Debates of March 29th, 2022

Online Streaming Act

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

There is another point of order from the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member claims that I have crossed the floor to join the Liberals. That is an entire misrepresentation of reality and it is a violation of my privilege.

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

That is really not a point of order. We are getting into debate.

I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, be it across the floor or at committee, when Bill C-11 gets there, I wonder what the coalition partners are going to ask. How are they actually going to scrutinize the bill when their partner, the Liberal government, is proposing it? In the case of Bill C-10, we did see some questioning from the NDP on that government bill, and ultimately, thankfully, Bill C-10 was defeated. I have less hope for this bill.

I have less hope for the freedoms that Canadians have relied on and expect to have in their country. After the bill passes, we will have an Internet tsar that will tell us what we can and cannot post and what content we can watch. Meanwhile, I have highlighted how problematic it is that through technology we are going to be able to do an end run around that.

What would this bill actually accomplish? I believe that in the end it is going to limit people's choices, not expand them. It will not expand a creator's ability to tell Canadian stories, and that is what needs to happen first. We will see when this bill gets to committee.

I know some members have questions for me and I am going to cede my time and allow them to ask those questions and have a proper debate. I do hope that we have a proper debate at committee, because we have heard from too many Canadians that the bill is wrong.

To the Canadians who are watching, please consider contacting your Liberal or NDP-Liberal government MP at their office and explain why this censorship bill is not right for Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member think that CanCon regulations in radio in the early 1970s took away Canadians' freedom? He should remember that this was a time when we did not have the alternative of listening to music on the Internet through YouTube and such. Basically, all we had was mainstream radio.

Does he think those regulations were bad for the Canadian music industry? Does he think those regulations were bad for freedom in Canada?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of what we are debating and what we should do based on radio, such as AM radio, I do not think even the member would listen to radio anymore. I would say it is in my car. How it relates to this bill is that it limits the ability for consumers to post their content on social media. That is what I am against, and it is what this bill unfortunately would accomplish for our landscape.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative friends and it seems that there is something they do not understand. The way things currently work is that everything goes to the people at the top. Everything goes to the biggest stars on the web, whether they are video or music stars.

I will give an example. Pierre Lapointe, who is hugely popular, has said that for one million streams of his song Je déteste ma vie on Spotify, he only received $500. At this time, artists on Spotify are paid on a pro rata basis. The company tallies up all the streams in a given month, and the artist receives a payment based on their average. In addition, 80% of the streams on digital platforms involve 20% of the titles on offer.

Unless we pass legislation, even Quebec's biggest stars will not be paid much for major hits that are listened to by a lot of people. We must pass legislation. We cannot rely on market forces because that just does not work.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the question is about whether it is a free market. I would say we need to encourage more competition, be it from Spotify or even from a specific one for Quebec. Let the market decide if there is a need for those players. I do not think regulation is going to accomplish what the member wishes it would do. I would say to our creators that we have to compensate the creators for the content they make, but we need to do it in a way that we are not regulating all aspects of their lives. When a country starts regulating Spotify and all other potential streaming services, I believe that is a country I would not want to live in. I would rather open the doors and encourage more platforms to come forward and share Canadian stories than tell a private company what it can and cannot play.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the pandemic, the independent music sector has seen its revenues decline by $233 million and musicians' revenues have fallen by 79%. At the same time, we are seeing web giants paying almost no taxes in Canada and not contributing their fair share of profits to support the funding of Canadian cultural content.

Will my colleague please clarify whether he will continue to protect web giants at the expense of Canada's independent music sector?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to provide an environment that other platforms are attracted to so that our artists can get their product to market. I think that is a better approach than regulating the Internet.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get my colleague's thoughts on the concerns being raised by YouTube and Michael Geist, foremost expert in Canada on the Internet and e-commerce, concerning the threat that Bill C-11 would be forcing streaming platforms to push Canadian content. It sounds great, but as a consequence it may actually downgrade that content abroad, which I think would be very concerning to our online content creators.

Can I get the member's thoughts on that?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to help artists get their products to the international markets. This bill would hurt their chances, because other countries might decide to bring in their own censorship bills that would hurt our artists' attempts to enter their markets.

