44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 4, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the passing last night of a passionate constituent of mine, Gilles Laperrière. He was a great hockey enthusiast, a volunteer, a founder and a builder. He was a recruiter for the Montreal Junior Canadiens back in the day. Largely thanks to him, Réjean Houle was able to get on the ice at the Montreal Forum, as were many other hockey players who have helped put Rouyn‑Noranda on the map as a major incubator for the National Hockey League.
Gilles Laperrière was highly engaged. He was instrumental in forming the As de Rouyn‑Noranda and the Citadelles de Rouyn‑Noranda. For about 50 years, he looked after the Dave‑Keon centre, Rouyn‑Noranda's arena. He was the driving force behind the École du hockey du Nord‑Ouest, which he co-founded with Laurent “Pit” Laflamme, someone I would also like to commend. When I was young, Gilles made it possible for me to see the Stanley Cup for the first time. It was brought there. He was also behind the arrival of the Huskies, who will be in Gatineau tonight. To honour him and show how important he was to the community, we named our mascot “Lappy”, which was Gilles' nickname. I would like to recognize Gilles and offer my heartfelt condolences to his family, especially Émilie, Kevin, Zachary and Eliott.
I would also like to thank a new member of my team. I am fortunate to have a parliamentary intern here with me, Ahdithya Visweswaran, and I want to acknowledge her contribution.
I will now turn to Bill S‑12, which aims to strengthen the national sex offender registry system and respond to last year's Supreme Court decision. The Bloc Québécois's commitment will go much further. We are prepared to work very hard to include provisions that protect victims's rights.
This bill tries to reinstate the automatic registration provisions that the Supreme Court struck down, while including certain conditions that allow judges to use their discretionary authority to order whether or not an offender should remain on the registry for life. The bill also addresses publication bans, sometimes imposed without the victims' knowledge, which currently prevent victims from publicly sharing their stories and messages. That is why I felt it was important to rise and speak today. I thank my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill for sharing her time with me. Although these publication bans are sometimes intended to protect the identity of the victims, they often have the opposite effect by protecting the identity of the assailants.
This afternoon, I was very fortunate to meet representatives from My Voice, My Choice: Kelly, Morrell, Brandy, Carrie and Jessica. I find these courageous women, these survivors, very inspiring because they are agents of change in areas where it is not often easy to speak out. They advocate for victims, asking that their wishes be prioritized and central to the decisions being made. It should be up to victims to choose whether or not to lift a publication ban under the current provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
While the Senate has taken an admirable first step, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to build on the work already undertaken. To that end, we must consider the amendments proposed by survivors of sexual violence who are represented by My Voice, My Choice. Their personal experiences with sexual violence, the legal system and publication bans form the basis of the amendments they wish to see incorporated into this bill.
Survivors' calls to action are simple: Clarify that only victims of sexual offences and witnesses under the age of 18 are covered by a publication ban under section 486.4; ensure that prosecutors are directed by the judge to immediately inform the victim or witness of their right to request a publication ban; require prosecutors to present requests with the consent of the victim or witness and on their behalf; provide the victim or witness with a copy of the order once a publication ban is in place; prevent unwanted publication bans from being imposed on a victim or witness when the prosecutor or judge has been made aware of their wishes; allow for interim publication bans that can easily be lifted until the victim or witness makes their wishes known to the prosecutor or judge; clarify the process for modifying or revoking a publication ban, separate from the discretionary bans under section 486.5, by ensuring that the victim's interests take priority and that their freedom of expression is respected; broaden the limitations section to ensure that trusted persons and professionals are not criminalized for communicating information related to the identity of the victim or witness when providing support.
Over the past year, I have met and heard from many victims of abuse and mistreatment, including some victims of sexual assault. I want to thank the athletes for the trust they placed in me. Their very moving accounts enabled us to give a voice to these athletes who, through no fault of their own, were victims of these toxic environments in sport. Their courage must absolutely be met by concrete action from parliamentarians in the House of Commons.
