Debates of Feb. 25th, 2021

Natural Resources

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for that point. I would remind all members that they should be giving a concise description of what the petition is and not adding any kind of commentary that they might have.

We will return to presenting petitions. I will let the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present a petition on behalf of constituents who have brought to my attention the disruptive actions of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, specifically in regard to his national energy program that had a disproportionate effect on the province of Alberta, made especially relevant with revelations from the U.S. State Department this week, with his actions regarding Quebec.

The petitioners call upon the government to have the current Prime Minister of Canada apologize for the actions of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his government's destructive national energy program and to affirm the rights of provinces to develop, manage and market their natural resources.

I present this petition to the House of Commons for the consideration of it.

Falun Gong

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Muhong Wang, and many other Canadians who are outraged over the atrocities carried out by the Chinese Communist Party against the practitioners of Falun Gong.

Falun Gong is a spiritual discipline promoting principles of truth, compassion and tolerance, but followers are shown anything but those principles and are instead killed, tortured and are victims of organ harvesting.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to apply Magnitsky sanctions to the Chinese officials responsible for those gross human rights violations.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of all my colleagues, we cannot imagine the stress you are under in regards to a live sitting as well as technology. I want to thank you and all our deputy Speakers for accepting the challenge to wrestle with that.

Also, this is my 16th year, and sometimes it takes a little to reflect on what has just happened to bring my concerns. This is with respect to the point of order from my colleagues for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Langley City, my friend for Timmins—James Bay as well as a Bloc member, whose riding I do not recall, in regard to the point of order from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I just watched how there were two points of order, one on the floor, technical, and one on technology that was germane to the petition that was being presented. Mr. Speaker, you have quite a challenge. However, may I suggest that whatever rules you have as far as a member inside the chamber interrupting someone who is moving a point of order that it be consistent with technology. I have noticed that people can actually interrupt a member who is moving a point of order in the chamber. It is a matter of consistency. Again, I cannot imagine the challenge you face, and we are glad for your service to the chamber.

Finally, the point I would like to make is that I have no idea whether the member for Kingston and the Islands actually did any consultations. He certainly did not talk to me. In moving forward, for all my colleagues, everything in this chamber is based on the honour system in that we always trust that members bring about those things which are relevant and true. If someone gets up on a point of order and says that there were consultations and that has not occurred, that erodes your capability, Mr. Speaker, of trust in the honour of members.

I wanted to share with my colleagues the point that if that is the case, then fine. If it is not, then please do not posit a point of order or any other claim in that fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order only because the question came up about whether discussions had taken place. I assure this House that I would not come before the House and present a motion suggesting that discussions had happened had they not actually happened.

As we know, when unanimous consent motions are discussed, quite it is the House leadership and the whips' teams that have the discussions. They are the ones who have the discussions.

I agree that I did not go and talk to every one of the 337 members of the House, but discussions certainly did take place. When motions like this come forward, they are based on the fact that discussions had taken place among House leadership teams and not with each individual member. I can assure you that these discussions did occur.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank both members for their input.

I will start off by responding to something that I was going to say anyway. That works out well. Thank you for the segue.

As to the fact that hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe was concerned about being muted, the technology people do mute people who have their microphones on if it is not their turn. I want to point out that it is to avoid embarrassment more than anything else, because we have had situations of people speaking without knowing that their microphone was on. If it is not their turn, it is very awkward for everyone. Just for the good functioning of the House, we have instructed the technicians that if someone is not speaking, they should please mute them.

The other thing is the matter of rising on a point of order. By all means, we want to be as close as possible to what is going on in the chamber. Usually the person stands and claims a point of order. I would ask anyone who is bringing up a point of order to please raise their hand, as well as bringing up the point of order verbally. When they push on the unmute button to speak and then get muted again or mute themselves, it gives a nice clear signal to the Chair, making it easy for everyone. For that, thank you to all of you.

