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

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, the member's question is part of a conversation we have already had.

We speak regularly with FADOQ and with several retirees' associations, such as the AQDR Laval-Laurentides.

In my opinion, he is mixing things up. The assistance provided by the government is a bit like interest or health care assistance. These are non-recurring costs. They are one-time payments, and not always direct. For example, support programs for seniors do nothing to prevent seniors from getting poorer.

We are talking about rising senior poverty and their retirement income. They need a decent income for retirement—

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Other members would like to ask questions, and time is running out.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, the member and I see a lot of each other virtually in committee. It is nice to interact in the House with her, as well.

I had a question, as my previous Conservative colleague did earlier today, regarding tax increases. We know the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax during the pandemic. I live in and represent a rural riding, and I have had lots of seniors comment to me that they are on fixed incomes. Now the prices of home heating, groceries and fuel for their vehicles, which they have to use to get to doctors' appointments, etc., have gone up.

I am wondering this. Does the member support the tax increases of the Liberal government, and does she see the need for lower taxes?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague, although her question is not directly related to my speech.

In my opinion, no one is against paying tax. I personally am not against it, since that is what allows us to have social programs and redistribute wealth. It is precisely this issue that is at stake. How do we give a fair share to seniors, whose taxes have helped create the social safety net that should be helping them?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech.

Her Bloc Québécois colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, spoke at length about the rising cost of medications for seniors. As everyone knows, a true public, universal pharmacare plan would lower drug costs. All the unions in Quebec, including the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ, are calling for such a plan.

Why did my colleague vote against a public, universal pharmacare plan yesterday?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, that question has nothing to do with today's topic, but I will answer anyway.

If there is one area where the federal government should be taking action, it is the cost of prescription drugs. That said, it will be up to the provinces to establish their own plans. As a Quebecker and a union activist, I am proud to have fought for so many years to have that kind of plan in Quebec.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

King—Vaughan Ontario

Liberal

Deb Schulte LiberalMinister of Seniors

Madam Speaker, I would first like to respectfully acknowledge that I am situated on traditional territories and treaty lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, the Anishinabe of the Williams Treaties First Nations, the Huron-Wendat and the Métis Nation.

Second, I will be splitting my time with my parliamentary secretary, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

I thank the Bloc Québécois and my hon. colleagues for their shared interest in discussing how we can best support seniors in Quebec and across Canada. I appreciate their speeches so far today, although I disagree with some of their assertions regarding the support the government has provided for seniors, confusing the indexing of pensions with the extra COVID-19 support that was provided.

I always appreciate opportunities to discuss what we are doing for seniors and to have parliamentarians recognize the challenges they are facing, especially during the pandemic. The Bloc Québécois has pointed out some challenges that seniors face in its motion today. Since day one, we have been working to address those challenges with action. We, as a government, have long seen that seniors need an active federal government working closely with provincial, territorial and local governments to deliver important benefits and programs for them.

Our Liberal government is committed to strengthening Canadian seniors' financial security and health care, and improving their quality of life. Some of our first actions as a government were restoring the age of eligibility for old age security to 65 years of age from 67 years of age, increasing the guaranteed income supplement for nearly 900,000 low-income single seniors, and enhancing the Canada pension plan by 50% for future retirees. That increase was matched in the Quebec pension plan.

Since the pandemic hit early last year, we have been busy supporting Canadians, including seniors. More than four million seniors received an extra GST credit. We provided a one-time payment to seniors eligible for OAS, plus extra support for those eligible for the GIS. For a low-income couple, it added up to over $1,500 in tax-free support. Altogether, we delivered over twice as much direct financial assistance to seniors as we committed to in our platform. That provided $3.8 billion of direct financial support to seniors, and that work continues.

In the last election, we committed to Canadians that we would increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and up. Our proposal recognizes that as seniors age, their financial security decreases and their needs increase. They are more likely to outlive their savings, have disabilities, be unable to work and be widowed, all while their health care costs are rising. For seniors over 75, few work, and those who do have a median employment income of only $720; half have a disability, and half of these are severe; 57% are women, and four in 10 of these are widows; 59% have incomes below $30,000 and 39% receive the guaranteed income supplement. These are real pressures on older seniors' quality of life.