I believe it is better to let it flow freely, to let artists perform and make offerings to the people and let the market decide.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

As we know, it is not permitted under our rules for members to take photographs in the House of Commons. I have here a photograph taken about an hour ago by the member for Saint John—Rothesay and posted on his Instagram account. I wonder if perhaps the member and all members can be reminded not to take photographs in the House.

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

As we know, those in the press gallery are the only ones who can take photos in the chamber. I may have an opportunity to talk to the member for Saint John—Rothesay in due course, but no photographs are allowed to be taken on the floor when the mace is in the blocks.

It being 5:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Retirement Income

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Deputy House Leader of the Government]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about seniors, who have contributed throughout their lives to our country, society and the economy. Seniors have worked tirelessly, served Canada and communities with dedication, raised families and paid taxes. They deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry.

However, far too many seniors remain concerned about their retirement savings running out. They are worried about not being able to live independently in their own homes. None of us can be okay with this. I am always grateful for the opportunity to listen to seniors' groups in Etobicoke North, the Asian Humberwood Seniors, Caribbean Seniors' Social Club of Toronto, Democratic South Asian Seniors Association, Humberwood Seniors, South Asian Seniors, St. Andrew's Senior Club and Sri Lankan Tamil Seniors Group of Etobicoke.

I love to listen to their stories, benefit from their wisdom, and hear what they need. During the last election in Etobicoke North, I spoke to senior after senior over the telephone. One of the highlights of the election was when a woman who used to sing in Welsh choirs and teach singing sang Pure Heart in Welsh to me over the telephone.

With such joy came real heartache. The overwhelming issue I heard during the last election was that seniors need help to ensure a dignified retirement. This was vastly different from my previous four elections, when the overriding issues were jobs and the economy. Some seniors I spoke to were in their 90s and even their early 100s, and had served during the Second World War. One was a 48th Highlander who said that eight decades ago, they had stepped up for their generation and for future generations, and that their motto is Dileas Gu Brath, which means “faithful forever”.

I spoke to women who had worked in the war effort. I spoke to teachers who had taught generations of young Canadians for over three decades. I also spoke to many women who had not only worked and cared for their families but also cared for numerous extended family members as they aged, some for over decades, and with no remuneration. I spoke with some who had recently lost their partners and were worried if their savings would be enough to carry them through.

Some seniors stress that, in their words, they had done everything right and had saved for their retirement because they had the means. Not everyone does. However, they were forced to take out money from their registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs, when they did not need the money, when they were not sick, when they had not lost a partner, or when they did not need care.

However, when they really needed the money, it had been depleted through mandatory withdrawals or, in some cases, was gone altogether. They said that while their costs were always increasing, their RRIFs were forever decreasing.

Their challenges did not end there. Sometimes RRIF withdrawals pushed seniors into a higher tax bracket and could even result in clawed back old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. For seniors in non-profit housing, withdrawals could mean increased rent because rent is tied to income.

Today, when Canadians turn 71, they must convert their registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, to RRIFs and begin making mandatory withdrawals at a set rate. Seniors are concerned that the current rates do not reflect that people are working longer than ever before, the length of retirement is generally longer and life expectancy is increasing. When they are forced to draw down on their savings, they risk outliving their funds, and that problem is compounded by lower rates of returns.

I hope that colleagues in the House can come together to start a national conversation around registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. Specifically, Motion No. 45 asks the government to undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates and registered retirement income funds, and record its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months.

All Canadians matter, and they matter throughout their lives. The job of governments is to provide the support Canadians need across their lifespan. We are either seniors today or, hopefully, seniors-in-waiting. We are all in this together. The well-being of older members of our society must be a concern to all of us.

There will be those who ask why we need another study. In this case, requesting a comprehensive study is a good first step to starting a national conversation; focusing attention on RRIFs; collecting evidence; hearing about the realities Canadians are living today, more than two years into a pandemic; and, most importantly, having the government come back to the House within 12 months with real recommendations and options to help Canadians.

There is also a long-standing debates regarding mandatory RRIF minimum withdrawals and the scheduling of withdrawals, whether to increase the mandatory withdrawal age, reduce the rate of withdrawal set for each age, do a combination of these or eliminate mandatory withdrawals. These are just a few options, and the study could identify more. There are also unknowns regarding the full financial market implications of COVID-19, and how they will vary from person to person.