The culture of silence in the world of sport is often perceived as a given, which can have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it can strengthen athletes' concentration and foster a strong team spirit, since excessive communication can disrupt performance. On the other hand, this silence can sometimes mask problems such as harassment, discrimination and injuries.
It is essential to strike a balance between respecting this tradition and promoting a safe and fair sport environment where the athletes feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of reprisals. Publication bans for the victim complainants line up with everything found in the sports community to deal with reports by whistle-blowers, who are often the victims themselves. We need to measure the harm done to the victims and that is often what justice underestimates. We need to give the victims the choice to participate in this choice. We also need to ensure that the information is made available for making these choices.
The government gave the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, or OSIC, within the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, or the SDRCC, the mechanism for handling complaints in sport. There too, unfortunately, they rely on the status quo, voices are silenced and investigations are not launched when national sports organizations are suspected of using strategies for silencing the victims who are key to their organizations.
Need I mention the numerous independent investigations that have been conducted in the world of sport? I could list Hockey Canada, Canada Soccer, Gymnastics Canada, Volleyball Canada, Canoe Kayak Canada, Canada Artistic Swimming, Water Polo Canada, Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton, Athletics Canada, Cycling Canada and many more. How many more victims need to come forward to demand an independent public inquiry into the world of sport? I call on all of my colleagues to continue their hard work.
At a press conference on May 11, the Minister of Sport publicly expressed her government's commitment to an independent public inquiry into abuse and mistreatment in sport. Five months later, things seems to have stalled. Is the work of two parliamentary committees—whether the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage or the Standing Committee on the Status of Women—and the approval of the MPs who sit on those committees enough to ensure that this public inquiry will go ahead? The aim is to shed light on important aspects of the issue and give a voice to all those concerned about the future of sport.
All parliamentarians here in the House agreed to investigate the matter. The harm being done to victims and athletes must stop immediately. That is one of the things that Bill S‑12 will accomplish, but we have a responsibility to go even further.
1362 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and his work on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and its study of safety in sport.
Does he think that there are strong enough measures in this bill to discourage crimes against athletes?
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her question and for her committee work.
The work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, like that of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, was done in collaboration. I think that shows what is best about Parliament, namely when all parliamentarians from each party come together because they have a desire for justice and a desire to improve sports. Sports are an important symbol in our culture. As such, we must go even further.
As part of this study, I was told about non-disclosure agreements. In my opinion, sport organizations abuse them. When we are presented with a particular situation, an independent organization, a so-called third party, is asked to investigate. They are told that a particular coach has allegedly abused a particular athlete. However, that athlete is not the only one who was abused and other victims are named. Those names are noted. The result, based on testimonies heard in committee, is that non-disclosure agreements will be reached with each of those individuals. Why? It is to protect the image of a sport federation instead of putting justice first. We will never be complicit in that.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, today being the national day of action for MMIWG, we know all too well that indigenous women, girls and two-spirit victims who have been taken or murdered do not get to tell their stories. When the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights supported the NDP's proposal to make a recommendation allowing victims the right to opt out of a publication ban, this was an important way to make sure victims can tell their story.
I wonder whether the member agrees that this kind of recommendation, which would help increase the understanding of how they got to that situation, is what would help make sure we have fewer victims of this nature.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her sensitivity to this issue.
Indeed, people cannot remain silent. Being a victim a first time is a tragedy, but what we see in the patterns is that victims are often victims a second time because they lose their name and their voice. That is totally unacceptable.
I think, if progress is to be made in this Parliament, it must also be possible to identify those victims. It must be possible to hear from them, to recognize them and to do all the upstream work to move toward true reconciliation.
Yes, the member can count on my support and that of the Bloc Québécois because there must be justice.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful, researched and thoughtful speech. It is nice to see that he has also heard from people who are very concerned by this issue.
I spoke earlier about something that affects me. I will ask my colleague a question because, clearly, women are still afraid of the justice system.
In Quebec, sexual assault help centres have published figures showing that only 5% of victims of sex crimes file complaints. Of the cases that go before the courts, only 3 of 1,000 lead to charges.
The justice system still scares people. Charges are not laid. Clearly, people are not paying for their crimes.
