Evidence of meeting #101 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was liberals.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
Ms. Chabot, go ahead for two and a half minutes.
10 a.m.
Bloc
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?
10 a.m.
Bloc
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.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
All right.
Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Larouche. What final message do you have for us?
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
As I said earlier, half of seniors have been forgotten. I think it's quite important to mention that. These are people who are receiving nothing. We're now abandoning 50% of seniors, since they haven't received an increase in their basic income.
I would like to remind you that, even if richer or more well-off seniors receive an old age security pension, they still have to pay taxes on that income and, in any case, will therefore have to give money back to the government in another way.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
Madam Zarrillo, you have two and a half minutes.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you so much.
I want to ask about housing, because we have heard testimony that more and more seniors are finding themselves unable to gain housing or are losing housing.
I wonder if you could talk a bit about what the experiences are in Quebec and if you believe this increase for 65- to 74-year-olds will assist with housing payments.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Given housing costs, it obviously won't solve everything, but it will go a long way toward giving seniors a little more money to help them make ends meet at the end of the month, which changes the situation. People 65 to 74, like those 75 and over, need to house themselves. You don't just start thinking about housing at 75.
So it can help, but other measures are of course possible. I hope the government also takes action to address the housing issue. We've made various proposals, such as establishing an acquisition fund, which would help organizations assist seniors. There are things that we can do, but this bill can definitely help.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
My last question is around testimony we've heard, and you mentioned it today, about people having access to social activities. I know being able to go out, physical movement and social activity help physical and mental health. I wonder if you could share some of what you've heard in your consultations about how the lack of funding is limiting seniors' ability to go out and socialize.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
This is critical. Participating in activities entails costs. You have to be able to travel and pay for the activity. So there are costs, but we know that seniors who stay active derive enormous benefits from their activities. This has very positive consequences for their long-term health, unlike poverty, which creates a form of isolation. The isolation of seniors who can't afford to socialize or participate in activities clearly has consequences and can lead to cognitive disorders, among other things.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.
With the time we have left, because there are a couple of items I have to discuss at the end on which I need the direction of the committee, we'll go to the official opposition for two minutes and then to the government for two minutes to conclude.
Madam Roberts, you have two minutes.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to correct the record. I said earlier that the most successful food bank in Etobicoke served 3.7 million meals, but it's 3.17 million meals they serve each and every month. I just spoke with them last night. That number is going to be closer to 3.4 million per month. I wanted to correct the record on that.
I want to go back to what Mr. Van Bynen said earlier about the senior who was here who testified and said their income is currently $80,000, which is their gross income. That income will be depleted because they've had to tap into their savings and RSPs, so within the next year, their income after the end of this year, from what I understand, is going to be dropping to $35,000.
He mentioned they lived in a nice home. Yes, they lived in a nice home, but where are they going to go? There's no housing. They can't afford to rent on $35,000 when they've depleted all their savings. That's their budget.
I think the Liberals have to understand that their inflationary spending, the increase in taxes, the cost to seniors to live in an area where they are most comfortable.... We all know that when you take a senior out of their environment, they automatically deteriorate.
Why is it that the Liberals don't understand that the bill you're putting forward will benefit seniors and help the economy?
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I urge the Liberals to understand this, and I believe that most of the members of this House have understood it and understand that the senior who came and testified earlier doesn't represent the majority of seniors. I think we have every interest in moving forward by acknowledging everything that seniors have done. I'm not just saying this for me. This isn't only a political issue; there's unanimity on this. Seniors groups in Quebec are demanding this. Groups across Canada have also testified in favour of this bill. I therefore hope that the Liberals will understand and vote for this bill.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
In fact, I know that Ms. Chabot, not only because she's a member of the Bloc, has been very passionate on these issues in the House of Commons and elsewhere. She doesn't know that I'm offering this, but I'm open to yielding my time to her.
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. Members
Oh, oh!
February 15th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.
Bloc
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.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
To answer briefly, that's what came out of the conference that I organized. The groups came to say that the allocated amounts enable them only to survive, not live. They would prefer a larger amount, which would give them an income far more suitable and more representative of present economic reality. Fixed incomes don't rise at the same rate as salaries, which creates a major injustice, one that adds to the injustice between the two classes of seniors.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
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.