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

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, my own thoughts on this are on how much longer we are going to be in this pandemic. The Prime Minister has increased the carbon tax, which will affect seniors on a fixed income. Their gas will be more expensive, their home heating will be more expensive, and ultimately even groceries will be more expensive. The essentials will be more expensive.

The government speaks for itself on the fact that it had a 2019 promise to increase OAS by 10% and failed to deliver it. It rehashed that word salad in the throne speech, and we are still waiting to see what the Liberals are going to do for seniors.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.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, the member needs to step out of the Conservative spin room and into reality. The member is so wrong on so many points that there is just not enough time to allow me to correct her.

The reality is that this government, from day one, has been supporting seniors. I would love the opportunity, and I will probably will get it a little later today, to do a comparison of the way Stephen Harper did nothing for seniors to the way we have lifted tens of thousands of seniors from all regions of this country out of poverty.

Does the member not recall the increase to the GIS, the one-time payments or the many other positive things in the last few years this government has done for seniors across Canada?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, that particular colleague is really good at mansplaining women in this place. He does that every time he has an opportunity to speak to me, which is very unfortunate.

Let us talk about priority. Who was it who created a spot at the cabinet table for a minister for seniors? I am pretty sure that was Stephen Harper. Who took three years into its majority to appoint a minister for seniors? That was this Liberal government.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have to express some deep frustration as I listen once again in this House to the Liberals and the Conservatives debate who has been worse for Canadians. The member spoke about the price of food, gas and heat for seniors. Does the member know another price seniors have to bear, particularly in Alberta, where our Conservative government has cut funds for dependents? It is the cost of medication.

Can the member please tell me why, if she is so concerned about the costs for seniors, she voted with the Liberals yesterday to stop pharmacare in Canada?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, we have to realize as well that Canada is made up of many provinces and territories, and many provinces already have programs targeted for low-income seniors when it comes to pharmacare.

I am from Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewanians, particularly seniors who live in these rural and remote parts of the province, reject the carbon tax. The carbon tax is making everything more expensive, especially when seniors need to drive for doctors' appointments or even to get those prescriptions filled.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, recently we had a meeting with the Canadian Association of Retired Persons in Barrie, and Gwen Kavanagh came before us, a call the hon. member was on, to talk about options in housing and affordable housing for seniors, in particular co-housing.

What is the member's opinion on that?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, we should not keep anything off the table, especially when it comes to co-housing. There are great opportunities for mental health for seniors and great social aspects for seniors, and it gives the autonomy that I also spoke about in my speech. It is so important that we give seniors choice and that they have personal autonomy until the end.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today and to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our seniors who have worked so hard to build the country that we have today.

The current pandemic deeply affects them because the virus has serious consequences for seniors in poor health. The reason we have been able to respond to this challenge with an array of economic measures is that those before us left Canada in an enviable position. We must do more for our seniors dealing with financial hardship. Not all of them had the same opportunities in life and today, unfortunately, too many seniors are living below the poverty line. That is unacceptable in Canada.

The cost of living is rising faster than seniors' incomes, forcing them to make difficult decisions, such as selling their home or valuables to make ends meet. All too often, when a spouse dies, the surviving spouse's financial circumstances change significantly. As MPs, we have all heard very compelling stories from seniors in our ridings.

I rise in the House today to point out that we can do more as a country to recognize the work that has been accomplished by our seniors. In my view, we should pay particular attention to the guaranteed income supplement, which provides seniors in precarious financial situations with a higher income than the basic guaranteed amount. The GIS is calculated based on other sources of income, and we can increase the amount of the supplement or adjust eligibility criteria to ensure a higher income.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is presenting us with a measure that it cannot implement on its own in this parliament or any future parliament.

Unlike the Liberals who have done nothing since being elected in 2015, we Conservatives have always acted. In 2006, our government created the position of minister of state for seniors within Employment and Social Development Canada, formerly Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. It was the Right Hon. Stephen Harper who initiated this idea. We already knew that, in 2012, nearly one in seven Canadians was a senior and that by 2030, this proportion would rise to almost one in four.

