Bill C-319

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 is currently at committee stage.

We in the Bloc Québécois want just and equitable social safety nets. That is why we are calling on Ottawa to strengthen its own social safety net programs.

As far as old age security is concerned, Canada is currently faring poorly among the OECD countries. Moreover, the federal government has seen fit to increase old age security by 10% for people 75 years and over, excluding those who qualify for OAS upon turning 65. Those seniors are getting no support and no increase.

That is a disgrace.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like his opinion on a certain budget matter. Nothing in this budget addresses the situation facing our seniors by trying to correct what was done before. In fact, the government created two classes of seniors: Those aged 65 to 75 and those 75 and over.

Bill C‑319, however, was studied, unanimously passed in committee and sent back to the House last March. It is awaiting a third reading, passage through the Senate and royal assent. I would like to know whether my colleague and his party plan to vote in favour of Bill C-319 so that it can be passed quickly.

Otherwise, if the Conservative Party were to form the next government, what position would it take on the situation of seniors?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the member justify the fact that he voted in the House in favour of Bill C‑319, which gives seniors over the age of 65 an increase in their old age security pension, yet there is nothing to that effect in the budget? The budget talks about housing, and seniors also have difficulty finding affordable housing.

How can he justify the fact that his government, after voting in favour of the bill in the House, did not bother to eliminate this discrimination, this double standard for seniors, even though that was part of the budget expectations we presented to the minister? What was he waiting for?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague praising the budget, but I would rather talk about the people who were completely overlooked in this budget. I would even say that it adds insult to injury.

Not only did the government still not budget for the increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74, as urgently called for by the Bloc Québécois in a pre-budget request, not only did it fail to allocate funding for Bill C-319, but there is nothing for seniors.

No, I do not want to hear about measures for housing. These measures for housing are not aimed specifically at seniors. Seniors have specific requests. There is nothing in this budget for them. They have been overlooked. This only adds insult to injury.

[Olivier Surprenant]

Ultimately, all seniors should be able to benefit from this increase so that they don't find themselves in a precarious position by being penalized if they work. We understand that some seniors can no longer return to work, but we believe that all seniors should be covered by this reform, which was submitted, I believe, last year. That is why, in our opinion, the House of Commons should swiftly adopt Bill C‑319.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

All right.

You also asked that the government swiftly adopt Bill C‑319, which deals with increasing the Old Age Security pension for people aged 65 to 74. As we know, this pension was increased for people aged 75 and over, but we're told there's no need to do so for people aged 65 to 74. However, we at the Bloc Québécois think it is necessary. Can you explain why you think it would be important to do this swiftly?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you very much, Minister.

On another front, the Bloc Québécois has made a further request, which is to avoid creating two classes of seniors. There was an increase in the Old Age Security pension for people aged 75 or over. We would like everyone 65 and over to also receive it. My colleague Ms. Andréanne Larouche introduced Bill C-319 for that purpose. It went through second reading and was adopted unanimously by a committee. All elected representatives on that committee, from every party, voted in favour of it.

Is the government currently considering Bill C-319 to increase the Old Age Security pension for those 65 and over?

Is the government likely to agree on what appears to be the unanimous view of legislators? Does it think it will be able to support the bill?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to an issue that my colleague touched on in his speech, which is the vulnerable situation seniors are in. I would like to come back to it because, this morning, in the House, I had the honour of tabling the report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. At that committee, my colleague's party and all the parties in the room unanimously recognized that we need to increase old age security for seniors. This could actually put money back into seniors' wallets and pockets.

Does he support his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities who voted for Bill C-319?

Will he continue to pressure the Liberals, not just on the carbon tax, but to think about other solutions to help people in vulnerable situations, including seniors, by increasing old age security for all seniors and address this inequity between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, concerning Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, which I and all the members of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, are advocating for.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendment.

I sincerely thank the committee for its work and for allowing me to present the report this morning.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, members from all parties—Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc—unanimously voted to do away with two classes of seniors when it comes to receiving old age security.

Members will recall that the government had decided to limit benefit increases to those aged 75 and over only. In committee, MPs from all parties voted to do away with this terrible idea. Now, the government just needs to give royal recommendation so that we can do away with these two classes of seniors.

Will the government give royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

I see no further.... The amendment has been moved. I gave latitude in some discussion. As chair, I must rule on admissibility, as dictated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Bill C-319 seeks to amend the the Old Age Security Act by raising the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that are taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500. The amendment, as proposed by Ms. Zarrillo, attempts to increase further that amount to $13,000, which in turn would provide to some people access to a greater benefit than they would without the increased deduction, creating a new and distinct spending to be drawn from the treasury.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice Third Edition states the following on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

As precedent dictates to me as chair, in light of the advice I received, in my opinion and for the above mentioned reason, the amendment proposes to increase spending related to the old age security benefits, which imposes a charge on the public treasury to a level superior to the one already provided in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Seeing no further discussion, shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall clause 2 carry?

Mrs. Gray.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would still like to make a few comments. So I'm going to talk while hearing myself talking.

It's not that I'm against people having as decent an income as possible, but I just want to remind you of the objective of Bill C‑319. The bill has two parts. The first is about increasing the old age security pension by 10% starting at age 65. We know that this increase was granted to people aged 75 and over. So that's the first objective. The other objective is to increase the amount of income that those who receive the guaranteed income supplement can earn from work without seeing that supplement reduced. That amount had previously gone from $3,500 to $5,000. We are asking in the bill that it be increased from $5,000 to $6,500.

I would remind you that the purpose of this bill is not to require people who receive an old age security pension to work. However, we need to enable those who wish to do so not to be penalized. Sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good.

You will recall that, during the testimony, Ms. Zarrillo asked witnesses if they had any amendments to propose to the bill. However, these witnesses were clear: They want the committee to support Bill C‑319 so that it can go through the steps in the House.

So I am going to vote against Ms. Zarrillo's amendment.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to clause 1. The NDP believes that the limit on the income allowed before clawback should be raised in this bill. I will read my amendment.

It is that Bill C-319, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 1 with the following:

(i) the lesser of $13,000 and the combined amount, and

(ii) if the combine amount is greater than $13,000, the lesser of $13,000 and half of the amount by which the combined amount exceeds $13,000,

I can give some explanation or an example of that if needed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are you politely telling me that you do not want to hear me twice? I get it.

I'm being told it's fine and that it's meeting the quality standards. If it does become an issue, get my attention.

Are we ready to begin clause-by-clause of Bill C-319?

(On clause 1)

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 102 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person and virtually by Zoom. You can choose to participate in the official language of your choice by using the translation services, with your headset in the room and, if you're appearing virtually, click on the world icon at the bottom of your Surface and choose the official language of your choice. I advise members to please be conscious of our translators and keep your earpiece away from the mic, as it causes popping, which can be harmful to the translators.

As a reminder as well, all comments should be directed through me, as chair. For those in the room, please raise your hand to be recognized. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon and I will recognize you.

Finally, I would like to introduce Mr. Kevin Wagdin, director, old age security policy and legislation, from the Department of Employment and Social Development. Mr. Wagdin is present to answer questions you may have, as required. As well we have legislative counsel with us for any questions on the bill.

Madame Chabot, is Madame Larouche joining us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's great. I'm glad. Does that mean it's approved? The money is spent. We go through this all the time.

Also, for the current study we're doing on Bill C-319, the cost is $17,250.

Do I have a motion for the adoption of those two budgets?

That has been moved by Mr. Collins.

Do I see agreement? If there's no agreement, you'll have to pay for your lunch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Madame Larouche will be back for clause-by-clause, and I'm sure the conversation will continue.

We'll be back on Monday, February 26, for clause-by-clause on Bill C-319. Again I would remind everyone that the deadline to submit amendments is Thursday, February 22 at noon. That was the time adopted by this committee.

As well, we have two budgets we have to deal with. You have them. They were circulated.

For the Air Canada meeting, the budget is $2,250.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Fragiskatos, thank you for this opportunity and I invite you to offer us your support when we adopt Bill C-319 during clause-by-clause consideration.

Like my colleague Ms. Larouche, I'm not supporting this cause just because I belong to the Bloc Québécois. Other colleagues around the table have noted the importance of fairness in various aspects of society, as Ms. Falk did when she introduced her Bill C-318 to provide leave for adoptive parents in the same way as biological parents.

We're in the same situation here. This is a fairness issue. Canada made the choice to establish an old age security pension plan. It decided that Canadians could receive benefits under the plan starting at age 65. Bravo! Many people in our society live solely on the assistance of public plans. We have heard extensive testimony on the subject.

Ms. Larouche, fairness is one of the values you advocate in Bill C-319, which is also based on the recognition of seniors' dignity, and I'd like to hear you discuss that aspect.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It's an investment because there's a cost to impoverishment. There are consequences to being forced to make hard choices at the end of the month in order to feed yourself adequately or when you have no more money to participate in activities. I always say that poverty can also have consequences.

I'd like to go back to the discussion of seniors 65 and over. As we said, that's the age of retirement that we established, and this debate concerns old age security. I invite you to stay focused on this aspect and not to wander onto measures that should be taken to address poor people under 65. It's one debate among others for which there are other benefits and solutions that we could consider.

Today's debate focuses on seniors who have worked, who have reached retirement age and who feel they're unfairly being forced to stay in the labour market. That's somewhat the message they're being sent. As I said earlier, some of them want to continue working, and that's why one aspect of the bill concerns them. However, some seniors don't want to work and are now completely forgotten by the government.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Larouche, do you feel that the government listens to what people 65 and over need and what they're experiencing?