Does my colleague have any possible solutions that could be proposed to address this problem?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:40:36 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask the hon. member to give a brief answer.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is difficult to be brief, but our system does have to be fair.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of this bill and of giving a voice to people who have been silenced. In my opinion, it will lay the foundation for a renewed justice system, because we will be renewing trust in our justice system. That is the foundation of democracy.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:41:02 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:42:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. deputy House leader has a point of order.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:42:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it looks like we are really close to Private Members' Business, but if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:43 p.m. to start Private Members' Business.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:42:36 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:43 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 5:43, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, nearly a hundred years ago, Canada's first public pension plan was established. It was 1927, and the Old Age Pensions Act was enacted. The simple goal was to ensure that men and women aged 70 and over would have a basic income. Years later, in 1952, the Old Age Security Act came into force and replaced the act of 1927.
This important change marked the birth of a pension financed by our government. Like the population of Canada, the program has grown and evolved over the years. Canadians have grown, and so has the old age security program. It goes without saying that the old age security program has adapted to the needs of Canada's elderly population and continues to do so today.
As we all know already, we increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older. This officially came into effect last year. It was the first permanent increase to the OAS pension since 1973. It is giving older seniors greater financial security now and into the future.
Most importantly, it will continue to be indexed to inflation, so that it maintains its value over time. This increase was the smart thing to do, because many seniors aged 75 and over are facing greater financial vulnerability than younger seniors are.
As they get older, many seniors must deal with health issues. Illness appears, and that entails more expenses. Many seniors are not working much or even not at all.
Not everyone benefits from a pension plan from their employer. Moreover, let us not forget the risk of finding oneself alone following the loss of one’s life partner. These are all situations that can deplete personal savings. The older we get, the more likely these situations are to happen.
For example, in 2018, among the population aged 65 to 74, more than three out of 10 Canadians had employment income. When we look at those aged 75 and older, it drops by more than half, for fewer than two out of 10 Canadians.
Now we have Bill C-319 before us. It is a great piece of legislation. However, it is clear to us that it is not in sync with the demographic information we have and that I have just given. OAS is a proven program, and so are the measures we have been taking to improve it.
Yes, the old age security program continues to evolve. This new system has been in preparation since at least 2021, even though we committed to it in our budget. It clearly became a priority in 2022, after almost two years of the pandemic, which made us acutely aware that it was high time to put in place a modernized platform for payment of benefits.
Here we are, in the middle of the modernization process. This is another reason that it is impossible for us to support Bill C-319, and I will explain.
It would not be possible to implement the bill within the specified time frame. Its implementation would require us to make complex modifications to the existing IT system. The entire essential deployment and stabilization of the old age security program on the modernized platform would then be compromised.
We cannot take such a risk. We cannot do anything that would jeopardize this modernization process.
As I said, this process is a priority. The OAS program keeps evolving, and we cannot jeopardize this evolution, this modernization. It is an integral part of the whole process we have undertaken since 2015 to improve Canadian seniors' financial security. Without a doubt, we have demonstrated how serious we are about supporting seniors.
We have an interesting debate today regarding old age security. It is a debate that allows us to see, once again, to what extent we are already taking the actions that must be taken to ensure the well-being of older Canadians.
Nearly a hundred years ago, Canada began laying the foundations of its retirement income system, and the old age security program was one of these foundations. Since then, the program has evolved to meet the needs of Canadians; today, we are ensuring that it continues to evolve in this way.
704 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of King—Vaughan. Today, I am speaking on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
First, let me start by stating that it is an honour to serve as the shadow minister for seniors. Seniors have built this country. They have defended democracy and freedom. They have started businesses, raised families and volunteered in the community. Seniors have led by example.
I was fortunate to have been raised by my grandmother and great-grandmother. I learned the most valuable life lessons in life: how to sun-dry my own tomatoes and make many Italian dishes, a tradition I continue today; the importance of lending a helping hand to neighbours who may be struggling; and how to save for a rainy day.
