- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a majority of members in the House voted to support Bill C‑319 in principle. The bill endeavours to end the two-tiered approach to old age security benefits. All seniors who are 65 years of age or more require more help from the federal government to cope with runaway inflation and their drastically reduced purchasing power.
The outstanding contributions that seniors have made to developing Quebec and Canada cannot be overstated. At a time when they need the federal government's support, they are separated into two classes: the one that we help and the other that we turn our backs on. The lack of acknowledgement and compassion this shows is appalling.
The battle for Bill C‑319 is not over, but a first step has been taken. If the government pays attention to the work ahead, it will hear what seniors have to say, their complaints and their calls for help, and it may finally see reason. We hope so. We are heading in the right direction. The only thing missing is support from the Liberals.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. If seniors were satisfied with the federal government, groups representing them such as AREQ, the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale and the Table de concertation des aînés du Québec would not be on the Hill today. They are here to ask the government to support Bill C‑319. Seniors themselves are the ones telling us that Bill C‑319 will make a difference in their lives. They are the ones saying that only a fair pension increase for all seniors will get them out of their precarious situation. That is what seniors expect from the Liberals.
Will they finally listen and support Bill C‑319?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals committed a serious injustice when they created two classes of seniors by refusing to increase the old age pension for seniors 65 to 74. Today, they have an historic opportunity to correct this injustice that they created. They can ensure that every senior is treated fairly in light of the spike in the cost of living and the economic uncertainty.
Will they support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑319 and end the two classes of seniors by increasing the pension for all seniors 65 and over?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what can I say in five minutes to close out this second hour of debate at second reading of this important bill, Bill C‑319? The text of the bill amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled by 10%. It also amends the act to raise the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
I venture to call it “important” because that is what I have been hearing all summer. Yes, I admit that I set out on a mission this summer and travelled to all four corners of Quebec. I heard the discontent of some seniors and the despair of others, but above all, I heard people asking me to do everything in my power to ensure that the majority of MPs in the House vote in favour of Bill C‑319.
First of all, let us not forget that, for years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID‑19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic: isolation, anxiety, financial hardship, and so on.
I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. I repeat myself because I believe it: I want seniors to be treated with dignity, like the grey power they are. Right now, old age security benefits fall far short of offsetting the decline in purchasing power or the dramatic rise in housing and food costs.
With inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.
In May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan, the Department of Employment and Social Development published a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising initiatives”. After identifying the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors, the study proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce. Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Since life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past, let us make this happen.
We are also seeing the growing distress of small and medium-sized businesses that are desperately looking for workers, as well the closure of many businesses and the devitalization of certain communities and regions. We must take action.
I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, it has contented itself with half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the most difficult times of the pandemic. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect and very minimal effects of this hastily put together aid.
In budget 2021, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; they affect all recipients. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors. In 2021, there were nearly 2.8 million people 75 and over, compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice. This bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. The one-time $500 cheque for people 75 and over in August 2021 did not fix anything.
In closing, Bill C‑319 will improve the financial situation of seniors and eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists. Seniors who live on a fixed income are having trouble paying their bills because their daily expenses are going up faster than their pension benefits. Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged at $666.83 a month. Who can live on that?
The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in old age security for all seniors aged 65 and up, and has even pointed out that the government is discriminating against people aged 65 to 74.
I would like to say one last thing. The RQRA, Afeas, AREQ, AQRP and FADOQ, all of these Quebec organizations, and Quebeckers and Canadians are calling for this bill. Seniors are watching us and asking us not to make them pay the price of partisanship.
I invite my colleagues to take action for the dignity of seniors. I will see them on October 18 for the vote.
968 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. In the OECD, we could be doing a lot more to support seniors. Things are not going to improve, because the indexing method and model mean wages are going up faster than the OAS.
By the way, I think that the Conservatives are being rather quiet. I want to remind the House that there is a cost to leaving seniors in poverty. If we do not increase OAS, seniors are forced to make tough choices at the end of the month. Take for example a woman who came to see me at my office two weeks ago. Because she wanted to eat, she was unable to buy a prosthetic device for her foot. These are the types of choices people have to make. At the end of the day, it is their overall health that will deteriorate and will cost the public purse and our health care system.
