House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Regina—Qu'Appelle Saskatchewan

Conservative

Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks today by expressing my heartfelt condolences on behalf of my entire caucus and our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Constable Heidi Stevenson and all those who lost their lives in the senseless attack over the weekend in Nova Scotia. As more and more details come out as to the scale of the tragedy, I know it is weighing heavily upon all Canadians at this time, and all members of Parliament. To those members of Parliament from Nova Scotia, I would particularly like to convey, through them to their constituents, our solidarity with them. I know the whole country is grieving with them for their loss as well. We are also praying for a speedy recovery for the RCMP officer who was injured in the line of duty. Each one of the victims leaves behind heartbroken family, friends and a community reeling from such an unthinkable act.

I wish to extend my sincere condolences the family and friends of Constable Heidi Stevenson and all those who lost their lives in this senseless attack in Nova Scotia on the weekend. I also wish a speedy recovery to the RCMP officer who was injured in the line of duty. Every victim leaves behind a family, friends and a community torn apart by this outrageous act.

It is made all the more difficult because, in this time, comfort will have to be offered at a distance, but as we, as a nation, mourn with those who mourn, I hope that the affected families and communities know that right across Canada we hold them closely in our hearts.

These are difficult times. There has been far too much sadness and grief in our nation over the last month. Over 1,600 Canadians have now died from COVID-19, and more than 36,000 Canadians have fallen sick. Canadians' lives and livelihoods literally depend on the government getting the response to this pandemic right. Given what is at stake, Conservatives would like to see more than the one accountability session per week that the other parties appear to have agreed to.

We also believe that virtual accountability sessions should be designed in the all-party forum that is already working on this issue.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held its first meeting last week, and it should be allowed to carry out the job it has been assigned. If the NDP and the Bloc have agreed with the Liberals to limit accountability, they will have to explain themselves to Canadians in the coming weeks.

Conservatives believe in oversight and accountability. Millions of Canadians are going to work every single day to help their neighbours get through this pandemic. Parliamentarians should be doing the same thing. Right here on Parliament Hill, construction workers are continuing to renovate Centre Block, a project that is expected to take at least 10 years. If they can safely renovate the building that houses our Parliament, then surely we can do our duty to uphold the bedrock of our democracy.

That is the issue: democracy. Canadians have the right to be represented by their government. Their concerns must be heard and their questions must be answered.

There have been so many questions raised throughout this pandemic, and Conservatives have been asking those questions. We have not always gotten answers, but we are going to continue to press for them. The need for these accountability sessions is made evident day after day.

Why can the Prime Minister not tell Canadians when new ventilators will arrive? It was in this chamber, on March 12, when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what the government was doing to obtain new ventilators. She said at that time that the government was leading a national procurement strategy. Thirty days later, the Prime Minister, in this chamber, said that the first ventilators would be weeks away. That is unacceptable.

Why were millions of masks and protective equipment destroyed and not replaced? Why are government programs changing every single day? These are the kinds of questions that Canadians have, and they deserve answers from their government, because vulnerable Canadians do not have another month to wait around for help.

Canadians' lives and livelihoods literally depend on the government getting its response to this pandemic right.

The Prime Minister continues to warn that this process will be long and arduous, but so far that has not just meant dealing with this pandemic but also the decision-making process. We owe it to Canadians to work our absolute hardest to get this right.

Since this crisis first began to take shape, it has been the opposition that has often been leading the way on the useful, practical actions that have been taken to protect Canadians. We called for tighter restrictions on travel and at the border. We called for the wage subsidy to be raised from 10% to 75%. We called for seasonal workers and those with limited incomes to qualify for the emergency response benefit. The Prime Minister said that he wanted a team Canada approach, and we have given him one, putting forward constructive solutions every day to help Canadians affected by this crisis.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and his ministers have chosen to try to do this on their own, and the result is that virtually every day they are having to make changes to their policies. If we were working these policies out together, each side playing to its strength, every region of this country represented as it is supposed to be, the government would get things right the first time around more often.

The Conservative caucus is determined to do the job we were elected to do: represent the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to keep Canadians as healthy and safe as possible. We are here because we know that Canadians are depending on us, and in this Conservative caucus we will not stop working.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that the government continues to reach out a hand of co-operation. I assure him that the same is true for the opposition.