Grandparents are a vital part of the family. They teach us the importance of a strong work ethic, the value of a dollar and how to balance a budget, something of which the Prime Minister has absolutely no understanding. I owe my grandparents a debt of gratitude, and this Canadian government needs to treat seniors with respect.
The fastest-growing segment of the population is seniors. I am proud to say I have recently joined that demographic. By 2030, adults aged 65 or older will make up 23% of Canada's population, or 9.5 million.
One key element of this legislation proposes to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. To be clear, this would not help everyone, but by increasing the GIS earnings exemption, we could help to alleviate some of these challenges for those who continue to work and ensure that more of our seniors are able to sustain a more comfortable and secure retirement. Conservatives oppose severe clawbacks of seniors' GIS benefits for those who can, want to and choose to work. Increasing the earnings exemption is only fair at a time when so many seniors need cost of living relief.
Seniors have dedicated their lives to the prosperity of this country. They have made incredible sacrifices, providing for their families and planning for the future. After spending a lifetime in the workforce and giving back to Canada, seniors should be able to retire on their savings and enjoy their golden years in peace and financial security.
After eights years of the Liberal-NDP government, this is no longer possible for so many Canadian seniors. In fact, more and more seniors are having to choose between medication, food or heating their homes. Every dollar they have put away for retirement is being threatened by endless Liberal-NDP tax increases that are raising the price of everything.
Conservatives believe that seniors who have worked hard and contributed to our society throughout their lives deserve to retire with dignity and financial security. However, many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the cost of living crisis the Liberal-NDP government has created. It is the responsibility of government to reward work, especially the work done by seniors. Labour force participation of seniors can bring value to organizations through experience and mentorship, help with succession planning and mitigate social isolation, if seniors want to, are able to and choose to work.
The Liberals' choice to disincentivize work also comes during a countrywide labour shortage. A recent Auditor General's report on pandemic programs clearly laid out how, as restrictions were lifted, the programs continued disproportionally and disincentivized work. “Help wanted” signs have become all to frequent a sight, as small businesses and not-for-profits become desperate for the manpower needed to provide their goods and services.
This is not the time to punish work. Common sense Conservatives believe that work should be rewarded. Why tax away seniors' incomes if they can and want to work? Seniors are integral in sharing their knowledge and expertise with younger workers through mentoring programs, internships or training opportunities. This can help develop the skills of the next generation of workers.
This past summer, I did a tour to hear from some seniors across the country. I met one group in Nova Scotia in a mentorship program that matches seniors with young Canadians. Everyone raved of the benefits they were rewarded through this experience, and I thank my colleague Dr. Ellis for joining me on that tour.
In my riding—
734 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:54:36 p.m.
- Watch
I was not sure if the member was referring to her colleague or talking about a different doctor. If the member was talking about her colleague, then she knows she is not to use the member's name.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
In my riding, a young man named Alessandro and his mother Mary started a not-for-profit organization that provides free lawn maintenance and snow removal for seniors who cannot perform these functions themselves, either due to physical or financial issues. Liberal financial policies have led to higher inflation. This has been stated by the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Seniors' retirement income is simply not keeping up with the pace of the cost of living crisis, which is cutting into the savings of seniors. High inflation rates, interest rate hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax, which affects the price of groceries, gas and home heating, are the real record of the Liberal-NDP government on seniors. Many seniors feel increasingly isolated in their own towns and cities, and many have struggled with financial insecurities due to the record inflation.
According to a survey by the National Institute on Aging, 72% of Canadians age 70 years and older became more concerned about their financial well-being in the last few years. Inflation has risen to 4%, and the cost of groceries has gone up by 6.9% since last year. The price of housing continues to skyrocket, with mortgage costs up over 30%. The Liberal-NDP government hit Canadians with a double tax hike this year by raising the cost of its first carbon tax and then imposing a new second carbon tax on Canadians. In fact, Nova Scotians saw a 14% increase at the pump between June and July. We know that the Prime Minister continues to bring in his 61¢-a-litre tax. He will drive gas prices back to record highs. The Prime Minister's tax grabs are directly increasing the cost of gas and groceries, driving inflation higher.
