SoVote

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/10/22 1:25:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, in my question I would like to speak to the issue of relevance. While I am sure it is unintentional and I would not want to impugn anyone, the opposition has been constantly and assiduously conflating the subject matter of this bill with the idea of the government spying on its citizens. We are in a kind of anxious age because of the galloping nature of technology, and of course the Internet and everything around digital communication have added to that kind of anxiety. I would like to hear the member's comments on how taking conspiratorial narratives and injecting them into this debate does not do anyone any good. In fact, it just feeds the general discomfiture of the age.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/10/22 1:26:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, with Trumpism in the United States we have seen the idea that one can just invent whatever truth one wants and throw it out there and that somehow it is acceptable. I would agree with the member that it is not acceptable. For the member for Provencher to compare Bill C-11 to governments following people on cellphones is simply unbelievable, yet not a single Conservative MP said that it was wrong and that he should not be saying that. In the same way that the Conservatives throw out this idea of censorship without any due regard for the bill itself, which they have not read or do not care to read, this does a disservice to democracy. The behaviour of the Conservatives over the last few weeks at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in a similar way has done a disservice. Our job is to take legislation and ultimately vote yes or no. That is true, but it is also our job to work to improve it. That has not been an objective of the Conservative Party in the last few months.

186 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jun/10/22 1:28:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct the record and confirm that the Conservative Party, as of last Friday, has submitted a number of amendments to the committee clerk for the purposes of this legislation, but we are not done. We have not finalized all of our amendments because we have not finalized the review of this piece of legislation. We have made very clear publicly, and did so in a release, the challenges and concerns we have with this piece of legislation, including section 4.2, the definition of discoverability, the redefinition of Canadian content and the thresholds that these institutions ought to meet. The question I want to ask to the NDP House leader is very simple. Much of this interpretation will be left to the CRTC, based on the policy directive of the minister. The minister has said that he will not release it until after this piece of legislation receives royal assent. Would the member not agree that it would be better for transparency and for the benefit of all of us in the House who are debating and voting on this legislation if the minister would simply, as the government did with Bill C-10, release the draft policy directive to the CRTC so that we can see it, review it and make a judgment on it before we vote on Bill C-11?

229 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/10/22 1:29:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Perth—Wellington. I think he was trying to be helpful. I think he was undermined by the rest of the representation on the heritage committee, but I know his heart is in the right place. I am very pleased to stand corrected and confirm that the Conservatives have actually submitted amendments. That shows that they find the time frames are reasonable, as we have been debating over the last few weeks. I am pleased to stand corrected on that. I also know from experience that the minister is very accessible. I know that if the member for Perth—Wellington could sit down with the minister, it would be an opportunity for them to exchange thoughts on the policy directive. I think that is an important piece—

141 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/22 1:30:11 p.m.
Watch

I hate to cut off the member. When we get back to this, he will have five minutes and 25 seconds remaining in questions and comments. It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

