TranslatePolitics.ca

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois 5:50 p.m.

“I want the government to spend more money on old age security. It's unfair that seniors 65 to 74 get less than those over 75. The government should fix this by giving more money to the younger group too. It's wrong for the government to create two classes of seniors. We need to show respect for our elders by giving them higher benefits.”

Official Hansard

moved that Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Mr. Speaker, it is always very moving to have the privilege of introducing a bill that one cares about. I will be reading my speech because I want to share my message in full and I do not want to run out of time. For a society to live in peace, its citizens must live with confidence. They have to feel certain that their government is taking care of them, that it is working for their well-being and that it is keeping its promises. When a person retires, that is the moment of truth. That is when the unspoken agreement between the citizen and the state must be honoured. It should be the time to reap the rewards of decades of hard work, a time of dignity, not a time of mere survival. However, today, too many new retirees await this freedom with a sense of dread. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am calling on my esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens to correct an injustice. We are living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, one that prides itself on its social safety net, its values, its compassion and its commitment to mutual support. However, today, we are seeing this safety net become ever more fragile. There are more and more holes in it. We are abandoning the very people who built our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. We spend our lives imagining a retirement where we want for nothing, where we can have a well-deserved rest and where we can live out our lives in complete security. However, for thousands of new retirees, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement no longer constitute the promised safety net. Instead, they are life rafts and they are taking on water. We are not talking about charity here. We are talking about a social contract. These men and women paid their taxes for 40 or 50 years. They contributed to the country's economic success. They raised the generation that is now leading Quebec. The implicit promise was simple. If people worked hard and contributed to the common good, then the state would make sure that they wanted for nothing as they grew old. We are way off the mark. Not only are we way off the mark, but it is now clear that the Liberal government did not keep this promise—one among many, some might say. Young retirees are being forced to keep working just to make ends meet. Is this the sneaky way that the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have found to effectively raise the retirement age, without anyone noticing? If so, it is dishonest and unworthy of the office. This government tried to address the discontent but only managed to create an even greater injustice. It officially established two classes of retirees by deciding to increase OAS by 10% for those over the age of 75. On the one hand, we have older seniors, who are deemed worthy of additional assistance, and on the other, we have young retirees aged 65 to 74, who are essentially being told to fend for themselves. What is the logic behind that discrimination? At the grocery store, does inflation ask how old the customer is? Are rent, gas or heating costs lower when someone is 70 than when they are 76? What happens on the night before a retiree turns 75? It takes just as much air to blow out 65 candles as it does 75. The government says that seniors aged 65 to 74 are still active and can work to supplement their income. This is an insult to those who have had physically demanding careers and who, let us face it, are worn out. Asking a 68-year-old construction worker, warehouse worker or restaurant server to go back to work just to pay for groceries is not really a solution. It is an admission of failure. It means accepting that the government has failed in its duty. We in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. That is why, since 2021, we have been making every effort to put an end to the injustice caused by these two classes of seniors. We are often told that this would be financially unsustainable. We are told that increasing pensions for people aged 65 to 74 would cost the public purse billions of dollars. That is true. It is a significant amount. However, what is the cost of not doing it? How much does it cost our health care system when a senior eats poorly because fruit and vegetables have become a luxury? How much does social isolation—which leads to depression—cost? How much does the loss of dignity cost? It is not just a matter of compassion; it is also a matter of public health and safety. Thorough research has provided irrefutable evidence that the most egalitarian societies are the ones that fare the best. I am not going to mince words: The harms caused by inequality affect women first and foremost. Once again, women are statistically the ones who have the lowest pensions. They are the ones who live the longest in solitude. By refusing to help seniors aged 65 to 74, this government is perpetrating a form of economic harm against our mothers and grandmothers. It is taking the women who kept our society going—often from the shadows, often without pay—and putting them in a vulnerable position. Causing them anxiety about the future is truly unworthy of this House. Study after study clearly proves it. When the wealth gap is narrowed, crime falls significantly and confidence rises. Mental illness declines. Obesity, chronic stress and violence—especially violence against women—decline. Conversely, the wider the wealth gap, the sicker the body politic. Colleagues, for a society to live in peace, it takes confidence. I said it before and I am saying it again. However, poverty among seniors