Bill C-12

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement)

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to exclude from a person’s income any payment under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act , Part VIII.4 of the Employment Insurance Act , the Canada Recovery Benefits Act or the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act for the purposes of calculating the amount of the guaranteed income supplement and allowances payable in respect of any month after June 2022.

Old Age Security Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her eloquent speech.

I would like to hear what she has to say about the services that the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada provide to the Inuit and indigenous peoples. I understand that there is a serious lack of communication from these departments and that many errors could otherwise have been avoided.

How does she propose that the government improve service delivery, especially to the first nations?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Madam Speaker, the services for Inuit might be slightly better compared to first nations and Métis. In the past they have tried to hire bilingual Inuktitut-speaking agents, but the availability, the consistency and the retention has not allowed the services to consistently be provided in Inuktitut, so there can definitely be improvements.

Because of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, both the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada have obligations to meet language requirements for the services that are offered for Inuit. Unfortunately, those targets are hardly ever met. I am still learning my role as the indigenous critic and I am still not fully aware of the issues for other first nations and Métis languages in Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member so clearly laid out the structural challenges that the federal government has created and that Nunavummiut face. Every time I hear her speak in this chamber, I am always struck by what a strong and powerful advocate she is for her territory.

In my riding there are seniors who have lost access to provincial benefits because of the GIS clawback. For example, the rental assistance program SAFER requires recipients to be on GIS. However, the impact of CERB repayment requirements on people who are on income assistance have an even more dire impact because of the government's miscommunication on CERB.

Could the member speak a bit more about the difference it would make for Nunavummiut seniors and elders to have amnesty when it comes to CERB repayments?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Madam Speaker, it would be critically important.

The information we need to get for all first nations, Métis and Inuit needs to be in the language that is the preference of our first peoples. When people understand this information, people will use it for their purpose. It is so important that these programs, whatever they are—

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

I apologize, but we have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate in this place. I am glad that everyone is so chipper even though the debate is going late here this evening. I also thank you, Madam Speaker, for guiding the debate over the course of this evening.

As we address the many challenges we face as a nation, I think it is important that I just make a couple of comments that are not directly related to the subject matter at hand. With the utmost seriousness, we are seeing some of the events taking place around the world, specifically the unrest in Ukraine. My heart and my prayers are with the people of Ukraine this evening, as it seems like a rapidly evolving situation there.

Certainly, it is of the utmost importance that our country has a strong response. I know for myself, and for the members of the Ukrainian diaspora who live in my constituency, it is a very serious evening as they wait on what could be an incredibly challenging time for that country. I would just like to acknowledge that. I want the people of Ukraine who might be watching this to know we are thinking of them and praying for them. I hope, as we face these challenges, that Canada will be there to stand for democracy and what is right in the world.

We are here again for the second debate this week for which closure has been invoked. For all of those who are watching at home, as I am sure there are many, it is when the government moves a motion to limit debate on a particular issue. In this case, it is a problem that the government created. As it was yesterday, when we entered into debate on the situation regarding rapid tests, it is pandemic-related.

Canadians expect all of us in this place to be responsive to the challenges that we face as a country. I would like to backtrack a bit, to July of last year. This concerns those who are 65 and older and, quite frankly, many other Canadians who have depended on or received certain benefits from the government. It is on July 1 that they, in many cases, figure out exactly what the calculation is for their next year's benefits.

As we finished up the spring sitting of Parliament this past June, I started hearing from constituents, as I am sure others in this place started hearing from their constituents, who were concerned that their benefits were going to be clawed back. What has become commonly referred to as the GIS clawback has had a significant impact on many of my constituents. I am sure I am not alone, as I have listened to some of the speeches by other members over the course of the debate today.

Members would think that the government would be quick to respond on what appeared to be a fairly technical bureaucratic issue with the way the benefits were calculated. It depended on how a particular senior, in this case, applied for a benefit, and whether they applied through the EI system or the CRA system, which administered the CERB and other pandemic benefits. In fact, one of my constituents said they applied on the wrong day. If they had applied one day earlier, they would have been okay, but in this case they were facing a significant personal difficulty because of that one-day difference causing a GIS clawback.

There is a reason why I wanted to talk about that time, seven months ago. The government had a responsibility, and I started bringing this up. Letters were sent, my staff were working with constituents, and we were trying to work with the minister's office.

I saw an alarming lack of a response from the various avenues of government that should be ready, one would expect, to serve Canadians, especially some of the most vulnerable in this country, who depend on things like the GIS.

About a month and a half later, after many of these benefits were recalculated for many seniors across this country, which media reports at the time were talking about, we found out that the reason the government was not responsive was because it was putting all its energy and focus not in the best interest of Canadians, but, rather, in an election. It is incredibly unfortunate that however many months later, six or seven, we are now finally getting to the meat of addressing the challenges that these Canadians are facing.