The government House leader said that this is not about partisanship. I will remind him that it was his leader, his Prime Minister, who yesterday told something to Canadians that he knew was not true. He said that today there would be 338 MPs. I invite members to look around. We have done exactly what we told Canadians we would do: We would be here in a responsible manner, respecting public health guidelines while still representing Canadians.

For the Prime Minister to try to conjure up fears when he knew that was never going to be the case not only was disingenuous, but it undermines his credibility. At a time when Canadians are looking to him to be open and forthright, when he does things like that it shakes the confidence that Canadians have that he is being truthful on other matters. It was a shameful example of partisanship yesterday.

I have heard so many comments from members that, to me, indicate they are allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. It is clear that there are going to be challenges for in-person sittings. We could have spent the last two weeks talking about how best to deal with that, how best to limit the impact in the House of Commons and how best to ensure that representations from each caucus would be allowed to participate.

The default position is for Parliament to sit, and it is incumbent upon the government to explain why it should not in a time of crisis. We have already seen examples of the government using this crisis to its advantage. Do members remember the first time we were called here? I know the hon. House leader does, because we were both here until very early in the morning. When we were told to come to Ottawa to pass legislation to help get benefits into the hands of Canadians, the current government wrote itself massive new powers, giving itself broad powers, ignoring the role of Parliament in terms of taxation and spending. It was because Conservatives refused to go along with that that we were able to protect our democratic institutions.

The second time we came here, we were given a bill and we were told that it had to be passed by the end of the day on that Saturday. We rolled up our sleeves.

Other parties such as the Bloc Québécois gave the government carte blanche by stating that they would support the bill. However, our team did its job last weak. We identified weaknesses in the government's bill and our efforts improved it. Although the other parties do not want to do their job, we are ready to do the work that Canadians have asked us to do.

On behalf of the millions of Canadians whom we represent here, I move:

That the motion be amended, in paragraph (h),

(a) by replacing subparagraphs (iv) and (v) with the following: “(iv) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the committee shall meet in the chamber at noon every Tuesday and Wednesday, provided that the committee shall not meet on a day referred to in Standing Order 28(1),”;

(b) by deleting, in subparagraph (x), the words “or a Thursday”;

(c) by deleting, in subparagraph (xi), the words “and Thursdays”; and

(d) by replacing subparagraph (xviii) with the following: “(xviii) following the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursuant to its order of reference of Saturday, April 11, 2020, if that committee recommends the implementation of virtual sittings and if the Clerk of the House indicates that they are technologically feasible, the House leaders of all four recognized parties may indicate to the Speaker that there is an agreement among the parties to hold one additional meeting of the committee each week by videoconference, notwithstanding subparagraph (iv), with members participating by videoconference, and the Speaker shall give effect to that agreement;”.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and leader of Her Majesty's official opposition is quite right that during the course of negotiations to bring the House back, the Conservatives were very respectful, understanding public health guidelines and the fact that we had done this two times prior. Not only had we done it, but legislatures across this country are meeting on a regular basis. The Alberta legislature is meeting three times a weeks, for example, and the Ontario legislature has met.

The hon. leader of Her Majesty's opposition said in his speech that it was disingenuous for the Prime Minister to declare yesterday that the Conservatives were holding up the process because we wanted a full Parliament. I was wondering if he could follow up on what the Prime Minister said yesterday.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, it is more than disingenuous, but fortunately the rules of the House prevent me from using words to describe what it actually is.

Those in the government, the Green Party and other parties are acting like today is some kind of extraordinary sitting. We were always going to come back on April 20. This was always the date that was agreed to by the House in previous sittings. A sitting of the House was also going to be needed to adopt whatever work plan was agreed upon by all parties. It is completely erroneous and misleading to suggest that today would not have happened if there had been some kind of all-party agreement.

My hon. colleague touched on something. Yesterday, in his press conference the Prime Minister raised the spectre of 338 MPs travelling from all around the country to sit together in this space at the same time. Let us look around. This was never what was intended.

Throughout the week, in good faith, our House leader, the government House leader and the House leaders of other parties were in constant communication, and we made it abundantly clear that we were not going to ask our MPs to fill the seats in this chamber. We proposed multiple solutions to the government to have a drastically reduced number of MPs in this chamber, which would alleviate the demand on the support staff for the administration. The types of arguments we heard are completely phony.

