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.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 7, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places, or use the “raise hand” function, so the Chair has an idea of the number of members who wish to participate. It looks like there will be a few. I would encourage members to be as concise as possible, so we can get to the many members.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is disconcerting to see the government moving again to shut down debate in the House. I thought we were being very reasonable when we moved the amendment to have just a little more transparency and accountability at a parliamentary committee of the House so we could consider this issue. For 21 months, seniors have been dealing with this problem. There are 204,000 Canadians affected by this. All we were asking for was to be able to look at the details.

I would ask the government what the rush is to try to ram this through House now. The government is trying to get its way without our side having a chance to at least look at the details and question the minister. The Senate is not going to consider it, as it is not sitting right now. The other place would not be able to consider the bill even if we rush it through, so what is the harm in just a little more consideration, a little more introspection? Can we not all do a little better on this one?

[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.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a paradoxical situation. The changes for pensioners will not be in effect until June.

We wanted those changes to be implemented as quickly as possible, and we wanted to be sure. The government took its sweet time deciding to change the parameters, and the problem will not be fixed until June.

When we ask why things have been taking so long, the government says there is no time to talk about it. It says we have to get this done ASAP, which means gagging the opposition. That way, the government can say it is doing things as fast as possible, but the problem still will not be fixed until June.

We could have taken a week to better understand the reasons for this unalterable delay. That would have made absolutely no difference. Meanwhile, many, many seniors are waiting for these payments so they can buy groceries, pay rent and live with dignity.

Why muzzle the opposition when it was willing to talk about it here and in committee all week? That is unacceptable.

[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.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just have to ask this, and it is very similar to other questions that have been asked in the House today: Why did it take the government so long?

What do I say to the seniors in my riding who raised this with us in August. I know the NDP brought this to the minister in August. In August, the government knew that it had made a mistake and that there were serious problems. My staff has had to deal with seniors who have lost their homes, who no longer can pay for their medication and who are at risk of losing their lives because of the government's mismanagement of this. To say that it is acting with speed and as fast as possible just seems so incorrect.

We brought this to the government in August. Why did it take so long? Why are we sitting here in February and dealing with this?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

Minister, back on December 16th—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Members are to address questions and comments through the Speaker and not directly to the minister.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, on December 16, the minister received her mandate letter. I remember thinking it was a very aggressive letter, and the minister said to me, “I am going to accomplish this”. There is an awful lot to accomplish. I have to say that the minister has accomplished a great deal in a very, very short period of time.

Some members are suggesting that they want time to study this at committee. Minister, this is a five-line bill that is very, very simple. It speaks to exactly what has been asked by all opposition parties in the House. Maybe, minister, you could just outline how little is actually in this bill and why this is something that does not necessarily need to be studied.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has been around for some time, and he knows that he is not to address questions directly to the minister.

The hon. Minister of Seniors.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very disheartened to see that the Liberals are continually trying to avoid parliamentary process. The Conservatives brought a reasoned amendment that said we recognized this was an important issue, and we would be willing to amend it at committee. I have been calling for a resolution since March of 2021.

The government knows the bank accounts of the people who got GIS and the bank accounts of the people who got CERB. It can certainly put the money in the accounts and reconcile it later, as it has done for 800,000 people who received benefits illegally and for people who lived in foreign countries who received benefits. It is ridiculous that when it is not going to be paid out until June of 2022, the government would be forcing Parliament to avoid due process once again.

Can the minister tell me why?

[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.

[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 think the hon. member answered her own question.

It is about moving forward quickly to make sure that seniors have security and surety moving forward. We have been very clear and transparent with members in the House on this matter. I appeared before the committee yesterday, along with my officials, and laid out why this bill needs to be passed in the upcoming weeks to make sure we get the best outcome for seniors.

We, of course, began working extremely hard and very quickly on this issue as soon as I was appointed. Officials have made huge strides to solve these financial challenges for seniors in an evidenced way. We cannot risk not delivering for seniors by playing politics, and I really hope that we can put that aside and move forward very quickly to ensure that the most vulnerable seniors have support.

[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?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her work on this file and the agreement in the House of Commons. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the fact that we are only here today debating a motion of closure because the government screwed up. It is because the government did not allow for the due process of committee. We rushed through legislation, and now we have to make up for the mistakes of the government to protect seniors.

Will the member acknowledge that we are here today because the government screwed up and tried to do too much too quickly, while restraining the rights and duties of parliamentarians to effectively review parliamentary legislation in a parliamentary committee?

[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.

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

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it really concerns me that the minister is talking about how quickly the Liberals got this done. I just want to give a shout-out to my colleague for North Island—Powell River, and all the work she did in pushing the government to speed up. I know that it actually has not gone quickly and, in fact, we know that the impact of the clawbacks on poor working seniors has been devastating.

I know seniors in my riding who literally lost their homes and went from income supplements of $600 to $60. They were also supporting their kids. Not only did our party push for justice for seniors, we also continue to push for a guaranteed livable income for seniors.

Where is the government on that? Why are we not providing seniors with what they need to thrive, not just survive? It is not even enough to survive.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government's priority has always been to be there to support those most vulnerable seniors. Let me remind the hon. member that one of the very first things that we did as a government was to restore the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS to 65. We then moved forward and actually increased the guaranteed income supplement. That has helped over 900,000 low-income single seniors. That has actually lifted 45,000 seniors out of poverty.

