House of Commons Hansard #343 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservative.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, today my party's leader asked the Prime Minister to tell us how important Bill C‑282, on supply management, is to him. The Prime Minister told him that he promised farmers he would never undermine supply management in international agreements again.
I would like my colleague to tell me the difference between the Prime Minister's promise and Bill C‑282.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister makes a promise, that only matters to people who want to believe it. If he is not there anymore or changes his mind, then it is worthless. However, if there is legislation in place and a government wants to go against it, it will have to introduce a bill to reverse it and then defend its decision to the farmers. I say good luck, Charlie Brown.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Madam Speaker, the federal government's 2024-25 budget included an important reform to the taxation of capital gains. Changing the way we tax capital gains is something that has been called for by progressive voices in this country for decades.
Capital gains occur when an asset is sold for more than it costs to acquire and maintain. However, there are a number of very important exceptions to this rule, including Canadians' principal residences and other types of assets.
Capital gains are generally heavily concentrated among high-income Canadians, more so than any other form of income. Making matters worse, they benefit from lucrative tax preferences. Until this year and this change, recipients only had to declare half their capital gains on their income tax, which is the so-called inclusion rate of 50%, and the other half was entirely tax-free. Therefore, if a person bought an asset for half a million dollars and sold it for a million dollars, half of that $500,000 profit was completely tax-free. This could be a second home, a building or stocks.
In contrast, other forms of income, such as wages and salaries, must be fully reported on a tax return. I think Canadians are well aware of that. In other words, the inclusion rate for salaries and wages is 100%. Teachers, waitresses, firefighters, truck drivers, plumbers, office workers and cleaners have to declare and pay tax on 100% of their income, as does pretty much every person who goes to work every day and has a job. However, people who are trading stocks, selling secondary residences or selling large assets do not. They only have to declare half of their profit, and the other half goes in their pocket tax-free.
The federal budget announced a change in the capital gains inclusion rate. As of June 24 of this year, it rose to 66.7% for capital gains inclusion declared by corporations. This means that, instead of sheltering 50% of their profits, corporations can now only shelter one-third. However, they still get to shelter one-third of their profits.
The inclusion rate for individuals remains at 50%, the way it has always been for many decades, for all capital gains under $250,000. It will be increased to 66.7% for any capital gains declared above $250,000 in a single year. In other words, half of the capital gains for an individual is still tax-free under $250,000, and a third of their capital gains above $250,000 is still tax-free. Therefore, the tax benefit to capital gains in this country is still lucrative, just modestly less so.
Now, the number of individuals directly affected by this change is very small. Canada Revenue Agency data indicates that only about 0.1% of tax filers, which is about 40,000 people in this country, report over $250,000 of capital gains per year. The proportion of Canadians who would declare over $250,000 in capital gains in any year in their lives is also very small.
While the number of Canadians significantly affected by this change is small, these Canadians are mighty. This reform, which has been advocated for many years by tax specialist and equality advocates, as I said, will primarily have an impact on the richest Canadians. They are very powerful, as are their allies and advisers in the financial sector. Therefore, this new policy is being aggressively resisted by an alliance of wealthy Canadians, financial advisers and Conservatives.
The Conservative leader has promised to reverse these capital gains tax reforms, and he is trying to start a broader revolt against taxes in general and the public programs they pay for. The campaign against capital gains tax reform has relied on scare tactics and outright misinformation about who will be affected, how much extra they will pay and even why capital gains are taxed at all. In fact, the reason we are here tonight is that the Conservatives have decided to move a motion with some 360 recommendations. These were made to the finance committee before the last budget, the one that was introduced here in April. These come from recommendations that were made in February as a way to stall the introduction of a ways and means motion that would pave the way for these capital gains inclusion changes. That is why we are here tonight: The Conservatives are stalling tax fairness.