You said that what we would like is for the committee to rally around the bill so that's reported back to the House of Commons. However, I don't think the debate we're having here is homogeneous or that the groups are homogeneous either.

We've acknowledged that the old age security pension applied to all Canadians starting at age 65. What arguments could we advance to say that money should be spent on this item but that it should be viewed as an investment in our seniors?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Since the bill would have a financial impact, the government's agreement would be needed to implement it.

Consequently, my answer to you is that it's a matter of political choices, as is true for many bills. It lets them polish their image, but they unfortunately don't follow up their words with actions. They just present a nice façade. It's what I call image-based politics, and I'd like to see a switch to action-based politics.

These aren't exorbitant amounts, as I said in my opening remarks, $16 billion over 5 years is nothing when it comes to helping the seniors who have been forgotten for so long, who are suffering from inflation and need help. It's a matter of political choices. First, you have to choose where to get the money, then where you're going to invest it.

We may well wonder, for the moment, whether the Liberals' investments are really being made in the right places and whether they shouldn't instead be made to implement bills that genuinely help people. I'm thinking of Bill C-319, for example, or the bill to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits. These are bills that would really change people's lives. We need to make the political choices to invest in the right things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'm counting on the support of a majority of members in the House, just as I did in the vote on second reading, with the obvious exception of the Liberals, who were on retreat at the time of the vote.

I'm counting on the vote on third reading to make the Liberals understand that they absolutely must help move the bill forward. If the Liberals are still on retreat, but the New Democrats, Greens, Conservatives and Bloquistes are united in acknowledging the precarious nature of seniors' financial situation, I'm counting on the powerful image of a majority vote in favour of Bill C-319 to make the Liberals realize that it's never too late to do the right thing. With this bill, we would be offering them a chance to put an end to this discrimination and to restore fairness for seniors.

I say that because seniors are angry and don't understand the government's reasons. I don't understand why the Liberals aren't hearing those messages. You can make numbers say whatever you want, but we're saying that 13% of Canadians 75 years of age and over live in poverty. So what I heard at the conference, but also during my tour—

[Paul-René Roy]

For now, I think we should leave the age at 65. I understand there are questions. Life expectancy is growing and people are often in better health compared to other eras. I understand that the labour shortage is seen as a good opportunity to raise the age of retirement. However, that should be left to the conscience of each individual. When they get to age 65, most people have been in the labour market for at least 35 years, if not more, so they have some latitude for deciding to retire. We should not force them to stay in the labour market. It must continue to be a choice that is theirs alone. For now, the age 65 threshold is the one that seems most appropriate to me.

That is why we support Bill C-319. We believe that people aged 65 to 74 have the same needs as people aged 75 and older, because the cost of living is the same for all seniors.

[Hélène Cornellier]

Thank you for your question. I hope I understood it correctly.

I'm not very well versed on this issue, but my understanding of how the guaranteed income supplement currently works is that the admissible working income is $5,000, and above that amount, the government deducts 50¢ per dollar earned from the guaranteed income supplement. For example, if you have earned income of $6,000, you have therefore earned an excess $1,000, and the guaranteed income supplement will be reduced by $500.

The guaranteed income supplement is already not very high, even when you receive the maximum. It's generally for people with very low incomes, those who are below the poverty line with the federal pension and their other income. It was added to help them. Now we're clawing back 50¢ on the dollar every time they work and earn more than $5,000. It's a bit of an aberration. It's taking away a big chunk of what we give them.

Now, Bill C‑319 asks that we raise this threshold to $6,500, which would already be a little better for seniors who are still working, often part-time, to—

[Paul-René Roy, Provincial President, Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of Parliament.

The AQRP represents nearly 35,000 retirees from Quebec's public and parapublic sectors. Our mission is to promote and defend the economic, financial, cultural, intellectual and social rights and interests of our members and all Quebec seniors.

In a letter sent to us on January 4, the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Mr. O'Regan, says the following: “As they age, seniors tend to have lower incomes and often face increased health care expenses due to the onset of illness or disability.” In the same letter, he goes on to stress that “the government will continue to take measures to support them and improve their quality of life”.

Yet, at present, the Old Age Security Act sends a very different message, since people under 75 are not entitled to a 10% increase in their old age security pension. In other words, a person under 75 with an illness or an inability to work will not see an increase in their income, simply because they are under 75, even if they don't have the physical capacity to work.

Paradoxically, the minister believes it is true that health care spending is increasing for Canadian seniors. In the same letter, he goes on to state: “This vulnerability is exacerbated by fewer opportunities to supplement their income through paid employment and the risk of depleting personal savings.”

The minister thus seems to be saying contradictory things. On the one hand, he concedes that drug costs rise with the onset of illness or disability. On the other hand, he refuses to grant a 10% increase in the old age security pension to all pensioners aged 65 or over, on the pretext that health problems and the related rise in drug costs are more likely to affect seniors aged 75 or over.

The minister seems to deny that inflation and health problems affect people under 75 just as much. To illustrate this point, I'll take the real-life case of Ms. Girard.

Ms. Girard is a 66-year-old retiree, a former public sector employee who worked in the health care field as a beneficiary attendant in Montreal. Her monthly income of $1,500 includes her Quebec Pension Plan and federal old age security pension. In an interview with the Noovo channel on October 23, 2023, Ms. Girard testified that the problem was that she had difficulty paying for her medication.

If we apply the minister's logic, Ms. Girard would not be eligible for a 10% increase in her old age security pension, since she is a retiree under 75. Yet she faces the reality of rising drug prices, just like a retired person aged 75 or over, and runs the risk of depleting her personal savings due to inflation. Like any retired person, she helped build the Canada we enjoy today, as the minister mentions in his letter.

According to a survey by Sun Life Insurance Company, one in three Canadian seniors has been greatly affected by the rising cost of living in 2023. This means that inflation is eating into the wallets of Canadian seniors aged 65 and over. In this case, we're talking about more than a third of Canadian seniors. That's why the AQRP is calling on the Liberal government to extend the 10% increase in the old age security pension to everyone aged 65 or over. The association considers it unacceptable that in a context of inflation, people under 75 should be excluded from the guaranteed income supplement exemption.

On behalf of AQRP, I am grateful for your attention. I remain at your disposal to answer your questions and hear your comments on Bill C‑319.

Thank you.

[Hélène Cornellier, Political Affairs Advisor, Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your work on Bill C‑319.

The mission of the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, is to defend equality between women and men at all levels of society. Founded in 1966, it has 5,400 members, the vast majority of whom are aged 65 or over. Over the years, it has worked on many issues, such as women's financial security, including in retirement.

Between 2020 and 2021, Statistics Canada noted a 2.5% increase in the number of people aged 65 or over living below the poverty line. This is the largest increase for any age group in Canada.

There are three main factors that affect women more than men and put them at greater risk of financial precariousness: lower income, isolation and non-recognition of unpaid work.

A study on the situation of the elderly in Quebec shows that senior women rely more than men on public retirement programs. For women, such programs account for an average of 47% of their income, compared to just 31% for men. This gap is due to lower wages earned by women, who are mostly confined to undervalued jobs; lack of pay equity and more frequent absences from the workforce due to family obligations also play a role.

In addition, other studies show that women, elderly caregivers, people on low incomes, indigenous seniors, immigrants, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and people living in rural or remote areas are more likely to experience isolation. The consequences of this isolation are not negligible, both for these people and for communities and governments in terms of services and costs.

Moreover, many older people offer help within the family, such as babysitting during school vacations or strikes, or looking after frail loved ones so that they receive the best care and can ideally remain in their own homes. This essential help for relatives is not without additional expense for the elderly, whose low incomes are, for many of them, already stretched to the limit.

For AFEAS, Bill C‑319 is a first step in reversing the discrimination towards some seniors created by the 2021 budget measure that increased pensions by 10% for those aged 75 or over, but forgot about those aged 65 to 74. This bill also aims to help seniors who are still working out of precariousness and poverty by raising to $6,500 the work income eligible under the guaranteed income supplement program.

In addition to supporting Bill C‑319, given the less favourable situation of older women, AFEAS makes the following recommendations to the Government of Canada. Firstly, it should undertake any changes to retirement programs based on a comparative analysis of their impact on both sexes. It should also base the calculation of retirement programs on personal income, not family income, to preserve women's autonomy. AFEAS also recommends that the federal government pay a supplement to the basic old-age pension to women who have taken care of children or relatives who are losing their autonomy. In addition, the federal government should index old age pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and all other retirement-related income replacement measures to the cost of living. Finally, it should ensure that public pension plans pay all retired people minimum retirement benefits equivalent to the after-tax low-income cut-off.

In closing, AFEAS would like the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to recommend the adoption of Bill C‑319, and do everything in their power to ensure that the House of Commons and the Senate do the same, and as quickly as possible. We ask for this on behalf of Canadian seniors.

I thank you all for listening.

Please note that we will submit a brief today at the end of the day.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to the amount of a full pension.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually.

I would like to take a few moments to review a couple of points before we hear from the witnesses. You have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. For interpretation in the room, you can use the interpretation services with the headset. For those appearing virtually, if you click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, you will be able to choose the official language of your choice.

If there is a disruption in interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand, or virtually use the “raise hand” icon, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. As well, I would like to remind members, especially those in the room, to please keep their earpiece away from the mic as it can cause popping on the sound system, which can cause injury to the interpreters. As much as possible, speak as slowly as possible for the benefit of the interpreters.

With us today in the room we have Mr. Ben Catenaccio, as an individual. From the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, we have Hélène Cornellier, political affairs adviser. From the Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors, we have Paul-René Roy, the provincial president.

We will begin with Mr. Catenaccio for five minutes.

