Debates of June 6th, 2023

Report Stage

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about hope for families. However, right now, hope for families is diminishing for another reason, and that is the climate crisis.

The climate crisis is escalating. Forest fires are growing in number and intensity, and the fire season has only just begun. This creates anxiety for everyone, young and old alike.

Considering what we see when we leave the House of Commons, I would have liked the Conservative Party to say more about the climate crisis. Basically, what I want to say is that I am disappointed to see that the Conservatives have not progressed despite what we are now seeing across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to see something different from the Conservatives. She will see something different from us if we form government next. We will see action on climate change through technology, not a tax plan like the current government has, a tax plan that takes more dollars out of the paycheques of Canadians, and it has accomplished nothing credible at this point in time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I must rise today to talk about a crisis we are going to have to face in the medium term.

I am not talking about the fact that, right now, after eight years of this Prime Minister, nine out of 10 young people believe that they will never be able to buy a house. I am not talking about the fact that one out of every five Canadians are skipping meals because of the cost of food after eight years of this Prime Minister. I am also not talking about the fact that 1.5 million Canadians need to use food banks to be able to eat. I am not even talking about the fact that, after eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians have to allocate 63% of their pre-tax income to pay their monthly housing costs. In Vancouver, they are using 98% of their pre-tax income.

That is not the crisis I am referring to. The crisis I am referring to is something no one is talking about, but that could explode if we do not change direction. The crisis is the following. When the government decided, in 2021 and 2022, to print $400 billion to finance excessive spending, one of the effects was to create inflation, which always happens when you print money. This also caused a huge bubble in our financial system, caused by the mortgage situation.

Huge numbers of Canadians took out mortgages because they were easily available and because of their artificially low cost. In fact, 38% of all current mortgages were taken out between January 2021 and June 2022. Almost 40% of all mortgage debt today dates from that 18-month period, because interest rates were extremely low. People decided to go to the bank, make changes to their mortgage and borrow huge amounts of money, because it cost almost nothing to borrow money from the bank.

The problem is that these mortgages have a five-year term. These high mortgages will all be renewed in 2026 and 2027, at a significantly higher interest rate. We are not talking about billions or tens of billions of dollars. We are talking about mortgages totalling hundreds of billions of dollars that will be renewed at a higher rate. Even the Bank of Canada acknowledged that it was a systemic risk, not only for people who took out mortgages, but also for the banks, which will probably have trouble getting their money back.

If families cannot pay the increased interest rates, what will they do? They will have to sell their homes. However, if everyone is selling their house at the same time and there are no families that can afford the increased interest rates, there will be sellers but no buyers. That could cause house prices to fall. We already have the largest housing bubble in the G7 and almost the largest in the world. What are we going to do about it?

We are stressing the importance of balancing the budget today precisely because that is a key element in avoiding this serious looming crisis. Even all the Liberal experts are saying it: deficits cause inflation. Inflation causes interest rates to rise. If we do not lower inflation rates over the next year, we will be unable to reduce interest rates in time to avoid a housing bubble in 2026 and 2027.

What we want is a government plan aimed at balancing the budget in order to reduce inflation and interest rates. I know that it is the Bank of Canada that sets interest rates, but the economic environment in which it makes these decisions is a determining factor.

If the government drives up inflation with inflationary deficits, the Bank of Canada will be forced to raise interest rates. Former minister of finance John Manley said that, when the Bank of Canada puts its foot on the brake, the government puts its foot on the inflation accelerator. We need to take our foot off the accelerator to reduce inflation and allow the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates before the crisis hits. That is plain common sense. It is nothing new.

Deficits drive up inflation and interest rates. Balanced budgets reduce both. That is what we are going to do. We will put a ceiling on spending to eliminate deficits and waste in order to balance the budget, reduce inflation and allow all Canadians to continue paying their mortgage and keep their home.

We recommend that the government proceed with the utmost caution, and we are asking that it keep the promise it made six months ago to balance the budget in the medium term. As soon as the government does that, we will allow a vote and perhaps let this budget pass if the votes in the House permit it. It is just common sense. We will bring back common sense.

There is a crisis in this country, and the crisis is not just that 1.5 million people are eating at food banks or one in five are skipping meals because of the price of food. The crisis not just that a majority of Canadians now tell pollsters they are struggling to make ends meet or that even nine in 10 young people believe they will never afford a home. The crisis is not even that it takes 63% of average monthly income to make monthly payments on the average home, a record-smashing height. The crisis is not even that it now takes 98% of pre-tax income in Vancouver for the average family to pay a mortgage on the average house. Those things are all insane and unprecedented, but they are the reality after eight years.

