Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank you for indulging me with a little bit of patience, because I will get there. It is relevant.
We debated this motion. It was amended by the Liberals. MP Vaughan actually was the one who wanted to make it a little bit more amicable for the whole committee, which was agreed to.
I'm just going to read the motion as amended by Mr. Housefather. This was on the same day, February 2, 2021.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the impact of COVID-19 on the financial, social, health and overall well-being of seniors; that the committee review existing and announced programs for seniors, including federal transfers to provinces and territories and Indigenous governments, and make recommendations to improve support for seniors; that the study be comprised of no less than six two-hour meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Seniors and departmental officials to appear for one hour each; that the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 109, present its findings with recommendations to the House; and that the committee request that the government provide a comprehensive response.
I just want to highlight the amended part. Nothing was taken out, but something was just added. What was added by MP Housefather was that the committee review existing and announced programs for seniors, “including federal transfers to provinces and territories and Indigenous governments”. It was something the whole committee agreed to unanimously.
We know it was as important a study then as it is now. We know that whether it is an issue of health, social isolation or financial security, this particular year, 2020-21, has been very difficult for seniors.
We know that seniors have also been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and the pandemic as a whole since the beginning of the pandemic. It wasn't something that evolved over time or just popped up in the middle of the pandemic, as we experienced with some other groups of people. They literally have been the ones who have been impacted the most, and for some of them, it cost them their lives.
We know that seniors are in a higher risk category, which can depend on where they live. Some seniors have the ability to age in place. Others live in retirement facilities. Others live in long-term care facilities. It puts them in a higher risk category, depending on where they are.
There are also financial impacts, of course. I remember that at our committee meetings before Parliament was prorogued and all of the work we had done was wiped away, we heard from seniors who were only able to take out one prescription a month from their local pharmacy. Paying dispensing fees more than once was a real issue for seniors, as was driving in from rural and remote communities to their local pharmacies, which sometimes is an hour or more away, costing them more money. It was definitely affecting seniors from the very beginning, and it had a financial impact.
Studying the impacts of the pandemic on seniors, the efficiency of federal supports and the existing gaps, is timely and important. I think every single one of us would agree with that. I think each one of our parties in the House has also talked about the importance of our seniors.
I'm going to remind the committee again, and Canadians who are watching, that seniors helped build this country. Whether it was though their contributions to our small businesses or our infrastructure, they helped create what Canada is today. At the very minimum, we owe them honour, respect and acknowledgement for what they've done.
It was very disheartening and upsetting. I wasn't at the last committee meeting. Unfortunately, I had family things that had come up, and it was a kerfuffle anyway. It was postponed, delayed and then extended, and a new time was given for the meeting. I was disappointed to know that members of the committee who previously indicated their support for prioritizing this study no longer saw seniors as a priority. It was very disappointing to see that happen.
Again, I'm going to refer to Tuesday, February 2 a lot, and I hope everybody else has looked at the transcripts from that day. I know it was mentioned at our meeting last Thursday, but it was clear to me and to other members of the committee that the will of the committee, following Madame Chabot's motion on employment insurance, was that a study of seniors was to follow.
I just wanted to remind some committee members of what they said that day, because our meeting was in public. I was grateful for the support from across the aisle. I think the team Canada approach is something that we're in for on this side. We in the official opposition understand that we're here to represent those constituents who sent us here to do this work.
I know that it was great to have support from MP Long, for example, and I'm going to quote what he said:
I would certainly want to be on the record as supporting MP Falk's motion. I think it's very relevant. Certainly EI and seniors are top of mind for all Canadians right now.
I know the subcommittee report prioritized MP Chabot's motion, but I'm certainly in favour of MP Falk's motion after we study MP Chabot's motion.
MP Long, I really appreciated your support then, and I hope I have your continued support, especially since your support was on record.
Even for Mr. Turnbull, I'd like to quote him as well from that February 2 meeting:
Along the same lines, I just dug up an old document here that's dated October 21, 2020. [It's] a subcommittee report that clearly indicates that the EI study would be next in line after the rapid housing initiative work. I want to express my support for that and not go back on what the subcommittee said, yet I really want to show support for [Ms.] Falk's motion. I think it's a great study. I like how [it's] worded.
Again in the meeting, he also said:
Based on today's conversation so far, we've committed to 11 meetings past February 18. That would be my calculation, with Ms. Chabot's motion implying five meetings, and [Ms.] Falk's motion, which is six meetings.
Here we have a Liberal member who then moved a motion on Thursday, after his February 2 remarks, stating that he was under the understanding that it would be a study on EI and then a study on seniors.