It is unfortunate because this highlights what has been a very concerning trend with the Liberal government. We heard the Liberals say today that somehow it is the Conservatives' fault that we even want to ask simple questions about Bill C-12. I know it is not only Conservatives who have questions. I have heard other questions from my colleague in the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party. There are a lot of questions, and the Liberals will have to forgive me if them saying, “just trust me” is not a good enough answer when it comes to addressing the challenges that these Canadians are facing.

When Canadians expected their government to be working for them, it was planning an election, yet it now claims it needs a team Canada approach and that it is the bad Conservatives who are all about delay, or whatever its talking points are for the day. The reality could not be further from the truth. We have a bill before us that would attempt to fix what was a Liberal problem, which has had a pretty significant impact on the challenges faced by seniors.

I spoke to my constituency assistant and case manager earlier today and told her I was going to be speaking this evening on Bill C-12, which has to do with the GIS. I asked her to share with me some of the calls that my office received over the last number of weeks, just a light synopsis so that I could share some of the challenges that seniors are facing. She sent me an email with a number of stories, one of which I would like to read.

A constituent named Larry had to move out of his home, the home he had lived in for more than 40 years, because he could not afford his bills. Further to that, shortly after selling his home and moving into a rental property, he got a notice from the landlord saying that his rent was going to increase the maximum allowed because of the challenges associated with heating costs. Larry had thought that he was in a good position going into retirement, and now he is facing incredible challenges. My constituency assistant listened to his story and his uncertainty about whether he would be able to even get the benefits we are talking about here tonight. These are real stories about real people.

A number of folks have reached out about the cost of heating. I have been sent dozens of heating bills from constituents over the course of the last number of months, as I know members opposite have as well. What is quite tragic is that often the cost of energy is one of the smaller items on those bills, aside from things like the carbon tax, distribution fees and whatnot. Not all of them are in federal jurisdiction, but the costs, especially for those on fixed incomes, cannot simply be absorbed.

There are many challenges that seniors are facing, such as the cost of living. A number of seniors have shared that when they go to the grocery store, they now, more than ever, have to look at things like the cost of milk and decide whether they can buy a jug of milk that week or whether they have to find a less expensive alternative. They have to decide whether they can afford meat or not.

One senior shared with me that her benefit increase, according to inflation, was 65¢ a month. I am not sure if members have been to the grocery store in the last little while, but with the cost of everything, there is not much we could buy for 65¢. These are the challenges that real people are facing.

Further, I have heard from some seniors, including those who have been impacted by this GIS clawback, that they have had to take on debt in order to make it through. Now they are watching the evening news and hearing talk of interest rates. The debts they have had to take on are not long-term, secure lending options; these were last-ditch efforts to try to put food on their tables, and now they are hearing talk about interest rates and feeling more uncertainty.

It is incredibly unfortunate that this is the reality for so many, yet I hear the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister, whenever she is asked a question about the economy, making accusations that the Conservatives are somehow dragging down the economy. In real terms, the inflation in this country is about twice the amount that wage growth is. That is the minimal indexing that seniors' pensions and benefits get as well as the young family or the student who is simply having trouble making ends meet.

It may be all well and fine for property owners. It may be all well and fine for those who have consistent incomes with guaranteed escalators that many blue-collar Canadians would dream about, but when it comes to the real impacts of the policies of the government, those policies are hurting Canadians.

When we come back to the reality faced by Bill C-12, we do have a chance here to fix a problem, but I think what needs to be noted very importantly is that the role of this place is to ensure against things like the mistakes that have been highlighted and the government's admission of those mistakes through the tabling of Bill C-12, and they cannot blame the significant delays that have been then faced on the Conservatives.

I can tell the House a secret: The only person in the House who can decide when an election will be called outside of the fixed election date that was brought in by the former Harper government is the man who sits in the chair across the aisle. The election had nothing to do with the opposition. I am sure that if the Prime Minister was able to find some creative way to meander around a cleverly worded talking point, he would try to blame the opposition, but he chose to call an election, so here we are at the last minute and the last hour, trying to get this stuff sorted out for Canadians.

I do not think I am even talking in hypotheticals, but my submission is that had we had the chance to more thoroughly debate many of these things, we would not be in this situation. We were criticized yesterday, and it is very relevant to this debate, for asking simple questions about things like the delivery of rapid tests. We have heard many questions today about what this would look like in terms of its possible impacts on future benefits for seniors. In fact, when I heard the minister talk earlier today, she was being completely misleading about former Conservative policies regarding benefits in what I think was an attempt to score some cheap political points. It was truly misleading when she brought forward some of those comments.

This place is unique in the sense that every corner of our country is represented. There is no forum like it. Literally every square inch of our country is represented by the 338 individuals who have the honour of sitting in these seats. What is important and what makes up the strength of our democratic system is the fact that we come to this place with different levels of expertise and different political affiliations. Although I was somewhat disappointed with the number of seats each party got after the last election, which the Prime Minister said he would not call but did anyway, we still ensured that every square inch of this country was represented.

