Bill C-12 (Historical)

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.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

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

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

An Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

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

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

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

Seniors

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

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

We are always going to be there for seniors.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

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

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

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

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

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I speak to this motion, I want to take a moment to recognize a veteran in my riding. On November 22 of last year, at the age of 96, World War II veteran Carl Kolonsky passed away in Campbell River. He is survived by his sons Don and Darryl, his grandchildren and many nieces and nephews. I am sure that he is with his wife of 53 years, Elsie, who passed away in 2000.

The last time that I physically saw Carl, I was at the Campbell River legion in 2019 where we were observing Remembrance Day. I will always hold sacred the photo that he and I took as we were both so looking forward to participating in the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands in World War II, in Holland. I was particularly excited to accompany this tremendous veteran, who had such a spirit of kindness that was tangible to all who knew him. As we know, COVID-19 ended those dreams. Last year, Carl received letters and flowers from a Dutch city thanking him for his tremendous role and work.

Carl was well known in the community for his fighting spirit, which was demonstrated in his service in World War II, for which he was decorated. The loss of Carl has been felt profoundly in Campbell River and by those who loved him most. I thank him for his service, I send continued love to those who loved him the best, and I acknowledge the sorrow of their grief.

Today I am here to speak about seniors. In the spring of last year, the NDP began its persistent warning that the pandemic benefits calculation could have significant impacts on the poorest Canadians. In fact, multiple letters were sent out specifically on seniors and the guaranteed income supplement, otherwise known as GIS, which is a payment that some of the poorest seniors in this country receive. We knew that without thoughtful planning, the most vulnerable would pay, and they have. We have heard from seniors who have had their GIS clawed back, and from parents who have had their child tax benefit clawed back: a source of income specifically to lift children out of poverty.

One senior shared with my office that she had lost her job due to COVID, and that her office just shut down. Between her OAS, her GIS and the small income she was making, she was barely making ends meet. When she lost her job, she was terrified that she would not be able to find another job to fill that important gap, and that she would not be able to make ends meet. She did what so many other Canadians did who lost their jobs: She contacted both her MP's office and Service Canada. Both offices assured her that she was qualified for this funding. However, she was still worried, so she checked in again and was told that there would be no repercussions at all.

In July, 2021, she found out that was simply not the case. She learned that the benefits that she had received made it impossible for her to receive her GIS, and now she is living on $1,000 a month. This senior, living in the Northwest Territories, lived in her car for a month because she could not afford rent. It was a month when the temperature was below zero. I cannot even imagine being put in that position. Not only that, but like so many other seniors across this country, because she lost the GIS, she automatically lost the opportunity to get other territorial or provincial benefits.

We know that, across this country, GIS opens the doors for other provincial and territorial benefits. When seniors lost their GIS, they lost more than just that. This senior lost a further $200 a month because she no longer qualified for the territorial program to compensate people for the higher cost of living they experience in the Northwest Territories. These are impacts that simply cannot be measured because they are so devastating in their impact.

We are here to debate this super motion on Bill C-12. It is a bill that the government promises will make all pandemic payments prior to June, 2022, exempt from taxable income for seniors, and will allow them to finally have their money returned. That sounds good, until it is understood that they have to wait until May.

Seniors have been struggling since July 2021. They were told in December, in the fiscal update, that the government would finally make it right. Then we read the fine print and found out that they would have to wait months and months until they saw that money.

I am listening to seniors. I have heard so many stories. They have shared them with me so bravely and so well. I wonder if the government is actually listening to the seniors who are living through this time and experiencing this devastation.

Let me tell members about another senior. He is a 71-year-old who was working. He applied for pandemic supports because he was no longer working due to the pandemic. Then his GIS was clawed back, which was hard enough in itself. Then, not long after, he was diagnosed with cancer. What is devastating about this is that he could not afford his medication. I do not think it is right. Any person in our country, a country that is profoundly proud of its public health care system, should be able to access the basic medication they need to stay alive and stay healthy. He could not afford the medication for his treatment, and he has completely lost hope. He does not know how he is going to deal with this. He cannot wait until May.