I must admit that the Bloc Québécois's motion is commendable, but we must remember that it cannot do anything in the House on its own, other than proposing ideas and not following through. This is a clear example of how we are the only ones who have remained committed to improving quality of life for our dear seniors.

The Conservatives created and improved a number of measures for seniors in 22 federal departments, including the popular new horizons program. This program helps seniors to both benefit from and contribute to the quality of life in their community through social participation and active living. It provides funding to support local projects, pan-Canadian projects and pilot projects that focus on issues like social isolation and intergenerational learning.

Previous Conservative governments have implemented other measures as well. In January 2012, the Conservative government starting providing direct support to people caring for a loved one with reduced mobility through the family caregiver tax credit. We were also the first to support Canadians who act as caregivers and also continue working.

We recognized the important contribution that caregivers make to their family members and their community by providing support and unpaid care, quite often while dealing with their responsibilities toward other family members and keeping their job. The 2014 economic action plan helped caregivers continue to participate in the workforce as fully as possible while caring for a loved one.

We also made changes to employment insurance and brought in caregiver leave and benefits. Still today, these benefits may be provided for a few weeks to people who temporarily have to leave work to care for a loved one who is seriously ill or who has a significant risk of dying within 26 weeks.

The previous Conservative government brought in a home accessibility tax credit through which eligible seniors and persons with disabilities are entitled to a 15% tax relief on eligible expenses up to $10,000. To be eligible, the expenses have to be related to renovations that allow for greater mobility or functionality or reduce the risks of accident.

We doubled the pension income amount. Years ago, a non-refundable tax credit was created for the first $1,000 in eligible pension income. A lot has changed since then. The previous Conservative government increased the eligible pension income amount to $2,000. To this day, that is a real savings that really helps pensioners.

We introduced the age amount, which allows seniors to claim up to $7,637 on their 2020 tax return.

We also introduced pension income splitting to reduce the tax burden on Canadian pensioners and make the system fairer. Generally speaking, every individual pays tax on their total income. Pension income splitting allows all Canadian residents who receive eligible pension income to split up to half of that income with a spouse or common-law partner if they live together. That means pensioners and their families can pay considerably less tax.

I am also thinking of the increase in the age limit for RRSP to RRIF conversions. The registered retirement savings plan is one of the best tools available to Canadians to save for their future. Since RRSP contributions are tax-free under the contribution limit, they are an ideal way to plan for retirement.

However, some Canadians were limited by the RRSP structure. Even if a person chose to work after the age of 69, they had to convert their RRSPs into a registered retirement income fund and start making withdrawals. The previous Conservative government increased the age limit for RRSP to RRIF conversions from 69 to 71. Now more Canadians have the freedom to choose when they want to convert their RRSPs.

All of these measures and many others help to grow our economy. I am still very proud of them today, and I promote them every year in a tax guide that I send to all my constituents.

We understand the consequences that a precarious financial situation can have on people's lives, especially those of the aging population. We all have a duty to be part of the solution. If we have the will to do it, we can act relatively quickly to provide financial support to our seniors in the upcoming budget, if the Liberals get their act together and introduce one.

In addition to the effects of the pandemic, the government has created a lot of uncertainty for our seniors and the rest of the population. If the Liberals really intended to help seniors, they would have already done so, and we all know that the Bloc Québécois can never win the Prime Minister's seat. That leaves the Conservatives as the only option for helping seniors who are in a precarious financial situation.

I am sure that stakeholders will realize that we stand on our record and that our good intentions will become reality in the future Conservative Government of Canada. Together, we will tackle the challenge of repairing the damage caused by the Liberals and rebuilding the Canadian economy.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague was saying, but I think he has forgotten his history a bit. The guaranteed income supplement was not widely known. When the Bloc found out about it, it toured the province to register seniors. I know that because my father benefited from it and lived a bit better as a result.

It was not until 2018 that people were finally automatically registered when they turned 65, without having to file an application. Who made that happen? I know, it was the Bloc Québécois, and it was my office in Repentigny that conducted the study. To say that the Bloc Québécois has not accomplished anything is to rewrite history. I just want to set the record straight.

I would like to ask the hon. member clearly whether he will support the Bloc Québécois motion.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, speaking of history, the Bloc Québécois has never voted for a financial measure or bill that helped Canadian seniors here in the House. That is the reality. The only bill it has managed to get passed was to change the name of a riding and create a national day. That is the reality.

