Louise Chabot

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, usually I really try to understand, but this time I did not understand a thing.

I did not understand anything at any stage when we discussed the issue. No one provided any evidence that would have allowed me to understand the age discrimination when it comes to OAS. I get the impression that it is for economic reasons. It is unbelievable. It would cost $3 billion a year to meet the needs of people with fixed incomes and bills to pay. We must not think of it as an expenditure. In fact, it is an investment. I will never understand—

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has confidence in its political party. The Bloc Québécois has confidence in its political agenda and in the people it represents.

The government definitely failed to sow division among seniors. Even people aged 75 and over tell us that what the government did is not right. There is even solidarity among seniors. They want nothing to do with a government of any stripe that, for the sake of its political agenda, wants to deprive them of an OAS pension that would afford them a life lived with dignity.

That is the pride of the Bloc Québécois, and that is our political agenda.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Montcalm.

In light of what I just heard from the recently appointed Minister of Labour and Seniors, I would appreciate it if he could stay a few minutes. I might get angry; I might get indignant. At the same time, I am worried. I think our minister is in a very vulnerable state. As a nurse by profession, I think he has a bit of a health problem, given the speech he just made. His whole speech worried me, because it was full of untruths, lies and partisanship the likes of which I have never heard before. That reminds me, we still have not received his new mandate letter. I am guessing that the speech he delivered today was part of it. He must be a good ambassador for the inertia of the government, his government, when it comes to federal social policies and programs. It is rare that we have the opportunity to talk about exclusively federal social programs that we are asking to be strengthened.

Usually, as we just heard and as we hear in the answers we are given during question period, the government members just talk about their exploits implementing programs that have nothing to do with the federal government, but rather are the responsibility of the provinces. Take the dental care program, for example. The Bloc Québécois is being accused of being against dental care. That is not true. For seniors and young people alike, a dental care program is a good idea. We voted against the bill not because we are against dental care, but because it was another example of crass interference in a provincial jurisdiction. This program is going to cost $2 billion and be administered by private insurance companies, while Quebec's dental care program is administered by a public system. That is the Liberal government's hypocrisy, in the falsehoods it denounces. That is why we stand firm.

There is one thing to take away from today's debate on our bill, which has been defended with such passionate determination by my colleague, the member for Shefford, and has the support of my political party and all the seniors we met with in the field. The one thing to remember is that we demand fair treatment. Of course, the issue concerns dignity, but fair treatment is also at stake.

The equation is simple. The federal government introduced a program in the early 1900s called the old age security pension. It was a universal pension, with certain conditions, that started at age 65. The plan was intended for all seniors aged 65 or over, for whom OAS was viewed as a social safety net. In fact, it was praised as an important social policy at the time. Where does Canada stand today as far as the overall program goes? Canada ranks 13th in the OECD.

Restoring fairness is the purpose of our bill and the reason we are requesting a royal recommendation. What the government did for the first time ever was to make a distinction between people aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over, in a universal plan that should apply to everyone.

That is the gap we want to correct with Bill C-319. As I said in another speech, seniors are not all facing the same situation. People aged 80 and over may be living a different reality from those aged 75 and over or from those aged 70 to 75. That is not the real issue here. The question is whether the federal government believes that there are now two OAS plans: one for seniors aged 65 to 74 and one for seniors aged 75 and over.

That is nonsense because it is a question of equity. In committee, when we talked about OAS, I heard people say that seniors 65 and up have money while those 75 and up have less. People seem to lose sight of the fact that as of age 65, many seniors, including 30% or more in Quebec, start living on a fixed income. For many seniors, that is their only income. For many people in both Quebec and Canada, single women in particular, OAS provides an income that barely allows them to live in dignity. It is their only income. To cut them off from an increase is to make them poorer and even more insecure. It is also to ignore the fact that if we want to improve seniors' situation and quality of life, then we need to act now.

If we support an increase in OAS as of age 65 that allows for an adequate standard of living, as the bill proposes, we will improve these seniors' quality of life and, at the same time, the quality of life and living conditions of people 75 and up. The equation is simple. As my colleague said, there is no evidence proving that age-based discrimination in the application of a universal system will make the government understand how poor and vulnerable our seniors are.

During question period, we ran out of ways to say that the cost of living is the same whether one is an 80-year-old senior or a 65-year-old living on a fixed income like old age security. Many people are struggling to pay for clothing, housing and food, with a bit left over for leisure activities. They are avoiding that, because they do not have the money. For 10 years of their lives, they will be worried because they may have had a little nest egg, but no private plan or supplementary pension plan. They only get old age security. It is unfair to say that they can go back to work to get by, instead of saying that, out of fairness, old age security will be increased for everyone, as it should be, as it was intended to be, which would be the fair approach. A number of witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to talk about this. The Liberal government members on that committee unanimously supported this bill.