Perhaps one of the most terrible parts of this is that so many hard-working seniors who have committed their lives to this country are losing hope. They do not know who to rely on anymore when they are put into this circumstance and are unable to get the government to listen to them. They were assured by MP offices directly that if they applied for the benefit, they would be eligible and would be okay in the future. One senior told my office that neither her nor her husband would be getting the booster shot because they do not know what the point is. Living does not seem like a viable option in the circumstance they are currently living through. I do not believe that this couple can wait until May.

I want to be clear: This legislation will help. However, it will only help those who can make it until May. With no advance payments, seniors will continue to suffer for months, and so many seniors have already lost so very much. They have lost their homes. They are now living in their vehicles. They have lost their homes in a housing market that means when they finally find a new place to live, it will be at a much higher price. It means they will continue down the pathway of poverty, even with this remedy put in place. They have lost their health because they cannot afford to pay for the medication they need to keep them healthy and cannot afford to pay for food that will keep them healthy. Some of them have lost their lives because they did not have the resources to cover those basic necessities.

Not too long ago, it was brought to my attention that a senior had died and it was directly linked to the clawback of the GIS. After months of not being able to buy her type 2 diabetes medication or buy the healthy food that she requires to maintain her diet, because of the GIS clawback, she was brought into the ICU. Several days later, she succumbed to her health issues.

I have no idea what to say to the people who loved her most. I do not know what any member of the House could say to the people who loved her most. Because of something that was wrong in a process in a system in this place, people gave up everything. We cannot fix that. Perhaps the government has suggestions for me on how I could ever tell this family why this happened.

Early on in the pandemic, the NDP expressed multiple times that the most vulnerable Canadians would suffer. We looked at the policies and processes that were happening, and we knew there had to be some sort of stopgap to make sure that nobody fell through the cracks. Even though we talked about it, asked questions and moved motions in the House to protect people, the steps that needed to be taken were simply not taken.

I think many Canadians are asking themselves, as they look at these dire circumstances, why it takes so long. Why are we letting seniors wait? That is a question that really only the government can answer.

What I believe we need to discuss in this place is why we see continuous lack of planning when we know that something is coming on the horizon that will impact the most vulnerable Canadians in our country. We also have to get into a place where we recognize that, generation after generation, our systems continue to punish the most poor and vulnerable Canadians in our country. We must consider this profoundly and, as a responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves why our systems punish the poorest. While debating this motion, seniors are going out into the world without medications, without food, without a roof over their heads, without the capacity to pay for the heat that they need to stay warm during a very cold winter, and there are so many more stories our office has heard.

I believe that as a nation we are failing. We are failing to have a very important discussion about the ever-eroding bar of dignity in this country. We are watching the middle class, working class, working poor and poorer move further into poverty every single day. At the same time, we are watching the ultrarich of this country grow and expand their incomes every single year.

This is exactly why I support my friend the member for Winnipeg Centre's Bill C-223, an important bill that would create a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in Canada.

Research is showing us more and more every year that the ultrawealthy are hoarding money. When we look at the increase of automation and we see how many seniors, persons living with disabilities, people with mental health issues, single moms and working people, every day, are not even having the right to dream in this country that they will one day reach the poverty line in Canada, we must acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong.

One senior sent me this message: “Our GIS has been cut off and the $1,300 that we receive from the government is just not enough to keep shelter overhead. I feel weak and depressed, having no energy. I spend many sleepless nights crying. I never imagined my life would be like this. This is my last appeal to all. Please, I need help getting my medicine. Someone please get me my much-needed medication so I can continue to live.”

This is happening in our country. How is it possible now that it is even too much to ask for the basic medication people need just to sustain themselves?

I want to remind all Canadians that the GIS helps top up people's incomes to just over $19,000 a year if they are single and just over $25,000 if they are in a partnership. While this is happening and these seniors and so many other Canadians are facing devastating poverty, some of the biggest businesses and corporations are seeing the best year they have seen in a decade. These corporations are using the 75% wage subsidy and their profits to pay out their stakeholders. Where is the government on this? Is it chasing after those corporations and saying that if they are doing the best year they have ever done in a decade, how about they pay back some of the Canadian taxpayer dollars that subsidized their business during this time?

Why are we not having a comprehensive discussion about that kind of fairness in this country? It seems reasonable to me and I am happy to have the discussion.

What does the government say as we are seeing all of these seniors have their GIS clawed back, the poorest seniors in our country? What does the government say when we see families who are begging for more money because they had their child tax benefit clawed back and they cannot afford to feed their children? I hear nothing but silence, maybe some crickets singing a song.

