House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for her question, because it is particularly relevant. It is something we are currently facing.

Many seniors are alone and live on a single income. Most of them are women. The vast majority of these women did not have steady jobs or jobs with supplementary pension plans when they were younger. That means that they do not have a supplemental source of income from a pension plan to which they would have contributed through their employer.

More men had the opportunity to do so. Of course, this is because of sexism in the workplace and in the assignment of tasks in the past. It still exists, but it was perhaps more marked at the time. Unfortunately, all too often, a woman's only income comes from existing programs. If they do not have a supplementary pension plan, they also probably did not contribute to the Quebec pension plan consistently over a number of years. They have only their old age security, or maybe the guaranteed income supplement.

Poverty among seniors exists but, for social and historical reasons, it affects women more than men. That is why we must fight for pension plans everywhere, in every business, in every company, so that tomorrow, or the day after that, women do not find themselves in the same situation.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy that the member talked about the importance of recommitting to and reinvesting in a universally accessible publicly delivered health care system. He spoke of how that would help seniors in real, tangible ways. I was also happy he brought up long-term care. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

We know that the vast majority of deaths in long-term care as a result of COVID-19 happened in for-profit long-term care centres. Can the member explain why he believes the federal government is refusing to do the right thing and remove profit from long-term care to protect seniors?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her excellent comments concerning the need for a universal public pharmacare program that would make such a difference for our seniors, especially when it comes to the accessibility and cost of medications. Everyone would benefit. Unfortunately, yesterday, three parties joined forces against the NDP's proposal, which would have met such pressing needs.

I believe that the private sector has no place in long-term care facilities. As we saw yesterday, the Liberals often bow down to large private companies. Yesterday, it was big pharma, and we get the impression that they do not really want to bow down to large private companies when it comes to senior care.

We should not distinguish between credit cards and health insurance cards. Health insurance cards should give us access to quality care, and I think that we should all work together and figure out a way of avoiding such situations in the future.

The Herron long-term care residence on Montreal's West Island, a private institution, was utterly devastated. People were treated with contempt, ill treated, malnourished; some were dehydrated, left to lie on the floor and in their beds for days on end. It is disgraceful and unacceptable in our society, and we, at every level of government, must do everything we can to work together to make sure that it does not happen again. The private sector has no place in health care.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Manicouagan.

I will start my speech on a serious note. I heard several people today talking about their party's achievements and saying that we, as an opposition party, are useless. They sound like they are in the middle of an election campaign. We are not in the middle of an election campaign and, today, we are talking about seniors.

I find it revolting that we have not taken decent care of our seniors in the past. It makes no sense. Which reminds me, I need to think before I speak to avoid using unparliamentary language.

In today's motion, our party proposes that the House “recognize that the elderly were most directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic”. Seniors were the most directly affected, and the ones who received the least support. How does that make sense?

People think that seniors were not affected, but many of them work part-time because they are not making enough money. Others lost their sources of income, which were based on long-term investments or savings that have not paid out.

Now that I have spoken about savings, I will speak about income. We must realize that most seniors live on a fixed income, in other words, pension benefits that are either barely indexed or not indexed at all. Consider the ridiculous maximum increase of $1.52 a month for those receiving the maximum amount this year.

Fixed incomes cannot absorb inflation as prices continue to rise. The rent increase is estimated at 4% this year. Food prices will likely rise because of shortages in the farming industry and the fact that farmers are not getting much support.

Consider, too, delivery fees that seniors did not have to pay before and the “COVID-19 fees” some merchants are charging, often out of necessity.

Isolated people are most at risk. Let us not forget that the majority of deaths occurred among seniors. These people are not only more at risk, but live with more fear.

What did we do to help them? Not much.

Our motion also asks the House to “recall that too many of the elderly live in a financially precarious position”. I could quote statistics about the basket of consumer goods and services, but there is a very simple way to understand that the monthly amount of $1,500 is utter nonsense.

When Canada found itself in a state of emergency and the government decided to grant a minimum amount to all those who lost their jobs or were unable to work because of the spread of the virus, we all know what the government decided to give them: $2,000.

That is not what we are asking for today. What we are asking for is an additional $110 for seniors. In 1975, old age security was 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it is 13%. We have allowed this support measure to quietly peter out, bit by bit. Why?

Is it because we take seniors for granted? Is it because their voices are not strong enough to be heard? Is it because they don't have any friends in this government?