To help seniors, there also needs to be an increase in health transfers. The Liberals should have thought of that, if they really wanted to take care of issues affecting seniors.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, do I have 15 minutes? I see that I do not.
All joking aside, I am not the only one. I could name all my colleagues in this place who advocated for seniors along with the Bloc Québécois. I was given the first questions when the Bloc Québécois arrived in the House in December 2019. At the time, the Bloc Québécois was already challenging a government idea that we considered ridiculous, but above all unfair. It wanted to increase old age security, but only for those 75 and over. That was the start.
After that, every time I would look to my colleague from Joliette sitting behind me. In January 2020, we met with groups of seniors as part of the pre-budget consultations before the pandemic hit. We came back to the House in April, because the government announced that it would help everyone. The Bloc was the only party to tell the government that it had forgotten about seniors. Finally, they got a cheque. They received a small one-time cheque because the Bloc came to the House to hammer home the message for more than two months until an announcement was made.
Every time a budget was presented, the Bloc Québécois asked in its pre-budget submissions for this injustice to be corrected. That is not to mention the countless questions that I asked the successive ministers for seniors from 2019 to 2021 and since my re-election in 2021. We keep asking the same questions, and we have often raised this subject in the House. The reason we have come back today with this bill is that we want to exert additional pressure on the government. I hope that this time will be the right time. I hope that the government will support this bill and remedy the situation. We are reaching out and giving the government an opportunity to correct this injustice.
336 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in case my colleagues want to tease me again, I must say that I was obviously talking about luxury. Our bill is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
That being said, I wonder if my colleague is misleading the House, because the Bloc Québécois has never been against rolling back the retirement age from 67 to 65. What does he mean? Really, we are not in the least questioning the idea of setting the age at 65. We have never questioned that idea. I do not know if my colleague is misleading the House or confusing us with the Conservatives, who had raised the retirement age from 65 to 67, which caused an outcry and led people to ask that it be brought back down to 65.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce my first bill today, Bill C-319. The summary reads as follows:
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person’s employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
For years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic, such as isolation, anxiety and financial hardship.
That said, I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. Instead, I want to present seniors as a grey force consisting of people who want to continue contributing to our society. They built Quebec, and we owe them respect.
Bill C-319 is designed to improve the financial situation of seniors and is structured around two parts. In my speech today, I will first address the part of my bill that deals with increasing old age security, or OAS, and then I will address the part that deals with increasing the qualifying threshold for the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. I will end my speech by explaining a bit more about the impact inflation has on the financial health of seniors.
To begin, the first part aims to eliminate the current age discrimination. In the 2021 budget, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure has created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. Seniors are not taking it lying down.
The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; it affects all of them. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors.
In 2021, there were 2.8 million people 75 and over compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. This opinion is shared by FADOQ and its president, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, who had this to say about the measure: “In principle, there is a good intention to provide financial assistance to seniors, but, in reality, people under 75 who are eligible for old age security get absolutely nothing.”
To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice, and this bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. It is not true that the one-time vote-seeking cheque of $500 for people 75 and over in August 2021 will be of any help. Seniors even feel that they have been used.
With Bill C‑319, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a 10% increase to old age security starting at age 65 for every month after June 2023. For example, at present, this increase would raise the benefits paid to single, widowed, divorced or separated persons from $1,032 to $1,135.31 every month. As for the amount paid when both spouses are retired, it would increase from $621.25 to $683.35 per month. You do not live in the lap of luxury with that amount. You certainly do not go down south, and you do not stash your money away in tax havens.
Second, with inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors.
Back in 2021, during the last federal election, the Bloc Québécois platform proposed to raise the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000 in order to allow those who are willing and able to continue working to do so without a significant reduction in their GIS benefit, which is derived from old age security.
Given the exceptional transformation in Canada's demographics in recent decades, there are now more people aged 65 and over, and they now outnumber children under 15. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.
In fact, Employment and Social Development Canada released a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising Initiatives” in May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan. The document identifies the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors. These include a lack of education or training, health issues, and work-life balance issues due to a lack of workplace accommodations. The study then proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce.
Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past.
I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, the Liberals have taken half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. Currently, old age security payments are not enough to weather the affordability crisis and the dramatic price increases for housing or intermediate housing resources.
Six years ago, in June 2017, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance published a report on the financial impact and local considerations of an aging population. Everyone agrees that the economic situation of households has deteriorated significantly with the pandemic, and that sudden inflation is hurting Quebeckers and Canadians. The committee's findings and proposed solutions at that time could not be clearer. It recommended:
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with its provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners, put measures in place to increase labour force participation of underrepresented groups and to better match labour demand with labour supply in order to mitigate the negative impact of population aging on the economy and on the labour market.
As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the pandemic in June 2020. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect effects of this hastily put together aid. Nevertheless, small and medium enterprises are increasingly stressed out as they desperately look for workers, and about the closure of many shops and the decline in some areas.
We believe that the tax contributions, the tax incentives and the income exemption rates on the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement do not entice older people to return to work because they will be denied hundreds of dollars a month.
Let us not forget the sad irony of Liberal measures such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, which were considered income during the health crisis. In the end, they took away significant sums of money from the most fragile and least fortunate in the population. This aberration was finally corrected by the government in February 2022 after several months of representations by the Bloc Québécois to the Minister of Seniors when Bill C‑12 was tabled.
At the time, Bloc Québécois researchers found that GIS recipients who received CERB lost 50 cents of the supplement for every dollar they received, so a tax rate of 50%, almost double that of the richest people in society. However, at the time, no one informed affected taxpayers of this dramatic impact on disposable household income. During the study for this legislation, the Bloc Québécois pointed out that this major injustice is both harmful and absurd. The FADOQ network called the situation a tragedy.
Let me get back to what we are suggesting. The exemption on earnings and miscellaneous income would increase from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. That would leave an additional $1,500 in the pockets of all claimants aged 65 and older. Compared to the 2021 proposal, then, the current bill suggests an additional $500, for a total of $6,500, to offset the deteriorating economic situation. The goal of these two measures combined is to increase both the monthly base amounts and the annual working income. We believe that this will help seniors deal with inflation and the current hardships. It is the least we can do, to allow millions of people who built our communities to live with dignity.
Third, I want to talk about the impact of inflation. Do not forget that old age security is taxable. The OAS and GIS amounts are revised in January, April, July and October, ostensibly to reflect the cost of living. These benefits were indexed annually until 1973. At that time, inflation was very high, particularly for fuel and food, and officials felt that quarterly indexing would better protect against unexpectedly large price increases during the year. By the summer of 2020, however, even FADOQ had decried the fact that these increases will not even buy a coffee at Tim Horton's.
The consumption habits of seniors differ from those of the rest of the population. As a result, they experience different inflation. Statistics Canada studied this difference in 2005. It found that seniors spend proportionately less on transportation, gasoline or a new car, but much more on housing and food. For every $100, they spend $56, compared to $45 for all other households. Surely we all agree that housing and groceries are not luxuries.
What is the impact of that inflation? From 1992 to 2004, the average annual inflation rate was 1.95% for senior-only households, compared to 1.84% for other households. Again, seniors are harder hit.
I will refresh the Liberals' memory. On March 19, 2022, the Liberal member for Etobicoke North moved motion No. 45. If the Liberal Party and the Green Party are consistent with their support—14 members from these two parties jointly supported this motion—then Bill C‑319 should be adopted.
I will read the text of the motion, because it is worth it:
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.
On June 15, 2022, 301 members finally voted in favour this motion, while 25 voted against. Out of the 326 members present, only 25 members from the New Democratic Party voted against this motion.
Seniors living on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet because their daily expenses are increasing faster than their pension payments. Old age security, or OAS, is adjusted to inflation every three months, while the Canada pension plan, or CPP, is adjusted every January. However, OAS and the CPP are not enough for some people to make ends meet.
People are feeling the shock of the 10.3% year-over-year increase in the cost of food, as reported by Statistics Canada in the year leading up to September. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 6.9% year over year in September, also according to Statistics Canada.