Our government recognizes their needs and will help address them by increasing the old age security amount by 10% for seniors aged 75 and up. This will be the first permanent increase to the OAS pension since 1973, other than adjustments due to inflation. We developed these initiatives by listening to seniors; however, the Bloc fails to recognize the actions that we have been taking since the beginning of the pandemic to support seniors.

The member for Beloeil—Chambly, the Bloc leader, has made comments that mislead seniors. We heard that again today, in speeches about what the government has been doing to support seniors with regard to their personal finances. He told seniors that they got practically nothing in support during the pandemic. In fact, a low-income senior got over $1,500 in tax-free support. That is far from nothing, and provided a significant boost to the most vulnerable seniors struggling with added costs during the pandemic.

The Bloc has also told seniors that their pensions are constantly losing their buying power. In fact, their public pensions are indexed to protect their buying power against inflation. The Bloc should not be trying to mislead seniors when they are the most vulnerable during the pandemic. I welcome good debates about how to best support seniors, but they need to be based on facts.

The Bloc has also failed to recognize seniors' broader needs during the pandemic and how the federal government has been stepping up to address those needs. Let us start with the public health.

We have provided provinces and territories billions of dollars to help protect Canadians' health during the pandemic. We have procured billions of pieces of personal protective equipment. Seniors have suffered the most from the effects of COVID-19 and have paid the highest price with their lives, none more so than those living in long-term care. While many of these facilities have been able to keep their residents safe, others have revealed the weaknesses in the system and have shocked the nation. There is clearly a call for action to address these issues and our government has stepped up to help.

Provinces and territories have the jurisdiction for long-term care and we are working together with them to better protect seniors and staff in the long-term care system. We recently added $1 billion to the funding to assist with infection prevention in long-term care. We have expanded eligibility for federal infrastructure funds so they can be used to modernize and renovate long-term care facilities. We are also working to set new national standards with the provinces and territories, and we will establish new offences and penalties in the Criminal Code related to elder abuse and neglect.

To help address acute labour shortages in long-term care and home care, we are funding training and work placements for 4,000 new personal support worker interns. We have provided $3 billion to the provinces and territories to increase the wages of long-term care workers and other low-income essential workers. Furthermore, we have provided the provinces with over 22 million rapid tests, with more on the way. We know that rapid tests are an important way to protect seniors in long-term care homes, according to a federal expert panel. By strengthening screening, rapid tests can save lives and give worried families greater confidence that their loved ones are safe.

Another tool to help keep seniors safe in Canada is our vaccine plan. Canada has distributed over 1.8 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to provinces and territories. By the end of March, we are on track to receive six million doses. Following that, we will be receiving millions of doses in April. We will be seeing seniors and essential workers getting vaccinated as we move into spring.

The hard work that is being done in the provinces, cities and by Canadians over the last few months has worked. Cases are down, hospitalizations are down and the number of deaths is down. However, the threat from variants is real, so we have to keep going with strong public health measures; otherwise, we could see a third wave that is worse than the second before vaccines have been rolled out and our seniors can be protected.

Our government will always be there as a partner with provinces to keep people safe, working together with a team Canada approach, and that is what will get us through this crisis.

I would like to say a few words about seniors' mental health. We cannot let physical distancing become social distancing. We need to find new ways to help seniors stay connected while they are staying safe. Through the new horizons for seniors program, we added an additional $20 million in support. The federal government has funded over 2,000 community projects across Canada. Many of these projects have helped seniors connect online for the first time by providing tablets and help on how to use them, and group activities like exercise classes. Others helped seniors continue to access critical services like medical appointments, food and crisis support.

Looking ahead, our government has an ambitious agenda for seniors. That includes increasing old-age security by 10% once a senior turns 75; taking additional action to help people stay in their homes longer; providing a new Canadians disability benefit modelled after the GIS, ensuring that everyone has access to a family doctor or primary care team; continuing to support Canadians with mental illness and substance-use challenges; and further increasing access to mental health resources. We are also accelerating work to achieve national universal pharmacare.

