Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-319

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

Mr. Speaker, we have studied Bill C-319 in committee, and we have heard from witness after witness about how the carbon tax has impacted their household expenses. Seniors, who have worked their entire lives to contribute to society, created a retirement plan that no longer has the ability to make ends meet.

Is it not time that Canadians have their say? I am asking the hon. member across the way to call for a carbon tax election and let seniors decide.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a mouthful. I can say that some of the biggest beneficiaries of carbon rebates are, in fact, seniors who are on a fixed income; they receive a rebate four times a year. More than 80% of Canadians receive more money back from the carbon rebate than they actually pay in terms of the carbon tax. The sad reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada knows this, but that does not stop them from going out and telling lies to Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for saying the word “lie”.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member knows the power of that word, and I am glad he withdrew it right away. However, I will ask the hon. member, and all hon. members, this: Please do not go to that line. We must make sure that we have pointed, passionate debates that still fall within the parameters of acceptable parliamentary language.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate being called a liar, because this is what I hear from seniors in my riding. I do not—

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Let me reassure the hon. member for King—Vaughan, no one appreciates that. She is justified, and that is why the hon. member withdrew his comment. The Speaker accepts the withdrawal, and as you just heard, encourages all people to not go to that line. Do not skate close to that line, and then we will all have better debates.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using that word and that expression, but we should keep in mind this point: If we follow what the Conservative Party of Canada is putting out in its social media, it gives the impression that seniors of Canada will benefit from cutting the carbon tax. I would suggest to the hon. members, as would the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that one of the biggest pieces of fake information out there is related to the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. Seniors actually benefit from it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be short, clear and simple: Will my colleague vote for or against the motion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague across the way, as I said in my comments, that the Bloc really need to look internally and take a look at what they are doing on such issues as the dental care program. This program is helping many people, including seniors, in the province of Quebec. Many individuals would also be helped by the pharmacare program. These are the types of programs that are helping seniors. I would encourage my friends—

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Given the length of the question, the hon. member has overshot his time.

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot is rising on a point of order.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not want to bother you, because you seem busy.

The member's answer completely misses the point. I asked him a question: is it yes or no?

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

That is clearly a matter of debate.

Hon. colleagues, again, it is Tuesday, the first day of this parliamentary week. I hope we can start again.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be supporting the bill, but we know it is a bare-minimum approach. Seniors deserve better. In addition to a 10% increase to the OAS, we need to think about providing a life with dignity, which includes universal drug coverage, dental care and such initiatives as basic income. New Democrats are asking for a grace period for old age security; if seniors are unable to file their taxes, there are detrimental impacts.

Will the member and the Liberal Party support the NDP's calls to have a one-year grace period for seniors who are unable to file their taxes so that they can qualify for the GIS and have the bare-minimum income they so desperately need?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, virtually from 2015 and 2016, we took a very open-minded approach in dealing with issues affecting seniors. In a very real and tangible way, we then brought forward different types of programs that advanced and encouraged our seniors, such as the dental care program, the pharmacare program, the enhancement of the GIS, ongoing support during the pandemic and the enhancement of many different non-profit organizations.

We continue to look at ways to support seniors. We understand and appreciate their needs, and that is one reason we even continue to look at the things that support our seniors indirectly, not only directly. One thing I should have made quick reference to when I referred to Stephen Harper is the CPP. As a government, we actually worked with the provinces and achieved, for a generation, a change to the CPP. Upon individuals' retirement, they will have even more money coming to them through CPP.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Mr. Speaker, our government's approach to seniors has been very thoughtful. In my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, we are very involved in projects to help seniors, whether with respect to old age security, lowering the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 or, now, the dental care program. We have also brought in the New Horizons for Seniors program. In Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, we have been the champions for many years and the seniors in my riding have benefited from that.

It is important to me to speak today about some of the measures we have put in place and to remind the House of the significance of our actions to support seniors. As a government, we restored the age of eligibility for retirement to 65 from 67, preventing more than 100,000 future seniors from plunging into poverty. We also put thousands of dollars back into their pockets and increased the guaranteed income supplement by up to $947 a year. That helped almost 900,000 seniors, many of whom live in my riding.