The Conservative Party has very good intentions, and Canadians know very well that we have always taken action for seniors and we will act for seniors again.

We will prove it in the future.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the hon. member's reference to tax credits, this is has been a cruel Conservative shell game for a long time. To take advantage of a tax credit, people have to spend the money first, which means they need to have the money to put up front. The real beneficiaries of past Conservative tax credits have been those doing well enough to cover the upfront costs and have enough income to take advantage of the tax credit.

Would the hon. member not agree that putting cash in the bank accounts of seniors, as this government has done, is far more effective and far more helpful to seniors?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is why I spoke about the guaranteed income supplement in my speech.

This benefit is particularly important, because the seniors who receive it do not have many other income sources and have very limited total income. If we are going to give our most vulnerable seniors a substantial income boost, it should be done through the guaranteed income supplement.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, speaking of short memories and memory loss, my hon. colleague should remember that he was part of the Conservative government that wanted to increase the retirement age and the age to qualify for old age security from 65 to 67. This decision would have stripped all seniors in Quebec and Canada of tens of thousands of dollars. It was particularly cruel towards people who had no income other than old age security.

Does the Conservative member still want to increase the age of eligibility for old age security to 67, or has he come to his senses?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my dear colleague that this measure was never implemented.

Not one Quebecker or Canadian lost a single cent because of such a measure. Today we are talking about increasing income for the most financially vulnerable seniors. The Liberals will not do it, but I think that with some goodwill, all the other parties will no doubt support us when we change sides in the House.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for his speech, but I suggest that he read Noam Chomsky to learn the role of opposition parties in parliaments.

Fortunately, the opposition parties were there to oppose the move to increase the age from 65 to 67 when the Conservatives were in power. Today, before he comes to power, will he support the Bloc Québécois's motion to increase old age security by $110 a month? It is quite simple.

If he has any influence in the House, he should clearly state that he will support our motion.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again tell my dear colleague that I very much appreciate that the Bloc is speaking on behalf of seniors.

We, the Conservatives, can act on behalf of seniors, and that is what we will do.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to the opposition day motion on a very important subject matter to me and the rest of my colleagues, acknowledging our seniors and increasing their retirement benefit income. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie today.

I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing this motion forward.

As the NDP critic for seniors and pensions, I will be recommending full support for the motion. Given the pandemic that we are presently enduring, this motion is important and I believe all members can agree that it is past the time to guarantee that our seniors live in dignity.

For the benefit of those watching at home today, I would like to lay out what this motion actually proposes.

The motion calls on the present government to increase the old age security benefit, or OAS, by $110 a month for those aged 65 and older in the next budget. It asks the House of Commons:

(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...

Of course the House should recognize that our seniors have borne the brunt of the effects of COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, Statistics Canada reported that 60% of our seniors aged 65 and over stated that they were extremely concerned for their health and well-being. This is in contrast to the 20 to 34-aged group, where only 28% had the same level of concern.

In a statement on this amplification of inequality as the result of the COVID-19 crisis, the Canadian Human Rights Commission signalled out our elderly, warning that as they were likely either living in an institution or living at home alone, they were isolated during the pandemic more now than ever and had an elevated vulnerability to illness. The commission rightfully pointed out that, for the most part, family and friends were not allowed to visit them.

Without access to or the knowledge to use various methods of communication, we should continue to find more creative ways to reach out and support our seniors. We certainly saw that seniors, particularly in long-term care facilities, were being ravaged by the virus to an extent well beyond that of our demographics.

If we look at a snapshot of about two months ago of the pandemic in Canada, deaths due to COVID in long-term care facilities made up a staggering 81% of COVID deaths in the country. By comparison, the average among other countries around the globe of COVID deaths in long-term care homes was 42% of all deaths, compared to our 81%. This is unacceptable.

In response, the New Democrats announced a plan to offer a senior's care guarantee. We called on the government to take steps to eliminate profit from our long-term care and work with caregivers and provincial and territorial governments to develop national care standards for long-term and continuing care and to regulate these in step with the Canadian Health Act.