The government promised hand on heart, as usual, to help them. After pressuring the government again and again, we finally obtained a one-time payment of $300 for every senior, with an extra $200 for those who receive the guaranteed income supplement. Seniors were also granted a one-time GST and HST credit payment, and that is it.

Financial insecurity for seniors is not a one-time problem that can be addressed by a one-time payment. It requires a basic benefit increase.

I will go back to a word I frequently use when standing up for the agriculture sector: predictability. Seniors need predictability to pay their bills, have a budget and not feel anxious at the end of the month because they do not know if they will have enough money left to eat properly. We are not saying that seniors will run out and buy new cars next week; we are talking about $110 a month.

Let us consider the obscene amounts this country spends on the British Crown. I will not open up that can of worms, and I will not waste time detailing the shameful amounts we give the Crown, but let us think about what $110 a month could do for seniors living at home. I think that is very reasonable.

The problem has existed for a long time. It existed before the pandemic. The people at FADOQ are asking for stability and predictability.

The third part of our motion acknowledges the collective debt that we owe to those who built Quebec and Canada. On March 8, my father will turn 86. I do not want to get emotional, but I would like you to know that he was a lumberjack at 12 years old. How many of us could have done that? He did not have access to education, either. However, the work done by his generation created these opportunities for future generations. Thanks to my father’s generation, Quebec is a better place. Do we not have the moral obligation to provide this generation with decent care?

Fortunately, my father had a good job and a good pension plan, and his finances are a lot easier to manage. However, I keep thinking of those who do not have any money. Every time my father has a major expense, I think how terrible it must be for those who cannot pay for a walker, a wheelchair or home adaptations.

I will stop here, because I am going to get even more emotional.

The fourth part of our motion asks the government, in the next budget, to increase the old age security benefit by $110 a month for those aged 65 and more. I hope that no one in the Conservative Party will say that I cannot do anything for seniors, when they fully intended to increase the retirement age to 67. I await their questions.

Our party is also proposing simple solutions, such as automatic income tax returns for people whose situation does not change. Can we help them instead of making it more difficult and making them fill out 28 forms? People are disadvantaged, and even more so during the pandemic. They are afraid to go out, or simply cannot go out. The community services that usually help them fill out their income tax returns are underfunded and not operating right now.

How about paying a deceased person's pension benefits to a spouse for three months after that person's death? I clearly remember having to repay my mother's benefits after she died. What a way to express condolences. Frankly, I think our society can do better.

We would like to see a tax credit for home adaptations that people can get once the work is done. I could share my own story about this. It can take up to a year for a subsidy to be approved, and people cannot always wait that long before adapting their homes. Sometimes they need it right away. How about making things easy and providing an automatic tax credit for home care?

My colleague from Manicouagan, who will be speaking next, has repeatedly proposed a bill to protect workers' pension plans when businesses go bankrupt. If we are talking about OAS, we also have to talk about protecting pension plans. That is important.

We are asking for a minimum token increase of $110 per month. The Liberals intend to spend $100 billion on their recovery plan, but they do not have the willingness or decency to increase old age pensions by $110 a month. I will refrain from saying what I am really thinking and simply say that I find that appalling.

The government is preparing to spend $100 billion. What will people with incomes of $1,500 a month do with that additional $110? Does the government think that they will put it in a savings account or keep it for later? No. They are going to spend it and help keep the economy running. That is what we need. We need to kick-start the economy. Let us give them the boost they need. The population is aging. This makes no sense.

I appeal to members of the House. Let us look beyond political partisanship. In the debate earlier, some were saying that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this or against that. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois also voted in favour of a bill that does not affect Quebec because it was a sensible measure. We use good judgment. I do not have time to talk about all of the reasons why we voted for that bill right now, but I would like members to ask me about it later.

In the meantime, let us adopt this motion.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his lively, personal speech.

In northern Manitoba, the poverty of elders and seniors is heard of in every single community. I have heard about the ways in which they have suffered and continue to suffer during this COVID crisis. We, as a society, have lost track of what matters. Having seniors and elders in our lives is sacred.

The motion put forward by the Bloc to increase the OAS and supports for seniors and elders is very important, but we need to do so much more. Would the member not agree that we need to change the way we think and, as government, act to ensure that seniors and elders in our lives have better lives than they have now?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for her question. I also want to thank her for her very nice French introduction. It was very well done. I encourage her to continue practising and speaking French.