In my office, we receive calls, emails and letters from seniors and those who love them the most. They are desperate, they are scared and they are tired. I have spoken to many anti-poverty groups formally and informally. I have spoken with seniors organizations and I have heard the voices of many seniors.

I have stood up in the House alongside my NDP colleagues and the member for Elmwood—Transcona and told the stories of these seniors because I want their voices to be heard. This includes the senior who told us that she has $70 at the end of each month after she pays for her basic necessities to cover the cost of food and medication.

There is also the senior who told me that her OAS only goes far enough to pay her rent and her utilities. At the end she has nothing left. She is living 100% off whatever the food bank provides for her. There is also the senior who wrote me that her niece bought her some food, but cannot help her buy her medication. She just needs her medicine. She told me she wonders if it would be better for her to simply die and no longer be a burden to her family.

We are in this place, and we are debating the lives of seniors as though the people who built our country, whatever their role, whatever their income bracket, do not matter. I believe they do matter. If the government does not want to listen to me, will it listen to the seniors who are crying out for help?

How about the group of seniors I heard from who told me that, when they heard the December economic statement update, they were excited? There was money coming. They arranged collaboratively to go to several banks. They went in carrying the economic update. I hope everybody has that picture of these seniors walking in with the economic update in their hands. They pointed to the line that said that they would be getting their money back, and they asked for a line of credit. It would help feed them and pay rent so they could stay in their homes.

Every single bank denied them. They were denied because the banks told them the economic update did not have a date or a promise of the amount that seniors would be paid. There was no certainty for the banks.

When I heard this story, I wondered why, in this country, seniors have to go into debt just to get the money they desperately need to survive and which the government has admitted it owes them.

That leads me to another question. When will this one-time payment be, and how much will it be? It needs to be that full income for the year. I have to say, and I have said it before, it will not fix the wounds that have been loaded onto these seniors.

I also want to talk about the many seniors who have gone to these predatory lending organizations. I spoke to one who said he has thousands of dollars of interest from one of these organizations. This senior is going to get that money and all of it is going to go to that predatory lending institution. That is another problem we have to fix.

I really hope that the government not only listen to those seniors who are crying out, but also to the people who advocate for them. One advocate is Laura Tamblyn Watts of CanAge, who said about Bill C-12:

This bill takes an important step forward in protecting vulnerable seniors.... However, this does not yet address the harsh reality faced by low income seniors who have had their GIS clawed back. CanAge has consistently raised the alarm that waiting until May for a one-time payment does not help put a roof over their heads, food on their tables or medications in their cupboard.

There is also Campaign 2000, which has been urgently calling for an advance payment of at least $2,500. Campaign 2000 has said that is pleased the minister has introduced Bill C-12, as this will surely give low-income seniors a sense of relief and security. However, they also say that it is of the utmost importance to address the current and urgent issue of their GIS payments that have already been clawed back for months, as seniors have been trying to find ways to make ends meet, and with the sudden loss of their GIS, the situation is getting more dire every day. Campaign 200 notes that the mental and physical health of seniors is deteriorating by the day, and in worse cases, they have heard of seniors losing their lives to suicide and illness.

In closing, I have no words to say to these seniors that will make this better. All I can hope for is that the government will finally take the much needed steps to get money in their bank accounts and to help them out if they have lost their low-income housing, so they are not put in a position, even with these resources, that they cannot afford to live because the rate of their rent is just far too high.

I would say to the government to listen to the advocacy groups and get this advance payment out immediately. There is no time to waste. Lives have already been lost, and there are so many lives that are on the line.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a subject that is very dear to my heart, namely, the living conditions of our seniors. I would also like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mirabel.

Bill C-12, which is currently before us, seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act to exclude any pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement.

It is important to note that, as it now stands, the bill would exclude those benefits only as of July 2022. It will come as no surprise when I say that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will support the bill introduced by the Minister of Seniors because it is a first step, however timid, toward correcting the tragic injustice that has befallen thousands of seniors, who are being penalized for taking advantage of measures that were supposed to help them.

It is appalling that, after working their entire lives, our seniors are experiencing a lower quality of life, a loss of purchasing power and a loss of dignity because of an uncaring government's administrative incompetence.

