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.

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.

I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.

Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.

The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.

If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.

Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:

it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...

The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.

The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Old Age Security Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

moved that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce my first bill today, Bill C-319. The summary reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person’s employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic, such as isolation, anxiety and financial hardship.

That said, I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. Instead, I want to present seniors as a grey force consisting of people who want to continue contributing to our society. They built Quebec, and we owe them respect.

Bill C-319 is designed to improve the financial situation of seniors and is structured around two parts. In my speech today, I will first address the part of my bill that deals with increasing old age security, or OAS, and then I will address the part that deals with increasing the qualifying threshold for the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. I will end my speech by explaining a bit more about the impact inflation has on the financial health of seniors.

To begin, the first part aims to eliminate the current age discrimination. In the 2021 budget, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure has created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. Seniors are not taking it lying down.

The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; it affects all of them. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors.

In 2021, there were 2.8 million people 75 and over compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. This opinion is shared by FADOQ and its president, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, who had this to say about the measure: “In principle, there is a good intention to provide financial assistance to seniors, but, in reality, people under 75 who are eligible for old age security get absolutely nothing.”

To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice, and this bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. It is not true that the one-time vote-seeking cheque of $500 for people 75 and over in August 2021 will be of any help. Seniors even feel that they have been used.

With Bill C‑319, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a 10% increase to old age security starting at age 65 for every month after June 2023. For example, at present, this increase would raise the benefits paid to single, widowed, divorced or separated persons from $1,032 to $1,135.31 every month. As for the amount paid when both spouses are retired, it would increase from $621.25 to $683.35 per month. You do not live in the lap of luxury with that amount. You certainly do not go down south, and you do not stash your money away in tax havens.

Second, with inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors.

Back in 2021, during the last federal election, the Bloc Québécois platform proposed to raise the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000 in order to allow those who are willing and able to continue working to do so without a significant reduction in their GIS benefit, which is derived from old age security.

Given the exceptional transformation in Canada's demographics in recent decades, there are now more people aged 65 and over, and they now outnumber children under 15. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.

In fact, Employment and Social Development Canada released a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising Initiatives” in May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan. The document identifies the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors. These include a lack of education or training, health issues, and work-life balance issues due to a lack of workplace accommodations. The study then proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce.

Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past.

I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, the Liberals have taken half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. Currently, old age security payments are not enough to weather the affordability crisis and the dramatic price increases for housing or intermediate housing resources.

Six years ago, in June 2017, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance published a report on the financial impact and local considerations of an aging population. Everyone agrees that the economic situation of households has deteriorated significantly with the pandemic, and that sudden inflation is hurting Quebeckers and Canadians. The committee's findings and proposed solutions at that time could not be clearer. It recommended:

That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with its provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners, put measures in place to increase labour force participation of underrepresented groups and to better match labour demand with labour supply in order to mitigate the negative impact of population aging on the economy and on the labour market.

As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the pandemic in June 2020. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect effects of this hastily put together aid. Nevertheless, small and medium enterprises are increasingly stressed out as they desperately look for workers, and about the closure of many shops and the decline in some areas.

We believe that the tax contributions, the tax incentives and the income exemption rates on the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement do not entice older people to return to work because they will be denied hundreds of dollars a month.

Let us not forget the sad irony of Liberal measures such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, which were considered income during the health crisis. In the end, they took away significant sums of money from the most fragile and least fortunate in the population. This aberration was finally corrected by the government in February 2022 after several months of representations by the Bloc Québécois to the Minister of Seniors when Bill C‑12 was tabled.

At the time, Bloc Québécois researchers found that GIS recipients who received CERB lost 50 cents of the supplement for every dollar they received, so a tax rate of 50%, almost double that of the richest people in society. However, at the time, no one informed affected taxpayers of this dramatic impact on disposable household income. During the study for this legislation, the Bloc Québécois pointed out that this major injustice is both harmful and absurd. The FADOQ network called the situation a tragedy.

Let me get back to what we are suggesting. The exemption on earnings and miscellaneous income would increase from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. That would leave an additional $1,500 in the pockets of all claimants aged 65 and older. Compared to the 2021 proposal, then, the current bill suggests an additional $500, for a total of $6,500, to offset the deteriorating economic situation. The goal of these two measures combined is to increase both the monthly base amounts and the annual working income. We believe that this will help seniors deal with inflation and the current hardships. It is the least we can do, to allow millions of people who built our communities to live with dignity.

Third, I want to talk about the impact of inflation. Do not forget that old age security is taxable. The OAS and GIS amounts are revised in January, April, July and October, ostensibly to reflect the cost of living. These benefits were indexed annually until 1973. At that time, inflation was very high, particularly for fuel and food, and officials felt that quarterly indexing would better protect against unexpectedly large price increases during the year. By the summer of 2020, however, even FADOQ had decried the fact that these increases will not even buy a coffee at Tim Horton's.

The consumption habits of seniors differ from those of the rest of the population. As a result, they experience different inflation. Statistics Canada studied this difference in 2005. It found that seniors spend proportionately less on transportation, gasoline or a new car, but much more on housing and food. For every $100, they spend $56, compared to $45 for all other households. Surely we all agree that housing and groceries are not luxuries.

What is the impact of that inflation? From 1992 to 2004, the average annual inflation rate was 1.95% for senior-only households, compared to 1.84% for other households. Again, seniors are harder hit.

I will refresh the Liberals' memory. On March 19, 2022, the Liberal member for Etobicoke North moved motion No. 45. If the Liberal Party and the Green Party are consistent with their support—14 members from these two parties jointly supported this motion—then Bill C‑319 should be adopted.

I will read the text of the motion, because it is worth it:

That:

(a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion.

On June 15, 2022, 301 members finally voted in favour this motion, while 25 voted against. Out of the 326 members present, only 25 members from the New Democratic Party voted against this motion.

Seniors living on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet because their daily expenses are increasing faster than their pension payments. Old age security, or OAS, is adjusted to inflation every three months, while the Canada pension plan, or CPP, is adjusted every January. However, OAS and the CPP are not enough for some people to make ends meet.

People are feeling the shock of the 10.3% year-over-year increase in the cost of food, as reported by Statistics Canada in the year leading up to September. Food prices rose faster than the generalized cost of living index, which rose 6.9% year over year in September, also according to Statistics Canada.

I met with some representatives from the Salvation Army this morning who told me that they too have noticed, like many other support organizations, that demand for food has doubled, and that a large portion of the demand is from seniors. It is inconceivable that this permanent increase in the OAS, which is the first since 1973, so the first in 50 years, is not indexed to inflation. We hope that this will help seniors who, as we have seen, are turning more and more to food banks.

Let us remember that, in the summer of 2021, one month before the election, the federal government handed out $500 cheques to seniors who were eligible for the old age security pension to supposedly help them with affordability issues related to the pandemic. However, it is going to take a lot more than an ad hoc approach. We really need to focus on the long term.

Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged. It is $666.83 a month. With that low monthly income, it is not surprising that Canada has the generation of retirees facing the greatest inequities and injustices.

Since the 2019 election, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the government to increase the old age security pension for seniors as of age 65 and has been calling the government out on its discrimination and ageism against seniors aged 65 to 74, so this bill is a logical extension of our position.

In closing, I would like to thank Gisèle Tassé‑Goodman from the FADOQ, Pierre‑Claude Poulin from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and Diane Dupéré from the Association québécoise des retraités et des retraitées des secteurs public et parapublic for their support of this bill. Like me, they are just the mouthpiece for seniors whose stories they hear every day. I would be remiss if I failed to mention all of the seniors groups from all over Quebec who also sent me messages of support. They think that Bill C-319 is the least we can do to give seniors a little help and bit of fresh air.

One last thing: I wish the House would realize the importance of this bill, which is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is just common sense to help seniors age with dignity. Based on the feedback I have received so far, even from seniors outside Quebec, all I have to say is let us work together. Similar motions have been passed many times, including the Bloc Québécois motion calling for an increase in OAS as part of our opposition day. Only the Liberals voted against it. They were the only holdouts. This time, I am reaching out to them. I am asking them to eliminate the injustice they created and vote with us in favour of Bill C‑319.

Once again, this is a matter of dignity for seniors.

Retirement Income

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 45, brought forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North. The motion asks for the following:

That:

(a) the House recognize that (i) seniors deserve a dignified retirement free from financial worry, (ii) many seniors are worried about their retirement savings running out, (iii) many seniors are concerned about being able to live independently in their own homes; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake a study examining population aging, longevity, interest rates, and registered retirement income funds, and report its findings and recommendations to the House within 12 months of the adoption of this motion.

My riding of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley in Manitoba is home to many seniors. Seniors helped build this country and our communities. I have always said that they need to be treated with the respect they are due for building our communities while raising their families. We all stand on their shoulders in this place.

I stay in touch with many seniors I represent, because I value their experience and their wisdom. Not a day goes by that I do not receive an important email or phone call from seniors I represent who are concerned about their finances. Many are on fixed incomes from their retirement pensions. They are worried about rampant inflation, which has been directly caused by the massive, out-of-control quantitative easing program instituted by the Bank of Canada.

Even the Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, acknowledged that he and his lieutenants misjudged the strength of inflation at the start of the year, and pledged to act “as forcefully as needed” to make up for the mistake. During testimony at the Senate banking committee on April 27, he said that we are coming “out of the deepest recession we've ever had, but...we got a lot of things right and we got some things wrong, and we are adjusting.” Inflation eats away at pension income because price inflation makes everything more expensive. It erodes the basic fixed income of every senior. The bank's main responsibility was to keep inflation at 2%, but now inflation is at almost 7% because of the bank's mismanagement of this issue, as admitted by the governor.

I note that the motion is also concerned about interest rates. As a result of the bank's mismanagement of inflation, it has been forced to raise interest rates. The bank now uses higher interest rates as a tool to curb inflation. Higher interest rates are great if people have savings, but if they are still paying a mortgage or a car loan, which many seniors do, this just compounds the problem. Any discussion of this matter should in fact include a discussion of how to protect seniors against inflation eroding their incomes. In my view, this motion is very timely. Seniors on fixed incomes have been hurt by the bank's mistakes and now have to make difficult decisions around what foods they can afford, or whether they can afford to visit their grandchildren or buy them presents.

On top of this, to add insult to injury, instead of providing an adequate income for Canadian seniors, by any identifiable metric the government has done just the opposite. It promised to help seniors and Canadians suffering during the deadliest pandemic the globe has seen in a century. In order to facilitate this, the government implemented COVID-related financial relief. Despite warnings from its own ministerial officials, the government sat on its laurels and allowed this benefit, which was taxable, to decimate tens of thousands of vulnerable, low-income seniors this past year by clawing back their GIS. Only after months of advocacy by my Conservative colleagues did the Minister of Seniors finally take action to fix her government's mistake by introducing Bill C-12 and issuing a one-time payment to affected seniors. Better late than never, as they say.

While I am happy to support the motion, I just cannot help but feel that this will be just another study collecting dust on the shelf in the minister's office. The fact of the matter is that these issues have already been studied many times. Seniors do not want or need another study. They want action now, not a year from now or after yet another study. Seniors want action right now, not 12 months from now or three or four years from now. We have a number of studies that are either done or in the process of being done, and recommendations to follow up on. The HUMA committee is currently studying the effects of COVID-19 on seniors. This study covers much of the same ground as what this motion calls for. There will be a large overlap between the information the committee has already gathered and what the member's motion hopes to achieve.

Also, back in 2018, a motion moved by the member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 106, seconded by many House caucus colleagues, asked the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study and report back to the House on important issues such as increasing income security for vulnerable seniors and ensuring quality of life and equality for all seniors via the development of a national seniors strategy, among other things. Seniors are still waiting for that national strategy four years later.

The result of the committee's work was a 142-page report entitled “Advancing Inclusion and Quality of Life for Seniors”, which made 29 recommendations. Many of these recommendations speak directly to the motion we are debating here today, and the government has unsurprisingly failed to act on many of them.

There is not time to review every recommendation in the 10 minutes I am allotted, but one of the areas my hon. friend mentioned in her motion is interest rates and registered retirement income funds. As I said, we on this side agree that affordability for seniors was an issue before COVID and before the recent record increase in inflation and the cost of living under the government's watch. This was caused largely by the mistakes of the Bank of Canada, which it has admitted to.

The very first recommendation of the 2018 report reads, “That Employment and Social Development Canada work with Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to review and strengthen existing federal income support programs for vulnerable seniors to ensure they provide adequate income.” Four long and difficult years later, seniors know that this recommendation, along with the national strategy, has been ignored.

In addition to the GIS clawback I mentioned earlier in July of last year, the then minister of seniors announced a one-time payment of $500 to seniors aged 75 and over, stating, “Canadian seniors can always count on us to listen, understand their needs and work hard to deliver for them.” However, apparently, the government was unaware that one particularly important need for seniors, especially those on benefits, is to receive timely and accurate tax information.

Once again, the government's incompetence resulted in over 90,000 Canadian seniors receiving the wrong tax information, jeopardizing their ability to file their taxes on time. They now run the risk of once again having their benefits cut off through no fault of their own. That is why our party advocated for the government to extend the deadline for seniors filing their taxes so there would remain zero risk of vulnerable seniors having their benefits taken from them by the government once again.

When it comes to seniors, the government is all talk but little action. Seniors cannot afford to be an afterthought when it is implementing policies and programs designed to help them. We must work together as a House to deliver results. That is why I will be voting in favour of my hon. colleague's motion. I look forward to seeing the findings implemented efficiently, effectively, speedily, and most importantly, not another four years down the road.

Seniors

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we know just how challenging this pandemic has been for seniors. That is why, from the very beginning, we have been there to support them. On April 19, we delivered a one-time payment for those affected seniors.

We also passed Bill C-12, which ensures that seniors, particularly working and low-income seniors, are never again impacted by any pandemic benefits they take.

We will continue to ensure that we support and deliver for seniors every step of the way.

Retirement Income

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 45, brought forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North.

While I am certainly happy to support this motion, I just cannot help but feel it will result in nothing more than another study collecting dust on a shelf in a minister's office.

We have been down this road far too often with the government. Unfortunately, it has the habit of proposing framework after framework, study after study, and road map after road map, and then fails to actually implement any changes.

Seniors need action now and not in 12 months. We have a number of studies that are either done or in the process of being done and recommendations that need to be followed up on. For example, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at two studies that are quite relevant. While I am not privy to the internal mechanics of that committee, I do know the committee is undertaking a study of labour shortages that includes but is not limited to the care economy, which is a sector that encompasses health care workers and personal support workers. I imagine the study would be relevant to the areas of aging and longevity.

HUMA also has a study on the docket to study the effects of COVID-19 on seniors. I assume this is to finish up the fantastic work it did in the last Parliament. Going through the hours of testimony and the many briefs submitted to the committee, it is very clear there will be a large overlap between the information the committee has already gathered and what my hon. colleague's motion hopes to achieve.

I cannot fault the hon. member for presenting her motion on something she is clearly so passionate about instead of waiting for the studies of committees, which are out of her control, to be drafted and returned to this place. That being said, I want to highlight a previous study the same committee did when the Liberal government held the majority of seats in this place.

Back in 2016, a motion moved by the member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 106, which was seconded by a litany of his caucus colleagues, among other things asked the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study and report back to the House on important issues such as increasing income security for vulnerable seniors and ensuring quality of life and equality for all seniors and the development of a national seniors strategy.

The result of the committee's work was a 142-page report titled “Advancing Inclusion and Quality of Life for Seniors”, which made 29 recommendations. Many of these recommendations speak directly to the motion presented by the colleague across the aisle, and many the government has unsurprisingly failed to act on.

I could go through each one of these, but I only have 10 minutes so I will touch on the first section of the first recommendation. One of the areas my hon. colleague mentions is interest rates and registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. We, on this side of the House, agree affordability for seniors was an issue before COVID and before the recent record increase in inflation and cost of living under the government's watch. Further, we need to keep in mind that exhausted and starving seniors do not even have RRIFs.

The very first recommendation of the 2018 report reads, in part:

That Employment and Social Development Canada work with Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to review and strengthen existing federal income support programs for vulnerable seniors to ensure they provide adequate income.

If the seniors who have flooded the phone lines of my office in my short six months here are any indication, this criteria has not been met. I might have some sympathy for the government if this report came out four months ago. It came out four years ago. Instead of providing an adequate income for Canadian seniors by any identifiable metric, it has gone backward.

The government promised to help seniors and Canadians suffering during the deadliest pandemic the globe has seen in a century. In order to facilitate this, it implemented COVID-related financial relief. Despite warnings from its own ministerial officials, the government sat on its laurels and allowed this benefit, which was taxable, to decimate tens of thousands of vulnerable, low-income seniors this past year by clawing back their GIS.

I am happy to say that after months of advocacy by my Conservative colleagues as well as my hon. friends from Shefford and North Island—Powell River, the now Minister of Seniors took action to finally fix her government's glaring oversight by introducing Bill C-12 and issuing a one-time payment to affected seniors. While we all would have preferred it to come earlier, I understand that the payments will start to be issued next month. I want to thank the minister and her team for their hard work and I trust they will continue to work with the opposition parties, including those not part of their double entity.

That was only the first government benefit that ended up causing more harm than good to seniors. In July of last year, the then minister of seniors announced a one-time payment of $500 to seniors aged 75 and older, stating, “Canadian seniors can always count on us to listen, understand their needs and work hard to deliver for them.” Apparently the government is unaware that one particularly important need for seniors, especially those on benefits, is to receive timely and accurate tax information. Once again, the government's incompetence resulted in over 90,000 Canadian seniors receiving wrong tax information, jeopardizing their ability to file on time and running the risk of once again having their benefits cut off through no fault of their own. This is why I, along with my colleague from southwest Miramichi, have called on the government to extend the deadline for seniors to file their taxes so that there remains zero risk of vulnerable seniors having their benefits taken from them by the government once again.

When it comes to seniors, this government has an unfortunate habit of taking one step forward but then two steps back. The point I am trying to make here is not to be too harsh on the government but rather to highlight that it needs to take meaningful and effective action now to help our seniors. Seniors cannot afford to be an afterthought when implementing policies and programs that are designed to help them.

We must work together as a House to deliver results. This is why I will be voting in favour of my hon. colleague's motion. I look forward to seeing the findings implemented efficiently, effectively and speedily because that is what seniors deserve.

The Economy

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to support Canadians. We are here to support our seniors. We are here to support our families. We created the Canada child benefit and then increased it. Bill C‑12 received royal assent this week, which will allow us to get more money out to seniors.

We are here for Canadians. The austerity that the Conservatives are proposing is the wrong approach.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 3, 2022

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 3rd day of March, 2022, at 3:43 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor,

Ian McCowan

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

Seniors

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for her work and her advocacy for seniors in her community and in the House.

When it comes to supporting the most vulnerable, our government has always been there. That is especially true for low-income seniors. We have committed to supporting seniors who counted on pandemic supports and had their GIS impacted. We are making a major investment through an automatic one-time payment for those affected seniors. We unanimously passed Bill C-12 in the House, and I am confident that the other place will do the same.

Seniors know that our government will always be there for them.

Emergencies Act

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be here this evening. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague and friend from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

I have been in this House now over six years, and I have spoken with pleasure many times in this House on various topics, such as BIA legislation this week, Bill C-12, Bill C-8 or Bill C-2, but this evening I am speaking on something I think merits much pause, thought and importance for our country. We have reached a stage where the government needs to act.

I fundamentally believe in the rule of law, enforcing the rule of law and making sure all Canadians follow the rule of law. Sadly, events in recent weeks have added a significant layer of hardship to the lives of many Canadians who have already endured two years of a global pandemic.

All of us here went through an election last September. I canvassed extensively in my riding, and I know the feedback I received. I was privileged enough to return here to the House of Commons to represent the wonderful resident of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and I represent all my residents, much like we all do. However, I note that at that time there was much feedback and much frustration with what we were going through. The comments I heard were sometimes really disappointing, and that frustration has carried through. We have been in a global pandemic, but we are coming out of it.

When I think about tonight's debate and what will happen over the coming days, invoking the Emergencies Act will help authorities in getting our country back on track. Disruptions and illegal blockades at Canada's border crossings have halted international trade and supply chains, at a time when Canadian businesses are striving to take part in the ongoing global economic recovery.

On that point, I think about where we are as we come out of the pandemic and where the world is going, with increased global competition; increased economic nationalism; the rise of what I would call economic and regional blocs; the United States, its competition with China, and what is happening there; a reinvigorated Europe; and a post-Brexit U.K. We know we need to stand up for Canadian businesses, and we know we need to stand up for Canada's reputation globally to ensure we always implement and follow the rule of law. Those thoughts are in my mind.

We also know that during this time, here in Ottawa and across the country, municipal and provincial resources have been strained. The City of Ottawa, the City of Windsor and the Province of Ontario have all declared states of emergency. The situation has evolved over two weeks in Ottawa and almost a week at the Ambassador Bridge. There has been a substantial impact on our economy, and there are those who are unable to work due to the blockades and the occupation here in our nation's capital.

Many businesses in our nation's capital have been forced to close due to safety concerns. I have been here these last three weeks in Ottawa, and I have seen all the businesses along Sparks Street that are run by families and are unable to open. There are individuals who work at the Rideau Centre who are at home right now, not earning a paycheque to cover their bills and expenses for their families. This, frankly, must stop. This must come to an end, and invoking the Emergencies Act is the right thing to do.

About a week and a half ago, I was able to do a panel on CTV's Power Play, and that panel has received approximately 200,000 views on my Facebook page. I went and saw the feedback I was receiving, and I realized just how nasty and unbecoming some of those comments were. They were from the United States, Canada and different parts of the world, and I thought to myself just how frustrated people were and how the right-wing in parts of this country, and in other parts of the world, were distorting the truth, putting forward mistruths and misleading Canadians.

In my comments during those interviews, I said, very frankly, that the individuals outside have a right to peacefully protest. The individuals who are outside have a right for their voices to be heard, like all Canadians do, whether it is at the ballot box or whether it is assembling to peacefully protest.

However, what they do not have a right to do, for now 21 days, is to disrupt the lives of the citizens of this wonderful city that many of us here get to visit. That is not right. That needed to come to an end and I called for it that evening. I called for it in the subsequent opportunities I had, and I call for it again tonight. I truly hope the individuals outside hear what is being said in Parliament and decide to go home and back to their families.

They have many messages: anti-vax, anti-mandates, anti-Prime Minister, overthrowing a democratically elected government. Everyone is entitled to their views and I respect that, but they are not entitled to disrupt the lives of the citizens of this city or the lives of the citizens of any city across Canada. We are all under the rule of law and the invocation of the Emergencies Act is, in my view, justifiable.

Ottawa residents have been harassed and in some cases physically assaulted by protesters for practising basic public health measures during the pandemic, such as wearing a mask. Citizens have been targeted and called disgusting insults simply for the colour of their skin. Other alleged crimes have been even more egregious. Ottawa police are investigating the attempted arson of a downtown apartment building.

The situation persists fuelled, in part, by foreign funding. Ottawa residents are rightly frustrated by the ongoing illegal activity occurring in their city. Recently, some even took to the streets to counterprotest, physically preventing more vehicles from joining the disruptions. The chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Peter Sloly, publicly announced his resignation on February 15 in the midst of this unprecedented situation. The mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, publicly announced he had negotiated with members of the convoy to allow for certain residential streets to be vacated of trucks.

How would we feel if we went home to our individual ridings and to our homes, and there were vehicles parked in front of our homes with people honking at any time during the day? I do not believe that any members of the 338 of us who have the privilege of sitting in this House, who were sent here by residents, would think that would be cool. I do not think anyone would accept that. That is not acceptable in our country. That is not following the rule of law.

An integrated command centre has been established to consolidate response efforts between the Ottawa Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police and the RCMP. The Government of Canada continues to support the City of Ottawa, the Province of Ontario and all the law enforcement agencies involved as needed. RCMP resources have already been deployed. Invoking the Emergencies Act will help authorities clear downtown Ottawa streets of illegally parked trucks and help restore order and peace in affected communities.

Law enforcement agencies in Coutts, Alberta, are also facing very real and worsening threats. A tractor and semi-trailer truck attempted to ram a police vehicle. As my colleagues have noted, the Alberta RCMP also identified a criminal organization operating among protesters and arrested 13 individuals, seizing firearms, tactical vests, high-capacity magazines and ammunition in the process.

Yes, that actually happened in Canada. They had stored their weapons in trailers and were reportedly prepared to use force against the police if the police attempted to disrupt the blockade. The CBSA port of entry remains open and the supply lines continue to flow at this border crossing in Alberta.

Throughout the evolution of these protests, the Government of Canada has been closely monitoring and engaging with partners as needed. This is a clear threat that is national in scope and not just impacting one or two provinces. We recognize and sympathize with the challenges that many Canadians face as result of the situation, along with the sacrifices made by all Canadians, including the residents of my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, through the pandemic, which is nearly two years in. Thankfully, due to vaccinations, we are, I would say, exiting and on to sunnier days.

The federal government continues to call on everyone involved not to jeopardize public peace or endanger anyone, and not to participate purposefully in illegal events such as what we are seeing outside the House of Commons.

While the right of everyone to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is an important part of our democracy—

Seniors

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London West for her advocacy for seniors in her riding.

The member is right. We committed to ensuring seniors' eligibility for the GIS and allowances would not be impacted by receiving pandemic benefits. The House yesterday unanimously passed Bill C-12. I want to take this opportunity to thank every member in the House for making that happen. I look forward to seeing it make its way through the other place. It is clear for seniors with the greatest needs that we will always have their backs.

Old Age Security Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement) is deemed considered in the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-12.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is from the neighbouring riding of Victoria where she is doing great work.

I would just say that we have to finish the work that started under Lester B. Pearson, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis, and that includes pharmacare. It will save Canada money and it will be better for our economy.

People think that our ridings, Victoria and Saanich—Gulf Islands, are fairly wealthy, but I have seniors living in their cars. I have people for whom I pay their electricity bills so that they do not fall out of their apartment and end up living in a car. We have desperate needs, and Bill C-12 will help, but pharmacare is essential.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-12.

Over the course of this day of debate, it has been shown that this very simple and very clear bill seeks to fix an obvious mistake that is a source of profound injustice for seniors across Canada, especially the poorest seniors.

I think we know what we are dealing with tonight. I have twenty minutes of speaking time, and I do not plan to use it. This is the end of a long day. It is very clear where we all stand. This bill should pass.

This is very rare for me, by the way. Earlier today I voted for closure. I think in the whole time I have been a member of Parliament, which is astonishingly, and this is a huge honour, coming onto 11 years, I think I have only voted for closure one other time. It offends me to close debate almost every time.

However, seniors have been waiting too long for a simple error to be repaired, and I want to see the bill pass as quickly as possible. I wanted to look at this from a broader perspective and raise something about this. This comes from the comments immediately before mine, from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, but from those of others as well.

We are here to fix a mistake, something that should never have happened. The seniors who applied for COVID relief were, in many cases, assured it would not affect their guaranteed income supplement. There was bad advice given to many people, as has happened before on other aspects of COVID relief. However, seniors were shocked to find that their guaranteed income supplement had been clawed back.

To fix the mistake, we have to bring another bill to Parliament. Think of how many times this has happened. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot mentioned the three times to fix the CEBA. Think about what happened when we found that there were other unintended mistakes that occurred under COVID relief.

One that is still hanging over us was the change to the Canada Recovery Benefit, which happened in the summer. This was when it looked as though we were coming out of the pandemic, and there was tremendous pressure that we were not getting people back to work because their COVID benefits made it easier for them to stay home. I think we have all heard that narrative. I do not buy into it, by the way.

We have all heard that narrative, that it was hard to get people to come back to work. Because of that, the CRB was reduced from $500 to $300. However, now it is clear that we were not on our way out of the COVID experience. We still have businesses closing. We still have public health orders. They have gone on.

They may be about to be lifted, but the decision that was made in July does not look so good in February. That is so much time for people to have been struggling to hang on at $300. Again, to fix this simple mistake, an entire new piece of legislation is required, and we have to come back to Parliament.

Think about another thing that was promised by the Liberal government in 2020. That, of course, is the Canada disability benefit. It is much needed. We know that, as a community, if we look at people with disabilities, that is the differently abled community, it struggles the most with poverty. The Canada disability benefit is long overdue. It was promised in 2020. It was promised again in the Liberal platform in 2021. I am sure they intend to get to it. I honestly do. I am not suggesting anything to do with skepticism on my part. I think the minister genuinely wants to bring forward the legislation.

However, here we are. People are poor, and they are still struggling with a society that is struggling with the pandemic, and they are still living with being differently abled in a society that does not accommodate them. We pass legislation for a barrier-free society, but we are not there yet.

Again, it needs legislation. I think we can make the case that, after two years in the pandemic, what we have discovered through COVID are the depths of inequality, which many of us had not looked at. I think a lot of us who are arguing all the time to address poverty have looked at it.

We have been very, I hate to use the word smug, but Canadians who are living above the poverty line have a hard time imagining how hard it is for our fellow citizens, who are homeless, dealing with addiction, and unable to find a place to live, even with two people in the same family working.

One thing that struck me regarding COVID-related stories has to do with the spread of COVID. This is a story from two years ago in Ottawa at one of the homeless shelters. The workers and supervisors wondered how COVID had come into this particular homeless shelter, only to discover that two of its regular residents were workers at long-term care homes. This was their address; this was where they lived. They went to work at long-term care homes and brought COVID back to the homeless shelter. Working people doing hard jobs, the frontline workers we needed so desperately, were infected with COVID and brought it to a homeless shelter.