Private member's motions cannot commit the government to invest public resources. This would require subsequent decisions. Having said this, the motion does focus attention on an issue Canadians very much care about and are anxious about. It encourages the government to do real work and to come back to this House with recommendations on a way forward.

Let me address why this motion focuses on RRIFs. There are over seven million Canadians who are 65 years and older today, and 60% have RRIF savings. That is over four million people, and an opportunity for the government to make recommendations that potentially could help millions of Canadians. While RRIFs cannot be the whole answer to ensuring a dignified retirement, free from financial worry, they are an important part of the solution.

Moreover, Canadians and organizations, such as CanAge, CARP, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Investment Industry Association of Canada and the National Association of Federal Retirees, have been asking for changes to RRIFs.

Today, seniors are forced to make more and more difficult choices as they face the rising cost of living for everything from electricity to food to gas. This compounds the cost of aging and the difficulties brought about by two years of life during the pandemic. In short, this is the time to look at RRIFs, to study how to better support seniors today, how to better protect the middle class and how to better support seniors of tomorrow.

Seniors know that the rules around RRIFs have not kept pace with the times. Canadians are living longer, and that is a good thing. However, with increasing age, seniors may also have increased care needs. Canadian life expectancy is now 82 years of age, and the age cohort of those who are at least 85 years old is growing four times faster than the rest of the population, according to Statistics Canada data.

While almost eight million Canadians provide care to a family member or friend, almost half of these provide care for a parent or parent-in-law, yet seniors are still struggling. I have spoken to people in their late 90s who have increasing care needs, who have lost their partner, their children and their friends, and their RRIFs are gone. As one woman said to me, “I see no option but to sell my home, the place where I raised my children. I can't afford the care I need because everything I saved for is gone.”

This is a reality for far too many women, who often live longer than men and are disproportionately and negatively impacted. Moreover, the baby boomers, the large generation born between 1946 and 1965, are aging. The oldest of the baby boomer generation are just 76 years old today. Between 2017 and 2037, Canada's population of seniors, those age 65 and older, is expected to grow by a staggering 68%. The Canadian Institute for Health Information predicts that, over this period, the number of seniors in Canada will reach almost 10.5 million.

Importantly, care for aging parents may shift as baby boomers have had fewer children. Adult children have been and continue to be the backbone of long-term care in Canada. In fact, research by the National Institute on Ageing at Ryerson University found that 75% of all care is being provided informally by close family members. The same institute also shows that the cost of publicly funded, long-term care for seniors, including long-term care and home care, is expected to more than triple in 30 years, rising from $22 billion to $71 billion in today's dollars.

Canadians are also working longer than ever before, many because they lack private retirement income and they have to work. The percentage of seniors working past age 71 has increased from 15% in 1995 to 24% in 2015, and salary was the main source of income for almost 44% of seniors in 2015, up from 39% in 1995.

Increased longevity and longer retirements mean that mandated RRIF withdrawals put people in a position to outlive their savings as they age, which threatens retirement security. Seniors' savings are further impacted by lower investment returns. When outdated withdrawal rules combine with increased longevity and reduced investment returns, it causes exponentially greater problems for seniors.

In short, Canadians are facing a perfect storm when it comes to long-term financial retirement security. Workplace pensions are becoming less common and interest rates are at historic lows, meaning income is going down while retirement costs are going up. At the same time, Canadians are living longer than ever before, while family size has decreased to historic lows. This matters as adult children have typically provided most of the caregiving so that seniors can stay in their homes.

However, solutions do exist. Rules concerning RRIFs have changed before and they can change again. After RRIFs were first introduced, amendments were made in 1986, 1992, 2015 and most recently in 2020.

Canada's seniors contribute to our communities, country and society in countless ways. They have helped shape our country, and they have raised, mentored and invested in generations of Canadians. They are our parents, grandparents, friends, neighbours, workers, volunteers, and they matter. We must do more than just thank them for everything they have done for us and our country. After all, they laid the foundation for a better future for all of us.