I hope that the answer we heard today from the Minister of Labour and Seniors is not the government's answer. It is a matter of fairness. There is still time for the government to be on the right side of history rather than the wrong side of history.

[Seniors, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is affecting all seniors. There are not two grocery bills, one for those 65 to 74 and one for older seniors. There are no age-based discounts for housing, clothing or medication. However, people aged 65 to 74 receive 10% less OAS. Everyone understands that this is unfair.

Will the Liberals put an end to this injustice, or are we all going to head on out in our campaign buses?

[Académie Ste-Thérèse Student Council, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, today we are pleased to welcome 40 elected student council members from Académie Ste-Thérèse, a high school in my riding.

This is the student council's 13th year, and its members, who are with us today, actively encourage young people to take part in democratic life by generating debate on social and political issues and by coming up with projects and activities by and for students. I appreciate their engagement, and I also appreciate the teachers and administrators who support this undertaking.

I have a little advice for these young parliamentarians: parliamentary work is not always easy, but it is essential and so very stimulating. It is a privilege to serve the people who elect us, and it is a tremendous privilege to welcome these young parliamentarians. I wish them all the best for their term in office.

[Old Age Security Act, September 25th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, with the little time I have, my first words will be for my colleague from Shefford. I am proud of her, just as I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois, which has been calling for fairness for seniors since 2019. The main takeaway from Bill C‑319 is that it is about two things: fairness and dignity.

Why is it about fairness? My colleagues have talked about this. Old age security is a universal plan that applies to people aged 65 and over and falls under federal jurisdiction. By discriminating, as the government has done, on the basis of age—that is, by increasing the pension for those aged 75 and over—it has turned its back on people aged 65 to 74, even though they are part of the universal program. This is an infringement. In labour relations, we would call this an “orphan clause” or a clause that discriminates on the basis of age. That would be unacceptable, yet that is what the government did. The government can correct this inequity. This is an infringement that needs to be corrected.

We heard from witnesses in committee. We are talking about millions of people who are affected and what we need to keep in mind is that 30% to 40% of them live only from old age pensions. I will give an example. When it comes to the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, half their members, including 39% of Quebeckers, live on an income of roughly $21,000 or $22,000. That is what they get from OAS and GIS. It is unacceptable.

It is true that seniors groups are not homogenous, but there is no more homogeneity among seniors 65 to 74 than there is among those 75 and up. We need something universal. People who retire at 65 need an equal and fair OAS increase. Not increasing it is totally unacceptable. That is why we are calling on the Liberal government to correct this injustice, to work on giving seniors dignity. We had support in committee and we will have support in the House.

We are being told it will cost $3 billion, but is that an expense or an investment? When people are left in a vulnerable or precarious situation, their whole standard of living is negatively affected. Financial insecurity is a form of isolation. One witness told us that a person who earns $21,000, $22,000 or $23,000 will come up with excuses not to go when they get invited to the movies because they do not have any discretionary income. That is the situation. If we want people between the ages of 65 and 74 to be healthy, then we need to make sure that they have a decent quality of life, which will also help them when they are aged 75 and over. As the Conservatives would say, that is common sense.

The Government of Canada does not have very many social programs. Employment insurance and old age security were created to protect vulnerable people. In committee, I heard government members saying that seniors aged 65 to 74 do not need this assistance. There is something really shameful about comments like that. This could make a big difference for people who are living on a fixed income, given the cost of housing, groceries and health care.

We cannot forget about women. A majority of these people live alone and are women. It is no coincidence that those over the age of 65, our generation, are in this situation. Often, women have chosen to stay at home. They have had odd jobs. They did not contribute much to the Quebec Pension Plan, or QPP, or could not afford a private pension plan. Maybe there was no group plan. Essentially, the system has made their situation even more precarious.

The AQDR rightly reminded us that in 1927, when old age security was introduced, it was seen as a major step forward. We were seen as an example. Now, we rank 13th among OECD countries in this area.

Increasing the baseline level of OAS—we are not talking about the GIS here—from the age of 65 will permanently benefit these people who have contributed so much to society.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very important question. Co-op housing has never been a priority for the government. It has been a long time since a Liberal or Conservative government has invested in housing. Now the government suddenly wakes up, probably because stakeholders have spoken. Think of the recommendations that were made during my Bloc Québécois colleague's tour, the experts who testified or the federal housing advocate who had some strong words to say about this.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Bloc Québécois is lobbying to bring the issue of co-op housing to the fore.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would return the question to him. He is completely right that Quebec is in charge of housing. As far as federal agreements are concerned, the federal government plays a supporting role, but it cannot go over Quebec's head.