Mr. Catenaccio, you can choose to make an opening statement, but if you don't, it's fine.

Do you wish to make an opening statement, Mr. Catenaccio?

[Isobel Mackenzie, Seniors Advocate, Office of the Seniors Advocate of British Columbia]

Thank you very much, and thank you to the committee for inviting my testimony.

I am the seniors advocate for the Province of British Columbia. This is a statutory office of the provincial government with a legislated mandate to monitor services to seniors, undertake systemic reviews and make recommendations to government on how to improve supports and services for B.C. seniors. In addition to health care, housing and transportation, income support is also included within my mandate.

Currently, for the most part, it is the federal government that has assumed the role of providing an income for retired Canadians through the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan.

I'm just going to give some quantification or numbers to some of the stories that previous speakers, like Laura, and speakers in previous sessions spoke to.

A Canadian retiree who is wholly dependent on their public pensions—meaning they're getting the average amount of CPP and getting a little bit of GIS and OAS—will have an annual income of $24,000 if they're 75 and under, or a little bit more than $25,000 if they're over 75.

If a senior has very little or no CPP, they'll receive the maximum GIS, and their total income will be $22,500 if they're under 75, or $23,400 if they're 75 and older.

I want to point out that in all cases, the income they will receive is well below the income of a person who's working at minimum wage in any territory or province in this country.

Most Canadian retirees do provide some private pension, either from their RRSP or their workplace pension, but the additional amount is very limited, as the overall median income—so 50% of seniors in this country—is very low.

In British Columbia, which mirrors Canada for the most part, the median income of a senior is $33,000. In our province, that is still below minimum wage, the rate at which 6% of the labour force is employed. Most stunningly, it is 65% lower than the median income of the working-age population aged 35 to 55.

Many have referred to the market-based measure of poverty, and Aiman did that as well. I would challenge that it is not the best tool to look at. Laura has spoken to some of the reasons why, but there's another reason, which is that it is a threshold where, if you're a dollar above it, you're off. When you look at seniors, they are very clustered around that poverty line. Therefore, it's counterintuitive that 7% of seniors live in poverty as defined by the market-based measure, but almost half of seniors are living on an income below minimum wage. I think that is something that is underestimated by a lot of policy-makers.

Using median incomes—not average, because they reflect a small group of higher income-earning seniors—is arguably a better measure of the actual poverty within our seniors population.

Those who have testified before me have spoken of the challenges that seniors are facing with the rising costs and with incomes that are not able to keep pace with inflation. Laura has told you the story of the senior in Ottawa, and the speakers in the session before me were also talking a lot about that.

My office does hear increasingly from seniors around affordability issues, most particularly food. For those who rent, it's the cost of rental housing, which is not surprising, given that B.C. is home to the most expensive housing market in the country.

We also do hear from a large number of seniors on dental care costs, which is why I'm so very pleased with the new federal dental plan, and I expect that this will address many of the concerns we've been hearing.

The stories we hear of seniors living with very limited incomes are, of course, very distressing. The numbers would indicate that these experiences are not only very real but being felt by a larger number of seniors than we might anticipate, particularly those two out of 10 seniors who are renters, not homeowners.

Obviously, I wholly support the provisions of Bill C-319 to raise the OAS for those aged 65 to 75 by 10%, for all of the reasons the previous speaker has spoken of, and I don't need to repeat those.

What I would do is further challenge the committee members to use their influence to look at including CPP in the earnings exemption.

In the previous session, one of your members spoke to providing an incentive for people over 65 who are able to work to continue to work. That's why we have the earnings exemption for GIS. That's true, and that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that we're penalizing those who can't work.

To put this in perspective, if I am 66 years of age, and if I defer my CPP and I earn $6,500 a year from employment, my total income will be $27,400. That's my OAS, my top GIS and my $6,500 in employment income.

If I am 72 years of age—

[Alessandro Casbarro, Co-Founder, Bridges of Love York Region]

Thank you.

My name is Alessandro Casbarro and I am honoured to represent Bridges of Love of York Region, a seniors non-profit organization committed to enhancing the lives of seniors in our community. Our organization operates on the fundamental belief that every senior deserves to age in place with dignity, independence and respect.

Bridges of Love of York Region provides snow removal and lawn maintenance services to seniors in need, allowing them to remain in their homes and age in place comfortably. Our team works tirelessly to ensure seniors have the support they need to navigate the challenges of aging while maintaining their autonomy and quality of life. Through our programs and services, we strive to create a supportive community where seniors feel valued, engaged and empowered.

In our work, we have had the privilege of engaging with countless seniors in our community and listening to their stories, concerns and aspirations. As we all know, Canada's senior population is growing rapidly. With that, the challenges they face are becoming increasingly complex. Expenses for basic necessities such as housing, utilities, groceries and health care continue to rise, often outpacing the income of our seniors, especially those reliant on fixed incomes like old age security pensions.

In recent years, we have witnessed a disturbing trend where many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to make difficult decisions between paying for essential needs and compromising their quality of life. This is particularly concerning as it directly impacts their ability to age in place with dignity and independence, which is a fundamental principle we strive to uphold.

One of the most distressing consequences of this financial strain is the prospect of seniors having to sell their homes, which they have worked so hard to obtain and maintain over the years. For many seniors, their homes represent a place of comfort, stability and cherished moments. It is where they have raised families, celebrated milestones and built their lives. The thought of having to part with their homes due to financial constraints is deeply distressing for seniors, as it not only disrupts their sense of security and stability but also severs the ties to their community and support networks. Selling one's home is often seen as a last resort for seniors—a decision made out of necessity rather than choice, one that can have profound emotional and psychological impacts.

At Bridges of Love of York Region, we firmly believe that seniors should not have to face the prospect of selling their homes simply to afford basic necessities or cover rising expenses. Our homes are more than just bricks and mortar. They are symbols of our hard work, perseverance and the memories we hold dear.

By increasing the amount of the full pension provided to seniors under the Old Age Security Act, as proposed in Bill C-319, we can help alleviate some of the financial burdens faced by seniors and ensure they can afford to remain in their homes with dignity and independence. This is not just about financial assistance. It is about honouring the contributions and sacrifices made by our seniors and affirming their right to age in place.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the profound impact that the rising cost of living has had on the well-being of our seniors and to support measures that enhance their financial security and independence. By prioritizing the needs of our aging population, we can build a more inclusive and compassionate society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will continue its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually by Zoom.

I want to take a moment to review procedure.

Those attending in the room and by Zoom have the option of speaking in the official language of their choice. Use interpretation services with the headphones in the room. Those appearing virtually can use the globe icon on the bottom of their screen and select the official language of their choice. If there's an issue with interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand or using the “raise hand” icon on your screen. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Please address all questions through the chair. To get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.

I also want to advise members in the room to keep their earpiece away from the mic when they're not using it and to keep their phone away from their microphone, because this can cause issues with the interpreters' hearing. We do not want any of them to have any issues.

I know one can get passionate from time to time, but if you can remember to speak slowly for the benefit of the translators, that would be good, as well.

With that, I would now like to introduce our witnesses for the first panel.

We welcome Mr. Pierre-Claude Poulin, of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées.

Welcome.

As well, from Bridges of Love of York Region, we have Mr. Casbarro here in the room. Welcome.

As you know, each of you has five minutes to give an opening statement.

Go ahead, Mr. Poulin.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the opposition parties for allowing Bill C‑319 to pass through the House. We now have an opportunity to look at some fundamental issues that I hear less about in the discussions between the two parties.

Mr. Poirier-Monette, what is the impact of the fact that a fixed income such as the old age security pension has not been increased for seniors aged 65 to 74?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as we study Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Perhaps I can start with you, Mr. Janeiro.

Can I call you James? Okay. It's great to see you again.

I think what we're hearing here today is that obviously seniors are in dire straits. Basically, there are so many people in dire straits. Our seniors seem to be more on the vulnerable end of that position. Your testimony today was about primarily caregivers. I think a lot of us here who have aging parents—and those who are watching—know, and it hit home. I saw a lot of nods as you were giving your testimony.

This bill is saying to increase old age from $5,000 to $6,500 a year, which seems so minimal, I'll be honest with you, in a cost of living crisis, which you touched on. When have you ever seen inflation or a cost of living crisis be this bad in your time of working in this industry?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Yes, many things can be proposed.

As Ms. Tassé-Goodman said in her remarks, provisions could be added to Bill C‑319 on the method of indexing old age security, among other things. That pension is indexed to the consumer price index, or CPI, while wage growth is about an additional percentage point above that index.

Simply put, the old age security pension currently replaces about 15% of the average wage. However, because of the method of indexing this pension, the replacement rate decreases over time. Therefore, in 10, 15, 20 years, the amount of the old age security pension would represent a smaller percentage of the average salary.

This is problematic because old age security is the first pillar of retirement. It represents the universal plan, which is supplemented by the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan and personal savings. Since that is the foundation, it has to be solid.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses who have come today.

I really appreciate the gender lens that's been put on some of this in the discussion today. We know that women are punished for caring for family earlier on in their careers and there's also the wage gap. I really appreciate the light that's been shone on that.

There's also the fact that seniors are still working in paid and unpaid work, and certainly in care. There is a lot of unpaid care that's done by seniors.

This is an opportunity, as this comes to committee, to talk about amendments that could potentially come into this bill.

I will ask Mr. Janeiro first.

If there was an opportunity to amend this bill to include something else that is important at this time, is there anything that you would propose?

I also want to know your thoughts on this: The NDP has been asking for some grace period. A lot of times, seniors don't get their income tax filed on time. They can lose their entitlements because they didn't get their income tax in.

