SoVote

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

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

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

Hon. Kirsty Duncan

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

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

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

Hon. Kirsty Duncan

Mar/29/22 6:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with my hon. colleague as well. I think if all of us can come together to put this to the government, we can have real movement. We have not had movement on RRIFs. We have a real change coming. We have seniors increasing in population by 68%, and all of us have heard the challenges seniors are facing. This is an opportunity for the House to come together and for the government to provide real recommendations, recommendations for action.

86 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:05:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 45, brought forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North. While I am certainly happy to support this motion, I just cannot help but feel it will result in nothing more than another study collecting dust on a shelf in a minister's office. We have been down this road far too often with the government. Unfortunately, it has the habit of proposing framework after framework, study after study, and road map after road map, and then fails to actually implement any changes. Seniors need action now and not in 12 months. We have a number of studies that are either done or in the process of being done and recommendations that need to be followed up on. For example, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at two studies that are quite relevant. While I am not privy to the internal mechanics of that committee, I do know the committee is undertaking a study of labour shortages that includes but is not limited to the care economy, which is a sector that encompasses health care workers and personal support workers. I imagine the study would be relevant to the areas of aging and longevity. HUMA also has a study on the docket to study the effects of COVID-19 on seniors. I assume this is to finish up the fantastic work it did in the last Parliament. Going through the hours of testimony and the many briefs submitted to the committee, it is very clear there will be a large overlap between the information the committee has already gathered and what my hon. colleague's motion hopes to achieve. I cannot fault the hon. member for presenting her motion on something she is clearly so passionate about instead of waiting for the studies of committees, which are out of her control, to be drafted and returned to this place. That being said, I want to highlight a previous study the same committee did when the Liberal government held the majority of seats in this place. Back in 2016, a motion moved by the member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 106, which was seconded by a litany of his caucus colleagues, among other things asked the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study and report back to the House on important issues such as increasing income security for vulnerable seniors and ensuring quality of life and equality for all seniors and the development of a national seniors strategy. The result of the committee's work was a 142-page report titled “Advancing Inclusion and Quality of Life for Seniors”, which made 29 recommendations. Many of these recommendations speak directly to the motion presented by the colleague across the aisle, and many the government has unsurprisingly failed to act on. I could go through each one of these, but I only have 10 minutes so I will touch on the first section of the first recommendation. One of the areas my hon. colleague mentions is interest rates and registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. We, on this side of the House, agree affordability for seniors was an issue before COVID and before the recent record increase in inflation and cost of living under the government's watch. Further, we need to keep in mind that exhausted and starving seniors do not even have RRIFs. The very first recommendation of the 2018 report reads, in part: That Employment and Social Development Canada work with Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to review and strengthen existing federal income support programs for vulnerable seniors to ensure they provide adequate income. If the seniors who have flooded the phone lines of my office in my short six months here are any indication, this criteria has not been met. I might have some sympathy for the government if this report came out four months ago. It came out four years ago. Instead of providing an adequate income for Canadian seniors by any identifiable metric, it has gone backward. The government promised to help seniors and Canadians suffering during the deadliest pandemic the globe has seen in a century. In order to facilitate this, it implemented COVID-related financial relief. Despite warnings from its own ministerial officials, the government sat on its laurels and allowed this benefit, which was taxable, to decimate tens of thousands of vulnerable, low-income seniors this past year by clawing back their GIS. I am happy to say that after months of advocacy by my Conservative colleagues as well as my hon. friends from Shefford and North Island—Powell River, the now Minister of Seniors took action to finally fix her government's glaring oversight by introducing Bill C-12 and issuing a one-time payment to affected seniors. While we all would have preferred it to come earlier, I understand that the payments will start to be issued next month. I want to thank the minister and her team for their hard work and I trust they will continue to work with the opposition parties, including those not part of their double entity. That was only the first government benefit that ended up causing more harm than good to seniors. In July of last year, the then minister of seniors announced a one-time payment of $500 to seniors aged 75 and older, stating, “Canadian seniors can always count on us to listen, understand their needs and work hard to deliver for them.” Apparently the government is unaware that one particularly important need for seniors, especially those on benefits, is to receive timely and accurate tax information. Once again, the government's incompetence resulted in over 90,000 Canadian seniors receiving wrong tax information, jeopardizing their ability to file on time and running the risk of once again having their benefits cut off through no fault of their own. This is why I, along with my colleague from southwest Miramichi, have called on the government to extend the deadline for seniors to file their taxes so that there remains zero risk of vulnerable seniors having their benefits taken from them by the government once again. When it comes to seniors, this government has an unfortunate habit of taking one step forward but then two steps back. The point I am trying to make here is not to be too harsh on the government but rather to highlight that it needs to take meaningful and effective action now to help our seniors. Seniors cannot afford to be an afterthought when implementing policies and programs that are designed to help them. We must work together as a House to deliver results. This is why I will be voting in favour of my hon. colleague's motion. I look forward to seeing the findings implemented efficiently, effectively and speedily because that is what seniors deserve.

