Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a simple yet fundamental question: Is it acceptable for people who have worked their entire lives, raised their families, paid their taxes and built our communities to now be living in poverty?
Bill C-261, introduced and vigorously defended by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, aims to restore fairness for seniors and allow them to live with dignity.
For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for OAS to be increased for all seniors, starting at age 65, because dignity does not begin at age 75. The two classes of seniors are an injustice created by Ottawa. In 2021, the federal government granted a 10% OAS increase, but only to those over the age of 75. We saw this coming and, as early as the 2019 election campaign, we criticized the idea of creating two classes of seniors. This decision created two classes of seniors: those entitled to a benefit increase and those left behind. However, the cost of groceries, housing, transportation, insurance, electricity and medications are also rising for seniors aged 65 to 74.
Quebec has approximately 1.09 million people aged 65 to 74, compared to about 875,000 people aged 75 and older. This means that the majority of seniors were excluded from this increase. The Bloc Québécois rejects this injustice. The government cannot acknowledge the vulnerability of seniors while excluding a large portion of them. The current economic reality is grim. In March 2025, nearly 744,000 Quebeckers received the guaranteed income supplement, which is a sign that many seniors are living on very modest incomes. More than 53% of Quebeckers aged 65 and older live on less than $35,000 a year. What is even more concerning is that 32.5% live on less than $25,000 a year. These are not abstract numbers. These are people who sometimes have to choose between paying their rent, buying their medication, eating properly or heating their homes.
According to the reports, some retirees are living on around $1,960 or $2,000 a month. Once the rent, electricity, insurance, telephone bills, transportation costs and medication have been paid for, there is very little left for groceries and unexpected expenses. We are talking not about comfort here, but about financial survival. The housing crisis is also affecting seniors. That, too, needs to be discussed. The housing crisis is not just affecting young families; it is also hitting seniors hard. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités reports that housing has become unaffordable for more than half of all households made up of the poorest 20% of people aged 65 and over. Nearly a quarter of senior households are living in housing that is considered unacceptable, meaning that it does not meet the criteria for affordability, quality and adequate size.
The work on homelessness from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has highlighted a reality of growing concern: Seniors are at risk of homelessness following a rent increase, eviction, separation or the death of a spouse. For a senior living on a fixed income, a rent increase of a few tens or hundreds of dollars can upend the entire financial balance. After a lifetime of hard work, no one should have to fear becoming homeless.
Poverty among seniors is also an issue in terms of health. When seniors do not have enough money, they do not cut back on frills. They cut back on essentials. They cut back on groceries. They put off buying medication. They avoid certain medical travel. They cut back on heating. They isolate themselves because they can no longer afford to go out, get around or participate in activities. Poverty among seniors thus becomes a challenge in terms of public health, food security, mental health and human dignity.
Senior women are particularly vulnerable. We hear that often. Senior women live in especially precarious situations. In Quebec, the median after-tax income for women aged 65 and over is about $24,100, compared to $34,200 for men. This difference can be attributed to careers that were interrupted, lower-paying jobs, part-time work and years spent taking care of children, loved ones or sick spouses. Senior women are also more likely to live alone, particularly once they become widowed or following a separation.
During the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's proceedings, several witnesses pointed out that financial insecurity can trap women in situations of domestic, psychological or economic violence. When a woman cannot afford to find new housing, pay a security deposit, furnish an apartment or ensure her financial security, she may remain in a dangerous situation simply because she has no other option. Increasing the income of older women is therefore not just an economic measure. It is also about safety, autonomy and protection.
The committees also highlighted the importance of having a better understanding of economic violence. Some women have never had full control over their finances. Others are financially dependent on a spouse. Some are afraid and have little savings. They might have some private retirement funds but little room to manoeuver. When retirement, a separation or the death of a spouse occurs, they end up in a highly vulnerable position. Isolation also exacerbates the situation. An isolated older adult has less access to information, less support in filling out forms, fewer networks to find housing and fewer people to turn to in a crisis. A basic income then becomes a practical tool for reducing dependence, vulnerability and isolation.
Seniors also want to contribute to our society. That is another aspect of the bill. It is important to reject the stereotype that seniors are only recipients of services. More than 170,000 Quebeckers aged 65 and over are employed. More than half work full time. On top of that, 81% of seniors consider themselves to be in good, very good or excellent health. Many want to stay active, share their experience, work a few hours, volunteer, support their family or contribute to their community. The problem is that the current system can penalize them when they want to earn some extra income. That is why the bill also proposes to increase the exemption for employment income from $5,000 to $6,500. That measure would enable seniors who want to work a little more to do so without being penalized when their benefits are calculated.
Bill C‑261 includes two primary measures. First, it increases the full OAS pension by 10% for all pensioners 65 and older. In practical terms, it allows seniors from 65 to 74 to receive the same amount as pensioners 75 and older. Second, it raises the exemption on employment income from $5,000 to $6,500 for the purposes of calculating the GIS. Both measures have the same objective: to give seniors more breathing room, to acknowledge their contribution and to allow them to live with more dignity.
I want to address some criticism. There are people who will say that this measure is too expensive. However, the real question is this: What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of homelessness among seniors? What is the cost of the preventable hospitalization of someone who lowered their dose of medication or stopped eating enough? What is the cost of social isolation? What is the cost of lowering the income of older women and forcing them to stay in abusive situations because they cannot afford to leave? Investing in seniors' incomes means preventing much more serious and costly social problems.
Others fear that the old age security increase will reduce the guaranteed income supplement. However, an increase in OAS does not affect pensions under the Quebec pension plan and does not automatically reduce the GIS. There may be specific effects depending on certain tax situations, but the measures are clearly aimed at improving the disposable income of the vast majority of seniors.
It is ultimately a matter of consistency. The government says it wants to fight poverty. It says it wants to prevent homelessness. It says it wants to support women who are victims of violence. It says it wants to encourage active aging. The government cannot claim to be fighting against the vulnerability of seniors while maintaining a policy that excludes most seniors. However, the government still refuses to correct an obvious injustice toward seniors aged 65 to 74.
In conclusion, seniors built our communities. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, supported loved ones, built businesses, sustained our regions and passed on their experience. Today, many are living on less than $25,000 or $35,000 a year, while the cost of housing, groceries, medication and essential services continues to rise. Bill C‑261 is a matter of fairness, respect and dignity. It is also a concrete response to the risks of homelessness, poverty among senior women, isolation, economic violence and the loss of purchasing power. We have a duty to correct the injustice created between seniors aged 65 to 74 and seniors aged 75 and over.
For that reason, the Bloc Québécois encourages all parliamentarians to support this bill and send a clear message to seniors that they matter, that they have contributed and that they deserve to live and age with dignity. I seriously urge us to put an end to this injustice and show some dignity in the House. I hope there will be Liberals who will fight to challenge the party line and vote in favour of this bill.