The other call to the House is to acknowledge the financial precarity of our seniors. In normal times, many seniors face high prices for rent, hydro, cable, gas and insurance as well as food, medical and pharmaceutical costs. Due to the pandemic, seniors have increased costs that they would normally not have. For example, statistics show that seniors use paid delivery services more than any other demographic during the pandemic for things like food and medicine.

As a result of the NDP pressure, the government finally announced a one-time payment of $300 for old age security pensioners and an additional $200 for guaranteed income supplement recipients. However, this one-off payment is not enough to compensate for the increase in the cost of living for the elderly now or in the future. The government recognized the higher costs for seniors and said that new legislation would come forward, but has since been silent.

COVID-19 has exposed the major gaps in our health care system and the cost of prescription drugs. A national pharmacare program is needed now more than ever. The majority of Canadians are in a support of a pharmacare program, yet the Liberals voted against our pharmacare bill yesterday. It is a matter of public record that the Liberals have been promising to implement a universal pharmacare program for more than 24 years, yet they have never acted on it.

The final call to the House in today's motion is in regard to the contributions of our seniors to the country.

Seniors in Canada have made endless contributions to our families, our communities and country, and to the nature of our society. An obvious truth is that each generation is built upon the work of its seniors. For that, we should be thankful and grateful to them.

We should be honouring our seniors by looking after them. I think we have a moral obligation to do so. Unfortunately, there remain too many signs that we are not there yet. Too often seniors do not have access to affordable housing. They must rely on food banks weekly and have to ration medication.

Seniors have done their part and should be able to live out their retirement years in dignity. For that reason, the New Democrats have promoted a national seniors strategy to ensure that measures and programs are in place to meet the needs of our retired and elderly.

Lastly, the motion is a call for the government to increase old age security. To properly speak to the merits of raising the OAS benefit, I would like to touch first on the Canada pension plan, or CPP. It should be noted that only those Canadians who have contributed to the Canada pension plan can qualify at the age of 60 for this monthly benefit and receive benefits for the rest of their lives.

Old age security is the retirement benefit at the centre of today's motion. OAS is a universal pension that does not depend on a retiree's previous labour force participation or whether they have registered pension or savings plans. One can qualify at the age of 65.

We have to remember that we need stability, and most of our private pension plans are now under attack because there is no support and no protection when companies go into bankruptcy.

The Conservatives, under Stephen Harper, put in a plan to raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. The NDP fought to end that discrimination and ensure that our seniors lived out their retirement with dignity.

The age threshold, in this motion to bump up the benefit, is 65 years of age, so all seniors who qualify would benefit from the raise. I believe it is extremely important that all seniors get the increase and not just some. The Liberals promised to increase the OAS but only for those 75 years of age and over. I ask my Liberal colleagues this: How is it that they think seniors from age 65 to 74 do not have the same high costs, expensive bills and struggles to afford them?

It is beyond me why the government would establish a two-tier OAS. Either way, there has been no action. The labour community has also advocated for improvements to our retirement benefit and would support the increase to the OAS, as we do.

I will share a quote from Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE:

CUPE has long supported an expansion of our public pensions, including Old Age Security. Workplace pension plans continue to face cuts and closures, and rates of poverty among seniors are increasing again. The Old Age Security pension hasn't kept pace over the years and isn’t worth what it was 40 years ago, but a boost to that benefit would restore some of that lost value and lift thousands of seniors out of poverty.

In conclusion, the NDP believe that we must address the inadequacies of our public retirement supports and other supports for our seniors. As a start, we absolutely support an increase to OAS.

I want to conclude by saying thanks to all the members who are listening. I want to thank the Bloc again. I am hoping there will be no problems here, and that we all will support this important motion.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 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 important to recognize that, over the years, we have been providing substantial support. We have seen significant increases to the guaranteed income supplement. We have lifted literally tens of thousands of seniors, some of the poorest seniors in the country, out of poverty.

Whether it was at the beginning, in 2016, or in the last 12 months, through one-time payments and tax issues, we have been able to support seniors.