1173 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 6:13:18 p.m.
Watch

Just before we move on to the next speaker, the reason I really enjoy PMB is that there is really no heckling that goes on between members. That is not bad. Continuing debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

38 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/29/22 6:13:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 45 regarding the financial security of seniors. When this was first proposed to me, my initial reaction was to think that this has already been done, and we already have solutions that could be put in place now. However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I will give this matter all the attention it deserves. Members will understand that I have studied the content of this motion with great interest. Let me assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion. The motion asks 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. For some seniors, however, this means another year of making tough choices. My speech will focus on three things. First, I will talk about how the Bloc Québécois has fought hard for an increase in the old age security pension. Then I will talk about pension indexing and the protection of retirement funds. We are not opposed to the federal government conducting studies on the financial situation of seniors, as Motion No. 45 proposes, because it is important to seek out new tools that would enable seniors to better take advantage of their financial wealth and enjoy the best standard of living possible. No one can be against apple pie. On one hand, we have seniors who have accumulated a fair amount of assets during their life, it is true, but who nonetheless face financial challenges once they retire. On the other hand, we have more vulnerable seniors who absolutely need the support that the social safety net provides. Let us not forget that one in 10 seniors live close to the poverty line. These two groups of seniors do not have the same concerns, do not think the same way and do not turn to the same solutions. This evening's motion has more to do with the first group of seniors, but that does not mean that we should not also talk about the second group, the so-called most vulnerable seniors who need our help. Although many seniors have a decent amount of savings when they retire, they are often left to their own devices when it comes to withdrawing that money, even though they are in situation where the risk of longevity could negatively impact their savings, in other words, they could outlive their savings. Another poll by RBC had similar findings. When respondents from Quebec were asked about their main concerns regarding their retirement finances, 52% of them were worried about not having enough savings. That number was higher than anywhere else in Canada. Some 42% of Quebeckers also expressed concerns about being able to maintain their standard of living. In addition, 31% of Quebeckers expressed concerns about the cost of health care, and again that number was the highest in Canada. After Japan and South Korea, Quebec has one of the fastest-aging populations, a demographic challenge that is expected to peak in 2030. The aging population presents many challenges, but there are a number of things we can do to improve living conditions for seniors, and in particular their financial situation, without conducting a new study. First, the government needs to substantially increase old age security for all seniors 65 and over, on an ongoing basis. Obviously, we are also not opposed to a motion calling on the House to recognize that all seniors deserve “a dignified retirement free from financial worry”. In fact, seniors' quality of life and their financial security are among the Bloc Québécois's top priorities, and we act accordingly. Members will recall that, last year, the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed calling on the House of Commons to increase old age security. Everyone but the Liberals supported the motion. There is currently a petition to increase OAS by $110 a month for people 65 and up. I am sponsoring it, but it was submitted by Samuel Lévesque of Saint‑Eustache on behalf of his grandparents with the goal of achieving intergenerational equity. Still, it is surprising that the Liberals would put this kind of wording in their motion when they voted against our motion and chose to increase OAS by 10%, but only for people 75 and up, thereby creating two classes of seniors. That is a funny way of recognizing that seniors have a right to a retirement “free from financial worry”. By making this choice, the Liberals are abandoning seniors aged 65 to 74, who account for about half of those collecting OAS, 57% to be precise. In other words, the government is abandoning 3.7 million beneficiaries. Regardless of what the Liberals think, financial insecurity does not hold off until people turn 75. The FADOQ agrees. We can share numerous examples of people experiencing financial insecurity before the age of 75. Any of my colleagues here can attest to that. Given Canada's less-than-stellar record on income replacement in retirement, we might at the very least have expected the Liberals to implement the 10% increase more quickly and to extend it to those 65 and up. It is