51 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/10/22 1:31:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to commend my colleague from Etobicoke North, whose motion we are studying today and who chairs the new Standing Committee on Science and Research. I am the vice-chair of that committee, so I have had the opportunity to work with her over the past few months, and I can say that, while we may not always agree, our interactions have always been very cordial, which is a credit to her. To come back to the matter at hand, I first want to say that I will be voting in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois has long made the living conditions of seniors one of its primary concerns. We deeply believe that every senior deserves a dignified retirement free from financial worry. This is one of our top priorities, and I am proud to say that our actions are a testament to this. I would like to mention a few of the things we have done. Last year, the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed calling on the House to increase old age security. It bears mentioning that that happened without Liberal support. On June 2, the Bloc Québécois finalized a petition calling on the government to increase OAS by $110 per month for people 65 and up. I presented a similar petition calling for an OAS raise in the last Parliament. Following a huge campaign involving seniors' groups in my riding and Quebeckers in general, we gathered over 20,000 signatures. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to that success. During the 43rd Parliament, my Bloc colleague, the member for Manicouagan, introduced a bill to protect pension funds and group insurance by giving them higher priority in the creditors' list when companies go bankrupt. The bill had the support of all four political parties, but it died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Not to be deterred, we reintroduced it in this Parliament. I could go on and on, but I will get to the heart of my argument. The important thing to remember is that the Bloc Québécois has been on the front lines of every battle to improve the living conditions of seniors, and we will continue to carry the burden on behalf of those who are too often under-represented in the public debate. We are therefore not opposed to the federal government undertaking studies on the financial situation of seniors and finding ways to improve it, as suggested in the motion. It is entirely pertinent and legitimate to try to come up with new tools that could be used to help seniors make the most of their financial assets and achieve the best possible standard of living. However, it is essential that these studies, if undertaken, not be used as an excuse for delaying the urgent action that is desperately needed, given the current situation. Particularly in the last year, seniors' quality of life has deteriorated rapidly throughout Quebec and Canada. The runaway inflation we are experiencing, which shows no sign of abating, has caused prices to skyrocket on things like housing, gas and food, and this trend will eventually extend to all goods and services. Retired workers in particular are more vulnerable and at risk because they have left the workforce and have no way to increase their income. It is no coincidence that many food banks have reported more retirees using their services. In-depth studies might be useful and constructive, but we already have access to a number of measures that could be implemented immediately and provide guaranteed results, without having to reinvent the wheel. As the Bloc Québécois has said many times, the top priority is a significant increase to OAS for all seniors 65 and older. It could not be clearer. The government recently increased OAS by 10%, but only for seniors 75 and older. Why is the government ignoring the thousands of seniors aged 65 to 74? Despite what the Liberals may think, it is false to claim that financial insecurity only hits at age 75. FADOQ, the largest group of people aged 50 and over in the country, shares that view and was offended by this age-based discrimination, which set a dangerous precedent by creating two categories of seniors. Another measure that would be worth implementing immediately is related to the annual indexation of OAS and GIS. At present, these two benefits are indexed based on the previous year's consumer price index. That means the indexation rate for 2022 is based on the consumer price index for 2021. This corresponds to a 2.7% indexation rate. In January 2022, however, inflation reached 5.1% in Canada, and it has only continued to increase. Unfortunately for those whose only sources of income are OAS and GIS, they must pay this year's prices for gas, groceries and medications, not last year's. The result of this shift is that seniors' purchasing power is undermined because the cost of the goods and services they use is going up faster than their pensions. We therefore have to consider whether there is another indexing method that could be applied to OAS and GIS, one that would not erode seniors' purchasing power. The answer is yes. Many pension advocacy groups suggest basing the indexation of pensions on trends in wages, because they increase faster than the consumer price index. Another calculation method that was developed by the United Kingdom involves increasing benefits yearly to match price increases, wage growth or 2.5%, whichever is highest. There is no doubt that a study on aging and the financial health of seniors should consider this issue and possibly explore other mechanisms in order to determine which one would best preserve seniors' purchasing power year after year. Finally, another issue that requires immediate attention is how to retain experienced workers. Since 2014, the active population in Quebec has been shrinking every day as workers retire and are not replaced by the smaller new cohort. Population aging is well under way and will accelerate sharply over the next decade. That is especially true in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, which has one of the fastest-aging populations in Quebec. Currently, one in four people in the Lower St. Lawrence region is over 65, and that ratio will increase to one in three within 10 years. This decrease in the number of workers is also causing a labour shortage that continues to be a headache for employers. At the same time, one in four seniors believes that staying employed is important for staying active, cultivating a sense of usefulness and aging in a healthy way. Why then are most of them leaving the labour market? It is not out of a lack of interest, but because of disincentives to stay. Pensioners who stay in the labour market have their pensions clawed back when they start earning employment income. We need to address this problem and bring in measures to encourage experienced workers who are willing and able to keep working. A new tax credit for experienced workers, similar to the one Quebec is offering to help workers aged 60 and over, is worth exploring. An increase to the amount of employment or self-employment income that is exempt from the GIS calculation is also a promising option, as it would allow seniors to earn more annually without having money clawed back from their GIS cheque. In conclusion, I could never see myself condemning the federal government for doing too much for seniors. The Bloc Québécois will be supporting the Liberal motion, but I would remind our colleagues on the other side of the House that sometimes, it is better to leave well enough alone. I am certain that the member for Etobicoke North has seniors' well-being at heart. I therefore invite this member of the Liberal Party to stand in solidarity with the Bloc Québécois by supporting our proposals to substantially increase the purchasing power of seniors in our communities. Seniors need allies in the government party. The government should start by increasing OAS for all seniors at age 65, to allow those who are being hit hard by inflation to breathe a little easier. Only then can we undertake further studies.