We need to recognize from all these various stories that we do not have a social safety net that works. Our predecessors in this place from another minority Liberal Parliament in the late 1960s, when Lester B. Pearson was the Prime Minister, and the extraordinary people who once were the NDP, managed to use their minority position to push for what was needed. I apologize to my friends in the NDP now, as it is a shadow of its former self without the giants of social justice Tommy Douglas and David Lewis.

We had our whole health care system put in place in the late 1960s. We had the Canada pension plan put in place in the late 1960s. We had unemployment insurance and student loans without interest payments all in that period. I describe it in ways that might make one think the music of Camelot is about to swell in the background, but we had that once.

Here we are in a minority Parliament again. Let us be creative. I ask this of my friends across party lines. This is a moment to point out the inefficiencies of the failure to eradicate poverty when we have the chance. This is the time to accept.

I am very proud of the fact that the Green Party of Canada was the first party in this country to advocate for a guaranteed livable income, but there are many more of us now. Obviously the New Democrats have been advocating for it strongly, and many backbenchers in the Liberal Party are advocating for a guaranteed livable income. Prominent Conservatives are too, like former senator Hugh Segal, whose brilliant book, called Bootstraps Need Boots, was just wonderful. We cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps if we are shoeless.

This is an important moment for us to think about the ways we take on these problems. They are massively inefficient. Each mistake made is not calculated to make the poor poorer, but they have that effect. Each mistake, each piece of legislation and each failure to get the right decimal number cannot be fixed by a simple regulation or a wave of the wand from the minister. Bill after bill has to come back to this place. Let us fix it once and for all. Let us say, as we debate Bill C-12, that we are going to pass this one quickly but are not going to give up on casting a light on what is unacceptable in this country. Poverty is unacceptable in this country, poverty in indigenous communities and poverty in any community.

We are a wealthy country and we have study after study after study on this. The all-party poverty caucus has been holding hearings on it for as long as I have been in this place. These are studies that prove our society will be better. It is not about charity. The health, the resilience and the economic strength of our country will be fortified when we have eliminated poverty, and every Canadian has a roof over their head, has access to pharmacare and is able to live in dignity. Then this place will not be bogged down in a pandemic with realizing over and over again that we have a gap here and a gap over there and more legislation is needed.

Let us be brave. Let us be bold. Let us think like earlier generations of parliamentarians did, and let us think fully about the full range of programs that seniors need, such as affordable housing for every Canadian and long-term care that is not for profit. Let us think about what we can do for housing to ensure that seniors do not need to leave their own home, and let us perhaps have creative solutions to ensure they can stay at home. We know that the costs for seniors living in their own home are far less than if they end up in hospital.

I could go on, but the hour is late and I promised myself that I would not use all my available time, because all of us are of one mind in this place: This bill should pass. Our only difference of opinion is about how fast. I am on the side of as fast as possible. That is the only difference in this place tonight.

While we are thinking about what we need to do for each other and for our parents, I am now a senior. I am in the boat of the 67-year-olds, but boy am I lucky to have such a good, rewarding job. I think we are paid too much as MPs. When we look at the people who do social work and frontline health care work, they do not earn enough, and we may earn too much, but that is a conversation for another day.

I am honoured to have this job. I want to be of service. I ask all of my colleagues who agree to let us get rid of poverty altogether, not with piecemeal, band-aid programs. Let us do the decent thing. Let us show the world that we are committed to social justice, equality, anti-racism, fairness and, above all, democracy.

[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.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for North Island—Powell River. I have appreciated her leadership on this important issue.

Uqaqtittiji, from the beginning, the government has broken many promises made to Nunavummiut and indigenous peoples broadly, and specifically when it came to rolling out pandemic supports.

In this statement, I will paint a picture of the structural challenges Nunavummiut experience and highlight the importance of passing this important bill. Bill C-12 would fill a small gap in serving the needs of Nunavummiut; however, its insufficiency still presents a problem when one considers the structural challenges already in our wake.

Well before this pandemic, Nunavummiut have also been struggling with an affordability crisis, unemployment, poverty and food insecurity. The Government of Canada states that Nunavut has the highest cost of living. Roughly four in 10 residents of Nunavut are on social assistance, the highest proportion in the country. Basic needs like heating and electricity are even more expensive because almost all of Nunavut's electricity is generated from diesel fuel. There are 25 power plants operating in all of Nunavut's communities that run solely on diesel fuel to produce electricity.

In 2016, 18% of those of working age in Nunavut were unemployed. For the rest of Canada, that number was 7%. According to Food Banks Canada, 57% of households in Nunavut are food insecure and are unable to afford food for their families.

All the while Nunavummiut also continue to struggle amidst a housing crisis. A 2020 report from the Nunavut Housing Corporation said there are an estimated 56% of Inuit that live in overcrowded homes. The Government of Canada states that Nunavut has the highest number of people per household. Overcrowded housing is a central cause of the spread of COVID-19. Why are these structural challenges a persistent struggle for Nunavummiut?

Research from the First Nations Tax Commission notes that hundreds of millions of infrastructure proposals are shovel-ready; however, it currently takes about five times longer to make an indigenous project shovel ready compared to provincial systems.

Why do I share all of this? It is because there are too many structural challenges in the way for Nunavummiut, and they have been waiting far too long for redress by the federal government. Clawbacks on pandemic supports are just another structural failure hurting Nunavummiut, only it is not just another challenge. These failings on the most basic livelihood needs and rights compound and exacerbate the challenges experienced by Nunavummiut.

It is clear that Nunavummiut struggle with an affordability crisis. There is a prevailing struggle to feed families, keep houses warm and keep families safe and out of overcrowded housing, yet the government clawed back the supports Nunavut depended on. It is just not right.

Now that I have laid out this context, I would like to speak more to just how pandemic supports have not only failed Nunavummiut but deepened their struggles. In early fall 2020, the Government of Nunavut expressed fear of possible tax implications, repayment and impacts to social assistance. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated asserted that many Nunavummiut thought it was a universal benefit and applied in good faith. Messaging was not accessible to Nunavummiut.

The Minister of Health in Nunavut, Minister Main, noted in January 2021 that there was a potential for his clients to get hammered with repayment requirements or clawbacks. Minister Main criticized communications around the CERB rollout in Nunavut saying there was no information provided in Inuktitut.

That, compounded by the lack of Service Canada offices in many Nunavut communities, led to rumours flying about what CERB was and who it was intended for. The Government of Canada later admitted that it had provided poor information.

According to Statistics Canada, close to 10,000 recipients in Nunavut, of which a couple of thousand were income assistance clients, switched to CERB. This ultimately impacted Nunavummiut's eligibility for income assistance programs, which they depend on, like the guaranteed income supplement. Similar to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut treats CERB as unearned income. This has had the effect of reducing social assistance benefits dollar for dollar. This occurred despite the overwhelming struggle with an affordability crisis.

Inuit living in extreme poverty were not in a position to repay. CERB benefits largely went to buy food. We saw food bank visits go down, because CERB finally allowed Inuit to afford to feed their families. Now the government wants them to repay a debt because of the Liberals' mistake. In October 2020, delegates to the Nunavut Tunngavik annual general meeting asked in a resolution that Inuit who had collected CERB despite being ineligible should not have to repay it. Nunavummiut had been waiting for the government to deliver on their most basic rights, not to have these rights further withheld.

Nunavummiut cannot wait any longer. Seniors across Canada cannot wait any longer. The bill before us does not address the many immediate critical needs of many Nunavummiut, but it alleviates the struggles of the most respected in our Inuit community. Canada's poorest working seniors have been cruelly punished by the government simply for receiving legitimate pandemic supports like any other working Canadian received.

New Democrats support Bill C-12 because it answers our demand to exclude pandemic income supports from future calculations of the guaranteed income supplement. The bill would allow some pressures to be relieved from the seniors whom we look so highly to. I hope we can work together on this and do right by our elders and in respect of our elders.

Qujannamiik.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was well put by my colleague from the Bloc.

One thing that I want to focus on when we talk about this legislation is something I have heard several members speak about. Yes, we are dealing with legislation that created undue hardship for seniors and needs to be corrected. I think there is agreement on that, but when we deal with pieces of legislation like Bill C-12, I have heard one thing spoken about repeatedly in the House today. It is about the bigger issues that seniors are facing. It is really important to have the proper time to debate bills like this while also raising the issues and concerns that seniors are facing across the country, such as housing prices, rent, the cost of living and so forth.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could speak a bit about the process. We want to make sure we have ministers here and that we as members will have as much time as possible to not only talk about Bill C-12 and talk about the correction that we believe needs to be made, but also to make sure we are getting on the record the stories of our constituents from our respective provinces and regions to make sure that seniors' voices and issues are being raised on the floor.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her kind words about my speech.

I completely agree. Once again, the Liberal government is adopting a wait-and-see approach for the most vulnerable in society. It is choosing to wait, instead of seeking funds and financing from those who are not vulnerable and could pay more.

The government is choosing once again to stomp on the most vulnerable, as my esteemed colleague mentioned. It is disconcerting that people have waited so long for such an appalling situation to be addressed in such a flawed manner. It is too little, too late and it is not very well done. However, we will have to support Bill C-12, because it addresses a very difficult situation.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to disappoint my dear colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue who is sharing his time with me, but my son is putting my husband to sleep with some lullabies. He will not be joining us.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported targeted assistance programs that respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that the Liberal government failed to be proactive. We voted for Bill C-2, which was hastily passed in the fall, in order to quickly help the groups most affected by this pandemic. One of our conditions for supporting that bill was that Ottawa stop penalizing working seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, by treating the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, as employment income for the purpose of calculating the GIS.

At the parliamentary committee, the Minister of Finance even admitted that this was a significant problem, but, like senior officials of the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, she stated that it was a complex issue that would be difficult to resolve because of the computer system. She nonetheless made a commitment to resolve it.

Here we are today with a bill that would finally correct this injustice being inflicted on our seniors, but that is still disappointing on several counts.

First of all, this bill will ensure that GIS recipients will not be penalized as of July 2022. This may sound good at first glance, but this substantial reduction of their cheques has been going on since July 1, 2021. These seniors have been watching their finances worsen since last summer. Our party made several proposals to the government, urging it to act quickly to ensure that the recipients affected can obtain relief as quickly as possible—as of March 2022, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue hammered home. The government said that this was not possible for technical reasons, more specifically because of computer issues at the CRA. These so-called “computer issues” are pretty surprising for a G7 country.

Furthermore, Bill C‑12 does not include the retroactive one-time payment that the government promised in the December 2021 economic statement as compensation for the reductions that have already been made. We unfortunately do not have details on how the payment will be calculated, but we hope that it will be paid automatically and that the seniors affected will not have to do anything at all. One thing is for sure, seniors have had to wait far too long for this compensation and for their full benefits to be restored. The government only made the announcement on December 17, 2021, in a news release that stated the following:

The CERB and the CRB were designed to provide financial support to employed and self-employed Canadians directly affected by COVID-19. The Government of Canada recognizes that some GIS and Allowance recipients are now facing lower benefit payments this year because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits.

It took the government several months, way too long, to admit there had been a mistake, and now it is taking way too long to act. It is deeply disrespectful to these senior workers who have been impacted by this problem since July. The problem is affecting their financial resources and their ability to buy essentials.

What is really disappointing is that the government is once again attacking a deeply vulnerable population. Everyone knew CERB was taxable income, but when people's income is low enough to qualify for GIS, they do not pay much tax. For GIS beneficiaries who collected CERB, the problem is a simple one. For every CERB dollar they got, the federal government would claw back 50 cents from their GIS. That amounts to a federal tax rate of 50%. We can all agree that is too high.

It is important to note that no one in the federal government informed GIS recipients that their CERB income would literally melt away their GIS benefits. The Bloc Québécois sees this as a major injustice that constitutes prejudicial and appalling treatment. The FADOQ network described the situation as a tragedy. Compensation is urgently needed. The government has known this for a long time, but has not acted accordingly.

Need I remind members of the huge inflationary surge that occurred in 2021? The inflation rate in December was 4.8%, the highest it has been in over 35 years. Prices went up even more for many essential goods. Grocery prices rose by 5.7% year over year, the largest increase in a decade, while housing prices rose by 9.3% relative to December 2020.

It is the most vulnerable, especially people living on fixed incomes, such as seniors, who feel the greatest impact. It is outrageous that the government is doing this to our seniors.

Another big disappointment is that Bill C-12 will not end the inequity between GIS recipients who applied for CERB through the CRA and those who applied at Service Canada. It is important to remember that CERB was administered by the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada.

In certain circumstances, when pension income is reduced from one year to the next, claimants may request that their benefits be recalculated on the basis of an estimate of their income for the current calendar year. This is known as the “GIS option”.

We have criticized the fact the “GIS option” is available only to claimants who received CERB through Service Canada, not those who received it through the Canada Revenue Agency.

Indeed, only CERB benefits issued by Service Canada have been legally constituted as EI and are eligible for a “GIS option” review. CERB should be treated the same for all GIS calculating purposes, whether it was issued by Service Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency.

Pandemic-related assistance programs were brought in quickly. However, by the summer of 2021, in other words 15 months after the pandemic began, there were no more excuses for the government to keep reproducing this inconsistency to the detriment of seniors. The government should have used the bill to correct this gap, but clearly it missed the boat yet again.

In conclusion, the COVID‑19 pandemic has affected a lot of people and businesses since the beginning of 2020, but that is nothing compared to the consequences it has had on the senior population with respect to both their physical and mental health, as well as their financial health.

The government is offering a solution that can be described as too little, too late. Once again, that shows that the government is MIA when it is time to help seniors. I would remind the House that this is the same government that chose to create two classes of seniors by increasing OAS only for those 75 and up.

Let us not forget that financial insecurity does not wait for a person to turn 75 to strike. To fix the problem, the Bloc Québécois has proposed that the OAS be increased by $110 a month for all seniors 65 and up. What do the Liberals propose?

They propose a one‑time, non-recurring cheque for $500 for seniors who will be 75 or older as of June 2022. Pre-election smoke and mirrors: such is the Liberal way of governing. With that decision, the Liberals are sending a very negative message to the 970,000 pensioners in Quebec aged 65 to 74, telling them that they do not matter.

In my opinion, Bill C-12, as presented and without the changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois, demonstrates that the government is ignoring the most vulnerable seniors, and that is deeply disappointing. When we watch what this Liberal government is doing, we have the impression that it is downplaying the problem and expecting it to fix itself, which seems to be the norm recently.

We have before us a bill that does seek to fix a problematic situation, but it is flawed. We expected better from the government, after it took so long to address such a serious situation. The people who spent their lives building the society in which we live today deserve more respect from the federal government. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to stand up for seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne and, who knows, perhaps little Hadrien as well.

In my time as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I have heard from many seniors in my riding who are very frustrated about their financial insecurity. They can no longer pay their bills.

Seniors have been the primary victims of COVID‑19. They are the ones more likely to die and to suffer the repercussions of the coronavirus. By repercussions, I mean isolation, anxiety and loss of purchasing power.

In my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, much like in the rest of Quebec and Canada, there are seniors who continue to work, in spite of their advanced age. They are still working because they still need an income to live independently.

I remember one woman from Témiscamingue whose supplementary income suddenly disappeared when the schools in Témiscamingue were shut down for months because of the health measures. She could no longer make ends meet but still had to pay her mortgage and car loan, so she applied for the Canada emergency response benefit, the much-touted CERB, as did many other seniors.

She was in for a nasty surprise. A few months after she applied, her guaranteed income supplement was massively clawed back to cover the CERB she had collected. That was a significant hit to her income for months. She spent many long months in a state of anxiety, constantly worried because she could not cover her payments.

That is what I heard from one person in my riding and, sadly, hers is not an isolated case. There are tens of thousands like it all over Quebec and Canada.

The worst of it is that the Liberal government responded by insisting that every CERB dollar received by a senior would result in a 50% cut to their GIS. That is equivalent to a federal taxation rate of 50%. It is the rich who should be taxed at 50%, not the most vulnerable members of our society.

It is appalling and shameful, all the more so because the Liberal government was well aware of the situation thanks to letters the Bloc Québécois sent to the Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance in 2021 describing the awful situation that so many seniors found themselves in. It is appalling and shameful because the Liberal Party did not seem to care about the problem these seniors are facing. It took ages to respond even though it has known about this difficult situation since May 2021. That is nine months, and it is way too long.

That is why, despite Bill C-12's shortcomings, the Bloc Québécois will vote to support it because time is running out. Why did the Liberal government wait so long to act? At the very least, the federal government should be able to exclude emergency benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement payable for any month after June 2022. This will avoid further penalizing GIS recipients as of July 2022.

Bill C-12 is a first step in ending the negative impact CERB has had on the GIS, but it will be too late if it does not happen until July. GIS payments have been reduced since July 1, 2021. For several months now, this has weakened the already precarious financial situation of many seniors. The Bloc Québécois has urged the government to move up the end of its cuts by changing the wording of the bill from “June 2022” to “March 2022”. This change, which would have increased benefit payments more quickly for seniors affected by this problem, was refused, supposedly for IT reasons, which we obviously deplore.

What is more, Bill C‑12 does not contain the retroactive one‑time payment that was promised in the December 2021 economic and fiscal update for reductions that had already been made. The fiscal update read: “The government proposes to provide up to $742.4 million for one-time payments to alleviate the financial hardship of GIS...recipients who received CERB or the Canada Recovery Benefit”.

It is hard for us to understand where the Liberal government is going with this. I think that it is improvising at seniors' expense. I think that this Parliament is not doing enough for seniors. We could do so much more.

Because of the many obstacles that seniors have faced, I personally have decided to start a seniors advisory committee in my riding. Now more than ever, I feel the need to bring the voice of seniors in my region to the House of Commons, because for far too long, they have been the most vulnerable and the most neglected by the Liberal government.

I am speaking in particular of those in rural and remote areas, where people must travel great distances, where there is little or no public transportation, where services are limited and, in some villages, non-existent.

Parliament is not doing enough for our seniors. We must be generous to our seniors. With their intelligence, tenacity, and the taxes they paid, they built everything that we use today: our houses, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, factories, neighbourhoods and city centres. Our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents who are still living directly or indirectly built everything we own and made us everything we are. This pride has been weakened, and unfortunately that reflects how vulnerable our seniors are today.

We must cherish them and show greater appreciation for them. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants for seniors. That is why the Bloc Québécois is concerned with the quality of life they deserve to have. Seniors were hit the hardest by the pandemic and have received the least amount of support from the federal government.

That is why the Bloc Québécois, through our critic for seniors, the member for Shefford, launched a petition to ensure that our seniors have a decent quality of life. I invite everyone to consult the member for Shefford's Facebook page to link to this petition and to sign it.

That is also why the Bloc Québécois has proposed a series of measures to improve the standard of living for the people who built Quebec, in every single one of our regions, and to bolster their purchasing power. In Parliament, the Bloc Québécois raised the urgent need for legislators to increase old age security by $110 per month for all seniors 65 and older. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois rejects any attempt to create two classes of seniors through age-based discrimination. Lastly, archaic and discriminatory provisions must be abolished from the Pension Act.

Surviving spouses of pensioners whose marriage or common-law relationship took place after the age of 60 or after retirement are not eligible to receive their late spouse's pension. The Bloc Québécois is calling for these discriminatory practices to be repealed. These provisions are an affront to the dignity of seniors who worked, for example, within the federal public service or in the Canadian Armed Forces. Quebeckers want seniors to enjoy a retirement that reflects the lifelong work they put into helping their families, communities and nation flourish. That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois wants.

This cannot be overstated: Health is Quebeckers' top priority. More than anything else, the pandemic showed us how important it is to strengthen Quebec's health care system. Service cuts in our health care centres this summer made it clear that the consequences of Ottawa's chronic health care underfunding will outlast the end of the pandemic. Ottawa needs to pay its fair share so people who are suffering can access quality health care and so our dedicated health care workers can get reinforcements and the working conditions they deserve.

The federal government needs to increase health transfers, no strings attached, to cover 35% of health care services, as Quebec and the provinces are unanimously demanding. The Bloc would also support home care by means of a tax credit. Quebeckers expect higher health transfers, and the Bloc Québécois has made that its number one issue.

Prices have been rising since 2021. Inflation is the highest it has been in over 35 years. Food prices have gone way up. Housing costs too. This is catastrophic for all lower-income seniors.

The Liberal Party is on the wrong track. Its only solutions are totally inadequate one-time payments. It also chose to create two classes of seniors by increasing OAS only for those 75 and up. That is unacceptable. In closing, let me reiterate: Parliament is not doing enough for our seniors.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we suggested some improvements to the short Bill C‑12, I heard some Liberal Party members talk about how making improvements is partisan. That explains a lot. I am starting to understand them more.

I can be slow to catch on, so I would appreciate it if my colleague could explain why, after seniors have endured 21 months of reduced benefits, it is partisan to ask for the payment to be adjusted as of March.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will suggest here is that the focus of tonight's debate is on C-12. The principle and simplicity of this bill speaks to the necessity of it and our rationale was that although we have no reason to delay, we certainly wanted a timely, thorough study on it.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak tonight to the first piece of legislation in my portfolio. This legislation would amend the calculation formula for determining benefits payable under the act by deducting the amount received under three COVID-19 benefit acts and a portion of the Employment Insurance Act from a person's income for the year, starting in 2022. While I am thrilled that the government is taking action on this and highlighting its swift willingness to have the backs of Canadians, allow me tonight to speak to the unnecessary delay. This is not a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, the government members should be patting themselves on the back for. This, sadly, is a result of an error that should have and could have been acknowledged and remedied months ago.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the minister on this file. To her credit, she continues to show a willingness to act on this, albeit not as quickly as we would have liked, and more importantly, not as quickly as our seniors needed. As a result of the government's poor rollout of the CRB, scores of seniors have found themselves destitute after they were stripped of OAS and GIS payments through no fault of their own. It seemed as though there were continuous empty platitudes with no timely and clearly communicated solutions.

In my opinion, the government House leader's office was using Canadian seniors to play petty procedural games at the expense of our low-income seniors. Canadians, while they are embracing their golden years, have been hit over the last few years in every conceivable metric. It was just a few months back when I stood in this very place and said that instead of providing the compassion, empathy and support that the seniors who built this great country deserve, the Liberal government has decided to penalize Canada's seniors who took CRB by lowering their old age security payments. I asked this: When will the government reverse this decision and allow our seniors to collect what they have earned? This brings me to today.

Many members from all sides of the House have been representing the voices of their constituents and continuously pressuring the government to act. The government is acting, and for that I am grateful. Sadly, it seems like a bit too little, too late. It has taken eight months for the Liberals to fix the problem that they were aware of nearly two years ago. Yes, we support the principle and the content of the bill, but the attempt by the government to score political points is not acceptable.

Today l was thrilled. We heard from the members for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Calgary Shepard, Kenora, Abbotsford, Calgary Midnapore, Sarnia—Lambton and Parry Sound—Muskoka, and I am confident that all members of our caucus would have proudly stood up had time allowed. All the communities these members represent echo the values of my constituents in small towns in my riding like Odessa, Coe Hill, Tamworth and the many other towns in the great riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. I would like to take a short opportunity to thank many of my fellow members for their willingness to speak up for Bill C-12.

Seniors that I have spoken to, and many of us have read the emails, are happy that we are standing up for them. They need our help and I do not think they are asking for too much. The cost of everything is going up. Heating our homes is up 30%. Rent and insurance are up. Groceries are up 24%, and fuel in my riding this week is over $1.50. This is not okay and it continues to go up.

Many Canadian and seniors are exhausted. They are fed up and they are tired of hearing empty platitudes like the government has their backs. They want actions, not words. On top of that, there is fear and concern, stressors of social isolation and elder abuse.

Some seniors completely rely on the GIS, and this clawback was devastating. They are our neighbours, friends, uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They are all finding it very difficult to make ends meet. The role of a member of Parliament is to represent the views of the people in our riding. We owe it to seniors to speak to the error that was made. That should not be how a government functions.

Earlier today, as in the last few weeks, we asked for legislative accountability for a simple bill. A payout timeline of May 2022 would leave impacted seniors waiting over 10 months. This situation did not happen overnight. It has been brewing for months, and it was not acted upon until the government was continuously pressed by all stripes of the House. Allow me to remind members that the government, specifically the office of the minister's predecessor, identified there was a known conflict between the CERB and the GIS program that would impact payments from the latter. If the magnitude of the impact of the GIS clawback was truly understood or fully appreciated by the federal government, distribution of the clawback repayment would have and should have already happened.

The outrage, frustration and fear are real. We need to get the money into the pockets of our seniors. We have seen how quickly our government can act when necessary, so why the delay on this?

Clawing back GIS payments from the poorest seniors in the wake of a pandemic was clearly out of touch. It was a flawed design all due to poor communication and lack of delivery. Today in the House of Commons, a member rose and questioned our party with regard to the urgency of the matter and why we were delaying the case. The government has created this unnecessary delay, and I do not understand why the New Democrats are continuously covering up and helping to fix the Liberals' mistakes.

Approving programs and rushing things through do not always work. It seems as though we need to continuously fix and answer the failures of the government. In Hastings—Lennox and Addington, there are a host of issues and concerns, but let me remind members that every day, seniors have been seeking clarification and asking for guidance. It is a plea for help. It is in my nature to help, to be empathetic and to advocate strongly on their behalf, and that is what I continue to do here tonight.

Just this morning, I received a call from a couple who live in the most southern part of my riding. The conversation was filled with a lot of concern and exhaustion. They thanked me profusely for speaking up for seniors, and I assured them that I would continue to do that. They had accepted pandemic supports and had their GIS clawed back. They had never in their lifetime missed a bill payment and have always paid on time. They are so embarrassed because they have overdue bill payments and cannot find it in themselves to own up to it and acknowledge why. They are having a really difficult time. This is just one story of so many. They were definitely relieved, in their conversation with me, to hear there is a fix coming, but they cannot comprehend why they now have to wait until May.

The government has dropped the ball and our vulnerable seniors are feeling it. Everybody has a story. Everybody makes choices on how they navigate through their lives. However, we can all agree that right now our country is in a bit of chaos. When Canadians are in need of more certainty, they are getting less. Many seniors have worked so hard their whole lives to save and invest. Seniors are not looking for a handout; they are seeking a hand up.

Many of our Canadian seniors have stepped up and done what was needed to be done, and it is an expectation that our government will work equally hard to find solutions to the problems they are facing and act on them quickly. Growing older, becoming more seasoned and entering into a different phase of life can be beautiful. Aging gracefully and staying engaged mentally, spiritually and physically in our retirement years is a special chapter of our life to embrace. We are all going to become seniors one day. Some of us already are. Sadly, this is not the case for all people. As we become seniors, we do not all get to enjoy that beautiful retirement phase of our life.

The issues and needs of seniors should be one of the utmost priorities for the government. I am here, and I will continue to be a strong advocate for the people in my riding and the seniors across our country. On top of the clawback issues, many are experiencing loss and loneliness, which of course have been highlighted by the pandemic, regret, lack of proper care, lack of hygiene, dementia, financial and physical abuse, and fear of technology, which is a big one these days.

Currently, COVID-19-related benefits are not listed exemptions under the act for the purpose of benefit calculations. The proposal is to amend the definition of income in the OAS by deducting the amount received from three COVID-19 benefit acts. Do not get me wrong. I am delighted that the government wishes to move forward on this. The goal of this legislation is not to have a repeat of the 2021 GIS clawback. This is great news. My concern is, why the delay? More specifically, why would we not be allowing the House to properly and respectfully review the options that have been presented, respect the process of healthy debate and swiftly move forward in the best interests of all Canadians being impacted? I can certainly appreciate that time is sensitive and that action is required, but not at the expense of ensuring that this bill is presented in its best, most thorough possible form.

A fine gentleman once told me, “The facts, ma'am, just the facts”, so allow me to provide some this evening.

When ministers are called before committees, they have a document prepared for them. It briefs them on topics that may be raised. These binders are available for anyone to read.

In May 2020, the then Minister of Seniors appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As is standard practice, the minister was prepared a binder by department officials. In that binder, in section 7, under the heading “Questions and answers—COVID-19 Economic Response Plan: Support for Canadians and businesses”, and under “Interaction with CERB and GIS”, the following question appears: “Will income from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit be used in the calculation of Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits?” The answer is as follows:

It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances.

This being said, this will not affect the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances for about a year. Income received...in 2020 will only affect GIS and Allowances benefit amounts beginning in July 2021, as those benefits will be based on 2020 income.

This is a verbatim quote from our government, from their own briefing binders, proving that the government was aware of this for at least 21 months and chose not to act. Flags had been raised and tens of thousands of seniors have been affected.

As for this next point, I had not intended to raise it, but listening carefully to the debate in the House today, I heard one of the hon. members from across the floor engage the House to reflect or, in his words, focus on the 10 years before the Liberals came to office. I took that as a welcome opportunity for me to highlight those years in the House.

For the last decade, Canada's population has been in the midst of a fundamental shift. We can all recognize that. The extraordinary change to Canada's demographics can present opportunities. We do not necessarily just have to see these as obstacles. These are opportunities. In response to the member across the floor, I ask members to allow me to indulge in the achievements of the recent Conservative government when it comes to our seniors.