also hard to understand how the Liberals can propose the notion of a “dignified retirement free from financial worry” considering how they handled the CERB and GIS file. Despite knowing about the problem since the spring of 2021, the government took too long to correct an inequity in the interaction between CERB and GIS. Many seniors have had their GIS cut since last July because they legitimately received CERB payments in the previous year. The member for Joliette and I sent letters to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Seniors on two separate occasions to demand that the situation be fixed as quickly as possible. It was not until 2022, following significant pressure from the Bloc Québécois, that the government finally decided to take action and reimburse the affected seniors for their losses. Second, let us talk about the indexing of pensions. It is especially important to talk about it now, considering how high inflation is and how the people most affected are those on fixed incomes, such as seniors. For a dignified retirement free from financial worry, benefits need to be increased. The transition to retirement usually means a major drop in the average standard of living. According to OECD estimates, the net pension replacement rate was 50.7% of pre-retirement income in Canada in 2018, while the average for member countries was 57.6%. The EU average was 63%. The runaway inflation we have been seeing for some time now is driving up the cost of groceries and rent. This is having an impact on seniors' finances. Those who are in a tough financial situation have been hit hard, as evidenced by the increased use of food banks everywhere. Organizations that help homeless women have noticed an increase in the number of elderly women among their clients. The Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, an organization that advocates for the rights of retired and pre-retired people, has noted an increase in incoming messages over the past year, including dozens of emails from seniors who have ended up in disastrous situations. A person's ability to react to the rising cost of living is obviously limited when that person no longer has paid employment. When it comes to indexing, we know that OAS and the GIS are indexed to the consumer price index. The indexing rate for 2022 is 2.7%, based on the previous year. However, according to Statistics Canada, the rate of inflation reached 5.1% in January 2022, or nearly double the indexing rate. Even setting aside this one-time discrepancy between the indexing rate and the actual inflation rate, what about the performance of the calculation method in the long term? Indexation is a key determinant of the quality of benefit coverage. As the average life expectancy has increased in recent years, indexation of pensions has become more important, because the payments are made over a longer period of time. The standard of living and purchasing power of seniors are therefore directly affected. Purchasing power is affected when a person's pension increases at a slower pace than the cost of goods and services. It is a question of math. For example, if the projected level of inflation for the next few decades is 2%, this means an approximately 50% decline in purchasing power over 30 years if a pension is not indexed. Many pension advocacy groups are suggesting that pensions be calculated based on trends in wages rather than trends in the consumer price index. Many have decried the current situation, including the FADOQ, which spoke out against the sluggish indexation in July 2021, pointing out that the increase is not even enough to buy a coffee at Tim Hortons. Third, concerning pension funds, my colleague, the member for Manicouagan, worked very hard to protect Bill C-253, which was introduced by that member in 2020 and then died on the Order Paper when an election was called. All four parties had been in agreement, but that bill died anyway. Another bill had met the same fate when the 2019 election was called. We have not made progress. It is up to the Government of Canada to pass legislation to prevent these mishaps. The public understands very well that we must do everything we can to enhance and protect seniors' buying power. We all know that the population is aging. The number of people over the age of 75 in Quebec is increasing and will double by 2040. The number of people aged 85 and over is actually expected to triple during that time. We must also help more seniors remain in the labour force. The Bloc Québécois made various proposals during the election campaign. We suggested that a tax credit for experienced workers be created. We also proposed that seniors who want to work longer be allowed to earn a higher income for the purposes of calculating the GIS. I would like to make one last remark. Having worked in the community setting, at an organization that sought to raise awareness about elder abuse, I am very aware that it is not cool to talk about old people. They are seen as a drain on our society. In other words, we do not care about old people. Let us stop being ageist and recognize them for who they really are: a grey-haired source of strength. They deserve recognition for everything they have done for our society over the years. Truly, let us work together for seniors in our society.