Of course we have an ambitious agenda for seniors. As the hon. member may know, it is in my mandate letter to make sure that we continue to move forward.

This summer, we are going to be increasing the OAS for those 75 and older by 10%. In my mandate letter, I have a commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for single seniors and $750 for couples. We have an ambitious agenda, and I really hope we can work together, if that is what we are talking about. I think we have a real opportunity to do just that, and I hope we can move forward to make sure that those seniors have the supports they need.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic to hear the Conservatives lecture us today about not going fast enough, when they were the ones who raised the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.

I would like to hear the Minister of Seniors talk about the importance of collaboration among all parties in the House to provide help and support and send a clear message to seniors. Let us support our seniors and act quickly.

Can the Minister of Seniors help us provide this collaboration of the House of Commons?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my hon. colleague for the excellent work he did when he was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of seniors in the previous mandate. He certainly has done quite a lot of work. As the hon. member rightfully said, I think this a real opportunity for all of us to work together to ensure that seniors are supported.

The hon. member will know that I have had conversations with all different parties to ensure that we can move quickly on this. They all agree with the fact that this is a very simple and quick, but significant, fix to ensure seniors have that security and that surety.

I really hope we can put aside our partisanship for this, and move forward to help those seniors.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the minister that it is the official opposition, the Conservatives, who have been calling for this for many months. It was even in our election platform. Even the government's coalition partner, the NDP, has been asking for this, too.

I heard just a few moments ago the minister and the parliamentary secretary both talking about how, when they were first appointed, they started working very hard, which I believe implies that the previous minister was not working hard and was not doing as much as they should have.

I just wonder if the minister could comment on some of the mistakes that were made by the previous minister. What things is she doing to correct them?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always find it rich when I hear the Conservative opposition members talk about this. It was actually their government that wanted to increase the age of retirement to 67. One of the very first things we did as a government was to restore that age back to 65. We moved very quickly on enhancing the guaranteed income supplement, which they, by the way—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we are debating in the House the closure of a bill. We are debating whether we are going to move forward with this legislation or not, yet the minister, in all of her responses, continually refers to a policy decision made over six years—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate, not a point of order. Also, I remind members that if they are not speaking right now, they should have their masks on while in the House.

I will ask the hon. minister to wrap up. We have other individuals who want to ask questions.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

Madam Speaker, the debate is on the closure motion. This measure should be used sparingly on the important debates we have in the Chamber.

Today, we are being invited to collaborate, to act urgently, when the government has been dragging its feet for months while being pressured and facing demands. It is getting late to fix this situation.

I would like the minister to give us her definition of urgency. Did they have to wait until the last minute to ask us to collaborate or should they have been proactive?

You had the time to correct this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member should address her questions and comments to the Chair and not directly to the minister.

The hon. minister.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the sense of urgency is so real. These are the lowest-income seniors in our country who have had clawbacks because of the failure of the Liberal government.

As the New Democrats, we are here to get help for seniors now. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague, the MP for North Island—Powell River, for being vigilant and pressing the government to fix this problem. We are here to help Canadians and seniors right now. We have been fighting this fight since the get-go. We want some certainty from the government and the minister that they are going to roll out immediate supports for those who need help now, in March, which is just weeks away, so that in April, all of the clawbacks will be repaid to the seniors who are struggling right now.

Will the minister listen to the New Democrats, who are calling for a guaranteed livable basic income, brought forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, so that no seniors are living in poverty? I hope the minister will really listen to the New Democrats' proposal to do that because we should all agree in the House that no senior and no person living with a disability should be living below the poverty line. They need a guaranteed livable annual income.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #27

Old Age Security Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had technical issues and I wanted to register my vote as yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Minister Hussen, I am afraid your hand went up after the vote was compiled, and it is too late. Your vote cannot be counted.

[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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, two members of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Members may be permitted to split their time with another member.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister, through you, for her speech, and for working with the NDP to actually make some of these things happen a lot more rapidly. I know that seniors across the country have been devastated by this decision. They have lost more than we can ever measure with respect to their health, their housing and in some cases their self-respect, because they have had to ask people to lend them money when they never had to do that before.

Could the minister let the House know if she will be working with any of her provincial or territorial partners? We know a lot of seniors lost all of the provincial and territorial supports they used to get because GIS opened those doors. Will the minister be working with them to make sure that these are returned to them, and that any supports that the provinces or territories provided in the absence of GIS are replaced in their coffers?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, allow me to also thank the hon. member for her advocacy and certainly her commitment to help seniors. I know we have worked closely together since I became the minister on this particular file, and I really want to take an opportunity to thank her for her work.

I think we all agree that it is important for us to move forward on this bill quickly, and on just how challenging this pandemic has been for those most vulnerable seniors. This is why we proposed this bill. It is short, concise and very clear. It is going to exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the GIS or allowance benefits beginning in 2022 so that the seniors who took these benefits last year will have the security and surety that their GIS will not be impacted.

As the member knows, we have always had a very collaborative relationship with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and we are going to continue to build on that relationship and make sure our seniors are supported.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly what the minister said, the payment will be made only in July because the calculation is updated in July.