In a country as prosperous as Canada, it is inexcusable that the heaviest burden of the government's failure is falling on the most vulnerable. Many seniors who live on fixed incomes have no other choice but to make sacrifices to get by. Some are being forced to postpone their retirement so they can make ends meet. Others are taking on new debt to cover the cost of housing, which has doubled under the Liberal-NDP government.
Let us do a little math. A couple who has contributed the full amount toward their CPP would receive a monthly benefit of just under $2,700. We know that the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment is approximately $2,100. That leaves them a little over $500 per month for groceries, utilities, medication and any other essentials they will require.
I want to recap. Conservatives are committed to our seniors, and to ensure that they have the financial security and support they need to enjoy their retirement, we believe that increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the GIC earning exemption, is one step in reaching this goal. This would help seniors who are able to, choose to and want to work, such as through having a part-time job, to keep more of their money in their pockets without affecting other benefits. This increase would help—
532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 5:58:56 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I did give her the one-minute mark. I thought she was wrapping up, but as she went past it, I could not allow her to continue.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous member's speech. I never knew I was part of the government. I want to set the record straight, but I will also go a step further: We are not propping up the Liberals; we are using our leverage and bargaining power to force them to do things they never had the courage to do before.
I am pleased to rise to speak to a subject of tremendous importance to me and to all my colleagues in the NDP caucus. I am referring to the living conditions and quality of life of seniors in Montreal and across Quebec.
I congratulate and thank the member for Shefford for taking the initiative to introduce this bill, which will truly improve the lives of the people we represent and who are finding it very hard to make ends meet at the moment. Seniors are the population segment most affected by the rising cost of living because their incomes are stagnant. When someone's income is fixed or practically fixed and inflation is 7%, 8% or 10%, it shows and it hurts. We hear it a lot in our communities.
Saturday was the International Day of Older Persons. I was lucky enough to take part in a march in my riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It was organized by the Comité d'action pour la qualité de vie des aînés de La Petite‑Patrie, a group working to improve local seniors' quality of life, and it ended in Montcalm Park. Afterwards, a number of seniors, mostly women, took to the stage to speak to elected officials from various levels of government about their reality and the fact that they face extremely difficult, impossible choices. They talked about the cost of food, housing, rent, home adaptations, health care, medication and many other things.
Seniors live on a fixed income that does not change, or barely changes, which results in poverty. If they do not have the good fortune of receiving income from a private pension plan and possibly from the defined benefit pension plan that enhances old age security, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement if they are poor enough. However, even then, the situation remains extremely difficult.
It is a travesty that a country as rich as ours, a G7 country where the average per capita income is so high, is abandoning these generations of Quebeckers who built modern-day Quebec, the generation of people like Lesage, Lévesque, Parizeau, Bourassa. Today, these people are sometimes stuck in long-term care facilities, in private residences that cost an arm and a leg, where there are no services and they are isolated. As a progressive and a social democrat, this breaks my heart. I do not want to live in a society that looks the other way and allows this to happen.
I want to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the women who addressed a crowd of hundreds in La Petite‑Patrie on Saturday. I will share with the House their demands, which line up with the bill. There are seven demands and they are not very long.
First, they are calling for real home support, because that can make a big difference in a person's life, especially if they are isolated or have unfortunately lost their spouse.
There is currently more than a two-year wait to receive home care. Seniors want to age in their own homes, with their memories, and they need more help and support to do that. One thing that must be done is to ensure the quality and continuity of care, as well as to increase and protect funding, which currently accounts for an insufficient proportion of the budget envelope.
I see that as a perfectly legitimate, noble and understandable demand.
I would also like to commend the work of Dr. Réjean Hébert, who has spent years tackling the issue of home care, which is obviously related to health transfers in Quebec. We need to think about the priorities we want to set as a society to be able to take care of seniors in their own homes in order to have an impact on their quality of life.
Home care would also help relieve the pressure on hospitals. Why would a senior go to the emergency department when they could stay at home and be cared for by a nurse, social worker or personal support worker and avoid the endless lineups?
The second demand is better access to health care, again on the health theme.