The real question is why the Prime Minister does not want to come into this chamber. I believe it is quite simple: He prefers the controlled environment in front of Rideau Cottage every day, where he controls the number of questions and can call an end to them whenever he likes. We are not able to present the questions and concerns we are hearing from our constituents every single day. He is avoiding that. That is why we have not reached an agreement on the work plan going forward.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Madam Speaker, yesterday, Quebec reported 72 new COVID-19 deaths, bringing its total to 877. Quebec has hit its COVID-19 peak. In Montreal, there is no one on the streets and everyone, or almost everyone, is in lockdown, except for essential workers. People are making sacrifices to curtail the spread of the pandemic, and the regions are closed.

At first, the leader of the official opposition proposed that the House sit four times a week. He thought about it for a while and then proposed that it sit three times a week. This morning, he had dropped to twice a week. Perhaps by early afternoon he will be suggesting that we meet once a week.

My question is simple. When I listen to the Conservatives, it seems to me that they are out of touch with what is happening in Quebec. Does the leader of the official opposition realize that Quebec is in the midst of a full-blown pandemic?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, we did indeed propose four sittings. Then, in good faith and in order to come to an agreement among all parties, we agreed to hold three sittings per week. Now, we feel that two sittings a week is better than one. This is proof of the good faith we have shown throughout the negotiations.

Yes, we are in a crisis, and because of this crisis and because Quebeckers and Canadians fear for their health, their livelihoods and their jobs, we must be here to ensure that this government's legislation, programs and services address their needs.

I know that members of the Bloc Québécois did not want to be here during the last two sittings and did not want to speak on behalf of their constituents. Conservative Party members from Quebec and from all provinces across the country are prepared to do their jobs to assure Canadians that we are addressing their needs during this crisis.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party is the official opposition here in the House, and, to be perfectly honest, I have had just about enough of its childishness and obstruction when people are dying out there and others are risking their lives to care for the sick, including elderly people in seniors' homes and long-term care facilities.

The Conservatives—the official opposition—say they want three sittings a week so they can ask the government questions because the government needs to be held to account. Of course the government needs to be held to account, and I have lots of questions for the government too. However, we need to lead by example. One in-person sitting per week is enough. Two additional virtual online sittings with a new procedure would enable us to do our work as the people's representatives and hold the government to account.

Why is the Conservative Party rejecting modernity? Why is it clinging to the old ways?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, it is true that many Canadians are taking great risks to do their jobs and play their part.

The role of Parliament is to ensure that the government's responses meet Canadians' needs. If the members of the other parties are not ready to do their job, we, on this side, are. We have already seen that, when opposition parties do their job, they obtain better results for Canadians. This is not conjecture because we have seen it happen twice already.

Obviously, during a crisis we cannot let the government do whatever it wants. We cannot abandon our role nor shirk our responsibilities. We can prove to Canadians that, during a crisis, their democratic institutions continue to function and continue to ensure that the government implements the programs that Canadians need.

That is the role of the opposition and of all MPs, and that is the role that the Conservatives will continue to play.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to model behaviour, be responsible and listen to the health authorities and what they have asked us to do. They have asked us to stay in place.

Originally, when the border was closed, we were told that it was supposed to open tomorrow, but the government is now going to extend that border closure for another 30 days. The opposition did its job on Bill C-13. We did not agree to what was written in that legislation and we all got together and it was changed.

Did the hon. member not see the member for Carleton questioning the Minister of Finance at the finance committee? That was televised. We are seeing accountability through our committees.

If schoolteachers can hold Zoom classes and control the meeting with children asking questions, why can our Speaker not control a question period virtually? I am seriously disappointed that we are not modelling the kind of behaviour that we should be to Canadians. We should be resting in place, we should be doing what the health authorities have asked of us and we should be using the virtual tools we have to hold the government to account.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of very simple reasons.

We cannot wait for weeks for the technology and the capacity of the House of Commons to provide us with the ability to have all members of Parliament participate in a virtual question period. We need more accountability, not less. We should be clamouring. All of us in opposition should be finding more ways to hold the government to account because it has gotten so many things wrong from the beginning.

Remember, it was the current government, as late as early March, that said travel restrictions would not work and that it was not contemplating closing the border. There was advice from the government that people should not use masks, until it indicated that using masks was beneficial. A wage subsidy was set at 10% and had to be raised to 75%.