We know there is more to do and, as a government, we are doing that work. I look forward to the debate today and to answering some questions now.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, a number of things my hon. colleague mentioned in his speech were very interesting.

However, when it comes time to put food on the table and buy winter clothing, these things do not help seniors take out their debit cards and pay for the necessities of life. Yes, we should help people 75 and over. However, seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 have the same needs.

I would like to know why the government is so reluctant to give seniors an appropriate amount starting at age 65 and to pay them directly rather than distribute the money all around them.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Deb Schulte Liberal King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for addressing the fact that all seniors aged 65 and up have been facing increased expenses and issues, especially during the pandemic. That is why the government stepped up to provide the additional $300 for all seniors aged 65 who are on the OAS. Those who were on the guaranteed income supplement got an additional $200. As has been mentioned, a low-income senior couple, those who are struggling the most, received over $1,500 in direct tax-free support. That was significant support for our most vulnerable seniors, who definitely were struggling during the pandemic.

I want to make sure that we recognize that the government was and has been focused on the pandemic response and making sure that we are supporting seniors, not just with direct financial support but also with a full range of community support programs. Through new horizons for seniors and our emergency community support program, we have been actively engaged in supporting seniors now and—

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The minister will be able to add to that because there is a list of people who want to ask questions.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about direct support payments of $300, $500 and roughly $1,500. Many seniors in my riding find that woefully inadequate to support them during this crisis, especially when they found out that students between the ages of 15 and 17 were getting roughly $8,000. That amounted to about $700 million in support. Many of them were rightly upset by that, because they had contributed their whole lives to this country, yet 15- to 17-year-olds have their whole lives to contribute ahead of them.

What would the minister say to seniors in my riding who are upset by the disproportionate amount of money they receive compared with 15- to 17-year-olds?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Deb Schulte Liberal King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, obviously we did not see one group being supported at the expense of another; we were supporting all of the different needs of Canadians across the country. That is why we supported families with a Canada child benefit increase and a GST top-up for low and middle-income Canadians. We are helping our students who are having an incredibly difficult time getting jobs. We also provided seniors who were working the opportunity, even if they continued to get their pensions, to access our emergency support programs if they had lost their income.

I want to make sure that the member knows we are supporting all Canadians, and not one against the other.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the work she does.

My quick question is this. With all of the measures the Liberal government is boasting that it has brought in, why do we have so many seniors across Canada aged 65 and up who are pleading and crying for help?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Deb Schulte Liberal King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy on behalf of seniors. I really enjoy the opportunity to work with him.

We are very aware of the concerns that seniors are raising about their financial security, their access to medical services and their access to services while they are isolating at home. This is a preoccupation of the government. As members can see, we have been bringing forward many programs to address those concerns.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors

Madam Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors and as the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, I am pleased to take the floor today and participate in this important discussion on seniors.

I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

Our work to help seniors began in 2016, when our government's first act was to adopt a tax cut for the middle class in order to reduce personal income taxes. This allowed some single Canadians to save an average of $330, and some couples to save $540, per year.

Seniors depend on solid public pensions, and our government is committed to enhancing them. We eliminated the increase in the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement proposed by the previous Conservative government, bringing it back down from 67 to 65. This put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of 65-year-old and 66-year-old seniors.

To help low-income seniors, we increased the guaranteed income supplement by $947 and, to help low-income older workers keep a larger portion of their benefits, we increased the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, allowing them to earn up to $5,000 without losing any of their benefits and to obtain a partial exemption for the next $10,000 in earnings. Many seniors wish to continue working after age 65.

Many Canadian seniors have had to face serious health, economic and social challenges because of COVID-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been helping seniors with non-taxable payments and enhanced community assistance.

These measures are based on the previous programs introduced in response to COVID-19, such as the GST supplement and investments in community organizations that provide essential services, such as food and drug delivery.

As we face this unprecedented challenge, our government continues to be there for Canadians and seniors every step of the way. Our government has provided seniors with twice as much financial assistance as we promised during the election. We were able to do so by issuing non-taxable one-time GST credits in April and old age security and guaranteed income security payments in July. We invested $3.8 billion, which is far more than the $1.56 billion we campaigned on. This allowed us to help seniors of all ages earlier on by providing the more vulnerable with greater support.