If I were to accept this explanation, I would have to ask the minister why the correction was not made last July given that the Bloc Québécois finance critic pointed out the problem to the government in April 2020.

Why did the government decide to trigger an election instead of correcting the problem last July and looking after seniors?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member very well knows, in 2020 we were in a pandemic. We are still in a pandemic, but the reality is that we moved very quickly to provide an unprecedented response to the crisis of our lifetime. We put in supports for seniors, workers and businesses. We moved very quickly of course, and we know it affected the GIS of some seniors last year. That is why, when I was first appointed to this role, we moved very quickly and worked extremely hard with our officials and the Minister of Finance to put in this one-time payment, which we are working really hard to get out to seniors as soon as possible.

This is precisely why we have this bill before us. I have had conversations with all the members and all the critics, including from the Bloc party, to make sure we can move quickly on this. They agree that we need to move quickly on this, and I really hope we can count on their support to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on introducing this very important piece of legislation. From what I understand, this is the first and only piece of legislation that has been introduced by the newly created Minister of Seniors position.

What we have seen today, in my opinion, is a reluctance to move forward on this, despite the fact that everybody in the House knows how incredibly important it is to get this legislation in place so that seniors can be properly taken care of.

Can the minister explain to the House why it is so critically important that this happen right now?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, allow me to thank my good friend for Kingston and the Islands for his question, and indeed for his hard work on all the files that he touches.

Let me also say there are a lot of fundamental issues that we disagree with on all different sides, but I think this is something we all agree with. Our government's priority has always been to support those most vulnerable seniors. That is why we moved so quickly to provide support for them through the one-time payment. Of course, this bill is important so we can prevent that and make sure seniors are not negatively affected again this year. I really hope we can all move quickly to do just that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I worry that perhaps the Liberal Party is keeping its own members in the dark. It did look awfully dimly lit out there in Nova Scotia. I hope it is not a matter of a failure to pay the hydro bill out there. I do send my colleague all the best. I am happy to help contribute to that bill if that is an issue.

Back to the point, we did just have a programming motion that cut short debate on this matter. Would the member not agree that it would have been preferable if this bill could have gone to committee where we would have heard from stakeholders and made amendments if possible at committee?

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that we are debating this bill this evening. It is a great step in the right direction. However, this bill alone will not resolve the inequality and poverty that seniors are experiencing. We know that right here in Canada one-third of women over the age of 65 who are single are living in poverty. This is unacceptable. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith I am hearing from constituents who are seniors and are experiencing poverty in so many ways, such as losing their homes or being unable to keep food in their fridge.

I wonder if the member would agree that supporting this bill and this bill alone will not lift seniors out of poverty. Will he join the many constituents in my riding who are asking for us to support Bill C-223 for a guaranteed livable basic income?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for its collaboration on working for the betterment of low-income, vulnerable seniors in Canada. I gave a long list of the things we have accomplished for seniors in Canada. That does not, by any means, mean that we are through. There is still so much to do. If I can look at this co-operation between some of the members of this House tonight, it gives me encouragement that we will continue to work toward making things better for vulnerable seniors in Canada.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleagues in the NDP raised that this was an issue back at least in July of last year. An election was then called and now the senior citizens who are waiting for help have to wait until July of this year.

Does the parliamentary secretary feel like this is a quick enough remedy for these seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will thank the hon. member for the question, but I find it almost amusing that, before a bill comes forward, Conservatives tell us to go fast and then as soon as the bill comes forward the Conservatives say to slow down. We will take no lessons from the Conservative Party of Canada on how to treat seniors in Canada as we think back to some of the things the past government did. An example is changing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 and forcing hundreds of thousands of seniors to work an extra two years before they qualified or were eligible for benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question cut out on me through the Internet, but what I will say is that I want to thank the Bloc party for working toward letting us know what was needed so we could put that in this legislation, which is exactly what we did. I get a bit frustrated by the partisanship in the House. I think there are times when members do really well, but then there are times when some members say they really like a bill and they are going to support it, but it could be better. This is a four- or five-line bill. It has been talked about and debated today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member, as she reflected on the Harper years, referenced back to things like tax-free savings accounts and registered retirement income funds, all stuff that well-off seniors can afford. I do not know many low-income seniors who are tapping into the tax-free savings accounts. Yes, the Conservative Party certainly does have a history of being sure to take care of those who are well off.

Nonetheless, I took great issue with her comment that the NDP is somehow having to come up and cover up mistakes. The NDP is actually the only party that has been participating over the last two days in moving forward with legislation to get things into people's hands, and to get legislation passed for the betterment of Canadians. The New Democrats have actually been participating in making that happen.

This member identified the problems and the urgency of moving quickly, but then in the same breath asked why the NDP is supporting us to move quickly on this. She is being hypocritical in her approach to this, and I cannot help but think that is just for partisan interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be the first to acknowledge how helpful the minister has been. The technical briefing was wonderful. With no disrespect, there has been no reluctance for us to move forward. Seniors that have built this country deserve for all of us to move forward together.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a comment wondering why the NDP is always running around fixing Liberal mistakes. Well, it is because the NDP is focused on one thing, and that is helping Canadians. When the pandemic first hit, people were suffering. It was the NDP that pushed for supports for seniors and people with disabilities. The Liberals were not there and the Conservatives were not there. It was the NDP that was pushing for that.