It is clearly the case that in this pandemic crisis we need more accountability and more oversight, not less.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the most hon. member for Shefford.

We must take time to reflect on the other tragedy being faced by the people of Nova Scotia today. I find it hard to imagine what this senseless trail of violence, played out over some 120 kilometres, is like. This violence, no matter the reason, cannot be justified, and we must focus our minds on understanding how such things could happen and how we can prevent them. Our thoughts and hearts are with the people of Nova Scotia.

We have spent the past few days and hours, and taken up a lot of media time, discussing how we would meet here today, and in many respects, it was a lot of dithering. I sincerely doubt that Canadians and Quebeckers are interested in seeing a bunch of parliamentarians talking to other parliamentarians about parliamentary matters to figure out how to fix them as parliamentarians. Even I am not very interested in that. However, now that we are here, we have a job to do and there are some things we need to address.

Heaven knows that such issues as who will talk the most or the least, who will ask three additional questions on Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon, or whether the House should sit two and a half days instead of two days do have the appearance of being partisan even if they are not meant to be.

I could have said that I am not really enthusiastic about that and that I do not have much respect for anyone who claims that the Bloc Québécois does not speak on behalf of its constituents. It is almost funny, and I am becoming more familiar with Saskatchewan's sense of humour. People have already expressed their opinions and, at some point, they will have the opportunity to do so again and to choose the person who will best represent them. When that day comes, we will see the impact of this type of rather useless talk.

I have spoken in the media about “tataouinage”. In English Canada, there has been a whole debate about what that word means. The people we represent all know what it means, and perhaps it will be added to dictionaries one day. It means to dilly-dally.

At some point in time we have to move on from this sort of approach. The Conservatives want to negotiate and go on TV. I understand that they need to grow their voter base, but they should not be doing so at the expense of those who are suffering. They are saying that Parliament is an essential service. However, I would like them to name something that is more essential to a lot of people than their health and banks. I imagine that a typical Conservative would think that banks are essential, and I would like them to find one bank that does not offer virtual banking services.

We are capable of working virtually and sitting remotely, knowing that the Standing Orders require us to be physically present to vote. We will live with that requirement. We could have said that we will come only to vote, but every time would have been “ReFeLeMeLe”, another tricky expression to translate, this one from the group Rock et Belles Oreilles meaning do it again. Every time, we would have to address the nature of the negotiations, the need for our vote, the fact that we do not agree or that we will claim to disagree, but vote in favour anyway. I would prefer that we focus on bringing in rules for a virtual Parliament, a transition that is bound to happen sooner or later.

I especially want us to focus on our seniors. I have been asking about this for two weeks now. I do not expect the government to acknowledge that the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has made demands and that they all need to be met.

The examples we have seen so far show that it worked fairly well. The government has talked to almost everybody, and there is a general sense of urgency and necessity.

I do not want to be the kind of person who takes credit for everything good, but the Bloc Québécois contributed to the wage subsidy, the addition of fixed costs, the recognition of social economy enterprises, and the changes made for growing businesses.

Sadly, when we ask questions about seniors, we do not hear a peep in response. In a pandemic, there is no group more vulnerable than the elderly, especially in terms of health. When it comes to seniors, the numbers do not just speak for themselves, they positively shriek.

Seniors are also more vulnerable economically. That is why we have put forward a number of demands. These demands are not perfect, but we can talk them over. We can study them, adjust them and lay them out. We can do a lot of things. The only thing we cannot do is nothing. We need to do something for seniors.

Since we are gathered here in the House, I will take this opportunity to strongly emphasize the importance of addressing the issues facing seniors.

Our requests have to do with old age security benefits, the guaranteed income supplement, drug prices and Internet access. This has all been clearly explained, and I am confident that the government has been listening.

Allow me to provide some numbers. All told, the government has freed up $250 billion in cash in the context of this crisis, including roughly $107 billion in direct spending. Increasing old age security benefits by $110 a month for seniors in Canada and Quebec for a three-month period would cost $1 billion. That is 250 times less than what has already been committed for so many people, and seniors are the most vulnerable. How has this not already been done?

The Liberals could have returned our phone call to at least talk about it. The last time we did this, we were given a briefing. In a briefing, someone tells us what has already been decided, and we have no say in the matter. We would like to be more involved when it comes to seniors.