undermines that confidence. It creates anxiety not only for retirees, but also for their children and grandchildren, who see their own future as a threatening prospect, rather than a comfortable one. How can they trust a government that cheats their parents and flouts the social contract? By allowing seniors' spending power to collapse, the government is making a conscious decision to increase future social costs. It is opting for more people in hospital beds, more psychological distress and more insecurity. Of course, there are those who will solemnly claim that the cupboard is bare, that the debt is too big. Honestly, that is a risible argument. When it comes to finding millions of dollars to subsidize oil and gas giants, who do not need financial support, the money seems to appear out of thin air. When it comes to buying a pipeline in western Canada that will never serve our interests, the cheque book is often wide open. When the big banks are making record profits while raising fees on consumers, the government looks the other way. When billions of dollars end up in tax havens without being taxed, we are told it is really complicated. It is so complicated to get the money back from the tax havens. However, when a 72-year-old grandmother asks for what she is entitled to, namely enough money to pay her heating bill, just like her 76-year-old neighbour, suddenly everyone has to be responsible. They pull out the calculator and talk to us about fiscal discipline. This is not really a problem of revenue. It is a problem of choice. It is a political choice, a political decision. Clearly, this government's choices are not the same ones the public would make. The government prefers to help those who pollute, those who make massive profits, and neglects those who built Quebec. As someone who devoted her entire career to seniors, I think that is completely outrageous. We are not asking for the moon. We are asking the government to honour a social contract. Is it too much to ask to maintain what little balance still remains? I repeat: Our seniors are not asking for charity. They are demanding respect. What we are seeing today is a government that is deliberately and knowingly choosing to create and maintain two classes of seniors: one that deserves to be helped and another that is left to fend for itself. This age-based discrimination is unworthy of a modern society. The people that my colleagues and I represent think that this is unacceptable, and I am sure that many members of the House from all political parties agree with them. We are not here to beg for favours. We are here to correct an injustice and appeal to every member of the House's sense of reason. For a society to live in peace, it must treat those who built it with respect. What is needed now is more than just rhetoric on election day or during an election campaign. What folks need are cheques that will cover groceries and rent. It is time to stop seeing retirees as a budgetary burden or an expense column in an Excel spreadsheet. They are our society's collective memory. They are our roots, and it is absurd to cut off the water supply to our roots under the pretext of saving money. In the name of dignity, we call on the government to stop its petty calculations. It needs to stop dividing people. It needs to stop dividing seniors. We need to give them back what they entrusted us with. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Many citizens heard that today would be quite a memorable day in my career as a member of Parliament. Seriously, over the past week, I have received hundreds of letters, emails and notes encouraging me to continue on this path, because seniors know that their living conditions and their dignity are not being respected at all. People in my riding, as well as the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, the largest seniors' group in Quebec, representing several thousand people, are making this their top demand. I also spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and with retirees from Quebec, who share the same demand. It is not too complicated. They are asking for fairness and justice. They are calling on the government to correct this age-based inequity and discrimination. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues. In the last Parliament, my colleague from Shefford sponsored Bill C‑319, which went through a lengthy legislative process. Although it died on the Order Paper, a number of members in the House supported that bill. We hope the House of Commons shows the same cohesion and consensus again. Not only does Bill C‑261 seek to correct the injustice, but it also seeks to increase the GIS maximum exemption amount. It is important to clarify that. The bill provides for a 10% increase in OAS, but it also increases to $6,500 the maximum amount a person can earn before their GIS is reduced. Around 20% of seniors in my riding tell me that they are forced to work. However, for GIS recipients, any income over $5,000 is subject to a clawback. As the saying goes, that is like trading four quarters for a dollar. That is what my grandmother used to say. What do all these seniors end up doing, then? They end up working under the table or just making do, because they basically need every penny of their income to make ends meet. In closing, I can say that this truly comes from the heart. I know that my colleague across the aisle secured a royal recommendation to pass a bill that will allow bereaved parents who have lost a child to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits. I therefore hope to convince the government that it has a great opportunity to right a wrong and, of course, grant a royal recommendation to my bill. This bill will allow seniors to live better. Above all, they will see that this injustice and discrimination have finally been addressed. It is a matter of respect, and frankly, there is no room for compromise. Again, I appeal to my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, to support Bill C-261.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Brad Vis