I think this might be an opportunity, as we open Bill C-319, to make sure that we also give seniors some grace period. If they become sick or they are caring for a loved one, the income tax falls to the wayside and they lose their entitlements. It seems unfair.

Mr. Janeiro, would you mind giving your thoughts on that?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here to discuss this important bill. I would like to disagree with a number of the comments I've just heard, but that's not the basis of my intervention.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fair treatment for all seniors. Old age security in Canada is a universal program, subject to a few conditions. However, in my opinion, the decision was made for the first time to create a gap in the program by distinguishing people aged 65 to 74 from people aged 75 and over, without taking into account the reality of seniors. The bill corrects this unfair treatment based on age, which is a form of discrimination because it does not at all take into account the needs of people aged 65 to 74.

Ms. Tassé-Goodman, you supported Bill C‑319 long before the Liberal government decided to increase old age security, which it had promised to do, but only for seniors aged 75 and over. Not a day goes by without your members asking you when there will be fair treatment for people aged 65 to 74.

What are people telling you and what motivations lead you to support this bill?

[Professor Arthur Sweetman, Professor, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

As background, I’d like to start by considering low income in Canada.

Using the market basket measure, in 2019, 10.3% of persons in Canada fell below the low-income threshold. Those under the age of18, at 9.4%, were somewhat less likely to be low income than the average. Those between the ages of 18 and 64 had an above average low-income rate of 11.8%. Of relevance today, those aged 65 and over, at 5.7%, had the lowest likelihood of being in low income among these three age groups.

While there are individuals over age 65 who have low incomes, Canadian programs have been very successful in reducing low-income rates for this age group to below that of society as a whole.

Turning to Bill C-319, as I understand it, two changes are proposed. I will focus on them in turn.

The first will increase what I call the earnings disregards for the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. Since 2020, the two disregards have been $5,000 each. Current GIS recipients face a three-stage regime. In stage one, the first $5,000 in annual earnings have no effect on their GIS benefit; in stage two, the next $10,000 in earnings are taxed at a maximum of 50%, and second, there's $5,000 disregard. In stage three, earnings beyond $15,000 are taxed at 100% to the full amount of the GIS.

The bill proposes to increase both the stage one and stage two disregards to $6,500 while retaining the stage two tax rate of 50%. This implies that GIS recipients would be able to earn up to $6,500 per year without their GIS amount being affected and that they would then face a 50% tax rate on earnings between $6,500 and $19,500. Beyond $19,500, they would face 100% tax rate. Of course, the eligibility threshold for GIS is not much above $19,500 for a single individual.

I see two obvious motivations for this proposed change. The first would be to provide additional income to low-income seniors who are already earning more than $5,000 per year. The second would be to incentivize low-income seniors to increase their labour supply. However, among low-income seniors, those with the lowest pre-retirement incomes are least likely to work post age 65, so those with more disadvantaged backgrounds are least likely to benefit from this change.

Also, previous changes to the GIS appear to have had modest impacts on changing labour supply among GIS recipients. I suspect that this proposal would similarly have a positive but very modest impact on earnings.

Overall, while the potential policy change will probably not have much impact on extreme poverty, it will benefit those who are low income and who already earn more than $5,000 per year. I therefore see this as worthwhile since it will help some low-income working seniors. It rewards work and hopefully incentivizes it.

Turning to the second part of the bill, it proposes to increase OAS payments to those aged between 65 and 74 by 10%. Over 95% of individuals in this age category receive at least some OAS income, so this part of the policy change is not exclusively targeted at low-income seniors.

Compared to the first part of the bill, this is a much more expensive proposal for taxpayers. My best guess, derived from calculations based on an Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ report, is that this policy change would cost between 0.15% and 0.2% of GDP. This is a very rough guess, and it's also a very big number.

Further, in terms of labour market incentives, although any effect is likely to be small, I expect it to decrease rather than increase labour supply and earnings. A greater concern is that it’s not obvious that the federal government currently has sufficient fiscal capacity to undertake an expenditure such as this while simultaneously building, for example, a robust pharmacare program. I think the opportunity cost of the funds for this second policy change need to be considered very carefully. Undoubtedly Canadians’ views will differ, but I think that many, including many seniors, would find greater dignity in and prefer alternatives such as spending money on improved health care rather this non-targeted increase to OAS payments.

If, additionally, we are worried about seniors living with dignity and avoiding low income—or, more broadly than low income, avoiding poverty—then a targeted proposal would be preferable to this broad-brush approach.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, President, Provincial Secretariat, Réseau FADOQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, my name is Gisèle Tassé-Goodman. I am the president of the Réseau FADOQ.

With me is Philippe Poirier-Monette, special advisor on government relations.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to comment on Bill C‑319.

The Réseau FADOQ is a group of people aged 50 and over with more than 550,000 members. In each of our interventions at the political level, we want to contribute to improving seniors' quality of life. At the outset, I must emphasize that Bill C-319 deals with a subject that is of great concern to seniors. Not a day goes by that our members do not ask us about the old age security pension or the guaranteed income supplement. So we are bringing their voices here today, in this committee.

In July 2022, old age security was increased by 10% on a permanent basis for those aged 75 and over. Enhancing this benefit was and continues to be necessary. However, people aged 65 to 74 do not understand why they are excluded from this increase. Currently, a person under the age of 75 receiving only the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement has an annual income of $21,345. A senior in this situation has an income that puts them below the official poverty line in Canada, which is based on the market basket measure. Let's remember that this index establishes the cost of a bare subsistence basket. It excludes things like dental care, eye care, as well as the purchase of medication, which are vital expenses for seniors.

Bill C-319 proposes to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% for those aged 65 to 74. The Réseau FADOQ supports this proposal, since financial distress has no age. This amendment will enable all persons aged 65 and over to access the same full pension amount, without age-based discrimination.

The other measure proposed by Bill C-319 is an increase in the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption for recipients. Currently, it is possible for these individuals to earn up to $5,000 in employment income while collecting all of the guaranteed income supplement benefits. For earnings between $5,000 and $15,000, a partial exemption applies. Over the past few years, the Government of Canada has increased the earnings exemption a few times, and every time, the Réseau FADOQ applauded that decision. This is a measure that reduces the effects of a tax trap that discourages guaranteed income supplement recipients from remaining in the labour market. In addition, in the context of a labour shortage, this measure would be well received.

Let's not forget that, during the last election campaign, the Government of Canada promised to introduce a tax credit for experienced workers. Since that tax credit has still not been implemented, increasing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption would be a step in the right direction.

In closing, we feel obliged to address two aspects that are not affected by Bill C-319.

During the 2021 election campaign, the federal government made a commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement. Three years later, seniors are still waiting. The Réseau FADOQ encourages the Government of Canada to keep its commitment.

Finally, we must also address the shortcomings in the way old age security is indexed. This program is indexed based on the consumer price index, while wages change about a percentage point faster. As a result, federal benefits will play an increasingly smaller role in the retirement income replacement rate in the future. Our organization is asking the government to revise the indexing method for the old age security program in order to take wage growth into account.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for listening to us. We look forward to your questions. Mr. Poirier-Monette will answer questions, and I will reserve the privilege of getting involved.

Thank you.

[James Janeiro, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the invitation and the opportunity to speak this morning as part of your study on this very important bill.

I am James Janeiro and I'm with the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence. We are a pan-Canadian organization focused on caregivers, which is to say parents, siblings, friends, neighbours and the like, as well as care providers such as personal support workers and direct support professionals who support people with disabilities all across our country. Our goal is to make Canada the best place in the world to give and receive care.

The intent of Bill C-319 is to raise the pension incomes of retired Canadians. This is both timely and urgently necessary, in our opinion. The National Institute on Ageing recently released their 2023 “Aging in Canada” survey results. This survey of Canadians 50 and over has helped illuminate what caregivers across the country already know: Seniors are feeling the financial pinch resulting from the ongoing cost of living crisis. An overwhelming 70% of survey respondents reported that they are concerned with the rising cost of living, and nearly 50% worry about running out of money. Sadly, over one-third reported worrying about a reduction in pension or other government benefits.

This problem of pinched household budgets due to the cost of living crisis becomes even more urgent when the low-income senior is also a caregiver. One in four Canadians are caregivers today and half of us will be a caregiver at some point in our lives. Today, in 2024, women in Canada are just as likely as not to be a caregiver already. For many of these caregivers, financial distress is at the top of their very long list of struggles. Mercilessly increasing grocery and other bills has made an already difficult situation much worse. Recent data shows that nearly two-thirds of caregivers reported financial hardship last year due to their care responsibilities.

A recent survey conducted by us at the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence found that over two-thirds of people receiving care in Canada are themselves seniors. In addition, approximately 20% of caregivers are also seniors. Of those senior caregivers, 80% care for other seniors, such as wives, adult children, husbands or even their parents. For these seniors, struggling through the already threadbare social safety net designed to help them is part of their daily reality.

Statistically, senior caregivers are mostly women and they have likely had to take time off work at some point in their lives to have children or to care for somebody else. This means they lost out on years of CPP contributions, which continues to punish them for caring for others through lower CPP payments well into their senior years. Imagine worrying about how to pay the rent or feed your ailing wife while also bathing her and coping with cognitive decline. Unfortunately, this is the daily reality of nearly a third of caregivers in their older years, who reported some kind of economic strain due to their care responsibilities.

Seniors are crying out for solutions. We spent the last year advocating for the Canada caregiver credit to be converted into a refundable tax credit. While out of the scope of this study, it would certainly help, as would the provisions in this bill, which would go a long way towards solving the cost of living crisis for seniors.