One of the best measures of a country is how it treats its older citizens and the most vulnerable. Seniors worked hard, played by the rules and deserve a dignified and secure retirement free from financial worry. I know that every member in the House cares about seniors and ensuring they have a dignified retirement. My colleague has done decades of work on this specific issue. Our colleague for Edmonton West has previously brought forward a bill concerning RRIFs.

Friends, with this motion, we have an opportunity to do something really important and impactful. We can come together to start a long overdue conversation, encourage the government to gather evidence and come forward with recommendations to improve RRIFs for Canadian seniors. Most importantly, we have an opportunity to do something for those who have given us so very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for speaking out for seniors with this motion.

I have received countless messages from constituent seniors who are really struggling. I have a note from from Donna, who is saying that she has to keep her heat at 64°F because she cannot afford heat.

I guess my question is this: How will this motion help seniors right now? They need help today.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the House. I look forward to meeting.

Our government has undertaken many things for seniors. One of the first things we did was to restore the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. I do not want to talk about accomplishments. What I want to say is that the RRIF minimum withdrawal rules were established in 1992 and retirement financial circumstances have changed. The RRIF policy should adapt to the current environment. Canadians are living longer. They are facing longer retirement. Workplace pensions are becoming less common. Interest rates are at a historic low.

The reality is that income is going down while retirement costs are going up and fewer adult children are available to provide care to aging parents. We really are facing a perfect storm. The solutions exist. That is why this motion encourages the government to come back to the House within 12 months and give real recommendations and options to help Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my comments are in line with those of my colleague. We cannot be against virtue and against a motion to study seniors' standard of living at this time.

However, why should we undertake a study? Why should we care about a study? The seniors who call my office do not want a study, they want a cheque.

As we know, the pandemic was very hard on seniors. Furthermore, the government created two classes of seniors by sending cheques to those aged 75 and over. The cost of housing, groceries and medications is increasing.

The last thing in the world that seniors need is a study. They need a cheque.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

My thanks for the support. This study does matter. We have to start a conversation. It has not happened in this country.

We have enhanced the CPP, and Quebec followed with the QPP. We have raised the GIS for single seniors. We have introduced a special tax-free payment for those who received OAS and GIS. We have invested half a billion dollars for seniors' essential services and supplies. We have provided a one-time payment, and we are increasing the OAS by 10%. Let us start a conversation on RRIFs.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a thoughtful speech. I have worked with the hon. member previously and really enjoyed the work that I have been able to do with her.

However, I have to follow along with my colleagues on this side of the House. The reality is that this is a non-binding motion that may or may not provide some sort of report. We have a lot of reports. I can think of several years ago when I was first elected. We did a great study on a national seniors strategy, where we had a lot of clear recommendations about what we needed to do next to see seniors prosper.

I am just wondering why another study instead of something that is actually going to get us into the implementation. Why should seniors continue to wait?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with my hon. colleague as well.

I think if all of us can come together to put this to the government, we can have real movement. We have not had movement on RRIFs. We have a real change coming. We have seniors increasing in population by 68%, and all of us have heard the challenges seniors are facing. This is an opportunity for the House to come together and for the government to provide real recommendations, recommendations for action.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 45, brought forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North.

While I am certainly happy to support this motion, I just cannot help but feel it will result in nothing more than another study collecting dust on a shelf in a minister's office.

We have been down this road far too often with the government. Unfortunately, it has the habit of proposing framework after framework, study after study, and road map after road map, and then fails to actually implement any changes.

Seniors need action now and not in 12 months. We have a number of studies that are either done or in the process of being done and recommendations that need to be followed up on. For example, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at two studies that are quite relevant. While I am not privy to the internal mechanics of that committee, I do know the committee is undertaking a study of labour shortages that includes but is not limited to the care economy, which is a sector that encompasses health care workers and personal support workers. I imagine the study would be relevant to the areas of aging and longevity.

HUMA also has a study on the docket to study the effects of COVID-19 on seniors. I assume this is to finish up the fantastic work it did in the last Parliament. Going through the hours of testimony and the many briefs submitted to the committee, it is very clear there will be a large overlap between the information the committee has already gathered and what my hon. colleague's motion hopes to achieve.

I cannot fault the hon. member for presenting her motion on something she is clearly so passionate about instead of waiting for the studies of committees, which are out of her control, to be drafted and returned to this place. That being said, I want to highlight a previous study the same committee did when the Liberal government held the majority of seats in this place.