What I am saying is that social and community housing are not the federal government's priority right now. Of the hundreds of programs that it put in place under the national housing strategy, only one worked really well, and that is the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, a rapid housing creation program under which community and housing organizations can apply for subsidies. That is what it should focus on. We have proposed all kinds of solutions. The CMHC's current strategy focuses on affordable housing. However, affordability is not clearly defined, since the definition varies from one program to another. We need to review that definition. Affordability should mean no more than 30% of an individual's income, not the median income of a community.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my fantastic, esteemed colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I have had the pleasure and honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities since 2019. Why is my Conservative colleague, who sits on the same committee, bringing up a motion now that was adopted by the committee on October 16, 2023? There may be several reasons.

I should be in committee right now for an important study on the benefits of unionization, but instead I am here, discussing the merits of this motion that was passed by the committee in 2023. I would remind members that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities recognizes that “Canada is in a housing crisis that requires urgent action by the federal government to end homelessness, and that this motion be reported to the House”.

Let me recap the context in which this motion was unanimously adopted. Following its late summer caucus retreat, the current government said it would be prioritizing the housing issue. It did not clarify what concrete measures it would take, however. At the same time, the current housing minister stated that there was a housing crisis. Our committee was acknowledging the minister's own words about the fact that there was indeed a housing crisis. We did not just dream this up.

Since then, the committee has had multiple studies on the national housing strategy. One of those studies, a very important one, dealt with the financialization of housing. We are finalizing the report for another, which highlights the disengagement of the two parties that have formed government since 2006, namely the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, as well as the repercussions this disengagement has had on Quebec and the provinces, as the minister himself recognized. These are major, important studies. What we have trouble understanding is why the need for urgent action on housing is not informing the federal government's policy-making in this area.

I would like to say a few words about homelessness because, clearly, this issue really relates to homelessness. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a very informative report in May 2024 that provided an update on federal spending to address homelessness. The report summarized the impact of the national housing strategy on homelessness. This 10-year strategy, from 2018-19 to 2027-28, aims to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said the following:

We estimate that interventions funded by Reaching Home are reducing the point-in time count of homeless persons by about 6,000 individuals (15%), relative to what the count would have been without those interventions.

The situation in Quebec alone is unprecedented, with roughly 10,000 people experiencing homelessness. The Parliamentary Budget Officer goes on to say:

We estimate that achieving a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness would require an additional $3.5 billion per year, approximately a 7-fold increase in funding over the National Housing Strategy average.

These are serious warnings. Does the current government have any idea how bad the current impasse is or how it is depriving entire families and individuals who live alone of the most important thing in life, the right to a home? The answer is no.

I said earlier that homelessness is on the rise in Quebec. My colleague from Shefford just spoke about the urgent need to take action in these regions to meet these needs. All of my colleagues here today could talk about extremely low vacancy rates in every region and the rising rates of homelessness. Today's debate is important because, if the government wants to set priorities, if it wants good press, it needs to recognize the role it could be playing in dealing with these issues.

My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert toured all the regions of Quebec to shine a light on these issues. He even took it up again this year. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been hearing from groups of witnesses. The government appointed a federal housing advocate, who recently came to tell us about her shocking reports on the issue of tent cities and the financialization of housing.

To deal with the current housing crisis, my colleague and the Bloc Québécois now have 12 measures that I could read out or let my colleague present. However, one of them applies everywhere, and it is our suggestion to prioritize the construction of social housing managed by non-profit housing groups, social housing that truly meets people's needs. Most witnesses, including the federal housing advocate, said that we need to increase the percentage of social housing by 20%. There is a difference between social housing and affordable housing. The housing crisis will not be solved purely through supply and demand by creating more housing units that are supposedly affordable. In my riding, Thérèse-De Blainville, an affordable one- or two-bedroom home costs $2,000. For a single-parent family, for a single mother, for low-income individuals, that is not affordable. That is why we need social housing. We need to increase the stock of social housing by 20% to 30%. That applies everywhere.

In conclusion, the Liberal government has re-committed to investing in the national housing strategy. However, this strategy is already a failure because the government is not meeting people's real needs. It has invested $82 billion, but if we look at the construction of housing units that really meet the needs of the low-income individuals who need them the most, the impact is minimal.

The government needs to change course, focus on tackling the homelessness crisis, and focus on increasing social housing managed by non-profit organizations and housing co-operatives.