We strongly endorse this bill. Seniors helped build Canada and are often called upon to look after others during what should be their years of rest and relaxation. The least we can do is adjust our very successful national programs like the CPP to meet the challenges of the current crisis and make sure seniors' lives are a little easier.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee is back in session.

I would like to welcome the following witnesses for the study of Bill C-319.

From the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence, we have James Janeiro, director, policy and government relations. From Réseau FADOQ, we have Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, president, provincial secretariat, and Philippe Poirier-Monette, special adviser, government relations. As an individual appearing virtually, we have Arthur Sweetman, professor, McMaster University.

We'll begin with a five-minute opening statement from Mr. Janeiro.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, I'm giving my opening remarks now, but I'll answer questions later.

Good morning, everyone.

Dear committee members, thank you for having me this morning so we can look at Bill C‑319 together. It's a relatively simple but vital piece of legislation aimed at improving the financial situation of seniors during really tough economic times.

At the heart of the bill is a two-pronged approach to addressing seniors' needs. First, the bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists in our system. This bill would increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and older are entitled to by 10%. This will correct a glaring injustice, as, since 2022, only seniors aged 75 and over have been receiving the 10% increase, leaving a large portion of all pensioners in a precarious financial situation.

Second, the bill would raise the exemption for a person's earnings taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. This means that each recipient aged 65 and older will have an extra $1,500 in their pocket each year. That's significant financial support in an environment where prices are rising exponentially.

Recognizing that this is an urgent issue is crucial. More than 7.25 million Canadian seniors and 1.8 million Quebec seniors benefit from the old age security program. Given that more than 3.7 million Canadians are between the ages of 65 and 74, enhancing the old age security program is imperative. Support meant only for people aged 75 and over helps only 2.8 million people. It is missing the mark by helping a minority of seniors and abandoning the majority of them. We need to take action to support seniors, who have made an important contribution to our society.

The facts speak for themselves. We see seniors spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and food, expenses that have gone up significantly. In addition, an alarming number of seniors find themselves in situations where housing absorbs too much of their income, making their daily lives even more difficult.

It's also important to note that poverty among seniors is a worrisome reality. In 2020, 13% of seniors were living in poverty, a rate higher than that of all other age groups. It's our responsibility to ensure that seniors can live with dignity after dedicating their lives to the well-being of our society.

Finally, we must consider the financial cost of this bill. The proposed increase in benefits represents a significant investment, estimated at $16 billion over several years, but we must consider it an investment in our society and in the dignity of seniors.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I will say that Bill C‑319 is a crucial opportunity to correct injustices and support seniors in tough economic times. We can't turn our backs on those who have given so much to our society. Approving this bill signals that we value seniors and are committed to ensuring their well-being in the years to come.

This debate and this battle have been going on for a long time. Long before I entered politics, I knew seniors were in distress. Between 2007 and 2011, I worked as a staffer, and even then I noticed that many of the people in financial distress who came to the office were seniors. After that, I worked in community groups. We talked about abuse and poverty. The message I'm sending now with this bill is that we want to help the seniors who are struggling the most and will not give in to gloomy pessimism.

Seniors who are willing and able can also help address another problem we're facing: the labour shortage. As some of them reminded us, they want to contribute to society and stay in the labour market, but, under the current system, they're penalized if they do so.

My bill would really do two essential things. One, it would allow seniors who are willing and able to keep working, since there are lots of benefits to that, and, two, it would give seniors a little extra help from their old age security pension.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I want to point out that there's consensus on inviting the sponsor of Bill C‑319 back for the full hour that was planned. I still want to express my sincere regret that we're starting this study this way. However, I agree with inviting Ms. Larouche again.

Again, our apologies, Ms. Larouche.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

—is the minor wording change that you are moving is inconsistent and I have to rule it as inadmissible.

The only debate I'll entertain is on.... No, I'm not entertaining any because I moved to a vote.

We're calling the vote on the main motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to the order of the committee study.

I would like to welcome Madame Larouche.

Madame Larouche is appearing as a witness on Bill C-319.

Do you have an opening statement?

Yes?

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister O'Regan, as you said, you are also the Minister of Seniors. In your presentation, you talked about the importance you attach to the principle of aging with dignity, and we fully agree with that. However, your government made a decision concerning seniors in 2022 by giving a 10% increase in old age security only to seniors aged 75 and over.

This week, we are going to start studying Bill C-319, sponsored by the member for Shefford, meant to address this inequity and to grant a 10% increase in old age security to seniors starting at age 65, which is the age of eligibility for this program.

Will your government support that bill?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I are both on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, so we work together on issues relating to the status of women.

Another file that interests both of us is seniors. She is her party's critic for seniors. We have had a number of very interesting conversations. I completely agree with what she said on the subject. This economic update lacks measures for seniors. There is nothing in it for them. The Bloc Québécois has long been asking the government to do something for seniors. That is one of the Bloc's priorities, and it is one of the things we have asked for in economic updates and budgets. Seniors have been getting poorer and poorer for too long.

Next week, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will begin its study of Bill C‑319.

Will the Conservative Party actually do what seniors are asking them to do, seniors like the ones from Saguenay and Chicoutimi that I met with just last week? They want the House to pass Bill C‑319 to make things fairer for seniors. They do not want seniors to be divided into two classes, those under 75 and those 75 and over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I call the meeting to order.

I apologize. It's a reminder. Please do not have your phones on vibrate near the earpiece when you're speaking, because it will, obviously, hurt the interpreters.

Again, welcome to meeting number 94 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on June 13, the committee is continuing its study on intergenerational volunteerism.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Witnesses are appearing virtually, online, as well as here in the room.

You have the option to speak in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation is available through your earpiece. If you are appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the language of your choice.

If there's an interruption in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected. I would like to again remind members to please keep their telephones and earpieces away from the mic to protect the hearing of our interpreters.

I remind all members to address their comments through the chair. Use the “raise hand” function if you're online. If you're in the room, raise your hand.

Before we go to witnesses, I wish to confirm with members a deadline to provide the clerk their list of witnesses for the study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Is there agreement that the deadline to submit witnesses be on Wednesday, December 13? We will resume the study in the new year.

Seeing no disagreement, we'll set that deadline.

One of our witnesses is in the room, and the other is appearing virtually. From Le Petit Peuple, we have Jeanne Campeau, executive director, by video conference. Welcome. From Volunteer Ottawa, we have Christine Trauttmansdorff, executive director—

Fall Economic Statement

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can agree today that the word urgent does not come to mind after this economic statement.

The situation for our local media is urgent. Last week in my riding I went to Sherbrooke, where the media were gathered and calling on the government to take action. There is nothing.

The homelessness situation is urgent. This week, Granby is organizing a forum on social housing. These people do not need to be dumped on or for the government to interfere in their jurisdiction. They will come up with solutions. The government should have contributed its share of the effort for housing within its own jurisdiction.

The Canada emergency business account repayment situation is urgent. I am getting ready to go out with the Haute‑Yamaska chamber of commerce and industry. The NDP said that it also wanted this measure to help our businesses get through next year to prevent 20% to 30% of bankruptcies.

The situation for seniors is also urgent. The NDP voted in favour of my Bill C‑319, which called on the government to do something in this inflationary context where seniors on a fixed income are especially affected. They needed help. Every senior 65 and over should be getting a higher pension.

My NDP colleague supported my last two points. Where in the fiscal update are the CEBA repayment issue and the seniors issue, if the NDP managed to negotiate something with the government?

Pensions

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

Old Age Security Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-319 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion 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.

Pensions

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives' concern. I agree that we need firm control of our public finances. Obviously, predictability is a must.

However, we also need to recognize that some people require extra support because of inflation. Apart from the carbon tax, what seniors want, especially those who are affected by inflation, is a 10% increase in old age security benefits for all seniors starting at age 65. The Conservative critic for seniors said it was unfair not to provide the 10% increase to all seniors at age 65.

I am reaching out to my colleague and urging her to take the first step and provide a little extra help to seniors in need. I am asking her to vote for Bill C‑319 tomorrow.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her speech, my colleague mentioned how important it is to support people. We can all agree on the need for better control of the public purse, but we have to recognize that inflation affects some people more than others.

I am reaching out to my colleague. Tomorrow, there will be an important vote on Bill C-319, which would increase old age security for every senior 65 and older. Groups in Quebec have been asking for this. I visited them all this summer. I keep getting letters of support for this bill. Tomorrow, my colleague will have an opportunity. I do not want to hear any administrative arguments worthy of a banana republic. Last time, I heard someone argue that OAS could not be increased for everyone at age 65, that it was impossible because it had just been increased for people 75 and older, so technically, there would be no way to increase it for people starting at age 65. What kind of nonsense is that? OAS is available to every senior starting at age 65.

I hope my colleague will seize that opportunity tomorrow and vote for the bill.

Old Age Security Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second hour of the second reading debate on Bill C-319.

I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill. It continues to spark important conversations. That is because we are constantly looking at how best to support older persons in Canada. Not everyone needs the same kind of help. Seniors themselves would agree.

To demonstrate my point, I give an example from Manchester, United Kingdom. A communications campaign in 2020 called “Valuable, not vulnerable” highlighted contributions of older people in the pandemic response. It featured those who performed jobs in person on the front lines, those who volunteered in their communities and those who took on caregiver roles. The campaign successfully countered the idea that an entire group should not be labelled as frail or vulnerable, and the slogan was picked up around the world, including here in Canada.

I bring this up because I want to underline that our government chose to raise the OAS pension for seniors 75 and over, and it was a good choice. It was based on data. It helped avoid lumping all seniors into the same category. As we know, the evidence tells us that seniors 75 and over are more likely to be vulnerable in certain circumstances. They are more likely to need more support.