From an economic perspective, does the member see any difference between a senior who is 65 or 66 years old who may still be able, and want, to work and a senior who is 75 or older? Does he see any discrepancies in terms of economic impacts?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge difference when we are forcing people to work from 65. That is what we have been doing. The GIS is for people who are at the poverty level. However, because the people who are near the poverty level have other basic incomes, they are now being attacked because there is no protection. The Liberal government has failed to protect them when their companies go bankrupt and take cuts to their pensions. It said it was going to fix it and it did not. That is my answer. All people should be included at 65. There should not be a two-tier system of 75 and over.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the hon. member in the House, and his ongoing, relentless advocacy for seniors is stupendous and unparalleled.

As he knows, the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt disproportionately by seniors, whether that is in long-term care or in increased costs. Very early on in the pandemic after pushing the government, the NDP was able to get the CERB set at $2,000 a month because we all acknowledged that Canadians needed a minimum of $2,000 a month to live. However, despite the fact that seniors' costs went up, and despite the fact that they disproportionately had to pay the price of COVID-19, they received a one-time payment.

Seniors should not be receiving less and they do not deserve less than everyone else. Could the member comment on that?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who works very hard and is always supportive of seniors. We are having a problem of seniors receiving less money to live on, yet doing a lot of community work. The volunteer system saves Canadians thousands and millions of dollars.

To me, everybody should be in it the same, whether one is a senior or a low-income earner. If it is going to be $24,000 a year, then that is what everybody should receive. Our seniors are hurting. They are pleading and they are crying. I know the government thinks it has done much great work. Some of it has been great. However, that is what happened before. One-time funding will not correct the problems that we are facing now and in the future. What we need is stability for our pensioners to live in dignity.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, as we know, income is what determines the level of GIS a senior or couple may receive. By adding this increase, would that threshold be moved so they would not lose their GIS? Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, if one receives the GIS, they go on the provincial drug program. If that is lost, they have to pay for the drugs themselves or have insurance.

Would that threshold be moved, as well, to accommodate seniors being able to stay on provincial drug plans?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I asked that question earlier to my Bloc colleague. We would anticipate that of the GIS threshold, so that none of this would be clawed back and the benefits would not be reduced. Basically, everything would have to be moved up a bit because there is no sense of giving an increase to the OAS when we are just going to claw back the money. It does not make sense. I would anticipate that, yes.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be participating in this important debate today. I thank my NDP colleague from Hamilton Mountain for all the work he has been doing for years on behalf of seniors. It is much appreciated and is part of our fundamental values.

Before I actually begin my speech, I cannot help but point out the absurdity of the reply the Conservative member from Lévis—Lotbinière gave me a few minutes ago. I reminded him that the Conservatives wanted to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67, which was especially cruel towards low-to-no-income seniors and would have resulted in seniors forfeiting tens of thousands of dollars. The only reply we got was that it was very fortunate that this measure was never implemented. If he is pleased that the measure was never implemented, I wonder why he voted for it. I hope that everyone will remember that at the appropriate time.

I thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois for moving today's motion about this fundamental issue of how we, as MPs or parliamentarians, must look after the men and women who built our society and left us and our children an absolutely fantastic legacy that allows us to enjoy security, prosperity, justice and solidarity. Hats off to the men and women who are seniors today and who worked so hard all their lives to leave our society so well off, both in Quebec and in Canada, compared to the rest of the world.

We in the NDP, being progressives, social democrats and left-leaning men and women, are particularly concerned about all issues related directly or indirectly to the quality of our social fabric and people's quality of life. Are people able to live and grow old in dignity? Can we work together to fight poverty and inequality? Let us remember that for the NDP, poverty is a form of violence, because it is abusive to prevent people from having a comfortable home, being able to buy groceries, having hobbies and living a truly enjoyable, fulfilling life without having to make absurd, difficult choices. Sadly, too many of our seniors are still living in poverty today. There are many things that we could do to help them get out of poverty and live in dignity, because they more than deserve it.

Increasing the old age security benefit by $110 a month, as proposed in the motion we are debating today, is a measure that the NDP supports and has been championing for a long time. We are very proud of that, because it is a matter of justice, especially in a society as rich as ours in Quebec and Canada. It is the least we can do, but it is not the only thing. There is a lot more we can do to improve the lot of our seniors.