The real crisis is that there is massive mortgage bubble that is ready to detonate in the years 2026 and 2027. Here is how this bubble occurred. Today, 38% of all mortgage debt was originated between January of 2021 and June of 2022, all when rates were at rock bottom because the government printed $400 billion of cash and pumped it into the financial system, causing it to be artificially abundant and artificially cheap. People took on mortgages they would otherwise not be able to afford. This inflated housing prices and mortgages together, but those mortgages come up for renewal five years later. That will be between January 1, 2026, and June of 2027. If interest rates are as high then as they are now, these people will run into a brick wall.

The Bank of Canada says that they will face a 40% increase in mortgage payments, so if their payment right now is $3,000, they will be paying an extra $1,300 a month, which equals almost $15,000 a year. If the average Canadian does not have more than $200 left at the end of each month, they will not be able to pay it. That will lead to mass selling and there will be no buyers because the buyers will not be able to pay the higher rates on those prices. That is a real crisis that we face if we do not change course immediately, so what must be done?

We need to reduce inflation so that the Bank of Canada can reduce interest rates. How do we do that? We do it by doing the opposite of what we are doing now. Even top Liberals, like former finance minister John Manley, have said that deficits are like putting the foot on the gas of inflation. What we need to do is take the foot off the gas to balance the budget, to reverse the $60 billion of inflationary spending that the government has put forward and to honour the promise the government made just six months ago to have a medium-term plan to balance the budget within a half decade.

If the government will do the common-sense thing, rise to its feet and present a plan to balance the budget, then Conservatives will allow a vote to occur. We know that the only way to rescue people from this crisis is through common sense: by balancing the budget to lower inflation and interest rates, bringing down the tax burden so that there are more powerful paycheques and allowing people to pay less and bring home more. This is just common sense. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I do not particularly disagree with the member's concerns about the future and Canadians being able to properly take care of themselves. What I do have a concern with is the approach taken by the opposition party as we talk about deficits.

The one key part of the economic equation that the member is missing out on when he is discussing this is economic growth. The reality is that if we can grow our economy as quickly as it has been growing, it puts us in a position to be able to take on more debt.

It is not just me saying this. Every Conservative prime minister in the past has run countless deficits. As a matter of fact, if we look at Mulroney and Harper, out of the 16 budgets they introduced, only three did not run deficits.

Can the member comment on how economic growth plays into this equation?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it plays strongly into the equation. That is why the fact that the government has had the slowest real per capita economic growth since the Great Depression is such a big problem, and debt actually drives down growth because it weighs down the economy.

As for the deficits of previous Conservative governments, the Mulroney government did not have any operating deficits. Its deficits were simply interest on the previous Trudeau government's debt. Of course, I am going to inherit the same kind of mess from his son.

Let me quote Stephen McNeil, former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, “Happening on the inflation side, if governments both nationally continue to spend beyond their means, not spending for infrastructure, spending to pay the credit card of the government of today, they are going to continue to have inflation that continues to increase, which continues to put pressure on household budgets across country.... Number two, get your spending in order, we would all benefit from all governments being able to manage their own budget a lot....”

That is from a Liberal. Top, common-sense Liberals no longer recognize themselves in this radical, nonsense government. We need balanced budgets to lower inflation and interest rates so Canadians can keep their homes and build a life.

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

Madam Speaker, in the initial Bill C‑47, a $2-billion transfer for health care was included twice. It did not take very long for the Liberals and the NDP—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know that the Leader of the Opposition would like to hear the question, but it is difficult to hear it when other parliamentarians decide to talk to one another. I must repeat, as I often do, that if people wish to talk to one another, they should leave and then return if they want to hear what is happening in the House.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, even my secondary school students understood that aspect of basic respect.

The initial Bill C-47 contained $2 billion in health transfers. It was a repeat of a previous bill. That was a mistake, except that it was a good mistake that could have helped all of the provinces and Quebec, in particular given the aging population, which entails more health care needs. However, this government and its allies decided to withdraw the $2 billion to Quebec and the provinces.

What does my colleague think, and what does he think the impact will be on health care systems across Canada?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate 100% of federal health transfers. With sovereignty, the Bloc wants Quebec to receive $0 for health care. I find it very strange and ironic that the Bloc would stand in the House of Commons to ask for more from Ottawa when its ultimate goal is to receive nothing. It makes no sense. We should not waste time talking about sovereignty.