If the pandemic has taught us one thing, it is that we have the ability in the House to make decisions to help Canadians, and we have the capacity to do that. One thing that would really accomplish that, which would go a long way to help seniors and people with disabilities, is a guaranteed livable basic income. We have a private member's bill on that, Bill C-223, which is on the docket.

I am wondering, if Conservatives care about seniors, if they will support that bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has ever been in question whether we care for seniors. That is 100% not debatable.

We can all recognize that we are in a historic and quite an alarming moment in Canadian history. I can speak for all Conservatives when I say it is really important that we continue to look at and consider everything that will improve the lives of all of our Canadian seniors moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Hastings—Lennox and Addington, and I took notes, especially when she was talking about recognizing the dignity of workers.

The Bloc Québécois made its position very clear during the election campaign: We want old age security to be increased by $110 a month starting at 65. We will not create two classes of seniors. We want to be sure to increase seniors' purchasing power because everything costs more now, including groceries and housing.

My question for my Conservative colleague is this: Does she think that the Liberals are being stingy?

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

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

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, she mentioned some of the mental health implications of the pandemic on seniors in particular.

I wonder if she could share with the chamber, what should the government be doing differently, and what could the government have done differently, to minimize some of the mental health impact of the pandemic on seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know, for example, that we we are waiting on the three-digit hotline. It is in the works and we are just waiting and waiting. I do not know where it is, but the sooner we find out, the better.

There are so many seniors, and actually those in all demographics, who are suffering right now. The mental health of Canadians is at an all-time low, and there has never been a more pressing time to act on the three-digit hotline.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the rationale for us wanting some additional explanation is to respect the process of this Parliament and of this place. We are not attempting to delay this, but attempting to have thorough, respectful dialogue.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the arguments against the use of the procedural motion that we talked about earlier. The member spoke very strongly in support of seniors. There are seniors in the riding that I represent, and across Canada, who are having their GIS clawed back. They need the funds that the bill represents, and they need those funds quickly.

Could the member explain and speak directly to those seniors in our communities and tell them why House procedure, or following what she understands to be House procedure, is more important than getting them the money as soon as possible so they can pay their bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond.

This is a result of poor communication and a lack of dialogue. Recognizing that this is time sensitive, there would be no obvious hold up or delay in the delivery of this. We are not talking weeks and weeks. We are talking about giving it the prudent time that it deserves, and I do not think that is asking too much. We are not delaying the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Hastings—Lennox and Addington for her caring and professional leadership on this file.

One of the things that really impacted me during the member's intervention was the reference to the minister's briefing binder, which had a lot of the information regarding the issues with the original legislation, which we are trying to correct here today. She also referenced some constituents from her riding, and I have heard very similar stories in my riding.

I am wondering if the member can comment, based on what she saw in the briefing binder, on whether there would have been opportunities over the last 21 months to resolve this prior to today.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there have been so many comments. As I spoke with colleagues, there were so many seniors who had been approaching them.

When I first looked at the briefing binder, I thought, wow, is this normal? Am I allowed to see this? However, the fact is, it is available for everyone. Perhaps it is the rookie in me, but I could not believe it when I read that this could have and should have been dealt with months ago. So, that is the most frustrating part of this whole thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue mentioned tax unfairness. It is starting to dawn on me that there is a bit of a pattern forming here. We have a government that did not act to help seniors who were having their GIS clawed back. The government went after the poorest of Canadians who applied for and received CERB because they were told to, and then the Liberals clawed that back. They went after small businesses in the last Parliament, and yet they are letting the wealthiest of Canadians and big corporations off the hook. The NDP has put forward the idea of having a wealth tax for people with assets of over $10 million. There are the CEO benefits they get. There just does not seem to be any appetite to go after the people who have actually done very well in this pandemic.

I am wondering if the member would support the NDP in calling for that tax fairness to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share and to stop going after the little—

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

I have to give the hon. member time to answer.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always on the lookout for any opportunity to increase seniors' purchasing power. There are always measures and traps in what the NDP presents, so I will remain vigilant.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a senior. We have all visited seniors' homes in our ridings, and we have all received phone calls from seniors who are sure there has been an error because the amount on their pension cheque has changed by 34¢ or 6¢ or 8¢. Seniors are forced to count every last penny because their purchasing power has decreased significantly over the years. I say this again in all sincerity. I think the government is being cheap when it comes to seniors, and that has to change. It is a matter of dignity.

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

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe you have the wrong riding and you meant to recognize the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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

Yes, that is right. I apologize. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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

Madam Speaker, you are forgiven.

I appreciate what my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said. All parties agree that seniors are important. I often say that we are trying to replace speed with due diligence, but perhaps he would agree with me that there has been neither speed nor due diligence when it comes to this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I can see how you could get the member for Mirabel and the member for Trois-Rivières mixed up. I must admit that I confuse the two as well sometimes.

I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent question. Obviously, it is duly noted. I would remind members of what may be the most egregious part of the bill. It does not fix the entire issue of seniors, as it is only a small step. However, why does it not specify March 2022 as the date? That would be so simple.