1411 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/10/22 1:41:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the concerns expressed in the motion before us. It is important that seniors live with dignity, that they are not overwhelmed with safety, health or financial concerns, and that they do not worry about how they will live if their savings run out. However, I believe that there are a lot of studies sitting on shelves in this place that have never been acted on. In fact, there is already a very current seniors study from HUMA that has not yet made its way to the House. That study was done just a year ago, before the Liberals' unnecessary election. I hope that at some point soon the report will make its way to this chamber to be acted on. Too many studies done by committees, by the PBO, by NGOs or even by accredited research institutes are not acted on by the government. As my colleague for North Island—Powell River said, “several years ago there was a substantive study on a national seniors strategy, yet there is still no national framework in this country to address the large population of people who are aging”. There is also no federal plan to address how we are going to manage the aging of our population, and no plan on how we are going to work with provinces and territories in a meaningful way to make sure that none of the seniors across the country is left behind. I point to health care. Provinces and territories are practically begging the government to increase health care transfers to deal with the tsunami of health care needs of our aging population. It is clear that the government has no plans for seniors in this country. At the same time, members in the House can see, in their very own communities, that many seniors are struggling. Their struggles are not because the government is missing another study. It is because the government has not responded to the studies that have already been done on this topic. An example of one that was not acted on was published by the Broadbent Institute in 2016, six years ago. It is entitled “An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors”. It reads: The analysis thus far has presented sound evidence that current policies, programs, and approaches to ensuring the economic security of Canada’s seniors are falling short. In addition to worrisome levels of poverty, the data show totally inadequate retirement savings of Canadians without workplace pensions. This highlights both the need for expanding the CPP/QPP and the shortcomings of voluntary savings vehicles like TFSAs, RRSPs, group RPPs, and the more recent Pooled Registered Pension Plans. If only the government had acted on the findings of this study six years ago, seniors would be in a better place than they are now, but the government did not. Knowing the history of the Liberal government’s inaction, I do not believe that another study would result in concrete steps to improve the lives of seniors. What I am really interested in is something that is actually going to make change: something that is going to address the realities that people are living longer and that their retirement savings have to last substantively longer. I want to see this government help seniors. We need solutions, not studies. I really mean that, because I have talked to too many seniors across the country, and in my own riding of Port Moody Coquitlam, who have told me that they cut their medication in half. They are not taking their medication to save money. They are putting their own health at risk because they cannot afford to take their meds. Now, with the increasing price of food, I am hearing from seniors that are no longer buying meat or dairy, and some not even fresh fruit. One of the reasons it is getting harder too is the financialization of housing. In my community, I can point to REITs. REITs are going after stable seniors rental housing. Too many real estate developers and agents are tirelessly harassing seniors on the doorsteps of their own homes, encouraging them to sell even when there is nowhere for them to go. It keeps me up at night thinking about how many seniors have already lost their affordable homes due to the predatory tactics of corporate investors. Seniors have been displaced across the country so that some corporation can make a profit through a real estate investment. Is another seniors study going to stop predatory real estate investors? Is it going to reduce the price of food? Is it going to increase income supports for seniors? Is it going to finally bring pharmacare to this country? I do not think so. Doing another seniors study is just an unmet promise by the government to do something that it has not done in the past. It will not address meaningfully the lack of income security that supports us as we age. Instead of another study, I believe we need more courage by the government and better prioritization. The government needs to move from love of the lifting of corporations to love of the lifting of people. It needs to make sure that there is support in place for people as they age, so that they can live all their days in dignity. Right now in this country, too many seniors are facing struggles because they cannot afford to make ends meet and, unfortunately, COVID has left even more of them behind. How did we get to this point, where there is no proper infrastructure in this country when it comes to the care of our citizens? We do not have systems in place that really focus on making sure that people are cared for as they age. The care economy is a growing concern in this country, and it already supports one in five workers, mostly women and immigrant women who are exploited in workplaces like long-term care homes. That reality needs to be addressed immediately. We do not need another study to know that the government should be prioritizing long-term care and the workers within it. I spoke earlier about a study that was done last year by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That study looked at the impact of COVID-19 on seniors. Let us ensure that study comes to the House. There are solutions that can be found right now, and it will take only the government's action to bring some simple fixes, some, like the ones my colleague from the Bloc brought up earlier, that would make changes in the House and make income supports available for seniors. In closing, I want to see action from the government, not another report on a shelf. For that reason, I am not sure I can support the motion as is, but I propose the following amendment and look for all parties' support of this addition. I move that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “interest rates”, the following: “guaranteed livable basic income”.