Back in 2016, a motion moved by the member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 106, which was seconded by a litany of his caucus colleagues, among other things asked the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study and report back to the House on important issues such as increasing income security for vulnerable seniors and ensuring quality of life and equality for all seniors and the development of a national seniors strategy.

The result of the committee's work was a 142-page report titled “Advancing Inclusion and Quality of Life for Seniors”, which made 29 recommendations. Many of these recommendations speak directly to the motion presented by the colleague across the aisle, and many the government has unsurprisingly failed to act on.

I could go through each one of these, but I only have 10 minutes so I will touch on the first section of the first recommendation. One of the areas my hon. colleague mentions is interest rates and registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. We, on this side of the House, agree affordability for seniors was an issue before COVID and before the recent record increase in inflation and cost of living under the government's watch. Further, we need to keep in mind that exhausted and starving seniors do not even have RRIFs.

The very first recommendation of the 2018 report reads, in part:

That Employment and Social Development Canada work with Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to review and strengthen existing federal income support programs for vulnerable seniors to ensure they provide adequate income.

If the seniors who have flooded the phone lines of my office in my short six months here are any indication, this criteria has not been met. I might have some sympathy for the government if this report came out four months ago. It came out four years ago. Instead of providing an adequate income for Canadian seniors by any identifiable metric, it has gone backward.

The government promised to help seniors and Canadians suffering during the deadliest pandemic the globe has seen in a century. In order to facilitate this, it implemented COVID-related financial relief. Despite warnings from its own ministerial officials, the government sat on its laurels and allowed this benefit, which was taxable, to decimate tens of thousands of vulnerable, low-income seniors this past year by clawing back their GIS.

I am happy to say that after months of advocacy by my Conservative colleagues as well as my hon. friends from Shefford and North Island—Powell River, the now Minister of Seniors took action to finally fix her government's glaring oversight by introducing Bill C-12 and issuing a one-time payment to affected seniors. While we all would have preferred it to come earlier, I understand that the payments will start to be issued next month. I want to thank the minister and her team for their hard work and I trust they will continue to work with the opposition parties, including those not part of their double entity.

That was only the first government benefit that ended up causing more harm than good to seniors. In July of last year, the then minister of seniors announced a one-time payment of $500 to seniors aged 75 and older, stating, “Canadian seniors can always count on us to listen, understand their needs and work hard to deliver for them.” Apparently the government is unaware that one particularly important need for seniors, especially those on benefits, is to receive timely and accurate tax information. Once again, the government's incompetence resulted in over 90,000 Canadian seniors receiving wrong tax information, jeopardizing their ability to file on time and running the risk of once again having their benefits cut off through no fault of their own. This is why I, along with my colleague from southwest Miramichi, have called on the government to extend the deadline for seniors to file their taxes so that there remains zero risk of vulnerable seniors having their benefits taken from them by the government once again.

When it comes to seniors, this government has an unfortunate habit of taking one step forward but then two steps back. The point I am trying to make here is not to be too harsh on the government but rather to highlight that it needs to take meaningful and effective action now to help our seniors. Seniors cannot afford to be an afterthought when implementing policies and programs that are designed to help them.

We must work together as a House to deliver results. This is why I will be voting in favour of my hon. colleague's motion. I look forward to seeing the findings implemented efficiently, effectively and speedily because that is what seniors deserve.

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

Just before we move on to the next speaker, the reason I really enjoy PMB is that there is really no heckling that goes on between members. That is not bad.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 45 regarding the financial security of seniors. When this was first proposed to me, my initial reaction was to think that this has already been done, and we already have solutions that could be put in place now. However, as the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I will give this matter all the attention it deserves. Members will understand that I have studied the content of this motion with great interest. Let me assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

The motion asks 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.

For some seniors, however, this means another year of making tough choices.

My speech will focus on three things. First, I will talk about how the Bloc Québécois has fought hard for an increase in the old age security pension. Then I will talk about pension indexing and the protection of retirement funds.

We are not opposed to the federal government conducting studies on the financial situation of seniors, as Motion No. 45 proposes, because it is important to seek out new tools that would enable seniors to better take advantage of their financial wealth and enjoy the best standard of living possible. No one can be against apple pie.