We also increased the earnings exemption for the guaranteed income supplement from $3,500 to $5,000, and extended it to self-employment income, which was not even on the agenda. We also granted an additional 50% exemption on employment and self-employment earnings between $5,000 and $15,000, and it is important to remember that the exemption for seniors, up to $5,000 of employment income, still exists. If seniors want to work between the ages of 65 and 74, they do so mostly to avoid isolation and meet people. They also want to earn a little extra money. It is a good way to stay in shape and improve their quality of life.

Our government also enhanced the Canada pension plan. This was a gradual process, involving a small increase in contributions to the plan by today's workforce. That means higher benefits for these future pensioners. When I entered the labour market, many more people were contributing to our pension funds. Given the aging population, this is a concern that involves additional responsibilities for a government.

It is especially important to remember that we also permanently increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. By doing so, in the first year alone, we gave $800 more to retirees receiving a full pension. Who are these people? They are vulnerable seniors, mostly women, and mostly widows. A large percentage are also people living with a disability. Some 59% of these seniors earn less than $30,000 a year. Giving seniors aged 75 and over a 10% increase was a good measure.

If I may digress a little, I would like to talk a bit more about old age security. After all, this subject has been front and centre in our debates since 2015. Ever since I was elected we have been talking about the OAS, and we have put several measures in place. The OAS program plays a crucial role in income security for seniors, who deserve all our attention. These are our builders. They led the way in terms of the jobs we have today. The next generation also depends on them in terms of being able to do a good job.

OAS benefits consist of three things. First, there is the basic old age pension, which is paid to everyone who is 65 years of age and older who meets the residence requirements. Second, there is the guaranteed income supplement for low-income recipients of the old age security pension. This supplement was increased when I began my term.

Lastly, there are the allowances for low-income Canadians aged 60 to 64 who are the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients or who are widows or widowers. As people age, they tend to have lower income and face higher health expenses, which is a problem. This can be due to the onset of an illness or disability. Therefore, seniors face increasingly difficult obstacles, making them increasingly vulnerable, since some are less and less able to supplement their income with paid employment. They run the risk of depleting their personal savings and becoming widows or widowers.

I was at one time the parliamentary secretary to the minister of seniors, and I had the opportunity to meet with hundreds of seniors, organizations and groups. I am aware of seniors' needs: We listened to them and, in 2022, we increased the OAS for seniors aged 75 and over, when they are most vulnerable. We know that it was a very expensive measure, but it was worth it for our seniors. We wanted to give them more financial security later on in life, when they are more financially vulberable.

This increase improved the financial security of 3.3 million seniors, more than half of them women, as I said earlier. This increase is an important component of the financial support for seniors offered by the old age security program. In 2022-23, we paid out $69.4 billion in benefits to 7.1 million pensioners. This includes almost $54 billion in OAS benefits, and more than $16 billion in GIS benefits.

If I may remind my colleagues, benefits are indexed four times a year. We realize these are not huge amounts, but at least pensions are indexed to the consumer price index, or CPI, every three months. That means that benefits increased by 1.3% for the last quarter of 2024, a 2.8% increase over the previous year.

It is important to remember that the Old Age Security Act contains a guarantee that benefits will never decrease, even if the CPI goes down. We will always maintain pension amounts based on the CPI.

That is it for old age security. It goes without saying that this is a measure that makes life more affordable for older Canadians. That being said, our measures to make life more affordable for seniors do not stop there. We need to do more.

As we all know, we put in place several other measures that have borne fruit. The grocery rebate put hundreds of dollars back into the pockets of low-income seniors. The six-month doubling of the GST credit payment provided seniors with an average of $225. The $500 payment to nearly 2 million low-income tenants, a number of them seniors, helped cover the cost of housing. This too is part of the measures put in place by the government.