1202 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/22 1:49:07 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Etobicoke North if she consents to this amendment's being moved.

68 words

All Topics

Hon. Kirsty Duncan

Jun/10/22 1:49:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after months of consultation with numerous groups and many attempts with the NDP to even have a conversation, this motion is actually on RRIFs and we did not even hear that discussed, so the motion stands.

38 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/22 1:49:50 p.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/10/22 1:50:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for Etobicoke North, and thanking her for choosing such an important and timely subject. In recent years, many of my constituents have contacted me, as their MP, about this issue. This motion gives me an opportunity to speak to the issue and discuss it here in the House of Commons. I was here for the first hour of debate. I listened to all the speeches and I heard a number of criticisms about the motion. Most of the criticisms were about things that were supposedly missing. I feel those criticisms are unjustified and fail to address the nub of the issue. It is true that, if I am not mistaken, the motion does not mention the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, old age security or the guaranteed income supplement, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are not talking about those aspects of the support system for Canadian retirees. I would like to take a moment to speak about the nature of our support system for retirees. It is a mixed system, a system that reflects our ways of doing things and our lifestyle here in Canada. It is reflected in our federative political system, which is a nuanced, multi-dimensional system. For example, we have a mixed economy that is based on free markets. However, the government does intervene for various reasons. We therefore have a mixed system, which consequently is perhaps more stable and efficient than other economies around the world. In particular, I think that it is more efficient and fairer than the American economic system. We also have a health system that is somewhat mixed. It is obviously a public health system. However, there is some space on the periphery for private insurance plans to cover the cost of medications, for example, although we are moving towards a national pharmacare system. It is therefore a system that allows for private insurers to cover certain services such as osteopathy, eye exams, psychotherapy and so forth. Once again, it is a multi-dimensional system. In Canada, we have the capacity to find a middle ground. That is Canada's brand, and it makes Canada a force in several respects. As a complement to public pensions, Canadians also have access to private savings vehicles supported by the tax system. The tax policies of both levels of government make it possible to invest in a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP, and in a registered retirement income fund, or RRIF. Some of these vehicles enable individuals to manage their own retirement investments. Even those who do not keep an eye on their portfolio every day—and I think that is most people—still have some knowledge of what is happening in the financial markets. If someone has an RRSP or a RRIF, they obviously keep an eye on the financial markets, even if they are not an expert and they do not work on managing their portfolio every day. In short, those who have these financial instruments are in a position to make fairly informed decisions that will help them maximize the value of their assets to the extent possible. Many people have written to me to share their concerns about how the current rules, which require them to withdraw a minimum percentage of their portfolio after the age of 71, will leave them less well off financially in the long-term. That means they will not necessarily have the support they hoped to have when they are older and further into their retirement. Many have told me that it makes no sense to be required to withdraw a minimum amount from their funds and that they would rather not do that right now because the financial markets are down. Taking out their money is worse than not being able to take advantage of a situation where they might be able to benefit from a capital gain. Worse yet, they are being forced to take a loss. Many of my constituents have written in to urge us to suspend this requirement to withdraw a percentage of the funds in their portfolio. A few years ago, such a request was not justified because the financial markets were more or less stable. However, I believe that everyone in the House can see that the economy has been more volatile these past few years than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. It is a fact we can see with our own eyes if we watch the news or follow the markets a bit. Stephen Poloz, former governor of the Bank of Canada, just published a book entitled The Next Age of Uncertainty: How the World Can Adapt to a Riskier Future. It is only available in English for now. Even the former governor of the Bank of Canada has said that the world is more unstable than it once was and that, as a result, financial markets will show a much wider variation or spread in the value of investments. This is a reality we need to come to grips with. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this may be the time to really look at this issue again. I know that in the past, governments have made adjustments to the amounts and percentages that have to be taken out of one's portfolio. However, I believe that the current economic and financial situation calls for a review of this issue to see whether we need to make changes that would allow pensioners to retain the value of their assets for much longer than if everything stayed the same.