Instead, the government is putting things off another three months by postponing increasing seniors' purchasing power until July. Seniors who are already affected by the pandemic, who cannot see their loved ones, who cannot spend time with their grandchildren, and whose mental health has already suffered over the past few years are anxious enough without this added major financial stress. The wealthy are not the ones going through this hardship. They are not the ones who are counting—

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

The hon. member for Nunavut for one last question.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, uqaqtittiji. I want to express that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and I have some similarities, including taxing the rich and not the poor, that he supports passing the bill, that we have bilingual constituents and that the second language of our constituents is English.

In the rollout of this program, I wonder if the member would agree that bilingualism also needs to include indigenous languages like Inuktitut and other ones for first nations and Métis so that seniors who want to access programs can understand them and make sure they have access to the important supports that this bill would provide.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut, whom I am getting to know this evening. I thank her for being here.

If there is one thing in this file for which we should turn to the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and the Inuit, it is their relationship with our seniors. We have a lot to learn in that regard.

The decade from 2022 to 2032 is the Decade of Indigenous Languages. We must take heed and provide services in indigenous languages. It is essential. I personally consider French to be a language that is under threat, just like all the indigenous languages. My colleague can count on my support for—

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

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her speech today. It was thoughtful, smart and extremely well done.

I want to follow up on some of the things that she mentioned and ask her a quick question.

Earlier in February, I was talking about seniors' issues and the GIS clawback and raised that issue with the government. One of the members from the government stood up and said he was quite concerned with respect to a senior person in his riding who was a babysitter. He thought she was taking more than was due to her. He was trying to blame a vulnerable senior who needed to do some work to supplement her income and had no thoughts at all about the idea of holding to account corporations or extremely wealthy folks who have taken some of these benefits during COVID.

Does the member have any concern that what we are seeing right now is just a further example of the Liberal government's choosing to always privilege and prioritize big business and the wealthy on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, there are two issues here.

First, we need to correct the situation that Bill C‑12 seeks to address, which is that CERB was not factored into the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement. This is not the only problem that seniors have faced, of course, but the bill must be approved relatively quickly because the government has already waited too long to fix this situation.

That said, I completely agree with my colleague that seniors are facing undue hardship, especially in terms of the lack of affordable housing and the ability to afford basic necessities. This must absolutely be addressed, and the House will be happy to discuss these issues in due course.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be here today to speak on this really important issue, especially for the many seniors across our country who are relying on us to get this piece of legislation passed.

I will be sharing my time with the amazing member for Nunavut, who has some very important things to share with us about the region she represents and how unique those experiences are for seniors.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize that over 50 more children's bodies have been found outside of a residential institution. All of us sit in this place, a place that created all of the framework for what happened and continues to happen to indigenous communities, and I hope we are all listening. For every single child we hear about and for every community that is talking about what happened and are sharing these stories, I hope we are all listening and carrying those stories and communities with us. I would like to express my sincerest condolences to those communities and let them know I will be thinking of them during this very painful time. I continue to think of all the communities that are in the process of still looking for children who have been lost and are still waiting for them to be recovered, and of course I recognize all of those who have been found.

We are here tonight to talk about seniors and the fact the government made a colossal mistake that really impacted seniors profoundly. Working seniors did what every other Canadian did. They lost their jobs because of the pandemic and they applied for pandemic benefits to help tide them over during this very difficult time.

As we have these discussions, I hope we recognize seniors across this country, the most vulnerable of them, the ones who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, are hitting a crisis point. Even with this payment that I am very grateful to see happen, it is far too late. July of last year was when these seniors lost their GIS, some partially and some completely. During that time, they have not only lost this amount of money but lost the provincial benefits that are automatically given to them because they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement.

I talked about those people in the House of Commons repeatedly, because it is important all of us as legislators understand the impacts we have when we make decisions, the impacts the government creates when it makes decisions without really looking at the ramifications, especially for those of us who are challenged the most.

Even with this money coming sooner than we expected and opening up stores so Service Canada can work with members to identify the seniors who are the most vulnerable and get them the money even sooner, we know they have lost so much during that time. I think of the many seniors who lost their homes. They lost the places where they lived and are now put in a bad situation. We all know in this place, because we are hearing in all our communities and constituencies, that the cost of living is going up dramatically. The cost of housing is one of the most profoundly expensive costs we have.

When we look at some of these low-income seniors, they lost their housing when they lost their GIS. They lost the stable housing they could afford and are now living in vehicles or in someone's basement. They are living an experience they hoped they would never have to. Something I will also think about when I remember this time is how many seniors said they never thought they would be in this position in their eighties.

Here they are now and they are finally getting a one-time payment. They are going to be retroactively paid, and then into the future we are being promised by the government that there will be no more cutbacks, that they will return to their normal GIS and that things should continue. However, they have already lost so much, and now they are having to pay a lot higher rates for their rent. In some cases, they have lost their health because they have not been able to afford their medication.

I do not know about the other members in the House, but as the senior spokesperson for the NDP, I am hearing not only from my constituency but from seniors across Canada who are writing to ask if they will be punished again in the next tax season. They are asking me if this is really going to be over and if I can promise them this is going to be over.

I really hope that the minister thinks about that as this rolls out and that we make sure that seniors across this country are educated so they know that things should get better. More than anything I hope that of course this place will make sure that this does not happen again.