In addition, we increased the basic personal amount twice. Once these increases are fully in place in 2023, 4.3 million seniors will benefit, and 465,000 of them will pay no federal income tax at all. Each year, single Canadians will save around $300 and couples around $600.

We know that COVID-19 has increased the cost of living and that seniors’ lives have become more difficult. Because of the restrictions, many of them are grappling with higher costs for food and services. They pay more for the same prescription drugs plus an additional premium for delivery. Their savings have taken a hit.

Our announcement of the one-time tax-free payment in July provided direct assistance for the most vulnerable seniors of all ages, in particular those receiving the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, for up to $500 extra for seniors receiving both. Combined with the GST credit payment, couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement will receive on average $1,500 in non-taxable direct assistance.

Our government has provided seniors with financial support during this crisis, and we will continue to support seniors and all Canadians during the pandemic.

I would now like to set the record straight and address some of the points raised by my colleagues.

In recent months, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and certain members have made several misleading statements concerning the financial situation of seniors. The leader of the Bloc mentioned many times that seniors have received practically no financial support during the pandemic and that their purchasing power is shrinking.

That is not true. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is playing political games and frightening seniors by spreading false information.

Our role is to support seniors at their most vulnerable, and we know that they are the most vulnerable during this pandemic.

Let us set the record straight once and for all. The myth that has been spread is that we failed to take the necessary measures to protect seniors’ purchasing power. That should never happen. They claim that seniors have received practically no help at all since the beginning of the pandemic. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said that on Radio-Canada.

In fact, low-income couples received more than $1,500 in support from the Government of Canada to cover additional costs during the pandemic, thanks to a supplementary GST credit payment in April and one-time old age security and guaranteed income security payments in July.

Under the law, public pensions, including old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, are adjusted to protect seniors’ purchasing power against inflation. The leader of the Bloc and my colleagues know that. Old age security benefits are adjusted in January, April, July and October, and Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits are adjusted once a year. It is a matter of accounting.

The Bloc Québécois has also been spreading another myth to the effect that, during the pandemic, seniors’ purchasing power increased by a mere 61¢. I believe that my colleague used another number, specifically $1.38. The leader of the Bloc said that in the House of Commons on December 1, 2020. In fact, to support seniors during the pandemic, our government made tax-free payments through GST credits in March and through old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments in July. For a low-income couple, that comes out to more than $1,500. Old age security is adjusted on the basis of inflation four times a year in order to preserve seniors’ purchasing power.

The leader of the Bloc is deliberately misleading seniors by presenting this adjustment as support during the pandemic and making the amount seem like an insult. He is playing politics at seniors’ expense. That is why we will be voting against this motion.

Our government is determined to increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. We were already working on it when the pandemic hit. As seniors age, their needs increase. Our proposal for seniors 75 and up meets these needs, even if the Bloc has its own proposals. Our government’s plan will raise tens of thousands of low-income seniors out of poverty.

I recall that the Bloc voted against our throne speech, which included our proposal to increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. Today they are saying that nothing was done. Seniors have earned our respect and admiration. They deserve the best quality of life possible.

I am eager to take questions.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, which gives me an opportunity to set the record straight about a few things. I am not sure seniors will be too pleased to hear him say they are doing fine and everything is okay.

I would like to point out that the measures the parliamentary secretary talked about are temporary. The emergency response benefit is $2,000 per month, but OAS is less than that. In September 2019, the Prime Minister said that lots of seniors were still having trouble paying their bills as they got older. He said that was unacceptable.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me why he is so reluctant to introduce permanent measures for seniors instead of temporary ones.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I doubt seniors will be pleased to hear you say things I never said. I never said that everything was okay and that seniors are doing fine. They are the most vulnerable people during this pandemic.

What I did say is that we should all work together to help seniors, that they must not be misled, and that they should be given the right numbers.

We also pledged to increase OAS by 10% for seniors 75 and up. That was reiterated in the throne speech.