952 words

All Topics

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

Jun/10/22 1:59:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in the House on M-45, brought forward by the member for Etobicoke North. It is good to see she is in the House today as well—

35 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/22 1:59:45 p.m.
Watch

Members cannot say whether anyone is in the House or not. I will let the member back up and give him the full 10 minutes. The hon. member for Yellowhead.

30 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Jun/10/22 1:59:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I am pleased and honoured to speak in the House to Motion No. 45, brought forward by the member for Etobicoke North. I will say right from the start that I am not opposed to the motion. I am fine with doing the study and everything, but I am concerned about whether we need to do another study. I mean, there has been enough information and there have been enough studies brought forward in the past. One of the concerns I have is that everyone talks about, “Well, maybe this study needs to be updated,” or, “Maybe this one is a little too far out of date,” but I still think there is enough information. I will begin with some background and history as to my past. Before I was an MP, I was mayor of Yellowhead County. At that time, I was also part of an organization called the Evergreens Foundation, which was the seniors housing situation in our riding. Not only was I on the board, but I was also the chair of the board, which gave me the opportunity to understand a lot more about seniors' issues. As I am also getting older, it is great to be aware of what is potentially going to happen to me in the future. At the Evergreens Foundation we were in charge of housing, and that ranged from homes to apartments and right to seniors lodges. There was a lot of information that we had to take in, and a lot of issues in trying to get seniors into our housing areas. There was never this “based on income” requirement in order to be allowed in the housing market, but definitely 30 points were given based on one's income score. If one had too high a level of income, then one was less eligible to get in. Unfortunately, that was not the case for most people. Most had no problem accessing the subsidized part of our housing operation. However, when I went to conferences, I was quite astounded to learn from one of the speakers about the future plans, or lack thereof, that Canadians had for retirement. The speaker talked about how probably about 25% of Canadians really planned for their future. They knew that the Canada pension was not going to be enough and that they had to supplement it, and they were very secure in making sure that they had no problems financially. Unfortunately, the next 25% of people knew that they probably would not get enough money from the Canada pension and so they really should start saving, but they also did not put enough money aside. It gets scarier as we keep going through the numbers. The next 25% believed that they probably should put money aside, but maybe the Canada pension would be enough to take care of them and so they really just sort of thought, “We'll just deal with it.” Unfortunately, the last 25% of Canadians did not even have a clue that they needed to save for their retirement. They just assumed that the Canada pension was going to be enough and that the government was there to take care of all their concerns. When we look at these numbers, 75% of Canadians are not able to secure their future and have not put enough money aside or did not even know they had to put enough money aside for retirement, so this is where I kind of question a study. The speaker I am talking about spoke at this conference over five years ago, so it has been an issue for many years already that Canadians do not think they need to have a retirement plan. They figure that the government is more than willing to take care of them. One of my concerns with the motion is this: After all these years we have known that Canadians have not saved enough money, I question why we need another study when there is more than enough information out there. Now, not only is that a problem I had with that committee, but I started to understand a lot more about how Canadians lived their lives, because of some of those statistics as well as being on the board of Evergreens. I will change the names and areas so that I do not identify anybody in my riding, but I have dealt with Mary from Thorsby many times in the past. Finances have been a big issue for most of her life, so putting money aside was never an issue for her, because she just never had excess money to put aside. However, every time something came up, she would ask, “Gerald, is there more availability for programs or some other grant or something for housing? Are there things I can access?” Unfortunately, I was never able to give her any real help. However, when COVID hit, Mary was still working part-time, and she was in her eighties at the time. The organization she was with applied for COVID funding for her, and she was able to get that COVID funding. The problem was that she did not put any money aside for the taxes, so she ended up paying, and I am well aware we have kind of changed direction on that, so that is not too bad for her. However, her problem still was that she did not get the guaranteed income supplement. She was losing over $600 a month. When she talked about her Canada pension and all of the bills that she had, and she is about $450 in the hole every month. She is not able to make ends meet. I talked to Mary and told her that I did not want to bring it up, but I was thinking her only option would maybe be a reverse guaranteed mortgage. That is where the government or an agency assumes the mortgage on her farm and give her the money she needs. It basically takes the inheritance away from the family members. She told me that she just could not do that. I thought that it was more about the personal strength of her own farm and knowing that she would have to, in a way, sell the farm back, but that is not what the issue was. The issue was that her son had gotten into some financial trouble a couple years ago and she ended up mortgaging her farm to help her son out. There was no way she could even get this guaranteed basic income from her home with a reverse mortgage situation. This lady is in a terrible situation because no matter where one thought there could be money coming from, she was not able to access it. That was the devastating part. Through no fault of her own, but for the love of her son, she actually tried to make it better for her family, which ended up hurting her. Now we have this woman who is in her 80s, with no real financial opportunities, who did not plan properly in her life, and I feel for her, but at the same time, there are not any government programs in there. My concern with this program and doing this study is the fact that it is going to take another year. That is fine, but it will then also take how many more months or another year to implement any of the recommendations put forward. We are probably looking at, at least, a minimum of two years. What do we tell Mary for the next two years, who does not have the money to help her get through and cope with everything she has been dealing with? It is very devastating for me to have say, “Jeez, Mary, I am sorry. I am not able to help.” Unfortunately, Mary's is just one of the many stories I have heard from seniors living across my riding. I think some of them have thought just like I said. The last 25% believe that the Canada pension was going to be enough, and it never was enough. It was always supposed to be supplemented by some personal savings account. What a lot of farmers have done is to sell their farms as part of their retirement package and then live off the interest, for whatever time that amounted to. That is great for some people, but not everybody is in that situation. There are many seniors who have rented their whole life, rented right in towns and cities, wherever they may be, and they just never had that asset to sell. Therefore, that becomes a problem when the future comes and they do not have that financial security. My concern with this motion is the fact that we are well aware of the pitfalls that Canadians have put themselves in. We are well aware of all of the studies that have been done in the past, yet this is not addressing the current needs today. Unfortunately, it is going to take two more years, probably, before this goes through, so I am really hoping that everyone does support this. I am really hoping that we are able to get Canadians back to the financial security and quality of life seniors deserve in their final days, because it is never good that anyone who has given all their time to Canada, to the community, is having that taken away from them.