Conservative 6:05 p.m.

“The government can't afford these higher old age security benefits. It would cost over $100 billion in five years. How are the next generation going to pay for all this new spending? I'm asking if the member realizes the huge future costs she's proposing.”

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois 6:05 p.m.

“I'm offended by your argument. Many seniors in Quebec struggle to make ends meet. The Harper government raised the retirement age to 67. The current government lowered it again, but in a roundabout way that still tells people to keep working. I can't imagine saying what you just said to struggling seniors.”

Anna Roberts

Conservative 6:05 p.m.

“The cost of living is too high. Liberals are to blame. I support the bill, but it's not enough. Seniors need more. Let's increase the GIS exemption to $10,000.”

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois 6:05 p.m.

“It makes me so happy you support the bill. I want to thank you with my whole heart. I thought all the Conservatives would vote against it. But you said you'll vote yes! This bill helps seniors work more by raising the GIS exemption to $6,500. Seniors 65 and older can keep working without losing all their GIS. I'm looking forward to you talking about my great bill.”

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 6:05 p.m.

“I want to talk about how bad things are for senior women. The committee is hearing about homelessness and hunger. It's really bad. Last time almost everyone voted for my bill. Even some Liberals! But the Liberals in the House voted against it. Now I want to know what my friend thinks will happen with this vote.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We have been passing the baton to one another, and I now pass it on to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon. My colleagues and I at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are currently hearing from witnesses as part of a study on senior women. We are hearing about older women finding themselves on the streets. Homelessness is on the rise. Demand for food hampers is on the rise. What we are hearing is seriously catastrophic. In the last Parliament, with the exception of the Liberals, even the former Liberal MPs who became independent voted in favour of the bill I introduced on this subject. The Conservatives voted for it, the Green Party voted for it and the NDP voted for it. In committee, a report was even adopted unanimously. Everyone voted in favour, including the Liberals. However, once the matter came before the House, the Liberals changed their tune and voted against it. I would like to know what my colleague expects from the vote this time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois 6:05 p.m.

“I want the Liberals to admit they were wrong. They should support this bill to give more money to seniors. Old age security is not enough money. Seniors deserve fairness. I can't think of any reason why the government would vote against this. I want to hear the Liberals try to explain why they won't support it.”