Indeed, we cannot criticize efforts to improve the living conditions of seniors. Earlier, we were asked why we were opposed to the universal pharmacare program. It is because our National Assembly has moved motions to keep Quebec from being subject to a Canadian plan, since it already has its own system. We do not want to harm Canada, that is not why we are here. All we are asking for is to be able to withdraw from the plan with full compensation. That is how the next bid to introduce universal pharmacare will succeed.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on Conservatives raising the age from 65 to 67. During the 2015 election, I received hundreds of calls, and many people who opposed that came to see me. They told me that Conservatives were trying to push seniors into poverty for two more years.

Did the member see the same response in his riding, and in Quebec generally?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

It is important to preserve the gains already made for our seniors. Earlier on I was asked if I supported further improving seniors' living conditions. This is the same thing. We will not raise the age of eligibility.

It is my view that the Liberal proposal to increase the age of eligibility for old age security to 75 years is callous. People need it when they are 65. However, not everyone needs it. It is a matter of luck and of privilege.

I consider myself to be very lucky in life. I have had opportunities that others have not had. The government needs to be aware of these things. We need to support people.

Therefore, my answer is yes.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, many seniors are having a tough time in my riding. During COVID, it has been exacerbated, but in general, even before that, the number one issue was seniors falling behind. I mentioned before that one thing we definitely need to do is increase the help for seniors so they can get by.

However, another big part of it is finding ways to decrease the cost of the things they do, such as going to buy groceries, or going to the doctor or on any other trips. When costs increase because of something like a carbon tax, that applies to all products. That really needs to be said.

I am wondering what the thought process is, and if the member opposite thinks we should find ways to not increase things, such as the carbon tax, which make it more difficult for seniors to live day to day.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interesting and very broad question.

My colleague is talking about two different problems.

Personally, I think we can provide adequate support to our seniors. There are some cost increases that we simply cannot control. For instance, we will not control the private market or indexing. However, one thing we can control is old age security. That is an important element.

As for the carbon tax, the Bloc has a very balanced position. We believe that pollution should definitely cost something, since this will help encourage the transition. However, this must happen when the transition is possible. There must be alternative options.

That is why we supported a private member's bill yesterday that tackles that very issue. Very few alternatives exist at this time. We must act intelligently so as not to increase food costs. However, the general principle will always remain: We want to protect the environment and take care of our seniors adequately. Meanwhile, we also have the duty and the important responsibility of leaving the planet in decent shape for our children. We are the sandwich generation. We are privileged, but we need to take care of those who came before us, while not forgetting to think about what we are leaving to those who come after us. This is fundamental.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech. We could feel his emotion, but also his indignation, which I share. I have always said that I got into politics because I have a capacity for indignation, which I want to be constructive, of course. That is why I really understand the situation when we talk about how seniors are doing.

I would like to thank my colleague from Shefford for making a very good speech and for being behind this motion.

While I was listening to the news over the past few days, I heard a journalist ask a senior at what point one no longer counts. Regardless of where that came from, I must say that the question really surprised me and made me angry about the very issue of seniors, because we are letting such a dangerous discourse spread unchecked out there in society.

I have to say that I heard that on the national broadcaster, where I once heard a very serious discussion on the possibility of taking away seniors' right to vote at some point. These may not be major ideas but those ideas are being floated nonetheless. That gravely worries me. I must say that a motion like the one being moved today, which “acknowledge[s] the collective debt that we owe” to seniors must be taken seriously. There are good reasons for it.

I think that societal discourse is sometimes dismissive of seniors, when in fact they are an integral part of our society. Earlier I heard comments about age. Members talked about “starting at age 75”, “from age 65 to 67”, “after 67 years of age”, and so on. We have to work with that sort of breakdown, to some degree, to make things easier, but at the same time we must never forget that seniors are an integral part of society.

I think we should follow the example of the first nations. I say this humbly, as the member of Parliament for Manicouagan, where the Inuit and the Naskapi peoples make up 15% of the population. As demographics change, these communities will become larger and larger. The way the first nations treat seniors is the polar opposite of what I have heard on Radio-Canada. First nations elders are served first at community meetings. They will have first choice of cuts of meat, such as caribou meat. That is a bigger deal than I make it sound.