It does really outline something that I believe this place has to take more consideration of and that is the growing poverty across our country. Persons living with disabilities and seniors are some of the poorest people across our country. We need to look into that and figure out how we can do much better. All of us have been shaken by this. When we recognize that, for single seniors, the GIS tops them up to just over $19,000 a year and if they are in a partnership just over $25,000 a year, most of us cannot imagine, especially with the cost of everything increasing, living on that low income.

I hope and have encouraged the minister to start talking meaningfully about a guaranteed basic livable income. We need to have this conversation. As we see the world changing and see automation increasing, we need to see the bar of dignity extended and not dismissed as it has been.

We also have to have big conversations about how long seniors are working, some by choice and some because they do not have a choice, and make sure that the tax system works for them. We know a lot of seniors are working into their mid-seventies and when they hit a certain point in their seventies, they are no longer able to pay into the Canadian pension plan. That can be a big deterrent for people who have good health and want to keep working.

I also want to talk about the guaranteed income supplement and one of the big faults that it has. Every year between 20,000 to 30,000 seniors in July lose their guaranteed income supplement. They lose it in part because they filed their taxes a little too late, because somebody they loved was ill, because they themselves were ill, and sometimes because they are having an onset of dementia. There are multiple reasons that happens.

I have asked the minister to consider a bill I presented that would look at making sure that every senior who received the guaranteed income supplement had a one-year amnesty. If they got their taxes in a little late, they would not be worried about being able to pay their rent in July.

When I was first elected, I had a call from a senior who was 84 years old, telling me that she got her taxes in a little late because she was sick with the flu during tax time. She had lost her GIS and did not know when it was coming and was going to be evicted from her apartment. I do not think anyone in the House wants to see an 84-year-old evicted simply because she was ill.

My bill would look at creating a space for people to be secure in their income, for those like this amazing senior who was so brave to reach out. For seniors to have to humble themselves, who have worked hard their whole lives, the vast majority of seniors receiving GIS are single women or the working poor. That is who they are. They have worked hard all of their lives. They do not want to ask for handouts. They want to look after themselves, so this has been really hard. We were able to work with the senior, her landlord and with the CRA to make sure that she got her money quickly and assured the landlord she would be able to pay her rent, if a little late.

I hope as we go through this experience all of us remember it is our job here as legislators to make sure that the most vulnerable in our country are cared for. When we look at the processes that we are putting into place, we need to think first of those who need us to think of them and not think of those who have so much that they can fill in those gaps when they need to.

It has been said to me many times that we know who we are by how the people who are the most vulnerable in our communities are doing. Canada must do better. We have seen this example for seniors. Let us make sure that we no longer punish the poor for simply doing the hardest work they can to look after themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I know my committee colleague from the NDP has risen several times in the House to advocate specifically on the legislative change that we are seeing. I want to pick up on the point of timing and she raises a very good point. We started to hear a lot of confusion when CERB was rolled out about the impacts it would have in July in that renewal period. Those with busy constituency offices would know that, but again, it has been several months since this has been highlighted and we are finally getting a change.

I wonder if the member could speak about the process and the frustration that I have heard in that it has taken so long to get to this point and the fact that we are here at 10:45 eastern time debating the bill as quickly as we possibly can with a timeline against us. Could she speak about the frustrations and the lack of timeliness to get seniors this change and the impact that they face? Yes, they will get an arrears payment, but the credit card debt, the line of credit, the IOUs with landlords and other bills have been significant. I would welcome her comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I also enjoy my time in committee with the member. This is probably the most devastating reality. The NDP has been very clear since August that something needed to be done. Earlier in the spring, we brought up multiple times that we were concerned that as these rollouts happened the most vulnerable would pay. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen.

We have seen seniors with the GIS lose their fundamental ability to pay for the basics. We have also seen low-income parents who have lost or had part of their child tax benefit removed. The child tax benefit is there to make sure that children are not in poverty. That is what it is there for, yet we have seen this clawed back as well.

Therefore, I am frustrated. The reality is that this is too late. Seniors have died because they do not have the resources to pay for their medication. That has happened in this country because of this clawback. We know of seniors who were sleeping in their cars. One story that always sticks out in my head is from the Northwest Territories, where an elderly person was sleeping in her car when it was below zero outside.

How do we repair this? Why did it take the government this long? Only the government members can answer that. I am just here debating to try to get the money to the seniors as quickly as I possibly can.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her compassion shines through.

My question for her is very simple. How does she explain that the bill says June 2022 instead of March 2022? Would it have been possible to simply change the date and stop the benefit reductions sooner? Would that not show more compassion? Why did the Liberal government not do that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for those kind words. It really means a lot to me because I do care passionately. I share that with him and I just want to acknowledge that.