Leslie Church

Liberal 6:10 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Seniors are important. They deserve respect. The government is already helping them. We increased some payments to some seniors in 2022. That was the right decision. We have a program that funds local community groups to run programs for seniors. This helps them stay connected. The program is popular. It spends money in every riding, including yours. Supporting seniors is a priority for the government. It will always be a priority.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-261 and to highlight the supports that the Government of Canada provides to seniors across the country. After a lifetime of hard work, of investing in and building our country, Canadians unquestionably deserve to retire free from the anxiety of struggling to make ends meet. This became even more pressing in recent years. Canada and the rest of the world witnessed a rupture of unprecedented scale: a global pandemic, disrupted supply chains, overseas wars and an unstable international order. These events have all contributed to the rising cost of living, with seniors often among the most affected. That is why the federal government is taking measures to make retirement even more affordable for Canadians. We have implemented targeted measures, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will be deposited into Canadians' bank accounts starting Friday. This benefit will provide additional support to approximately three-quarters of seniors living alone. At the same time, Canada has one of the most reliable public pension systems in the world. This system includes old age security, which is available to all Canadians aged 65 and older, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, which provides additional support to low-income seniors who receive an OAS pension. However, we know that as people age, their income tends to decrease, while certain expenses may increase, particularly health care costs. This situation is made all the more difficult by dint of the fact that seniors have fewer opportunities to increase their income through work. Many are therefore at risk of depleting their savings over time. That is why, in 2022, the Government of Canada introduced a 10% increase in OAS for seniors aged 75 and older. We are directing support to the seniors who need it most, while recognizing that the oldest Canadians often face distinct socio-economic challenges and greater financial vulnerability. This decision was based on data and helps avoid lumping all older adults into the same category. Evidence tells us that seniors over the age of 75 are more likely to be in vulnerable financial circumstances and more likely to need support. The decision to increase OAS by 10% was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that happen more often at age 75 and upwards. Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. In 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those aged 65 to 74. There are also more seniors with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability compared to 32% of seniors under 75. That is quite a jump, and one that is often associated with additional costs and financial burdens. This policy has already helped more than 3.3 million seniors. They received more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase. The benefit, of course, is indexed, and so that will continue to go up. What is more, this measure lifted almost 21,000 seniors out of poverty in 2021, and over 31,300 in 2022, the majority of whom were women. This was the right decision at the right time. It is measured, targeted and responsible. It is just as important for payments to be reliable and timely, especially for seniors who depend on them to meet their basic daily needs. By dedicating the necessary time and resources, we ensure that essential benefits continue to be paid on time, as Canadians have come to expect. This work ensures that all Canadians receive all the benefits they are entitled to, reliably and without interruption. We are strengthening programs such as old age security while ensuring that they are administered reliably and effectively, particularly for those who need them most. By 2059, seniors are expected to represent almost 25% of Canada's population. They are the fastest-growing age group, and we need to know how best to provide support. This support has never been more important. Aside from the direct financial benefits, think about a program like New Horizons for Seniors. It makes a huge positive difference in people's lives. It allows local community groups to provide programming to enrich the lives of seniors in their neighbourhood. It helps seniors stay connected to each other and to their community. It is about creating spaces where every senior belongs. It is about supporting projects for seniors led by seniors that help them stay active, engaged and connected. I can say that in my own riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, we have many organizations that benefit from the New Horizons for Seniors grant, including one of my favourites, the Yonge Eglinton Community Centre, that offers a tremendous range of programs for seniors, to make sure that they are local, engaged, active, meeting with one another and ultimately healthy as they age. Since this program started in 2004, the program has funded over 45,000 projects in more than 400 communities. It reaches more than 900,000 seniors each year. Investments in the program now exceed $1 billion, and the work continues. This year, we invested $54 million to help bring more than 2,600 of those community-based projects to life. In Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, the riding of the member who sponsored this bill, our government has funded 12 projects, representing a total investment of $238,000 going to seniors in her community. I am also pleased to inform the House that the latest intake cycle for the New Horizons for Seniors program opened yesterday. Organizations across Canada can now apply for grants of up to $50,000. That is double the previous maximum of $25,000 to support projects that improve the well-being of seniors and strengthen their communities. I think that, as every member of this House knows from the operation of this program in their ridings right across the country, this is exactly the type of program that is making a difference in the lives of seniors. Countless seniors talk about how the programming that comes from these grants changes their lives, has made them healthier and has made them more active in the community. It is certainly something that we continue to support wholeheartedly. Supporting older Canadians has always been a priority for this government. It will always be a priority for this government.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Anna Roberts

Conservative 6:10 p.m.