1910 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/29/22 6:23:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, as always, for acknowledging me here so that I can do my work in the House. We are here today to talk about a motion that commits to another study. When we look at the reality of seniors across this country, what we know is that the bar of dignity for so many seniors has been lowered yet again. I always use the bar of dignity as my reference point, because I fundamentally believe that all Canadians should be treated with dignity. They should be able to feel that they can take care of themselves, and that when they go out and need essential things, they can get those things. I agree with the motion before us. I think it is important that seniors be treated with dignity, that they not be overwhelmed with financial worry, and that they not be worried about their retirement savings running out. I think it is important that seniors should be able to live independently in their homes. Those are all important things. However, I also believe that there are a lot of shelves in this place filled with reports about how that is true and what next steps we need to take to make that happen. Here we are: We have a non-binding motion that is going to maybe result in a study so that there is yet another report on a shelf somewhere talking about what seniors fundamentally need in our country. I just do not know how long seniors want to wait to have these things addressed. Earlier today, I met with representatives from Single Seniors for Tax Fairness. I really appreciated my time spent with them, talking about how the realities of our system benefit seniors who are married or in relationships, and that there is this huge, growing gap for our single seniors who have to look after themselves on their own. These are largely women who maybe worked at great jobs where they had a great income or had worked jobs that were low-income. To me, both of those are incredibly valuable and should be honoured and respected, but at the end of the day, they are the exact stakeholder group that is worried about whether they are going to be able to live with dignity for the last years of their lives and whether they are going to be able to pay for the essential things that they need. I remember, several years ago, that we did a pretty substantive study on a national seniors strategy. I still think it is unbelievable that we do not have a framework in this country that says, “Hey, we have a large population of people who are aging, and because of that we should probably have a plan federally about how we are going to work with that and how we are going to work with provinces and territories in a meaningful way to make sure that none of the seniors across this country gets left behind.” Unfortunately, COVID showed us that seniors are being left behind. We saw it again and again in horrific ways. This was not something that should have surprised Canadians. We have been hearing from these folks, and from groups that advocate for them, that we do not have the proper infrastructure in this country. When it comes to care facilities, we do not have the systems in place that really focus on making sure that people are cared for in a respectful way. We got to see it in the most horrific ways, and I do not think that this study or this report on a shelf would make a difference. I am really torn. Do I think it would be good to have more information about what we need to do better? Maybe, but what I am really interested in is something that is actually going to make the action happen: something that is going to look at the reality that people are living longer and that their retirement savings have to last substantively longer, and something that is going to look at how money can be moved around and at what age one has to move over to a RIF. Those are important things to talk about. However, I also know that a lot of that work has been done. We need solutions and not studies. I really mean that, because I have talked to so many seniors across this country and in my own riding. Seniors have talked to me about the fact that they have to cut their medication in half, especially in the early months of the year when they have not paid the amount that means they get free medication. Seniors are putting their health at risk for the first few months, because they cannot afford to pay what they need to pay to get the medication they need. When we look at housing, the reality is that affordable housing that is safe for seniors is getting harder and harder to find. We just saw, with the GIS clawback, a lot of seniors lose up to 100% of their GIS. How many of those seniors actually lost their affordable housing? They are going to get that extra money, which is okay, but they are living in a place that is far more expensive than they were before and they simply do not have the money to make ends meet. When we look at these solutions, they have to make sense for seniors. Doing another study is making a promise that we will do a study and maybe the government will do something about it this time. I am not persuaded that I will support this. I hear that everybody else looks at this and thinks this is a nice study, let us do that and no harm done, but is there harm done? How long do seniors have to wait? I am really torn on this. I think that we need better plans. We need actions that are going to be taken. We need to make sure that there is support in place for people as they age so that they can have dignity. I think of my own mother, who is in a long-term care facility. She was a young senior and had a massive stroke. Her whole life changed in a day and our whole family had to change to accommodate that. I see her all the time. She has a decent pension. She was a nurse most of her life and has provided services to the communities that she served. She struggles to make ends meet. This is assisted living. If she has a bad month, which means she cannot go downstairs and eat the food they provide for her, she has to pay a lot of extra money to have it come up to her. She does not have that money. It gets harder and harder. I also think about the fact that seniors are starting to lose their well-being because they cannot afford to make ends meet. It impacts one's health, if one cannot afford to make ends meet. We look at the spectrum of seniors as they age. We know that some are doing very well. We know that some are really struggling. We know there are a lot in the middle who sometimes have a good year and sometimes have a very bad year. There are a lot of solutions that could be provided that would really make some meaningful changes. I think of a bill that I brought to the House that talked about seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement every year. We know that between 20,000 to 30,000 seniors every year lose their GIS for up to three or four months. Why do they lose it? They lose it because they do not get their taxes in on time. Do they get their taxes on time? Absolutely, they do, every year. However, for many reasons, such as their health, that they are caring for a loved one and they are elderly or the onset of dementia, they do not get their taxes in on time and that means on July 1, they lose their GIS for up to four months. It was a simple bill that said let us just make sure that every senior across the country who receives the guaranteed income supplement gets a year of grace to get their taxes in so that no senior has to go through months without that extra bit. I will never forget, my first summer as a member of Parliament, getting that call from a lovely woman who was 84 years old who had lost her GIS. The government said, yes, it was going to get that in place as soon as possible, but her landlord said that, since she could not pay the rent, she had to get out. She was 84 years old. Where she was going to go? We worked really hard to make sure that did not happen, but it does not seem right. I want to see a bill that is actually going to take action, that is going to make sure that seniors are at the very core of it and that we do not just have another report on a shelf somewhere telling us what we should do while seniors suffer across the country. I regret to say that I am not sure I will be supporting this, and that the NDP is not sure it will be supporting this. How many reports do we need on a shelf, when we urgently need substantive action for seniors across the country now?

