44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her remarks and her speech.
We are going into what may well be a recession in 2023. One might have expected the government to implement slightly more aggressive measures to help Quebeckers and Canadians weather a possible recession.
First of all, we have yet to see the EI reform that was promised. At this time, six out of every 10 workers who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance, so reform is urgently needed.
I also heard my colleague talk about her unconditional love and affection for seniors, and how much the government wants to support them. To the best of my knowledge, the retirement age is still officially 65, but fewer and fewer Quebeckers and Canadians can afford to retire because there is no support from this government for seniors aged 65 to 74.
The question I want to ask my colleague is this. What are people aged 65 to 74, who are seniors, supposed to do to get through the recession without help from the federal government?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, despite differences of opinion on certain aspects, I believe that we can agree that Bill C-32 dusts off some old legislation and also proposes new measures.
That said, our role is also to highlight the bill's shortcomings, and one of these shortcomings is the money for people aged 65 to 74. The hon. member opposite said that seniors would soon get an extra $220 or so. However, I have questions about this “extra”, seeing as pensions have not kept pace with rising consumer prices. I wonder why this amount is considered “extra” when the government created two classes of seniors. I wonder how this amount can be “extra” when more than 70,000 seniors who applied for their pension on time are still not receiving their money.
It is good that the government is implementing measures, but it needs to think of seniors, because they are the ones who built Canada and Quebec as we know them today, and they deserve our full consideration and support.
When will seniors aged 65 to 74 get this consideration and get proper financial support?
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I see in the House are members of Parliament who work hard, who are honest and who represent their fellow citizens well. The member for Kings—Hants is one of those people. Frankly, I hold him in high regard. He is an honest person and I know that he will answer my question honestly, without partisanship.
At my constituency office, I hear a lot of talk from seniors aged 65 to 74 who do not receive the same treatment by the federal government as senior who are aged 75 and over. I seriously receive a lot of calls at my office about this. I am asked why they are treated differently from other pensioners.
In Bill C‑32, there is nothing to correct the situation, namely this two-tiered approach to dealing with seniors under the age of 75.
Can my colleague answer me and tell me why?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, seniors are the ones most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, not to mention housing, yet this government is deliberately choosing not to give people aged 65 to 74 the old age security increase even though they need it now more than ever.
That is not an inconsequential choice. Hypocritically, the government is trying to raise the retirement age. It has sneakily decided to force the less fortunate to work until they turn 75. The Liberals are well aware that inflation makes it impossible for people to make do with what the state provides. What we are witnessing is the creation of a two-tier retirement system. Got money? Enjoy retirement at 65. No private pension plan? Work until age 75. The government is choosing to increase inequality, and it is targeting women first and foremost. This is Liberal-style feminism. The Sheriff of Nottingham could not have done better himself.
While there is a serious risk of a recession in 2023, the Government of Canada is abandoning the comprehensive EI reform it promised last summer. There will be no EI reform. We know that the system has been essentially dismantled over the years and six out of 10 workers who lose their jobs are currently not eligible for EI. That is the situation seven years after the government promised reform. Time is of the essence. Clearly, Liberal promises are only binding on those who choose to believe in them.
On a more serious note, we must absolutely avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the system's shortcomings if a recession hits. As was saw during the pandemic, improvised programs cost more and are not as effective. Employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. However, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims, and that is a problem. In fact, the government predicts a surplus of $25 billion in the EI fund by 2028, and that amount will be paid into the consolidated fund rather than being used to improve the plan's coverage. That is unacceptable.
As for the 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits, that is a measure that was already in a bill passed a year and a half ago, even before the last election. All that is missing is a decree by the government to implement it, but the sick are still waiting. The House had even ordered the government to extend sickness leave to 52 weeks, and they are not even implementing the 26 weeks.
To summarize, this government is pointing to the problem of a rising cost of living, but is happy just talking about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves. They repeat what has already been done in the past, what they already announced in last April's budget, but do nothing else.
Let us consider the supply chains, whose vulnerabilities became apparent during the pandemic. Last spring's budget mentioned the problem 114 times. The statement two weeks ago mentioned it 45 more times, but neither provided any measures to resolve the problem. There is nothing in Bill C‑32, either.
As we know, all too often, the government buries harmful measures in its mammoth budget implementation bills, hoping that they will go unnoticed. This time, the bill contains no surprises, unless they are well hidden and have not been found yet.
Bill C‑32 even contains a number of interesting measures that were announced in the last budget. For instance, there is an anti-flipping tax on residential properties to limit real estate speculation, and a multi-generational home renovation tax credit for those who renovate their homes to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015. We welcome it.
There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive its share.
In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. No more flow-through shares. It is just one drop in the ocean of subsidies, but it is a start. There is a tax measure to promote mining development for the critical minerals that are essential to the energy transition, as well as an amendment to the excise tax to prevent cannabis producers from having to pay it on their unsold stock, which is causing them major cash flow problems.
As we know, the government gave licences to its friends. Now that they are having problems, the government is proposing a solution.
Other than that, Bill C-32 consists of minor legislative amendments. For instance, there is an adjustment to the Income Tax Act to reflect the new accounting standards for financial institutions. There are a lot of very technical pages about that.
There is also an amendment to the Income Tax Act to plug some of the loopholes that financial planners were trying to use to help their clients avoid taxes. We welcome that clarification. There are always people who try their luck. Obviously, the government must do much more to combat fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Finally, I am certain that my next point will be of great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), who is currently standing in the House chatting with another colleague and not listening to a word I say. I salute him. It is the implementation of a Canada-United States agreement on the salaries of government employees who go to the moon, like Tintin in Destination Moon.
To sum up, Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It proposes a few good measures and does some legislative housekeeping.
1066 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 3:09:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the challenges seniors are facing, and our government has been there for them, unlike the party opposite, which has opposed every single measure we have put forward to help seniors.
We are delivering for seniors by doubling the GST credit, which will help 11 million people. We are providing rental and dental support. We permanently increased the OAS for seniors aged 75, which is $800 for a full pensioner.
On this side of the House, we will continue to deliver for seniors.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