It bears repeating that this motion comes at a critical time, in the middle of a year-long national crisis caused by COVID-19. To put it bluntly, the spread of the virus took a heavy toll on our seniors, sadly. Many lost their lives, often in unspeakable circumstances, separated from their loved ones and denied even the possibility of holding someone's hand before passing. We all have to work together to make sure this does not happen again.

In order to do that, we have to learn from the current crisis. In our view, two major lessons stand out. First, we saw how important it is to have a strong and efficient public health care system that treats its workers, and therefore our seniors, well. The working conditions of our health care workers directly affect the quality of the care that seniors receive. Second, there are holes in our social safety net, and the shortcomings of the old age security program are just one of many examples.

However, there are several such holes. It is important to address all of them, but for us, it is really important that we reinforce our health care system. The NDP is suggesting a number of measures that need to be implemented. First, health transfers must be increased. The federal contribution in this area is really declining and is now almost anemic. We agree with the provincial premiers that transfers should be increased to at least 35%. The federal share of health transfers has a direct impact on the working conditions of our health care professionals, as well as the quality of care.

Speaking of quality of care, the federal and provincial governments need to enter into discussions to guarantee care for our seniors, especially in long-term care facilities, which have sadly been absolutely devastated this past year. We cannot afford to look away when our seniors are being mistreated. We need to sit down together, discuss the matter and find solutions. The federal government cannot wash its hands of the issue. Government members need to ask themselves what they can do to improve the situation and prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.

Also, the private sector should not be in charge of senior care, especially in long-term care facilities. We must agree on the fact that this is a fundamental value in our society, and that money should not be the deciding factor in whether a person receives quality care. Everyone is equal. In addition, no profit should be made on senior care because, obviously, in such cases, there is a tendency to do things by half measures and to prioritize shareholders over seniors.

I spoke about the pandemic and long-term care facilities, but I also want to mention all of the seniors who are active in our communities. As members of Parliament, we must help them, provide support and stand with them. Some older people are very active. They volunteer and are engaged in the community. They want to create a better society. Some of them help children with their homework, and others help solve environmental issues. There are also the people at FADOQ, who do an extraordinary job defending seniors' rights, among others, in Quebec. I commend them for their work.

The pandemic has also been very difficult for active and autonomous seniors. They have been unable to see their families and grandchildren. They are isolated. Many of them suffered from isolation before the pandemic, and the situation has only gotten worse. Community groups have been formed in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and here and there in Montreal and Quebec. People are urged to look in on seniors who were already known to be alone or isolated.

I have gone with some groups, including the La Petite-Patrie community resource centre, to bring baskets of food to seniors to avoid them having to go out to buy groceries. We have organized things and joined forces to give seniors a hand. I think that needs to be acknowledged.

Seniors often live on a fixed income. That is why it is so important to enhance the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, and why we must support this motion to increase old age security by $110 a month. Prices are going up. The cost of groceries is increasing. Despite the fact that seniors live on a fixed income, the price of produce, meat and other groceries is constantly on the rise. Studies have shown that prices will increase by 3% to 5% over the next year. For a family, that could mean an additional $700 a year.

As my colleague from Hamilton Mountain put it, by pressuring the government, we managed to get one-time assistance, but that is not enough. We want permanent assistance to help seniors get out of poverty and face higher costs, in particular when it comes to groceries.

As my colleague from Shefford pointed out, there is a sharp increase in the cost of drugs also, which is a very heavy burden for many seniors. That is why I am scratching my head and wondering why the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up against our proposal to create a universal public pharmacare program. Such a program would have the very tangible effect of lowering the cost of drugs. It could go forward. Liberals have been talking about it for 24 years, but they never do anything. Each time they have an opportunity to vote on that proposal, they choose to vote against it.

I have a hard time understanding why my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois did not vote in favour of that measure, which a large part of the Quebec society is calling for. A wide coalition including all major unions—the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, la Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, as well as the Union des consommateurs du Québec—has been asking for action, in collaboration with provinces. They want truly universal public pharmacare. That is one of the things we could do to help seniors directly.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Charbonneau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech.

I would like him to expand on his thoughts about women often being the most affected by the issue of insufficient income.