Since 2006, the Harper government created $3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief for seniors and pensioners. It introduced tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs, which over three million Canadian seniors have opened. It introduced pension splitting for seniors to benefit millions of seniors each year. It improved the rules for registered retirement income funds to allow seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings.

It also introduced the largest increase to GIS in 25 years. As well, the GIS earning exemption was increased. Improvements were made to the CPP to allow individuals who wished to stay in the labour force to also receive CPP pensions. Shall I go on? Perhaps I will leave it at that for the purpose of tonight's discussions.

Especially as a new parliamentarian, I know I cannot, and must not, understate the importance of these stages of the legislative process. What we have in front of us is admittedly a very important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that should have come long ago. Many are desperate, and our federal government has had a significant role to play.

I have mentioned before, while standing in the House, that the role of an effective opposition is not just to oppose but to critique, and our responsibility is to build solutions. We need to ensure that all low-income seniors who saw their GIS clawed back in 2021 are included in appropriate and timely, yet thorough, legislation.

This portfolio need not be partisan. This is not Liberal versus Conservative issue. This is inaction that requires action. I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the minister and all members of the House to ensure we are all working together and accomplishing the best interests for all Canadians.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the merits of Bill C‑12. We know that it is an error that will be corrected.

Nevertheless, we also would have liked to propose amendments to this bill. I know that the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the bill is only five lines long.

I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary is aware that the word “March” is only five letters long and could easily be slotted into this bill.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague need not be concerned about the fact that some of us on this side of the House are environmentalists and like to keep the power bill as low as possible.

I disagree vehemently with the premise of that question. This is a five-line bill that responds to all of the members of the House and what they were asking this government to do. Five lines, what is there to study? The minister was at committee yesterday and was asked about this repeatedly. This debate has gone on all day today and most of the conversation has been about things other than Bill C-12.

No, I do not agree with the member that this needs to be studied more, not a five-line bill.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the hon. minister, for splitting her time with me tonight.

It is with tremendous pleasure that I virtually rise in the House this evening to talk about Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, guaranteed income supplement, at this very important second reading stage. Before I do so, I would like to acknowledge that I am joining the debate from the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

To echo the words of the hon. Minister of Seniors, the purpose of Bill C-12 is very simple. This bill would permanently exempt pandemic benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, or allowance benefits starting as of July 2022. As we have heard discussed by my hon. colleagues today during a very thorough debate, our government has a plan in place to get direct compensation to seniors who experienced reductions in their GIS previously. This is not enough, however. We know that we will find ourselves back in the same position four months from now if further action is not taken immediately. We have heard agreement on this from all parties who share our concern in preventing this problem from ever happening again.

The Canada emergency recovery benefit and the Canada recovery benefit continue to play an important role in supporting Canadians who were unable to work throughout 2021 and protecting so many from crippling income loss. To allow pandemic benefits like this to continue being effective and to avoid negative impacts on seniors, Bill C-12 would provide the reassurance seniors need to continue collecting the financial support they need, if they need to do so.

Our government has also helped seniors in many ways beyond direct emergency benefit payments and tax relief. We invested $100 million to improve access to food for Canadians, including seniors facing social, economic and health impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We created a $350-million emergency community support fund to support charities and non-profit organizations to adapt the services that they provide to vulnerable groups, including seniors, in response to COVID-19.

When COVID hit, we had already approved many New Horizons for Seniors projects. As the pandemic's effects became clearer, we gave organizations the flexibility to adapt previously approved projects and use their funding to provide support for seniors' needs specific to COVID-19. In addition, in March of 2020, we invested an additional $9 million via the New Horizons for Seniors program to support projects by community organizations serving seniors. In May of 2020, we invested a further $20 million to expand the New Horizons for Seniors program to support organizations that offer community-based projects that reduce isolation, improve the quality of life of seniors and help them maintain a very important social support network.

It is a sad reality that the COVID pandemic has brought isolation to the lives of so many of our most vulnerable senior citizens. With isolation to stay safe at home, seniors have had challenges maintaining their physical and mental health. Seniors built the Canada that we know and love today and they deserve our support to live with dignity. That sense of vulnerability is real and cannot be overstated. It is why our government has dug deep and continues to dig deep to find ways to address those fears and bring some element of comfort to those deprived of basic securities that most of us take for granted.

To support seniors to live in their homes for longer as they age, we committed to providing $90 million for the age well at home initiative. The initiative would assist senior-serving organizations in providing practical support that helps low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors age in their homes. It would match seniors with volunteers who can help with meal preparations, home maintenance, daily errands, yardwork, transportation, just name it. It would also help seniors access local services such as shovelling snow, cutting grass, picking up medicine and taking care of other practical non-medical tasks that they are no longer able to manage.

In budget 2021, we provided $3 billion to Health Canada to support provinces and territories in ensuring standards for long-term care are applied and permanent changes are made so that seniors who live in care live in safe and dignified conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted long-standing challenges in Canada's long-term care homes, as the Minister of Seniors knows all too well.

Gaps have been exposed in infection prevention and control, staffing and infrastructure, with tragic effects on residents, their families and those working in long-term care facilities. That is why, in the 2020 fall economic statement, the Government of Canada committed up to $1 billion for the safe long-term care fund to help provinces and territories support infection prevention and control, through making improvements to ventilation, hiring additional staff and topping up wages.

We are also committed to affordable housing. We plan to build, repair and support an additional 35,000 affordable housing units for vulnerable Canadians, including seniors. This is part of the national housing strategy, which is on track to invest $70 billion by 2027-28 to help more Canadians find an affordable place to call home.

We are working to improve access to palliative care and end-of-life care, including culturally sensitive care by providing $29.8 million over six years to Health Canada to advance the government's palliative care strategy and lay a better foundation for coordinated action on long-term care and supportive care needs.

We are also supporting seniors and Canadians' mental health by providing $100 million to the Public Health Agency of Canada to support projects for innovative mental health interventions for populations disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, including seniors. We have invested $50 million for the Public Health Agency of Canada to design and deliver interventions that promote safe relationships and prevent family violence, including elder abuse.

These are just some of the supports that our government has provided to improve the lives and financial situation of our Canadian seniors. We will continue to look at ways, in co-operation with all members in the House, to improve our supports and services for seniors.

Our government has been there time and again for seniors across Canada. The pandemic has highlighted the many challenges facing our most vulnerable seniors. We have done a lot, but here is an area where we still have a bit more to do. It is time for all members of the House to put aside politics and focus on why we are here as members of Parliament, delivering for Canadians in need of help.

I am hoping that all hon. colleagues in this House will join with us to pass this bill when it comes to a second reading vote.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join members virtually from Brampton West, which is situated on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Huron-Wendat, Haudenosaunee, Ojibwa and Chippewa people, the land that is home to the Métis and the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit.

I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague and parliamentary secretary, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Simply, this bill would exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement or allowance benefits beginning in July, 2022. Allow me to explain this short, simple and clear piece of legislation a little more and expand on why we are proposing this amendment.

As hon. members may know, and they surely know, when this pandemic first began in early 2020 our government moved very quickly to provide an unprecedented response to a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. We left no stone unturned to help Canadians, from workers to businesses to students to, indeed, seniors.

We did that through introducing pandemic benefits, such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, to support employed and self-employed people who lost jobs during the pandemic so that they could have a roof over their heads and food on their tables. All of these measures helped millions of Canadians avoid catastrophic income loss. In fact, let me remind the House that $8 out of every $10 that was spent during this pandemic was invested through our federal government. We also know that these benefits are having an impact on some of our most vulnerable seniors.

To start, I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the guaranteed income supplement is an income-tested benefit payable to low-income seniors who receive the old age security pension. The allowances are income-tested benefits that are payable to 60- to 64-year-olds who are the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients, or who are widows or widowers. Every July, an individual's entitlement to these income-tested benefits is reassessed based on their income or the combined income of a couple.

I want to highlight this, as I have heard during debate in the House some members from the Bloc ask why it is in July. It is because July is when income benefits are reassessed, based on the income of the previous year. Therefore, GIS and allowance payments can increase, decrease or even cease according to the changes in a person's annual net income from the previous year.

Let me also clarify for the House that old age security is not income tested, which means that seniors continue to receive it every year. It is not reassessed based on an individual's previous income. In fact, our pension system is designed to reflect the cost of living, with payments only ever increasing or staying the same. They actually never go down. This is something I have heard members from the Conservative Party speak to and debate: that somehow a senior's OAS was impacted by these pandemic benefits. That is simply not the case. Seniors continue to receive their old age security.

The Income Tax Act defines pandemic relief benefits as taxable income, which means that they have also been considered income when determining entitlement to the GIS or allowance benefits. Unfortunately, that means that some seniors receiving GIS may now be facing lower benefit payments because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits.

We recognize that some seniors were facing significant challenges as a result of this, and we needed to move quickly to rectify the situation. I can tell the House that we moved very quickly with our extraordinary public servants to look at all the options possible. We worked very closely with the Minister of Finance, and we did just that.

As a first step towards resolving this issue, we proposed to provide up to $742.4 million for one-time payments. These payments would help to alleviate the financial hardship for GIS and allowance recipients who received pandemic relief benefits in 2020 and saw their GIS affected as a result. This automatic, non-taxable, one-time payment would support those who saw a decrease in their GIS or allowance payments by compensating them for the full annualized loss amount.

We are going to fully compensate seniors for their loss of GIS or allowance benefits, and we are making it simple. Seniors would not need to take any action to receive their one-time payments. These payments would be provided to approximately 204,000 seniors who qualified to receive the CERB or similar benefits in 2020, and as I announced yesterday, we are now going to be able to deliver payments to those who saw their GIS reduced in 2020 ahead of schedule. It will be as early as April 19. To support those seniors in dire need, members of Parliament will be able to work with Service Canada to help those seniors even sooner.

However, we will not stop there. We do not just want to compensate those who saw reductions in the past, because we know seniors continued to struggle to make ends meet and navigate the pandemic into 2021. Some seniors are still facing financial difficulties and relying on benefits to support themselves, and we want to ensure that seniors will not be facing a loss or reduction in benefits again. That is precisely why we introduced this simple but significant piece of legislation.

Bill C-12 would exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits beginning in July, 2022. Once again, we are proposing this change to the OAS Act to ensure that this problem never happens again. Bill C-12 would make an important legislative change that would provide seniors with peace of mind and certainty in knowing they will not face any undue financial hardship if they continue to access pandemic relief benefits.

As Canadians know, the well-being of seniors, especially the most vulnerable, has been a priority for our government since 2015. I will remind the House of some of the measures our government has put in place and some of our priorities moving forward. We made seniors' financial well-being a top priority. One of the very first things we did as a government was restore the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS to 65 from 67. We also increased the guaranteed income supplement, which has helped over 900,000 low-income single seniors and has lifted 45,000 seniors out of poverty. We have enhanced the CPP, which was mirrored by the QPP.

We are also moving forward with our plan to increase the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 or over in July, 2022. This increase will provide an extra $766 to full pensioners over the first year. To help address the urgent needs of this group of seniors, we provided a one-time payment of $500 last summer. We provided this one-time payment to support older seniors who face higher financial pressures, because we know that as they age seniors tend to have lower incomes and often face higher health-related expenses, all while they are more likely to be unable to work, to have disabilities or to be widowed. Simply, we followed the facts and evidence. We understand seniors' needs grow as they age, and we are there to support them. Of course, a big part of my mandate is to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for single seniors and $750 for couples.

During the pandemic, the focus of our support was always on people. We helped millions of Canadians with pandemic supports and benefits. We delivered direct payments to seniors and families, and when we saw that some seniors were affected by this, we took action to support vulnerable seniors who experienced reductions in their GIS or allowance as a result. With Bill C-12, we can ensure that low-income seniors would not have to face a reduction in their GIS or allowance benefits again if they took them in 2021, or if they find they need to access relief benefits in the future.

As I have said, this pandemic has worsened many challenges facing the most vulnerable seniors and those who care for them. We are constantly working hard to find permanent solutions that will bring ongoing comfort and relief to people whose hard work, and in many cases sacrifice, has contributed to the Canada we are so proud and privileged to call home.

Seniors deserve nothing less than the best from us. They do not need delays or political games at this crucial moment, and I really hope all members in the House will join us in moving quickly to pass this bill.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

moved that Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-12 at second reading.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to join the debate in the House today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people to discuss proceedings on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. The bill would exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement, or the GIS, and allowance benefits, beginning in July 2022.

As members know, our government acted swiftly to be there for Canadians when the pandemic first hit our communities. Our number one priority was to make sure that all Canadians were protected. The Canada emergency response benefit was put in place very quickly in 2020 to help people avoid catastrophic income loss during COVID. The CERB and then the Canada recovery benefit did just that. It helped millions of Canadians. Some low-income working seniors relied on pandemic relief benefits, as they too were eligible and could not continue working. These are the people we are focused on today, like the seniors in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt who have called my office with questions. This is the answer for them.

The Minister of Seniors heard all seniors across the country and she brought forward a bill, but these benefits are now, unfortunately, having an impact on some vulnerable seniors. We therefore introduced Bill C-12 to mitigate those impacts going forward. This is a simple yet very significant amendment. Bill C-12 understands that when this unpredictable global public health crisis hit and we rolled out pandemic benefits quickly, the benefits were not intended to impact monthly low-income benefits. We explained that they would be taxable income. However, low-income seniors were trying to make ends meet at the time of crisis.

I would say this is a non-partisan cause, and it is proactive, automatic and has spinoff benefits. This would help keep more GIS recipients on the provincial benefits they rely on as well. This is a point that means a great deal to seniors regarding dental and housing benefits in some provinces, like Ontario.

While we have committed to fully compensating those affected seniors with a one-time, automatic, non-taxable payment, the pandemic is not over. Seniors' livelihoods were affected in 2021 and now even into 2022. Seniors depended on the Canada recovery benefit, Canada worker lockdown benefit, Canada recovery sickness benefit and many other pandemic supports. Bill C-12 gives a chance to the parties opposite to help us restore some hope for seniors. This is a matter that we can all get behind. This is an opportunity for all members of the House to show that they do in fact care for the most vulnerable and for Canada's seniors who built this country.

Seniors want to see government respond to the issues raised by stakeholders and those who are affected. Some affected seniors only lost a small amount of GIS, while some were taken off entirely. There is a range of situations. That is why evidence-based targeted approaches are the right solution to compensating affected seniors.

Let us remind ourselves that every July, an individual's entitlement for the GIS or the allowance is reassessed based on the individual's income or the combined income of a couple, as reported on their tax return. July is fast approaching, so the timing on this is very important. Tax season has once again begun and the GIS will be recalculated this July. That is why we need to ensure the bill is passed immediately so that low-income seniors, like the ones in Scarborough—Agincourt, are not affected for a second or third time for that matter. I want to remind seniors to file their taxes to ensure that their benefits will continue.

Let me be clear. Parliamentary processes are important to this government. We respect the House, but we are also concerned for our seniors who are worrying right now. We ask all members to help us strike this balance. We can uphold the processes of Parliament and have the backs of low-income seniors.

We have worked very hard and engaged with members from all parties on this very pressing matter from the very beginning. The Minister of Seniors engaged with her critics. From tabling this bill to technical briefings to second reading, we are ensuring that the bill goes through vigorous processes and analysis.

Just yesterday, although the minister was at the human resources committee to speak particularly on her mandate letter, she dedicated a significant amount of time speaking about Bill C-12 and answering any questions members had.

We did not just want to provide a quick fix. We wanted to ensure seniors would not be facing such a loss or reduction in benefits again. Bill C-12 would permanently exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits, beginning in July 2022, which would prevent this from happening again. To be clear, the following benefits would be exempt: the Canada emergency response benefit, including any CERB amount paid under the Employment Insurance Act; the Canada recovery benefit; the Canada recovery sickness benefit; the Canada recovery caregiving benefit; and the Canada worker lockdown benefit. Once again, we are proposing this change to the OAS Act to ensure this problem never happens again.

Bill C-12 would make an important legislative change that would provide seniors with the certainty and peace of mind that, in the future, they would receive the GIS and allowance benefits to which they are entitled, without the need for a one-time payment. This bill is simple and understandable. I could easily read the bill to the House to showcase its simplicity. There is no fine print.

Moreover, this is not the first time an amendment would be made to the Old Age Security Act. In fact, it underwent its first big important amendment in 1966. That was the amendment that created the guaranteed income supplement, the very mechanism we are dealing with today in Bill C-12. The idea of this mechanism was always to support the lowest-income and most vulnerable seniors. We all agree that prioritizing them is the right approach. Seniors who took these benefits need a quick response to keep them confident that their financial security will be protected. This is what we are here for.

This is what I hope opposition parties will join us in doing today. All parties have already agreed that this is the most pressing or one of the top priorities for them because it relates to vulnerable, low-income seniors. This would mean to me that all members should explicitly show support for Bill C-12 and move it ahead quickly.

Seniors deserve nothing less than diligent and co-operative work in this regard. As parliamentarians and Canadians, we owe this to our seniors, and I hope we can all get behind Bill C-12.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

I am very pleased to participate in this debate, but I must admit that I am wondering why we are debating this motion tonight when we could quickly take action. If there is one time when members should be unanimous, it is this evening on this bill.

We are here to debate Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide a guaranteed income supplement exemption. I would like to explain this to the Canadians who are watching at home. Usually when we study a bill, it involves a rather complex process. To make amendments to a law, often many changes are needed here and there. We must be certain of the changes to be made. In this case, it is very simple.

In the French version of the bill, only five lines were changed. Those five lines will change our tax system to eliminate a problem for seniors. All political parties in the House of Commons recognize that this problem must be fixed.

My wonderful colleague from northern Ontario just expressed his approval. Earlier today there were speeches by Bloc Québécois members who indicated their support. The NDP members have said they support it. I cannot figure out why we are still debating this motion. We may even end up straying from the topic because some of the parties like playing political games.

We really have to meet the needs of Canada's seniors. That is why I am urging my opposition party colleagues, especially the Conservative and Bloc Québécois members, to approve this. I hope that, once they have read these five lines, they will give their approval so we can get on with it.

We know how we got to this point. The pandemic hit. Unfortunately, some seniors who had been working part time or full time to earn extra money had to stop working. The pandemic caused problems for everyone in Canada. People lost their jobs overnight. Everyone did their part to stop the spread of the virus.

They had access to some substantial programs that we created to support Canadians and our businesses. They received money from the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB.

As my colleagues know, our public pension benefits and the guaranteed income supplement are calculated every year based on income received the previous year. These people will unfortunately be affected by this change, but amendments will solve this problem.

I want to take a moment to explain exactly how it works. As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, these people will be penalized for this tax year, and we do not want that to happen, as we have heard from many people who have contacted our offices. We need to address this issue, and that is exactly what we are proposing to do.

That is why I think it is important for us to take swift action, and that is what I am prepared to do. It is almost 7:40 p.m. eastern time. If everyone were to agree right now that no one else will speak to this bill, we could proceed directly to the vote. That would be a good thing for Canadians and would reassure them that we are finally going to fix this issue. The bill is a short one, with just five lines.

That is why I think we need to take action, and I hope to convince my colleagues to join me.

I want to be clear and remind everyone what Bill C‑12 will do. The bill will prevent the guaranteed income supplement and allowances from being reduced come July. That is it. This bill will stop a problem from happening. We all agree that pandemic-related benefits should not be considered income for the purposes of calculating the guaranteed income supplement. If we all agree, that is what Bill C‑12, a bill that is five lines long, will do. It is short, simple and clear. Let us get moving.

We are moving quickly because we know that these supports need to be put into place quickly. As I have already mentioned, the system changes that are needed would be put into place by our incredible public servants, who are going to make sure that this happens in time.

Seniors who have had to access these benefits to make ends meet during a public health crisis might be penalized because their Conservative and Bloc representatives are incapable of setting partisanship aside and are trying to thwart the process. That would be unfair.

Once again, this should not surprise my colleagues. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have shown every step of the way that they are not there for Canadians, despite what the member who rose before me said:

“We have your backs.”

That is something the Prime Minister often says. If the Conservatives want to borrow our words, I encourage them to also get on board with how quickly we want to take action.

On behalf of seniors, I hope my Conservative and Bloc Québécois friends will join us in supporting this motion without amendment, so we can deliver for seniors who need this support, seniors who have given so much throughout their lives.

I know my colleagues support seniors. I encourage them to join us in getting this bill passed quickly so we can be there for Canadians.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is some lively back-and-forth this evening.

Bill C‑12 has its merits, obviously. However, there are two categories of seniors whose fate has not been clarified.

When it comes to inflation, seniors in my riding of Trois-Rivières are telling me every day that the money is coming a bit late. What I want to know is whether we are going to treat these people fairly, meaning with equity, or whether we are just going to treat everyone the same, meaning with equality, by which I mean mistreat them equally.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kenora.

I cannot start my speech today without giving some recognition. On this side of the House, we have talked about a plan forward out of this pandemic. We have talked about ending the mandates, so I cannot start today without recognizing my hometown, which I am so proud of: Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Calgary City Council, led by Dan McLean, today announced an end to the mask mandate on March 1 in alignment with the Province of Alberta, so I thank Dan McLean. Dan, of course, is the councillor for Ward 13. It is a ward in my riding, and I am so very pleased and proud of him and city council today for taking that brave action toward advancing Canadians and ending this mandate. I thank them so very much.

As the shadow minister for employment, future workforce development, disability and inclusion, a key portfolio in ESDC, and along with the incredible critic for seniors in my party, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, I feel completely obliged and compelled to speak about the matter before us today, Bill C-12, and the reason we are having this debate.

When I heard about Bill C-12, it seemed to me that the situation was familiar and I gave it a bit of thought. When the pandemic hit, the government issued a series of benefits: the CERB and the CRB. Lo and behold, unfortunately when the GIS payments were issued there was a necessity to claw them back. This was a result of the government's lack of competency with the administration and overpayment of the CRB and the CERB, by giving funds to those who were not entitled to them. This is no small matter. It affects 90,000 low-income seniors across the country who are struggling to put food on the table and to heat their homes. They certainly do not need this problem at this time.

I understand that the government has allocated a large sum of funds to this: around $700 million. Yesterday in the House, it actually released the date on which these low-income seniors could start to see these funds. It is April 19. The Liberals were not willing to release that information to me at committee, so I am glad they have finally come forward with it in the House, and have announced a date when seniors can expect to see these funds. They would not give me a date when I pressed them at committee.

As I reflected upon this situation, it occurred to me that this was not the first time we had seen this. In fact, oops, they did it again. Where has this happened before? Where have we seen this lack of administration and competency before? I am going to go all the way back to the beginning of the pandemic and Bill C-2, where we as an opposition tried very hard to work with the government to get Canadians the benefits they deserved.

Our current interim Leader of the Opposition was involved in those negotiations, as was the member for Carleton, who was acting in the capacity of shadow minister for finance at the time. He had the good measure to recognize the lack of oversight that was occurring with the government asking for unlimited spending. I am very fortunate that he saw that and pointed it out.

What happened after that was that we had to come back to the House and amend Bill C-2 as a result of the government's incompetence and mismanagement again. We saw that the Canada emergency wage subsidy came too late. The Canada emergency commercial rent assistance did not work, because it required the approval of landlords as well as a 70% revenue reduction. As well, not a single business received funds from the government's large employer emergency financing facility. We saw it there with Bill C-2.

We saw it again in May of 2020, when the CBC reported that Canadians who did not qualify for CERB were getting it anyway and could face consequences, such as the ones we saw with the GIS, which thank goodness are finally being addressed today.

However, it does not end there. We saw it again with maternity benefits, whereby Canadian women who were pregnant could not receive the CERB or the CRB, again as a result of government error and an oversight. We saw the errors of the government once again having a significant impact on Canadians who needed those benefits at that time.

I wish I could say it ends there, but it does not. In fact, it goes on to Bill C-24, where we had to come back and close loopholes that allowed international leisure and other non-essential travellers to claim the Canada recovery benefit, but that made individuals required to quarantine or self-isolate under the Quarantine Act during the two-week benefit period ineligible to submit a claim.

Do we see the trend here that I am referring to? It is the incompetency of the government again and again. Here we are again with Bill C-12, referring to the errors of the government that deeply impacted Canadians. I wish I could say it ends there. It does not.

In November, 2021, we found out that organized crime knowingly and actively exploited federal pandemic benefits. Where did these funds potentially go? I will tell you. They went to illegal firearms. Check the borders, boys. They also went to human trafficking and prostitution. Once again, the errors and mismanagement of the government caused problems for the House. They caused delays to those who needed benefits, resulting in new legislation. The House had to consider taking the time of everyone here, taking us away from other important issues and away from work for our constituents, to come back here and fix the government's errors once again.

I know members know what I am going to say. It does not end there. Now, we are finding out that there are problems with the auditing. Even though the government was aware in June, 2020, and by July 2020, it recognized $442 million in double payments, we will not see this auditing be completely done and rectified until 2023. That is three years after the Liberals first recognized that this problem existed.

Again and again, we are seeing the government's incompetence have a significant effect on the lives on Canadians and on everyone who works in the House and wants to focus on other legislation. Unfortunately, we are called back again and again to fix the errors of the government.

It does not end there. Just five days ago, we found out that the federal government sent nearly $12 million in Canada emergency response benefit payments to people with foreign addresses in the first seven months of the pandemic. It is overwhelming the number of—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says this is really important. It is clear that this legislation is to fix errors from former legislation that the government put forth. I know it is something I have heard about extensively in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country from seniors, who were affected by the errors made in the legislation. They said how they affected them.

My question to the hon. member is this. If this was so important for the government to fix, why did we have an election in the summer? Why did it take the government two months to be recalled, and why did it wait so long for this legislation, Bill C-12? Why did it wait so long? Why was it not one of the most important pieces of legislation that was brought forth as soon as the House resumed?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very passionate about the diabetes issue too. I thank him for this passion. He is a great member of his riding.

We can all agree with how challenging this pandemic has been for seniors and we know that we are always there for our respectable seniors. We are helping seniors by issuing an one-time payment to those on GIS allowance to reduce the loss due to pandemic benefits. We all want Bill C-12 to be passed.

I am also grateful to all members of the House for supporting this bill and I am hoping we will pass the bill quickly, so our seniors can get—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Skyview for sharing his time with me. I am pleased to rise today virtually to support Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, a bill to support seniors in Canada presented by my colleague from Brampton West, the Minister of Seniors.

The issues the bill raises are some that I have heard about from my constituents. Last year and earlier this year, I had a number of important meetings with many different organizations that serve seniors in Brampton, such as members of Brampton's local CARP, United Achievers' Club, Young at Heart, Roots Community Services and some seniors clubs.

Most importantly, I spoke with hundreds of seniors at their doors in my riding of Brampton South. All of them spoke to me about the importance of supporting seniors and recognizing that they were hit hard by this pandemic. They know very well how we can play a positive role in their lives through supporting the physical, social, financial, health and well-being of seniors.

That is why today I will be happy to share my perspective on why we need to pass this bill as soon as we can so that we can continue to support seniors across the country. Bill C-12 excludes income received from the recovery benefits, the caregiving benefit, the sickness benefits and the lockdown benefits from being included in the calculated amount of the guaranteed income supplement, an allowance that will be coming to seniors at their set monthly rate starting this July.

From the beginning, it was made clear to Canadians that these pandemic programs were meant as income replacement for people who had lost their jobs or who had their hours reduced because of the pandemic. It was also clear that this would be considered as income. As a result, some seniors who got these benefits saw a reduction in the GIS allowance benefit. We recognize that this came as unexpected to some seniors.

We have heard their concerns and this bill will help resolve this issue by exempting pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits. We will ensure we do not penalize seniors for taking the pandemic benefits they needed to help make ends meet. We know that our government's compassionate approach has helped seniors and all Canadians get through some very tough times.

Some working, low-income seniors still need pandemic support from the government. This is why, as a first step, the government committed in this economic and fiscal update to provide a one-time payment to compensate for the full amount of the reduction. It will be automatic, tax-free and come in the same way seniors normally receive their benefits.

Coming even earlier than planned in April, this will prevent financial hardship for these seniors. Eligible seniors will not need to take any action. This targeted, one-time payment will go to over 200,000 GIS and allowance recipients who received pandemic benefits in 2020 and who faced a reduction or loss of GIS benefits. We are determined to make this right. As a next step, this bill is making a simple adjustment to the Old Age Security Act that will prevent this GIS reduction from happening again.

The substance of this bill is shorter than 100 words. It does not need any further delay, study or analysis, so let us pass the bill quickly to take away the worries of low-income seniors.

We are proud of our record when it comes to supporting seniors. One of the first actions this government took was to restore the age of eligibility for OAS to age 65 after it was raised by the Conservatives. That move tried to push seniors into staying in the workforce longer, which seniors did not appreciate or ask for. What they actually asked for was a secure retirement.

When the pandemic began, we invested an additional $9 million into the New Horizons for Seniors program, supporting local projects that serve seniors. Later, seniors received an additional $20 million from this program. Some of these projects, including those in our community, reduce social isolation, improve digital literacy and help seniors maintain a social support network.

We have also implemented changes that will specifically help low-income seniors, like raising the basic personal amount for taxes when this measure is fully implemented next year. It will benefit 4.3 million seniors, almost half a million of whom will see their federal taxes reduced to zero. That will benefit many seniors.