New Democrats believe, as the Carter commission in the 1960s found, that a buck is a buck is a buck, and that is how taxes should work. It should not matter whether one gets their income in the form of a dividend or a capital gain, or through their hard work in a salary or wage; it should be taxed the same. That is the principle that came out of the royal commission in the 1960s.
However, the Conservatives are doing the bidding of the wealthiest people in this country, people who have capital gains over $250,000. They do not want that money to be taxed the same way that wages are.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member and also interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
It being 6:59 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Before the House proceeds to Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to the decision made on Thursday, May 11, 2023, a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, since the bill would appropriate part of the public revenue.
Accordingly, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the question will only be put on the motion for third reading of the bill if a royal recommendation is submitted in due time.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
There being no motion at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I ask that Bill C‑319 be carried unanimously at report stage.
(Motion agreed to)
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It might have been just because of interpretation. We did want to see the bill go to third reading, but we did not want to see it go unanimously. I am not too sure whether that was being suggested.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was a little unclear because you did say that it was adopted on division and you are now saying—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I cleared it up. When I asked if it was being adopted, nobody stood up to say otherwise so it was adopted, and not on division.
The hon. member for Shefford has the floor.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, we have reached a crucial stage for this bill. Here is what I was thinking. Given everything that we are hearing, how should I discuss Bill C‑319 at third reading stage?
I will begin with a brief introduction and a little background.
I want to make it clear that, when I talk about Bill C-319 and age discrimination, this is something that I care a lot about. Perhaps there are people who do not know this about me, but before I became an MP, I worked for over two years at a community organization as a project manager responsible for raising awareness of elder abuse and intimidation.
I wanted to take my work on the issue of discrimination and prejudice against seniors even further. That is one of the reasons I decided to go into politics. I am not the only one who wanted to work on this issue. When I decided to go into politics, I gave it a lot of thought. I remember very well that, leading up to the 2019 election campaign, I was not the only one who wanted to do something to help seniors. The member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, wanted to bring this issue to the table in the House of Commons. While we were hoping that the Bloc Québécois would make a comeback in the House at the time, the Bloc leader already intended to bring the issue of seniors before the House, because he had noticed that the House had not talked about that issue for a long time. The House was not talking enough about seniors. Helping seniors is really part of the Bloc Québécois's DNA.
I also remember that, before I was asked to take on this campaign and bring the issue of seniors back to the forefront in the House of Commons, I worked as an assistant to a Bloc Québécois member from 2007 to 2011. I was in charge of constituent cases. I realized that the most frequent questions were about the guaranteed income supplement and the fact that it was not completely automatic and not easy for seniors to access. Bloc members were the ones who worked on this issue, determining how to make the GIS payment automatic, how to ensure that more of our eligible seniors would get it. Seniors were already on the Bloc's radar.
I took a break from politics and worked in the community. As I said, before I was elected, I worked with groups, round tables and seniors' groups. We were already talking about this discrimination against seniors back then. We were talking about how too many seniors are financially vulnerable. That topic was already being discussed. It is nothing new. We were talking about it before the Bloc Québécois came back with a vengeance in 2019.
I will briefly give some background. During the election campaign, the Liberals were already talking about increasing pensions by 10% for people aged 75 or over. I remember that we stood out early on in campaign debates because we were already arguing that creating two classes of seniors was wrong, that it was not done, and that we had to increase old age security, the universal program for everyone, starting at age 65. That is how the program operates. That is the base amount provided at retirement. This issue became the focus of the first questions we asked when the House returned in December 2019. Even then, we were asking the government about this legislation, about its plans to discriminate on the basis of age.
When we came back in early 2020, my colleague from Joliette and I met with the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec, or FADOQ, at the Olympic Stadium in Montreal as part of our pre-budget meetings. One of FADOQ's demands was to increase old age security, but for all seniors, starting at age 65. FADOQ members had also heard rumours that the government was thinking of increasing pensions for people aged 75 and over. They were the ones who asked us to champion this demand, which was a priority for them. We made it a condition for passing budget 2020.