Quebecers are struggling to pay their bills because of taxes and and the government’s inflationary deficits. What is the Bloc doing? They are asking for more debts, more spending, more taxes and inflation.

Only the Conservative Party has the plain common sense to control spending and balance the budget in order to reduce inflation, interest rates and taxes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the other crisis in our country is the crisis with people not being able to afford to go see a dentist. I am very proud that the NDP was able to force the Liberal government to expand provisions in this bill to make sure that children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities can now have access to dental care. These people are in the margins of our society and they really need it.

How long has he been able to enjoy the benefits of taxpayer-funded dental care, while his constituents and Canadians across this country have gone without?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we see the NDP socialist paradise playing itself out on the streets of Vancouver, where we have had, up until recently, a socialist government at the federal level, a socialist government at the provincial level and a socialist mayor, a former member of that caucus, at the municipal level, and what has it given?

It has caused tent cities, massive, raging crime and a situation where it now costs in the city of Vancouver 98% of the average person's family income to make monthly payments on a home. That is the paradise they have been promising. Utopia means “no place” in Greek. Actually, it means “no place” in English too.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the continuing debate on Bill C-47, the budget 2023 implementation act, which proposes measures that will help Canadians and build a stronger economy.

Budget 2023, “a Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, arrived at an important time for our country and the world.

It delivers targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who need it most, strengthens Canada’s universal public health care system with an investment of $198.3 billion and introduces a new Canadian dental care plan to benefit up to nine million Canadians.

Budget 2023 also makes transformative investments to build Canada’s clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. This includes significant measures that will deliver cleaner and more affordable energy, support investment in our communities and create good-paying jobs as part of a responsible fiscal plan that will see Canada maintain the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

One aspect of Bill C-47 I would like to address today is how it proposes to enact measures to help build Canada’s clean economy, and specifically, two important proposals that were first announced in budget 2022.

The first is the Canada growth fund, which would help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy. The other is the establishment of the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation, with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditures on research and development.

I will start with the Canada growth fund. It was incorporated in December 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. As a significant part of Canada’s plan to decarbonize and build Canada’s clean economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional and independent investment team ready to make important investments in support of Canada’s climate and economic goals.

Therefore, budget 2023 announced the intention to have the growth fund partner with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, to deliver on the growth fund’s mandate of attracting private capital to invest in Canada’s clean economy. Bill C-47 contains the necessary legislative amendments to enable PSP Investments to manage the assets of the Canada growth fund as a $15-billion arm's-length public investment vehicle.

PSP Investments is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with more than $225 billion in assets under management, and operates at arm’s length from the government. It will provide the Canada growth fund with an independent team that has extensive experience across the range of investment tools that the growth fund will use to deliver on its mandate and attract new private investment to Canada.

By partnering with PSP Investments, the Canada growth fund would be able to move quickly and begin making investments in the near term to support the growth of Canada’s clean economy. One of the investment tools the Canada growth fund will use to support clean growth projects is contracts for difference. These contracts can backstop the future price of, for example, carbon or hydrogen, providing predictability that helps to de-risk major projects that cut Canada’s emissions. Contracts for difference allow companies to plan ahead, supporting the growth of Canada’s clean economy by making clean projects more cost-effective than more polluting projects.

Relatedly, budget 2023 announced that the government will consult on the development of a broad-based approach to carbon contracts for difference that aims to make carbon pricing even more predictable, while supporting the investments needed to build a competitive, clean economy and help meet Canada’s climate goals. This would complement contracts for difference offered by the Canada growth fund. Notably, the Canada growth fund assets will be separate and managed independently of the pension assets of PSP Investments. However, it will maintain the market-leading reporting framework for public transparency and accountability that the government committed to in the 2022 fall economic statement.

I also mentioned earlier that Bill C-47 proposes to establish the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditure on research and development across all sectors and regions of Canada. Currently, Canada ranks last in the G7 in R and D spending by businesses. I think we can all agree that this has to change.

Solving Canada’s main innovation challenges, including a low rate of private business investment in research, development and the uptake of new technologies, is key to growing our economy and creating good jobs. Canadian companies need to take their new ideas and new technologies and turn them into new products, services and thriving businesses, and they need support to do that.

The mandate of the Canada innovation corporation will be to promote the improved productivity and growth of Canadian firms, which would contribute to a strong and innovative Canadian economy. It would work proactively with new and established Canadian industries and businesses to help them make the investments they need in order to innovate, grow, create jobs and be competitive in the changing global economy.

It would do this by offering needed support to transform new ideas into new and improved products and processes. It would also support them in developing and protecting intellectual property and in capturing important segments of global supply chains that will help drive Canada’s economic growth and create good jobs.