The government has provided one-time payments to help get seniors through the pandemic, and we will see a permanent 10% increase for those over the age of 75 coming this summer. This is the first real adjustment since 1973. This helped nearly 900,000 low-income seniors and has lifted 45,000 seniors out of poverty. The government has worked hard to ensure income security for seniors who have spent their lives helping to build this country. We enhanced the CPP by 50% for future retirees. We are the party that created OAS, the CPP, the RRSP and the GIS, which serve as the cornerstones of the Canadian retirement system.

We know that we have more to do as well. We are working with the provinces to improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes. This one is especially important to me. Some members may remember that one of the first long-term care homes in the country that needed support from the armed forces was in my riding of Brampton South. The Health Standards Organization and the Canadian Standards Association have both released their draft reports for recommendations on this issue. Like many Canadians, I am eager to see the final results later this year.

Our government is also exploring the establishment of an aging at home benefit as well as assisting other community-based organizations that help seniors to age in place.

If we ask seniors in any community, they will tell us that they want to stay in their homes with their families longer. We are working to provide seniors with a single point of access for government services, as well as working to define elder abuse and make the appropriate adjustments to the Criminal Code. We know that elder abuse, including in care homes, needs to be called out and addressed.

I remember the night before the omicron wave, I visited the Flower City Seniors Centre together with the Minister of Seniors. I remember speaking with Christine, the facility manager, about the support we are providing for seniors. I asked her about the feedback she is hearing from seniors in Brampton. Seniors want this pandemic to be over and while they want issues like the one we discussed today to be addressed quickly, they are grateful for the support we have given them.

Together, I look forward to continuing the work with the minister, locally and nationally, on supporting seniors. We all have to continue this work.

This bill is essential. Seniors across the country need this support urgently and there is no reason for delay. I encourage all colleagues to support the bill.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brampton South.

Today, we have a very important question before the House, and I am here to join in this debate about what we can do for seniors, particularly low-income seniors, who have a greater need of government support. Bill C-12 would amend the Old Age Security Act around the guaranteed income supplement, and we have a very tight timeline to do so. This crucial legislation would amend the Old Age Security Act to ensure that pandemic relief benefits are exempt from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement or allowance benefits, starting in July 2022. We recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic has made life more expensive for seniors. This was especially the case for vulnerable seniors who had followed public health advice and made the right choice to protect themselves and their loved ones by staying home from their jobs to avoid the risk of infection.

I think back to June 2020 and the devastating impacts of the hailstorm in my community of Calgary Skyview. It had a huge impact on our community. It devastated the homes of many Calgary Skyview residents and many seniors during the time of the COVID pandemic. I am thinking of the many seniors I have spoken to from Calgary Skyview, such as Maureen, Sunil and the president of the Dashmesh Seniors Society, Mr. Bhatti. It was for individuals like them that we quickly responded and introduced pandemic benefits, like the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit.

As we all know, these benefits have resulted in some negative impacts for some of our most vulnerable seniors. This was not our government's intention, and we have worked closely with officials to come up with a rapid and targeted response. I would like to thank the officials who have delivered these immensely valuable benefits to Canadians and who thought to make sure they were compassionate and available throughout the pandemic.

Currently, the Old Age Security Act outlines that GIS is an income-tested, payable benefit to low-income seniors who receive the old age security pension. At the start of every July, eligible Canadian seniors have their entitlement for the GIS or the allowance reassessed based on their income or the combined income of a couple, as reported on their annual tax return in April. The purpose of this is to ensure that the most in-need seniors receive the benefit and that appropriate recalculations take place.

The Income Tax Act defines the newly created pandemic relief benefits as taxable income. This has, in turn, meant that they are also considered as income for the purpose of determining entitlement to the GIS or allowance benefits. Responding to this while respecting the tax season is why Bill C-12 is so important and required a more tailored approach to quickly receive royal assent.

In the economic fiscal update of last December, we announced our first step in addressing the broader issue of GIS benefits being impacted. Our government committed $742.4 million for a one-time payment to fully compensate eligible recipients who were impacted. Through close collaboration with other parties and our officials, we have worked hard on a timeline to deliver this payment as soon as possible. As the Minister of Seniors announced yesterday, we are on target to get these payments out to most individuals on April 19 to fully compensate the total amount in benefits lost for the year.

As I spoke about collaboration, I must acknowledge the great recent announcement in Calgary to support seniors. The government, the City of Calgary and Silvera for Seniors are partnering to deliver affordable housing with the Vista seniors housing project, which is located right across from Akram Jomaa Islamic Centre. This is significant work that was done by officials and our Liberal government in the spirit of co-operation, all the while focused on seniors, not the politics we see here. We recognize government is not always perfect, but we strive every day to be there for Canadians in the right ways to help them in their day-to-day lives. Here, we are doing that.

The motion before us has been thoroughly debated in the House, and rightfully so. I hope that after hearing from my colleagues, all members will recognize this is not about rushing, it is not about avoid procedure and it is not about the minister avoiding a committee appearance. Bill C-12 is about fixing a situation we all decried and moving forward for seniors.

The reason this motion was introduced was so that Bill C-12 could be passed expeditiously and the proper calculations could take place in July 2022. This is not an arbitrary date or a politically motivated false urgency to avoid process. The Minister of Seniors and her office have hosted technical briefings on this matter and offered a clear picture into the challenges that departmental officials face. Simply put, to avoid this issue arising a second time in July 2022, we must amend the Old Age Security Act no later than March 4. We heard concerns and support regarding the need to prevent a similar situation down the road. Seniors in all ridings have been impacted by this, and more seniors will be impacted if we do not move quickly. For that reason, we urge all members to do the right thing and what is best for Canada's most vulnerable seniors.

Bill C-12 would allow for thousands of seniors to file their 2021 taxes with peace of mind knowing that the benefits they are entitled will not be negatively impacted. To be clear, the following benefits would be exempt: the Canada emergency response benefit, including any CERB amounts paid under the Employment Insurance Act; the Canada recovery benefit; the Canada recovery sickness benefit; the Canada recovery caregiving benefit; and the Canada worker lockdown benefit.

As it is tax season, I want to thank the many organizations that are helping seniors in Calgary Skyview, like the Inca Senior Citizens Society and The Immigrant Education Society. They are partnering with us under the volunteer tax program.

Having listened closely to today's discussion, there appears to be a great deal of confusion on the part of some members opposite on exactly what Bill C-12 would do and why we need it. I repeat: Bill C-12 does not have anything to do with the one-time payment we committed to in the economic fiscal update. That is a separate matter and is something the minister is closely focused on with all involved. The members opposite who are insisting that more debate needs to be held on Bill C-12 should remember that this is a very simple five-line piece of legislation. It is not complicated and is designed with the sole purpose of exempting pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS and allowance when recalculations take place in July 2022.

My colleagues and I on this side of the House are extremely proud of the measures we have put forward over the course of this extremely difficult pandemic. We will continue to put seniors at the forefront of our government's response to COVID-19, and Bill C-12 plays an important role in that. We will remain focused on finding solutions to the challenges faced by Canada's seniors to allow for safe and comfortable retirements. Seniors deserve the finest quality of care and support after decades of building this country.

Bill C-12 is not something that can afford to be delayed. We must all act as fast as we possibly can. I hope my hon. colleagues can all agree on the need for swift passage of this bill.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here because Canada's poorest working seniors have been cruelly punished by the government simply for receiving legitimate pandemic supports, as any other working Canadian received.

My New Democrat colleagues and I have been tirelessly raising this issue in the House. I am grateful that the government is finally beginning to address this issue, but it is important to acknowledge the impact that the government's inaction over the past year has had, and the dire circumstances that seniors are currently facing because of the government's mistake and because of its inaction following it.

We have heard stories from across the country. I have spoken to many seniors in my riding of Victoria who have been impacted. I have shared a number of their stories in the House about the struggles they have faced. They have been unable to afford rent. Seniors have been living in motels or living in their cars and experiencing homelessness, hunger and the inability to pay for essential medication because the government spent months knowing that this problem existed but refusing to take urgently needed action.

The Liberal government has known about the GIS-CERB conflict since May, 2021, but it did not bother fixing it until New Democrats raised the issue, again and again, for months. Even before the government called an unnecessary election, we raised the urgency of this issue. We kept raising it, week after week and month after month. With each passing week, and each passing month, more seniors in our ridings were unable to meet their basic needs.

Seniors have shared that this is not just a financial issue. It is also a health issue. When seniors have to choose between medication and food, when they are forced to sleep out in the cold, when they cannot afford transportation to appointments or when they are living with the ever-present threat of eviction, they experience financial hardship, but they also experience medical and mental health crises, depression and suicide.

I support this bill because it finally begins to address the issue, but I am compelled to speak for the seniors who have suffered over the past year.

I think it is also important to acknowledge the fact that the government is not addressing the same conflict that exists with the Canada child benefit. Bill C-12 fixes the GIS clawback for vulnerable seniors, but for low-income families who received pandemic income supports, such as CERB or CRB, the Canada child benefit will still be clawed back next year because Bill C-12 is specific to GIS and not for income-tested benefits.

We are going to have to spend months pushing the government to address how this impacts families. We need a similar solution to the clawback for low-income families. I am glad this bill will be moving forward, because it is going to support seniors. However, it is important to also acknowledge that the guaranteed income supplement does not lift seniors out of poverty. Seniors receiving the GIS are still considered to be living below the poverty line. The GIS, except in some very rare cases, does not actually bring income above the poverty level.

This is why my NDP colleagues and I are pushing for a guaranteed livable basic income. It is why the member for Winnipeg Centre introduced Bill C-223, which, if passed, would establish the first national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. I want to give a shout-out to Basic Income Victoria BC and UBI Works for their advocacy on this critical issue. We have a responsibility to lift people out of poverty and to ensure that seniors, people with disabilities and single parents can meet their basic needs and live in dignity.

We need a basic guaranteed livable income that would make a world of difference for seniors on fixed incomes. We should also create a pension advocacy commission to increase and enhance CPP, OAS and GIS.

I want to take a moment, also, to talk about an organization in my riding. Fateh Care started operating during the pandemic. It provides support for seniors, those living with disabilities, people quarantining and people who are looking for a helping hand when they do not know where else to go. Fateh Care was founded by an incredible family, Harjas and Dr. Navneet Popli. It is one of a kind in Canada. It is a free mobile food bank, and it is available to all those who are struggling to afford or access food, who often do not have transportation to go out and buy it.

I went with Harjas to help deliver food in the mobile food bank, and it was so clear that people in our community are struggling. I want to thank Fateh Care for all the support it gives to seniors in need.

I also want to call on the government to address the underlying causes of food insecurity for seniors, and to commit to a guaranteed livable basic income. Earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons mentioned the need to move this expeditiously through Parliament, and this is what we are debating right now. He said he wished this had been done earlier. Wow. I wish that he had felt that urgency months ago.

The government knew about this issue a year ago. The Liberals failed to address it. We raised this issue many times in the House. After learning about the problem, and after hearing from the NDP advocating for seniors and hearing about the impacts on seniors across the country, the government called an unnecessary election. When we came back to the House, we raised it again and again.

There is a senior in my riding who lost their apartment because of this delay. There is a senior who lost their provincial rental assistance because of this mistake. It requires them to be on the GIS to receive these benefits. There are seniors struggling to pay for essential medication. How can the government explain the delay when speaking to these seniors?

The need for this bill underlines the fact that the government made a mistake. I understand that mistakes happen, but what I do not understand is why the government waited this long to correct its mistake. Why was the government okay letting seniors suffer for a year? More than that, why is the government okay letting seniors suffer year after year?

Even with this fix, too many seniors are living below the poverty line. There is a solution: Ensure they have a guaranteed livable basic income. Close loopholes in offshore tax havens. Ensure multi-millionaires are paying their fair share, and ensure seniors and all members of our communities can live in dignity.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, supporting our seniors is one issue I think all parliamentarians have been quite unanimous on. We saw our seniors throughout all communities, rural and urban, struggle so much during this pandemic. We as the Liberal government put in those measures to provide extra support, and now seniors should not be penalized for taking that extra support. That is really what the crux of this debate is all about.

I do not think that any member in this House disagrees with what we are trying to do as a government here, but we have heard throughout the day from the opposition. They do not disagree with the merits of this bill, Bill C-12, but rather with the process. We are here to debate the process of passing this bill and how we spend our time here before having the final vote on this bill.

The amendment that was moved by the Conservatives proposes that we should try to scramble committee resources to have a meeting on this when they know that committees' technical capacities are pushed each week to the max in order for them to meet. Committees have set agendas and have a lot to achieve on behalf of Canadians. If the amendment passed, they would be sent a motion by this House saying that the Minister of Seniors should be available to appear before them.

Hon. members opposite may know that the motion, if passed, would both not be binding and possibly obstructed, as the Conservatives did on Bill C-3, when the Minister of Labour made himself immediately available to deal with another urgent matter. Conservatives played politics and risked not getting the bill passed quickly, despite the importance of the matter. I worry that they would again play games like this if they were given that opportunity at committee. Having chaired a committee in the past, I have seen those games.

Further, they are ignoring what has been identified already, which is that the Minister of Seniors has been at committee. She was there yesterday. She has answered questions on this and on other issues that were in her mandate letter. Under the Conservatives' proposal, the same committee members would reconvene to debate a bill that I could read in this speech and still have six to seven minutes left over. They would reconvene to ask questions when they had an hour to ask but decided not to.

To me, any technical question could be asked and answered on this short bill through other means, given the importance of passing it through the House with expediency. The government has also offered time with civil servants in an all-MP briefing on this bill. It was held last week, after introduction. I would note that the English briefing only had two questions, that neither was from a Conservative MP, and that it ended in 10 minutes, as opposition members clearly did not see fit to take the opportunity to speak to the officials and the minister's office staff directly.

It seems convenient when certain opposition members say that they do not get answers, as they do not seem to ask a lot of real questions when the time comes. It seems quite disingenuous. They could have asked those real questions that they have, but it is clear that they would rather complain about not having that opportunity, an opportunity that I have identified just now that they had. I will leave Canadians at home to decide why that might be.

As identified as well by the member for Winnipeg North during his remarks, it is ironic to see the Conservatives dispute the process so inconsistently. At times the process matters and at times it does not. Why is that? The member well identified that the Conservatives and the Bloc would rather spend the full time debating and going into the details of a five-line bill just to delay the government. This amendment would only serve to delay these payments to seniors, although I suppose the Conservatives are no strangers to delaying payments to seniors, as we saw that they used their powers to push back the retirement age to 67 to keep Canadian seniors working. To quote most parents at some point or another, and I know my mom says this all the time, “I am not mad; I am just disappointed”.

The debate on how we debate does not make much sense to our constituents, especially on such a simple bill. As an important reminder, we all agree on the merits of this bill. Our constituents want to see Parliament do things, not debate about debating or about how much longer we should all agree with each other on this bill. We agree, so let us move forward. There are many other urgent and pressing things on our government's agenda that we must get to as parliamentarians.

I note for hon. members that we are still in a global pandemic. There are still seniors who are isolated and facing challenges to their mental health and to their well-being. There are still seniors in long-term care environments who are at a higher health risk of pandemic outbreaks and infection. They have hopefully been better protected through our government's rapid response and monumental work to get vaccines available for provinces and territories, and to distribute them.

There are still high costs to stay at home and to stay safe. There are working seniors who still cannot go back to their workplace to supplement their pension benefits with work income. We have continued to make pandemic benefits available to eligible seniors who cannot get to work. It is exactly for that reason that we introduced Bill C-12 in the first place. We know there are seniors who took benefits in 2021. There are seniors who are taking them now. We never know what the future is going to hold. These benefits will count as income this year and affect GIS and allowances if we do not pass Bill C-12.

We obviously hope that we do not need to continue pandemic benefits through to future years, but we want to assure people that they would be covered through this legislation. We said we would be there for seniors for as long as it takes, and that is what this bill is going to help us do. In order to get to this place, we need to let our officials get to work to make the changes needed in the system. As we know, the CRA is really busy through this time of year. ESDC is renewing GIS for 2.2 million seniors at this time as well. They are doing all this while doing a lot of other things too.

We have to respect the work of public servants and not play political games with technical measures that would help them support Canadians in a way that we have all asked them to. It is about respect for their time and their work, and I do not think that the Conservatives remember how important the work is that public servants do. They did not show respect to public servants when they were in power, and that is not really a big surprise.

I think hon. members opposite should consider focusing on what is really important here, which is low-income seniors who are working. These people rely on month-to-month income from pension programs, combined with these benefits. These people want to work, but they cannot. This pandemic benefit income is not normal income, because these are not normal times.

The Conservatives want to spend this debate telling us that process matters while also agreeing that it is an emergency. They cannot have it both ways. The merits of this short, simple matter are clear. It does one thing, and only one thing: It exempts pandemic benefit income going forward for the purposes of calculating GIS and allowances for seniors. If we agree on this matter, we should move forward quickly. Seniors are worried now, but are seeing politicians squabble over the most agreed-upon, simple bills that have ever been presented in this place.

Call me idealistic, but I hope the Conservatives and the Bloc will join the rest of the members in this House to recognize that this is an urgent matter. We need to get that support to our seniors. I hope they can join with us and work together, as we have been able to do in the past, and make sure that this support gets to seniors as soon as possible.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

I have the privilege of rising today to speak to Bill C‑12, which seeks to support low-income seniors whose guaranteed income supplement was affected by pandemic benefits.

I will use my time today to speak about the measures in the bill and the reasons why the government has introduced them to support vulnerable seniors. I will also speak about other measures that our government has taken to assist seniors. I am proud of these measures, which are making a difference in the lives of seniors in my riding of Kings—Hants.

My colleagues and, of course, all Canadians are aware of what we have been dealing with over the past two years. Our government has been there to support all Canadians, including seniors. We made a one-time $300 payment to seniors who were receiving old age security benefits and a $500 payment to those who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement.

These benefits were not considered income for the purposes of calculating old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. Of course we had work-related benefits, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and now the Canada worker lockdown benefit to support workers whose jobs were directly affected by COVID‑19.

Sometimes these measures created a situation where low-income seniors who were working before the pandemic lost access to the guaranteed income supplement because their income exceeded the eligibility threshold. Given the circumstances, it seems that all members support the principle of eliminating repercussions on the vulnerable seniors we are trying to support.

I think it is also important to talk about the measures that the government has introduced since 2015, measures that have made a difference in the lives of seniors across the country, including a positive difference in the lives of seniors in my riding of Kings—Hants.

First, it is sometimes easy to forget that it was the Conservatives who increased the age of eligibility for old age security. We restored the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 67 to 65, putting thousands of dollars back in the pockets of seniors.

Our government increased the GIS by 10% for seniors, improving the financial security of roughly 900,000 vulnerable seniors. We are permanently increasing the old age security pension by 10% for people 75 and older in July, which means that those who receive the full pension will receive roughly $766 the first year.

It is also important to recognize the platform commitment we made to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for individuals who qualify, and up to $750 for couples. I want to give an example. The Speaker and I both reside in and represent rural Nova Scotian ridings. There are individuals, particularly single senior women in my riding, who are sometimes vulnerable in the sense that these programs are extremely important for them to keep the lights on and stay in their homes. I am really proud this is something our government is committing to.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. We are working our way through it, of course, and challenges abound, but this is something I know all parliamentarians will be working toward to help support affordability measures for lower income seniors.

Let us talk about New Horizons for Seniors. For Canadians who might not know, New Horizons is a program run through the federal department of seniors that is supporting either infrastructure upgrades to communal buildings or programming that support seniors' activities.

I can speak positively about this program in my own riding of Kings—Hants. For example, the Glooscap Curling Club in Kentville, Nova Scotia, had a $25,000 investment provided by the Government of Canada to help keep that facility in top shape. It serves not just seniors but residents across Kings—Hants. It is particularly important for the seniors' programming that goes on. There are many examples of how this program is making a real difference in keeping seniors active and on the move.

We have also increased the basic personal amount, which is something that perhaps is not always talked about to the extent that it should be. That is increasing the threshold before individuals are required to pay federal tax. We have done that, which is certainly helping low-income seniors to the tune of about $300 to $400 a year. I recognize that might not solve all issues, but it is moving the yard sticks in the right direction. It is a making a difference for Canadians across the country.

What have all these measures resulted in? What has the government actually done, and what are the results? I laid out some of the measures the government has undertaken, but what are the results all members of the House can take in? It has resulted in an 11% reduction in seniors poverty since this government formed office in 2015.

I do not say that lightly. I know there will remain challenges. Indeed, many members of the House talk about instances where individuals continue to face challenges, and I am not naive to that, but the fact is 11% is not just a number in the House. That 11% represents the lives of individuals who have been supported and aided by the government programs we put in place, and I am certainly proud to stand on this side of the House, which has been part of making that happen.

I will now compare and contrast. I mentioned earlier that it was the Conservative Party that had increased the old age security threshold to 67. We, of course, brought that back down to age 65. I had the privilege of sitting in the House in the 43rd Parliament. I had the opportunity to hear a unanimous consent motion that came from the Bloc Québécois, perhaps an opposition day motion, that talked about increasing old age security by $110 across the board for every senior.

I voted against the motion, not on the idea that we should not be supporting seniors, but sometimes it is easy for opposition members in the House to say things and not really give a full reflection of the cost of the programs. I had the opportunity to tell the Bloc members what they did not say in that motion, which is that it would be an $8-billion expense per year, at a time when the fiscal framework is under duress.

I offered to my Bloc colleagues that, if they want to make those types of suggestions in the House, I hope it is also coming with concrete measures on how to grow the economy and increase government revenue to pay for it.

On the Conservative side of the House, the Conservative Party will often say this government is spending too much money. As someone who identifies as a business Liberal, that is fair by me. If we want to be able to rein in spending, it is important we remain fiscally prudent, but at the same time, how do we make sure we support those individuals who are vulnerable?

We are talking about programs. We are talking about a $700-million measure. How do Conservative members square the fact that they want less spending, but they also want us to do more in certain areas? Perhaps it is do more for seniors and do less elsewhere. I do not know, but those are some of the legitimate challenges we, as parliamentarians, face. How do we balance fiscal prudence versus also supporting lower-income individuals who could use help?

Those are my thoughts. I am happy to take questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate on Government Motion No. 7, particularly the amendment from my colleague for Cumberland—Colchester.

Toward the end of my speech, I will make some comments on Bill C-12, a bill with respect to seniors. It is a bill that Conservatives support. It is a bill that would address long-standing gaps in government support for seniors: perverse outcomes of some of the measures that came in during the pandemic. It is important to speak to those.

The specific issue that we need to discuss in Motion No. 7 is a programming motion by which the government seeks to set the agenda of the House and dramatically change the normal operating procedures for passing legislation. It is important that we talk about this, because this is one in a long list of things that we see from the government that really is an attack on the normal, proper functioning of our democratic institution.

To see the nature of that attack, one only needs to listen to what the government members are saying. We can listen to the member, for instance, for Kingston and the Islands, who spoke before me. He was so dismissive of alleged games being played. It is the expectation of members of some opposition parties, at least, that they have an opportunity to debate legislation and to see that legislation studied in committee, to see opportunities for amendments to be brought to that legislation, and then to see follow-up debate and a final vote.

This is the process we have for legislation. It is not a game. It is the way the process is supposed to work. Since the beginning of our country, we have had this process in place for how legislation has operated through Parliament.

When Conservatives were in power, from time to time we used mechanisms of closure to limit the time spent on debate at a particular stage of a particular bill. However, the government has gone so much further than that. It promised, in the 2015 election, to do away with the closure mechanism and not use closure. The Liberals were very critical of Conservatives for that closure mechanism, which limits the time spent in debate on a bill at a particular stage without limiting the study that can take place at committee and without trying to combine a bunch of stages into one.

In 2015, the Liberals were still very critical of the use of that procedure. However, now not only have they been using closure themselves, but they have gone further. They are putting forward motions that essentially wrap together all of those stages of legislative study and, for all intents and purposes, entirely skip the process of committee study.

This is a serious attack on the functioning of our democratic institutions. It is important to say that it fundamentally does not matter whether one agrees with the bill or not. We could be talking about a programming motion on a great bill, a terrible bill or a bill somewhere in between. The reason we have a legislative process for studying bills, and for understanding whether they work, is to be able to determine through that process of study how the bill would apply and what was missed in the bill.

It is possible that a bill could be motivated by an intention that everybody agrees is good, but then the process of committee study could reveal that there were some legal technicalities that lead to the bill having a perverse outcome. It is possible that there are some unintended consequences of the bill that are just not considered.

When I was a high school student, I remember that we spent some time at the Alberta legislature learning about the legislative process. One of the students asked about second reading, committee studies and third reading, and asked if it was possible to skip over this process as it seemed to take so long. The legislator who was speaking at the time said, I think wisely, that there were processes by which things could be skipped over, but there was a history of very bad outcomes associated with it.

He pointed out at the time that a terrible piece of legislation, a blight on our history, was passed at the beginning of the 20th century. It was a mandatory sterilization act that existed in Alberta for a number of decades. It passed extremely rapidly without the normal process of legislative study, because it seemed like a good idea to the people who were there at the time.

The lesson I learned, as a young student, and one that I have carried with me, is that one might be in a place in a moment in time when something seems like a good idea. That does not take away the importance of a process to study, and to reflect on, the value of the legislation.

On this point, I am often drawn to reflect on a particular exchange from the great play, A Man for All Seasons. The character representing Sir Thomas More is in dialogue with his son-in-law, William Roper, and Roper says, “So now you give the devil the benefit of the law,” and More says, “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” His son-in-law replies, “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”, and Sir Thomas More replies:

Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

The point is valid, even if we feel very strongly about a particular piece of legislation, or even if we feel very strongly that our cause is just and that our opponents are on the wrong side.

I understand the member for Kingston and the Islands is very critical and partisan in his tone about Conservatives. I am not that enthusiastic about the Liberal government either, but respect for Parliament and respect for the process of studying legislation, even when we disagree, is how we ensure we leave in place what More's character in A Man for All Seasons calls “Man's laws”, which protect all of us from the perverse outcomes that come when we start to cut corners and say we do not need committee study, we do not need third reading, we do not need substantial debate at second reading, or that we all basically agree with an idea, so let us just rip it through quickly.

What happens then, when we have established that precedent, is that we start to do that more and more, and pass bills that are maybe still motivated by good intentions, but we start to miss more things, and we find out we have more problems because we are not doing the analysis work that our legislature is supposed to do.

The other thing I was struck by, in the comments of the previous member, was that he spoke about how, at the beginning of this pandemic, all parties worked together to very quickly pass, by unanimous consent, a number of measures that were urgently needed in the context of the pandemic. Let us recall that was at a time before we knew much of anything about the operation of the virus, and before we were set up to do any kind of virtual Parliament. This was even before there was the same awareness there is now about the impacts of masks.

There was no viable way for all members of Parliament, or most members of Parliament, to get together in Ottawa. There was not that awareness about masks, and we did not have the tools to meet virtually, so in an extremely exceptional circumstance, we worked with the government with unanimous consent to adopt some pandemic measures. I think, importantly, that those of us at least on the Conservative side saw this as a very exceptional situation and believed that it should not, under any circumstances, be precedent-setting.

However, members of the government are now invoking some of these past precedents, as if to say, “We did it in extraordinary times, so why can we not just do it in normal times?” This is the problem. When we suspend normal rules, even in extraordinary circumstances, we get people such as members of the government saying, “If we could do it in that situation when we really needed to, why do we not have these kinds of programming motions skipping committee study and analysis, even when we do not need them?”

We do so much better as a legislature, and we do our jobs as legislators, when we actually study and analyze bills. This means voting on the principle of second reading, sending bills to committee where they can be studied and where questions can be asked and answered, and experts can weigh in, and amendments can be sent back for a final decision at third reading.

That would be the right way of proceeding. Instead, we have this draconian programming motion from the government that says we would have a limited number of speakers from each party, and then after those speakers were finished speaking the vote on the bill would take place, and then it would immediately be deemed to have gone through all of the remaining stages without any of the consideration that normally takes place at committee.

We are under the general terms of the debate on the government motion, but in particular what we are debating is an amendment from the Conservative Party caucus. We have tried to meet the government partway here, in terms of saying we understand there is value in passing this bill quickly, and we understand that bills on which there is general agreement do not require the same level of debate as bills on which there is substantive philosophical disagreement that has to be worked through. We accept that it is reasonable for different bills to be debated for different amounts of time.

What we are trying to do to meet the government halfway here is say that we will have the debate and then the bill will be quickly referred to the Standing Committee on Health, where the Minister of Health will be ordered to appear as a witness. That committee hearing will occur the day after the bill is passed, and clause-by-clause consideration will have to be completed effectively by 11 p.m. that night. If it is not completed by then, all remaining amendments and clauses will be considered immediately without further debate. We would put in place a mechanism that is extraordinary anyway, and it would involve the bill being able to progress very quickly. However, it would still involve the committee looking at the bill, hearing from witnesses, hearing from the minister responsible, considering possible improvements or amendments and then referring the bill back to the House.

We hear members say that it is a simple bill and they ask, “What possible amendments?” However, that is really not the point. Regardless of the particulars of the bill, the committee and the members of Parliament who are responsible for being experts on the bill should have the opportunity to weigh in on it. We have put forward a reasonable amendment to a very draconian programming motion, and I hope members will look at it and consider it.