I would also like to quote MP Vaughan, who also had consensus for studying seniors after the EI study and said:
Looking at a couple of different motions we have on the page together around seniors, there's a clear consensus within the committee to act on seniors....
At the same time, MP Falk...brought forward an important concern. When you take a look at the prior motions that were passed on it and try to package them together, if we were to change the motion to...a bit more specific and...have it follow on the EI study, I think we could get both done in a timely fashion.
I just want to note, Mr. Chair, that I had agreed to an amendment, a friendly amendment. Mr. Vaughan had suggested the amendment to make it broader and a little more specific in areas, so that we could have consensus as the team HUMA, and he thought we could get them both done in a timely fashion.
He also said, on that February 2 meeting:
As I said, MP Falk brought a motion forward, and I think the consensus of the committee is to support it, but it needs to be a bit broader to capture some of the additional points that were raised by other MPs in...conversation.
There, I think, we already have three MPs who were under the understanding that we were going to have a seniors study after the EI reform study, which, I would agree, was very much needed, as MP Chabot has been advocating for.
Mr. Chair, I want to also mention your words in the remarks you made:
Mr. Turnbull made the point, but it's worth reminding everyone that separate and apart from the 11 meetings to which we've committed, there may very well be things referred to us from the House by way of legislation, by way of examination of supplementary estimates and the like.
I just want to say, Mr. Chair, that I totally agree with you. We've seen Bill C-24 and we actually have seen the Liberals in the House try to mis-characterize Conservatives and say that we were holding up Bill C-24, which of course was not the truth. I know that when you reported back to the House, you did mention how collegial we were and how well we worked together.
Conservatives understood that this was timely legislation that needed to get through the door quickly to make sure that Canadians who needed help, who were struggling because of the COVID-19 pandemic, would get the assistance they needed.
I want to make it clear that we totally understand the team Canada approach, and we want to be part of the team and not undermine it.
I do want to make a note, too, Chair. You did say:
Colleagues, we now have a motion that has been amended with the acceptance of the mover. Do we have consensus to adopt [the] motion?
It reads:
(Motion agreed to)
You said then:
I believe we also have consensus that the next item for us to study is the EI motion presented by Madame Chabot and that [it's] broad enough to encompass the themes that we have now laid upon the analyst in a somewhat haphazard fashion to have her put together the background documents, and thereafter, a study on the motion that was just presented. I think that's where [we're at] now.
I do want to just mention that Madame Chabot was also supportive of the motion at the time. I know that she had a motion as well regarding seniors, and it was on seniors and poverty. She had agreed that the seniors one should be next after her employment insurance study, and the motion that I tabled, debated, agreed to amend and unanimously was passed would encompass financial security for seniors as well, which is something that Madame Chabot was interested in studying before we debated.
For the NDP, I'm going to quote our member Ms. Gazan:
I want to share that I certainly support the motion coming from MP Falk. I know that we had agreed [to] an order, and I know that we all know that seniors are in a really dire situation during the pandemic.
What's frustrating for me is that on February 2, with the acceptance of a friendly amendment, this committee unanimously had agreed to study the motion on seniors, yet I understand that the discussion at the last committee meeting we had, on Thursday, which I was unable to attend—I know that now MP Vaughan has removed his amendment—was considering studies that hadn't even been tabled yet, which I actually find disrespectful, frankly, not only to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, but also to the committee members who said at the February 2 meeting that they were looking forward to doing the seniors study and having that up next on the roster.
I just want to also say that with the team Canada approach, I'm not sure if the committee members remember, but after the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament, for whatever reason that was, we had that meeting and we just brought all those motions forward from the previous Parliament to this Parliament, with Conservatives very much against doing that because we didn't think that a lot of that was relevant at the time.
I just want to say that one of those motions that was brought forward was from MP Vaughan. This was on February 27, 2020, so it was pre-pandemic. That study was to be a study on the Canadian grandparents who became guardians of their grandchildren, and it was to be the second study of the committee, which.... You know what, Conservatives absolutely understand that, yes, that is a priority. It is important to study that, but there are things of more a pressing nature, like studying our seniors and how they're being affected by this pandemic.
I'm using this as an example to show that we actually understand that things come up and that there is give-and-take, absolutely. I guess what it seems like is that Liberal members of this committee have said one thing out of one side of their mouths, and now the rubber is hitting the road and there's something else that's being proposed, with no acknowledgement of what was agreed to before, at our meeting of February 2, 2021.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to Mr. Turnbull's motion. I would like to move that the motion be amended to add after the words “no less than six meetings” the following: “and that the study take place after the completion of the seniors study that was unanimously agreed to on February 2, 2021”.