I would like to stress that the CIC will not be just another funding agency. It is intended to be a market-oriented innovation agency with private sector leadership and expertise. The CIC would operate with an initial budget of $2.6 billion over four years, and with the passage of Bill C-47, it is expected to begin its operations in 2023.

Overall, these measures from Bill C-47 are just part of the government’s plan to build a stronger, more sustainable 21st-century economy. They build on budget 2023's transformative investments to build Canada's clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.

With our made-in-Canada plan, our budget would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are meeting the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, more sustainable and more affordable for people from coast to coast to coast. Key measures in the budget implementation bill include, one, an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit; two, the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools; three, improved registered education savings plans; four, banning cosmetic testing on animals; five, strengthening Canada's supply chains and trade corridors; and six, continuing our efforts in supporting Ukraine by taking action against Russia.

I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-47 and to contribute to this effort.

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

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we have seen rent prices continue to increase. In Nanaimo alone last year, we saw rental prices increase by 30%, and those prices have continued to increase from there. This, as we all know, is disproportionately impacting seniors on fixed incomes, families and people living with disabilities.

When will we see the Liberals put an end to renovictions and put into place a national acquisition fund so that non-profits, for example, will have a chance to keep rents low and people can afford a place to call home?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, rent affordability is a major cause of concern for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Through our national housing strategy, we have committed billions of dollars to increase the construction of affordable homes. We have also provided funds for private sector companies to have affordable rental properties in their new projects. However, the fundamental thing that has to be addressed is the supply of new construction.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question relating to promises made by the finance minister.

Last year, in the budget debate, she made it very clear that her government had a plan to return to balanced budgets. In the more recent fall economic statement, the minister again said that she had a plan to return to balanced budgets, or, in other words, the government living within its means.

The most recent budget has no commitment anymore to returning to balanced budgets, so I would ask my good friend and colleague across the aisle this. Why is it that the government has now abandoned any commitment to returning to balanced budgets?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, these are challenging times in the challenging world we live in. Considering all of the things happening around the world and considering inflation, which is affecting almost every other country in the world, we are taking very prudent steps in managing the fiscal aspects of our economy.

We continue to have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We continue to have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries. That is due to the prudent approach we have adopted in the last eight years, which we continue to focus on.

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

Madam Speaker, this budget allocates $80 billion over 10 years for a green transition fund. However, there will be no accountability to Parliament for that fund.

Moreover, the eligibility criteria involve being able to invest in the oil industry, even though reducing GHG emissions means reducing oil consumption.

How can my colleague find it logical to invest up to $80 billion over 10 years in the oil industry while pushing for the reduction of GHG emissions?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, our budget has made it very clear that the investments we are going to make will be in companies that lead to the clean economy of the future. That has been made very clear and we will continue to stand by it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Nepean for addressing Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I will point out, for those who are observing this debate, that the budget implementation act covers the variety of measures the hon. member for Nepean mentioned, changes the most favourable nation status for Russia and creates a vessel remediation act and a vessel remediation fund, which are going to be very important for areas in my constituency. Does he have any comments on that?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we have covered a lot of things in this budget, and there are many things there for everyone.

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

Madame Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to exchange and share my views as an elected member on Bill C‑47.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to offer my warmest thoughts to all residents who are currently facing unprecedented fires in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I do not know if there are still climate deniers, but I think we must all resolve once and for all to take action to counter and prevent these phenomena.

I would also like to acknowledge everyone on the front lines who is supporting Quebec and ensuring that our natural resources and our citizens are protected, now and in the future.

As a member who is called upon to play the important role of legislator in the House, I find it difficult to have to once again debate a 430-page omnibus bill that amends 59 acts, in addition to the income tax regulations. I find it difficult to have to take a position on such a bill.

The government had promised not to do that anymore, and yet here we are faced with an omnibus bill once again. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance and who has done an amazing job at trying to find the best and ensure the best. However, we know that this situation becomes almost impossible. I do not think it is worthy of the work we do here.

I will touch on another point. As elected members, we have a duty to properly represent the people in our ridings, particularly during budget periods. I am certain that I am not the only one to do so. We know that the budget tabled in Parliament will affect many aspects of their daily lives. It is sad to see that the main issues are not being addressed. In my riding, I did a prebudget tour to understand the priorities and realities, to hear ideas from our fellow residents about priorities to be considered to improve their daily lives.