Frankly, we see many ways in which the governing Liberals have been willing to attack and weaken our democratic institutions. I am particularly disappointed that the federal NDP is joining arm in arm with the government. This is, I suppose, consistent with what we have been seeing in this Parliament, which is a de facto coalition between the federal NDP and the Liberals. In the past, NDP members have generally always opposed even closure motions, yet they have gone from opposing closure motions across the board to joining in with the government on a programming motion that skips all of the stages, not just limiting time at a particular stage. It skips through all of the subsequent stages of the bill. It is disappointing to see these two parties standing together in this attack on our democratic institutions.

It is important to remind my colleagues that the use of these programming motions is not happening in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of behaviour. We have seen the government's refusal to hand over documents ordered by Parliament in the Winnipeg lab affair. The Speaker ordered the government to hand over the documents and said that Parliament had a right to request them, and in defiance of the legal and constitutional authority of Parliament, the government refused to hand over those documents.

We saw the attempt initially, at the start of the pandemic, to effectively shut down Parliament and give the government the power to make laws, introduce new taxes and raise taxes without consultation with Parliament, effectively trying, for a relatively extended period of time, to negate the basic principles of parliamentary supremacy. Of course, the Conservatives stood against that and were able to stop it at the time. However, it shows the government's horrific ambition to weaken our parliamentary institution.

Now we are in a context where the government has decided, for the first time in history, to use this legislative instrument called the Emergencies Act, and I think the trust that many Canadians had in the government prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act impacts how they view its use. We have a government with a long-running pattern of disrespect for Parliament in refusing to hand over documents ordered by Parliament and trying to shut down Parliament and give itself the power to rule by fiat. The government has done all of these things. It does not think its bills deserve to be studied by committee and it thinks that trying to spend more than a single day on a piece of legislation is playing games. However, now they want to use the Emergencies Act and tell us not to worry because they are going to be very cautious and measured in how they apply it. There is a lot of broken trust between Canadians and the government when it comes to whether we can have confidence in its ability to use very severe and potentially dangerous instruments in that way.

This is on the minds of many Canadians. It is a lack of regard for the democratic process, and it is kind of a precursor to the step the government has now taken of using the Emergencies Act. We have to be very careful. I think it is important that we do not take our democratic institutions for granted and preserve the functioning of Parliament as the people's House, as a democratic institution that studies legislation. It does not just exist as a group of spokespeople for government legislation. It exists to challenge, to question, to reflect, to analyze and to make laws better. We need to protect our democracy by protecting our democratic institutions, Parliament foremost among them.

In the time I have remaining, I want to make some brief comments on Bill C-12.

I support this bill. We need to do more to help and protect seniors, especially during the pandemic.

However, the Liberal government has done too little, too late. The Liberals were well aware of the problems caused by the clawback of the GIS and CERB almost two years ago, and yet it took them nearly eight months to come up with any solutions and fix these problems. That is simply unacceptable.

I have heard from many seniors in my riding who are still waiting for their payment from the government. They are expecting it to be tax-free. What took so long, and why are seniors being arbitrarily penalized by the government's mistakes?

Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that the cost of clawing back the GIS and CERB is $400 million, but we know that the government has set aside $742 million for the clawback. The Liberals need to explain the huge discrepancy between those two numbers.

This reminds me of the net versus gross income issue when it comes to CERB. The Liberals made the mistake, but Canadians have suffered the consequences. The Liberals need to explain how they are going to get this money to the right people and make sure there is no fraud.

That is why I support this proposal to amend the Old Age Security Act. Bill C-12 will help correct one of the many mistakes made by this government during the pandemic, especially with regard to seniors.

Essentially, the need for this bill demonstrates the importance of careful study of legislation. The reason we need Bill C-12, the reason we support Bill C-12, is that it corrects an error in previous legislation, an error that effectively would limit seniors' ability to access their regular benefits based on support they received during the pandemic. We need this bill to protect seniors from facing clawbacks to their regular benefits as a result of what they received during the pandemic.

Here is the point. This bill underlines the fact that governments, hopefully with the best of intentions, make mistakes in the legislation they put before Parliament. That is why we have Parliament. The government, with all its access to information and experts, puts forward a bill in good faith before Parliament, and then it is critiqued and analyzed by opposition parties and hopefully by backbench members of the governing party. It then goes to committee, where experts outside of government can testify and raise concerns, and amendments can be put forward. Problems with the bill can be identified and then perhaps the bill moves forward in the same or amended form. There are many cases, actually, where government members have moved amendments to government legislation at committee. This is an important part of the process.

We have this bill before us because the government failed to take important issues into consideration in its previous pandemic benefits. It is ironic: On a bill that corrects an error existing in previous benefits because of insufficient attention to detail, we are being told we need to pass it without attention to detail. Some members of the government say they have a problem and they want to be able to pass more bills. They say the opposition wants to spend all this time talking about bills and it slows down the ability to pass bills. Well, if we did not have to pass bills correcting errors in previous bills, then maybe the government would not have a problem in moving forward aspects of its legislative agenda. However, I still say that if we spent two or three days on this bill instead of just one, we would be doing Parliament a great deal more credit than we are doing it right now.

I encourage members to take into consideration the reasonable amendment from the Conservatives, which still involves dramatically expediting the bill, but also creates some mechanism and some opportunity for committee study on the bill. I think that is the least we can do to show Canadians that we have a real job as members of Parliament. We are not just here to provide a rubber stamp. We are here to make Parliament function and do a service on behalf of Canadians, which is to study legislation that comes before us, to understand it, to analyze it and to make it as good as possible so that we can then assure Canadians that the bills we are passing have gone through the due diligence they deserve.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, today is a great opportunity to rise in the House on this flag day. I want to note the importance and significance of today being the day we mark and recognize the Canadian flag, a flag we have seen on various people's knapsacks and backpacks throughout the world. It is a symbol people proudly wear to show where their home is. Unlike some other countries in the world, we are incredibly proud to show that flag as we travel in other parts of the world.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that it was MP John Matheson, who was from the riding just east of Kingston, the riding of Leeds, as it was called at the time, who played a key role in the development of the flag we now recognize as being the Canadian flag. I encourage those who are listening to look into the history of it a little. They will see the committee he led, and some of the different examples of flags that were brought forward. Ultimately, they settled on the one we have now come to cherish as the Canadian flag. I wish everybody a happy flag day. It certainly is an honour to come from the part of the country that was, at the time, led by an MP who gave a tremendous amount to the pride we now have and show through that flag.

It is an honour to rise today to talk about such an important issue. Right now we are debating the motion that would set the programming of how we will deal with this particular bill, which relates to the Old Age Security Act, and how we would make amendments to it in order to ensure those who experienced these clawbacks are properly taken care of.

I am concerned to see some of the posturing going on in the House today. We heard MPs from the Conservatives and the Bloc saying that they are supportive of the bill but not of this motion. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for recognizing the importance of this. The truth is we knew the Conservatives would be against it, which was a default, but the Bloc, quite frankly, is using this as an opportunity. It knows it has the luxury of voting against this motion because the NDP will be there to carry the weight the Bloc is unwilling to carry today. That is the reality of the situation.

We saw it with another equally important motion yesterday, where the NDP had to carry the weight of the Bloc, and now it is doing it again. I just want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for helping us get through this very important motion, and we know at the end of the day all members of the House will vote in favour of the bill because of the importance all members place on this issue.

This motion basically says that we would proceed moving forward with this bill in a very expeditious fashion, because it is very important to get it through. I can understand some of the need for rigorous studying of bills from time to time as they come to committee. I know members of the Conservative Party have said today that we need to study this bill and properly go through all of the details.

These are the same members who have been raising this issue time and time again and asking why something was not done yesterday. Now they have in front of them a programming motion that would basically expedite this and fast-track it, and they literally want to put on the brakes. They say that we need to hold on, study, give a lot of consideration in committee, and go through various procedural elements back and forth from committee and the House on what is an extremely simple bill.

The bill states:

for the purpose of determining benefits payable in respect of any month after June 2022, there shall be deducted from the person’s income for the year the amount of any payment under

It then goes on to list the four articles. That is literally the entire bill. I do not understand what could be studied in committee that would bring about some revelation of how an amendment should be made with respect to this.

This is an issue that all members of the House know about. I am happy to get into how we got to this point, which I will shortly, but it is an issue that all members of this House know about so well. They understand the content of it and exactly what this bill would do. To suggest that we should ensure that the proper, thorough, democratic process through the parliamentary system is maintained for a bill that is so direct in its nature of addressing a very specific issue is absolutely remarkable to me.

However, the Bloc has the luxury of not having to vote in favour of this motion so it can somehow stand on principle, but it only has that luxury because the NDP is once again creating a scenario for the Bloc to be able to do that. I again want to thank my NDP colleagues for staying above the partisanship of this and making sure we can move forward with this as quickly as possible.

I want to take a few minutes to congratulate the new Minister of Seniors on tackling this issue. She had not been a minister prior to this session of Parliament. She is the member for Brampton West. When she was appointed, she tackled this issue head-on, along with her parliamentary secretary, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

As she indicated in her comments earlier today, she made sure she consulted with various parties. She made sure she went to committee and answered the questions of committee members. She made sure she communicated with various seniors groups and groups that represent seniors' interests and that when she did this, she would get this right, in line with her mandate letter from the Prime Minister and in line with the very reasonable requests being made by seniors throughout the country.

I want to thank the minister for the work she has done to get us to this point, so we can ensure that seniors who experienced clawbacks relating to the CERB and other programs indicated in the bill are properly taken care of. Her mandate letter specifically says that she will, “Ensure seniors' eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not negatively impacted by receipt of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit...and the Canada Recovery Benefit”, and that is exactly what this bill would do.

Bill C-12 builds on our commitment to old age security, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for single seniors and $750 for couples starting at the age of 65. Bill C-12 would also ensure that GIS cutbacks due to collective COVID supports will not happen again in future tax years. All parties, as I indicated, have raised this issue for sometime, so it is very odd to see that our Conservative friends across the way and the Bloc wanting to drag the parliamentary process down with this motion as opposed to just passing it so we can eventually vote on the bill.

I would like to go back to the creation of these particular programs and how we got to the position we are in. I found it very fascinating and quite perplexing, while listening to the member for Abbotsford this morning, when he pointed the finger at the government, as though the government is solely responsible for the issue that has been created. I would remind all members that these programs were passed by unanimous consent, by all members of this House.

Unanimous consent, for those watching, is when all members of the House agree to bypass a number of parliamentary procedures in order to get programs into place immediately. That is the manner in which unanimous consent was used back in March of 2020 and a few times afterward. Unanimous consent basically means that everybody agrees.

If one person disagrees with unanimous consent, it would shut it down, right there in its tracks, and the various pieces of legislation would have to go through the regular parliamentary process. However, we agreed to unanimous consent at the time because we recognized the incredible need that was out there for Canadians at the time.

Not only that, the minister at the time, Minister Morneau, went to great lengths when we heard the complaints about various different pieces of the supports from the other side of the House, and they were improved upon. I can remember, for example, that the original proposal by the government on the wage subsidy fell short, quite frankly, of what was really needed. The Conservatives were there to highlight that issue and to say that this particular support was not good enough and that we needed to do better. As a result, by working with the minister behind the scenes and outside of this chamber and fixing the legislation, we saw much better wage subsidy legislation end up coming forward.

If the member for Abbotsford is somehow saying that the government completely botched this legislation, well, he and the Conservatives had the opportunity to try to improve upon the programs at the time. In some instances they did, and in some instances issues were missed, but let us remember where we were at the beginning of this pandemic. At that time it was absolutely critical to get supports to Canadians as quickly as possible to support those in need, those who were affected.

Let us remember that at the beginning of the pandemic, nobody had any idea what was happening. We were shutting down businesses throughout the country. Provinces were bringing in lockdowns. We did not have the luxury of knowing what a lockdown is, as we do now. If a lockdown was brought in now, we would know what to expect. Back in March 2020, we had no idea what it meant, what the short-term, mid-term or long-term impacts of a lockdown would be. We have that luxury now, because hindsight is 20-20, but back then we did not. We did not understand what was happening.

The government—with the incredible support of the public service, I might add—developed these programs, working day and night, with the objective of helping as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Perfection was not an issue at the time. It was not seen, in my opinion, as a priority at the time. The priority was getting the supports out to people who needed them the most. That is what happened. That is what the government was able to deliver on, again with the incredible support of the public service.

I have said it a number of times in this House, and I will said it again: 5.4 million Canadians had money in their bank accounts within five weeks of the World Health Organization declaring a global pandemic. Let us compare that to the United States or any other jurisdiction in the world. It was regarded as the gold standard for taking care of Canadians in their absolute dire moment of need. That is what the public service was able to deliver for Canadians. That is what we were dealing with at the time.

Issues are going to come up, as the member for Abbotsford has indicated now that he has luxury of looking back on it 24 months later. Issues are going to pop up. The key is how we deal with those issues now to make sure that people are treated in a fair manner. That is exactly what we are seeing now. We are not only fixing some of those problems that existed before but also putting safeguards in to make sure that they do not continue to happen. It is the reasonable and responsible thing to do. It is the thing the minister was tasked to do in her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, and she has moved very quickly on it with her department.

I also find it extremely rich when I hear my Conservative colleagues across the way in particular trying to position themselves as the champions of seniors. It is absolutely remarkable when I hear the rhetoric that comes from across the way.

This is the party that in the last government sought to increase the age of retirement to 67 from 65. What grounds they think they have to stand on this issue as it relates to seniors I do not understand. I do not know where they are coming from. That is their record. They increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. That is their record.

Our record is this: We enhanced the CPP. The QPP followed suit. We strengthened old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We increased in general the number of services available to seniors. We provided a one-time $500 payment to seniors. This year we are increasing old age security by 10% for those seniors over the age of 75 because we know that once they get into that age category, they need more support. The data shows that as they reach the age of 75 and older, seniors have burned through more of their savings, their medical expenses are higher, and as such they need more resources in order to support themselves. We want seniors to support themselves. That is the objective, so increasing the old age security benefit for those who are over the age of 75 is an investment.

I am absolutely perplexed by the position of the Conservatives when they try to tout they are the champions of seniors, but I am equally concerned about what I hear coming from the Bloc. The last two Bloc members who spoke made reference to a unanimous consent motion when I asked a question. Let us understand this. Eight months ago, the Bloc members brought forward a unanimous consent motion. At the time, they were willing to deal with this problem through unanimous consent, as I described earlier, but now they are not even willing to vote in favour of this motion that expedites the process.

That is the hypocrisy. They referred to a unanimous consent motion to fix the entire problem through that one quick motion back in May, which they felt was fine to do then, and they chastised us for not agreeing to it; now we have a programming motion that would allow us to do this quickly, but they are totally unwilling to vote in favour of it. Again, this goes back to the luxury of not having to do it because the NDP is picking up the slack for the Bloc, as we are seeing.

I have already talked about the unanimous consent motion that the Bloc brought forward and the problems that existed with it. It was not indexed over time. It did not take into account the length of time that people had been in Canada. It did not have any kind of clawback based on income so that higher-income individuals would get less than those who really needed it. It was extremely problematic, yet they were willing to do that through a UC motion. Unfortunately, that just comes down to the politics of this place that we see time and again.

Quite frankly, we see it more often from the Conservatives. They bring forward these unanimous consent motions not because they think they will pass and fix the problem, but so the Bloc members can then go back to their constituents and tell them that they tried to help them but nobody wanted to agree with them and help them out. That is what we are seeing. Quite frankly, that is what the Bloc Québécois is doing in partnering up with the Conservatives. We saw it yesterday and we see it today. The Bloc and the Conservatives are continually partnering up together, and it makes me wonder why. I thought the Bloc was more concerned about seniors, as opposed to playing politics in this place in dealing with this bill.

I see that my time is coming to an end. I appreciate the opportunity to have provided some comments on this process and I look forward to any questions my colleagues might have.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech. It was very heartfelt and compelling. I do not know whether I will be as brilliant, but I will try to clearly outline the Bloc Québécois's motivations when it comes to seniors. We want to take care of them, look after them and listen to their needs.

I would like to remind the many people who are watching us on ParlVu that we are talking about Bill C-12, which would exclude any emergency benefits from a person's income for the purposes of calculating the amount of the guaranteed income supplement and allowances payable in respect of any month after June 2022.

I think the bill is simple. It attempts to correct a problem as of June 2022. However, it is one year too late. Need I remind the House that it was in May 2021 that the trouble started and the issue was raised? Some seniors lost some or all of their GIS because they had received emergency benefits related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which they were entitled to.

No one in the government warned them that this would happen. Worse still, no one in the government had even calculated or foreseen this consequence, which is frankly ludicrous, considering old age security is a program that is entirely under federal jurisdiction.

It is terrible that the government showed such a lack of foresight by failing to anticipate the effect of these measures under a program that it is supposed to be responsible for. More importantly, it is terrible for the seniors who have missed out on a large portion of their retirement income for the past year. I could name several women and men in my riding who, for several months now, have been receiving $300, $400 or $500 less a month.

Those figures are significant, since only the lowest-income seniors receive the GIS. In all, OAS and GIS benefits represent almost $18,000 a year. My colleagues can surely imagine how much that comes to per month, so cutting even $100 from that monthly income is totally unacceptable.

On Monday, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities had the pleasure of receiving the Minister of Seniors. She came to tell us about her mandate letter and how much she cares about seniors. We believe her. She mentioned that she used to be a nurse, and she spoke about how seniors are faring in our health and social services networks, highlighting their vulnerability. I agree with her.

She underlined all kinds of consequences, but focused on measures this government will introduce to reduce seniors' vulnerability, such as national standards in long-term care homes, aging in place and so on. The government is devoting tremendous energy to overtly encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and so little energy to fixing a problem we are all very aware of and that is that seniors are economically vulnerable, and they are getting poorer.

I would like the Minister of Seniors to know that I, too, am a nurse by trade and that I was a nurses' union representative in Quebec for many long years and the leader of a major public service labour union. My professional and union experience gave me opportunities to advocate for better working conditions in Quebec and reforms to improve the systems we have in place to care for seniors and the rest of the population.

We have fought hard on these issues in order to push ahead and improve the quality of care and services, but at no point throughout my career would it ever have occurred to us to knock on Ottawa's door to ask for help, because it is none of Ottawa's business. This does not fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction. The only battle we have fought together with civil society and the governments of our province is to demand that the federal government make a contribution through the Canada health transfers that is commensurate with the health and social services needs in Quebec and the provinces. This has been our struggle. I have been on the front lines for a long time on the issues that relate to the feds. However, our working conditions, living conditions for seniors and care conditions all come under our jurisdiction.

I have a suggestion for the government. It should drop those mandates, focus on what it needs to focus on and give the provinces health transfers covering 35% of costs. We could have asked for 50%, as was agreed to in the 1950s, but we did not. We have asked for 35% because we have been starving ever since. The government is starving the health care systems and making them vulnerable. To top it off, the government has appropriated the right to spend. However, it does not grasp the urgency of spending money in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as the GIS, which is one of the most important social safety nets for our retirees and seniors.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressure had to be applied for seniors to be recognized, and this earned them a meagre cheque of $500. On this issue, the government came in for more criticism than accolades.

The Bloc Québécois had to fight, apply pressure, write letters and come to the House to sound the alarm a year ago about the totally unfair situation of seniors whose GIS was reduced because they had received emergency benefits. The government said it had other things to do. Managing its own affairs must not be part of its responsibilities.

Now, here we are, almost a year later, with a bill that we will pass but that will only remedy the situation going forward to ensure this does not happen again. A bird in the hand is worth—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, we now know that the Senate, whose participation in the process is required, will not be sitting this week, and that it was really not necessary to pass Bill C-12 under closure. I am convinced that the legislative process could have taken its normal course and that we could have managed to pass Bill C-12 without a closure motion this week if there had been good will and if we had worked as a team and without partisanship.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, fantastic and magnificent member from Thérèse-De Blainville.

I am happy to be able to discuss and debate the motion concerning Bill C-12 with my colleagues, because I have devoted my life to seniors since I was 23. I spent my career serving seniors, both providing home care in local community service centres and working in long-term care homes as a social worker and health care network manager. It is therefore an honour for me to contribute to the debate we are having today.

First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑12. There is no doubt about that. We know that this bill is very important and that it is urgent.

However, we disagree with today's motion, which is disrupting the legislative process. It is important to point out that the bill has only one clause. It amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent a deplorable situation, where 183,000 vulnerable seniors had their guaranteed income supplement cut, from happening again after July 1, 2022. That is the purpose of Bill C-12.

All of the opposition parties proposed legislative work to the government for this week, because we could have managed without the closure motion, which should only be used in exceptional and urgent situations. We could have finished our work properly, in accordance with the legislative process, because this bill has not garnered much opposition. On the contrary, we are pretty unanimous about it in the House.

The bill is important, but let us be clear: It does nothing to change the situation of seniors whose GIS has been slashed every month for the past eight months. It changes nothing at all. When we saw the bill, we wondered why the date was set at July 1, 2022. Why not March? That way, those whose GIS is currently being cut would not have their benefits reduced.

Based on the minister's announcement, we know that there will be a one-time payment. Initially, this payment was to have been made in May, but after the questions we asked the minister and with the pressure she was under, she succeeded in convincing her officials to move the one-time payment up to April 19.

In my opinion, that is still unacceptable. It is two weeks earlier, and some will say that is better than nothing, but it is unacceptable that computer issues can prevent us from returning the money that was taken from vulnerable seniors before April 19. It seems to me that that could have been done by March, or even early April.

This week, the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where she answered a question from my colleagues in the third opposition party. She said that it would be done by April 19 and she was proud of that. Honestly, I would not be so proud in her shoes, because that is shameful. On April 19 it will be almost 10 months that people have had their GIS benefits cut month after month.

Today, in an article in the Journal de Montréal, two seniors who had their benefits cut described their situation to Canadians. Bob Petit, an 82-year-old senior, had his GIS benefits reduced by $350 a month, while Jacques Rhéault, a pensioner in Louiseville who worked hard all his life in a factory in Contrecoeur, lost his GIS benefit.

These two people are the luckiest people in the world, because they have the support and assistance of a very active MP who has been championing their cause from the start. Let us keep in mind that these people’s benefits have been cut since July 2021. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé represents and supports them through all of the system’s bureaucratic procedures.

However, regardless of how good an MP he is, we have learned that, although the Minister of Seniors appears to have a good heart and to listen to seniors, she cannot do more because of the technical and technological limitations of the tools she will be using to issue a nice cheque to each senior who was unfairly affected by the cuts. That is quite a long time.

I cannot help but make connections with other people’s problems. Consider sick workers. They are entitled to just 15 weeks of employment insurance in case of illness. The Bloc would like to see that increase to 50 weeks. The minister said that that was too much, that the government was looking at 26 weeks, but that computer problems were preventing it from doing anything right now.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is telling us that they want to accelerate the processing of work visa and permanent residence applications, but that there are computer issues. I am starting to wonder whether the government’s key departments, which are there to serve Canadians, are paralyzed by their computer systems.

That makes me think there has been considerable negligence in maintaining our infrastructure. As a result, vulnerable Canadians are finding it difficult to pay their rent and buy their medications and are grappling with anxiety and stress every month. We are talking about seniors who are vulnerable and who will be affected by Bill C-12.

I do not know if it is possible to paint an accurate portrait of these people. These are seniors who, very often, have worked all their lives. These people, who may not have been unionized and who did not necessarily earn a big salary, are now retired, and tired, at age 65. Tired and without much income, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. For the past eight months, since July 2021, these people have received less money because the CERB was calculated as income. That is what Bill C-12 is intended to correct, to prevent other seniors from being penalized next year.

Honestly, I am offended and angry to see how the government’s limitations are getting in the way of the assistance these seniors require. When questioned, the minister says that the government invested so many million dollars in this and so many million dollars in that. What seniors need is a decent monthly income so they can pay their bills, meet their responsibilities and live with dignity.

Right now, seniors are calling my office saying that they feel like beggars, if I can put it that way. It is a blow to their dignity, because these are people who worked, who earned an honest living and who have felt completely forgotten and abandoned since July 2021.

Members will understand why I am emotional talking about this. I live in a riding where a quarter of the population is aged 65 or over. Today, I think it is clear that the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is an unconditional ally of the seniors in her riding, that the Bloc Québécois is an ally of seniors, and that it will do everything it can to convince the minister to issue the one-time payment before April 19.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C‑12

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak about Bill C-12 and the needs low-income seniors are facing across the country.

Over the last three years I have had many opportunities to speak with hundreds of seniors in Kitchener. I often knocked on doors in the daytime and who is home in the daytime? It is seniors. I would joke that it was seniors I spoke with most. In those conversations, I would ask them what was most important to them and hear their stories about rent going up, as well as the cost of groceries, transit, in fact the cost of everything. The reality is that the cost of living for seniors is going up much faster than the guaranteed income supplement or old age security. I would hear their anxiety, sometimes their anger, and I promised that as their MP, I would advocate for their interests in this place.

We have to recognize that the maximum amount for a single senior who is eligible for both GIS and OAS is just over $1,600 a month. I would encourage other parliamentarians to reflect on financial planners who might advise that people spend 30% of their income on housing and start doing the math on what it looks like for seniors on low incomes, living on GIS and OAS.

That brings me to what I appreciate in this bill. To me, what the governing party is doing in this bill is admitting that a mistake was made. There never should have been any clawbacks whatsoever on the lowest-income seniors across the country. It is just not right and this legislation addresses that.

I also really appreciate both the Bloc and the NDP, in particular the member for North Island—Powell River and the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for their advocacy in ensuring that these funds are provided as soon as possible, recognizing the situation in which low-income seniors find themselves in Kitchener and across the country as a result of the clawbacks that were made and recognizing that this legislation would only really address this mistake not happening again going forward. The fact that we are addressing it not happening again and that there is a retroactive reimbursement being applied in the last fiscal update is really important.

It is also important for us to step back and notice when there is wild agreement in this place. That certainly was not the case in question period. In fact it is usually not the case in question period, but all day I have heard different parliamentarians tripping over themselves to share how much they are advocating for low-income seniors in their communities, which is quite rare in this place. It does not matter which party. I heard a parliamentarian advocating from every region and part of the country. This, to me, is encouraging and gives me the sense that it is possible, when there is obvious good policy in front of members here, for us to move ahead and get it done.

I will also share where I think we could be going further and faster. The first is with respect to the funds flowing. There was a really wonderful line of questioning, in particular, from the MP for Salaberry—Suroît in committee yesterday, who said the reason that funds are not flowing for all low-income seniors until April 19 is that we have not been investing in the computer systems that our public service relies on to deliver these funds.

I can appreciate that it might not always be politically attractive to be investing in IT, but I feel this is an opportunity for us to recognize that this is how seniors' lives are being affected. There is not a fancy ribbon-cutting, but when those investments are not being made, it directly affects the lives of seniors across the country. To my understanding, it is not for a lack of interest by the governing party in flowing money sooner, or the advocacy of others across the floor, but rather because we have not invested in the IT that we should have invested in years ago. I would encourage all parliamentarians to consider supporting our public service, so it is able to follow through on these important investments.

Second, I want to call out how important it is that we actually have a private member's bill in support of a guaranteed livable income for all. While I wish it were a government bill, the fact that we have Bill C-223, put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre, gives us an opportunity to have a larger conversation recognizing that even seniors who will not have GIS and OAS clawed back are still living in poverty in most regions across the country.

We should be doing so much more to ensure that every senior in the country is at a dignified level of income. These are the folks who have been building the economy and these are our elders. With the guaranteed livable income we would not even be having the conversation we are in the midst of now. I encourage other parliamentarians to consider their support for that private member's bill and their support for moving toward a guaranteed livable income across the country.

I also want to point out the need for us to make more progress on housing. We cannot talk about seniors on low incomes and the importance of addressing the clawbacks if we are not going to be honest that it is housing that is climbing the fastest, which at least is something else that I have heard parliamentarians from every party talk about. Maybe there might be different solutions that are being offered, but at least it is a place for us to start having good, respectful conversations. In Kitchener, there is a 35% increase in the cost of housing and rent.

I think about seniors in Kitchener who are not just seeing the cost of housing go up, but they are seeing a lack of access to dignified housing and also the proximity of that housing to the amenities that they need the most, such as transit stations they need to access. We need to move forward far more quickly when it comes to addressing the rising cost of housing, which means addressing the supply as well as the policies to ensure that homes are for people, for seniors, to live in and not commodities for investors to trade.

The last thing I will mention is the importance for us also to address long-term care. While not the main focus of this piece of legislation, if we are going to be talking about the need to be taking better care of our seniors, we have all recognized the gaps in long-term care. There is the opportunity for the federal government to step in to improve the standards in long-term care, to address the wait times and to address the pay for personal support workers.

In closing, I would encourage all parliamentarians to continue to support this important bill and to get this done, but not to stop here. We must ensure that we move forward quicker, whether it is on the cost of housing, a guaranteed income or ensuring that these reimbursements are provided at the earliest opportunity.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure they are just excited to hear the rest of my speech. The buzz on the other side is encouraging for me to keep going and defend our seniors.

As I said, we did not want to provide a quick fix. That is why we introduced this bill. Bill C-12 would permanently exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits, beginning in July, 2020, and would prevent this from ever happening again.

To be clear, the following benefits would be exempt: the Canadian emergency response benefit, including any CERB amounts paid under the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada worker lockdown benefit. Once again, we are proposing this change to the OAS act to ensure that this problem never happens again.