Last week I did a very friendly comparison with the oil and gas industry. I do not think Alberta oil workers should have to suffer more than workers in any other industry. They are employees who are working for a business.

I am okay with the way things were, meaning that employees would have their jobs back. I am not saying that I am not somewhat uneasy, but I am sure that my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie is keeping an eye on the situation.

At first glance, investing in cleaning up orphan wells is not a bad idea. Are we subsidizing businesses that should have shouldered their share of the responsibility? Maybe, but at least it is something.

I worry about what happens down the road. We cannot allow this to become a Trojan horse used to pour money into the oil and gas industry. Are our seniors not just as important as oil and gas? That is a question that springs to mind, but the answer is pretty obvious.

I want to raise two other cases that I would like us to discuss.

Most students are not eligible for the Canada emergency response benefit. There are probably several people among us who studied for quite some time. We will recall that having financial anxiety as a student is no joke.

Those young people are experiencing economic anxiety, but there is nothing specifically for them. I do not want the federal government to intervene in areas under provincial jurisdiction, but I do want to see students in Quebec and elsewhere get back the money their parents paid. A measure could be implemented for that. The Canada emergency response benefit should handle it. I will come back to that.

As I said, knowledge and science will enable us to overcome this crisis. We need to recognize what research has to offer. We also need to provide additional support for research.

I will conclude by paraphrasing Jean Gabin. We think we know everything, but the next day we discover that we do not. Basically, any time we think we know something and think we have found a solution to something, that is not necessarily the case.

The crisis is not over, and I hope we will all work together and, more importantly, in good faith.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Regina—Qu'Appelle Saskatchewan

Conservative

Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Madam Speaker, I do not think the leader of the Bloc Québécois understands the role of an opposition member. The leader of an opposition party is not meant to say “yes” to the government as quickly as possible. The first time that we held a special sitting, the government tried to take some powers and the Bloc leader left negotiations to go for dinner. We stayed to protect our democracy.

During the second special sitting, the government introduced a bill, and the leader of the Bloc Québécois said that we needed to pass it as quickly as possible. On Tuesday morning, he said that the Bloc would support the bill. Our members, including the ones from Quebec, worked all week to improve the bill. We did not immediately say “yes” on Twitter, and we took the time to do our job. That is how Canadians and Quebeckers ended up with a better program.

I hope that the leader of the Bloc will have a better understanding of the role of an opposition party leader for the remainder of this Parliament.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I was waiting for a question. I guess question marks are not part of the English grammar.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

These are questions and comments.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Still, the role of an MP, whether in government or in opposition, is first and foremost to be the voice of the people. Furthermore, whether we are a member of the opposition or not, our role is not to always say no to everything. Not everything that comes from others or from other sources is automatically bad, whether it comes from a Liberal, a Bloc member or, worse yet, a Chinese person. That is not my mindset.

We are not trying to take over the role of others. That is not what we are all about. We speak for Quebec and just for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will never say no to something that could clearly be good for Quebec. That is a partisan exercise, a display of jealousy of the work of others, and we are not going to get involved in that. If that is what Conservatives think it means to be an MP, I am even more pleased to say that I will never be a Conservative.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his speech.

I am going to change the subject. Let us talk about essential services. We know about health care professionals and all those in civil society who are getting up every day and going to work. I represent many federal public service employees, including employees from Public Services and Procurement Canada, the department for which I am the parliamentary secretary. Procurement is only getting done because they are working around the clock. My colleague from Orléans and I represent people who are working day and night to make sure Canadians get their income support.

I want to give my colleague a chance to offer his own praise for the essential work that Government of Canada employees are doing around the clock during this crisis.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, it is hard to go wrong there. The people who are being called upon to keep working every day are certainly operating under difficult conditions. We are hearing more and more reports about the extreme anxiety plaguing health care workers, especially in long-term care homes in Quebec. This demands a level of courage and self-sacrifice that deserves all our respect. People who are working and doing a little bit extra to try to help as many people as possible deserve all our respect. People who do it for totally altruistic reasons deserve even more respect.