As the Minister of Employment said to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, this policy step was a very big step. The decision to increase the OAS pension for older seniors was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that are known to happen more often at age 75 and upward.

Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. We know financial needs increase in this age group, and in 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those 65 to 74. There are also more women in the 75 and over category than men. As well, there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian disability survey in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability, compared to 32% of those in the younger group. That is quite a jump.

That is why our government increased the OAS pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Budget 2021 provided a one-time payment of $500 to OAS pensioners who were 75 or over as of June 2022. We then increased OAS payments for pensioners aged 75 and over by 10% on an ongoing basis as of July 2022. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They will receive more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed, so it will continue to go up.

I want to turn to another matter that has been commented on in this House and that we need to consider with Bill C-319. That is the critical work that is under way to modernize the IT infrastructure that supports the OAS program. Canada's IT infrastructure has been aging faster than the pace of repairs or replacements. By investing the time and money to fix this infrastructure, our government is ensuring key programs like the old age security program and employment insurance will continue to be delivered in the timely way Canadians deserve.

These system changes were spurred on by the pandemic. We realize a modernized benefits delivery platform is crucial so that we are able to target support when Canadians need it the most. We hope to ensure all Canadians are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled.

The timelines for Bill C-319 do not take into account the ongoing work. If passed, the bill would require complex changes to the existing OAS legacy system that would in turn jeopardize the critical deployment and stabilization of OAS onto the new platform.

The benefits delivery modernization work has been under way since budget 2021 provided nearly $650 million for Employment and Social Development Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat to undertake it. In this year's supplementary estimates (C), our government is planning for nearly $1.3 billion in expenditures related to the workforce capacity for OAS and to modernize the IT infrastructure that hosts it.

As I mentioned, Bill C-319, if passed, would require various system changes to the legacy OAS system. The earliest recommended date to introduce policy changes that would require IT system changes is after September 2025, once the deployment of OAS onto the new system has been properly stabilized.

What is more, in October 2022, the then minister of families, children and social development confirmed that safely onboarding OAS is a number one priority. The Canadian population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing age group and we need to consider how best to support them, knowing that older Canadians are valuable and that some are vulnerable, just as we would find in any age group. Bill C-319 is not ideal. Our government already has a good plan to support older Canadians, and work is under way. In fact, we have been supporting seniors since 2015.

Most recently, in budget 2023, we introduced a one-time grocery rebate to help offset the rising cost of food for eligible seniors. In addition, budget 2023 provides funds to implement the Canadian dental care plan. This plan provides dental coverage for uninsured low- to medium-income Canadians, including seniors. This means that no Canadian will ever have to choose between taking care of their oral health and paying the bills at the end of the month. These measures are in addition to the steps already taken by our government, which include returning the age of eligibility for the OAS pension and the GIS to 65 from 67; enhancing the GIS for the lowest-income seniors, which benefited 900,000 seniors and contributed to lifting 45,000 seniors out of poverty; increasing the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 plus, based on good data; and, of course, indexing all our key benefits, so they keep pace with the cost of living and never decrease.

Supporting seniors has been and will always be a top priority for the government. Our seniors have built the country that we know and love today, and they are the backbone of Canadian society. We will always have our seniors' backs.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

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—

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

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.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion 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.

Criminal Code

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to once again speak to this bill. I already spoke to it at second reading, and I want to reiterate what I said at that time: The Bloc Québécois intends to support Bill C‑295.

This bill warranted review in committee. It should be passed and brought into force as quickly as possible. Negligence toward anyone in our life is wrong. Negligence toward our seniors and most vulnerable is shameful.

Our seniors were the victims of terrible treatment during the 2020-22 lockdown. They were often abandoned in institutions with a lack of services, a lack of staff or staff who were ill equipped. They were shuffled from one institution to another. They were considered to be in the margins, people we did not need to take care of like they deserved. They were cut off from their loved ones. Many of them died without even having their close family, children or spouse with them. That is unacceptable. Often, they were not properly fed or fed at irregular hours. They were mistreated.

Collectively, our behaviour was unbecoming. We were like ungrateful children. This must never ever happen again. In Quebec, we have legislation to address this issue, an Act to combat maltreatment of seniors and other persons of full age in vulnerable situations. I mentioned earlier that I hoped that the federal government would model its legislation on the Quebec law, and I think it did so in some regards.

Bill C‑295, which has been moved for adoption, was amended in committee. That is why we wanted to study it in committee. There were things in the bill that bothered us. We worked hard in committee, and I thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the work we did. Many, if not all, of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois were adopted. Now we have a bill that seeks to improve living conditions for our seniors and the most vulnerable among us, whether by reason of age, illness, mental disorder or disability. I think that it does us credit to think of these people during our deliberations here in the House.

These people will now be protected when they live in long-term care facilities. Situations like the ones that occurred between 2020 and 2022 were already prohibited and liable to prosecution. Now, both the owners and the officers of long-term care facilities will be personally responsible for providing necessaries of life to residents of the facilities. Again, we are talking about seniors and people with disabilities or mental disorders, people who are sick. They need us. We needed them at one time. Now, they are the ones who need us. It is wrong not to take care of them.

I therefore welcome this bill with a certain amount of pride. I hope it is not used to prosecute people for contravening its provisions, but rather to encourage them to respect what is now enshrined in law and what should be the minimum we are required to do for some of our most vulnerable citizens. One of the main responsibilities of any government or society is to treat seniors with dignity, respect and fairness. Bill C-295 tells us that we must do just that. We cannot be negligent toward our seniors or toward people who need us without being subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code.

That is not all. Their economic well-being also deserves attention. The federal government must provide the transfers that the provinces have been demanding for far too long now. These transfers are necessary for Quebec and the other provinces to properly administer health care services. In response, the federal government tells us that it intends to set conditions on its transfers and dictate the way we care for the less fortunate. Where, when and how this should be done, the federal government has no idea. The federal government does not manage any hospitals, long-term care homes or health facilities, except those catering to veterans.

The expertise exists not in Ottawa, but in Quebec City. I think that setting conditions on health transfers is outrageous. It does not mean that seniors in long-term care are going without food or baths. It means that the people in charge of these health services are being deprived of the financial means they need to meet the needs of these citizens properly. That is also unacceptable. I think that if the federal government and Parliament want to look into the well-being of the less fortunate, economic aspects should not be overlooked. We have been talking about this for years, and I am fairly certain the talking is not over. I would be very surprised if cheques were sent out next week, but I can promise that we will be there keeping an eye on things. The health care system matters.

That is not all. There are health transfers, but there is also the economic well-being of seniors. As we saw recently, the federal government decided to make seniors aged 65 to 75 poorer. The government acknowledged that needs had increased. God knows they have, and quite a bit more than the government was willing to acknowledge. It gave a 10% increase to seniors aged 75 and over, while leaving retired seniors aged 65 to 75 to fend for themselves. However, all of our laws recognize that people in that age bracket are seniors. This is an unacceptable decision, one we have also frequently criticized in the House, and we will continue to do so.

We have an opportunity to fix this inequity. My colleague, the member for Shefford, is sponsoring Bill C-319, which we will have to vote on in the near future, probably when we return from the parliamentary break week or before the holidays. We hope it will be as soon as possible.

On the one hand, the bill proposes to increase pensions by 10% for all seniors aged 65 and over, across the board, regardless of their age, sex or race. Everyone who is 65 or over and living in Canada should be entitled to the 10% increase. People know very well, as I do, that the 10% increase does not even come close to covering the added economic burden resting on our seniors' shoulders. Groceries cost nearly twice as much and rents are skyrocketing. We are having to strike committees to look into the issue. We are out of ideas for how to stem these increases. Seniors are getting a 10% increase, which is not much at all, so the least we can do is give it to all seniors.

On the other hand, Bill C‑319 also proposes to increase from $5,000 to $6,500 the maximum income a retiree can earn with no penalty clawed back from their pension. That, too, seems reasonable to me. It is the least we can do. We want to tell people that they have a right to their pension, but should they decide to work a little to make ends meet, we will not penalize them for it. I think it would be shameful to penalize them when the pension we are giving them amounts to crumbs.

We can talk about Bill C‑295 and the need for us to properly take care of the most vulnerable, seniors, people with intellectual deficiencies, the sick and persons with disabilities in our long-term care facilities. We can talk about transferring money to the provinces and Quebec that is needed to provide adequate health care services in our hospitals and we can talk about the need to provide equitable and basic economic conditions to seniors. In any case, we are talking about taking care of the least fortunate among us. It does not seem right to have to talk about it here. This is something we should be doing, no questions asked, without even having to vote. This should already be in effect. Let us hope this gets done.

In closing, I would remind the House that a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Let us prove ourselves worthy of our seniors. Let us prove ourselves worthy of the benefits of the society in which we live.

National Seniors Day

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, October 1, we will celebrate the International Day of Older Persons and National Seniors Day.

The purpose of this day is to raise public awareness about issues related to seniors, such as aging and abuse. It is an important day on the calendar to appreciate the contributions that seniors make to society.

This year in particular, it is also an opportunity to take an important step toward helping seniors by eliminating age discrimination. Next week, we will debate the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑319.

The bill will correct an inequity between people aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over by increasing old age security for all seniors. In the context of inflation, people living on a fixed income, such as seniors, are among those who pay the highest price. Ottawa needs to correct its error.

Let us not miss this opportunity. Let us set partisanship aside and vote for Bill C‑319.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, I would like to express my firm commitment to protecting and respecting the rights of the elderly.