I met with some representatives from the Salvation Army this morning who told me that they too have noticed, like many other support organizations, that demand for food has doubled, and that a large portion of the demand is from seniors. It is inconceivable that this permanent increase in the OAS, which is the first since 1973, so the first in 50 years, is not indexed to inflation. We hope that this will help seniors who, as we have seen, are turning more and more to food banks.
Let us remember that, in the summer of 2021, one month before the election, the federal government handed out $500 cheques to seniors who were eligible for the old age security pension to supposedly help them with affordability issues related to the pandemic. However, it is going to take a lot more than an ad hoc approach. We really need to focus on the long term.
Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged. It is $666.83 a month. With that low monthly income, it is not surprising that Canada has the generation of retirees facing the greatest inequities and injustices.
Since the 2019 election, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the government to increase the old age security pension for seniors as of age 65 and has been calling the government out on its discrimination and ageism against seniors aged 65 to 74, so this bill is a logical extension of our position.
In closing, I would like to thank Gisèle Tassé‑Goodman from the FADOQ, Pierre‑Claude Poulin from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and Diane Dupéré from the Association québécoise des retraités et des retraitées des secteurs public et parapublic for their support of this bill. Like me, they are just the mouthpiece for seniors whose stories they hear every day. I would be remiss if I failed to mention all of the seniors groups from all over Quebec who also sent me messages of support. They think that Bill C-319 is the least we can do to give seniors a little help and bit of fresh air.
One last thing: I wish the House would realize the importance of this bill, which is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is just common sense to help seniors age with dignity. Based on the feedback I have received so far, even from seniors outside Quebec, all I have to say is let us work together. Similar motions have been passed many times, including the Bloc Québécois motion calling for an increase in OAS as part of our opposition day. Only the Liberals voted against it. They were the only holdouts. This time, I am reaching out to them. I am asking them to eliminate the injustice they created and vote with us in favour of Bill C‑319.
Once again, this is a matter of dignity for seniors.
2613 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 4:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to rise after my colleague from La Prairie. I listened intently to his speech.
As the critic for seniors, I could not turn down the opportunity to talk about their situation in the House and, more importantly, to respond to a budget that cares nothing about them. I could not turn down the opportunity to set the record straight. The Bloc Québécois proposed a number of measures and made clear requests to the Minister of Finance.
I will focus on three points here. First, the budget does not provide for an adequate increase in health transfers. Second, it says nothing about EI reform. Finally, while the government continues to claim it has been generous to seniors, there are no new specific and ongoing measures for seniors in this budget.
I would like to start by pointing out that the government is not increasing the health transfers to any significant degree. The jurisdictional interference also continues. This issue is important, and it is a major public concern, especially among seniors' groups. FADOQ representatives even turned out for a conference I recently organized on the financial situation of seniors. They came to call attention to the urgent need for the federal government to make its contribution and increase health transfers to 35%, with no strings attached. They clearly understood that this jurisdiction belongs to Quebec, not the federal government.
Moving on to the second part of my presentation, the budget makes no provision for any major EI reform before 2030, despite the government's promises. The government also refuses to write off the EI fund's pandemic-related debt. As a result, premiums will have to increase and benefits will have to decrease for the fund to achieve a $24‑billion surplus by 2030. How great it would have been to have a little money left over to reform federal services.
As the status of women critic, I consider this to be a major reform from a feminist perspective. We know that 60% of workers are not eligible for employment insurance, and that is concerning. It is primarily women who work in unstable jobs, who do not work full time because they have to do invisible work at home with their families and who have difficulty accumulating the hours required to be eligible for EI.
I would like to point out that on Tuesday, April 4, groups in Quebec, including AFEAS, campaigned for a national invisible work day that would be held every year on the first Tuesday in April. This kind of day is needed to encourage real reflection on this issue, which also affects family caregivers and volunteers. How can we do more to recognize what these people do? My thoughts go out to them and I thank them, especially those who are being honoured this week as part of National Volunteer Week. I salute them.
I am now coming to my third point, and I will devote the rest of my speech to the lack of measures for seniors and their precarious financial situation. I actually held a conference on that issue back home in Granby on February 21, with seniors' groups from all over Quebec. I want to talk about some of the issues that were raised during that day of reflection.