I want to spend 10 seconds going back to the well-worn subject of gaps in the research sector. People who work in research will be essential as we overcome this crisis and in the future. Relatively short-term measures need to be taken to support researchers, research centres and science. We will make some proposals in that regard.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for sharing his time with me. Before going any further, I too would like to offer my condolences to the people of Nova Scotia.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I want to say what a privilege it is to be here in the House today. We are meeting in exceptional and dramatic circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic is overwhelming Quebec and wreaking havoc in retirement homes and long-term care centres, known as CHSLDs in Quebec. We have learned that 99% of the deceased in Quebec were over 60 years old and half of them had been living in CHSLDs.

This disease is particularly devastating among people whose health is already fragile, but this situation is exposing a problem that has been plaguing us for some time now, namely how precarious the living conditions of our seniors are. Many seniors have died alone, and sometimes their loved ones are not even notified.

Children and grandchildren, for whom those relationships are so important, go to see their dad, their mom, their grandpa or grandma through the window in their place of residence. All they can do is shout “I love you” and “take care of yourself” from beneath their balconies, if they are lucky.

There are horror stories, and even though it may be difficult, we cannot make generalizations and blame staff who are exhausted and overwhelmed by the situation. From the bottom of my heart, I want to commend and thank all of the health care and support staff who are helping our seniors in spite of the suffering and fear, which the people they care for also feel. If there have indeed been cases of neglect, then the guilty parties should be made an example of.

The prosperous society that will enable us to get through this crisis was built by seniors, many of whom will likely not make it through themselves. It would be shameful for us to abandon them, as parliamentarians and legislators, but also as citizens and human beings.

Improving the living conditions for our seniors should have been a priority long before this crisis. I have been fighting for improvements for a long time. Before my election I was a project manager, promoting awareness of elder abuse and bullying. I worked with people who provided home care and the community organizations that provide services to seniors. Nevertheless, I have heard my share of horror stories.

As our leader has already been saying for a few days now, the Bloc Québécois has always fought for seniors' rights. When I was a political aide from 2007 to 2011, which is quite some time ago now, the Bloc Québécois already had a reputation for standing up for seniors. Recently, we made several proposals. Had they been implemented in time, things likely would have been a lot different. We spoke about them during the election, in fact.

When I first arrived in the House, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Seniors a question about increasing the old age pension starting at age 65 rather than at age 75 to avoid creating two classes of seniors. She even told me that that was a good question. Anticipating and preventing rather than reacting once the harm has been done is an essential approach for a government. That is why seniors should not be divided into two classes.

The government should have called on that strength of the Bloc Québécois, but the situation is now too urgent to talk about what the government should have done. We need to take action immediately. In order to ensure that the health of our seniors is never compromised for financial reasons, we suggest that the old age pension be increased by $110 a month and that the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, be enhanced. As the Bloc Québécois leader so clearly pointed out, that is just a drop in the bucket compared to all of the investments being made. It would cost $1 billion. However, it is still difficult to understand why the government would want to limit that increase to seniors aged 75 and over. As I have said time and time again, seniors need that help as of the age of 65.

Seniors are going into debt. Their debt load has nearly doubled in the past 20 years. The percentage of seniors with substantial debts has risen from 27% to 42%. Many seniors have to continue working to make ends meet. The percentage of seniors reporting that they have worked nearly doubled between 1995 and 2015. That increase is largely the result of seasonal work or part-time work.

In 2015, one in five Canadians aged 65 or older, so nearly 1.1 million seniors, reported having worked at some point that year. That is the highest proportion recorded since the 1981 census. Employment income was the main source of income for 43.8% of seniors who worked in 2015, which is an increase compared to 40.4% recorded in 2005 and 38.8% recorded in 1995. Many factors can contribute to financial distress among seniors, including grief, separation, illness, inadequate private pension plans and the increased cost of living. More than 200,000 seniors are living in poverty in Canada and every month they wonder whether they will have to choose between paying the rent, buying groceries or getting their medication. This should never happen.

The Bloc Québécois's proposals would enable seniors to maintain some degree of buying power and continue to drive the economy, an economy that those generations helped build. These are stabilizing measures because we need to see seniors not as a liability, but as a driving force.

There was a lot of concern when they were left out of the Canada emergency response benefit, the CERB. Still, we commend the government for showing humility and modifying the criteria to help them by excluding old age benefits from their income and enabling people working part-time to access the emergency benefit.

I should also mention the gap between seniors living in urban centres and those living in rural areas. The latter are more likely to keep working. Thanks to public pension plans, the poverty rate for those over 65 is 6.7% compared to 14% for people aged 55 to 64.