Access to basic health care is still difficult, despite the fact that some services have returned to the [local community service centres]. Unfortunately, spots open up at a snail's pace, which forces seniors to travel outside their own neighbourhoods for simple blood tests. The wait for a new family doctor is very long, and it is unacceptable for a person aged 70 or more to be on a waiting list for several months [and sometimes even several years].
Again, this comes back to funding our public health care system. Access to basic services, tests or examinations can sometimes be very distressing and time-consuming for everyone. It is even more important for our seniors.
The third demand has a more human dimension. It is about being cared for with dignity. Seniors want “a doctor who takes the time to listen to their patients”. They want to be more than just a number. Health care is not a factory. Seniors are calling for the following:
To be treated with respect. Respect for the person's physical integrity. The right to end their days in dignity and respect. Better training for health care workers and first responders on proper treatment and compassion.
Once again, more training is needed. Health care workers also need to take a more humane approach where they are not always running from one patient to another, or one client to another, to use the current terminology.
There are still four more demands. The next has to do with 50,000 new social housing units.
The wait time for social housing is getting longer and longer. As a result, many seniors have to pay exorbitant amounts for rent because they are still waiting for a subsidized apartment. Access to housing should be a right, and Quebec needs to invest in buying or building new social housing units to meet the demand.
Once again, the federal government can collaborate. Today, we are paying the price for the years of disinvestment in social housing and housing co-operatives by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The situation is disastrous for everyone, including seniors.
Another demand is for an increase in old age pensions. The text reads as follows:
Senior women represent the poorest segment of Quebec's population. They should never have to choose between putting food on the table or being able to get to a doctor's appointment.
That is the reality. These are the agonizing choices that many seniors, including women, are facing right now.
This brings me to the heart of the bill before us today. For some ridiculous and absolutely inexplicable reason, the Liberals decided to increase old age security for people aged 75 and over, but they did absolutely nothing for people aged 65 to 74.
We have never seen this kind of discrimination or distinction before. People aged 65 to 74 have the same growing needs, and they are dealing with the same inflation, the same cost of living and the same housing crisis. Why would they have fewer needs than people aged 75 and over? Did the government just want to save money, so they decided that those individuals needed to find part-time work, which is a little harder for those aged 75 and over to do? To me, that is serious.
The Conservatives sought to raise the retirement age to 77, and now the Liberals are kind of playing the same game. They are telling people aged 65 and over that they need to take care of themselves because they have a little more autonomy and that the government will only take care of people aged 75 and over. I think that position is incoherent and really hard on our seniors aged 65 and over, who are suffering as a result.
Lots of people came to talk to me about this on Saturday in La Petite‑Patrie. These individuals were experiencing this injustice and they asked me how I could explain it. I could not explain it. I would like to hear the members of the Liberal party in the House explain it. The NDP feels it is totally unacceptable to create two classes of seniors in our country.
There are lots of things we can do to help seniors. We need a universal public pharmacare program. I said universal and public, not a hybrid system. A lot of people are still falling through the cracks in the Quebec system. This plan is a step in the right direction when the alternative is nothing at all, but that is not what others, including Quebec unions or the Union des consommateurs, are calling for.
Seniors also need access to dental care. I am very proud that the NDP is forcing the Liberal government to make sure that, starting early next year, people 65 and over who earn less than $70,000 a year, which includes the vast majority, will have access to dental care. The dentist will send the bill directly to the federal government. This will improve the health and finances of all our seniors in Quebec.
1627 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).
This bill is intended to correct a mistake made by the government, a mistake that resulted in discrimination against people aged 65 to 74 and thus created two classes of seniors.
Yes, I will boldly speak about discrimination here, not only discrimination based on age, but also discrimination based on sex. I will therefore explain to the House why the government saw fit to adopt a doubly discriminatory measure. I will show that the government’s arguments barely hold water. I will show that the measure in fact discriminates in two ways. Finally, I will explain why it is essential that this mistake be corrected.
When the government decided in 2019 to make an election promise to increase the pension for seniors 75 and over, it essentially had two arguments, only one of which was stated loud and clear.