First, I want to point out that while wages are rising, old age security is not increasing as much or as quickly. Currently, if someone is 75 years old and receives nothing but old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, their annual income is $20,574.24. Given today's inflation, who can really live on that? That level of income puts them below the official federal poverty line, as determined by the market basket measure, or MBM. In response to this statistic, the symposium participants that day said that the federal government needs to increase old age security benefits.
Add inflation to that, and old age security is not enough to live on; it is not a replacement for working income. As for income replacement in retirement through public pension plans, right now, a person earning the average wage in Quebec will have an income replacement rate of only 41%. The Quebec pension plan replaces about 25% of the average wage.
As for old age security, it barely replaces 15% of the average wage. Sadly, since wages are rising faster than the consumer price index—by about one percentage point per year—this federal program will in future contribute less in terms of replacing working income in retirement. The federal government must do better.
Finally, we must also revise the indexation method for old age security. The Association québécoise de défense des droits des aînés, or AQDR, agrees, and does not believe that it is adequate. Furthermore, the AQDR also believes that old age security is not increasing fast enough to replace employment income, which is rising faster than public plan replacement rates. Everyone is talking about wage increases right now.
Seniors are finding it very difficult to save, especially older women who, over the course of their lives, have greater difficulty setting aside money and saving to retire in dignity.
The old age security pension, or OAS, and the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, are insufficient to meet the needs of seniors. Let us not forget that, in July 2022, the annual income of an individual under the age of 75 receiving only their pension and the GIS would fall below the official poverty line in Canada, based on the market basket measure, or MBM. That is significant in an inflationary context.
This index, which is calculated by Statistics Canada, seeks to establish the cost of a basket of goods for a modest basic standard of living. We are not talking about trips down south or luxury items; we are talking about basic needs.
In 2022, MBM thresholds were between $20,796 and $22,382 for singles, depending on the region in which they lived. The solution, therefore, is simple: Income levels for all seniors aged 65 and older need to be increased.
That day, we also talked about the implementation of a tax credit for experienced workers in the context of the labour shortage, a tax credit for working seniors who want to stay on the job or for seniors who decide to go back to work.
That day, we also talked about health transfer increases. I just wanted to point that out. The federal government needs to significantly increase health transfers so that the Quebec and provincial governments can make major investments in their health care systems.
Another item that was discussed that day and that should be noted is the fact that inflation is seriously eroding seniors' purchasing power. It would have been a good idea for the Liberal government to at least support those who cannot afford to be patient.
FADOQ expected Ottawa to walk the talk when it came to increasing the guaranteed income supplement. Let us not forget that those who receive the GIS are some of the most disadvantaged members of our society. FADOQ believes that the government could have taken these additional measures. Another example would be to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable.
Given the ongoing labour shortage, the FADOQ network also suggested that a tax credit to encourage seniors to keep working would be a great idea. The timing is perfect. Even though it was another thing the federal government had promised, this tax credit was not announced in the last budget.
To continue on the theme of the budget, the grocery rebate is actually a one-time payment through the GST tax credit. Although it is a decent measure, the Bloc Québécois hoped that low-income families and individuals would get better government support during this inflation crisis. For 2023, the amount remains a one-time payment. It does nothing to solve the longer-term problem.
My last point is that, despite everything, the long-term financial outlook remains the same. The ratio of the federal public debt relative to the GDP will continue its downward trend. Ottawa plans to completely pay off its debt within 30 to 40 years. The federal budget confirms the Parliamentary Budget Officer's long-term forecasts. Beyond the short term, the federal financial situation will keep improving. Over the long term, the financial situation of the provinces and Quebec will keep deteriorating. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs, in areas like health and education, are in Quebec.
In the short term, we must also deal with the global economic downturn, high interest rates worldwide and inflation that is still too high.
In conclusion, I could also have spoken about the lack of support for the next generation of farmers and the greenwashing that the budget also contains. It maintains the fossil fuel subsidies, subsidizing oil companies, as my colleague from La Prairie mentioned. The budget talks about hydrogen, meaning dirty hydrogen, about carbon capture and about small nuclear reactors, even though experts have condemned these measures. As I said, it is greenwashing. These are not measures that will help us seriously kick-start the shift we need to make to fight climate change.