1623 words

All Topics

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 6:32:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to stand and speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. I listened to the previous speaker's comments about her mom being in a retirement home and the added expenses and so on. The whole core of the motion my colleague put forward is to talk about RRIFs and the fact that when someone is 71 years of age, they have to start taking out the money that they put away for years. That takes a lot of the money. People are living longer, and they are being forced to start taking money out at 71 years old, which often puts them in a higher tax bracket. By the time they are in their mid-80s, they often do not have any funds left. They were forced to take all of their savings when they did not even need it, and then they were taxed on it. As we promote RRIFs and RSPs and all these programs that we bring in, we have to pay attention to what happens when people get to be 71 and are forced to start taking money out of their RRSPs at a much higher tax rate. If a senior ends up in a retirement home or another centre when they are in their mid-80s, they have limited funds. How long is their money meant to last? The whole intent of the motion that my colleague has put forward is to focus on the issue of RRIFs and to get the government of the day to change the current system and allow people to hold on to their RRSPs until 75 or 80 or whatever the magic number is. People are living much longer, so they need to hold on to their money and not end up having to give it back to the taxman. Back in the days of the Harper government in 2010, I was the critic for seniors. We did a study and a white paper on the whole issue of what we needed to be doing for seniors. It was a variety of things. One of them was of course to change the RRIFs. That was in 2010. We were talking about the very issue that my colleague has on the table now, to change the RRIFs so we would not have to start pulling out all of our savings at 71 years of age. I would fully expect that everybody in the House would support something that makes sense and would end up helping seniors, because I know we all have the same feelings for seniors and we want to make sure we are helping them as much as we can. After this motion is passed, I would hope that within the 12-month period of time, the government would come back with a recommendation specifically saying that it is going to change the 71 years of age requirement to a minimum of 75 years of age to help the very seniors we are talking about. In this motion from my colleague, we are not talking about the OAS and the GIS and the seniors at that level. This is specific to the RRIF program. The withdrawal rules are outdated and antiquated, and as much as we have made a lot of changes and helped seniors a lot throughout the pandemic and so on, ultimately we have to change some parts of the tax system that penalize people. We do have a Minister of Seniors in the government now. We had a minister of seniors previously. Ms. Schulte was the first minister of seniors, and she spent an enormous amount of time and effort on behalf of all of seniors in Canada to bring forth a variety of changes. Whether we are talking about the OAS or the GIS, there were changes and constant discussions on how we could make the lives of our seniors that much better. Loud voices need to be happening. This motion gives us a chance to continue that discussion, but it has to be focused on the RRIFs. We need the tax changes to happen. The majority of Canadians are going to live long past the retirement age of 65. We know that. I believe the median age is already 84 or 85. I go to a lot of birthdays now for people who are 102 and 103. By the time they get there, they do not have anything left because they have taken the money out of their home and used it all. Retirement homes and nursing homes are quite expensive. The seniors who are calling us and talking to us want us to make sure that, if they are prepared to save their money and they have it, we should let them keep it and not force them into withdrawals so they end up not having the money to pay the bill at the retirement home. Then their children end up having to contribute more than what is necessarily the purpose for them to do. If we can stay focused on what the motion is about, we can have a discussion at committee so that we start talking about what tax changes can be made to help the very people that each and every one of us cares about in the House. The criticism is that it will be another study. However, it will be a study focused specifically on RRIFs, and it will give us a chance to have a bigger conversation about what happens when people are 65, 70 and 75. If they have savings, are they forced to take it out? Yes, currently they are forced to take it out and they end up having to give probably a good third of that back to the tax man. I am proud to be part of the government, but I am not proud to be under a government that is taking seniors' money and making them have to pay taxes on it. They worked all their lives to save that money. They should be allowed to take it out as they need it, not be forced to do so at any particular age. I want a complete abolition of having an age when we have to start withdrawing our RRSPs and the rest of it. The goal for me in supporting the motion is to see that it gets eliminated completely. If seniors have $100,000 in bank, let them draw it out as they need it as they get older, especially given the fact that people are living to 101 and 102 years old. That is the focus that I see in this motion. It is to keep these kinds of discussions going so that we all work together to get this change to happen. It will take all of us working together and pushing the government of the day to make this happen. In 12 months, there will be a report, whether we agree with it or not. If we do not agree with it, then it is up to us to change it. This is an opportunity for us all to make a difference here in the House on this motion, and I hope that everybody will support it. I know my colleague puts it forward with the utmost sincerity because she has seen it herself and wants to make sure that we make the changes that are going to help. Many of those changes could end up helping many of us in the House today.