Bill C-12 would make an important legislative change that would provide seniors with certainty and peace of mind in the future if they receive GIS and allowance benefits to which they are entitled, without the need for a one-time payment.

To strengthen Canadians' financial security later in life, we provided one-time payments of $500 in August, 2021, to OAS pensioners who would be age 75 or older on June 30, 2022. We are also permanently increasing OAS pensions for seniors 75 and over, beginning in July, 2022. We have taken these steps because seniors face increased financial pressures and vulnerability as they age, but the well-being of seniors has been a priority for our government since 2015.

Before COVID, we had already improved the Canada pension plan, reduced income tax for seniors and moved to enhance the GIS. We increased the GIS for nearly 900,000 low-income seniors. As a result of this and other measures, an estimated 45,000 seniors were lifted out of poverty. We put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of future Canadian seniors by restoring the age of eligibility for OAS and the GIS to 65 from 67. Many of the members on the other side voted in favour of actually increasing the retirement age, not for their own pensions but for other seniors in Canada.

We enhanced the GIS earning exemption for working low-income seniors to help them keep more of their benefits and more of their hard-earned money. This means that seniors could earn up to $5,000 without a reduction of their GIS benefit. Our government is moving forward with its plan to increase the OAS pension by 10% for seniors 75 and over, and will start in July of this year to provide people receiving the full OAS pension with an extra $766 in the first year. This will be the first permanent increase to the OAS pension, above and beyond inflation adjustments, since 1973.

We reduced income taxes for seniors by increasing the basic personal amount. Once we have fully implemented this measure in 2023, 4.3 million seniors will benefit, and 465,000 of them will see their income tax reduced to zero.

Our government has helped seniors in myriad ways beyond direct emergency payments and tax relief. We recognize the sad reality that the COVID pandemic has brought isolation to many seniors, and to our most vulnerable seniors. The sense of isolation and vulnerability cannot be overstated, so our government continues to find ways to address those issues.

The pandemic has tragically highlighted the challenges to long-term care homes. It has exposed gaps in infection prevention and control and staffing. That is why, in the fall economic statement, our government committed up to $1 billion to the safe long-term care fund to help provinces and territories support infection prevention and control, make improvements to ventilation, hire additional staff and top up wages. We are also committed to affordable housing, and we are working to improve palliative care, end-of-life care, and to supporting Canadians' mental health through the Public Health Agency of Canada.

In conclusion, I am proud of the measures we have developed and are still developing on all aspects of senior care, but this must not simply be a stopgap measure. We are constantly working hard to find permanent solutions that will bring ongoing comfort and relief to the men and women who have worked hard, who have contributed to Canada and who are proud and privileged to call it home. Seniors deserve nothing less than the best care and consideration that we can provide. We acted quickly to resolve this issue. I hope my hon. colleagues will agree that this bill deserves swift passage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Again, I think that matter has been dealt with, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to speak to the issue that is before the House, which is Bill C-12.

Government Business No. 7--Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to taking us into question period and being here today to talk about Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

It is interesting that the hon. member for Abbotsford used most of his speech to criticize what he called mocking, none of which was happening on this side, but is using this opportunity to heckle me. It is just shameful. It is unbelievable.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for sharing his time with me today and thank all members for engaging in this important debate.

We know how difficult this pandemic has been on seniors and how it has impacted them, their livelihoods, their quality of life, their mental health and even their safety. We all agree in the House that we need to do more to help seniors and their communities. As announced in the fiscal update, we will be delivering a one-time payment to fully compensate those affected in 2020, and today we introduced Bill C-12 to exclude any pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating the guaranteed income supplement going forward.

I had many conversations at the doorsteps with individuals who were affected. Bill C-12 would go a long way in demonstrating that as parliamentarians we are listening and our government is responding. The fact remains that far too many seniors in Canada have been living in poverty. It was an issue long before this pandemic, but COVID, an unprecedented global health crisis, has made matters worse. Seniors who lost income and were financially struggling accessed emergency support to help them get by. Bill C-12 would protect seniors from losing their income-tested GIS payments going forward and would rectify any loss of GIS as a result of receiving COVID benefits. This would protect struggling seniors from falling deeper into poverty and rectify the unintended consequences of pandemic benefits that were designed to help.

Many seniors have been trying to survive paycheque to paycheque, and in New Brunswick the situation is worse. One in five seniors in my province lives below the poverty line and many more are just at the cusp. This is well above the Canadian average. These seniors depend on GIS to pay their rent, heat their homes and buy groceries, particularly at a time when the cost of living continues to rise. In Fredericton, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is now close to $1,000. Seniors desperately need the action our government is proposing.

Passing Bill C-12 also matters for our commitment to advancing gender equality, furthering reconciliation and combatting systemic discrimination. The loss of GIS payments would disproportionately impact women, indigenous people and racialized Canadians, demographics that statistically experience higher rates of poverty. It is urgent that we pass this bill and help the estimated 90,000 seniors across the country who have been impacted. Failing to pass this bill would further threaten the economic security of thousands.

I am optimistic that through the leadership of the Minister of Seniors, real and tangible change will be felt across the country. This government is committed to building a better future for seniors. As a member from Atlantic Canada, this positive change cannot come soon enough. By 2036, Canada's senior population could be close to 11 million. As the Canadian population continues to age, so does the number of older adults expecting to be living in subsidized housing. We need to look at the future and take measures now to avoid having seniors, who spent their lives building this beautiful country, reach their golden years and live under the poverty line.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to suggest that we can go further to support seniors and many others facing poverty. I am proud that this government is seriously looking to implement pilot projects on a guaranteed livable income and is moving forward on its objective to reach agreements with provincial and territorial partners to implement national universal pharmacare. I truly feel these measures, in particular, could usher in deep and lasting systemic change.

Simply put, to improve the lives of senior citizens, we must make life more affordable. I am proud to say that this government is doing just that by investing in better public transportation, affordable housing and creative programs, such as the multi-generational home renovation tax credit to help families add a secondary unit to their homes for an immediate or extended family member. This government is also working to establish an aging at home benefit so that seniors can afford to stay in their homes longer, while increasing the quality of long-term care for those who need it. We are also creating opportunities for seniors to be more connected, supported and active members of their communities through the New Horizons for Seniors program. These initiatives will help to enhance the quality of life for all Canadian seniors, and we should not stop there. It is long overdue that we return elders in our communities to their positions of honour and respect.

I want to acknowledge the organizations in my community that have been working hard to support older adults. They are making a real difference in my riding. The Stepping Stone Senior Centre and the Senior Wellness Action Group are but two great examples of those working to help connect hundreds of seniors in the greater Fredericton area to work collaboratively to develop and deliver affordable and accessible activities to meet physical, mental and social needs. They provide volunteer matching, assist with emergency preparedness, support food security and much more. They are providing opportunities for seniors to meet, to learn, to develop new skills, to socialize, to entertain, to be entertained and to be entrepreneurs, and they are serving as an information source for seniors and those who work with them, like me, while promoting the growth and development of seniors in our community.

There are important lessons that we must take forward from this pandemic, and providing adequate supports for seniors must be at the top of our priority list. We must invest in seniors and ensure that people can live in dignity and safety in their older years. We have seen many examples of Canadians being there for each other throughout this pandemic, and this must continue. In many communities around the world, elders are celebrated, they are seen as the head of their family and their knowledge is precious. We need to do more to cherish them here in Canada.

The best classroom in the world is at the feet of an elder. Let us listen to what they have been telling us. Let us pass Bill C-12 without delay.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I would advise any senior or individual here in Canada to seek financial advice on how they manage their affairs. With Bill C-12, we want to ensure that for the literally hundreds of thousands of seniors who may have been affected by any sort of clawback on their GIS, the income they received from CERB and other benefits is not included in their taxable income for determination of benefits going forward.

For an individual in Canada, it is correct that if they pull money out of their RRSP, it is taxable income and they would pay taxes on it. When we make an RRSP contribution, we receive a nice deduction for it, and I encourage Canadians to make an RRSP contribution if they have the ability to do so.

All individual cases should be looked at by the member and should be brought to the attention of the minister and the parliamentary secretary.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my friend and colleague from Fredericton in the wonderful province of New Brunswick.

However, I would like to speak about what we have put in place from the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic. I would like to speak about this because it is also part of the support that we are providing to older Canadians.

I think it will show that our approach to the seniors issue, since day one in 2015, is one that has been consistent. It is one that comes from a trend of support for low-income seniors for a very long time, a rapid approach to putting in place needed supports, especially when emergencies face our vulnerable populations, including seniors.

It is vitally important to pass Bill C-12 quickly. This motion today has been well defended. I think that will be clear once we understand how a low-income senior faces so many challenges. After a lifetime of hard work, Canadian seniors have earned a secure and dignified retirement. Pandemic or not, they deserve a retirement without financial worries. Allow me to briefly touch on the many of things we have done for seniors since forming government in 2015.

The Liberal government has strengthened Canada's public pension system. We are helping Canadians with their higher costs later in life. For short-term support, we issued a one-time $500 payment in August 2021 to OAS pensioners 75 years and older. We are permanently increasing the old age security pension by 10% this July 2022 for those seniors aged 75 and older, providing over $766 for the first year for pensioners receiving the benefit. We must remember this benefit is indexed to inflation, so seniors will continue to receive an increase.

We restored the age of eligibility for old age security and GIS to 65 from 67 years of age. The age for eligibility had been increased by the Conservatives prior to our winning a majority government. That is something I am very proud of in the six years I have been here in the House. We are putting literally thousands of dollars back into the pockets of seniors.

As promised, our government increased the GIS by 10% for individual seniors, improving the financial security of about 900,000 vulnerable seniors. To help working seniors keep more of their benefits, we increased the GIS earnings exemption to allow seniors to earn up to $5,000 without any reduction in benefits and we provided a partial exemption for the next $10,000. It now includes self-employment income.

When our increase to the basic personal amount is fully implemented in 2023, 4.3 million seniors will benefit, including 465,000 whose federal income tax will be reduced to zero. This is something I fully championed, and it was wonderful to see it in our platform in 2019. It means up to $300 for individuals and $600 for couples. I am so glad that this was part of our 2019 platform. This is literally billions and billions of dollars in tax reductions every year for our Canadian seniors, Canadian workers, Canadian students, and it is wonderful policy.

Our middle-class tax cut in 2016 reduced the second personal income tax rate by 7%, saving middle-class Canadians an average of $330 and couples an average of $540 a year. Again, it is real change, and that goes with our mandate of helping the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.

Seniors have also benefited from this. Tax reductions, benefit increases and policy revisions implemented by our government have reduced the number of seniors living in poverty in Canada by 11% since 2015. Our plan to improve support for seniors is working, but yes, there is still more work to do. As seniors ensure their safety by staying home during the COVID-19 pandemic, financial and other supports were and are still here. They are critical to help them access the goods and services they need and to reduce the social isolation that can take a toll on their mental health and well-being.

As the government, it was our responsibility to help, especially with those extra costs. First, we provided a one-time tax repayment of $300 to eligible OAS recipients, plus another $200 to eligible GIS recipients. We also provided a special top-up payment for the GST credit in April 2020. More than four million low- and middle-income seniors benefited from this top-up.

In addition, we announced a one-time payment for persons with disabilities, including seniors. These individuals received a total of $600 in special payments. Of course, we know we had the backs of all Canadians during the pandemic and we continue to do so. We created various income supports, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, which helped millions of Canadians, including seniors, by delivering direct payments quickly to seniors and families.

Our government was concerned not just about financial security, but also about seniors' isolation, which has real consequences. In fact, research shows that the isolation of older people can have health consequences. That is why we made it our mission to promote social participation and inclusion.

We helped connect seniors with essential services and supplies. We invested $9 million in the United Way to support more than 876 organizations across the country that offer more than 936 programs. We invested an additional $20 million in the New Horizons for Seniors program. We also funded more than 1,000 community projects to reduce the isolation and improve the well-being of seniors during the pandemic.

With regard to safety in long-term care institutions, we introduced important measures even though long-term care is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. In addition, the safe restart agreement signed with the provinces and territories includes $740 million for support to Canadians.

Yes, we have the backs of all Canadians, and, of course, the seniors.

We want to support those who are receiving long-term care, home care and palliative care and who are the most likely to get seriously ill from COVID-19.

On top of all that, we also created a $350‑million emergency community support fund to help charities and non-profit organizations adapt the services they provide to vulnerable groups, including seniors, in response to COVID-19.

The pandemic is still ongoing. That will not stop us from putting forward additional measures to benefit seniors' financial ability. I want to give a shout-out to the 25,000 or so seniors in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I get to see them again. I have missed them over the last two years. I know they have suffered from social isolation by staying home. I am going to see them in the community centre on my break week and maybe play a little bocce or play cards.

These seniors represent the best of what Canada is about. They come from various backgrounds. They have built this country. We have to respect them. We owe them so much gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices they have made. They have not asked for a lot. They ask to be respected and they ask us to make sure, in their golden years, that they have a secure and dignified retirement. That is what our government has done since day one.

Looking to the future, we know Canada needs to better address older seniors' needs. Seniors in Canada are living longer, which is great, and I think a key indicator of our progress as a country on all scales. As seniors age, they are more likely to outlive their savings, have disabilities, be unable to work and be widowed, all while their health care costs are rising. As mentioned before, we are responding to that need with a major OAS increase for older seniors as their needs increase.

Least but not last, we have proposed $742 million to support vulnerable seniors who have experienced reductions in the guaranteed income supplement as a result of accessing pandemic benefits.

In closing, the pandemic has not always been easy, particularly for seniors, and people are still struggling. Pandemic or not, our government is committed to giving all Canadians the opportunity to build a better life, contribute to our nation's prosperity and benefit from it. That is why we have made every effort to support all Canadians, including seniors.

We recognize the remarkable contribution Canadian seniors have made to our society and economy over the years. They can count on our Liberal government to continue to take steps to make sure they can live with dignity. Let us all come together and pass Bill C-12 expeditiously.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back in the House debating an important bill.

Bill C-12 is aligned with all the measures that the government has implemented since 2015.

It is important that we go over everything that we have done because we know that Canadians watching us may not tune in every day. It is important that we be there for them. However—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about one of my favourite topics, seniors, and I have now become one.

I think it is really important that we have this discussion today. This is an opportunity for us to pull what I would call an ugly scab off of the issue of affordability for seniors, especially those living on a fixed income. This is a wound that has been festering for some time, and I want to start off by taking a look at the actual numbers and the situation that many Canadians are finding themselves in.

There are single seniors living on a fixed income getting OAS, GIS and CPP. For those who would get OAS, depending on the work that they did in their career, they might get as much as $7,700 a year. They might get, from GIS, if they received the maximum, about $11,500. If they had worked a long time and they had maximized their CPP, they might be getting around $9800.

What that works out to every month is somewhere between $2000 and $2400, depending on where they are on the scale. That is it.

These are people, if they are getting GIS, that do not have huge nest eggs. They do not have huge savings to draw upon to get them out of a bad situation. Today, the folks who define the Canadian poverty line define that line as 50% of the median income. For a single person, they are saying anybody who makes less than $3600 a month is actually living at or below the poverty line. All of these seniors we are talking about are already living below the poverty line, after they have worked their whole lives and after they have built the nation.

All this rhetoric coming from the other side is ironic. Even in the 2020 throne speech, we heard the words, “Elders deserve to be safe, respected and live in dignity.” Well, if they deserve to be respected, and if they deserve to live in dignity, that is certainly not what we are seeing today.

I want to start by describing the situation before the pandemic. I will then talk about what happened during the pandemic and where the need for Bill C-12 comes from. I want to then talk about the lack of government action when all of these issues were being raised, and make a few comments to follow up based on that.

Initially during the pandemic, recognizing that people were struggling and many people had lost their jobs, the government did make an effort and the Conservatives did support many programs to replace the income that people had been making.

Sadly, many of the people we are talking about, who are on fixed incomes, had to go out and take on other jobs just to make ends meet, just to heat their homes and have groceries on the table. In my view, that is totally unacceptable for the seniors who built the country. However, that was the reality.

What did the Liberals do during the pandemic? They decided to increase the carbon tax twice. Not just once, but twice. This put up the cost of groceries, home heating and basically all goods. At the same time, we have seen inflation increasing to where we are today at nearly 5%. People on a fixed income have zero ability to adapt to that.

We know that the lack of action we have seen in the affordable housing crisis has also just gotten worse during this pandemic. Even in a riding like mine, which is not a metropolitan riding, a person cannot find something to rent for less than $1000 a month. If someone is on a fixed income, and they are only getting $2000 a month, there will not be a lot left over for food, groceries and heating.

To get seniors living at what we are calling the poverty line might take as much as $1000 or $1500 a month, depending on the location they are living in. The government is great to talk about the increases they have made to GIS in the past that raised them $60 a month. However, at the same time, Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals raised electricity prices, so people were paying $130 more a month. They were even further behind. That is not the kind of action we need from government.

Then we saw the government come with a plan to give seniors, but only those over the age of 75, a one-time payment of $500 in August, just as it was calling an election, to remind those seniors over the age of 75 to not forget about it. Those between the ages of 65 and 75 who were living on a fixed income got nothing. As well, the government is promising a raise for those over the age of 75 for the summer of 2022.

I am happy to see the mandate letter of the minister now includes all seniors over 65. What she will actually do is another story, because we always see a lot of talk and not much action. I do not know why those aged 65 to 75 were excluded. I heard all the time at the doors in my riding about how they were finding it just as tough to live as those over the age of 75.

If we keep in mind that these people do not have any other income to draw on, we can see the government was aware of the problem very early on. In March of 2020, at the start of the pandemic, I was already emailing the then minister of seniors to say that we had a problem. The people who took CERB who were also on GIS would have their GIS impacted the next year. This was raised in March of 2020. In March of 2020 the government was aware that it was a problem, and nothing was done at that time.

One of the issues I have with the government bringing this bill here today, and deciding that it needs to be rushed through, after over a year of inaction, is that there was a fix for these seniors who had their GIS reduced, who cannot pay their rent or buy food to eat. Some in my riding lost their homes and have become homeless, and they needed that money immediately.

The government had the ability to put the money in their accounts immediately. How do I know this? Let us think about it. The government knows who gets the GIS. It is deposited in the accounts of those seniors every month. It knows who got the CERB, because it deposited that into their accounts as well. It certainly knew how to put in that $500 “do not forget to vote for us” payment for the people over age 75 in August.

Therefore, it could have just as easily recognized the impact this was going to have, put that money into their accounts and reconciled it later. It did that with the 800,000 Canadians who received a benefit to which they were not entitled, and which it is now trying to reconcile.

With the hardships that Canadian have faced, these seniors who call my office are crying. They are losing their homes. They cannot afford to eat. Something has gone wrong, perhaps with their car, and they now have no ability and no mobility. It is unfortunate that the Liberals could not, at the very least, address the problem and then come back to fill in any gaps in the legislation. They have not had any issue in the past doing things through orders in council and using various tricks, which do not involve coming to Parliament, to get whatever it is they want to spend. However, when it comes to seniors, they just forgot about them.

After I flagged the problem in March, the minister said the government would deal with it. Then it paid out benefits to people who lived in other countries. It paid out benefits to people who were ineligible. When the new minister came in in October, I asked her if there was something that could be done about it, because I had people in my riding who were writing me stories that were enough to make one cry. I could certainly read out their testimonies.

In May of 2020, the Minister of Seniors was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and was given a prepared binder by the department officials. In that binder, under section 7.2, under the heading of “Questions and Answers: COVID‑19 Economic Response Plan”, the question in the book reads, “Will income from the Canadian emergency response benefit be used in the calculation of guaranteed income supplement benefits?” The answer was “It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the allowances”. Therefore, the government actually knew then that the problem existed, but it has done nothing for a year, and here we are.

The Conservatives brought a very reasonable amendment. We understand, and we want to see seniors get their money. However, not to make this point too many times, the government could do that today if it really had the political will, but it does not. We said that we have to respect the parliamentary process. We see, too many times, the Liberals wanting to avoid parliamentary process and wanting to push things through the House. We see that they have already limited debate on the bill, as they do on many other bills, after saying they would never do that.

Here we are. We need time to debate the bill and time to amend it, because of some of the things that happened over the course of the pandemic where programs were put in place that had shortcomings, which were pointed out immediately and were never repaired. We can think of the many small businesses that were impacted at the beginning of the pandemic when they were not eligible if they were sole proprietorships. They were not eligible if the business had just started up and did not have a full year of revenue and business statements to show. There were quite a number of people who were impacted because the programs that were rolled out were flawed. Why were they flawed? It was because the Liberals tried to rush them through Parliament.

I would argue that it is worth taking some time, and I think the Conservatives brought quite a measured little amendment to this motion that would give us the time that we need to look into making sure that everything is as it should be. In our amendment, we are saying to send it to committee, get the Minister of Seniors there so that we can hear everything from her and her departmental officials, ask all the questions, identify those things that need to be repaired and fix them. We could then immediately do the clause-by-clause, make the amendments that need to be made, bring it back to the House and then get in the express lane and not use any amendments at report stage or anything like that but go right to third reading and off to the Senate.

Keep in mind that the Senate is not even sitting in the next week. We can say “emergency”, but due process is that it goes through the stages of this House and then it goes to the other place, which is not even sitting. We can hurry up here, but they will not be there to receive it and process it.

We need to correct the problem because seniors are already in a bad place. I talked about the small amount of money that seniors are making. I talked about how dire it is getting, and it is only going to get worse as we see the supply-chain issues that are currently being impacted by the trucker mandates and the lack of action on the part of the Prime Minister to address this.

As a sidebar, I think it is unbelievable that the Prime Minister has called for the Emergencies Act to be put in place when he was not even using the actions he already had the power to take in order to end the supply-chain issues that are driving up the cost of everything and making this problem even worse.

Seniors are going to have a very difficult time waiting another six months before they receive their payments, so I encourage the government to do what it can to make sure that seniors receive their payments as soon as possible after we have the discussion on the bill. At the same time, I must say that we have to look ahead to the future. We have one in six seniors in the country right now, and it will be one in four in just a few years. We cannot allow them to be this far away from living, at least, at the poverty line.

Some of the measures that can be taken would be to accelerate the OAS and GIS payments. I know the Bloc and the Conservatives supported a motion in the last Parliament that did not go ahead because of the present government. I encourage the government to try to get seniors back to where they need to be, and I am going to do my part.

There are seniors who thought they were going to be able to retire with a pension and are unfortunately not able to do that or have less pension than they expected because their employer went bankrupt. I am bringing a private member's bill forward, Bill C-228, the pension protection act, which would cause businesses to every year table a report on the solvency of their fund so that we have transparency to see whether those funds are in good shape. If they are not, it would provide a mechanism for funds to be transferred in without tax implications. Then, if the organization cannot transfer and top up the fund immediately, they would have the ability to get insurance while they are able to, over a series of years, restore the fund to solvency. In the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out to seniors and they would be paid out before large bonuses to executives and large creditors.

This would solve the problems of many seniors, including those who have lost their employment due to the bankruptcies of Eatons, Sears, Algoma, Caterpillar, Nortel and numerous other companies that have left employees in that situation. We can see from the information I read at the beginning of my speech that if seniors have to rely on OAS, GIS and maybe CPP, they are still living below the level that Canadians would consider acceptable. We cannot have that for our seniors. It is very hard for our seniors when they see new people coming into the country who are receiving more money than they are making, when they helped build the country. I think we can agree that we want all Canadians to be living with a reasonable standard of living.

The last thing I am going to say on this topic of Bill C-12 is that I do need to commend the new Minister of Seniors for at least bringing the legislation forth in reasonable time. She is not the one who knew about it last year and did nothing, so at least we have the bill before us today. As has been said, the Conservatives will support this to go to committee, but we will have our eyes on the legislation to ensure it is solid and we are not going to see more loopholes that would cause further issues for our seniors.

At the same time, I could not get up and speak about seniors in this place without talking about some of the other advocacy I have done on behalf of seniors. As members know, I brought forward a palliative care bill in the first session of Parliament, and I would say there has never been more of a need to continue the work done on that. Now, with the pandemic, we have been distracted from that. I would encourage the government to come up with a plan to exit the pandemic and restore the economy, so that we can then start talking about some of the other issues that are facing seniors. They certainly need to have good options at end of life to get the dignity the throne speech indicated. They certainly need to be able to get the drugs and essential medicines they require.

Certainly, I want to see the government do something on that, but today the call is for the government to listen to the Conservatives and take our advice. Let us support the motion my colleague brought forward, which says, let us get this to committee, all sit down, roll up our sleeves, get the amendments that are needed and then get this done. Let us not make seniors wait until July 2022 to receive the payments they desperately need today in order to keep them from becoming, in some cases, homeless.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years.

First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation.

The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic.

Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition.

I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together.

We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary.

It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation.

We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through.

We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week.

Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long.

On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits.

What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important.

The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way.

The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful.

After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require.

That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it.

I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement.

For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country.

We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors.

In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support.

During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.

The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the GIS is definitely important to seniors in my riding.

I believe that our amendment provides a potential solution that would ensure that the problem has been dealt with once and for all. I would not want us to quickly pass Bill C‑12 only to realize six months later that it is flawed and that some seniors are still falling through the cracks. There are 204,000 seniors who are affected by these changes. I want a parliamentary committee to ensure that this bill resolves the problems of each and every one of them.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government's priority is to be there to support seniors, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. We have worked extremely hard to strengthen income security for them by increasing the GIS, which has helped over 900,000 single, low-income seniors. It has lifted 45,000 seniors out of poverty. During this pandemic, as members know, we were able to quickly provide direct and immediate support to seniors.

When it comes to supporting seniors, we have done a number of things, such as restoring the age of eligibility to 65, enhancing the OAS and the GIS, enhancing the CPP and making significant investments in community services and home care. For seniors affected by the 2020 GIS reduction, we have moved very quickly with a one-time payment, which I announced yesterday. We will be able to give it ahead of schedule and even quicker for those in dire need. Bill C-12 is also going to exclude any pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating the GIS moving forward.

We have an opportunity to work together to showcase to Canadians how this place can work in collaboration and help those who are most vulnerable. I really hope the member opposite, and indeed all members, will help us move quickly to make sure those seniors are helped.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 is exactly that. It is a proactive measure to ensure that seniors who got pandemic benefits last year are not impacted by any reduction or affected by their GIS and income tax.

I appeared at committee yesterday regarding my mandate letter and spoke to this very issue a number of times. The member opposite had the opportunity to ask me questions. I was available to all committee members to speak about this issue, and it is included in my mandate letter. The motion is to expedite this matter to reflect both the urgent nature of the bill to support needs and the ongoing collaboration and agreement between all parties on this. There is a simplicity in the policy content.

Nothing about this pandemic has been normal, and I argue that neither should this be. I hope we can move forward to make sure the most vulnerable people have support moving forward.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to the point that Bill C-12 is a very short, simple and clear bill. It is something we can all agree with. There are many things we disagree with in this place, but I really think we have an opportunity to showcase to all Canadians and seniors that this is a very significant fix for those who are most vulnerable. We can work together to fix this.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, from the very beginning, we have been moving very quickly on this issue. As the member very well knows, since I was appointed to this role we have worked extremely hard with officials and the Minister of Finance to put a major investment in the fiscal update. Of course, we are moving very quickly to ensure seniors have all the support they need.

Let me also remind the hon. member that Bill C-12 is about ensuring that this does not happen again. I worked with the Bloc critic to ensure we moved this quickly. Its members all agreed with this, and I really hope we can move to ensure that seniors have support going forward.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little stunned to hear the minister admit so freely that she made a deal with the third party in opposition to adopt this closure motion on Bill C-12. In exchange, the government will move up payments to seniors who have been unfairly ripped off and had their GIS payments reduced.

Is the minister now telling us that if there had been no deal, if the third party of opposition had stayed true to its roots and refused to support the gag order, she would not have moved up the payments?

Did she use vulnerable seniors' incomes as a bargaining chip?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, unlike the party opposite, let me remind the hon. member we moved very quickly on providing support for seniors, students, workers and businesses during this unprecedented time that called for unprecedented measures to be put in place. We of course moved very quickly to ensure Canadians had the support they needed at that time.

I also remind the hon. member that, from the very beginning, our party has always meant to support those most vulnerable seniors. We worked extremely hard to strengthen income security for seniors, including with the guaranteed income supplement, which has helped over 900,000 low-income seniors. Let me also remind the hon. member we restored the age of eligibility for seniors to 65, which the Conservatives wanted to move to 67.

On this side of the House, we are going to continue to make sure we support seniors, and that is exactly what Bill C-12 would be doing. I really hope we can put aside our partisanship and move quickly to move this forward.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the NPD, but indeed all members who have raised this issue and who have spoken to me directly. This is a real opportunity for all of us to show Canadians how a minority Parliament can actually work.

There are a lot of things we can disagree on in the House that are fundamental issues. This is something we all agree on, including the urgency to get this out soon as possible. When I was appointed, we worked with officials and the Minister of Finance to put in a major investment and to move very quickly.

As the hon. member very well knows, we are making this major investment through a one-time payment to seniors whose benefits were affected in 2020. I also shared yesterday with the hon. member that we would be delivering ahead of schedule and as soon as possible, on April 19. Service Canada would be working with members of Parliament to help constituents who are in dire need to get that support even sooner, in March.