In short, the spending in this budget is unwise and insufficient for those who are truly in need.
That is why, in closing, I will proudly say that I will soon be introducing a bill to abolish the injustice created by the 10% increase in old age security only for those 75 and over. We must ensure that all seniors, when they turn 65, can receive this little additional boost, but especially a boost in the long term and not a one-time cheque or, as the government has done all too often, a little pre-election cheque that looks good. With this bill, we want to increase the threshold to the point where seniors can work without their GIS being clawed back. This is about common sense and dignity for seniors. Even the economic sector is calling for this. Let us all work together.
There are also the demands from the National Assembly. We must meet people's needs. We must work together to improve the current situation, which, as we know, is not easy for everyone, especially the seniors who really need to be listened to and heard a little more.
1752 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 2:41:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the budget, I would remind the House that in 2021, this government created a class of vulnerable seniors. It increased the old age security benefit, but only for people aged 75 and over, leaving seniors aged 65 to 74 out in the cold.
Tomorrow's budget is the perfect opportunity to end this discrimination between those who are old enough and those who are not old enough to deserve a decent quality of life. Inflation makes no such distinction. Will this government finally correct the injustice it has created?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑241, which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct from their income amounts expended for travelling where they were employed in a construction activity at a job site that is located at least 120 kilometres away from their ordinary place of residence.
As the granddaughter of a mason and niece, sister and sister-in-law of carpenters, this is a sector of our economy that I am rather familiar with.
From the outset I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑241 and I will be talking about it today first from the perspective of the construction industry, then from the perspective of the current economic context and finally in the context of the labour shortage.
First, let us not forget that this is about one of the recommendations from Canada's trade unions that represent more than half a million construction workers in Canada who are members of 14 international unions. These people work in more than 60 trades and professions and generate 6% of the country's gross domestic product.
Salespeople, professionals and various other workers in different sectors can already claim a tax deduction for the cost of their travel, meals and accommodation. It stands to reason that these expenses could be claimed by skilled workers whose job sites are located in a different region or province from their primary residence. It is a question of fairness.
Growth rates and infrastructure investment often vary from one region to the next, and this results in labour shortages. The labour shortage is one of the main impediments to economic recovery. One way to address rising prices is to tackle this shortage.
When expenses are not covered by the employer, workers must pay out of pocket. For workers with a family, additional expenses for travel can be very high and can impede the worker's mobility.
This tax deduction is a concrete and effective means of enhancing the mobility of construction workers.
In addition, according to calculations, this would save the federal government approximately $347 million. Other countries, such as the United States, allow a similar tax deduction for skilled labour under the Internal Revenue Code. These employees can deduct the cost of meals, travel and lodging for temporary work away from their place of residence. This type of measure would promote return to work and address labour shortages at the same time. It would also reduce reliance on government programs, such as employment insurance.
As mentioned earlier, the costs associated with travelling to a job site far from home can impact a worker's decision to accept that contract.
Coming back to inflation, it reached 6.8% in 2022, the highest it has been since 1982, when it hit 10.9%. It bears mentioning, however, that the inflationary surge appears to be coming to an end. After peaking in June at 8.1%, it stabilized for a few months and then fell 0.6% to 6.3% on an annualized basis in December.
Price increases have been uneven. In 12 months, food prices rose 9.8%, gas prices rose 28% and the consumer price index, excluding gas and food, rose 5.3%. Since essentials like housing, food and gas have increased the most, low-income earners have suffered the most.
Two weeks ago, the Bank of Canada announced its eighth rate hike, increasing it to 4.5% from 0.5% a year earlier. Higher interest rates benefit those with savings, but cost those with debt. Young homeowners who bought their first home in the midst of the real estate price boom are likely to have some challenges. Since they are usually the ones who take out variable rate mortgages, they will quickly see rising rates on their mortgage payments.
Inflation is a major concern for consumers and cannot be ignored. A Scotiabank survey conducted in December shows that the rising cost of living tops the list of financial concerns for 50% of Quebeckers.