“Seniors are important. They deserve respect. This bill would treat all seniors 65 and older the same. Right now, seniors over 75 get more money than seniors 65 to 74. The cost of living is hard for everyone, not just seniors over 75. Conservatives want seniors to have enough money to afford housing, food, and medicine. If seniors want to keep working, we should let them keep more of the money they earn. Liberals caused these high prices. Liberals should support this bill to help all seniors.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of King—Vaughan. Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing forward this important piece of legislation and for contributing to the discussions on supporting seniors across the country. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the seniors who built this country. As many members know, I was fortunate enough to be raised by my grandmother and my great-grandmother. They taught me some of life's most valuable lessons. They taught me the importance of helping neighbours, living within one's means, saving for a rainy day and leaving things better than we found them. Like so many grandparents across the country, they led by example. Seniors built the community that we live in. They raised families, started businesses, volunteered countless hours and contributed to the prosperity we enjoy as Canadians. After a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to retire with dignity and financial security, yet, for too many seniors today, that promise is increasingly out of reach. Canada is in the midst of an affordability crisis that is placing real pressure on fixed incomes. Housing costs have risen sharply. Grocery prices remain elevated and everyday essentials from utilities to transportation continue to strain household budgets. For seniors, there is no flexibility to simply earn more so that they can keep more. When prices rise, their purchasing power falls. This is the reality facing seniors across King—Vaughan and across this country. That is why Bill C-261 is so important. In 2021, the government increased old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. What that decision did was create two classes of seniors. A senior who is 74 years old receives one level of support, while a senior who is 75 receives another. The question many seniors have asked me is simple. Why? Why is one senior considered more deserving than another? Why does affordability suddenly become a problem at age 75 but not at age 74? The reality is that inflation does not care how old someone is. The cost of groceries is the same. The cost of heating a home is the same. The cost of filling a prescription is the same. Many seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 are facing exactly the same challenges as seniors over the age of 75. They are living on fixed incomes and watching the cost of everyday necessities continue to rise. Over the past several years, I have spoken with seniors across the country. I have heard from people who are cutting back on groceries. I have heard from seniors who are delaying medical appointments, postponing home repairs and worried about whether their retirement savings will last. What concerns me the most is that many of the seniors facing the greatest financial pressures are those living alone. A single senior does not pay half the rent because they are one person. They do not pay half the hydro bill or half the property taxes. A single senior often faces higher costs relative to their income because there is only one with whom to share those expenses. Many of these seniors are widows. Many are women who spent decades raising families, caring for loved ones, and contributing to the communities. A 68-year-old widow living alone can face the same affordability challenges as someone who is 76 years old. The bill would also increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. This is another important measure. Many seniors choose to continue working. Some do so because they enjoy staying active. Others do so because they want to supplement their retirement income due to the affordability crisis the Liberal government has caused. Conservatives believe work should be rewarded, not punished. Seniors who are able to, want to and choose to work should be able to earn and keep more of their money without the clawbacks. At a time when many sectors continue to face labour shortages, experienced seniors bring tremendous value to workplaces through mentorship, training and leadership. We should be encouraging their contributions, not discouraging them. Recent data reinforces just how widespread the impact of the cost of living crisis on these seniors has become due to the Liberals. According to Food Banks Canada's 2025 HungerCount report, seniors now account for 8.3% of all food bank clients, up from 6.8% in 2019. At the same time, food banks are seeing more than 2.2 million visits in a single month, breaking all records. The National Institute on Aging has also warned that financial vulnerability among older adults is increasingly driven by structural factors, such as housing costs, inflation and living alone. In particular, single seniors, especially older women, face a significantly higher risk of economic insecurity due to fixed incomes and the rising cost of essentials. Together, these findings show that affordability pressures are not limited to a narrow age group but are affecting seniors broadly across Canada, regardless of whether they are 65, 75 or 85 years old. I recognize that this bill faces challenges. Like its predecessor, Bill C-319, this bill will likely require a royal recommendation because it involves new public spending. I hope that my Liberal colleagues in government will recognize this session that affordability challenges do not begin at the age of 75. Seniors deserve fairness, and that means ensuring that support is available to all seniors who are struggling with the rising cost of living due to Liberal mismanagement. Conservatives have consistently stood up for seniors. Conservatives believe they should be able to afford groceries, medication and housing. Conservatives believe that if they choose to continue working, they should be rewarded rather than penalized by the government. Conservatives believe that after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve a government that respects their contributions and understands their challenges. As Parliament considers this bill, I hope members remember the senior who often falls through the cracks, the widow living alone, the senior renting on a fixed income, and the older Canadian who has done everything right but is struggling to keep up with the rising costs due to the affordability crisis that the Liberal government has created. Bill C-261 would not solve every challenge facing seniors, but it would help restore fairness to a system that currently treats some seniors differently simply because of their age. For those reasons, I will support Bill C-261, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 6:25 p.m.