On one hand, we have seniors who have accumulated a fair amount of assets during their life, it is true, but who nonetheless face financial challenges once they retire. On the other hand, we have more vulnerable seniors who absolutely need the support that the social safety net provides. Let us not forget that one in 10 seniors live close to the poverty line. These two groups of seniors do not have the same concerns, do not think the same way and do not turn to the same solutions.

This evening's motion has more to do with the first group of seniors, but that does not mean that we should not also talk about the second group, the so-called most vulnerable seniors who need our help.

Although many seniors have a decent amount of savings when they retire, they are often left to their own devices when it comes to withdrawing that money, even though they are in situation where the risk of longevity could negatively impact their savings, in other words, they could outlive their savings.

Another poll by RBC had similar findings. When respondents from Quebec were asked about their main concerns regarding their retirement finances, 52% of them were worried about not having enough savings. That number was higher than anywhere else in Canada. Some 42% of Quebeckers also expressed concerns about being able to maintain their standard of living. In addition, 31% of Quebeckers expressed concerns about the cost of health care, and again that number was the highest in Canada.

After Japan and South Korea, Quebec has one of the fastest-aging populations, a demographic challenge that is expected to peak in 2030.

The aging population presents many challenges, but there are a number of things we can do to improve living conditions for seniors, and in particular their financial situation, without conducting a new study.

First, the government needs to substantially increase old age security for all seniors 65 and over, on an ongoing basis.

Obviously, we are also not opposed to a motion calling on the House to recognize that all seniors deserve “a dignified retirement free from financial worry”. In fact, seniors' quality of life and their financial security are among the Bloc Québécois's top priorities, and we act accordingly.

Members will recall that, last year, the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed calling on the House of Commons to increase old age security. Everyone but the Liberals supported the motion.

There is currently a petition to increase OAS by $110 a month for people 65 and up. I am sponsoring it, but it was submitted by Samuel Lévesque of Saint‑Eustache on behalf of his grandparents with the goal of achieving intergenerational equity.

Still, it is surprising that the Liberals would put this kind of wording in their motion when they voted against our motion and chose to increase OAS by 10%, but only for people 75 and up, thereby creating two classes of seniors.

That is a funny way of recognizing that seniors have a right to a retirement “free from financial worry”. By making this choice, the Liberals are abandoning seniors aged 65 to 74, who account for about half of those collecting OAS, 57% to be precise. In other words, the government is abandoning 3.7 million beneficiaries.

Regardless of what the Liberals think, financial insecurity does not hold off until people turn 75. The FADOQ agrees. We can share numerous examples of people experiencing financial insecurity before the age of 75. Any of my colleagues here can attest to that.

Given Canada's less-than-stellar record on income replacement in retirement, we might at the very least have expected the Liberals to implement the 10% increase more quickly and to extend it to those 65 and up.

It is also hard to understand how the Liberals can propose the notion of a “dignified retirement free from financial worry” considering how they handled the CERB and GIS file. Despite knowing about the problem since the spring of 2021, the government took too long to correct an inequity in the interaction between CERB and GIS.

Many seniors have had their GIS cut since last July because they legitimately received CERB payments in the previous year.

The member for Joliette and I sent letters to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Seniors on two separate occasions to demand that the situation be fixed as quickly as possible. It was not until 2022, following significant pressure from the Bloc Québécois, that the government finally decided to take action and reimburse the affected seniors for their losses.

Second, let us talk about the indexing of pensions. It is especially important to talk about it now, considering how high inflation is and how the people most affected are those on fixed incomes, such as seniors.

For a dignified retirement free from financial worry, benefits need to be increased. The transition to retirement usually means a major drop in the average standard of living. According to OECD estimates, the net pension replacement rate was 50.7% of pre-retirement income in Canada in 2018, while the average for member countries was 57.6%. The EU average was 63%.

The runaway inflation we have been seeing for some time now is driving up the cost of groceries and rent. This is having an impact on seniors' finances. Those who are in a tough financial situation have been hit hard, as evidenced by the increased use of food banks everywhere. Organizations that help homeless women have noticed an increase in the number of elderly women among their clients.

The Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, an organization that advocates for the rights of retired and pre-retired people, has noted an increase in incoming messages over the past year, including dozens of emails from seniors who have ended up in disastrous situations. A person's ability to react to the rising cost of living is obviously limited when that person no longer has paid employment.

When it comes to indexing, we know that OAS and the GIS are indexed to the consumer price index. The indexing rate for 2022 is 2.7%, based on the previous year. However, according to Statistics Canada, the rate of inflation reached 5.1% in January 2022, or nearly double the indexing rate. Even setting aside this one-time discrepancy between the indexing rate and the actual inflation rate, what about the performance of the calculation method in the long term?

Indexation is a key determinant of the quality of benefit coverage. As the average life expectancy has increased in recent years, indexation of pensions has become more important, because the payments are made over a longer period of time. The standard of living and purchasing power of seniors are therefore directly affected. Purchasing power is affected when a person's pension increases at a slower pace than the cost of goods and services. It is a question of math.

For example, if the projected level of inflation for the next few decades is 2%, this means an approximately 50% decline in purchasing power over 30 years if a pension is not indexed.

Many pension advocacy groups are suggesting that pensions be calculated based on trends in wages rather than trends in the consumer price index. Many have decried the current situation, including the FADOQ, which spoke out against the sluggish indexation in July 2021, pointing out that the increase is not even enough to buy a coffee at Tim Hortons.

Third, concerning pension funds, my colleague, the member for Manicouagan, worked very hard to protect Bill C-253, which was introduced by that member in 2020 and then died on the Order Paper when an election was called. All four parties had been in agreement, but that bill died anyway. Another bill had met the same fate when the 2019 election was called. We have not made progress.

It is up to the Government of Canada to pass legislation to prevent these mishaps. The public understands very well that we must do everything we can to enhance and protect seniors' buying power. We all know that the population is aging. The number of people over the age of 75 in Quebec is increasing and will double by 2040. The number of people aged 85 and over is actually expected to triple during that time.

We must also help more seniors remain in the labour force. The Bloc Québécois made various proposals during the election campaign. We suggested that a tax credit for experienced workers be created. We also proposed that seniors who want to work longer be allowed to earn a higher income for the purposes of calculating the GIS.

I would like to make one last remark. Having worked in the community setting, at an organization that sought to raise awareness about elder abuse, I am very aware that it is not cool to talk about old people. They are seen as a drain on our society. In other words, we do not care about old people. Let us stop being ageist and recognize them for who they really are: a grey-haired source of strength. They deserve recognition for everything they have done for our society over the years. Truly, let us work together for seniors in our society.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, as always, for acknowledging me here so that I can do my work in the House.

We are here today to talk about a motion that commits to another study. When we look at the reality of seniors across this country, what we know is that the bar of dignity for so many seniors has been lowered yet again. I always use the bar of dignity as my reference point, because I fundamentally believe that all Canadians should be treated with dignity. They should be able to feel that they can take care of themselves, and that when they go out and need essential things, they can get those things.

I agree with the motion before us. I think it is important that seniors be treated with dignity, that they not be overwhelmed with financial worry, and that they not be worried about their retirement savings running out. I think it is important that seniors should be able to live independently in their homes. Those are all important things. However, I also believe that there are a lot of shelves in this place filled with reports about how that is true and what next steps we need to take to make that happen. Here we are: We have a non-binding motion that is going to maybe result in a study so that there is yet another report on a shelf somewhere talking about what seniors fundamentally need in our country. I just do not know how long seniors want to wait to have these things addressed.

Earlier today, I met with representatives from Single Seniors for Tax Fairness. I really appreciated my time spent with them, talking about how the realities of our system benefit seniors who are married or in relationships, and that there is this huge, growing gap for our single seniors who have to look after themselves on their own. These are largely women who maybe worked at great jobs where they had a great income or had worked jobs that were low-income. To me, both of those are incredibly valuable and should be honoured and respected, but at the end of the day, they are the exact stakeholder group that is worried about whether they are going to be able to live with dignity for the last years of their lives and whether they are going to be able to pay for the essential things that they need.