Regarding what was done yesterday, it was certainly an interesting time in the chamber, but what happens is that the Chair is in the hands of the House and how the members would like the Chair to conduct business. We have to go by the rules that are in place. There is flexibility to respond to the changes in motions following discussions among parties, and that is where the Chair has to use judgment as to whether there was a certain amount of discussion that had taken place and if there was something that has changed within the chamber or within the members' understanding of what is there. A lot of it has to do with the Chair's trust in the honour of the members in the chamber. Without that honour, I am not sure we will go very far in this chamber. I really do rely on the hon. members being as honourable as humanly possible.

Finally, there were proceedings intervening between the requests made yesterday and today. Something went on between what happened yesterday in the chamber and today. That was my understanding. That is just to clarify what has happened.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has raised his hand. Go ahead, please, a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up to seek further clarification about what you just said.

I think that in the case of members who are inadvertently unmuted and are having side conversations, it clearly would be helpful for the technicians to take steps to mute them. That situation is different from a member trying to raise a point of order, trying to intervene or exercising their right to offer a side comment, all of which are part of the traditions of this place. These things are certainly part of what happens in the House of Commons, and it would be a very different case if technicians were muting them or repeatedly muting them in that case.

This is important, because every week members are making a decision about whether to participate virtually or to come to Ottawa. From a health and safety perspective, it is easier if many members are able to participate virtually, but if their virtual participation is in any way different from what it is in the House of Commons, it creates a serious problem, I think, for managing the numbers that can be in the House. Many more members may feel they need to be physically present in the House if they feel their opportunity for an intervention may potentially be limited by being muted.

I believe I heard you say that technicians are empowered to mute people who seem to be unmuted by error. I think that is very reasonable, but if members are repeatedly trying to unmute themselves and they are repeatedly being muted, it raises issues about whether there is inequality between members participating virtually and members who are participating in person.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have more points of order right now, and I want to clarify that situation. I have asked hon. members who have a point of order to make sure their hand is raised, just as the hon. member did now, so that I can see it, to let me know what is going on or to let me know that they would like to raise a point of order.

As far as the comments go, heckling is frowned upon in the chamber, as well as online. It is just that much more evident online.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order on the discussion that has been going on.

You, Mr. Speaker, along with the staff, have been very much trying to replicate, as much as possible, the procedures in the House. We have to recognize that when members are in the House, you choose when someone has the microphone. When members are at home and working remotely, I am hearing the argument that we should have control of our microphones, but I would like to say, as you reflect on this, that we should follow the House procedure as closely as possible. Members have the ability to raise their hands and be recognized as if they were standing in the House, which is better than continuously interrupting and disrespecting those who are speaking and have the right to speak because the Speaker has recognized them and given them the right to speak.

That is what I would like to be considered as you are deliberating on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is really important. I rarely agree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but I would agree that similar rules are not being applied to those online and those in the House.

When I rise on a point of order in the House when someone else is speaking, my microphone does not turn on until you recognize me. I could shout or do anything to get your attention, but the person with the microphone who has the floor gets heard. What we see online is that certain members, including particularly the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, use technology to obstruct and to interfere, and then attack the House technical staff, which I find very concerning, because they are trying to do their job for you.

Mr. Speaker, if you did not hear the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan after his first, second or third attempt to intervene, it would be hard to believe. You would have allowed the member speaking to finish and then recognized him. We have to have a rule about people like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan who use the online power to attempt to obstruct and shut down the right of other members to be heard. You are the Speaker and you can put that person on mute and hear him afterward, but members have to be able to finish their statements without interruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to what the member just indicated. I have great concern when I hear other members criticizing the work of the people who are making this process happen for us. I know that another member did it when he was introducing a petition. He said he would prefer that he was not unmuted in this way. We have to respect the fact that these people are working under trying circumstances as well. They deserve our utmost respect for the work that they do, and by all means, we should never insinuate that they are intentionally trying to do something to restrict our ability to participate in this chamber. We must give them the benefit of the doubt that they are working to their utmost ability on our behalf.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe that is all. I want to thank all members for their input. I will take this matter under advisement.

