Human Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

No, it's not that. I would like to read the motion and the amendment. They were too long for me to comprehend every single word in every sentence. For me, as I heard them, the motion and the amendment both appeared to be speaking to this as though it were the sole responsibility of the federal government—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Arya, I have already ruled the amendment out of order.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I'm including the main motion in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We can speak to the main motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Collins, on the motion.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

On the interpretation, Mr. Chair, I would challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call a recorded vote on the chair's ruling.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

My ruling on the amendment has been defeated. The amendment can be debated on.

Go ahead, Mr. Aitchison, on the amendment.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, I have to say, obviously I agree with Madame Chabot and I agree with you, esteemed Mr. Chair. You're a wise man and you know what you're talking about.

The fact of the matter is that all the questions raised by Mr. Fragiskatos in his amendment are questions that would certainly be asked in the context of what the original motion called for. The original motion called for a study where you could ask questions about all the very specific things he was talking about. Let's not kid ourselves: Federal investment in affordable housing ended in the first Trudeau government. Actually, it started to decline in the first Trudeau government. It fully ended in the Chrétien government. There's no question that there hasn't been enough federal investment over the years, but I don't know why you would want to try to presuppose what the outcome of a study might be.

I think the issue is far too serious to be playing political games like that. In fact, part of me wonders if it might not have been better if we'd just tried to talk the whole time out and wasted the time that way instead. This is a ridiculous thing to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I have Madame Chabot and then Ms. Zarrillo on the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm against the amendment.

I'm not challenging the substance of the motion, but rather its status as an amendment to the initial motion, with which you were in agreement. I would vote against the amendment and for the motion as moved.

The motion is broad and doesn't blame anyone. It proposes a study on housing, homelessness and the tent cities. In the context of this housing study, homelessness is an extremely serious issue in Canada and Quebec. It's unheard of. The study would require at least eight meetings. It would determine whether we have been doing enough to support co-operatives, and other related issues.

It's an open motion, and accordingly not restrictive. I still believe that in view of the restrictive wording in the amendment, a motion that is in order could be introduced.

As the committee has decided otherwise, I will vote against the amendment and for the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Zarrillo, go ahead on the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I was going to change, if I'd had the opportunity, “housing” to “lack of affordable housing” in the original motion. Actually, this is even wider than what I was going to ask for. I'm totally fine with it.

One thing that I would maybe ask.... It says, “That, with regard to federal housing investments between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015, this study include particular consideration of the following questions”. I would propose a friendly amendment to take out the word “particular”, if it happens.

I just can't wait to have this discussion about who did social housing worse, the Conservatives or the Liberals. I can't wait for the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I didn't hear any particular subamendment.

Ms. Gray, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is quite extensive. It does presuppose a lot of what the study was intended to do. There are a number of questions that are posed in here that are very easily accessible on Stats Canada. I don't know. It's a bit performative to have some of these points in here. It's like they don't really want to do a proper study on housing, homelessness and tent cities.

The amendments that the Liberals are proposing are very prescriptive. The purpose for our motion was to be very general, so that we could bring in and hear all kinds of testimony from all different interested parties at the table here. Whatever came of that, then that's the information we would have. This is basically very prescriptive. It wasn't the original intent.

I do appreciate your stance, Chair, for calling this out of order. It's unfortunate that the Liberal-NDP coalition is strong here in trying to actually presuppose this study before it even happens. That wasn't our intent.

Our intent was to actually have a very good, wholesome study where we could bring in all kinds of witnesses and really hear from all different types of stakeholders. This is going to very much restrict our ability to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Seeing no further discussion, I'll call a vote on the amendment.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wasn't sure about Ms. Zarrillo's point. Was she proposing a subamendment to take out “particular”?

That would be fine with me.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I was suggesting a friendly amendment to take out “particular.” I don't actually think that will be the majority of the study. I think the majority of the study is to really find out what happened with social housing in the last 40 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That would require unanimous consent. I can't see that going anywhere.

Mr. Fragiskatos, I'm going to a recorded vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The motion as amended is carried.

Seeing no further discussion, I'll return to the business at hand, which was the questioning of the witnesses.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have six minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay, we're back. That's perfect.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for their testimony today. Probably all my questions will go to Ms. Mackenzie. If there's time, certainly I'll change track.

Ms. Mackenzie, first of all, thank you very much for the work that you have done as a seniors advocate. I'm not from British Columbia, but I have many friends there. My brother lives there. I know that you recently left the post. I was reading online that the praise of your work, from the various provincial parties in B.C., was unanimous.

I did note today that you made a comment on dental care and on the government's work with other parties in the House that want to get behind a sensible, reasonable and just measure like this.

What does this mean for Canadian seniors, who are going to be able now to see a dentist, whereas in the past they weren't able to afford to do so? Could you put that in context for us?

[Isobel Mackenzie]

I'm still here until April 5, but thank you for your kind words.

Dental care is something we hear about probably the most in terms of affordability.

To put it into context, when we surveyed seniors, those with higher incomes were those most likely to have a dental plan, ironically. If you heard the income data I presented previously, imagine, on these incomes of $26,000 to $27,000 a year, a dental bill of $2,000 to get dental work, particularly around dentures. I think, for many seniors.... I don't know if “transformative” is too dramatic a word, but they will be able to access dental care that they simply could not afford previously.

I could go on, but I think most of you will understand the importance of oral health around nutrition, on being able to eat. As you get older, it actually becomes even more important.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I also ask the question from this perspective. Perhaps, Ms. Mackenzie, you've been following, at the federal level, that Mr. Poilievre has suggested that should the Conservatives form government in the future, a pay-as-you-go system would be implemented, along the lines of what Trump Republicans in the United States have put forward: For every dollar that is spent, a dollar of cuts has to be found.

What analysts, and in particular experts following seniors policy, have suggested recently is that while the policy sounds very simple, and therefore very good and very nice, it's quite the contrary. You would have a situation where things that are indexed to inflation—vital programs like OAS, GIS, the Canadian pension plan, generally—would all, by definition, count as a pay increase or, I should say, more spending would come from that, because, again, they are indexed to inflation. To offset that, you could have cuts in other vital programs affecting seniors, including dental care.

Is that something you're concerned about?

[Isobel Mackenzie]

I think that overall the concern is for a group of people who are different from the majority of Canadians. This is a group of people who are retired from the labour force, unable to earn an income and relying on the fixed income of whatever their pensions are. I've relayed to you how low those incomes actually are for most Canadian seniors, so when you layer on top of that the inflationary impacts on what they have to buy with that money, it definitely is concerning.

The other issue, which is more nuanced, is that, as we age, there is this penalty, if you will, the “frailty penalty”. A senior enjoying good health at the age of 80 may find their income sufficient, but a senior who has poor health at 80 finds that they have to pay for a lot of things because the social programs we have are not providing them, and that is proving very challenging. That's a nuance that I think is missed when we look at incomes and entitlements for our aging population.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The chair tells me I have one minute.

What would be the implications of something else that Mr. Poilievre certainly would do—and he's been clear about this in the past—which is moving the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67? What would that mean for Canadian seniors?

[Isobel Mackenzie]

Well, it would depend. I think Canadians are actually going to have to examine this issue of what the retirement age is, looking at longevity, years of healthy life and total years in the labour force—

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Roberts, clearly state the point of order you're calling it under.