The first argument, which is not often raised, was that the increase in life expectancy means that pensions are paid out over a longer period, which puts pressure on the pension fund and its fiscal capacity to cover the additional years of life, especially as there will be more old age security recipients than workers contributing to the fund as a result of an inverted age pyramid. This situation gives the government two choices: Raising workers’ contributions, either by increasing the number of workers or the amounts paid by those workers, or reducing the amount paid to seniors every month.
Increasing the monthly amount of the pension for seniors aged 75 and over falls into the second category, as strange as that may seem. Indeed, refusing to increase the pension for those aged 65 to 74 is a roundabout way of reducing the monthly amount they are paid, given that they are on a fixed income while their expenses keep rising. Inflation is not fixed. A dollar today is not the same as a dollar five years ago. Their income is fixed, but the costs of meeting their basic needs are not.
The second argument, the one most commonly put forward, is that people aged 75 and over have higher health-related costs. These people may need help at home, including specialized care or help with housework or meal preparation. In short, according to the government, people aged 75 and over have expenses that those aged 65 to 74 do not have. That is true in some cases, but not always.
The government has made a massive generalization, forgetting that plenty of people aged 75 and over will never need home support or specialized care. It has also forgotten that plenty of people between the ages of 65 and 74 do need specialized care and home support. That has been completely erased from the government's reasoning. These people do not receive a penny, even though their needs are just as great, if not greater, than some people aged 75 and over.
The other argument that would, according to the government, justify an increase for those aged 75 and over is that seniors aged 65 to 74 are healthy enough to work and have an income that could meet the needs they or their spouse might eventually have. This is also true in some cases, but not always.
Those over the age of 65 who want to work quickly realize that they are paying out of their own pocket to do so. This is because they are taxed at a higher rate, one that is closer to the rate paid by single people, when they have paid taxes all their lives. What is more, if they earn a little too much money or a little more—and we are not talking about astronomical amounts here—their old age pension is reduced.
We are talking here about double taxation that does nothing to encourage people to work. I would like to remind the House that the Century Initiative strongly suggested that the government encourage people between the ages of 65 and 74 to stay in the workforce. Is giving more money to people aged 75 and up another roundabout way to respond to this suggestion by the Century Initiative? One has to wonder.
As I said, those aged 65 and up who want to work and who are in good enough health to do so are held back by double taxation. Bill C-319 makes it possible for those people who want to work—and not everyone does—to do so and to earn more money before cuts are made to their old age pension. The bill would increase the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000. That is not a huge amount, but it can make all the difference for someone who does not have much income. In fact, $6,000 is practically a bonanza for such people.
Seniors should never have to work if they do not want to, if they are not healthy enough to work. It should always be a choice. These individuals have worked their entire lives, whether they were paid on the job market or they volunteered. People always forget to include the value of volunteering. It is a lot of money. Rather than paying someone $30, $40 or $50 to deliver meals, we can ask a volunteer to do it. At the same time, that volunteer helps another senior come out of isolation and ensure that the senior is in good shape. Volunteering is worth a fortune, but it is never counted in our calculations. It is invisible work.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that the government's measure to increase pensions for seniors aged 75 and over is discriminatory in two ways. It discriminates by age, and that is obvious, I think. When the old age security program was put in place, it was universal. When someone turned 65, they could start receiving their old age pension. It was universal.
Now they decide to create two categories of seniors. It is discriminatory because historically women are the ones who had lower incomes. They are the ones who often end up without an RRSP for a variety of reasons. I know a woman who had to cash in her RRSPs because she could no longer work at age 45 after a workplace accident. At 65, her RRSP was completely depleted and she was left with $600 a month to live on with a $400 rent to pay. She is still lucky that her rent is only $400, but that leaves her with just $200 for everything else.
Bill C‑319 seeks to correct this mistake that was made by the government. Let us not forget that aging is a part of life. When we help our seniors live with dignity, live well and have social activities, essentially, we are helping our own children by extension. Eventually, they will be old, like us, and will need support. We never know what life has in store for us. Becoming a senior and having to skip meals or eat soda crackers for supper is not living with dignity.
1205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