I could not agree more. This needs to happen now. It needs to happen sooner. I have been talking to a lot of people in different departments of the government, talking to different ministers, pleading for the reality that these seniors are facing. I wish it were sooner. I am glad that there are some ways that we are going to be able to get money to seniors as quickly as possible, working with MPs' offices and Service Canada, in March if they absolutely need it, and there are so many who absolutely do. I think of my area. In my riding, 810 seniors have lost their GIS, so we need to work and we need to work quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague from North Island—Powell River. I certainly commend her for everything that she has done to raise this issue. I am particularly struck by her private member's bill, which is not directly related to this, except, of course, it is about poverty among seniors. I wonder if her private member's bill is in this current Parliament, what its current number is, or if it was from the last Parliament. I certainly want to do everything I can to support it. With respect to late filings of income tax, I have had similar cases in my own riding and certainly it is appalling.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her support. I have not tabled it in this Parliament, but it is in front of the minister's office right now and we are looking forward to having conversations on it. It is true that if we think about it, between 25,000 and 35,000 seniors across this country every year lose their GIS for up to four months. It is very concerning.

I look forward to the member's support and I believe that we will continue the fight against poverty among seniors.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qujannamiik.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut, because I learned something tonight in this debate. That was one of the best speeches I have heard this entire evening. It goes to show what the member outlined in terms of the miscommunication from the government on what programs were accessible to Canadians and speaks to why I wish closure had not been enacted on the bill.

I do support this legislation and agree that we need to get it finished this week, but a more detailed committee study could have outlined in further detail some of the struggles Canadians and the Nunavummiut in the north have with the bill. If the member would comment briefly on that, it would be very helpful.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, in hindsight, I think we all feel like we can learn from the past. All we can do is use that new knowledge to do what we can to make a difference now so that we can make sure that mistakes like these do not keep going on in the future. I have been listening to the debate and really appreciate that we need urgency on this matter.

Hopefully, in the rollout the CERB will be communicated better. As I mentioned, much of the rollout was all in English, which is quite unacceptable in Nunavut. I am really hoping that improvements will be made for this rollout so that all first nations, Métis and Inuit who prefer to communicate in their indigenous language are able to receive it in their language, as well as, of course, the French language, which, as we know, is a strong language in Canada.

Qujannamiik.

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

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

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Madam Speaker, it would be critically important.

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

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

I apologize, but we have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer questions as they come. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now it is time for another question.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the eminent member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, although I would disagree with him, quite strongly, on the best riding in the country. Although I do not have glaciers, it may feel like that before a chinook comes in the cold winter months, which start pretty early in the fall and go pretty late in the spring.

The member makes a very valid point. There is due process in this place that has been finely tuned over more than a century here and multiple centuries, close to a millennia, of parliamentary process when it comes to the historical basis for the Westminster system that we are all privileged to be able to take our seat in.

The committee process is one of the very valid and important steps required to ensure that we get it right. Again, forgive me for my skepticism, but we are fixing a Liberal mistake. We should make sure that there are not further mistakes that would end up hurting folks like Larry who deserve government to get it right.

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

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot have an answer to the question of the Conservative Party position on OAS at age 67.

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

Madam Speaker, the member asked that quickly. This will take just a moment so I hope you will indulge me just slightly.

The conversations that took place back in 2013 and 2014 were about making sure that there was the long-term viability of a benefit that Canadians depended on. I find it ironic that the Liberals will try to talk about somehow there being significant cuts when it was truly about ensuring that there was a conversation—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the question that my NDP colleague asked previously because she made an excellent point. This member allowed to pass all stages of the conversion therapy ban bill, all in one quick unanimous consent motion where everybody agreed to all stages of it and it passed unanimously, so quickly, and this member clearly voted in favour of it.

Why does this member not care about seniors the same way that he clearly does the LGBTQ community?

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

I have a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I believe that if we were to look at the Standing Orders and conventions of this place, to try to impugn the record of a member is certainly not something that is permitted within the dialogue of this esteemed chamber.

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

Can I caution the hon. member to be perhaps less blunt in impugning intentions on the hon. member?

I do ask the member to answer, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your clarification on the matter.

I find that it is, again, ironic that we are dealing with two very different issues here. We are fixing a problem with a Liberal bill. That is what this bill is about. We are fixing a Liberal problem.

When it comes to Bill C-4 and Bill C-6, there was extensive debate that had taken place over the course of my time in Parliament that certainly led to the decisions that were made regarding conversion therapy.

When it comes to this bill, I find it very troubling that members opposite would somehow suggest that it is a dislike or some aversion against a certain segment of society and that we would not simply want to be here to do our jobs. That is the sort of politics that is forcing Canadians to give up the faith that they should have in our public institutions. We have a—

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

We will have one last question from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear about Larry specifically. I have many constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith with very similar stories to Larry's, so I am always happy to hear about what is happening in other ridings and to know, unfortunately, this story is not alone.

During the pandemic, we saw that, unfortunately, seniors are becoming poorer while the ultrarich are getting richer. Could the member please clarify whether it is now time for the ultrarich to pay their fair share and to finally provide seniors, like Larry, with what they need and deserve such as—

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

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, like Larry, there are so many blue collar workers out there, including many shift workers, who would start work at this hour. It is an honour to participate in debate in this place at an hour when many across this country, whether it be health care workers or those in any other segment of the Canadian economy, may be just getting to work.

We see the devastating impacts of many things, like inflation, that are making middle- and lower-income Canadians poorer. These things have to be addressed to ensure that benefits are being indexed appropriately and people can simply qualify for what they are entitled to. I could go on and on about this extensively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for her commitment, her sincerity and her passion. She presented us with a wish list for a world without scarcity, which I would say, quite honestly, is not the world we live in. That is a function of the reality of the human condition, not of anything else. She and I both hope for a world in which scarcity does not exist.