The Bloc Québécois has a deep and unwavering conviction that we must either acknowledge or at least have the decency to make it possible for each of our seniors to live with dignity, sheltered from financial insecurity.

As a Quebecker from the Lower St. Lawrence, I know that the progressive, prosperous and proud society that I had the good fortune to grow up in, and now devote my work to, was built by those who came before me. Architects and labourers of the Quiet Revolution, our grandparents and parents dedicated their lives to building today's modern and innovative Quebec.

On a more personal level, I would like to acknowledge that I am lucky and privileged to represent the people of Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, 26.8% of the people are 65 or older, while the Quebec average is around 19.7%. By 2040, it is estimated that more than one-third of my constituents will be 65 or older.

It goes without saying that measures that have an impact on the living conditions of seniors are acutely felt in my neck of the woods, and the current problem is no exception. In fact, at my offices in Rimouski and in Témiscouata‑sur‑le‑Lac, I have gotten many calls and messages from seniors distressed by cuts to their GIS since July 2021.

These benefits help them meet their basic needs, and the hardship they are experiencing cannot be overstated. They do not understand why the government is failing to show any leadership to correct the situation.

Take for example Ms. Gagnon from Trois‑Pistoles. She was receiving a combined pension of $1,409 a month, and she received the CERB in 2020 after abruptly losing her job. In October 2021, her monthly income went from $1,409 to $719 when her GIS was completely cut off.

Imagine having $690 clawed back from one day to the next. Ms. Gagnon could not maintain her standard of living when her benefit barely covered her rent. To put food on the table, she had to resort to a food bank. To fill the tank, she had to max out her credit card. That is because Ms. Gagnon is now being taxed at an effective federal rate of 50%, which is almost twice the marginal rate that Canada's wealthiest taxpayers pay.

My hon. colleague from Mirabel is an economist by trade. Given that we are talking about marginal rates, of course it made sense to share my time with him.

Even though it was decided at the beginning that the CERB would be taxable, nobody in the federal government notified GIS recipients that collecting the CERB would cut into their benefits quite this much.

It makes absolutely no sense that the most vulnerable seniors in our society should have to face such an injustice. Furthermore, the corrective measure proposed in Bill C-12 does not take effect until July 2022. This means that GIS recipients will have had to cope with a drastically reduced monthly payment for 12 long and difficult months. Why did the government not act sooner?

The Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance before the last election was even called this past August to bring this matter to their attention before it was too late, but to no avail. This government decided to call an election in the midst of a pandemic, and meanwhile, it is taking more than a year to correct a situation that is having a devastating impact.

The Bloc Québécois has also called for the measures in the bill to take effect as of March 2022 rather than July. We were told that this was impossible for IT-related reasons, which is both absurd and appalling. How can an IT system be so rigid that the government would rather force seniors into financial insecurity than change the parameters of the system?

In closing, not only is Bill C‑12 arriving far too late, it is missing a core element for it to really address the problems that the pandemic relief measures created for GIS recipients. What is strikingly missing from this bill is the $742 million in retroactive one-time payments promised in December's economic and fiscal update. This one-time payment was supposed to compensate GIS recipients who had received the CERB or the CRB in 2020, by alleviating the financial difficulties they are facing.

This government promised $742 million to vulnerable seniors who desperately need it. Today, it has chosen to take a pass on keeping its promise. How long will seniors have to wait before receiving the amounts they were promised and are owed?

Need I remind my colleagues that Quebec and Canada are facing the highest rate of inflation in 35 years and that the poorest are bearing the brunt once again?

Instead of debating a bill that focuses solely on stopping the undue slashing of seniors' benefits, we should stand together to increase their pensions. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a $110-a-month increase in old age security for seniors 65 years of age and over for a long time. As I stated earlier, I will support Bill C‑12, but, when I see all these blind spots and missed opportunities, all I can say is that the Liberals squandered an opportunity to do much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to rise today to speak positively of the first piece of legislation in my portfolio. I wanted to share with the House how helpful the new Minister of Seniors has been. I wanted to be able to point to the past week as an example of this legislation putting aside partisan differences to deliver results for Canadian seniors. Instead, what we have is the government House leader's office using Canadian seniors to play petty procedural games.