Let us deal with the COVID-19 crisis and work together for our seniors.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the parliamentary secretary to address his comments to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Madam Speaker, in his remarks, the hon. parliamentary secretary referenced the struggles that seniors have gone through from isolation during the pandemic. We have all heard from our constituents about this, and we know that 96% of fatalities from COVID-19 have been among those 60 and older.

At the same time, his counterpart, the Minister of Seniors, has said in her remarks that the Liberal government's vaccination plan has “worked”. We know the Prime Minister has said much the same.

Manitoba and other provinces are saying they may soon start vaccinating seniors who are 95 or over, hopefully. Ontario is predicting it will not vaccinate people who are 60 or over until July. However, our neighbours to the south have been vaccinating those 60 and older for weeks now.

Could the member confirm whether he believes the government's vaccination plan has “worked” for Canadian seniors?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Seniors are a priority for our government, and that includes getting them vaccinated. Every province believes that seniors should be the first to be vaccinated.

We have an obligation to provide them with vaccines, and that is what we are doing. We are distributing to each province and territory the maximum number of doses necessary so that our seniors are priority vaccine recipients.

We are working with the provinces and territories so that our seniors are looked after in the best way possible, as quickly as possible.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, one of the most difficult things I have had to experience is being at a door with a senior citizen who could not go out because she had no teeth. I cannot call the Liberal government and ask it to help a senior citizen who has given her best to this country her whole life. I have to call charities, asking for support. Is there a dental care plan from the government? No. Pharmacare is another broken promise.

The Conservatives tried to raise the age for old age pension to 67, and the Liberals did them one better and said that even though they love all seniors, they have to be over 75 to get an increase. We have seniors who continue to live in poverty, and the member voted against the national pharmacare plan, which has been on the books for the Liberals since 1993, when seniors in my riding were in their early thirties. I know seniors who have to break their pills in half or go without them because of the Liberals' indifference.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

A brief answer from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Of course, the older seniors get, the more likely they are to run out of savings. There are also more widows aged 75 and over. That is not to mention the health care costs associated with the fact that their health is deteriorating and their homes need to be adapted to make them more accessible.

Very few seniors aged 75 and older are working. Half of the seniors in this age group have a disability and, in 50% of cases, a serious one. Women account for 50% of seniors with a disability.

Of course, seniors aged 65 and over are extremely important, but they are more independent, financially and otherwise, than seniors over the age of 75.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

February 25th, 2021 / 11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

I have a great respect for our seniors, who have helped build this country. It is my strong belief that we as Canadians and legislators owe a lot to our seniors. We don’t have to look far to see their contributions in our families, our communities and all around us. They deserve not only our respect, but our support in their later years in life.

I am pleased to see that the motion recognizes the responsibility and duty we have to care for them. It also acknowledges some of the immense challenges that our seniors have faced over this past year because of the pandemic. From social challenges to health and financial challenges, it has been without a doubt a very difficult year. It is our seniors who have been disproportionately affected by this crisis, and it is our seniors who are most vulnerable to the impacts of the government’s failure to respond adequately to this crisis.

Too many seniors and their families know first-hand that delays in vaccine procurement have a real human life cost, just as delays in procuring PPE and rapid testing hindered our ability to better protect our seniors, specifically those living in long-term care homes. The crisis in long-term care demands action and collaboration from every level of government to improve the quality of care for our seniors.

The pandemic restrictions on seniors have had a significant impact on mental health. Separated and isolated from family and friends, our seniors have missed important milestones and social connections, even something as simple as sitting and holding someone’s hand. We cannot ignore the significant impact of this pandemic on their quality of life.

We also know that seniors have not been immune to the financial implications of this pandemic. Seniors are facing many unanticipated costs because of the pandemic. Many are feeling the squeeze on their fixed income, and costs certainly have not decreased for our seniors during the pandemic.

In fact, the Prime Minister’s own carbon tax is costing seniors more. Not only did he hike up the carbon tax during this crisis, he also made the announcement that he would be tripling it. It is a tax hike that is costing seniors more for essentials such as gas, groceries and even home heating. It is a punitive tax that is even costlier for rural seniors like those who live in my riding.