The fact is, we can have debate and can hear from the people of this country. We have a wide diversity of perspectives represented, not just the political and ideological perspectives, but perspectives from different backgrounds. We have a medical doctor who sits as a Conservative, and it is interesting that there are some spin doctors on the other side. Regardless, it speaks to the strength of our system. We have lawyers, social workers and farmers, and I am proud to have a farming background. It is also interesting to note, especially for a certain demographic that happens to be involved in a certain protest that has dominated headlines of late, that I am proud to have a class 1 licence, which means that I can drive those big rigs out front. If anybody needs help moving them I can actually do it legally. I am not sure the Prime Minister can. It is just a little something I am proud of, like the fact that I still farm. I am sure some of my colleagues can share some fun experiences about that.

The strength of this place is in the diversity represented: women, men and different ethnic origins. There are some with a Ukrainian background, and I mentioned some of the challenges they are facing. There are some who are fairly new to Canada, fairly recent citizens, and there are some, like me, who are multi-generational. That is why I find it so frustrating that over the course of my time here since being elected in 2019, the Liberals have seemed to avoid, at all costs, the democratic discourse this place needs to function. That harms our ability to succeed as a country. That harms our ability to be able to function well.

We will disagree about different aspects of politics. Chances are that there are those within this place who will want to read and agree with the opinion columns of the Toronto Star. There are those who would probably agree with what is talked about on rabble.ca. There are those who read the National Post or The Globe and Mail. It speaks to the strength of our democratic institutions.

As I come to the end of this very important discussion, I think it is important to acknowledge, with regard to the substance of this bill, that so many people have been affected by it. We have to take the time that is needed to get it right, because in many cases, seniors like Larry need us to get things right, not like with the CEBA. I think it was after the third or fourth try that it was finally fixed. There are so many other examples, and the discourse that happens in this place is so very important for solving and dealing with the challenges Canadians are facing.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from the member opposite. We are discussing a bill relating to seniors tonight.

I have a question for the member. Does he still agree with his party's position, which apparently has not evolved, at least not that I am aware of, that the age of eligibility for OAS should be 67, which they changed it to a number of years ago under the Harper government, or should it in fact be 65, which is what this government restored it to? What does he think about that?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there it is. We have a Liberal who thinks they can score a cheap political shot. It was the minister, interestingly, in her remarks, who suggested that that age of eligibility was going to be applied to everything, I think, probably even to the child benefit. Wait until someone is 67 for the child benefit. That could not be further from the truth.

First, let us get the facts on the record. The previous Harper government—

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

The question was short and the answer has to be short too.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am in Alberta right now, my colleague's home province, so it is a bit earlier for me. I am a little lucky for that.

I would also like to thank him for his words on Ukraine. It is something that all of us are seized with at the moment.

I agree with the member when he talks about the cruel delays the Liberals have put our most vulnerable seniors through. As we go forward, I think everyone in this House wants to move as fast as we possibly can for seniors. One of the times that I was most proud of being a member of Parliament during this particular sitting was when the Conservatives moved all stages of the conversion therapy ban. The Conservatives were the ones who made the motion so that we would ban conversion therapy. I was so proud of the Conservatives then.

We have this moment where they could do the same thing and move fast for seniors. Why do they not see that this is an opportunity to use the powers that we have as parliamentarians to get help to seniors as fast as we can?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, let me get back to finish the facts about the previous member's response—

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

Answer questions as they come. Thank you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to being able to debate that at length at some point in time, which would be very, very important.

A simple response is that there was a lot of dialogue about the issue which the member mentioned that did take place in the last Parliament. There was a lot of work that got it to the point where the decision was made for that to be fast tracked in this Parliament, but we are literally debating a fix to a problem with a program that the government created.

Forgive my skepticism when it comes to my lack of trust with the fact that the Liberals would have gone through the due diligence to actually get it right. Challenges with CEBA have had to be addressed three times. Time and time again, there have been many examples where the government has made claims that a team Canada approach was needed, yet what happened? We ended up back here in this place having to fix its mistakes.

I think there is a healthy level of skepticism that many of us have when it comes to ensuring that we can do exactly what our jobs are. The fact that we are sitting until midnight—

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

Now it is time for another question.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is such a riveting debate. I especially enjoyed the at-length comments from my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot on diversity and how we represent 338 unique corners of this world. I happen to think my riding is the number one riding in Canada. I have glaciers, ski hills and all sorts of great things.

One of the things that we all come here to do as members of Parliament is go to committees. I love committees, but with this bill we have been prevented from going to committee. What I am worried about with this legislation, and with the other bill that passed the other day, has to do with the importance of committees in debating legislation. Why should we not bring this bill before committee? Would Canadians not be better served if we spent one day to debate this bill at committee and go clause by clause before the other House returns next week?