1261 words

All Topics

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:41:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for an opportunity to speak to the seniors in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Every member of the House knows how important our seniors are. Every member of the House hears from seniors regularly. As we have heard from many members this evening, this motion is important but there is a lot of concern on action. Conversation is really important and bringing awareness is important. One of my favourite sayings is “education equals awareness equals change”. However, as my colleague from Hastings—Lennox and Addington has said, we do need action. I want to take this opportunity to read a message from one of my constituents, as it is my job as an MP to advocate on their behalf. “Michelle, I hope that's okay. I'm not politically in the wave.” He was not sure if he was allowed to call me Michelle. “Is there any way that our existing governments can help seniors with their expenses? I moved here to Millbrook, Ontario”, which is in the riding of my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, “from Toronto many years ago just to get away from the city. After 15-plus years, my company pension is running out. Now with an annual income ready to drop well below $16,000, I am in a bind to say the least, [with] rent, hydro, gas, Nexicom”, which is Internet and very expensive for basic cable Internet and land line. “I don't have a cellphone and could not afford one to begin with. “I have to give up my Legion membership and their lottery pool.” That one makes me very sad. “Being handicapped, my personal care worker costs are over $1,000 a year. Foodland prices are through the roof: two dollars for one potato, three dollars for one tomato, etc. I'm not asking for any handouts in any way, but turning 75 next month, I am in trouble to say the least. I love the village, but [it has] multiple housing developments. We only have one bank machine. I'm not complaining to you. I just have to vent. Thank you very much for reading my concerns.” This is from Bob, a constituent. I wanted to take this opportunity to read one of my constituents' letters. There are many hundreds more like him. They truly are struggling and truly cannot afford to make ends meet, and it is our job, every single member of the House, to stand up for seniors.

434 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/22 6:43:36 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:44:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that the RCMP provides essential services in communities, especially in the communities that I represent. My constituents know how important their work is and appreciate the RCMP members who serve our community. RCMP members deserve appropriate pay for the work that they do and we do not believe that is debatable. To be clear, the issue at hand is not about the pay rate for RCMP members, but rather the financial burden that has been placed on local municipalities and the Liberal government's failure to engage appropriately with other levels of government. The collective agreement negotiated last summer by the Liberal government resulted in not only increased policing costs going forward but significant one-time retroactive wage payments. Despite their exclusion from the process, the financial burden of this collective agreement largely falls on the shoulders of other levels of government. These costs have placed a tremendous constraint on municipalities in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster and no doubt on rural municipalities across this country. Municipalities certainly anticipated increased policing costs following these negotiations, but the negotiated agreement far exceeded what was anticipated. We know that municipal governments cannot run a deficit budget by law to cover these costs, so without assistance from other levels of government, municipal governments are faced with cutting services in communities or significant tax hikes. Neither is a suitable option for my constituents. We cannot forget that these bills are coming due as an affordability crisis continues and is continuing to balloon in this country. The City of North Battleford in my riding has calculated an annual policing cost increase in the range of $800,000 to just over $1 million annually. That is in addition to the one-time retroactive wage payment of over $1.6 million this year. For the City of Lloydminster in my riding, the retroactive payment costs are estimated to be up to over $1.8 million. Other municipalities in my riding, like Cut Knife, Wilkie and Paradise Hill, have all expressed similar concerns with their budgetary constraints. These municipalities have asked the Liberal government to provide them some relief by absorbing the one-time retroactive wage costs. I do not think that ask is unreasonable, even more so because the Liberal government chose to exclude municipalities, provinces and stakeholders from the process. When I asked the Minister of Public Safety to agree to this reasonable solution, his response was disappointing. The minister not only disregarded the fiscal position many municipalities find themselves in by asserting the current divisions of cost, but he also led the House to believe that there was an established level of communication between his government and local governments in my riding. Sending municipalities a bill and a payment schedule does not by any means equate to meaningful engagement. Will the Liberal government admit today that it has placed rural municipalities, like the ones I represent, in a difficult position, and will it finally step up now and throw them a lifeline by absorbing the one-time back-pay costs?