These seniors are seen as assets in their communities and not as liabilities, as is the case here, as the government gives benefits to everyone except seniors during the pandemic. This shows that seniors are still being put in a separate class. In the first nations, seniors are seen as wise elders, memory keepers and knowledge keepers. I do not want to speak for the first nations, but elders are the most important members of their communities.

As a member of Parliament, a Quebecker and a human being, I am learning a great deal and I appreciate how the first nations see their seniors and their role in society. We should view seniors the same way.

Beyond these points and this lesson in humanity, which I wanted to talk about, I will say that my colleagues have made a number of suggestions that should be implemented for our seniors. I would like to mention them again.

There is a major issue that the Bloc Québécois has rallied behind for a long time, particularly during the last year and a half, and that is health transfers. It is the federal government's job to increase health transfers to help seniors.

During the pandemic, we have talked a lot about access to vaccines. I represent a huge riding with an area of 350,000 square kilometres. People often have to travel in the riding, and because of the distances seniors have a number of needs. We need more services and more local services. The request for more health transfers is especially pertinent to seniors. That is one of our demands. Naturally, we have been repeating this since this morning, and we hope that the government will make it happen. The government must agree to increase old age security by $110 a month and it cannot be just a one-time increase. As several members have said, this must be recurring direct assistance. This assistance must not be provided solely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding shortfall was there well before the pandemic. That is what the Bloc Québécois is asking for, in addition to an increase in the guaranteed income supplement of $50 to $70, depending on whether the recipient is single or married. This assistance will help support seniors.

Due to the costs incurred by seniors during the pandemic and at the present time, their purchasing power is constantly getting lower. As I mentioned, there was already a shortfall before the pandemic, and it is now a huge gap. This must be addressed quickly.

The Bloc Québécois motion is a call for action, and I hope the government will answer the call. In the 2019 and 2020 throne speeches, the government said it would help seniors. It has been saying that for a year and a half. Earlier, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors talk about the new horizons for seniors program and several other measures that may be beneficial, but that do not provide seniors with any immediate assistance or give them the freedom to choose for themselves. There is a huge difference between the new horizons for seniors program, which is a useful program, and having money put directly in their pockets. It is important to understand that.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary and the minister heard what we had to say on this topic. I hope they will adopt the Bloc Québécois motion in order to demonstrate swift and meaningful support for our seniors. Seniors must not be left out.

I referred to a daily shortfall because the old age security pension is too low. The pandemic is making life even more difficult for seniors, so it is all the more urgent to act.

I would like to conclude by encouraging the House to vote for another bill, which I tabled last November. I am talking about Bill C-253, which we will very likely debate in the spring. It is also aimed at helping seniors and retirees. When companies restructure or go bankrupt, retirement funds are cut, leading to disaster, devastation and tragedy. Group insurance plans are also cancelled.

Seniors themselves keep saying that what they want is stability and predictability. By protecting the deferred wages that seniors have earned and deserve, the government would be protecting their rights.

I will conclude by adding that it is also important to protect seniors' dignity.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I really admire my colleague's public speaking abilities. They are fantastic.

My question concerns, of course, her motion. I have a concern that research has not been done on the impact the top-up will have on low-income seniors who receive GIS. My concern is that this top-up to OAS may kick a number of seniors off the GIS, making them ineligible to receive it, or that there may be a clawback of it.

Is the member aware of how many seniors may be impacted by the OAS top-up and kicked off the GIS? Is she aware of any data?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her kind words.

The member will understand that the aim of our motion is to benefit every senior. Any number of adjustments can be made, since this is a motion and not a bill. Our goal is to make sure that no one is penalized, regardless of the method chosen to increase the benefit. The Bloc Québécois's position is that seniors' options should not be limited.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 am wondering if my colleague could indicate what logic was used regarding the $110. From her perspective, how many seniors does she believes that would affect?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the calculations that led to this specific amount with me, but I can certainly forward them to my hon. colleague.

Let us consider the underlying principle of the motion. We obviously consulted different groups. The $110 a month is a good baseline, but it could be increased.

Numbers can be moved around a lot. We used an index to come up with the number of seniors living below the poverty line. However, this index can be modified to give the impression that the senior poverty rate is decreasing when that is not the case at all. We have to be careful with numbers.

About 30% of my constituents are seniors, so if I can help just one senior, I will have done my job.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all the work she has done on the restructuring bill, which is the same as mine. I think there will be a lot of support for it.

