Bill C-12

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

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

Old Age Security Act

[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.