I remember, several years ago, that we did a pretty substantive study on a national seniors strategy. I still think it is unbelievable that we do not have a framework in this country that says, “Hey, we have a large population of people who are aging, and because of that we should probably have a plan federally about how we are going to work with that and how we are going to work with provinces and territories in a meaningful way to make sure that none of the seniors across this country gets left behind.”

Unfortunately, COVID showed us that seniors are being left behind. We saw it again and again in horrific ways. This was not something that should have surprised Canadians. We have been hearing from these folks, and from groups that advocate for them, that we do not have the proper infrastructure in this country. When it comes to care facilities, we do not have the systems in place that really focus on making sure that people are cared for in a respectful way. We got to see it in the most horrific ways, and I do not think that this study or this report on a shelf would make a difference.

I am really torn. Do I think it would be good to have more information about what we need to do better? Maybe, but what I am really interested in is something that is actually going to make the action happen: something that is going to look at the reality that people are living longer and that their retirement savings have to last substantively longer, and something that is going to look at how money can be moved around and at what age one has to move over to a RIF. Those are important things to talk about. However, I also know that a lot of that work has been done.

We need solutions and not studies. I really mean that, because I have talked to so many seniors across this country and in my own riding. Seniors have talked to me about the fact that they have to cut their medication in half, especially in the early months of the year when they have not paid the amount that means they get free medication. Seniors are putting their health at risk for the first few months, because they cannot afford to pay what they need to pay to get the medication they need.

When we look at housing, the reality is that affordable housing that is safe for seniors is getting harder and harder to find. We just saw, with the GIS clawback, a lot of seniors lose up to 100% of their GIS.

How many of those seniors actually lost their affordable housing? They are going to get that extra money, which is okay, but they are living in a place that is far more expensive than they were before and they simply do not have the money to make ends meet.

When we look at these solutions, they have to make sense for seniors. Doing another study is making a promise that we will do a study and maybe the government will do something about it this time. I am not persuaded that I will support this. I hear that everybody else looks at this and thinks this is a nice study, let us do that and no harm done, but is there harm done? How long do seniors have to wait? I am really torn on this.

I think that we need better plans. We need actions that are going to be taken. We need to make sure that there is support in place for people as they age so that they can have dignity. I think of my own mother, who is in a long-term care facility. She was a young senior and had a massive stroke. Her whole life changed in a day and our whole family had to change to accommodate that. I see her all the time. She has a decent pension. She was a nurse most of her life and has provided services to the communities that she served. She struggles to make ends meet.

This is assisted living. If she has a bad month, which means she cannot go downstairs and eat the food they provide for her, she has to pay a lot of extra money to have it come up to her. She does not have that money. It gets harder and harder.

I also think about the fact that seniors are starting to lose their well-being because they cannot afford to make ends meet. It impacts one's health, if one cannot afford to make ends meet. We look at the spectrum of seniors as they age. We know that some are doing very well. We know that some are really struggling. We know there are a lot in the middle who sometimes have a good year and sometimes have a very bad year.

There are a lot of solutions that could be provided that would really make some meaningful changes. I think of a bill that I brought to the House that talked about seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement every year. We know that between 20,000 to 30,000 seniors every year lose their GIS for up to three or four months. Why do they lose it? They lose it because they do not get their taxes in on time. Do they get their taxes on time? Absolutely, they do, every year. However, for many reasons, such as their health, that they are caring for a loved one and they are elderly or the onset of dementia, they do not get their taxes in on time and that means on July 1, they lose their GIS for up to four months.

It was a simple bill that said let us just make sure that every senior across the country who receives the guaranteed income supplement gets a year of grace to get their taxes in so that no senior has to go through months without that extra bit.

I will never forget, my first summer as a member of Parliament, getting that call from a lovely woman who was 84 years old who had lost her GIS. The government said, yes, it was going to get that in place as soon as possible, but her landlord said that, since she could not pay the rent, she had to get out. She was 84 years old. Where she was going to go? We worked really hard to make sure that did not happen, but it does not seem right.

I want to see a bill that is actually going to take action, that is going to make sure that seniors are at the very core of it and that we do not just have another report on a shelf somewhere telling us what we should do while seniors suffer across the country.

I regret to say that I am not sure I will be supporting this, and that the NDP is not sure it will be supporting this. How many reports do we need on a shelf, when we urgently need substantive action for seniors across the country now?