About one in six people over the age of 60 suffered some form of abuse in 2022. Elder abuse is a worrying reality that requires a collective response. There are many types of elder abuse, including ageism, one of the most common forms of discrimination.

With Bill C‑319, which I introduced, we hope to break down this age barrier by increasing old age security for all seniors starting at 65.

This is an important day in Quebec, which already has an action plan to fight elder abuse. Greater health transfers would help Quebec do more.

We must work together to create a society that respects and protects seniors. Let us wear our purple ribbons today and commit to promoting the dignity and well-being of seniors.

Old Age Security Act

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to represent the good people of Windsor—Tecumseh, especially on an important issue like the one we are debating here today, so I am absolutely pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-319.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill. I think the bill that she has put before us today is an excellent example of focusing parliamentary attention in the right way on an issue that matters to Canadians. Understandably, Canadians care about seniors; they built this country and now deserve to live out their retirement years in financial security. However, it is more than that; these discussions are about improvements that better support everyone who is aging in Canada, which means all of us. The future of aging in Canada is, after all, everyone's future.

My colleague has already explained why Bill C-319 does not flow from the demographic evidence that we have, and has shown that it would work against us in a few ways. I would like to use my time to talk more generally about all the ways the Government of Canada has supported seniors financially over the past eight years, as demonstration of our ongoing commitment to ensuring seniors live a secure and dignified retirement. We have been working hard to support Canada's fastest-growing age group with the right set of programs and services. With a quarter of Canadians expected to be 65 or older by 2051, we have been working hard on many fronts to plan for the future so government can respond to their diverse needs.

Since 2015, we have restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement to 65, down from 67. It is worth pausing here for a moment to point out that, in 2012, the Conservatives introduced an awfully misguided policy that increased the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67. Not only would that have forced seniors in my riding and across Canada to work longer, but it would have robbed them of literally thousands of dollars of absolutely essential supports, and it would have plunged thousands of them into poverty.

We have a different approach, an approach that is rooted deeply in respect for our seniors. We provided a one-time, tax-free payment to help seniors with extra costs during the pandemic. We worked with provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan, increasing pensions for future retirees. We increased the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. We increased the GIS by up to $947 per year for the lowest-income seniors, benefiting close to 900,000 vulnerable seniors across Canada, and we committed to increasing the GIS further by $500 for singles and $750 for couples, which will help the lowest-income seniors make ends meet.

The government also included a series of new, targeted measures in the 2022 fall economic statement, focused on Canadians most affected by rising prices. One of those measures is doubling the GST tax credit for six months, putting an average of $225 extra back in the pockets of our seniors. We are delivering on a $500 payment to nearly two million low-income renters, many of whom are seniors struggling with the cost of housing. The grocery rebate introduced in this budget will again, no doubt, make a difference in the lives of so many seniors, and I cannot overlook that budget 2023 introduced dental coverage to seniors who need it most.

I am proud of the measures we have taken to improve the overall health and quality of life of older Canadians and our seniors.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to rise for the people of Timmins—James Bay to talk about a very important issue. That is the situation facing senior citizens in this country and the systemic failure to ensure that those who built this nation are able to retire and live in the dignity they deserve.

I was just speaking today with the head of the Cochrane food bank. We are attempting to get supplies of food up into Fort Albany First Nation, which has been under evacuation because of flooding. They tell us the shelves are empty. If we go into the grocery stores in northern Ontario, the bins where people used to fill up with food are nearly empty. The cost of living crisis is hitting seniors more than anyone. They have nothing to show for it, other than these incremental increases that might buy them a Tim Hortons coffee but are not going to put food on the table at this time.

We have to look at the larger picture in terms of the absolute failure we see when seniors need us. They are the people who raised us, built our society, brought us up from being children to adults; however, when need us, we are not there. I look at what happened with COVID in the privatized long-term care facilities and the absolute squalor that elders were left in and died in. It was so bad that the army was sent into Quebec in order to try to keep people alive. We send the army into disaster zones; we should not be sending them into facilities that are run by provinces to protect and to look after senior citizens.

We saw this in Ontario, where the death rates in the privatized care homes were staggeringly high. Afterwards, Doug Ford built this iron ring of protection around all those investors so that they would not be held accountable for failing to keep seniors alive during the pandemic.

I was talking to a widow today who needs to get her teeth fixed. She has a right to have dignity. She should not have to get plates put in. She wants to have her teeth fixed, but it is an $8,000 bill. We have the Conservatives filibustering and trying to stop seniors from getting dental care. The Bloc Québécois members are supporting the attack on senior citizens in this country getting dental care. I cannot think of anything more shameful than that.

I do not know if the Bloc members or the Conservatives ever knocked on a door, but when I knocked on door after door, I talked to seniors, who said to me that they cannot afford to have their teeth fixed. Some people might think this is not that important, but it is so important for their dignity and their sense of health. This is why New Democrats pushed for a national dental care plan that, this year, includes senior citizens. The Bloc members and the Conservatives can fight this all they want, but we will make sure that by the end of this year, we can phone those widows back. We can tell them the $8,000 bill they are facing that they cannot afford to pay will be paid. They deserve it, and they deserve better.

We are very interested in Bill C-319 and this issue of fixing the shortfalls in the pension, but obviously, it would not go far enough. I remember just a few years ago when Stephen Harper flew to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he announced that Canadian seniors had it a little too good. He was going to increase the age of eligibility for the old-age pension. He did not bother to tell Canadians that. He went to tell the world's elites at the World Economic Forum. He went to tell Klaus Schwab, to whisper in his ear, that Canadian senior citizens were getting too good a deal, and he was going to raise the age.

The Liberals ran on it, saying that they were going to fight that. They said, “We are going to make sure that we restore the age.” Then what did the Liberals do in their budget? They created two classes of senior citizens. They told all our senior citizens aged 74 and under, “Tough luck, get by, it is not too bad.” They told them they had their health, and they said they were going to give a small incremental increase to those aged 75 and older.

Just before inflation hit, I was underground in a gold mine in Timmins. That is tough work, and I met a 70-year-old man working the jackleg drill. People have to be in the best health to run a jackleg drill, because it does massive destruction to the body. He told me that at 70 years old, he had to go back underground to work the drills because he could not afford to look after his sick wife.

That is the situation in Canada. To say that, because he is under 75, he does not need a top-up to his pension is an insult. It is also an insult to say that if we just top up those at 65 to where they are at 75, it will get them through in a time of high inflation, because it is not going to get them through. Any senior citizen will tell us that. What we need are much broader systemic changes to deal with an aging population and the way that we have failed. Certainly, the issue of access to dental care is an important first step.

We also need a housing strategy that works. It is not a housing strategy when the member for Stornoway, who lives off the taxpayer's dime with his personal chef, goes on about how all the gatekeepers have stopped any building. He is attacking the municipalities for being gatekeepers. That is not going to get us housing. What we need is seniors housing. We need a national plan to build seniors housing that is co-operative, reasonable housing. The Liberals promised that. We have never seen so many promises about housing, but where are they? We have not seen it. That is a systemic failure.

With respect to the inability of people to feed themselves at a time of high inflation, and the pitiful amount of money they get in old age security, is a broader, more systemic issue that has to be addressed. We have to rethink the CPP. We have to look at the ability of people, while they are working, to add to their own old age security funds so that, if they are working and saving, that fund will go with them wherever they retire. That is contrary to the member for Stornoway, who by the way has a 19-room mansion. He calls it a tax. Investing in pensions is not a tax. The Conservatives keep saying that because they do not want to put the basic funds in place to have a proper pension.

We need to look at a properly funded pension system, so I look at Bill C-319, and we will certainly support it going forward. It is an incremental step, a baby step, along a long path, but it does not get us there. What gets us there is saying that we cannot live as a society with values when seniors are out on the streets begging, which I see on Elgin Street now. There are senior citizens and widowed grandmothers begging on the streets because they cannot pay their outrageous rents or the cost at the grocery stores, as there is not enough in their pensions. I think we need a broader discussion, one that is across party lines, on how we reform CPP so people can make investments into a public pension, not a privatized RRSP. I know a lot of people who have tried to put money into RRSPs and have told me they will never be able to retire because it will never be sufficient, so we have to address those shortfalls.

We have to send an important message now to senior citizens to admit that Canada has failed them, and is failing them, but that it is not going to continue to fail them. At a time of high inflation, high costs, high rents, high medical costs and the need for access to either pharmacare or dental care, Canada needs to do for them what they did for us. They held us in their arms, raised us and took on immense sacrifices so we could be the society that we are today.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I’m speaking on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

First, let me start by saying that our seniors deserve our respect and gratitude. They have worked hard to build our country, serve our country standing up for democracy and freedoms, raise families, start businesses, contribute through their careers over decades, volunteer, and serve and contribute to our communities in so many ways before and during retirement. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for all that they have done over their lifetime. We also need to fully recognize the cost of living challenges facing our seniors now, including the affordability of retirement.

As they age, seniors can face many challenges, including financial insecurity, health issues and social isolation. I hear increasingly from seniors who are deeply concerned about their ability to maintain the quality of life they expected when they were younger. That is why Conservatives are committed to ensuring seniors are top of mind when considering policies that will affect what was supposed to be their golden years.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2019, over 1.6 million Canadian seniors were living in low-income households. That's more than 15% of the senior population. That was even before 40-year record-high inflation and the unprecedented increasing of interest rates, eight times in one year, by the Bank of Canada. Not all seniors have paid off their mortgages, and this is creating a crisis for many. Many seniors are struggling to make ends meet, and many are forced to choose between paying for necessities such as food, fuel, shelter and medication. I hear this all the time in my community.