The situation is urgent today. It was urgent a month ago. It was urgent a year ago. Many Canadian seniors are feeling neglected and desperate. After we raised the hopes of low-income seniors, they are exhausted, fed up and tired of hearing the government has their backs.

A payout timeline for May 2022 would leave impacted seniors waiting over 10 months. This situation did not happen overnight. It has been a long time coming, and it was not acted upon until the government was continuously pressed on this by my colleagues of all stripes in the House.

Our Prime Minister identified that it was an unintended conflict between the CERB and the GIS programs. If the magnitude of the impact of the GIS clawback were truly understood or fully appreciated by the federal government, distribution of the clawback repayment would have and should have already happened. The outrage I have heard from constituents and stakeholders in Hastings—Lennox and Addington and seniors across our great country is alarming. We need to get the money into the pockets of our seniors immediately.

Let me tell a story. A fine gentleman of 71 years old from my riding is working hard with extra shifts to cover increased rent. He is too proud to acknowledge to his own family how much he is struggling. He opened up to me. He shared stories with me from the good old days, stories of his late wife and the family reunions and trips they used to go on. Today, sadly, he lives very modestly. He volunteers at the food bank two days a week, in part because he loves the social aspect of it, but more importantly because those are two days he can have a warm meal. Another gentleman, whom I have known most of my life, is now evicted and is living in his car.

These are just a few examples of hundreds of real stories of human lives being affected. Our vulnerable seniors are feeling sad and forgotten. Everyone has a story. Everyone makes choices on how they navigate through life. However, we can all agree this country is in chaos. Many of our Canadian seniors have stepped up and done what they needed to do, and now it is time for our Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to do the same.

Growing older, becoming more seasoned and entering into a different phase of our life can be beautiful. Aging gracefully and staying engaged mentally, spiritually and physically in our retirement years is a special chapter of life to embrace. Sadly, this is not the case for all. Many of our vulnerable seniors are done. They are tired of living. Heating their homes is more expensive. In fact, yesterday I spoke with a constituent who has ice on her window ledge in the room where she sleeps, and she bundles up with extra blankets. On top of this, many are experiencing loss and loneliness, which have been highlighted by this pandemic, regret, lack of proper care, lack of hygiene, dementia, financial and physical abuse, and fear of technology. The list goes on. Now seniors are being put on the sidelines until May so that between now and May, they need to live each day in the hope that they can persevere until the next.

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

Yesterday, in response to the Thursday question posed by my very capable colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, the government House leader indicated that the reason for ramming through Bill C-12 was to move as “expeditiously as possible”. I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard the member say that, and this is why. When ministers are called before committees, they have a document prepared for them. It briefs them on topics that may be raised, including answers to potential questions. These binders are available online for anyone to read.

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

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

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

That is a direct, verbatim quote from the government's own briefing binders, proving the government was aware of this issue for at least 21 months and chose not to act. We keep hearing that this legislation is urgently needed. On this side of the House, we have been constantly asking the government about this, since I have been here and for months before that. Flags were raised to the government and it did not do anything. In fact, not only did it do nothing to address the issue, but it actively chose to dither. Its own briefing binders point out that this was going to be an issue a year down the road.

The government, knowing full well what its decision would mean, did nothing. After tens of thousands of seniors began reaching out to their members of Parliament, including, I would suspect, every single member on the other side as well, the decision was to do nothing. To be clear, I do not necessarily pin all of this on the minister. I can certainly appreciate that it takes time to settle into a new role and get accustomed to the file, especially one that stretches laterally across so many different policy areas, as the seniors file does.

While I am so happy to see movement on this file, I must reiterate that government inaction is the reason we are even considering the motion before us. This should have been addressed months ago. Hopefully, moving forward, the government will realize that there are real costs to inaction, which are being borne by our most vulnerable seniors during the deadliest pandemic in a century. It did not have to be this way. Canadian seniors did not need to be placed by the government in a position to choose between food, medication and shelter, but this is where we find ourselves, and I pray that it will never happen again.

The government's motion would ram through Bill C-12 with minimal debate, zero committee study, no ministerial accountability and a total denial of an opportunity for amendments to be proposed to improve and strengthen those very important measures. While this may be fairly obvious to my colleagues in the House, we must be absolutely positive that any deviation from standard practices is considered greatly and not done without heavy thought.