We have made it a condition every time a budget has been tabled since the 32 Bloc Québécois members have been in the House, going back to 2019. We have made this issue a condition. Regardless of what my Conservative colleagues may think, it is also one of the reasons we did not support the government on budgetary matters. We voted against the budgets because we had set conditions. It was not just that one. We had also set conditions regarding funding for oil and gas companies. We set a lot of other conditions for various budgets over the years, but this one was always among them.
Then, the pandemic happened. Assistance was announced for everyone, except seniors. Even though they were isolated, they had to continue to pay their bills, and they, too, were affected by what was known as the COVID-19 tax, the additional fees that started being charged. Many companies had to start charging delivery fees. Seniors were affected by the pandemic too, but the government did not announce any assistance for them. We had to come back to the House. I remember those somewhat strange times at the beginning of the pandemic when we came back to Parliament. There were not very many of us here. However, we came back to ask the government to provide assistance for seniors, who had not received any help. It was good that the government helped families and businesses, but it forgot about seniors, and we had to come back to the House. In the end, what the government proposed at the time was to give seniors the much-touted one-time cheque for $300, or $500 in the case of those who were receiving the GIS. That was a partial win for seniors. They did not get as much assistance as everyone else, but at least they got something because we had come back to the House to talk about it. However, the fact remains that it was just a one-time cheque.
Time went by and the pandemic wound down, but the government did not announce any other assistance measures for seniors. We raised the issue again and proposed increasing the OAS pension for all seniors aged 65 and up. In 2021, we once again included that in our list of conditions for supporting the budget. We then tabled a first petition in the House. What is interesting is that this is an intergenerational concern. It affects all generations. A young man in his 20s, Samuel Lévesque, had contacted me to say that he did not think this discrimination was fair. His grandparents had told him that their friends who were 75 and up were getting help, but that they were not. He understood the situation and he wondered what more he could do. He ended up starting a petition.
Then an election was called, but right before that, once again, one-time $500 cheques were sent out to people aged 75 and over. Although this should have made people happy, I received emails from seniors who said they felt used and exploited. They said that these were purely vote-seeking cheques and that this one-time assistance, which consisted of a single cheque, was not what they needed. What they needed was a complete overhaul of assistance measures for seniors.
That is why we, once again, made this a key issue in the election campaign. We proposed that assistance be provided to all seniors who receive the pension starting at age 65. In early 2022, we dedicated an opposition day in the House to this issue. The Bloc Québécois used one of its opposition days to discuss this topic, to say that the government had to reconsider its plan to increase OAS only for people aged 75 and over. In the end, in the summer of 2022, only seniors aged 75 and over received the 10% increase. We did not let up. Another petition was launched calling on the government to correct this unacceptable inequity. In 2023, we even held a symposium in Granby, where people from across Quebec and civil society organizations came to share their thoughts. Once again, it became clear that the growing economic inequalities among seniors needed to be addressed.
Then, last year, we came up with Bill C-319. It was introduced in March 2023, and the first hour of debate at second reading took place in May 2023. The last hour of second reading and the vote were held in the fall of 2023. I spent the entire month of August last year touring around. I went to Amqui, in the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
I went to the riding of Beauport-Limoilou. I also went to meet the people of Thérèse-De Blainville and many others. Finally, we came back to the House after that tour motivated us to take action. The tour pushed us to move forward with this bill.
That was not the first time. To go back a bit, in 2021, I remember attending some of my colleagues' nomination meetings in the Abitibi‑Témiscamingue region. There were some seniors chatting around a coffee shop. It was nice. They came to meet me and we talked. They said that we absolutely needed to eliminate this age discrimination. We also need to start removing barriers seniors face when they want to stay in the workforce. These two considerations are reflected in Bill C‑319.