Recently, I even went on a tour of seniors' residences. Health is always the first issue people raise. We hear about everything that is happening, at least in Quebec. We hear about the burnout and the conditions for workers who have been on the front lines for a long time. Unfortunately, this budget does not in any way address the reality of health and social services in Quebec.

As we know, Quebec and the other provinces were calling for a substantial increase in the Canada health transfers they receive. They did that for a reason. This increase would enable them to fulfill one of their main responsibilities. Once again, however, the government decided to use its spending power to slash these health transfers. In addition, it decided to put money into a dental care program that will be difficult to implement because dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction at all. The federal government is interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces instead of investing its fair share to strengthen our universal public health care systems. That is one of the priorities, but there is nothing in the budget about that.

The same goes for seniors. There are no measures for them. I already know what the government will say in response. It will say that it is here for seniors and that it increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over.

At the federal level, however, OAS is almost universal as of age 65. The government has decided to leave seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 out in the cold. When I meet with seniors in that age range, they say that they are concerned about their financial well-being. They are also concerned about housing.

In Quebec, a number of seniors' residences are closing down for budgetary reasons. There are seniors who say that if they had to move out by tomorrow, they would be unable to find safe, adequate housing they could afford. These are concerns that affect the entire population. In Canada, OAS is not a gold mine. Among OECD countries, we have one of the weakest systems.

However, the government has decided that seniors aged 65 to 74 must wait. We will see. Once they have emptied out their savings, the government may change its mind. That is so ridiculous.

A real vision to support the most vulnerable would require that this budget include robust measures for seniors and for affordable and social housing, not for housing at market prices. The government is investing over $80 billion in programs under the national housing strategy. That is public money, yet we are struggling to get answers about the role it will play in affordable and social housing.

Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently conducting a study of the financialization of housing. I believe there are things that will need to be resolved once and for all. Investing in off-market properties is the best way we can help seniors and young people, to ensure that affordable housing becomes a priority. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play in this respect. In this budget, it is doing nothing. That is astounding to me.

There is another issue that affects both businesses and workers, and that is the labour shortage. It is not imaginary, it is a reality. I do not know about my colleagues' ridings, but the labour shortage is apparent everywhere we look. For instance, I have seen employers offering to hire seniors.

I have met with retirees and self-employed workers who might actually be interested in returning to the labour market, putting their expertise to use and being part of the workforce. However, in the current context, they are totally penalized. They already have low retirement incomes. If, in addition, the tax rules are not revised to ensure that their retirement income is not reduced, why would they go back to work?

These are people who are very involved as volunteers. They are prepared to help out in the workforce but, again, they must not be penalized for that. There is nothing in the budget in this respect.

Workers are making almost historic demands. They are asking the government to reform the only social program that exists in Canada, the employment insurance system, once and for all. In 2015, the Liberals made a solemn promise to reform the system. In 2019, the Liberals made another solemn promise to reform the system. In 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Prime Minister committed to implementing reform. In the wake of the crisis that we have experienced, they said the system needed to be reformed and adapted to the current labour market.

Workplaces have changed. There are non-standard workers and seasonal workers. The government is turning its back on all of these people.

All that to say, this budget does not target—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I gave the hon. member a little extra time, but I cannot give her any more. We have to move on.

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always very interested in what my colleague has to say, especially when it is about seniors' pensions. I have two questions.

First of all, I am wondering whether she is familiar with the D'Amours report that was released by the Quebec government about 10 years ago. According to that report, the real need for additional pension benefits begins at age 75.

Here is my other question. Could she comment on the Conservative Party's idea to raise the age of eligibility for OAS to 67?

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

Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's second question, the government has restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension to 65, and that was the right thing to do.

However, even though they restored the age of eligibility for the pension to 65, they are abandoning seniors. The elderly are no longer taken into consideration.

The D'Amours report is from another era; it is 10 years old. Yes, I am aware of it, as I was working with the unions at the time. Now it is 2023, and we are in an inflationary economic climate in which seniors have two concerns: housing and their safety. Overall, 60% of seniors live on a fixed pension as their sole source of income.

In my view, it is a disgrace that the Liberal government has decided to abandon seniors and discriminate against them in this way.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned many things I think we agree on. She mentioned the need to reform employment insurance. She mentioned the need to increase old age security for seniors who are struggling. I want to ask her a question about another group that is struggling to make ends meet, and that is people with disabilities. I met with a group on Friday in my riding that told me that half of the clients it works with, adults with developmental disabilities, are having the CERB benefits they received clawed back by CRA.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government should put a stop to the clawback of CERB benefits for people living with disabilities in this country?