I also want to thank hon. members for recognizing the work that is being done by the table officers and the technicians. They are doing their best to make this work and to make sure we have a democracy that works for the benefit of all Canadians. I thank all of them for their co-operation and participation in the system.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the Elderly

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

moved:

That the House: (a) recognize that the elderly were most directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) recall that too many of the elderly live in a financially precarious position; (c) acknowledge the collective debt that we owe to those who built Quebec and Canada; and (d) ask the government, in the next budget, to increase the Old Age Security benefit by $110 a month for those aged 65 and more

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

It is with considerable emotion that I rise on this supply day to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion. We hope that the House will “(a) recognize that the elderly were most directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) recall that too many of the elderly live in a financially precarious position; (c) acknowledge the collective debt that we owe to those who built Quebec and Canada; and (d) ask the government, in the next budget, to increase the Old Age Security benefit by $110 a month for those aged 65 and more.”

I would like to remind the House that the reason I am so passionate about this morning's topic is that, before I was elected, I spent two years as a project manager, raising awareness of elder abuse and intimidation. Every day I looked for ways to improve the living conditions of seniors in my region and, taking things one step further, advocate for well-treatment. It did not take me long to realize that there is a direct and, sadly, all-too-frequent connection between financial precarity and vulnerability.

As the first member to speak to this important motion, I would like to focus on three issues. I will start by discussing the precarious financial situation that prevailed long before the pandemic. Then I will explain how the crisis made things even worse for seniors. Finally, I will talk about how the Bloc Québécois has spent years working to improve seniors' buying power.

First, I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois is not the only party to have recognized that we need to shrink this huge economic gap. During the 2019 election campaign, the Liberals themselves looked seniors straight in the eye and promised to increase old age security benefits by 10% for seniors 75 and up. They reiterated their intent to increase the OAS in the September 2020 throne speech, but it has been radio silence since then and nothing has been done yet. Regardless, we feel that their proposal is just not good enough and that it unfairly creates two classes of seniors, because poverty does not wait until people turn 75.

Now let us take a moment to debunk a few myths. The old age security program is the federal government's principal means of supporting seniors. The two major components of the program are old age security, or OAS, and the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. The OAS is a taxable monthly pension available to people aged 65 and over. The GIS, meanwhile, is a tax-free monthly benefit available to OAS recipients with an annual income under $18,648, despite the OAS.

The OAS is regulated by the Old Age Security Act and aims to provide a minimum income for people aged 65 and over. This program is not based on benefit funding. In other words, seniors do not need to have paid into it in order to qualify. The OAS provides seniors with a basic income to which they can add income from other sources like the Quebec pension plan or an employer's pension plan, depending on their specific financial situation.

Let us look at some revealing figures. When, despite old age security benefits, income is below $18,648 for a single, widowed, or divorced person, $24,624 when the person's spouse receives the full OAS pension, or still $44,688 when the spouse does not get OAS, the person has access to an additional benefit through the OAS program called the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS.

That is a lot of figures, but the point I am trying to make is that the problem is twofold. Since the pension amounts for seniors are so low, people for whom this is the only source of income are condemned to live below the poverty line.

As of October 2020, people whose only income is old age security and the maximum guaranteed income supplement receive an annual income of $18,358.92, or barely the equivalent of the subsistence level established by the market basket measure, which is between $17,370 and $18,821. In the last quarter of 2020, the federal government increased monthly payments by $1.52 for a total of $18 a year. That is the anemic increase given to the least fortunate who receive the maximum of both benefits.

That is ridiculous. Many seniors who contacted us were outraged because they felt that the Liberals were blatantly laughing at them.

The indexation of benefits is insufficient to cover the increase in the cost of living because seniors spend money on items different from those used to calculate inflation.

Recently, we talked about the Internet, which should also be considered essential because it lets them stay in contact with their loved ones during the pandemic.