In the world we live in, we have to face tradeoffs. It seems to me that policy-making is about those tradeoffs. Realistically, one cannot simply say that we want to spend more here and spend more there without asking where it all comes from. We are in a situation where, in the midst of this pandemic alone, the government has run up a deficit that has created a national debt of over $1 trillion in this country. I think about my kids and the cost they will have to pay. That has to come from somewhere.

I would like to work with the member and other members on the issues she talked about: combatting poverty and making it easier for people to have the opportunities they need. To me, that comes from growth of jobs and opportunity—

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

I would remind the member that this is questions and comments. We have to leave time for other members.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to let a big secret out of the bag and just say that I am deeply fond of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. We share a lot.

I will say that bean counters would love a guaranteed livable income. Can members guess where we would save money? Snooping around on single moms, to cut their benefits if they find out they have moved in with their boyfriends, takes money. We have a shame-based system of band-aid solutions to poverty. They are expensive. They cost a lot of money. It does not cost money at the federal level the way it costs money at the provincial or municipal levels, but if it is all counted up, and people have done a lot of research on this, a guaranteed livable income could replace a lot of very inefficient programs that are expensive.

Those people who lose their jobs snooping around and checking up on single moms would be all right. They would not fall below the poverty line, because there would be a guaranteed livable income for all.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and for the words she spoke in excellent French. Her speech once again attests to her big heart, her generosity and her ability to analyze an issue.

At the beginning of her speech, my colleague spoke about fixing a mistake and discrimination against seniors. We agree that what happened with the GIS was pure discrimination.

I would like her to comment on another type of discrimination resulting from the creation of two classes of seniors and on how we could fix that mistake.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her very kind and generous comments.

I do think the government needs to fix the mistake it made when it created two classes of seniors. I think the best way to address inequality is to create a system that will eliminate poverty. That is the point of the guaranteed income supplement.

There are other things we must do to protect seniors' health, such as fix problems with long-term health care, which should not be in the hands of for-profit enterprise.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands will agree that in addition to fixing this glaring problem facing seniors and the clawback of their GIS benefits, one of the real benefits of this debate has been the opportunity to shed light on the need for a guaranteed basic income for seniors and all people struggling in poverty. However, it seems there are still barriers to our coming together and delivering this basic dignity for people.

Can my colleague speak to what some of those barriers seem to be? The beliefs that we hold, either subconsciously or otherwise, are holding us back as a society from making the bold move like the one in the 1960s that she referred to. What is holding us back now from making that kind of move and delivering the basic dignity that people deserve?

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

Madam Speaker, I am older than some members, and that is not to say that I am smarter; I just remember stuff. I remember Reagan and Thatcher and the rise of neoliberalism, and it shifted consciousness. It made a lot of citizens look at government as something alien from them, with a hand out to pick their pockets, whereas the postwar narrative that was in our heads, which lasted through the 1950s, the 1960s and into the 1970s, was that collectively we could look after each other. We had that collective sense. As I mentioned in referring to the importance of democracy at the end of my speech, we had the sense that the way the government operates was at the very tips of our fingers. We controlled what our government did because it was not alien from us: It was us. It was us taking care of each other.

The fabric of that has been significantly damaged, but I hope that post-COVID, people will realize that neoliberalism is dead, because when we were banging our pots and pans on our balconies, it was not for billionaires. We were banging our pots and pans on our balconies for people we knew were underpaid and working hard in health care.

I hope that we can change the way we think about our job as parliamentarians to include leaps of faith to do what is right.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her comments and her really great speech. I agree with her that it is time for this bill to pass and to pass quickly. We have talked about how much all of us really want to support seniors and how many of us were sent to this House by seniors to be strong advocates for them.

Would the member continue her call on how we can continue to support people? I thank her for making her comments in her great speech, and I think this is a step toward getting to that place of continuing to support people. We know how much COVID has impacted seniors, so I want to thank her and encourage her to continue to make that call to support passing this bill and to pass it quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for London West and to all in this House, although I described how beautiful things were in the 1960s and 1970s when those changes were made, there was only one woman in the House of Commons and there were not any really young women and there were no young racialized women. I just want to say what a joy it is to see the number of wonderful young women who have taken their places as MPs here, and I thank the hon. member for London West and promise to keep being as difficult as I possibly can be from my older vantage point.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech. The member spoke powerfully about the profound injustice that low-income seniors face.

It made me think about some of the incredible organizations in our region. She may be familiar with some of them, including Senior Entitlement Service, Silver Threads service for seniors and James Bay New Horizons. I sat down with the James Bay community project in January; it is supporting seniors who are facing immense challenges with isolation and food insecurity. Staff there spoke about how these challenges are increasing and the inequality is increasing.

These organizations are doing such powerful, incredible work and are working tirelessly to support seniors. Our government could be tackling this and taking the burden off volunteers and service providers. Scarcity, inequality and poverty are all policy choices. They are not elements of the human condition.

Can the member speak more about how pharmacare and a guaranteed livable income would ensure seniors and all community members could live in dignity?

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

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

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

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

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 16, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:55 p.m.)