The impact of COVID on Canada’s seniors is clearly immense, and for seniors who were already struggling pre-pandemic, the new challenges brought on by the pandemic have been an added layer of stress. While we know that Canada’s seniors are a very broad demographic with diverse needs and differing priorities, the reality is that too many are struggling to make ends meet, and they are slipping through the cracks. We need to do better for those seniors.

The Conservatives support increasing financial support for low-income seniors. They should not have to make a difficult decision among home heating, groceries and other necessities.

The proposed motion from our colleagues in the Bloc would achieve the goal of putting more money in the pockets of low-income seniors to spend on their own individual needs. However, it is important to acknowledge that the motion casts a wider net. It calls on the government to increase the old age security benefit for seniors. This benefit is delivered not only to low-income seniors, but also to higher-income seniors. The OAS benefit does not start to get clawed backed until a senior’s income threshold is around $79,000, and the benefit is only fully clawed back once a senior’s income is about $128,000.

The proposed increase to old age security is not the most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars, if the intended goal is to support low-income seniors. That should be our driving force: getting money into the hands of those who need it the most.

This is particularly important in light of the reality of the government spending billions and billions of dollars, and it has done that while failing to deliver a budget in not just one year but two. Today, Canadians are still waiting on a real plan to restart the economy and to exit this crisis.

With all of that in mind, we have a responsibility to also be wise with taxpayer dollars. There need to be meaningful supports delivered to seniors whose budgets are already stretched further than they can manage. This needs to be done while also ensuring the long-term viability of our social programs. That is one reason we are disappointed to see that the motion uses old age security benefits instead of utilizing the guaranteed income supplement. With the maximum income of a single recipient at $18,648, GIS would be a much more targeted approach to improving income security for low-income seniors. This would be the most fiscally responsible approach to getting money into the hands of those seniors who need it the most.

Ultimately, Conservatives do support ensuring that our seniors have income security. We have a proud record of putting money back into the pockets of low-income seniors and we remain committed to improving their well-being and financial security. We recognize that a dollar is better placed in the pockets of a low-income senior to spend on their individual needs and their individual priorities.

Greater direct financial supports will help low-income seniors keep their heads above water, and having the income security to spend on their individual needs will also give seniors greater autonomy. For some seniors, that autonomy could be the difference between aging in place or moving into a care home. I think of a senior who only needs help with lawn care or shovelling the snow to be able to stay in their own home, or a senior who needs some light housekeeping help. Giving seniors greater income security and autonomy also gives them a greater quality of life and a greater dignity in living.

That is why Conservatives support an increase in direct financial assistance for low-income seniors. We know that too many seniors are struggling, and we call on the government to deliver meaningful support to help seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. It is the time for seniors to be a greater priority for the Liberal government. Shamefully, it has been clear that seniors have never been a priority for the Prime Minister. It is evident in the fact that it took him three years to appoint a seniors minister, and that was only done following sustained pressure from Conservatives, stakeholders and Canadians.

The government's failure to deliver on its election promise and its recycled throne speech promise to increase OAS also speaks to its priorities. It is yet another example of the Liberal government over-promising and under-delivering when it comes to our seniors. The government needs to move away from announcements and move toward meaningful action. Our seniors deserve to live in dignity. An announcement with no plan to deliver on it and no follow-through does nothing to put food on the table, nothing to put gas in the tank and nothing to keep the heat on. Seniors on a fixed income who are struggling to get by need more than empty words and empty promises: They need meaningful action from the Liberal government. They deserve income security. They need to be a priority.

This past year, COVID has revealed many shortcomings when it comes to support for our seniors. The pandemic has demanded that we make seniors a priority, but more important than that, our duty and our responsibility to care for our seniors demand it.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for her speech, which was very interesting, especially the part on direct assistance. That is really what she focused on.

Earlier, I also listened to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, who seemed to be giving us a long list or ad about certain support measures provided by the government over the past year.

For the benefit of everyone, including the parliamentary secretary, I would like my colleague to further explain the difference between one-time measures and direct assistance to seniors, which she spoke about.