There is also the Canadian dental care plan, which I was eager to talk about. This plan offers care to low-income seniors. I recently did a major tour of my riding, criss-crossing the region to meet with seniors. We are proud to have listened to them. Seniors have a pressing need for dental care. This measure, which we implemented for seniors, has been a godsend. It was a very good decision to help seniors overcome this oral health crisis. Oral health is essential to overall physical health. It works hand in hand with proper nutrition and contributes to better self-esteem. This plan has worked.

For many years we have helped Canadian seniors integrate into their communities. This dental care plan is yet more evidence of what we are doing for seniors.

In fact, this year we are marking the 20th anniversary of the New Horizons for Seniors program. I championed this program in my riding, and I can assure members that seniors have benefited from it. They talk about it to this day. We are in the midst of the selection process for the program, and I am proud of this. Once again, this program seeks to help our seniors break out of their isolation. Our government is proud of this assistance.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting speech, but it totally left out one aspect, one word, one verb: “divide”. This Liberal government did something that no one saw coming and, to my knowledge, we have not seen it in any other democratic countries. It divided seniors up by distinguishing between those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 74 and over. Why divide seniors up?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question of dividing our seniors up. We know how important they are.

I have had my Quebec FADOQ membership card since I turned 50. I have been in at least four clubs since then. I am only 58 now, and I am considered a senior. Who decides who gets a senior's card? Some people are seniors at 65 years old. People in Quebec are seniors at 60 years old. My colleague was in the National Assembly. He knows very well that the age of eligibility for a pension was 60 in Quebec. Why create a division between 65-year-olds and 60-year-olds? Why did his government decide to grant this pension?

When I was elected, my colleague's federal government wanted to raise the retirement age to 67. Why create a division among seniors at 67? The first thing our government did was roll back the retirement age to 65.

It is not a question of dividing seniors up. It is a question of providing help to seniors aged 75 and over, to the ones who are most vulnerable, to women, to people with disabilities, to the Quebec women who defended their families, raised several children and worked hard at home but do not have a pension. That is why we decided to help seniors aged 75 and over, especially women.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. Right now, we are hearing about all the measures the Liberals put in place to help seniors.

What I want to know is, will the Liberals vote for or against the Bloc Québécois's motion to increase pensions for seniors aged 65 to 74? Are they for or against the motion? I just want a plain answer.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague must know that we are in the middle of a debate and that there will be a vote at the end. That is how it works. Let me just explain to her how the House of Commons works. In the House of Commons, a member proposes an idea, we debate it, and then at the end, we vote.

My colleagues will see at the end of the debate how we are going to vote. I will, however, say that we have taken concrete action to help seniors in Quebec and across Canada, whether they are young seniors, 60 years old, 65 years old or 75 years old.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Terrebonne on a point of order.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my colleague does not know how the House of Commons works. We usually try to answer questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the Bloc that more needs to be done for seniors in Quebec and across the country, and we could do it by taking even just a fraction of the money that the government currently gives to the oil and gas industry every single year.

A fair criticism of what is being proposed is that OAS is provided to seniors all the way up to just over $148,000 of income, with limited recovery taxes in advance of that. Another way of supporting seniors is boosting the guaranteed income supplement, both the threshold and the minimum amounts, so that any additional dollars go to seniors with the lowest incomes across the country.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment in this debate, which he has mentioned he is keen on, on whether his level of support would increase if the proposal was to deliver the $3 billion per year to increases to GIS versus OAS?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, in politics it is easy to say we can move $3 billion from one line item to another. I would like to ask my colleague if we should cut $3 billion from the dental care plan, which we just launched and is working very well, and redirect that money to seniors. Should we take $3 billion from somewhere else, like the breakfast program we want to set up so that young Canadians start their school day with a full belly? Should we take $3 billion out of that?

It is easy in politics to betray what we believe in and move $3 billion around. We are here to talk about our seniors and their well-being. Everything our government has put in place for our seniors has been beneficial to them, regardless of their age group.