Last fall, we won a majority vote in the House. That is quite something. It was a majority vote in which I even managed to convince my Conservative colleagues that the extra 10% should also go to people aged 65 to 74. People who wanted to work should be able to earn a little more without having their guaranteed income supplement clawed back. So the bill had to increase from $5,000 to $6,500 the amount people could earn without having their GIS reduced.
We had that majority vote and referred the bill to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I appeared at committee for an hour. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who sat on the committee, questioned witnesses. Thanks to that hour of testimony I had with the witnesses and my colleague's work, which I would like to commend, we managed to get a unanimous report from the committee. Even government members recognized that this unacceptable inequity had to end.
I have given a bit of the background. I have talked about the bill. Third, just quickly, I would like to say that the sums requested for this initiative are neither exaggerated nor outrageous. We have presented a bill that is realistic and achievable. The famous figure of $16 billion over five years amounts to barely $3 billion a year. At that point, it is a question of political will. The money can be found. The government can give royal recommendation by the end of third reading and acknowledge that it has the money and is capable of investing in this bill.
This is about fairness for seniors. This is about aging with dignity. This is a baseline amount. This is what seniors start their retirement with. This is the universal amount. It is unfair that there are two classes of seniors. It is unfair to classify them as “young old” and “old old”. It is not fair that these people are not on a level playing field when they retire. Of course, this is not going to solve everything. The Bloc Québécois would never claim that the bill before us is going to be a panacea and fix everything.
We hear all kinds of things. For example, we have heard that some people may not need it. Keep in mind that this is the taxable portion. The GIS is not taxable, but the OAS is. It means that people who need it less will spend a little more in their local economy and pay a little more in income tax. It gives them a little extra help. While $80 a month will not make a huge difference, some people do need it.
We have to be careful. Fully 36% of seniors are living on the GIS and the OAS. That is nothing to sneeze at, and it would be wrong to say that every other senior has no need of the extra help. It is not true that people living above the poverty line, set at a meagre $22,000 a year, are able to grow old with dignity. When a person is just above that line, they fall into a grey area where they have to wonder what help is available to them to cope with inflation.
Another factor we have to keep in mind is that seniors live on fixed incomes. These people do not see their pensions increase at the same rate as salaries, so that is problematic. Salaries are increasing much faster than retirees' fixed incomes. I want to point out that I have been touring ridings, including Liberal ridings, for two summers now. Before I even got a chance to speak, people were telling me that they went to see their MP to send a clear message that having two classes of seniors was unacceptable. I even went to Chicoutimi, to the riding of a Conservative Party member. Regardless of which party represents the riding, when I went to meet with seniors' groups, there was unanimous support for this bill. More than that, groups across Canada are writing to thank the Bloc Québécois for speaking up for seniors.
I will wrap up by saying that perhaps what these people are asking for is recognition that they are a grey force. They are tired of all the prejudice and, above all, they are tired of being seen as an economic burden. They want to be recognized as the grey power that they are.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, consistently, virtually from day one, the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister, has been very supportive of seniors in all regions of Canada. One of its very first initiatives was the dramatic increase in the guaranteed income supplement, and I will have the opportunity to expand on that issue shortly, which literally took tens of thousands of seniors across the country out of poverty. The Bloc at the time voted against that measure.
I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the Bloc's perspective with respect to the importance of the GIS and contrast that, possibly, to the OAS.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
I would like to address two things.
Some say that the GIS is welfare for seniors. Personally, I do not like that, but it is a fact. Increasing the GIS helps only a few people. Those are not my words. Experts at the conference said that. We can make numbers say what we want, but there are some people who are just above the poverty line, who are not entitled to the GIS and who are not entitled to the 10% increase in OAS either because they are 67. The thing is, illness does not wait until 75, poverty does not wait until 75 and grocery bills cost the same whether we are 67 or 77.
As I explained, we voted against this because of the demands we made of the government in the budgets. We are not against the guaranteed income supplement. We can give it more thought later, but for now the main problem is that there is a disparity in the base amount of the program.