One senior I know who lived on the edge of town had to sell his home because he simply could not afford to heat his home and the gas to drive his vehicle. It was heartbreaking for him. I just talked to him the other day, and he said he was depressed. Of course I encouraged him to reach out to seek help as I was genuinely concerned about him. Another reached out to me to say he cannot afford to visit family and his quality of life has diminished. Another said he cannot afford to replace his vehicle.

One key part of this legislation proposes to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. To be clear, this will not help everyone. However, this increase would help seniors, who are able to and want to, continue to work while keeping more in their pockets than they would have been able to because their earnings would have been clawed away. By increasing the GIS earnings exemption, we can help to alleviate some of these challenges for some people and ensure that more of our seniors are able to sustain, and for some, perhaps enjoy a more comfortable and secure retirement.

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.

Made-in-Canada inflation by the high-tax, high-debt, high-spend Liberals has hit some seniors the hardest. There are many people in our society, but some seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, are among those hurting the most. They are forced to choose between a warm home and a full fridge. Food banks usage across the country, including in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, is up over 30%. I heard from a senior recently from my community who said he usually donates to the food bank and now he cannot believe that he is a client.

Liberal financial policies have led to higher inflation. This has been stated by the former governor of the Bank of Canada and by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Seniors' retirement income is simply not keeping up to the pace of this 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 government on seniors. It is the responsibility of the government to reward work, especially the work done by seniors.

Conservatives oppose severe clawbacks of seniors' GIS benefits for those who are able to, 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 and a sense of connection with their community.

Many seniors feel increasingly isolated in their own towns and cities, and some have struggled with financial insecurity because of the record inflation. According to a survey by the National Institute on Aging, 72% of Canadians aged 70 years and older became more concerned about their financial well-being in the last several years.

Labour force participation of seniors can bring value to organizations through experience and mentorship, help with succession planning and, maybe for some, 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 too frequent a sight, as small businesses and not-for-profits become desperate for the manpower needed to provide their goods and services.

Now, more than ever, is not the time to punish work. Working should be rewarded, and this is common sense. Why tax away a senior’s income if they are able to and want to work? Seniors are integral in sharing their knowledge and expertise with younger workers through mentoring programs, internships or other training opportunities. This can help develop the skills of the next generation of workers.

On this side of the House, we are committed to standing with seniors, and we believe that this increase to the GIS earnings exemption is a step in not taking their ability to earn an income if they are able to, choose to and want to, and without it being taxed away.

In closing, I want to reiterate our commitment to our seniors and to ensuring that they have the financial security and support they need to enjoy their retirement years. We believe increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, earnings exemption is one step in reaching this goal. This would help seniors who are able to, choose to and want to work, such as having a part-time job, which can keep more of their money in their pockets without affecting other benefits. This increase would help ensure that low-income seniors have additional income to meet their basic living expenses, again, if they want to, are able to and choose to work. It would reduce the impact of clawbacks. Why are we punishing seniors?

As Canada continues to face a labour shortage, the government cannot continue to be a gatekeeper of economic recovery. We must make sure that work is rewarded and encouraged, not punished, if people want to work and choose to work. I also recognize the value of intergenerational connections and the importance of seniors remaining active and engaged in their communities. That is why Conservatives support policies that encourage seniors to share their knowledge and skills with younger generations through work mentoring, as well as through volunteering and community programs.

In conclusion, we are committed to honouring and supporting seniors in Canada. We will continue to work towards policies that promote financial security, that do not penalize seniors and that promote meaningful connections for our valued seniors.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-319. I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill.

Private members' bills play an important role in focusing parliamentary attention on issues of concern to Canadians. Last spring, for instance, we had bills on mandatory immunization, employment insurance for adoptive parents, school food programs and, just recently, a bill to amend the Criminal Code for vulnerable adults.

Seniors are the backbone of Canadian society. They are our parents, our grandmothers and our grandfathers. They are our mentors and loved ones. They are our former teachers, our bosses and our leaders. Seniors built our amazing country and they deserve to live out their retirement without worrying about their financial security. I want to speak today to all the measures our government has delivered that support Canadian seniors.

Increasing old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75 was the right thing to do, because it was delivering targeted support to those who need it the most. We know that the older seniors get, the more likely they are to experience higher costs due to the onset of illness or disability and increased health-related expenses. The facts and data support the government's decision, because here, on this side of the House, we, unlike some of the other parties in this place, make decisions based upon data and facts.

Let us turn to the numbers to get an idea of how our government's plan has been effective in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are hard at work supporting those who need it most. In 2020, 39% of seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement, compared to 29% of those aged 65 to 74. There are also more women in the over-75 age group than men, and there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group as well. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, in 2017, 47% of seniors over the age of 75 had a disability, compared to 32% under the age of 75. This evidence tells us that seniors over the age of 75 are more likely to be in vulnerable circumstances. This means that they are more likely to need additional support, so that is exactly what the government delivered.

Conscious of the facts, our government made the responsible decision to make a historic increase to the old age security pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Let us be clear: This was a huge win for seniors. This change represented the first increase to OAS in 50 years. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They received more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed to rise with the cost of living, so it will continue to go up.

However, we did not stop there. Since 2015, we have implemented a range of targeted actions that have not only contributed to the lowest poverty rates among seniors in Canadian history, but also positioned Canada as a country with one of the lowest poverty rates in the world for seniors. In fact, one of the very first things the government did after we were elected was reverse the reckless Conservative plan to increase the age of retirement. We immediately lowered the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS, from 67 back to 65, allowing Canadians to retire sooner. This put hundreds of thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadian seniors. Bill C-29 was the budget implementation act in 2016. When we look at the voting record, the Conservatives voted against it and the Bloc voted against it. That is where the vote was for the return from 67 to 65 in 2016.

We also raised the guaranteed income supplement by almost $1,000 a year, which helped nearly one million vulnerable single seniors. We know that many seniors want to continue to work past retirement. That is why we extended eligibility for the GIS earnings exemption to include self-employment income and increased the exemption by over 40%, to enable seniors who wished to continue working to do so. On top of all this, we are ensuring that those benefits keep up with the cost of living. In fact, over the past year, OAS and GIS have actually increased by 7.1%, while CPP and QPP have increased by 6.5%. We are proud of our record, which shows that, year after year, we have strengthened seniors' financial security, while lifting hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty.

Of course, there is much more work to do. That is why we are bringing the largest expansion of health care in 60 years by providing uninsured seniors access to high-quality dental care. I sincerely hope that the member across the way who is moving the bill will vote for our budget so that she can support seniors with dental care.

We are always better when we work together. I encourage members across the way, including the Bloc, to work with us to support seniors in Quebec and across Canada. However, time and time again, Bloc members are choosing politics over supporting seniors. We can just look at the voting record, and I'll give a few more examples. I just mentioned dental care for seniors, but they have also already voted against the early stage of the budget, and I assume they are going to vote against the budget when it is ready to be voted on. There was also lowering the age of retirement, with Bill C-29, the Budget Implementation Act, in 2016; strengthening the GIS; and our OAS increase that supports the most vulnerable seniors. These are things that they voted against.

However, people should not worry. While opposition parties are playing political games, we are going to stay focused on delivering real results for seniors from coast to coast to coast.

Canada's population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic, and we need to be thoughtful in our approach to supporting them. We will continue to be proud of the record that we have in supporting seniors.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

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.

Bill C-319—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the deputy House leader of the government on April 19, 2023, regarding Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford.

In a statement concerning Private Members’ Business on March 30, 2023, the Chair invited members to make arguments regarding the need for this bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In her statement, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-319 would increase the amount of the full pension for Canadians aged 65 to 74 by 10%. This increase is not provided for by the Old Age Security Act. She argued that, as a result, this charge against the consolidated revenue fund is not authorized by the act or any other.

The increase in the amount of the full pension that Bill C-319 would provide to all pensioners aged 65 or older would raise public spending for purposes not currently authorized by the Act. Consequently, the Chair is of the opinion that the bill infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown and needs a new royal recommendation if it is to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.

The House will soon take up the second reading motion for the bill, which can be put to a vote at the conclusion of debate on that motion.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to your statement of March 30, 2023, respecting the 15 new items of Private Members' Business added to the order of precedence on March 10, 2023.

In particular, I am rising to raise two arguments respecting the financial prerogative of the Crown and whether two Private Members' Business bills infringe upon the Crown's prerogative in this regard.

Without commenting on the merits of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents, sponsored by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, sponsored by the member for Calgary Shepard, I submit that both of these bills require royal recommendation.

Bill C-318 seeks to add a new type of special benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy through the Employment Insurance Act, as well as making corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code. Since the bill would add a new type of benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, it would need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. These new benefits are not currently contemplated in the Employment Insurance Act and would authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund for purposes and in a manner not authorized by any statute. I therefore submit that, absent of royal recommendation, the bill should not be put to a third reading vote.

Bill C‑319 proposes to increase the amount of the full pension for Canadians aged 65 to 74 by 10%. This increase is not provided for under the Old Age Security Act, and the charge against the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose is not authorized by that act or any other. I therefore maintain that, without a royal recommendation attached to the bill, Bill C‑319 should not be put to a vote at third reading.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair would like to make a statement concerning the management of Private Members' Business. As members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned.

Following each replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair reviews items so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views on the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Following replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items on Thursday, March 16, two bills concern the Chair. One is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents) standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The other is Bill C‑319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford. The Chair is of the view that these bills may need a royal recommendation.

Members are therefore invited to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for Bills C-318 and C-319 at the earliest opportunity.

I thank the members for their attention.

Old Age Security Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)