That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill, in May 2021, to help attract new graduates to the regions and encourage them to stay there. With that in mind, it is important to implement measures that protect the population in general, particularly the most vulnerable, such as seniors. When it comes to seniors, the Bloc Québécois is still calling for the government to increase old age security by $110 a month for all seniors aged 65 and over.
Like all other workers, skilled workers are facing higher costs on everything. I will come back to that. According to a recent poll by Canada's Building Trades Unions, 75% of skilled trades workers agree that a tax deduction will give them access to more job opportunities. With inflation the way it is, the time is right to implement a tax deduction to help ease the pressure on some workers' wallets.
At the top of the list of costs that might stop workers from agreeing to travel far for work is the cost of gas. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has pushed the price of oil to levels not seen in eight years. Even though the price of gas is coming back down, its current volatility and unpredictability are enough to dissuade workers from going too far from home to work. It becomes unfair.
What is more, this tax deduction can certainly help deal with the labour shortage in one sector in particular. The pandemic forced many people out of the labour market for health reasons and it exacerbated the labour shortage in certain sectors. It is important to act quickly to support the sectors that have been hard hit by this labour shortage.
This shortage is a significant impediment to economic recovery. It results in forced closures, the loss of contracts, the cancellation of investments in our businesses and overworked employees. It can even limit opportunities to improve the working conditions of current employees. The pressures related to the shortage of workers will be felt until at least 2030 in Quebec especially because of the aging population. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a suite of measures to alleviate labour shortages across Quebec. In its 2021 spring budget, the government promised to create at least one million jobs. Creating jobs when there is a shortage of workers really makes sense.
The Bloc Québécois was already concerned about the labour shortage. It made some good proposals during the 2021 election campaign. We proposed seven concrete measures to help fix the problem. First we must value experienced workers and increase, from $5,000 to $6,500, the amount of employment or self-employment income that is exempt when calculating the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. That is in the bill that I introduced last week. I look forward to debating it here in the House with the other parties.
The GIS is intended for people aged 65 and over with relatively low incomes. It complements old age security, but the GIS decreases rapidly as income increases. The first $5,000 earned, however, does not affect GIS amounts. We propose to increase this exemption by $1,500.
The temporary foreign worker program must also be handed over to Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is calling for the program to be repatriated to Quebec, which is in a better position than anyone else to identify the specific labour needs of businesses within its borders.
Another trend that is emerging in Quebec is the digital shift. Businesses are increasing their efforts to accelerate the digital shift. This is one way to increase productivity and get around the problem of the labour shortage. This is another area that needs to be addressed. We need to support and assist SMEs in that shift. It is about competitiveness.
Tax credits for research and development also need to be improved to stimulate innovation. We are also suggesting creating a new tax credit of up to $3,000 per year for recent graduates in the regions, to a maximum cumulative amount of $8,000 for recent graduates working in designated regions.
In closing, I want to present some figures on Quebec's construction industry, which is very lucrative but has labour shortage issues. That is why the Bloc was quick to propose several solutions, because there is no magic bullet for solving the labour shortage. We need to approach the problem from various angles. The importance of Quebec's construction industry cannot be understated. This is as true from an economic point of view as it is from a job creation point of view. We are talking about investments of nearly $53 billion in 2019. We are also talking about 264,600 direct jobs generated per month, on average, or one out of every 20 jobs in Quebec. It also generates thousands of other jobs in other sectors.
To conclude, the Bloc made an intervention through my colleague from Joliette at the Standing Committee on Finance during debate on this bill. My colleague pointed out to the government that, since this is a private member's bill, the government tends not to propose any amendments, particularly in terms of including safeguards for certain provisions and thus reassuring the parties on the interpretation or application of a given bill. In the end, no amendments were proposed, and the bill passed without amendment on division in only about 15 minutes.
I want to say one last thing in closing. As members can see, this bill reflects the current context in which the construction industry is facing many challenges. Given how important this industry is to the economy, we need to look into this problem and help the industry find solutions to the labour shortage. This bill is one of those solutions.
1669 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to introduce a bill to improve the financial health of seniors.