I invite the government to review this because unlike other programs the government tries to meddle in, OAS is its responsibility. It is one of the rare programs that is the federal government's responsibility. It is in charge of pensions, which fall under its jurisdiction.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I want to acknowledge her passion for Bill C‑319.
However, I am still concerned about the Bloc Québécois's October 29 deadline because I hear the Liberals, and they do not seem very open to it. They seem very calm, cool and collected. I have some concerns about the Bloc Québécois with respect to the Liberals.
Will the Liberals dangle a little carrot in front of them at the end of October? Will the Bloc Québécois take the bait and wait until the next budget? Or rather, are the Bloc Québécois members here in the House to get what they want on October 29, or else they will trigger an election?
I would like to be sure. Will the Bloc Québécois extend its deadline or will it really end this government on October 29?
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which allows me to reiterate two points.
First, our request for a 10% increase for people aged 65 to 74 is not new. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois made clear, there is no room for compromise on this issue. We are going to hammer home the message. We do not want half-measures. We want 10% for people aged 65 to 74. That is our specific request. There can be no compromise.
I would like to extend an invitation to everyone, including my Conservative colleagues. If the Liberals deny our request and insist on going against the will of their own members as expressed in committee, they will have some explaining to do during the election. They will have to say why they made this choice, despite repeated requests, despite pressure from organizations on the ground, despite what we have heard, despite the testimonials from citizens that have piled up over the years as we have repeatedly made this request, and as the government stubbornly refuses to give this 10% increase to people aged 65 to 74. The Liberals will have to bear the brunt of this.
My Conservative colleagues supported Bill C‑319. The bill has moved forward, and I invite them to continue—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni has time for a brief question.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for putting forward this bill. It is such a great bill dealing with inequity.
We know that when Conservatives were in government, they raised the age of retirement from 65 to 67. They went after seniors. When the current government came forward with an increase, it wanted to create a two-tiered system, ignoring those between 65 and 74, so what did it do? It maintained the corporate tax rate the Conservatives had brought in for big corporations that are making record profits, such as big oil, big banks and big grocery.
Does my colleague believe there should be a tax increase on big corporations to make sure we can take care of our seniors in this country?
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, one thing is certain: As we have always said, at this point, it is a political choice. Some funds could be found elsewhere, and some funds could be better invested. I am just throwing that out there because I have to keep my answer short.
I would also like to know the Liberals' idea of retirement age. Is it 65 or 75? I asked them that in committee. What is your idea of retirement age? You boast about increasing it to 65, but by forcing seniors to get by without assistance. Sometimes you force them to stay in the labour market when their health prevents them from working, yet they feel they have no choice but to try to keep working to make ends meet.
What is retirement age in the Liberals' opinion?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I would remind the hon. member that she must address her comments to the Chair and not directly to the government.
Resuming debate.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about an issue facing seniors. I can tell the member that Liberal members of Parliament have been very supportive of seniors in Canada through the years.
When I was first elected to Parliament, one of my colleagues had conducted a white paper on seniors in regard to how we could move forward as a political party. A number of years ago, I was sitting not far from where the member for Shefford is sitting today, when Stephen Harper was in Davos and made the decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67.
To answer the question the hon. member has put to members of the Liberal caucus, I can assure her our response at the time was immediate. We understand and appreciate the retirement age of 65. The Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Liberal Party, made a very clear indication that we would restore the age of retirement back to 65. A number of months passed, and ultimately we were afforded the opportunity to form a government. One of the first actions of the Liberal government was to bring forward the change that reduced the age of retirement from 67 to 65.
We are also very aware of the issue of poverty, of having a fixed income with limited resources, and how we could help seniors living in poverty. Another initiative the government took up was to try to lift seniors out of poverty, which it did by making a dramatic increase to the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. I believe seniors were going to receive an increase somewhere between $800 and $950 per year. That initiative alone literally lifted thousands of seniors out of poverty, including hundreds from my own constituency. As I pointed out, members of the Bloc voted against it. That is why I posed the specific question in regard to the GIS and how the Bloc voted back then. I think it is a valid question.