This motion deals with an increase that would be in the next budget, but we do not know when that will be or when it will be enacted. It could be a year from now. Does she believe that, because of the hard times people are facing, there should be another one-time payment to help our seniors and people with disabilities alleviate some of the hardships they are facing at this time?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois obviously likes that suggestion, but we are talking about two different things. We always think it is a good idea to help our seniors.

There have been a lot of delays though, including the fact that no budget has been tabled since the election. My colleague's idea about a one-time COVID-19 payment, which was done last summer, in no way detracts from the other measures we should bring in to provide permanent, ongoing support to our seniors.

I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for supporting my bill. I know he is going to introduce a bill that we will agree with, so we will be working to improve seniors' quality of life.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She talked about first nations and the importance of respecting seniors. What impression are we giving of our society when we let older people suffer and live in poverty, when we disrespect and neglect them, especially during a pandemic?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.

That is an excellent question. We have a social contract.

I see it this way. We live in a society. As a left-leaning social democrat woman, I want us to help that society as a whole. I want an equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity.

I certainly think our society lacks empathy, respect and even dignity when we decide not to help a huge segment of society to which we owe a debt, especially since it is something we are able to do.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, it is a pleasure to be able to talk about our seniors.

Let us go back to 2010, and I could probably even go further back. I can recall being involved in a public meeting. It was a great atmosphere. There were a number of seniors present. I talked about the contributions people had made and cited those who were in the room with me. These were the people who built what we have today, in part, in the north end of Winnipeg.

When we talk about seniors in general, we often hear about how great they are. Then we continue on to other aspects. I do believe it is important to recognize that this wonderful, beautiful country that we all love today, Canada, including the provinces and territories within, is here because of the people who came before us and the many different efforts of seniors then and today.

Just because someone might be in a long-term care facility, it does not mean that they are not contributing to our economy or to our society. I think of grandparents who are passing on knowledge or wisdom, whatever one might want to call it, to a grandchild or a great-grandchild. Generally speaking, from birth to death, there is a contribution that can be made to our society, and all people need to be treated equally.

I know I share this belief with my colleagues in the Liberal caucus. We understand the importance of seniors. In fact, we have a seniors caucus group that spends a tremendous amount of time on the issue of seniors and how we, as a government, can provide the types of supports that seniors need and deserve.

The Prime Minister, even before he was Prime Minister, talked a great deal about how we need to be there to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, but also recognizing the important role that our seniors have played in society and continue to play in society. In fact, I would suggest that members look at the actions this Liberal government has taken over the last number of years and the results.

When we talk about combatting poverty and look at seniors who are in poverty, through the policies we have put in place, we have reduced that number by 25%. That is 25% fewer seniors living in poverty today than back in 2015. This is in good part through the initiatives taken by the national government led by the Prime Minister.

As an example, one of the government's first actions was to substantially increase the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors. That is something Liberal members from coast to coast to coast advocated for, and we put into place literally months after winning the 2015 election. The impact that had on society is immeasurable. Quite frankly, even in my riding of Winnipeg North, hundreds of seniors were taken out of poverty, or were assisted out of poverty, because of that one initiative.

Someone made reference to what seniors do with the money. They spend that money. If the poorest seniors we have in Canada are given a dollar, they will spend that dollar. They are not spending it on trips. They usually spend it on the essentials, whether it is food or medication. I will get to pharmacare a little later.

The bottom line is that right from the get-go, we have had a Prime Minister and a government that have recognized the importance of our seniors and those who are going to be seniors too.

We looked at CPP reforms. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, did absolutely nothing on that front for 10 years. Prior to being prime minister, he was part of an advocacy group that would like to have seen the demise of the CPP. At the end of the day, we were able to bring provinces, territories and stakeholders together and see increases in the CPP. That is going to assist workers in the future in their retirement. Whether it is for those who are 55 plus today or 55 plus in the years ahead, we have demonstrated that we are prepared to do whatever we can to improve their living conditions in a very real way.

I find it interesting that the Bloc tried to distort this last fall. Members will recall that the Bloc was trying to give the impression that seniors had not been given anything during the pandemic. The Bloc said there was just minor increase only, that that was it, because we did not care for seniors. The Bloc was trying to mislead Canadians, particularly in the province of Quebec, about what the reality actually is. That was the behaviour we saw from the leader of the Bloc. Nothing could be further from the truth because we provided one-time payments to seniors. In fact, we even enhanced that payment for those who were collecting the guaranteed income supplement.