What I am particularly concerned about here is the divergence from long-standing, well-established practices. In their defence, I will turn to the wisdom of those who came before us, those who have examined and established the rules of today.

On September 24, 1968, the House of Commons ordered a special committee of this place to be struck. Its objective was to “report upon the advisability of making changes in the orders concerning the business of supply, the business of ways and means, the stages of the legislative process, and the operation of the standing committees of this House”. Over 26 meetings, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House produced its report. The fourth report recommended changes to the legislative process and is the genesis for so much of what we have today, including what our predecessors envisioned as the role of each stage of the debate process. The authors had this to say:

10. In considering the reform of the legislative process your Committee has taken into account the need to eliminate obsolete procedures; the desirability of providing more meaningful opportunities for Members, and particularly back benchers, to participate in the consideration and shaping of a bill; the desirability of identifying the crucial stages in a bill's passage which, in your Committee's opinion, should occur later rather than earlier in the legislative process; and the necessity of ensuring that the legislative programme of a session, following reasonable consideration by Parliament, should always be completed in this age of heavy governmental responsibilities.

11. In the hope of achieving these aims the Committee's recommendations, which are contained in its Fourth Report, are based on the following principles:

(d) The motion for the Second Reading would read:

“That this bill be now read a second time and referred to a committee”.

This motion, if passed, would imply that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any commitment as to the final passage of the bill, had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny. Your Committee believes that the significance of the Second Reading stage has been exaggerated in the past, and that the decisive stage should occur later in a bill's passage after it has emerged from a committee. The purpose of the Second Reading stage is to define the scope of a bill, and to extend its significance any further is, in our opinion, to distort the meaning of the legislative process.

I do not believe the authors could have been any more clear. It is extremely evident that they placed a great importance on the committee stage, and subsequently on third reading over second.

The report continues:

The motion for Third Reading would read: “That this bill be now read a third time and passed.” This wording would indicate clearly and unambiguously that the final and most crucial decision relating to the passage of a bill would be taken at the Third Reading. At present the Third Reading is seldom debated and has become almost a formal stage. Your Committee does not envisage that a debate should necessarily take place at the Third Reading, but it attaches great importance to the preservation of the opportunity for debate at this stage. We wish to emphasize that the Third Reading should always be the decisive stage and that in the case of a highly controversial bill it could be a most crucial debating stage.

The report of the Special Committee on Procedure also had quite a bit to say regarding the importance of committee, another key stage of the legislative process that this motion would do away with.

It further states:

It will be apparent from the recommendations already made in relation to supply and the legislative process that your Committee envisages a significant extension of the functions of the Standing Committees and in consequence a substantial strengthening of their importance and influence. They would become the forums in which the details of expenditure and legislation would be closely considered. They would investigate the operations and continuing programmes of government departments and would develop areas of subject specialisation. We would expect debate in the Standing Committees to be well-informed and pertinent; their members to become influential in the areas of their specialised experience; and their reports to the House to assume a critical significance related more closely to the national interest as a whole than to simple political differences. We also anticipate that the business of the House would be greatly expedited and handled more efficiently through exploiting the potential of the committee system of the House to the full.

The importance of these stages of the legislative process cannot, and must not, be understated. What we have in front of us is admittedly a very important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that should have come long ago. Many Canadian seniors are waiting. Many are desperate, and our federal government has a significant role to play.

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

I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the minister to ensure that we are working together in the best interests of all Canadian seniors. This brings forward the very obvious question of how we balance the importance of legislative scrutiny with the need to get this legislation passed in a timely manner. I think I have the solution.

Therefore I move that the motion be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “immediately after the adoption of this order” with the words “at the next sitting of the House”;

(b) by deleting paragraph (b);

(c) in paragraph (c), by replacing the words “the debate” with the words “Government Orders on the day the bill is considered”;

(d) in paragraph (d), by deleting all the words after the words “if the bill is” and substituting the following: “read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, consideration in committee shall take place the following day, provided that the Minister of Seniors be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, no later than three hours before the next sitting of the House”;

(e) in paragraph (e), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “no notice of motions in amendment shall be allowed at report stage”;

(f) in paragraph (f), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “the report stage and third reading stage of the bill may be considered during the same sitting and be ordered for consideration at the next sitting following the presentation of the report”; and

(g) in paragraph (g), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders that day or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division”.