1601 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/10/22 2:09:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to discuss such an important issue. I am disappointed, to be frank, that my colleague across the floor did not support my colleague's amendment to add a much-needed guaranteed livable basic income to this motion. We know seniors are asking for real solutions. Across Canada, more and more seniors are struggling to make ends meet. Despite a lifetime of hard work and contributions to our communities, seniors are unsure how they are going to pay for their groceries, keep a roof over their head and pay their bills. Is this the example we wish to show our children? It is shameful. Seniors deserve to retire with dignity. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, seniors represent almost a quarter of our population. Too many seniors in our communities are struggling to make ends meet. In Nanaimo, for example, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment has more than doubled over the last six years. An average one-bedroom rental now costs over $1,500 a month. For seniors living on a fixed income, these costs mean cuts elsewhere, such as in groceries or their life-saving medications. Seniors cannot wait for relief. Why do we keep talking about study after study when we know seniors need action now? Seniors contacting my office have been clear: They want to be treated with dignity and be able to afford to get by. That is why I am so glad that my NDP colleague put forward this amendment for a guaranteed livable basic income so that seniors can be treated with the respect they deserve. I hope that this conversation and this solution continue after this debate today. Seniors with British citizenship in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada, as another example, are losing their hard-earned money every month. This is the result of their U.K. pensions being frozen because they live in Canada. If they still lived in the U.K. or almost anywhere else in the world, these pensions would be indexed and would continue to increase year after year, but because Canada never reached an agreement with the U.K., these pensions have been frozen. Pat, a well-loved and respected 91-year-old constituent in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, continues to contribute in our communities in so many ways. Pat grew up in New Malden, U.K. She left school and went to work at 16 years of age, paying into the U.K. pension plan for two decades before coming to Canada. She began drawing her pension at retirement, as one would expect, and has been receiving the same amount every month for 30 years, which is about 119 pounds or $190 Canadian per month. As a result, Pat lives well below the poverty line and struggles to make ends meet. I want to acknowledge all those advocating to the government to finally do better for the 127,000 and counting British pensioners in Canada, such as Ian Andexser, the president of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners and a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. This is not a new problem. Ian and many others have been advocating a change for decades. Most recently, he called the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development to ensure that these frozen pensions are part of Canada's ongoing trade talks with the United Kingdom. While the government chooses inaction on this issue, contributing members of our communities are the ones left to suffer. This is not good enough. As I conclude my remarks today, I want to thank the member opposite again for making sure that the struggles seniors are facing are recognized and discussed in this chamber. While I agree that the motion has the best of intentions, I want to stress that seniors who are losing their homes or skipping meals because they cannot afford their groceries should not have to wait for another study on this issue. We know that the government can and should do more to be there for seniors. I really hope that the government reconsiders the NDP amendment to add the guaranteed livable basic income and ensure that we are finding real solutions so that every senior in Canada is able to live with dignity. Another issue that is coming forward in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is around supporting seniors during the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, many seniors believed that their support system from the government would be there for them. The pandemic revealed that this was not the case, unfortunately. One example of this occurred when seniors who relied upon the guaranteed income supplement, and rightfully accessed CERB during the pandemic, saw their benefits clawed back the next year. Despite seniors and advocates raising this concern for months, and the NDP pushing the government to do better, the government sat on its hands for months before addressing this problem. While I am glad to see that the government has moved forward to begin addressing the problem, it should never have come to this. As members can see, there are endless tangible items that are being brought forward by seniors to my office. Seniors are asking us to make sure that we are putting in place solutions that afford them the dignity and respect that they deserve. I am apprehensive and concerned that we continue to implement study after study and we are not seeing that action necessary for seniors be put into place. I hope that we start seeing those actions put into place, and I thank the member again for the motion.