Bill C-12 focuses on making sure this issue does not occur again, and I hope all members will move very quickly to make sure we put this in place so seniors are not impacted this year.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, in this corner of the House, we see NDP MPs as the effective opposition. We pushed for Bill C-12, and certainly support these absolutely important measures that need to be put in place, but that is not sufficient in itself.

Before the vote, I would like the minister to confirm that the government has accepted two key NDP demands: first, that the clawback is completely repaid to the nearly 200,000 Canadian seniors who need it by mid-April; and second, that the government is putting into place an emergency lane for seniors who are in great difficulty, so that by mid-March they would get a lump sum payment that would allow them to pay their rent until we get to the full reimbursement in mid-April.

Can the minister confirm that the government has accepted those two key and important NDP demands on behalf of Canadian seniors?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one is disputing the urgency of passing Bill C-12. Everyone across party lines has been warning the government about the plight of seniors since 2021, so the need for the bill is well known.

Two weeks ago, we were told that the bill could not be pushed forward and that its measures could not be implemented before July because of IT problems. Now we are hearing that some people may be reimbursed, or at least get some help, as early as April.

Nevertheless, the use of this closure motion hurts. We all would have agreed to proceed quickly, without the gag order, and the bill would have passed quickly.

Why shut down the democratic process and discussions that were going very well?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I first want to correct the record because the member is talking about two different things.

Folks got pandemic benefits in 2020. That is why in 2021, as we know, we put in a major investment in the financial and economic update to make sure we could fully compensate those seniors, and that is exactly what we are doing. In fact, we are moving forward on it as we speak, as I announced yesterday. Bill C-12 would ensure that this does not happen again, and that is exactly why we are moving quickly on this. I have spoken with all senior critics in all parties, and they know the urgency of this.

It is important to remember that this is a very short, simple and clear bill. We have held all-MP briefings on this bill in both English and French, and of course I have had discussions. I was at committee yesterday and spoke at length about this particular issue.

We can spend time on issues that we disagree with and on the approach, but this is something that we all agree on. Seniors are worried. They deserve us putting aside our differences and focusing on taking away their worries about their GIS reductions moving forward. I hope that we can work on this and move as quickly as possible.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for all of his hard work on this file as well, and the work that we have been able to do, indeed, with all parliamentarians to move very quickly.

When it comes to Bill C-12, it is a very short, concise and clear bill. What this bill would do is to exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits, so seniors who took pandemic benefits last year will have the security and surety that their GIS will not be impacted.

It is a short bill. Indeed, it was done in collaboration with all parties. I have spoken personally with all of my critics on this from different parties. They all agree and know the urgency in moving forward. That is exactly what we are doing.

I was at committee yesterday, and we spent a fair amount of time speaking specifically on this, but I look forward to answering members' questions to make sure we can move forward as quickly as possible.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me just first assure the hon. member that the day I got appointed was the day we started moving, actually very quickly, on this. We worked extremely hard and quickly with our officials and, of course, the Minister of Finance, to move quickly on putting forward a major, significant investment in the fiscal update.

Of course, as I shared with the hon member, we are making this investment. It will be delivered actually ahead of schedule, as soon as possible, on April 19. Service Canada will have an opportunity to work with members of Parliament to help constituents in dire need to get the support even sooner. Let me again point to the urgency of this particular bill. Bill C-12 focuses on making sure that this issue does not happen again.

I hope we can all work together. We disagree on many things in this House, but I think we have an opportunity to showcase to Canadians how we can work together and move this quickly to ensure those most vulnerable seniors have the support moving forward as well.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all members agree with the need to move quickly. I have personally had conversations with members from all parties on this. I know we all agree, and we understand why this is urgent. They have shared their concerns on the one-time payment as well.

I can tell the House that, when I got appointed to this role, we moved very quickly to work with officials and the Minister of Finance to make a major investment in the financial and economic update. As the hon. member knows, we announced yesterday that we will be moving forward with that two weeks earlier, in April, for those in dire need. I will have an opportunity to work with parliamentarians to get that support even sooner and earlier in March.

Let me bring colleagues back to this particular bill. Ensuring that this does not happen again is what Bill C-12 is about. I really hope we can put aside partisanship just for one second and ensure that those most vulnerable seniors have that security moving forward.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the passage of this bill is so important, and we need to get it passed as soon as possible. We know how difficult this pandemic has been for those most vulnerable.

This bill is short, concise and clear. Bill C-12 would exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits in July 2022, so seniors who took pandemic benefits last year would have that security and surety that their GIS would not be impacted. In fact, this bill is the exact product of much collaboration between parliamentarians and parties already. I have spoken to all my critics, who agree on why we need to move forward with this quickly. I hope we do just that.

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is because there are other bills to be studied. If I am not mistaken, Bill C-12 addresses the guaranteed income supplement and would ensure that what happened with the GIS and CERB will not be repeated in the next taxation year. There are other priorities.

In my opinion, Bill C‑10 is a fairly simple bill, and we have already approved much large expenditures by unanimous consent in the past. The NDP has received assurances that there will be a proper reporting of the expenditures under Bill C‑10. That is enough for me, and we can move on to other priorities.

Seniors

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority has been to support the most vulnerable, especially the most vulnerable seniors. That is why we worked so hard to strengthen income security for them, including increases to the GIS, which have helped over 900,000 low-income seniors. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-12 to exclude any pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating their GIS. We are also making a major investment through the one-time payment to get that money out as quickly as possible.

We are always going to be there for seniors.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we know how difficult this pandemic has been on seniors. On this side of the House, we have been there to support them.

As announced in the fiscal update, we will be delivering a one-time payment to fully compensate those affected in 2020. Last week, we also introduced Bill C-12 to exclude any pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating the GIS going forward. I am calling on all parties to quickly pass this bill to prevent any future reduction in the GIS for low-income, vulnerable seniors.

This is something we can all get behind, and I hope the hon. member will move forward on it.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Part of our government response has always been to support those most vulnerable seniors, and that is why we moved quickly on some of the measures that we've talked about since 2015, on restoring the age of eligibility to 65 for OAS and GIS and enhancing the GIS and CPP.

We've all been in this now for two years, but when the pandemic first hit, almost two years ago, as you know, we moved extremely quickly to provide support for Canadians, including workers, seniors, students and businesses. These programs were certainly meant to ensure that people could stay at home, stay safe and have a roof over their heads, and that they would be able to make ends meet.

We know that some seniors were part of that group that relied on these pandemic benefits to help them get through this crisis. To be clear, it's important to recognize that every year thousands of seniors get their GIS adjusted depending on their income in the previous year. Since some of these working seniors received pandemic benefits, because they needed them at the time, they had their GIS affected in 2021. I agree that they shouldn't be penalized for that.

They needed that support at that time, and I want to assure the honourable members of this committee that when I was first appointed to this role, this was the very first thing we worked on. We worked very quickly with our officials to look at all possible options. We worked with the Minister of Finance to quickly put in a major investment in the financial and economic update to fully compensate the seniors who were affected, and that work, as I mentioned, is already under way.

This is going to be an automatic one-time payment. It will support affected seniors by fully compensating them for the full loss of their GIS and allowance benefits.

To your second point, why is it so important to ensure that we move forward on Bill C-12? Bill C-12 is going to ensure that this doesn't happen again. To fully fulfill the commitment in my mandate letter, we introduced Bill C-12. It is going to simply amend the Old Age Security Act to exclude any income received under the CERB for the purposes of calculating the GIS or allowance amounts payable.

It is a very simple bill. It is a quick but significant amendment to the OAS act to ensure that seniors, particularly the most vulnerable, are not impacted again this year for the benefits they received last year. As I mentioned, I have already proactively reached out to all parties. They all agree. They have been calling for this. I really hope we can move quickly to advance this bill, because we need to get to the point where we can make sure this doesn't happen again.

Cliff or Alexis, would you like to talk a bit about why it's so important to get it in place as soon possible, so we don't have that impact again this year?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here with us today.

I'd like to come back to the question that was put to you earlier, about the fact that the monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits had been reduced for seniors who had received the Emergency Response Benefit. You have already spoken about it at some length, but I would like you to add certain details.

For example, could you specify how these individuals will be compensated? How will this work for people who received benefits outside of the 2020 tax year?

Additionally, can you say why, in fact, Bill C‑12 is so important? More specifically, what will change in terms of legislation to better protect seniors in the future?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

There are a few things. First, I want to assure the honourable member that we left no stone unturned to support these most vulnerable seniors. We worked extremely quickly with our officials and the Minister of Finance and looked at all options available to find a solution. As you know, in the fall economic update we made a major investment to fully compensate the seniors who were affected.

Of course, that work is under way. This automatic one-time payment will support those seniors by fully compensating them for the full loss of their GIS. Of course, I agree that we need to get the money out as quickly as possible, and that's exactly what we're doing and exactly what our officials are looking at.

I'll turn to Cliff to provide even more clarity on that, but I will say that the honourable member talked about what we can do. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-12. It is going to ensure that we prevent this from happening again, giving vulnerable seniors the security that their GIS won't be impacted because of the pandemic benefits they took last year.

I really hope we can work alongside all parties. I have been forthcoming and I have engaged with every party. My seniors critic offered them briefings on making sure we can move quickly on this, because it is urgent. Bill C-12 is a simple, quick fix to get this done, and I really hope the honourable members, and indeed all parties, will do just that.

I will turn to Cliff to provide more clarity on the one-time payment.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, allow me to continue to confirm for the honourable member first and foremost that we moved very quickly with our officials and the Minister of Finance to put forward measures in the financial and economic update to fully compensate seniors who were affected. This work is already under way. This is going to be a one-time, automatic payment to fully compensate the seniors who lost their GIS in 2020.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, to ensure that this doesn't happen again and to fulfill this commitment in my mandate letter, we introduced Bill C-12, which is going to do precisely that. It is going to amend the Old Age Security Act to exclude any income received under the CERB or CRB for the purposes of calculating the amount of GIS and allowances payable.

It is a very simple bill. It is a quick but very significant amendment to the OAS act to ensure that seniors, particularly the most vulnerable, are not impacted this year for the benefits they took last year.

I've had conversations with all parties and with my critics on this. I really hope we can all agree and move quickly to make sure we put this in to ensure that those most vulnerable seniors have the supports they need.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

They're waiting for those funds right now, for those exact things you listed.

You brought up Bill C-12 in the House on Friday. I am looking for it to be rescheduled as soon as possible so that these seniors can get their money.

How much will this one-time payment be? You mentioned the global amount of $742.4 million, but can you guarantee today that all of these seniors will receive every single penny that was taken from them in your government's clawback of the GIS?

Can you guarantee that they will get every single penny of that money back? Through your error, they thought they had it, but then they found out they were not entitled to it.

Can you guarantee that they will get all of that money back, please, Minister?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you for this opportunity to join you today.

As this is my first time joining you as the Minister of Seniors, I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for the work you do as committee members. I totally look forward to working with all of you in advancing the priorities set out in my mandate letter.

As you have already mentioned, Mr. Chair, I'm delighted to be joined by our senior officials today, who will be supporting me. Truly, these are some of the finest public servants and colleagues. I want to thank them for all that they and their teams do across Canada.

The government has been working hard on many fronts to respond to the needs of seniors, both before and during the pandemic. We need to think about seniors' health, social well-being and financial security. We have made significant progress, but there is more hard work ahead of us.

We all know just how challenging this pandemic has been for seniors, from social isolation to the higher costs of staying home and being safe, to the challenges in long-term care homes. Seniors have been impacted the most by this pandemic, and we must support them now and into the future.

I'm here today to speak to you about the priorities outlined in my mandate letter. The overarching goal is to work with colleagues and stakeholders to help protect the physical, mental and financial health of seniors. My work will be informed through engagement with seniors themselves, parliamentarians who represent seniors across this country, stakeholders and the National Seniors Council, as well as, of course, through collaboration with our provincial and territorial counterparts.

Furthermore, I'll be working closely with the Minister of Health in a concerted effort to improve the quality and availability of long-term care, and to take concrete actions to support seniors who want to age at home. With my colleague, Minister Duclos, the Minister of Health, I will be establishing an expert panel to provide recommendations for creating an aging at home benefit.

Additionally, as part of the effort to help seniors aging at home, our government will be helping organizations that serve seniors, which have the local knowledge to offer practical support to low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors in order to enable them to better age at home.

As I've said, the pandemic has exposed many systemic problems with long-term care homes that have proven tragic for thousands of seniors and their families. As you may know, much of my work is informed by my own experience as a nurse, working directly with seniors. I'll be happy to share more on that later.

Working with the provinces and territories to fix these problems is something we need to get done, and get done quickly. We want to improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds, and improve infection, prevention and control measures.

We welcome the news that the Health Standards Organization and the Canadian Standards Association have released draft national standards for long-term care for consultation, and that the final standard will be available to use later this year. This is important work to improve care for seniors. It will set the bar higher for safe and respectful care in these facilities. We look forward to working with the provinces and territories on that lasting change.

We're also deeply concerned about the safety of seniors. I will be continuing to work with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to strengthen Canada's approach to elder abuse. After years of hard work and contributing to Canada, seniors deserve to age with dignity in the best health possible, and with social and economic security.

One of my biggest priorities is to strengthen financial security for seniors. I'm proud of the work we've done up until now. We are restoring the age of eligibility for the OAS pension and the GIS to 65 from 67; increasing the GIS for the lowest-income single seniors; enhancing the GIS earnings exemption; providing a one-time, tax-free payment to help seniors with their extra costs during this pandemic; and, of course, moving forward with our plan to boost the OAS pension by 10% this summer for seniors 75 and older.

A big priority for me in this mandate is to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for single seniors and $750 for couples starting at age 65.

Some seniors received pandemic benefits in 2020, and had their GIS impacted. To fully compensate these seniors, we will be providing up to $742.4 million for one time payments to reimburse those GIS benefit reductions. Last week, we also introduced and tabled important legislation, Bill C-12, to permanently exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits in future years. This exemption will begin in July 2022.

The legislation needs to be passed by Parliament quickly in order to ensure that there is enough time to implement changes to IT systems and to ensure that there are no disruptions to the ongoing delivery of OAS benefits to seniors.

Colleagues, we must ensure seniors' safety, security and dignity. That's our focus and that's our goal.

Thank you. I am happy to take your questions.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I speak to this motion, I want to take a moment to recognize a veteran in my riding. On November 22 of last year, at the age of 96, World War II veteran Carl Kolonsky passed away in Campbell River. He is survived by his sons Don and Darryl, his grandchildren and many nieces and nephews. I am sure that he is with his wife of 53 years, Elsie, who passed away in 2000.

The last time that I physically saw Carl, I was at the Campbell River legion in 2019 where we were observing Remembrance Day. I will always hold sacred the photo that he and I took as we were both so looking forward to participating in the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands in World War II, in Holland. I was particularly excited to accompany this tremendous veteran, who had such a spirit of kindness that was tangible to all who knew him. As we know, COVID-19 ended those dreams. Last year, Carl received letters and flowers from a Dutch city thanking him for his tremendous role and work.

Carl was well known in the community for his fighting spirit, which was demonstrated in his service in World War II, for which he was decorated. The loss of Carl has been felt profoundly in Campbell River and by those who loved him most. I thank him for his service, I send continued love to those who loved him the best, and I acknowledge the sorrow of their grief.

Today I am here to speak about seniors. In the spring of last year, the NDP began its persistent warning that the pandemic benefits calculation could have significant impacts on the poorest Canadians. In fact, multiple letters were sent out specifically on seniors and the guaranteed income supplement, otherwise known as GIS, which is a payment that some of the poorest seniors in this country receive. We knew that without thoughtful planning, the most vulnerable would pay, and they have. We have heard from seniors who have had their GIS clawed back, and from parents who have had their child tax benefit clawed back: a source of income specifically to lift children out of poverty.

One senior shared with my office that she had lost her job due to COVID, and that her office just shut down. Between her OAS, her GIS and the small income she was making, she was barely making ends meet. When she lost her job, she was terrified that she would not be able to find another job to fill that important gap, and that she would not be able to make ends meet. She did what so many other Canadians did who lost their jobs: She contacted both her MP's office and Service Canada. Both offices assured her that she was qualified for this funding. However, she was still worried, so she checked in again and was told that there would be no repercussions at all.

In July, 2021, she found out that was simply not the case. She learned that the benefits that she had received made it impossible for her to receive her GIS, and now she is living on $1,000 a month. This senior, living in the Northwest Territories, lived in her car for a month because she could not afford rent. It was a month when the temperature was below zero. I cannot even imagine being put in that position. Not only that, but like so many other seniors across this country, because she lost the GIS, she automatically lost the opportunity to get other territorial or provincial benefits.

We know that, across this country, GIS opens the doors for other provincial and territorial benefits. When seniors lost their GIS, they lost more than just that. This senior lost a further $200 a month because she no longer qualified for the territorial program to compensate people for the higher cost of living they experience in the Northwest Territories. These are impacts that simply cannot be measured because they are so devastating in their impact.

We are here to debate this super motion on Bill C-12. It is a bill that the government promises will make all pandemic payments prior to June, 2022, exempt from taxable income for seniors, and will allow them to finally have their money returned. That sounds good, until it is understood that they have to wait until May.

Seniors have been struggling since July 2021. They were told in December, in the fiscal update, that the government would finally make it right. Then we read the fine print and found out that they would have to wait months and months until they saw that money.

I am listening to seniors. I have heard so many stories. They have shared them with me so bravely and so well. I wonder if the government is actually listening to the seniors who are living through this time and experiencing this devastation.

Let me tell members about another senior. He is a 71-year-old who was working. He applied for pandemic supports because he was no longer working due to the pandemic. Then his GIS was clawed back, which was hard enough in itself. Then, not long after, he was diagnosed with cancer. What is devastating about this is that he could not afford his medication. I do not think it is right. Any person in our country, a country that is profoundly proud of its public health care system, should be able to access the basic medication they need to stay alive and stay healthy. He could not afford the medication for his treatment, and he has completely lost hope. He does not know how he is going to deal with this. He cannot wait until May.

Perhaps one of the most terrible parts of this is that so many hard-working seniors who have committed their lives to this country are losing hope. They do not know who to rely on anymore when they are put into this circumstance and are unable to get the government to listen to them. They were assured by MP offices directly that if they applied for the benefit, they would be eligible and would be okay in the future. One senior told my office that neither her nor her husband would be getting the booster shot because they do not know what the point is. Living does not seem like a viable option in the circumstance they are currently living through. I do not believe that this couple can wait until May.

I want to be clear: This legislation will help. However, it will only help those who can make it until May. With no advance payments, seniors will continue to suffer for months, and so many seniors have already lost so very much. They have lost their homes. They are now living in their vehicles. They have lost their homes in a housing market that means when they finally find a new place to live, it will be at a much higher price. It means they will continue down the pathway of poverty, even with this remedy put in place. They have lost their health because they cannot afford to pay for the medication they need to keep them healthy and cannot afford to pay for food that will keep them healthy. Some of them have lost their lives because they did not have the resources to cover those basic necessities.

Not too long ago, it was brought to my attention that a senior had died and it was directly linked to the clawback of the GIS. After months of not being able to buy her type 2 diabetes medication or buy the healthy food that she requires to maintain her diet, because of the GIS clawback, she was brought into the ICU. Several days later, she succumbed to her health issues.

I have no idea what to say to the people who loved her most. I do not know what any member of the House could say to the people who loved her most. Because of something that was wrong in a process in a system in this place, people gave up everything. We cannot fix that. Perhaps the government has suggestions for me on how I could ever tell this family why this happened.

Early on in the pandemic, the NDP expressed multiple times that the most vulnerable Canadians would suffer. We looked at the policies and processes that were happening, and we knew there had to be some sort of stopgap to make sure that nobody fell through the cracks. Even though we talked about it, asked questions and moved motions in the House to protect people, the steps that needed to be taken were simply not taken.

I think many Canadians are asking themselves, as they look at these dire circumstances, why it takes so long. Why are we letting seniors wait? That is a question that really only the government can answer.

What I believe we need to discuss in this place is why we see continuous lack of planning when we know that something is coming on the horizon that will impact the most vulnerable Canadians in our country. We also have to get into a place where we recognize that, generation after generation, our systems continue to punish the most poor and vulnerable Canadians in our country. We must consider this profoundly and, as a responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves why our systems punish the poorest. While debating this motion, seniors are going out into the world without medications, without food, without a roof over their heads, without the capacity to pay for the heat that they need to stay warm during a very cold winter, and there are so many more stories our office has heard.

I believe that as a nation we are failing. We are failing to have a very important discussion about the ever-eroding bar of dignity in this country. We are watching the middle class, working class, working poor and poorer move further into poverty every single day. At the same time, we are watching the ultrarich of this country grow and expand their incomes every single year.

This is exactly why I support my friend the member for Winnipeg Centre's Bill C-223, an important bill that would create a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in Canada.

Research is showing us more and more every year that the ultrawealthy are hoarding money. When we look at the increase of automation and we see how many seniors, persons living with disabilities, people with mental health issues, single moms and working people, every day, are not even having the right to dream in this country that they will one day reach the poverty line in Canada, we must acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong.

One senior sent me this message: “Our GIS has been cut off and the $1,300 that we receive from the government is just not enough to keep shelter overhead. I feel weak and depressed, having no energy. I spend many sleepless nights crying. I never imagined my life would be like this. This is my last appeal to all. Please, I need help getting my medicine. Someone please get me my much-needed medication so I can continue to live.”

This is happening in our country. How is it possible now that it is even too much to ask for the basic medication people need just to sustain themselves?

I want to remind all Canadians that the GIS helps top up people's incomes to just over $19,000 a year if they are single and just over $25,000 if they are in a partnership. While this is happening and these seniors and so many other Canadians are facing devastating poverty, some of the biggest businesses and corporations are seeing the best year they have seen in a decade. These corporations are using the 75% wage subsidy and their profits to pay out their stakeholders. Where is the government on this? Is it chasing after those corporations and saying that if they are doing the best year they have ever done in a decade, how about they pay back some of the Canadian taxpayer dollars that subsidized their business during this time?

Why are we not having a comprehensive discussion about that kind of fairness in this country? It seems reasonable to me and I am happy to have the discussion.

What does the government say as we are seeing all of these seniors have their GIS clawed back, the poorest seniors in our country? What does the government say when we see families who are begging for more money because they had their child tax benefit clawed back and they cannot afford to feed their children? I hear nothing but silence, maybe some crickets singing a song.

In my office, we receive calls, emails and letters from seniors and those who love them the most. They are desperate, they are scared and they are tired. I have spoken to many anti-poverty groups formally and informally. I have spoken with seniors organizations and I have heard the voices of many seniors.

I have stood up in the House alongside my NDP colleagues and the member for Elmwood—Transcona and told the stories of these seniors because I want their voices to be heard. This includes the senior who told us that she has $70 at the end of each month after she pays for her basic necessities to cover the cost of food and medication.

There is also the senior who told me that her OAS only goes far enough to pay her rent and her utilities. At the end she has nothing left. She is living 100% off whatever the food bank provides for her. There is also the senior who wrote me that her niece bought her some food, but cannot help her buy her medication. She just needs her medicine. She told me she wonders if it would be better for her to simply die and no longer be a burden to her family.

We are in this place, and we are debating the lives of seniors as though the people who built our country, whatever their role, whatever their income bracket, do not matter. I believe they do matter. If the government does not want to listen to me, will it listen to the seniors who are crying out for help?

How about the group of seniors I heard from who told me that, when they heard the December economic statement update, they were excited. There was money coming. They arranged collaboratively to go to several banks. They went in carrying the economic update. I hope everybody has that picture of these seniors walking in with the economic update in their hands. They pointed to the line that said that they would be getting their money back, and they asked for a line of credit. It would help feed them and pay rent so they could stay in their homes.

Every single bank denied them. They were denied because the banks told them the economic update did not have a date or a promise of the amount that seniors would be paid. There was no certainty for the banks.

When I heard this story, I wondered why, in this country, seniors have to go into debt just to get the money they desperately need to survive and which the government has admitted it owes them.

That leads me to another question. When will this one-time payment be, and how much will it be? It needs to be that full income for the year. I have to say, and I have said it before, it will not fix the wounds that have been loaded onto these seniors.

I also want to talk about the many seniors who have gone to these predatory lending organizations. I spoke to one who said he has thousands of dollars of interest from one of these organizations. This senior is going to get that money and all of it is going to go to that predatory lending institution. That is another problem we have to fix.

I really hope that the government not only listen to those seniors who are crying out, but also to the people who advocate for them. One advocate is Laura Tamblyn Watts of CanAge, who said about Bill C-12:

This bill takes an important step forward in protecting vulnerable seniors.... However, this does not yet address the harsh reality faced by low income seniors who have had their GIS clawed back. CanAge has consistently raised the alarm that waiting until May for a one-time payment does not help put a roof over their heads, food on their tables or medications in their cupboard.

There is also Campaign 2000, which has been urgently calling for an advance payment of at least $2,500. Campaign 2000 has said that is pleased the minister has introduced Bill C-12, as this will surely give low-income seniors a sense of relief and security. However, they also say that it is of the utmost importance to address the current and urgent issue of their GIS payments that have already been clawed back for months, as seniors have been trying to find ways to make ends meet, and with the sudden loss of their GIS, the situation is getting more dire every day. Campaign 200 notes that the mental and physical health of seniors is deteriorating by the day, and in worse cases, they have heard of seniors losing their lives to suicide and illness.

In closing, I have no words to say to these seniors that will make this better. All I can hope for is that the government will finally take the much needed steps to get money in their bank accounts and to help them out if they have lost their low-income housing, so they are not put in a position, even with these resources, that they cannot afford to live because the rate of their rent is just far too high.

I would say to the government to listen to the advocacy groups and get this advance payment out immediately. There is no time to waste. Lives have already been lost, and there are so many lives that are on the line.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a subject that is very dear to my heart, namely, the living conditions of our seniors. I would also like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mirabel.

Bill C-12, which is currently before us, seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act to exclude any pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement.

It is important to note that, as it now stands, the bill would exclude those benefits only as of July 2022. It will come as no surprise when I say that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will support the bill introduced by the Minister of Seniors because it is a first step, however timid, toward correcting the tragic injustice that has befallen thousands of seniors, who are being penalized for taking advantage of measures that were supposed to help them.

It is appalling that, after working their entire lives, our seniors are experiencing a lower quality of life, a loss of purchasing power and a loss of dignity because of an uncaring government's administrative incompetence.

The Bloc Québécois has a deep and unwavering conviction that we must either acknowledge or at least have the decency to make it possible for each of our seniors to live with dignity, sheltered from financial insecurity.

As a Quebecker from the Lower St. Lawrence, I know that the progressive, prosperous and proud society that I had the good fortune to grow up in, and now devote my work to, was built by those who came before me. Architects and labourers of the Quiet Revolution, our grandparents and parents dedicated their lives to building today's modern and innovative Quebec.

On a more personal level, I would like to acknowledge that I am lucky and privileged to represent the people of Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, 26.8% of the people are 65 or older, while the Quebec average is around 19.7%. By 2040, it is estimated that more than one-third of my constituents will be 65 or older.

It goes without saying that measures that have an impact on the living conditions of seniors are acutely felt in my neck of the woods, and the current problem is no exception. In fact, at my offices in Rimouski and in Témiscouata‑sur‑le‑Lac, I have gotten many calls and messages from seniors distressed by cuts to their GIS since July 2021.

These benefits help them meet their basic needs, and the hardship they are experiencing cannot be overstated. They do not understand why the government is failing to show any leadership to correct the situation.

Take for example Ms. Gagnon from Trois‑Pistoles. She was receiving a combined pension of $1,409 a month, and she received the CERB in 2020 after abruptly losing her job. In October 2021, her monthly income went from $1,409 to $719 when her GIS was completely cut off.

Imagine having $690 clawed back from one day to the next. Ms. Gagnon could not maintain her standard of living when her benefit barely covered her rent. To put food on the table, she had to resort to a food bank. To fill the tank, she had to max out her credit card. That is because Ms. Gagnon is now being taxed at an effective federal rate of 50%, which is almost twice the marginal rate that Canada's wealthiest taxpayers pay.

My hon. colleague from Mirabel is an economist by trade. Given that we are talking about marginal rates, of course it made sense to share my time with him.

Even though it was decided at the beginning that the CERB would be taxable, nobody in the federal government notified GIS recipients that collecting the CERB would cut into their benefits quite this much.

It makes absolutely no sense that the most vulnerable seniors in our society should have to face such an injustice. Furthermore, the corrective measure proposed in Bill C-12 does not take effect until July 2022. This means that GIS recipients will have had to cope with a drastically reduced monthly payment for 12 long and difficult months. Why did the government not act sooner?

The Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance before the last election was even called this past August to bring this matter to their attention before it was too late, but to no avail. This government decided to call an election in the midst of a pandemic, and meanwhile, it is taking more than a year to correct a situation that is having a devastating impact.

The Bloc Québécois has also called for the measures in the bill to take effect as of March 2022 rather than July. We were told that this was impossible for IT-related reasons, which is both absurd and appalling. How can an IT system be so rigid that the government would rather force seniors into financial insecurity than change the parameters of the system?

In closing, not only is Bill C‑12 arriving far too late, it is missing a core element for it to really address the problems that the pandemic relief measures created for GIS recipients. What is strikingly missing from this bill is the $742 million in retroactive one-time payments promised in December's economic and fiscal update. This one-time payment was supposed to compensate GIS recipients who had received the CERB or the CRB in 2020, by alleviating the financial difficulties they are facing.