The current crisis has created serious financial difficulties for a great number of people, including many seniors. Some seem to think that the economic shutdown does not affect seniors because they are no longer working, but that is not true. First, a good number of them are working, especially older women. In my opinion, this shows the urgency of the measures that are being called for. If they are receiving a pension and feel that they must work, they must not have enough income support.

I am the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and since the summer I have had the opportunity to study the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women, especially older women. Many seniors want to continue working even if they have reached retirement age.

Some seniors were affected by fluctuations in their investments or retirement savings. They live on a fixed income, and most of them receive a pension. However, the cost of living is going up for them, as it is for everyone, on expenses such as rent, groceries, medication and services. Rent and food prices have gone up because of the pandemic.

Prices in Quebec are estimated to rise by about 4% in 2021, which would surpass general inflation. Prices have also increased because pandemic-related delivery fees have been introduced, there is a shortage of some products and some chains have adopted so-called COVID fees.

The indexation of benefits for the last quarter of 2020 speaks for itself. According to the consumer price index, benefits increased by 0.1% in the quarter from October to December 2020. As I just pointed out, this means that the poorest seniors receiving the maximum amounts of the two benefits get an increase of $1.52. That is not even enough to buy a Tim Hortons coffee. I am in regular contact with representatives from FADOQ, and they have rightly pointed out that this indexation is insulting.

Let us summarize the support measures the government has proposed. We realize that the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, was introduced to help people during the pandemic and that it has proven helpful. This $2,000 monthly benefit was deemed adequate for allowing people to live decently during the pandemic. Meanwhile, old age security benefits do not even reach this amount.

In 1975, the old age pension covered 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it covers about 13%. With our proposal, we aim to raise that coverage to at least 15%. In the end, old age pensions often do not even manage to lift seniors out of poverty.

Increasing seniors' income would not only afford them a better quality of life, which they have long deserved, but also help them face the current crisis and participate in our economic recovery. This has been a priority for the Bloc since well before the pandemic, when we were already asking for a $50 increase to the monthly guaranteed income supplement for people living alone and a $70 increase for couples.

Yes, there was a one-time payment of $300 pour those who receive the old age security pension and $200 for those who receive the guaranteed income supplement. There was also an extra GST/HST payment. These additional measures are welcome in the very specific context of the pandemic, but they were just one-off payments. That is the problem. The insufficient indexing of benefits for seniors was already a problem before the pandemic. It is still a problem and it will continue after the pandemic.

Moreover, here is a little comparison that is quite striking. Former governor general Julie Payette gets a pension for life of almost $150,000 plus an expense account. Seniors would be quite happy with much less. A rise of $110 per month would not change their lives, but it would help. Seniors really feel the impact of the pandemic, and we must look after them because they are also very much isolated and more at risk.

To conclude, I would like to talk about the importance of increasing health transfers. It is also part of what seniors are asking for. They are not interested in national standards. They do not think that will get them a vaccine. There is also a concern about vaccine procurement. We learned that seniors 85 and over would start to be vaccinated, but when will vaccines be available for all seniors who have been living in isolation for much too long?

Finally, I will simply say that we must act for our seniors. They must have a decent income. They must be able to have a much more dignified life. They built Quebec, and they deserve our concern. Their purchasing power must be increased. We have left them in poverty for too long.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, since day one, we have seen the Government of Canada supporting seniors. We can go back to the time immediately after the 2015 election to see this, when we put emphasis on increasing the GIS, or to the most recent 12 months during the pandemic, when the minister representing seniors came out strongly that we were going to support the OAS and people on GIS. We have also talked a great deal about enhancements for seniors over 75 and how we can do even more.