946 words

All Topics

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Jun/10/22 2:15:45 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. The motion asks for the following: 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. My riding of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley in Manitoba is home to many seniors. Seniors helped build this country and our communities. I have always said that they need to be treated with the respect they are due for building our communities while raising their families. We all stand on their shoulders in this place. I stay in touch with many seniors I represent, because I value their experience and their wisdom. Not a day goes by that I do not receive an important email or phone call from seniors I represent who are concerned about their finances. Many are on fixed incomes from their retirement pensions. They are worried about rampant inflation, which has been directly caused by the massive, out-of-control quantitative easing program instituted by the Bank of Canada. Even the Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, acknowledged that he and his lieutenants misjudged the strength of inflation at the start of the year, and pledged to act “as forcefully as needed” to make up for the mistake. During testimony at the Senate banking committee on April 27, he said that we are coming “out of the deepest recession we've ever had, but...we got a lot of things right and we got some things wrong, and we are adjusting.” Inflation eats away at pension income because price inflation makes everything more expensive. It erodes the basic fixed income of every senior. The bank's main responsibility was to keep inflation at 2%, but now inflation is at almost 7% because of the bank's mismanagement of this issue, as admitted by the governor. I note that the motion is also concerned about interest rates. As a result of the bank's mismanagement of inflation, it has been forced to raise interest rates. The bank now uses higher interest rates as a tool to curb inflation. Higher interest rates are great if people have savings, but if they are still paying a mortgage or a car loan, which many seniors do, this just compounds the problem. Any discussion of this matter should in fact include a discussion of how to protect seniors against inflation eroding their incomes. In my view, this motion is very timely. Seniors on fixed incomes have been hurt by the bank's mistakes and now have to make difficult decisions around what foods they can afford, or whether they can afford to visit their grandchildren or buy them presents. On top of this, to add insult to injury, instead of providing an adequate income for Canadian seniors, by any identifiable metric the government has done just the opposite. It promised to help seniors and Canadians suffering during the deadliest pandemic the globe has seen in a century. In order to facilitate this, the government 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. Only after months of advocacy by my Conservative colleagues did the Minister of Seniors finally take action to fix her government's mistake by introducing Bill C-12 and issuing a one-time payment to affected seniors. Better late than never, as they say. While I am happy to support the motion, I just cannot help but feel that this will be just another study collecting dust on the shelf in the minister's office. The fact of the matter is that these issues have already been studied many times. Seniors do not want or need another study. They want action now, not a year from now or after yet another study. Seniors want action right now, not 12 months from now or three or four years from now. We have a number of studies that are either done or in the process of being done, and recommendations to follow up on. The HUMA committee is currently studying the effects of COVID-19 on seniors. This study covers much of the same ground as what this motion calls for. There will be a large overlap between the information the committee has already gathered and what the member's motion hopes to achieve. Also, back in 2018, a motion moved by the member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 106, seconded by many House caucus colleagues, 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 via the development of a national seniors strategy, among other things. Seniors are still waiting for that national strategy four years later. The result of the committee's work was a 142-page report entitled “Advancing Inclusion and Quality of Life for Seniors”, which made 29 recommendations. Many of these recommendations speak directly to the motion we are debating here today, and the government has unsurprisingly failed to act on many of them. There is not time to review every recommendation in the 10 minutes I am allotted, but one of the areas my hon. friend mentioned in her motion is interest rates and registered retirement income funds. As I said, we on this side agree that affordability