How do we maximize tax dollars to support our seniors? I believe it was a good decision back then to dramatically increase the guaranteed income supplement, and the numbers clearly show that we were right.
The member asked about the age of retirement being 65. As I say, we reduced it from 67 back to 65, and then we also went to work negotiating with provinces to deal with the CPP. Those in the workforce contribute in a very significant way, as all members of society, whether they are working or not, will ultimately contribute. We put an emphasis on increasing the CPP. To do that, unlike the previous government, we had to work it through a number of the provinces and build the support to do so. We were successful in doing that. A lot more people will be retiring in the coming years, and they will have better retirement savings as a direct result of actions we took nine years ago. That is another initiative the government has taken.
Going back to the fixed income issue, during the pandemic, as has been pointed out, there was a need to provide extra support for seniors. Liberal members of Parliament and others were hearing in their constituencies about the different types of benefits. We came out with all sorts of programs, but we came out with something separate and unique for seniors. We gave two amounts. One was for OAS and an additional amount was for seniors who were collecting GIS, in recognition of the issue of their finances. That was during the pandemic.
Then the election followed and the Liberal Party of Canada made it very clear, which we heard through representations in many different forms, that as people age, they often require additional needs, such as medical assistance. They may be more fragile, on average, as they age. Their savings may dwindle over time or their ability to earn additional income might be diminished, so the Liberal Party of Canada made an election platform commitment to deal with the three specific factors I just raised. We said we would increase, for those 75 and over, the OAS by 10% because of what I just indicated. Canadians were very much aware of it. Seniors were aware of it. We won the election and fulfilled that election commitment.
There have been huge investments to support seniors. For the dental program, the first people who were eligible to receive the dental benefit were seniors, and seniors in all regions of the country took advantage of that program, as they should. That was the purpose of the program, contrary to what members opposite might say. One of the biggest factors in developing the dental program was seniors, but the pharmacare program was also important. When we think of diabetes and the costs related to it, seniors will benefit from that.
As a government, we have made tangible commitments to deal with long-term health care facilities, and we are working with different levels of government to improve those conditions. We have made investments in housing to both non-profit agencies and different levels of government. We have come up with enhanced financing for support programs such as the New Horizons for Seniors and other organizations that support seniors.
The bottom line is that, from day one until today and going forward, I can assure members of the Bloc, Canadians and others that the government is very much in tune with the needs of seniors, and we will continue to look at ways to support them. That is the way we started, and I can assure the members opposite that we will continue that going forward.
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today I am here to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I have spoken on this issue in the past and appreciate the opportunity to do so again.
Our seniors deserve respect. Seniors have raised families, teaching their beliefs and values; founded businesses, employing people; taught and taken care of people; volunteered; built our country; and served our country, fighting for the freedoms we have today. Time and time again, I am told remarkable stories by seniors in Kelowna—Lake Country. There are few areas of life not touched positively by our seniors. It is clear that Kelowna—Lake Country, and really all of Canada, would not be the same without the hard work of seniors and all they have contributed over their lives and still do.
Seniors are mentors and leaders in our communities. That is why it is so unacceptable that seniors are facing the challenges they currently are. I have talked to many seniors who are very stressed and concerned. The cost of living has ballooned after nine years of the Liberal Prime Minister, causing seniors to struggle like never before just to pay for basic necessities.
Seniors in my community have reached out about how they are struggling to pay their heating bill. Many have sent me pictures of their heating bill, which includes the carbon tax. The minimum amount for the tax is set by the federal government, and the government is increasing it every year to be on track to increase it to 61¢ per litre.