510 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 6:48:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a cornerstone of policing across much of rural Canada, in the Canadian north and in many towns and large urban areas. Its members keep our communities safe. The RCMP is the frontline police service of jurisdiction in the territories, in all provinces except Quebec and Ontario, and in more than 150 municipalities. The Government of Canada shares the cost of these policing services. In large municipalities, the federal government pays 10% of salary, equipment and other costs. For municipalities with a population of fewer than 15,000 people, the federal government pays 30% of these costs. I fully agree with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster that RCMP members deserve fair compensation for their work in keeping our streets safe. That is why, in 2017, our government passed Bill C-7. This historic, first-ever collective agreement between the Government of Canada and the bargaining agent for RCMP members, the National Police Federation, came into effect on August 6 of last year. The agreement provided a reasonable economic increase and market adjustments to address wage differences that existed between RCMP members and reservists and other police services across Canada. It marked the first time RCMP members had received a pay increase since 2017. It also brought their salaries in line with other police services across Canada. The agreement was fair both for our hard-working RCMP members and for Canadian taxpayers. Our government is mindful that policing represents a significant cost for all communities and local governments. Officials are working hard to engage directly with every contract policing jurisdiction on the costs to implement the new collective agreement. They have written to all partners to provide information, and meetings with individual jurisdictions to discuss their specific situations have started and will continue in the coming weeks. In closing, let me assure members that our government will continue to work with contract jurisdictions on the financial impacts of the collective agreement, and we will continue to support the RCMP and all jurisdictions to ensure the safety and security of our communities.

348 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Mar/29/22 6:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that response disappoints every municipality that finds itself in this position of fiscal precarity because of the agreement that the Liberal government negotiated. There is no meaningful engagement with the government. It does not operate in partnership or collaboration with other levels of government. I just want to bring to the parliamentary secretary's attention a letter that was addressed and sent to the Minister of Public Safety on November 30, 2021, from the Minister of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety from Saskatchewan. It says that the province was excluded in these negotiations, as were the municipalities, and that the Government of Saskatchewan is requesting that the Government of Canada absorb the entire fiscal impact of unilateral decisions regarding retroactive wage compensation for the prior periods of 2017 to 2021. Is it normal for the government not to respond to letters from provincial ministers?

146 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff

Mar/29/22 6:51:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government appreciates the financial planning challenges and complexities in the implementation of the collective agreement. We know that the retroactive salary increase puts financial pressure on municipalities and contract policing jurisdictions. We collaborated with our partners throughout the collective bargaining process at all levels. Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to continue our strong partnerships with the jurisdictions. Bilateral meetings have started in order to answer partners' questions and better understand their needs. Our objective is clear: We are engaging all partners in a meaningful way to enable open dialogue and with a view to supporting them in meeting their financial obligations.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/29/22 6:52:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from some Canadians who are considering or have made the decision to join Ukraine's foreign legion. That is obviously a very difficult decision. What those Canadians are not looking for from government is a repeat of travel advice. Those who are choosing to go and fight in defence of Ukraine are already aware there are significant risks associated with doing so and they do so in full knowledge of those risks. What those Canadians are looking for is legal clarity from the government. My question, in the first instance, was never about if the government can give those people life advice. It was about whether the government could help those people have the clarity of knowing how the law applies to them, specifically with respect to the Foreign Enlistment Act that was passed in 1937, which I think has an important area of ambiguity that the government would do well to clarify. The Foreign Enlistment Act makes it an offence for a Canadian to join or engage in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with a “friendly foreign state”. That is the operative phrase. If someone is going abroad to fight against a friendly foreign state, then that person is committing an offence in Canada. The act does not contain a definition of what constitutes a friendly foreign state. In fact, in the entire history of this act, from what I was able to discern, there have not been any prosecutions under it, which might suggest that the risk of prosecution for a Canadian who is going to fight abroad is low. However, people are still looking for that legal clarity and they do not have the benefit of legal precedent to look at. A friendly foreign state could mean a state that Canada is not at war with. A friendly foreign state could mean an ally or partner of Canada or a like-minded state in some ways, but the problem is that we just do not know. My original question to the government was if it could clarify whether, for the purposes of the act, not in colloquial usage of the term but for the purposes of the act, is the Russian Federation considered a friendly foreign state. However, I think more broadly it is important for the government to consider the need for clarity around this legislation, because there are many other cases where Canadians choose to participate in conflicts, feel very deeply on behalf of one side or the other, and there may be national interests that are impacted in Canada by those actions. We do not have clarity in the law with respect to when that would or would not be allowed at all. I asked the government then, and I am asking the government now, to provide Canadians with legal clarity with respect to the application of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and in particular, the provisions around what constitutes a friendly foreign state. Could the government clearly state that, for the purposes of this act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state? Could the government also consider regulations or modifications that would provide greater meaning to that section, so that Canadians who are taking this risk to fight in the defence of Ukraine do not have to worry about the possible, what I would argue, misapplication of this statute? The law also gives the government an opportunity, through Governor in Council regulations, to, “by order or regulation,” provide for “the application of this Act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict”. Therefore, the government does have the ability, under this act, to put forward regulations that would provide that clarity. I have an Order Paper question as well that asks the government specifically to respond, to provide a list and to provide information on what it considers a friendly foreign state, because Canadians should know whether or not this law applies to them.