This bill essentially contains two parts. The first part aims to eliminate the discrimination that currently exists on the basis of age. We are asking that all seniors receive the 10% increase in old age security starting at age 65, not just those aged 75 and over. The second part aims to raise the eligibility threshold for the guaranteed income supplement to $6,500, without cutting it, for seniors who decide to remain in the workforce.
With these two measures, which increase both the basic amount and the working income of seniors, we aim to ensure that they can better cope with inflation. That is the least we can do to allow seniors to live in dignity.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her heartfelt intervention.
I think that we agree that on this December 6, we have to work on addressing violence against women.
Listening to my colleague talk reminds me that there is a direct link between poverty and violence against women. To help women escape the cycle of violence, we need to make sure that they have a bit more money in their pockets.
How can the government claim to have a feminist agenda while maintaining an EI system that is more discriminatory toward women? The same goes for refusing to increase old age security benefits. We know that this has a greater impact on women.
In what way do these two programs affect women more?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.
As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I too am thinking of the families of the victims, the indigenous women and girls who have disappeared. There was another case recently in Winnipeg. Such a tragedy.
My colleague spoke about dental care for seniors. The government often holds this up as an example of how it is helping seniors. However, how can it ignore all seniors aged 65 to 74?
Does my colleague not think that old age security should be increased for them and that this is what would truly help seniors?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 2:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am talking about. The Liberals gave seniors aged 75 and up a $500 election cheque, but they gave nothing to seniors aged 65 to 74. They are increasing OAS by 10% for seniors aged 75 and up, but they are not giving seniors aged 65 to 74 a penny more. That is the discrimination that I am talking about. Enough is enough.
Half of seniors are living in situations of insecurity. The government knows it. The government could increase OAS by $110 a month for all seniors starting at age 65, as we have been proposing for years. However, the government chooses to do nothing.
Why?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 2:42:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a study by the AQDR and the Observatoire québécois des inégalités shows that half of seniors do not have the income necessary to live in dignity, and we are not just talking about seniors aged 75 and over. These numbers do not even take into account the record inflation that is currently affecting the cost of groceries and housing.
Unlike the government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. We have a study here that shows that half of seniors do not have a livable income. What more will it take for this government to increase the old age security pension for all seniors aged 65 and up?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.
I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.
Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.
However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.
As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.
An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing 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. It is hard to be against apple pie. 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 an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.
In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.
Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.
As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.
Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.
For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.
First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.
I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.
Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.
Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.
There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.
Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.
Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.
Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.
During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.
One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.
In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything 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.
As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.
For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.
1834 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 3:33:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about seniors. As the critic for seniors, I obviously paid very close attention to that part of his speech. Seniors' groups in my riding and elsewhere in Quebec have talked to me about the ArriveCAN app. They were, perhaps, disproportionately affected by it.
I would like my colleague to comment on how we can really help seniors. He also spoke about inflation and the carbon tax. That is not what seniors in my riding are asking for to deal with inflation. They are asking for an increase in the old age security pension, the way Canada has of helping them, for all seniors, including those between the ages of 65 and 74.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:40:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, they are forgetting half of them. Abandoning seniors is not an act of discipline, it is austerity.
We are talking about people who worked for decades and then end up going to a food bank for the first time in their lives.
It is not true that the rising cost of living affects 74-year-olds and 75-year-olds differently. There are not two classes of seniors in real life. The only place there are two classes of seniors is in the federal government's support programs.
When will the government realize that the cost of living does not discriminate on the basis of age?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 2:15:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the inflation we are currently experiencing is hard to deal with, but it is worse for those who were already in a precarious situation. As we mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, let us remember poor seniors, seniors who were already finding it difficult to pay for groceries before prices skyrocketed, seniors for whom every rent increase means they will have another basic need they cannot meet. Those people must receive support.
As we speak, there are three million seniors who have been abandoned by the federal government as prices increase. There are three million people who are not entitled to even the smallest increase in their pension because they are unfortunate enough to be between the ages of 65 and 74. On this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, Ottawa should finally realize that this king of age discrimination has the opposite effect: It does not eradicate poverty, it exacerbates it.
On this day, let us push for the government to finally address this profound lack of compassion.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