Did that stop the Bloc from spreading misinformation? No, it did not. We now have a Bloc motion saying that we should give $110 to every senior and everyone who is over the age of 65. I suspect the Bloc sees it more as an election tool, as something it could use for propaganda. This is not something we are concerned about today only; we have been concerned about this since 2015 and have been effectively addressing that issue.

It is interesting. Think of the motion the Bloc wants us to vote in favour of and the fact that it also voted against the throne speech, which talked about giving a 10% increase to seniors over 75. To try to give an impression that a senior who is 75 is no different from a senior who is 65 is just wrong. There are more opportunities for seniors who are 65 to 75 than there are for seniors who are 75. If we had an unlimited pot of money, why would we give just $110; maybe it could be $510. I am somewhat surprised that my NDP colleagues have not already upped the $110 to some other number. It is easy to say what they are saying, but it is another thing to actually do it.

I have listened to the Conservatives being critical of the government on this particular file. Some might suggest there is a lot of hypocrisy there. When I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and some of my colleagues were in opposition longer than I was, they asked what he was doing for seniors. One member said that the Conservatives created the minister for seniors. That is true, yes, but did that result in anything tangible? Not at all, especially if we draw a comparison with what the Liberals have been able to do in less than half the time.

During that trying time of the COVID pandemic, we even stepped up more because there are different ways we can help seniors or those who are 55 plus. I was saying that even before my 59th birthday. I can tell members that whether directly or indirectly, this is a government that has worked with the different stakeholders and different levels of government, talking about how we can bring in the types of supports that are necessary for our seniors.

I believe that we have been very successful in providing those supports. Does that mean there are absolutely no issues out there, that every senior is happy and that there are no problems? No, I am not trying to say that at all, but I am saying that anyone who is trying to give the false impression that this is a government that has not been proactive on this file is misleading Canadians, because we can clearly demonstrate by facts that this government has been there for seniors, virtually from day one, let alone during the pandemic.

We talk a great deal about long-term care, and one of the reasons we have been talking about long-term care is that during the pandemic we have heard a lot about the long-term care system and many of its deficiencies. It was not that long ago that we asked the Canadian Forces to get engaged in provinces like Quebec and Ontario. My own province of Manitoba required the Canadian Red Cross to get involved, and it was all supported by the national government. Is there any surprise that Canadians are genuinely concerned? We can talk about the deaths as a direct result of the coronavirus and what percentages of deaths have occurred where. I represent the Maples Long Term Care Home in Winnipeg North. There were far too many seniors who passed away as a direct result, and I was glad that the Red Cross was able to go there and be a part of the solution, as an agency that is supported by the national government.

Those members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party are wrong, in my opinion, when they try to say that the federal government has no role to play. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that through this pandemic we can learn a lot and can build back better. Unlike the Conservatives and the Bloc, Liberal members of Parliament are prepared to look at ways in which we can do just that, to build back better. I believe that the long-term care facilities are a good example of that.

I respect jurisdictional responsibilities. I understand the lead role that provinces and territories play in health care delivery. Many years ago I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba and and asked the provincial minister of health many different questions. I sat for hours of health estimates at committees, so I understand the jurisdiction, but I also understand what my constituents want and the expectation that a national government has and should live up to. I am not going to bow to the Bloc or the Conservatives who say that we should just give the provinces money. I think that is a cowardly way of protecting the interests of our seniors from coast to coast to coast.

I believe that we need to look at ways we can work with those who are willing to have national standards. That is something we learned from this process. When we talk about impacts on seniors, it is not only today. I have knocked on many doors in Winnipeg North, where a senior will tell me that they have a choice to make between getting their medications or proper food. Do members know how people actually leave a hospital? They can imagine they are in a hospital, and as long as they are in the hospital they are given the prescribed medicines. When they leave the hospital, some of them are no longer getting their prescriptions, because they cannot afford them.

Think of the consequences of that. On the one hand, the Conservatives and the Bloc say they do not want Ottawa involved in this because Ottawa has nothing to do with it. A majority of the constituents that I represent and, I believe, a majority of Canadians, based on what I hear from my colleagues within the Liberal caucus, are behind a national pharmacare program. Liberal members of Parliament are behind a national pharmacare program because they see the benefits of it and understand what our constituents are telling us. That is why the NDP bill yesterday was hogwash. It is not as if we can pass a bill and then we have the program. It is just not reality.