“I want more money for seniors. All seniors deserve money, not just the older ones. The current system is unfair. It creates two classes of seniors. Many seniors are living in poverty. They struggle to afford basic necessities. Some seniors want to keep working. We should let them earn more without penalty. This bill will help all seniors live with dignity. The government should spend more money to fix this problem.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Eric St-Pierre

Liberal 6:35 p.m.

“I want to cheer for how much our party has done to help seniors. We've increased some pensions. We plan to lower some taxes. Our policies are based on sound data. I want to cheer for my colleague who really cares about seniors. The other party's bill has good intentions, but we need balanced and sustainable policies. I want to cheer for our party's balanced approach. Supporting seniors and investing in younger Canadians are not competing priorities. We can and must do both.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about an issue that matters to Canadians in every region of our country, which is how we can better support seniors and ensure they can live and age with dignity, security and independence. Seniors have helped build the Canada that we know today. They have raised families, built businesses, contributed to their communities, volunteered their time and strengthened our economy through decades of hard work. For example, in my riding of Honoré-Mercier, Italian Canadians helped build Rivière des Prairies decades ago, and with their hard work, built a strong community. While I am here, I would also like to wish Italian seniors in my riding a happy Italian Heritage Month. Seniors deserve a retirement that is secure, dignified and supported by strong public programs. Over the past several years, the federal government has taken steps to strengthen Canada's retirement income system and improve the financial security of older Canadians. We increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over, responding to data that showed that the older people get, the more expenses they have. We have also strengthened the Canada pension plan, helping future retirees receive higher pension benefits. In fact, in the recent spring economic update, our government signalled our plans to reduce Canada pension plan contributions to 9.5%. Additionally, recognizing the rising cost of living, we provided targeted support to Canadians. Measures such as pausing the federal fuel excise tax, cutting income tax for middle-class Canadians and investing in housing, infrastructure and the economy are helping Canadians across the country no matter their age. It is important to acknowledge the intent behind Bill C-261. All members of the House share the goal of improving the well-being of seniors. For example, I think of my colleague from Winnipeg North, who is probably one of the strongest advocates for seniors and inspires us all here today. We recognize that many seniors face financial pressures and that income security remains a critical issue. However, it is also important to ensure a balanced and sustainable approach to the Canadian pension system so that it continues to benefit generations to come. When our government increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older, that decision was informed by evidence showing that older seniors generally face greater financial vulnerability. As Canadians age, they are more likely to experience declining health, increasing health care-related expenses and reduced opportunities to supplement their income through employment. They are also more likely to outlive their savings and other retirement resources. This is a sound decision supported by data. With respect to the proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, we recognize the value of helping seniors who choose to remain in the workforce. Many older Canadians continue to work part-time, whether to supplement their income, remain active or just maintain social connections. That is why in 2019, the federal government increased the GIS work exemption to $5,000, allowing seniors to keep receiving their full pensions without being penalized for taking up some time to supplement their income. Canada's population is aging. The number of seniors is growing rapidly, including in my own riding, and expenditures on the retirement income program continue to increase. This reality requires thoughtful policy decisions that balance the importance of our public pension system with the current workforce, which supports it and expects it to be there for them when they retire. Our government knows that supporting seniors and investing in younger Canadians are not competing priorities. We can and must do both. That is why we have supported measures such as strengthening and protecting retirement benefits for seniors while also investing in housing, skills training, education and affordability measures that help younger Canadians build secure futures and grow the economy. Every member of the House wants seniors to live with dignity and financial security. We all share a commitment to ensuring that older Canadians receive the support they need. For the generations that built this country, that commitment remains unwavering.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Dominique Vien