676 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/29/22 6:56:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the Foreign Enlistment Act, I can confirm that it does prohibit Canadians from enlisting in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with a friendly foreign state. It also prohibits anyone in Canada from recruiting or inducing another person to enlist with any foreign armed forces. The act defines “armed forces” as including army, navy and air forces or services, but excludes medical and other services engaged in humanitarian work for or under the Canadian Red Cross or other similar Canadian organizations. To my knowledge, no court has considered the act, nor am I aware of any prosecutions under the act. It is important to note that decisions about specific criminal investigations are made by relevant police jurisdictions. Decisions on whether to prosecute are made by independent prosecutors. I want to be clear that the Government of Canada is concerned for the safety of anyone travelling into Ukraine at this time for any purpose, including to take part in the conflict. Global Affairs Canada has advised against all travel to Ukraine since February 1, 2022, and has recently stated in a new travel advisory that the safety of Canadians is at high risk if they engage in active combat. The Government of Canada may not be able to provide any assistance to Canadians who join militias or armies and are injured or captured. The decision to travel is the sole responsibility of the traveller, and we cannot guarantee the safety and security of Canadians abroad. That said, Canada is committed to contributing to the enormous international effort that is under way to collect and preserve evidence in pursuit of accountability for the serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. To that end, we are working on multiple fronts and joined the group of 41 states that ultimately referred the case to the International Criminal Court. I would also highlight that Canada is presently supporting the International Criminal Court through expert deployments and is exploring other possible areas for support. We will continue to co-operate with the court and respond to its calls for assistance in this matter. There is no doubt that this is an international effort, including in the courtroom. Canada has been and will continue to be there for the people of Ukraine. Together, we strive for peace, security and justice. Having said that, over the years we have seen literally hundreds, if not thousands, of private members' bills and initiatives that have been brought to the chamber. Just prior to going into this discussion, we had a private members' hour, and I would highly suggest and recommend that this might be one of the considerations my friend from across the way might want to put forward, if he feels so empowered, to better address the issue.

478 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/29/22 7:00:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on a private member's bill initiative for the past six years. People were working on the same initiative for 10 years before that, and it has not passed yet. It is something everyone agrees on. That just shows that, when the government has the regulatory power to solve a problem, saying one should wait 15 years for a private member's bill is not very helpful. I think members could reasonably draw the conclusion, from the statement of the parliamentary secretary and from the statements of ministers, that the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state, and I think some Canadians will take some comfort in that. However, it is a little frustrating that the parliamentary secretary could not provide a clear response to a clear question, and it is not a partisan question at all. It is simply saying that it is up to the government, in a sense, to define in the context of its foreign policy what states it considers friendly and not friendly, for the purposes of the act. Presumably, courts would refer to statements and opinions of the government, when considering what is a friendly foreign state. Why will the parliamentary secretary not simply and clearly state that, for the purposes of the act, the Russian Federation is not considered a friendly foreign state?

228 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/29/22 7:01:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have different departments within the government that are taking a look at the situation that is at play in Europe, and specifically Ukraine. I would suggest to members that these departments have very capable and ably-minded individuals who are very aware of the situation, and we continue to move forward. The issue of humanitarian aid is something that the Government of Canada has taken very seriously, as Canadians have taken it seriously. We have seen that in terms of monetary contributions, and we see that every day, whether it is with prayers or other forms of support that go to Ukraine from Canada. I am sure the specific issue the member has raised will work its way through in a very natural way.

127 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 48