Canadians.
There is also a long-standing debates regarding mandatory RRIF minimum withdrawals and the scheduling of withdrawals, whether to increase the mandatory withdrawal age, reduce the rate of withdrawal set for each age, do a combination of these or eliminate mandatory withdrawals. These are just a few options, and the study could identify more. There are also unknowns regarding the full financial market implications of COVID-19, and how they will vary from person to person.
Private member's motions cannot commit the government to invest public resources. This would require subsequent decisions. Having said this, the motion does focus attention on an issue Canadians very much care about and are anxious about. It encourages the government to do real work and to come back to this House with recommendations on a way forward.
Let me address why this motion focuses on RRIFs. There are over seven million Canadians who are 65 years and older today, and 60% have RRIF savings. That is over four million people, and an opportunity for the government to make recommendations that potentially could help millions of Canadians. While RRIFs cannot be the whole answer to ensuring a dignified retirement, free from financial worry, they are an important part of the solution.
Moreover, Canadians and organizations, such as CanAge, CARP, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Investment Industry Association of Canada and the National Association of Federal Retirees, have been asking for changes to RRIFs.
Today, seniors are forced to make more and more difficult choices as they face the rising cost of living for everything from electricity to food to gas. This compounds the cost of aging and the difficulties brought about by two years of life during the pandemic. In short, this is the time to look at RRIFs, to study how to better support seniors today, how to better protect the middle class and how to better support seniors of tomorrow.
Seniors know that the rules around RRIFs have not kept pace with the times. Canadians are living longer, and that is a good thing. However, with increasing age, seniors may also have increased care needs. Canadian life expectancy is now 82 years of age, and the age cohort of those who are at least 85 years old is growing four times faster than the rest of the population, according to Statistics Canada data.
While almost eight million Canadians provide care to a family member or friend, almost half of these provide care for a parent or parent-in-law, yet seniors are still struggling. I have spoken to people in their late 90s who have increasing care needs, who have lost their partner, their children and their friends, and their RRIFs are gone. As one woman said to me, “I see no option but to sell my home, the place where I raised my children. I can't afford the care I need because everything I saved for is gone.”
This is a reality for far too many women, who often live longer than men and are disproportionately and negatively impacted. Moreover, the baby boomers, the large generation born between 1946 and 1965, are aging. The oldest of the baby boomer generation are just 76 years old today. Between 2017 and 2037, Canada's population of seniors, those age 65 and older, is expected to grow by a staggering 68%. The Canadian Institute for Health Information predicts that, over this period, the number of seniors in Canada will reach almost 10.5 million.
Importantly, care for aging parents may shift as baby boomers have had fewer children. Adult children have been and continue to be the backbone of long-term care in Canada. In fact, research by the National Institute on Ageing at Ryerson University found that 75% of all care is being provided informally by close family members. The same institute also shows that the cost of publicly funded, long-term care for seniors, including long-term care and home care, is expected to more than triple in 30 years, rising from $22 billion to $71 billion in today's dollars.
Canadians are also working longer than ever before, many because they lack private retirement income and they have to work. The percentage of seniors working past age 71 has increased from 15% in 1995 to 24% in 2015, and salary was the main source of income for almost 44% of seniors in 2015, up from 39% in 1995.
Increased longevity and longer retirements mean that mandated RRIF withdrawals put people in a position to outlive their savings as they age, which threatens retirement security. Seniors' savings are further impacted by lower investment returns. When outdated withdrawal rules combine with increased longevity and reduced investment returns, it causes exponentially greater problems for seniors.
In short, Canadians are facing a perfect storm when it comes to long-term financial retirement security. Workplace pensions are becoming less common and interest rates are at historic lows, meaning income is going down while retirement costs are going up. At the same time, Canadians are living longer than ever before, while family size has decreased to historic lows. This matters as adult children have typically provided most of the caregiving so that seniors can stay in their homes.
However, solutions do exist. Rules concerning RRIFs have changed before and they can change again. After RRIFs were first introduced, amendments were made in 1986, 1992, 2015 and most recently in 2020.
Canada's seniors contribute to our communities, country and society in countless ways. They have helped shape our country, and they have raised, mentored and invested in generations of Canadians. They are our parents, grandparents, friends, neighbours, workers, volunteers, and they matter. We must do more than just thank them for everything they have done for us and our country. After all, they laid the foundation for a better future for all of us.
One of the best measures of a country is how it treats its older citizens and the most vulnerable. Seniors worked hard, played by the rules and deserve a dignified and secure retirement free from financial worry. I know that every member in the House cares about seniors and ensuring they have a dignified retirement. My colleague has done decades of work on this specific issue. Our colleague for Edmonton West has previously brought forward a bill concerning RRIFs.
Friends, with this motion, we have an opportunity to do something really important and impactful. We can come together to start a long overdue conversation, encourage the government to gather evidence and come forward with recommendations to improve RRIFs for Canadian seniors. Most importantly, we have an opportunity to do something for those who have given us so very much.
1914 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:00:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for speaking out for seniors with this motion.
I have received countless messages from constituent seniors who are really struggling. I have a note from from Donna, who is saying that she has to keep her heat at 64°F because she cannot afford heat.
I guess my question is this: How will this motion help seniors right now? They need help today.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:00:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the House. I look forward to meeting.
Our government has undertaken many things for seniors. One of the first things we did was to restore the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. I do not want to talk about accomplishments. What I want to say is that the RRIF minimum withdrawal rules were established in 1992 and retirement financial circumstances have changed. The RRIF policy should adapt to the current environment. Canadians are living longer. They are facing longer retirement. Workplace pensions are becoming less common. Interest rates are at a historic low.
The reality is that income is going down while retirement costs are going up and fewer adult children are available to provide care to aging parents. We really are facing a perfect storm. The solutions exist. That is why this motion encourages the government to come back to the House within 12 months and give real recommendations and options to help Canadians.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my comments are in line with those of my colleague. We cannot be against virtue and against a motion to study seniors' standard of living at this time.
However, why should we undertake a study? Why should we care about a study? The seniors who call my office do not want a study, they want a cheque.
As we know, the pandemic was very hard on seniors. Furthermore, the government created two classes of seniors by sending cheques to those aged 75 and over. The cost of housing, groceries and medications is increasing.
The last thing in the world that seniors need is a study. They need a cheque.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:02:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
My thanks for the support. This study does matter. We have to start a conversation. It has not happened in this country.
We have enhanced the CPP, and Quebec followed with the QPP. We have raised the GIS for single seniors. We have introduced a special tax-free payment for those who received OAS and GIS. We have invested half a billion dollars for seniors' essential services and supplies. We have provided a one-time payment, and we are increasing the OAS by 10%. Let us start a conversation on RRIFs.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 6:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was a thoughtful speech. I have worked with the hon. member previously and really enjoyed the work that I have been able to do with her.
However, I have to follow along with my colleagues on this side of the House. The reality is that this is a non-binding motion that may or may not provide some sort of report. We have a lot of reports. I can think of several years ago when I was first elected. We did a great study on a national seniors strategy, where we had a lot of clear recommendations about what we needed to do next to see seniors prosper.
I am just wondering why another study instead of something that is actually going to get us into the implementation. Why should seniors continue to wait?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