Conservative 6:40 p.m.

“I rise to cheer my party's care for seniors. Our seniors critic knows seniors issues because she travels around. Parliament has the power to fix a problem for seniors. In 2021 the government increased some seniors' pensions but left out others. This created an unfair situation. We cannot let it continue. Other parties tried to fix it once before but failed. We want to try again. We are stubborn and won't let it go. The government should fix this mistake and give the same increase to the seniors who were left out. Seniors aren't asking for a handout. They just want to be treated fairly. Some seniors need to keep working to make ends meet. Other seniors work to stay happy and healthy. The bill raises how much seniors can earn without losing guaranteed income. Fix the mistake and stop taking their money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, as we were not sure I would have enough time. I would like to thank my two colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, who spoke so eloquently, as well as my colleague from King—Vaughan, who gave a really poignant speech about seniors. She is able to do so because she travels around many ridings. As the Conservative Party of Canada's critic for seniors, she is well aware of everything to do with seniors and what affects them, especially when it comes to the cost of living. I think that, in the House, we all have an opportunity in front of us. As members of Parliament, we have an opportunity to use our power to correct a situation that is hurting seniors aged 65 and over. I hope we all have enough dignity and foresight to show compassion and take action. The problem is very simple. In 2021, the Liberal government decided to take an important step, make a meaningful gesture, by increasing the pensions of seniors aged 75 and older by 10%. However, it stopped halfway. The government omitted a significant portion of seniors from its approach, namely people aged 65 to 74. They were completely excluded from this increase. That created inequity and an unusual situation. As parliamentarians, as people who meet with seniors all the time, we cannot allow this situation to continue. We absolutely must use this opportunity to fix this. Our Bloc Québécois colleagues tried to do so once. Everyone here agreed, except the Liberals. The bill died on the Order Paper because it required a royal recommendation, since it involved spending. My colleague worked tirelessly to reintroduce a bill. Since we are so stubborn, we decided to support it once again. We are giving our colleagues on the government side an opportunity to take action and get it right. Seniors are not asking for a handout. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, who have contributed to society and who, at age 65, need an income, especially during these very difficult times when the cost of living has skyrocketed to levels not seen in 40 years. While their fixed incomes remain the same, the cost of living continues to add to their headaches. Between paying for food, medication and housing, seniors can no longer make ends meet. What the bill says is that we will be fair and fix the situation. Someone somewhere made a mistake, and we are going to fix it. We will allow seniors aged 65 to 74 to receive the same increase, an increase of 10%, as was granted to seniors aged 75 and over in 2021. Another interesting approach in the bill is that it gives seniors who want to continue working the opportunity to do so without being penalized because their income is too high. That plays a role in determining the amount they can receive under the GIS. The bill tabled by Mrs. DeBellefeuille proposes an increase from $5,000 to $6,5000 to accurately reflect the situation of many seniors who decide to work. Some work because they have to in order to make ends meet. Others do so to keep up their spirits and stay in good health. Still, it is not right for the government to creep up from behind and take their money. I congratulate my colleague.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Old Age Security Act

Claude DeBellefeuille

Brad Vis

Claude DeBellefeuille

Anna Roberts

Claude DeBellefeuille

Andréanne Larouche

Claude DeBellefeuille

Leslie Church

Anna Roberts

Andréanne Larouche

Eric St-Pierre

Dominique Vien