for seniors was an issue before COVID and before the recent record increase in inflation and the cost of living under the government's watch. This was caused largely by the mistakes of the Bank of Canada, which it has admitted to. The very first recommendation of the 2018 report reads, “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.” Four long and difficult years later, seniors know that this recommendation, along with the national strategy, has been ignored. In addition to the GIS clawback I mentioned earlier in July of last year, the then minister of seniors announced a one-time payment of $500 to seniors aged 75 and over, stating, “Canadian seniors can always count on us to listen, understand their needs and work hard to deliver for them.” However, apparently, the government was 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 the wrong tax information, jeopardizing their ability to file their taxes on time. They now run the risk of once again having their benefits cut off through no fault of their own. That is why our party advocated for the government to extend the deadline for seniors filing their taxes so there would remain zero risk of vulnerable seniors having their benefits taken from them by the government once again. When it comes to seniors, the government is all talk but little action. Seniors cannot afford to be an afterthought when it is implementing policies and programs designed to help them. We must work together as a House to deliver results. That is why I will be voting in favour of my hon. colleague's motion. I look forward to seeing the findings implemented efficiently, effectively, speedily, and most importantly, not another four years down the road.

1363 words

All Topics

Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Jun/10/22 2:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking colleagues for their support of my very focused Motion M-45 to start a national conversation around registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. Very specifically, Motion M-45 asks the government to undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates and registered retirement income funds, and to report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months. Studies lead to action. Today, when Canadians turn 71, they must convert their registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, to registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs, and begin making mandatory withdrawals at a set rate. Seniors are concerned that the current rates do not reflect today's realities, that life expectancy is longer and retirement is longer than when RRIFs were created, and that people risk outliving their savings. I have done a lot of listening to seniors in Etobicoke North and right across the country. What they have told me is that they were forced to take out money from their 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 funds, they had been depleted through mandatory withdrawals. In some cases, they were gone altogether. They said that while their costs were always increasing, their RRIFs were forever decreasing. Canadians are facing a perfect storm when it comes to long-term financial retirement security. Workplace pensions are becoming less common, retirement costs are increasing, and Canadians are living longer than ever before. Increased longevity and longer retirements mean that mandated RRIF withdrawals put people in a position to outlive their savings. Canadians know that the rules around RRIFs have not kept pace with the times, and they expect parliamentarians to listen, to have a conversation and to act. Solutions do exist, whether increasing the mandatory withdrawal age, reducing the rate of withdrawal set for each age, doing a combination of these or eliminating mandatory withdrawals. These are just a few options, and the study could identify more. 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. 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. With this motion, we have an opportunity to do something for those who have given us so very much. 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 and 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. They played by the rules, and they 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. We have an opportunity to do something really important and impactful. We can come together to start a much-needed conversation, encourage the government to gather evidence and come forward with recommendations to improve RRIFs for Canadian seniors. Canadians want this study, and they want action.

607 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/22 2:28:47 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

50 words

Division

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/10/22 2:29:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/22 2:29:39 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

56 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 86