Does the Bloc recognize any sort of difference in the economic hardships between seniors who are, say, age 65 or 66 versus seniors who are over 75?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, there are lots of reasons why the seniors we have heard from do not understand the government's determination to do that at some point. I said “at some point”, because the Liberals say they plan to to increase OAS. They made that promise during the 2019 campaign and reiterated it in the throne speech when we came back to work in 2020, but there has been no news yet. We still do not know what is going to happen with that. That is one thing. We are really eager to see if they do it, but their plan is for people 75 and up. I want to make that point because OAS starts at 65. At 65, people who retire bring in less income. Isolation, lockdown and rising prices are affecting all seniors, not just 75-year-olds. This is affecting people 65 and up too. OAS starts at 65, so the logical things to do is to boost it for those 65 and up.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her speech today and her advocacy on this issue. Definitely, in my riding, the number-one email I get is from seniors who are falling behind. In fact, I had one last night from a constituent who said that he and his wife, the two of them, got $1.84 from last year to this year. They joked they could get a cup of coffee with it.

We need to do more for seniors; that is number one. The other thing we need to do is to cut costs as well. What does the the hon. member think of the backlash I am getting about the carbon tax, as people are having a hard time paying for their heat?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the costs that seniors talk to us about is the cost of Internet services. Seniors also tell me about the rising cost of prescription drugs and groceries. They do not talk as much about the tax increase associated with the carbon tax. That is not what seniors need. However, my colleague is right: The increase based on an absurd indexing system meant that seniors did not even have enough money to buy an extra cup of coffee.

I had some calls from seniors over the holidays. They are being forced to make tough choices at the end of the month. Seniors are saying it is difficult for them to put healthy food on the table and find adequate housing. As we know, many seniors want to stay in their homes. That is important to them. Seniors tell us that they need to stay in touch with their families, but Internet services are expensive, and some have had to buy tablets or computers. When you add it all up, you wonder how they manage to stay in touch with their loved ones. These are the kinds of costs that seniors talk to me about.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Shefford's bringing this motion forward. It is a very, very important issue. I hear lots about it from seniors in Hamilton Mountain, and I have heard a lot of people reaching out across the country. They need help.

This motion would basically recognize and appreciate all of the work they do, but we have to start taking care and making sure that seniors live in dignity, with all of the high costs they are encountering.

If the proposed increase of $110 goes through, would it be clawed back from the GIS? Is that the intention, or is the intention to give people a raise on the OAS?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I have already said, we want old age security to be increased by $110 a month. That is the part that is taxable. For wealthier seniors OAS will be clawed back anyway. By contrast, for the most disadvantaged seniors, we have already asked to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $50, or $70 for a couple.

Yes, there will be some improvement in that regard, since we are aware that this measure will help the most disadvantaged seniors. We want an increase to old age security on the one hand, but yes, as mentioned, we also want an increase to the guaranteed income supplement.

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

Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating today is important, and I commend my colleague from Shefford. As she pointed out, she was already actively involved with these groups before she became our colleague, and that makes us proud. I think that seniors can once again count on her unwavering commitment to their cause. Seniors deserve to be recognized for their contribution to our society. That sums up the point of our motion.

I also want to acknowledge the thousands of seniors and thank all the seniors advocacy organizations for their work, both in Quebec and in Canada.

What seniors are asking us parliamentarians to do today is to stand up for what they are going through. One of their pressing issues is rising poverty. That is the basis of the motion we are moving today. We hope it will be adopted unanimously.

I will focus my comments on rising poverty levels among seniors; the impact of that poverty on physical health, but also on mental health; the ineffective existing measures; and above all, possible solutions. There are indeed solutions to this issue, and we must ensure once and for all that seniors can have a decent retirement. That is our goal.

If there is one thing I think we should recognize today, and should have recognized long ago, it is that seniors are getting poorer.

One in five seniors in Quebec were living in poverty in 2017, based on a poverty threshold of 50% of median income. If we look at Canada as a whole, 15.4% of seniors were living in poverty in 2017.

The majority of these seniors are people who, upon retirement, have no income other than the guaranteed income supplement and old age security benefits. I want to emphasize that these benefits are not nearly enough to cover seniors' everyday needs. Sadly, seniors are often forced to continue working long past retirement age. Between 2002 and 2014, the employment rate among seniors aged 65 and over increased by 50%, rising from 12% to 19%. Figures show that more than three in 10 seniors aged 65 to 70 choose to continue working. Do my colleagues think it is right that seniors who worked their entire lives are forced to continue working because their pension income is not enough?