This government promised $742 million to vulnerable seniors who desperately need it. Today, it has chosen to take a pass on keeping its promise. How long will seniors have to wait before receiving the amounts they were promised and are owed?

Need I remind my colleagues that Quebec and Canada are facing the highest rate of inflation in 35 years and that the poorest are bearing the brunt once again?

Instead of debating a bill that focuses solely on stopping the undue slashing of seniors' benefits, we should stand together to increase their pensions. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a $110-a-month increase in old age security for seniors 65 years of age and over for a long time. As I stated earlier, I will support Bill C‑12, but, when I see all these blind spots and missed opportunities, all I can say is that the Liberals squandered an opportunity to do much better.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to rise today to speak positively of the first piece of legislation in my portfolio. I wanted to share with the House how helpful the new Minister of Seniors has been. I wanted to be able to point to the past week as an example of this legislation putting aside partisan differences to deliver results for Canadian seniors. Instead, what we have is the government House leaders's office using Canadian seniors to play petty procedural games.

The situation is urgent today. It was urgent a month ago. It was urgent a year ago. Many Canadian seniors are feeling neglected and desperate. After we raised the hopes of low-income seniors, they are exhausted, fed up and tired of hearing the government has their backs.

A payout timeline for May 2022 would leave impacted seniors waiting over 10 months. This situation did not happen overnight. It has been a long time coming, and it was not acted upon until the government was continuously pressed on this by my colleagues of all stripes in the House.

Our Prime Minister identified that it was an unintended conflict between the CERB and the GIS programs. If the magnitude of the impact of the GIS clawback were truly understood or fully appreciated by the federal government, distribution of the clawback repayment would have and should have already happened. The outrage I have heard from constituents and stakeholders in Hastings—Lennox and Addington and seniors across our great country is alarming. We need to get the money into the pockets of our seniors immediately.

Let me tell a story. A fine gentleman of 71 years old from my riding is working hard with extra shifts to cover increased rent. He is too proud to acknowledge to his own family how much he is struggling. He opened up to me. He shared stories with me from the good old days, stories of his late wife and the family reunions and trips they used to go on. Today, sadly, he lives very modestly. He volunteers at the food bank two days a week, in part because he loves the social aspect of it, but more importantly because those are two days he can have a warm meal. Another gentleman, whom I have known most of my life, is now evicted and is living in his car.

These are just a few examples of hundreds of real stories of human lives being affected. Our vulnerable seniors are feeling sad and forgotten. Everyone has a story. Everyone makes choices on how they navigate through life. However, we can all agree this country is in chaos. Many of our Canadian seniors have stepped up and done what they needed to do, and now it is time for our Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to do the same.

Growing older, becoming more seasoned and entering into a different phase of our life can be beautiful. Aging gracefully and staying engaged mentally, spiritually and physically in our retirement years is a special chapter of life to embrace. Sadly, this is not the case for all. Many of our vulnerable seniors are done. They are tired of living. Heating their homes is more expensive. In fact, yesterday I spoke with a constituent who has ice on her window ledge in the room where she sleeps, and she bundles up with extra blankets. On top of this, many are experiencing loss and loneliness, which have been highlighted by this pandemic, regret, lack of proper care, lack of hygiene, dementia, financial and physical abuse, and fear of technology. The list goes on. Now seniors are being put on the sidelines until May so that between now and May, they need to live each day in the hope that they can persevere until the next.

Currently, COVID-19-related benefits are not listed exemptions under the act for the purpose of benefit calculations. The proposal is to amend the definition of income in the OAS by deducting the amount received from three COVID-19 benefit acts. Do not get me wrong. I am delighted that the government wishes to move forward on this. The goal of the legislation is not to have a repeat of the 2021 GIS clawback. This is great news. My concern is, why the delay? More specifically, why would we not be allowing the House to properly and respectfully review the options that have been presented, respect the process of healthy debate and swiftly move forward in the best interests of all seniors being impacted? I can appreciate that time is sensitive and action is required, but not at the expense of ensuring that this bill is presented in its best, most thorough possible form.

Yesterday, in response to the Thursday question posed by my very capable colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, the government House leader indicated that the reason for ramming through Bill C-12 was to move as “expeditiously as possible”. I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard the member say that, and this is why. When ministers are called before committees, they have a document prepared for them. It briefs them on topics that may be raised, including answers to potential questions. These binders are available online for anyone to read.

In May 2020, the then Minister of Seniors appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As is standard practice, the minister was prepared a binder by departmental officials. In that binder in section 7, under the heading “Questions and answers—COVID-19 Economic Response Plan: Support for Canadians and businesses” and under “Interaction with CERB and GIS”, the following question appears: “Will income from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit be used in the calculation of Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits?” The answer is as follows:

It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances.

This being said, this will not affect the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances for about a year. Income received from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit in 2020 will only affect GIS and Allowances benefit amounts beginning in July 2021, as those benefits will be based on 2020 income.

That is a direct, verbatim quote from the government's own briefing binders, proving the government was aware of this issue for at least 21 months and chose not to act. We keep hearing that this legislation is urgently needed. On this side of the House, we have been constantly asking the government about this, since I have been here and for months before that. Flags were raised to the government and it did not do anything. In fact, not only did it do nothing to address the issue, but it actively chose to dither. Its own briefing binders point out that this was going to be an issue a year down the road.

The government, knowing full well what its decision would mean, did nothing. After tens of thousands of seniors began reaching out to their members of Parliament, including, I would suspect, every single member on the other side as well, the decision was to do nothing. To be clear, I do not necessarily pin all of this on the minister. I can certainly appreciate that it takes time to settle into a new role and get accustomed to the file, especially one that stretches laterally across so many different policy areas, as the seniors file does.

While I am so happy to see movement on this file, I must reiterate that government inaction is the reason we are even considering the motion before us. This should have been addressed months ago. Hopefully, moving forward, the government will realize that there are real costs to inaction, which are being borne by our most vulnerable seniors during the deadliest pandemic in a century. It did not have to be this way. Canadian seniors did not need to be placed by the government in a position to choose between food, medication and shelter, but this is where we find ourselves, and I pray that it will never happen again.

The government's motion would ram through Bill C-12 with minimal debate, zero committee study, no ministerial accountability and a total denial of an opportunity for amendments to be proposed to improve and strengthen those very important measures. While this may be fairly obvious to my colleagues in the House, we must be absolutely positive that any deviation from standard practices is considered greatly and not done without heavy thought.

What I am particularly concerned about here is the divergence from long-standing, well-established practices. In their defence, I will turn to the wisdom of those who came before us, those who have examined and established the rules of today.

On September 24, 1968, the House of Commons ordered a special committee of this place to be struck. Its objective was to “report upon the advisability of making changes in the orders concerning the business of supply, the business of ways and means, the stages of the legislative process, and the operation of the standing committees of this House”. Over 26 meetings, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House produced its report. The fourth report recommended changes to the legislative process and is the genesis for so much of what we have today, including what our predecessors envisioned as the role of each stage of the debate process. The authors had this to say:

10. In considering the reform of the legislative process your Committee has taken into account the need to eliminate obsolete procedures; the desirability of providing more meaningful opportunities for Members, and particularly back benchers, to participate in the consideration and shaping of a bill; the desirability of identifying the crucial stages in a bill's passage which, in your Committee's opinion, should occur later rather than earlier in the legislative process; and the necessity of ensuring that the legislative programme of a session, following reasonable consideration by Parliament, should always be completed in this age of heavy governmental responsibilities.

11. In the hope of achieving these aims the Committee's recommendations, which are contained in its Fourth Report, are based on the following principles:

(d) The motion for the Second Reading would read:

“That this bill be now read a second time and referred to a committee”.

This motion, if passed, would imply that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any commitment as to the final passage of the bill, had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny. Your Committee believes that the significance of the Second Reading stage has been exaggerated in the past, and that the decisive stage should occur later in a bill's passage after it has emerged from a committee. The purpose of the Second Reading stage is to define the scope of a bill, and to extend its significance any further is, in our opinion, to distort the meaning of the legislative process.

I do not believe the authors could have been any more clear. It is extremely evident that they placed a great importance on the committee stage, and subsequently on third reading over second.

The report continues:

The motion for Third Reading would read: “That this bill be now read a third time and passed.” This wording would indicate clearly and unambiguously that the final and most crucial decision relating to the passage of a bill would be taken at the Third Reading. At present the Third Reading is seldom debated and has become almost a formal stage. Your Committee does not envisage that a debate should necessarily take place at the Third Reading, but it attaches great importance to the preservation of the opportunity for debate at this stage. We wish to emphasize that the Third Reading should always be the decisive stage and that in the case of a highly controversial bill it could be a most crucial debating stage.

The report of the Special Committee on Procedure also had quite a bit to say regarding the importance of committee, another key stage of the legislative process that this motion would do away with.

It further states:

It will be apparent from the recommendations already made in relation to supply and the legislative process that your Committee envisages a significant extension of the functions of the Standing Committees and in consequence a substantial strengthening of their importance and influence. They would become the forums in which the details of expenditure and legislation would be closely considered. They would investigate the operations and continuing programmes of government departments and would develop areas of subject specialisation. We would expect debate in the Standing Committees to be well-informed and pertinent; their members to become influential in the areas of their specialised experience; and their reports to the House to assume a critical significance related more closely to the national interest as a whole than to simple political differences. We also anticipate that the business of the House would be greatly expedited and handled more efficiently through exploiting the potential of the committee system of the House to the full.

The importance of these stages of the legislative process cannot, and must not, be understated. What we have in front of us is admittedly a very important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that should have come long ago. Many Canadian seniors are waiting. Many are desperate, and our federal government has a significant role to play.

I have mentioned before while standing in the House that the role of an effective opposition is not just to oppose and critique. Our responsibility is to build solutions. We need to ensure that all low-income seniors who saw their GIS clawed back in 2021 are included in appropriate and timely, yet thorough, legislation. This portfolio need not be partisan.

I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the minister to ensure that we are working together in the best interests of all Canadian seniors. This brings forward the very obvious question of how we balance the importance of legislative scrutiny with the need to get this legislation passed in a timely manner. I think I have the solution.

Therefore I move that the motion be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “immediately after the adoption of this order” with the words “at the next sitting of the House”;

(b) by deleting paragraph (b);

(c) in paragraph (c), by replacing the words “the debate” with the words “Government Orders on the day the bill is considered”;

(d) in paragraph (d), by deleting all the words after the words “if the bill is” and substituting the following: “read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, consideration in committee shall take place the following day, provided that the Minister of Seniors be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, no later than three hours before the next sitting of the House”;

(e) in paragraph (e), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “no notice of motions in amendment shall be allowed at report stage”;

(f) in paragraph (f), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “the report stage and third reading stage of the bill may be considered during the same sitting and be ordered for consideration at the next sitting following the presentation of the report”; and

(g) in paragraph (g), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders that day or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division”.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc members for being supportive of Bill C-12. There have been lots of conversations with the critic and with individual members and I know that the Bloc supports this. If the Bloc will be willing to support Bill C-12, through this motion today, we will move this along more quickly.

The last thing we need to have happen is to have this go past the March 4 deadline and delay this any further. This is a simple fix. This bill is not pages long. It is five lines and it speaks to what is needed and what has been asked for.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this government motion will push through Bill C-12 with minimal debate, zero committee study and no opportunity to improve it or strengthen it. Can the member perhaps acknowledge that this is deviating from standard practice that is entrenched in this place?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to speak with unanimous consent. This is very important to low-income seniors across the country, but extremely important to me as well.

While the Minister of Seniors provided a lot of important context on the urgency of this bill and the merits of passing this motion, I want to add a few points of support that hon. members can consider as we move forward.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I am joining the debate on the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people here in beautiful Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia. I am here to discuss government business no. 7, which would expedite Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. In short, this bill would exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement or allowance benefits beginning in July of 2022.

I would like to explain why we are proposing this amendment and I hope that hon. members will see the urgency and the merit of rapid adoption.

As hon. members know, we put in place the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, and the Canada recovery benefit, CRB, to help people at the height of the pandemic, and the financial sector has confirmed that these benefits have helped families avoid catastrophic income loss. However, we also know that these benefits were counted as income and had an impact on some of our most low-income seniors. This is happening because eligibility for the GIS and the allowances is based on how much net income an individual earned the previous year.

Since the CERB and the CRB are taxable, they can and do impact GIS eligibility. Unfortunately, that meant that some GIS and allowance recipients may now be facing lower benefit payments because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits. We recognize that some seniors were facing significant challenges as a result of this and we needed to move quickly to rectify the situation.

In the 2021 economic and fiscal update, our government committed $742 million for one-time payments to support seniors who were experiencing hardship because of this. I want to tip my hat to the minister for this because I know how hard she worked and how determined she was to get that in the economic and fiscal update. GIS and allowance recipients who received CERB or the Canada recovery benefit in 2020 will get help. We are going to compensate seniors for their loss of GIS or allowance benefits, and we are going to make it simple. Seniors would not need to take any action to receive the one-time payment. They will receive it automatically, in the same way that they receive their GIS or allowance benefits.

This automatic one-time payment will support those who saw a loss of GIS or allowance by compensating them for the full annualized loss amount. However, we did not just want to provide a quick fix. Instead, we wanted to ensure that seniors will not be facing a loss or a reduction in benefits again.

That is why we introduced this bill. Bill C-12 would exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits beginning in July. This bill speaks directly to the needs of seniors that have been raised by members on every side of this House. Once again, we are proposing this crucial change to the Old Age Security Act to ensure that this problem never happens again. To do so, we have a very short window of opportunity at a very busy time of the year. We must have royal assent on Bill C-12 by March 4 to guarantee that this takes effect as of July 1.

Going forward, GIS and allowance recipients who received pandemic benefits will not experience any loss or reduction in their future benefits. This is something that should resonate with all members, and we have heard from so many members that it has and that they care about seniors in their communities. This will automatically prevent this from happening again to constituents.

These proposed measures are just a few of the many activities that we have undertaken, both before COVID struck and in the two years since. Indeed, the well-being of seniors has been a priority for our government since 2015. In 2016, we increased the GIS for nearly 900,000 low-income seniors. As a result of this and other government initiatives, an estimated 45,000 seniors were lifted out of poverty between 2015 and 2019. We also put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of future seniors by restoring the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for GIS benefits and the old age security pension.

Then, when the pandemic hit, we stepped up to protect the most vulnerable among us, including seniors. To help seniors cover increased costs by COVID-19, we provided a one-time, tax-free payment of $300 for those eligible for the OAS pension and an additional $200 for OAS pensioners who were eligible for the GIS. We also provided a special top-up payment through the GIS credit in April 2020. More than four million low- and modest-income seniors benefited from this top-up, which gave an average of $375 for single seniors and $510 for couples.

Our Government of Canada will also increase the OAS pension by 10% for older seniors aged 75 and over. As a first step, we have provided a one-time payment of $500 to the OAS pensioners who will be aged 75 or over as of June 30, 2022, to help meet their immediate financial needs. In July 2022, the OAS pension will be permanently increased by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. That increase will provide an extra $766 to full pensioners in the first year and improve the financial security of seniors later in life.

These are just some of the supports that our government has provided to improve the lives and financial situations of Canadian seniors. We continue to search for ways to improve our supports and services for seniors, and we will listen to all members who have suggestions.

During the pandemic, we focused our support on people. We put in place the CERB and the Canada recovery benefit to help people at the height of the pandemic. We helped millions of Canadians pay the bills and put food on the table with this support. However, we also know that it is now having an impact on some of our most vulnerable and we are taking action today to deal with that.

This bill is focused on dealing with this issue on a go-forward basis. We need all members' support to make that happen quickly. With Bill C-12, we would make an important legislative change that would provide seniors with peace of mind and certainty in knowing that they will not face any undue financial hardships if they continue to access pandemic benefits in the future. We hope they will not have to, but we committed to being there for Canadians as long as it takes. The pandemic has highlighted the many challenges facing our most vulnerable seniors. We have done a lot, but it is an area where we still have more to do.

The minister and I will continue to be available throughout this process to talk about this bill. We have already spoken to many members in the House about this. I know that all members here have expressed that they want to solve this issue in exactly the way this bill would do. All parties have suggested that.

Therefore, we should put politics aside and put people first in this case. Canadians expect that much of us when it comes to low-income working seniors who need this worry taken away. Let us support these most vulnerable seniors by quickly passing this bill, through this motion.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with the hon. member's party. I know we all agree. I also understand why there is urgency with this bill and of course, I share her concerns when moving quickly on the one-time payments we announced.

When I was appointed to this role, we moved very quickly and worked extremely hard with our officials and the Minister of Finance to make a major investment in the fiscal and economic update. My colleagues from all parties have received briefings on this. I assure them we will work quickly on that front. This bill will ensure that this does not happen again. That is what Bill C-12 is all about. I hope we can put aside our partisanship and move forward to ensure those—

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree why the quick passage of this bill is so important. We know how difficult this pandemic has been for those most vulnerable seniors. The bill is short, concise and clear. Bill C-12 would do what I said. It would exempt pandemic relief benefits for the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits, so that seniors who took pandemic benefits last year would have the security that their GIS will not be impacted.

It is something that the hon. member and I have chatted about. This is on top of the work that was announced in the fall economic statement. I think all parties agree on the merits of the contents of the bill. Let us get it passed.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I think we all recognize, and all members have agreed with me, that we should do this payment as quickly as possible. We are supporting Canadians through an automatic, one-time payment to compensate the full amount of the loss of their GIS as soon as possible through the same one-time payment system that we have used in the past for seniors. I am happy to continue speaking to hon. members who want to support their constituents quickly, as we can all agree it is an extremely important issue. I have certainly had many conversations with hon. members on all sides on this extremely important point.

However, that is not what this bill is about. Bill C-12 would permanently exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits beginning in July 2022, preventing this from happening again on a go forward basis. We are rectifying the previous situation and now, through this bill, we would make sure that it does not repeat itself. I think we can all agree that this bill would ensure a consistent approach for low-income seniors throughout this pandemic. We can continue to discuss the one-time payment for seniors, but we truly have a chance to expedite this bill over to the other chamber for further scrutiny.

As I mentioned, Bill C-12 is a very short, simple and clear bill, and something that I have spoken to members in other parties about. It is a simple exemption that would help seniors who really, truly need it. I certainly respect Parliament, and I am happy to make myself available to speak to parliamentarians on this.

We have to think about Canadians and those affected seniors. Our officials have certainly made immense strides towards making it possible for us to support these tens of thousands of seniors across the country. We should take this opportunity to show Canadians how this minority Parliament can work quickly, collaboratively and positively to achieve real results, and the motion today truly helps us do just that.

I am hopeful that hon. members will agree that Parliament has many important matters to discuss but should not belabour a point that we all agree on. In fact, I am appearing at the human resources, skills development and persons with disability committee on Monday about my mandate letter. This mandate letter commits me to, “Ensure seniors’ eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not negatively impacted by receipt of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit...and the Canada Recovery Benefit....” I will certainly be discussing this with committee members during that meeting, and they can pose questions to me and my officials on this extremely important bill during that appearance.

As I have said, I have had conversations with members from all parties on this, and all have agreed that it is something we need to move forward on. We know that seniors are looking forward to all of us doing the right thing, and by working collaboratively, we can really show Canadians how, in a minority Parliament, we can all come together and do the right thing.

We are constantly working hard to find permanent solutions that will bring ongoing comfort and relief to the men and women whose hard work has contributed to the Canada we are so proud and privileged to call home. Seniors deserve nothing less than the best. We acted very fast to resolve this issue, and I truly hope that my hon. colleagues agree that this bill deserves a swift passage.

I will speak to the bill itself, and to start, I would like to remind hon. members that GIS is an income-tested benefit payable to low-income seniors who receive the old age security pension. The allowances are income-tested benefits payable to those aged 60 to 64 who are spouses, common-law partners, widows or widowers of GIS recipients, and every July an individual's entitlement for these income-tested benefits is reassessed based on individuals' income or the combined income of a couple. Therefore, the GIS and allowance benefits would be able to increase, decrease, stay the same or be seized, according to the changes in a person's annual net income.

The Income Tax Act defines pandemic relief benefits as taxable income, which has meant that they also are considered as income in determining entitlement to the GIS or allowance benefits. Unfortunately, that meant that some GIS and allowance recipients may now be facing lower benefit payments because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement), be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;

(b) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, two members of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;

(c) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred;

(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed;

(e) during consideration of the bill, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown;

(f) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown; and

(g) upon completion of proceedings on the said bill, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak virtually in the House from my constituency of Brampton West, which is situated on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Huron-Wendat, Haudenosaunee, Ojibwa and Chippewa people, and the land that is home to the Métis and is the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague, friend and excellent Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors.

It is my pleasure to speak to the House today to discuss Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement), and why we should move quickly to adopt it.

The motion to expedite this matter reflects both the urgent nature of this bill to support the most in-need Canadians and the ongoing collaboration and agreement between parties on this, as well as the simplicity of the policy content.

On the day I was appointed minister, I began discussing this issue, recognizing there were low-income, working seniors who were having trouble making ends meet and that the pandemic benefits they received should not have been a penalty against them, especially not in the subsequent year as the system was set up.

Nothing about this pandemic has been normal, and I would argue that therefore neither should this be. They received CERB and CRB in 2020, but they spent it on things they needed at the time. It helped them to pay for their rent or the groceries or medicine they needed at the time.

I recognize that we cannot go back in time to exempt that income and that, at the time, we were 100% focused on moving quickly to set up benefits and save Canadians' livelihoods. We did that.

This bill would do one thing. It would exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of guaranteed income supplement or allowance benefits beginning in July, 2022.

It is a very short bill. I could quickly read it out, and still have plenty of time in this speech. In fact, the bill is the product of much collaboration among parliamentarians and parties already. I want to take an opportunity to give credit to all the members who represented their constituents by raising the stories of seniors affected, both here in the House and with me directly through my office.

Further, I would like to also thank the stakeholders and the affected seniors themselves for raising this very important issue.

We all understand that this is an extraordinary situation. Working, low-income seniors deserve to be given a break from worrying if the pandemic benefit income they received will impact the low-income supplement they receive.

As mentioned, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit was put in place very quickly in 2020 to help people avoid catastrophic income loss during COVID. An unprecedented pandemic required an unprecedented response.

The CERB and the Canada Recovery Benefit did just that. They allowed Canadians who did not know what was next to not have to worry or choose between a roof over their heads or food on the table.

I will speak more about the merits of the bill during the second reading debate, which I hope we can get to quickly. Today, I am here to say that we need to adopt this motion to quickly move through the stages of the bill. I understand the importance of Parliament's time to scrutinize bills and debate ideas; however, this is one that we have all said we agree on. All parties have said they agree with the bill's content and intent. We all have limited time before officials would no longer be able to effectively implement this and ensure the best results for affected seniors.

Further, we have to consider our colleagues in the other chamber, who also have to consider this matter. We ask a lot of them when we send them emergency pieces of legislation, and I believe it is fair to try to give them adequate time as well.

However, it is clear from what has been said in this place that this matter is urgent. It is urgent that we remove the worry seniors have, and prevent this possible reduction of the guaranteed income supplement due to pandemic benefits.

This has been an extremely challenging time to navigate. Seniors, especially low-income ones, need the security and surety to know that the government will not be counting these pandemic benefits as income when it comes to their GIS calculations. It is simply not a normal time still.

Every July, entitlement to the GIS or the allowance is reassessed based on an individual's income, or the combined income of a couple as reported on the tax return. However, the CRA and ESDC have a lot of work to do together in the months leading up to July. We need to give them the time to make major system changes to make this exemption possible.

The Income Tax Act technically defines pandemic relief benefits as taxable income, which has meant that they are also considered as income when determining entitlement to the GIS or allowance benefits. In order to exempt that income, and to prevent lower benefit payments to some guaranteed income supplement and allowance recipients because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits, Parliament has to pass this bill by early March. Every day thereafter causes immense challenges for the system, and will have an impact on seniors' files. We need to move quickly to rectify the situation.

This is the unprecedented aftermath of an unprecedented response to certainly an unprecedented crisis. During my speech at second reading, I will further discuss our government's one-time payment that would help seniors affected by 2020 benefits as announced in the economic fiscal update. I recognize—

Seniors

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, we can all agree just how challenging this pandemic has been on seniors, and our government has been there from the start to support them. We committed to help seniors by issuing a one-time payment to those on GIS where it was reduced due to pandemic benefits. Additionally, as the member said, we introduced Bill C-12 to exclude any pandemic benefit for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward.

I urge the member and all those on the other side to put politics aside and support Bill C-12.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the federal government has finally realized that it is inhumane to reduce the GIS for the poorest seniors because of CERB.

It has introduced Bill C‑12, which will stop the reductions, but not until the July payment, even though seniors have been making sacrifices at the grocery store and even the pharmacy for the past year. Twelve months of daily sacrifices. This is crucial income for these seniors, but the government plans to keep reducing that income until the early summer.

How is it humanly possible to move so slowly?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can see why my hon. colleague was anxious to get to the Thursday question. It was exceptionally well put.

Let me say to the hon. member across the way that I have very much enjoyed getting to know him over the last while as we begin this new working relationship together. It seems we share an affinity for the movie Uncle Buck, so maybe we will have a movie night together at some point in time.

My hon. colleague is correct that we have motions scheduled for rapid testing and critical funds for seniors. We must move as expeditiously as possible. That is why tomorrow morning we will take up debate on Government Business No. 8, which sets out the parameters of how to expedite Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19 and more specifically to rapid testing. In the afternoon, we will turn to Government Business No. 7, which is a motion to dispose of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement). When we return on Monday, we will continue debate on government Motion No. 8 so that we can pass the rapid testing legislation as soon as possible. Finally, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Like my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, I kind of jumped the gun.

Let me begin by stating that I am really looking forward to working with you and the government House leader. Despite any preconceived or misplaced characterizations he may have about me or my leadership team colleagues, which he so willingly shared with his caucus and publicly, he should not mistake our passion, our pride and our desire for only the best outcomes for our country and Canadians as any other emotion. If he would like to apologize, I am sure my leadership colleagues would gladly accept.

I note the government House leader gave notice of government Motion No. 7 and Motion No. 8 to schedule a program for Bill C-10 on rapid tests and for Bill C-12 on old age security. Under the terms of these motions, the sponsoring minister will not have to defend their legislation in committee, no stakeholders will be able to testify and no amendments can be made to improve the legislation. I want the government House leader to understand that the official opposition supports both bills, but his proposed approach is not acceptable. I call on him to abide by the time-tested procedures of the House and make sure the government legislation holds up to parliamentary scrutiny.

With that, I ask the government House leader the Thursday question: What is the order of business we can expect?

Seniors

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority from the very beginning has been to be there to support those most vulnerable seniors. That is why we worked so hard to strengthen income security for seniors, including with the increase to their GIS.

We moved very quickly to help seniors during the pandemic. We have also introduced, as my hon. colleague knows, Bill C-12, to exclude pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward, while also making a major investment through a one-time payment to those seniors affected. We are on top of this, and we will always be there for seniors.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree about just how difficult this pandemic has been for seniors, particularly those most vulnerable. That is why we have actually worked extremely hard to strengthen income security for seniors, including with increases to the GIS.

As my hon. colleague knows, we announced in the fiscal update that we would be delivering a one-time payment to those who received benefits in 2020. We also introduced Bill C-12 to exclude pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward. I hope we can count on all members of the House to pass this bill extremely quickly.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague very well knows, we have been there to support seniors, particularly those vulnerable seniors, during this pandemic. As announced in the economic and fiscal update, we will be delivering a one-time payment to fully compensate those affected in 2020.

This week, we introduced Bill C-12 to exclude any pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward. I hope that we can all get behind this bill and quickly pass it to prevent any future reduction in GIS for the low-income, vulnerable seniors who took these benefits. I think we can all get behind this.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many seniors have been struggling as part of the working poor for their whole lives.

Bill C-12 proves that the Liberals made a colossal mistake with the GIS clawback, and still these seniors are being told that they have to wait until May for help to come. We are hearing heartbreaking stories about seniors with only $70 left a month to cover food and medication, and this while the cost of living skyrockets.

Will the Minister of Seniors please explain to seniors who are receiving and living on $2.30 a day why they do not deserve an advanced payment?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has been very hard on seniors, and the government has been there to help them.

We are helping seniors with a one-time payment to seniors whose benefits were affected by pandemic support measures. Today we introduced Bill C‑12 to exclude pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating GIS.

We are calling on all parties, including the Bloc Québécois, to support us and pass this bill quickly to prevent any future reduction in GIS for low-income seniors. Our government will continue to be there for seniors.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority has been there to support those most vulnerable, especially those seniors, and that is why we worked so hard to strengthen income security for seniors, including the increases to the GIS, which has helped over 900,000 low-income seniors. That is also why we introduced Bill C-12 to exclude pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward. We are also making major investments through a one-time payment for seniors affected.

On this side of the House, we will always be there for seniors.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we know just how difficult this pandemic has been on seniors, and on this side of the House, we have been there to support them. As announced in the fiscal update, we will be delivering a one-time payment to fully compensate those affected in 2020, and today we introduced Bill C-12 to exclude any pandemic benefits for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward.

I hope that we can count on all parties' support to quickly pass this bill to prevent any future reduction in GIS for low-income vulnerable seniors who took pandemic benefits. I hope we can all get behind this.

Old Age Security Act

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)