Local seniors have also commented on how GST is being charged on top of the home heating carbon tax, which is a tax on a tax. This is wrong. A resident, Grant, wrote to me about his heating bill and all the taxes. He said that he used $50.18 worth of gas, yet owed $316.65. He then went on to say that he has worked since he was 12 years old, non-stop, and has paid his fair share of taxes.
I have talked to retirees who have had to go back to work and who feel sad that they cannot spend as much time volunteering or cannot donate as much to their favourite charities as they used to. I hear from seniors who are afraid to walk around their own neighbourhood that they have lived in for many years due to crime and concerns over their safety. I have talked to many seniors who are worried about their adult children making their mortgage payment and about their grandchildren who will have a tough time ever owing their own home.
Seniors have reached out to me who were just about to retire, and because of the Liberal capital gains tax increases, they have told me they will have to work longer. Seniors who are looking to retire on modest savings are finding that this is no longer possible in Canada, especially with the new Liberal tax changes. It is untenable that seniors are finding themselves priced out of the country they have built.
Here is the situation of many seniors: They worked their whole life providing for their family and contributing to this country. They have contributed economically through their job and through creating businesses. They have raised a family and volunteered in their community. They have contributed by being a good citizen by following the rules. They have saved for their retirement. However, now the golden years for many have melted away. This is not the reality that seniors deserve, yet it is the one that many of them face due to the Liberal Prime Minister and his partners in the NDP, the costly government.
Many seniors in my community struggle to make ends meet, and many are forced to choose between paying for necessities such as food and medication. One senior reached out to me and said that there is absolutely no hope for those on fixed and low income as they are being taxed to death, literally. The senior went on to say that every time they go to the grocery store, prices are going up. A senior couple from Kelowna—Lake Country reached out to me to say that living on their pensions is becoming harder and harder all the time.
This is a result of the reckless, inflationary spending of the Liberal Prime Minister, who is propped up by his partners in the NDP and, now, apparently also the Bloc.
Liberal policies have led to record inflation, with millions of Canadians now struggling to simply keep their heads above water. The standard of living continues to drop in Canada, which has experienced the worst decline in per-person income out of all the G7 countries over the last five years. Seniors on a fixed income are uniquely at risk from inflation, as fixed incomes are unable to keep up with the cost of living, which keeps growing because of all the increased spending.
It is not just in my own community that seniors are struggling, but across Canada. According to the Salvation Army, 75% of Canadians currently face challenges managing limited financial resources. Moreover, 25% of Canadians continue to be extremely concerned about having enough income to cover their basic needs, such as food and shelter. Not all seniors have paid off their mortgages, and this has led to even more stresses. The Bank of Canada recently confirmed that Canadians will see a steep jump in payments as millions of Canadians renew their mortgages over the next two years. This is just one more area in which seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, are struggling.
This legislation provides equity for all seniors, ensuring that old age security is available to those between 65 and 74 years old. Seniors aged 65 to 74 should not be treated differently than seniors 75 or older, something that has occurred under the Liberal government. As such, Conservatives support this measure as part of the legislation.
The legislation also serves to safeguard seniors from potential clawbacks within the guaranteed income supplement. It seeks to increase the exemption amount for employment income that is taken into account for eligibility. Increasing the GIS earnings exemption would minimize some of the clawbacks seniors may experience. Seniors should be able to continue to work or go back to work, if they choose to and are able to, without the loss of federal retirement GIS. Especially considering that rising inflation has had a disproportionate impact on seniors, they should not be penalized for working if they choose to and want to.
To be clear, however, I must say that the legislation will not fix the cost of living crisis or the devastating situation caused by the Liberal government. Conservatives will continue to focus on fixing the budget to get the government spending under control, as well as axing the tax and stopping the tax increases during this unprecedented cost of living crisis, which has affected seniors in my community and communities across the country.
In stopping the broken policies of the Liberals, along with their NDP and Bloc partners, common-sense Conservatives will bring back the promise of Canada: If one works hard, one should be able to get ahead and live and retire in a safe community.