This crisis also shows that deeming the Internet an essential service could have helped seniors feel less isolated, especially these days. For some seniors, a video call was the only way to say goodbye to their loved ones. Health care needs to be enhanced yet again and then we will keep talking about the Canada health transfer. The government needs to enhance the employment insurance benefit period for caregivers and provide a tax credit for setting up intergenerational homes. We will have other opportunities to share new ideas to improve the situation for our seniors. The importance of these measures seems clear today and shows that the Bloc was right.

As for pension funds, our seniors' financial situation is compounded by the drop in value of pension plans. Entire life savings have dwindled in a month. Let us hope that this situation is temporary and that the value of retirement investments will go back up. We suggest suspending the withdrawal requirement from pension plans that are currently posting a negative rate of return. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement will help seniors until the economy recovers.

There is another proposal that we were working on before the crisis and that we are still working on now that is proving to be very relevant today, and that is the designation of private pension plans as preferred creditors in the event of bankruptcy. Since the beginning of this Parliament, the Bloc Québécois has always been constructive and collaborative and we hope to continue in that vein. Our seniors need solutions that address their problems. It is our duty to propose solutions and the Bloc Québécois is prepared to do so immediately.

In closing, I have heard, from FADOQ in particular, that our party does not treat seniors as though they were already dead, but rather as living, breathing human beings who are able to contribute to society. It is said that seniors are knowledge keepers. We should also remember that they are not just part of the past; after the crisis they will be part of the future, and we are going to need them.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

During this crisis, I, too, am hearing about the many problems faced by seniors. It is in this place, in this Parliament, that we can debate such issues.

I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this up, because this is not the kind of thing that we can bring up on Twitter. These are not the kinds of issues we can challenge the government on in a virtual setting, at least not yet.

How important does my hon. colleague think this Parliament is, in the history of our country, for debating these kinds of issues and bringing them up for seniors? How important is that to her?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question.

I think that all the parties have collectively demonstrated that it is possible to advocate for causes like seniors' issues by being here in the House. The proposal on the table is to come here once a week, followed by two virtual sittings. There seem to have been discussions and agreements between the Green Party, the NDP, the Liberals and us. I think that that is how we can advocate for seniors, not by being obstructive.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, I was a bit offended by the Leader of the Opposition's comments about the Bloc Québécois members not being concerned about their constituents. They are dealing with a pandemic in Quebec. People are dying. The seniors homes are a serious issue. I have a large number of seniors in my community, and it is important that we listen to these health rules and the instructions that have been given to us. We do not want to throw our seniors under the bus in this pandemic.

Does the hon. member for Shefford agree with my question of parliamentary privilege that we should adjourn the House?

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

I definitely agree with him on the question of privilege. He highlighted a problem, and I thank him for that. It is true that by being here today, I am representing not only my constituents, but the people of Quebec.

As my colleague also points out, there are differences between each of the regions of Canada. It is true that long-term care homes are a crucial issue in Quebec right now, and we are here to report on it.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and say that we share her concerns about seniors, especially those living in long-term care homes.

This situation has been dragging on for years, along with underfunding, worker shortages and gruelling working conditions.

If possible, I would like my colleague to talk about the federal government's responsibility with regard to cuts to provincial health transfers and the need to increase those transfers.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The Bloc has indeed raised this issue many times.

We are talking about the current crisis in long-term care centres, or CHSLDs, but as long as transfers are not increased, nothing will change in Quebec. For years, the government has failed to invest or to transfer the money that is sitting idle in Ottawa to the provinces so that they can take care of their health care systems and their citizens.

We are talking about seniors in CHSLDs, but I would also like to come back to home care, which I talked about in my speech. Although we are talking about seniors in CHSLDs, there are also seniors who live at home, and right now their buying power is diminishing because the cost of groceries is increasing. They end up living in isolation, and we know that isolation is a determinant of health. We need to keep trying to end their isolation.

Proceedings of the House and CommitteesGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Madam Speaker, I first want to commend my colleague for Shefford for her rather persuasive remarks.

We all know that, during the pandemic, various levels of government provided assistance to all economic stakeholders in our communities. What surprises me is that, even though seniors are likely the ones being hit the hardest by this pandemic, they are still waiting for help.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague the following question: Is she surprised to see that seniors have been completely forgotten in the crisis caused by this pandemic?