I am happy that some seniors are still working, but that should be their choice and not be dictated by a lack of income.

Furthermore, poverty has an impact, especially on seniors' mental health. Poverty causes stress, worry and anxiety. It is stressful to be struggling to make ends meet, to be afraid of not being able to meet current and future needs, and to have only enough money for necessities and nothing more. For seniors to stay healthy as they age and to have a decent retirement, they must have enough income to not only meet their basic needs, but also to pay for activities and hobbies. They must be able to afford to visit and host their loved ones. They must be able to afford to actively participate in their community.

Aging already brings with it a lot of changes, which can lead to illness. People need to adapt to those changes, and that can be stressful. We, as parliamentarians, must ensure that a lack of income is not an additional stressor. At the risk of repeating myself, the existing measures are not meeting those needs and not alleviating that stress.

As my colleague said, in June 2020, an individual whose only income was old age security and the guaranteed income supplement had an annual income of barely $18,000. For a single, divorced or widowed senior, that is about $1,500 a month. In Quebec, public pensions are the sole source of income for approximately 60% of seniors, meaning that they do not have a supplementary plan. Most of those seniors are women.

It is no secret that this amount barely covers an individual's basic needs, as calculated using the market basket measure. That is not nearly enough. In fact, that measure is also something that should be reviewed. Instead of the market basket measure, we should establish a livable income measure.

Does it seem right that, over the past 10 years, old age security benefits have increased by only $91 a month?

Successive governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have failed on that front. They let seniors down.

The current government promised that it would take the situation seriously. However, the most recent announcements lead me to believe otherwise.

Does it seem right that the latest adjustment only represents an increase of $1.50 a month? Does it seem right that benefits only increased by 0.1% in the quarter from October to December 2020?

The FADOQ has called this increase an insult, and rightly so. As my colleague said, it would not even buy a cup of coffee. Is the well-being of our seniors not worth more than the price of a cup of coffee per month? I think that in asking the question, we have our answer.

The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly called on the government to help low-income seniors and has proposed concrete measures for doing so. We propose boosting the retirement income of all Canadians aged 65 or older by $110 a month. I remind members that 60% of the population relies solely on pension income as their basic income. We propose increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $50 a month for single seniors and by $70 a month for senior couples. We also propose continuing to pay guaranteed income supplement benefits to the deceased's estate or to their surviving spouse for three months after the death.

These are simple, effective solutions for addressing senior poverty right now.

In conclusion, there are three things I would like our colleagues to take away from our speeches today. First, seniors worked all their lives and deserve a sufficient income for a decent retirement. Second, rising senior poverty is not an intellectual conceit but a reality. Third, the pandemic has aggravated seniors' poverty levels. Today, thousands of seniors are in need and worried about their future, even after the pandemic.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to take the situation seriously, to take action and to do everything in our power to fight senior poverty. That is why I urge my colleagues to support our motion, and I urge the government to act quickly by implementing meaningful measures to make sure that seniors can have a decent retirement now. There is nothing to gain from making seniors poorer.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank our two colleagues for their speeches. They both mentioned their discussions with the FADOQ. One of them even said that she was having discussions with the FADOQ regularly and that it was not happy.

Let me ask you the following question: In your regular discussions with the FADOQ, did you talk about the non-taxable one-time payment of $500 for single seniors or $1,500 for senior couples that was provided during the pandemic?

Did you talk about the additional $20 million allocated to the new horizons for seniors program, which we put in place especially for seniors?

Did you talk about the $350 million to support creative non-profit organizations?

Did you talk about the $9 million for Centraide United Way Canada or the $100 million for food banks?

Did you talk about everything that each of your ridings received through the new horizons for seniors program, in order to break the isolation you were talking about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary, since a number of members wish to ask questions.

In addition, I would like to remind him that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member from Thérèse-De Blainville.