If we want to have a national pharmacare program that will be there to support our seniors, read what the throne speech said. We need to work with the provinces and territories. In order to have the very best optimal national pharmacare program, we have to work with the provinces and territories. To try to bring in legislation mandating it before any sort of real discussions take place is wrong.

I know that the Prime Minister feels very passionately about the need to address medication coverage for all Canadians. That issue is very important to me and my colleagues, because we recognize what Canadians are saying. When we look at the benefits, we should refer to groups or associations that indirectly also play a role. During the pandemic, for example, we invested close to half a billion dollars in essential services and supplies. New Horizons For Seniors, a program for community-based projects, got $20 million. We allocated $350 million to non-profit charities. What about United Way Canada? Almost $10 million was allocated. We understand that many seniors turned to food banks and local food organizations. During the pandemic, close to $100 million was allocated to them.

Those are all moneys that have been put in place because we know that those organizations have the capability of doing so much to support seniors. Whether it is a direct contribution or an indirect tax break or a third-party organization, by working with interested stakeholders and other levels of government in many ways, we have been very successful in being there for seniors during this pandemic from coast to coast to coast.

I recognize that not every senior is going to be happy or has received what we would like to have provided. There is always room to improve. Improvement is something that we as a government have been very much open to and have encouraged, just as our caucus is constantly reminded to listen to our constituents and bring back their thoughts and ideas to Ottawa. We take all of that very seriously.

I will leave it at that. We will continue to be there for our seniors in the days, weeks, months and, hopefully, years ahead.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, I am not sure where to begin. I have to wonder whether the parliamentary secretary really believes his own rhetoric accusing everyone of being incompetent.

To hear him tell it, the Liberals are the only ones who know how this works. He is saying that the Conservatives did nothing when they were in power and that the NDP is always asking for too much, and now all of a sudden, the Bloc Québécois is spreading misinformation. He says we are out in left field, when we are simply trying to get the government to recognize that seniors are living in precarious situations, which makes no sense, and that they definitely deserve to be treated better, including a decent increase in old age security. The Liberals see that as excessive.

On top of that, the parliamentary secretary is accusing the Bloc Québécois leader of misinforming the public by saying that the government is not treating seniors properly. Without the Bloc, I am not sure that the Liberals would have actually agreed, near the beginning of the pandemic, to give seniors the meagre $300 a month. Quite frankly, $300 a month for seniors is paltry.

I will try to be quick because there are so many things that I want to say to him.

The increase for seniors in 2020 that he is bragging about gives seniors a net amount of $1.52 a month. Can he look seniors in the eye and tell them that his government did right by them?

In the throne speech, the government promised a 10% increase for seniors aged 75 and over, and it has not even given them that yet.

When does the parliamentary secretary think that the government will at least give them that?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the leader and other members of the Bloc continue to espouse misinformation by trying to give the impression that the government has not been there for seniors in Canada. I just went through a number of the initiatives that clearly explain how the government has been there for seniors in all regions of our beautiful country, and we will continue to be there to support our seniors.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary that he should be able to clarify, because I cannot seem to get the answer out of the Minister of Seniors or her office. This is the question I am getting from all the seniors in my riding, and I am sure it is a question from seniors across Canada: When is the government going to deliver the 10% boost to old age security and the 25% increase to the Canada pension plan for widows?

It is a simple question: When?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the government made many different announcements related to seniors over the last 12 months. We are talking hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars that have been there to support seniors. Like the member who posed the question, I too am very anxious to see the next federal budget. I anticipate that there will be a lot of good things in it for Canadians. We will have to wait until the day the budget comes forward.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is really important to reassure the Canadian people, who have just been subjected to another daily word salad from the member for Winnipeg North, that mindless verbiage is not what normally happens. One has to listen to him very carefully to understand how the minister of obfuscation is doing the job of the Prime Minister.

Do we remember the part in his very long speech when he talked about how much Liberals cared about seniors who could not pay for their medicine? Liberals used that line in 1993 under Jean Chrétien. They used it in 1997, in 2000, in 2004 and in 2008. In 2015, when the Prime Minister was elected and there were Liberal majorities across the country, they were going to establish national pharmacare. Last night, they stood up and shut it down. That is why they sent in the member for Winnipeg North today: to try to obfuscate the fact that year in, year out they make promises and then deny what they promised they would move forward on.

For folks back home, this is just another day in the Liberal tool box of misinformation.