House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quickly.

Topics

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his question.

What is surprising is how the government was digging in its heels during the previous Parliament. It did not want to increase seniors' income. However, during the election campaign, the government saw the light and decided that it could use this opportunity to show some goodwill and increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors starting at age 65.

What I can tell my colleague is that some of the money from the increase to the old age security pension will go back into the economy. These seniors will have more purchasing power and will be able to spend more, thus enabling the government to recover some of that money through taxes.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned several times that this legislative measure will finally correct a mistake made on something that the government should have known from the start. I agree with him on that. Many Conservative and Bloc members mentioned it, and the government changed its mind on the subject during the election campaign.

Does my colleague think it is a good idea to try to rush the bill through the House, as the government House leader has decided to do, rather than taking a little more time in committee to debate and to hear from witnesses who might be able to share some other ideas on how to fix this law so we can ensure that seniors get the benefits they deserve?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question.

I think he would agree that the Bloc Québécois is not exactly a fan of gag orders. We do not understand why the government, which took a month to recall Parliament after that pointless election and then took another month to hand out mandate letters to its ministers, waited two months after Parliament resumed to introduce this farce of a bill, which will not fix the situation.

Yes, the Bloc Québécois completely agrees that we should take the time to do things right and study this matter carefully in committee.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. It was very interesting.

Why does the member think the Liberals feel as though they can make seniors wait until May to fix their mistake? Why do the Liberals think they can make the poorest and most vulnerable of our seniors wait?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Madam Speaker, I have been wondering the same thing for a long time. The only answer I can come up with is that there is a lack of will.

The Liberals have a lack of will to help the most vulnerable, and seniors are the people who have been most affected from day one of the pandemic.

It is incredible to hear government members claim that these are administrative errors that cannot be fully fixed because of technological and IT constraints.

However, the government was certainly able to arrange to send cheques to these same seniors for two years in a row. Members can see where I am going with this, but one day after the election was called, the government was fully able to issue a cheque. Fixing the administrative error, however—

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, a society is judged by the way it treats those who built it.

If the motion as moved is adopted, low-income seniors will have gone an entire year without their most significant source of income. The Liberal government deserves to be harshly judged for that.

To receive the guaranteed income supplement, a person needs to have worked and to be retired. The people whose GIS payments have been cut since July 1, 2021, are vulnerable seniors who lost a spouse, who were unlucky in their career or who continue to work after age 65, 67 or 69. It is unacceptable.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Beauport—Limoilou, Manicouagan, La Prairie, Jonquière, Terrebonne, Joliette and Montcalm. They are all members of the Bloc Québécois caucus who have teaching experience. We cannot have enough teachers in the House because the Liberals are slow to learn.

The chair is neutral, and she knows that repetition is a teaching tool. We will therefore repeat that the wording must be changed. In the motion, the date needs to go back to March so that our seniors can get their payments immediately in March. Some progress has been made, but the payments need to arrive as soon as possible, and that is not what we have before us.

We will likely be told that it is not possible to do this immediately, because there are obstacles. The Bloc Québécois sent two letters to the minister and asked countless questions in the House. Our finance critic met with the minister on April 19, 2020, not 2021, but 2020. Nothing has been done to this day.

Trying to work with the government feels a bit like a waltz. The music starts, you take the first few steps and then, after three or four turns, you realize you have just moved around in a circle. Here we are today, still trying to get the payment moved up to March. That is the problem.

I know that the Liberals will say that they want to fast-track the motion, that we need to move quickly because this is urgent. However, the date set out in the motion is this summer. I do not understand why the Liberals are in such a rush to take their time, or why they want to hurry up and wait. Why pass this motion right now if they do not want to change the date? I need someone to explain it to me in simple terms, because none of this makes sense.

The date is critical. When someone is deprived of their income, that is critical. Things can be done quickly. I know that the government can move quickly when it wants to. For example, just before the last election they got $500 cheques sent out very quickly, without any problem. I therefore do not see why there would be a problem here.

I spoke in the House this week and asked for funding for health with no strings attached, funding for mental health and transfers. One of my colleagues across the way told me that I was out of touch with reality for asking the federal government for funding with no strings attached for programs that fall under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec jurisdiction.

I am given to introspection, so I thought about it. I wondered why he told me that and whether I was off-base. After thinking about it, I realized this week that the members on the other side of the House are living in the Liberal fantasy world.

It seems like a great place to live. It is a world where inflation does not exist for seniors and grocery and housing prices have not gone up. It is a world where the people who receive the GIS do not need it. Basically, it is a world where there is no gravity, because gravity is what makes us keep both feet on the ground and makes us think about the real people who need that help right now.

For instance, a woman who is over 70 came to see me at my riding office in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac. This woman closed her business last year. She earned very little and was unable to continue working, so she applied for the CERB. She was not given a choice as to the amount; it was a one-size-fits-all payment. Not long ago, she realized that her GIS would be slashed.

There is another woman, a 67-year-old from Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, whose GIS was cut off because she had earned a little money. She was not the only one to be cut off; her spouse was as well after he applied for the CERB.

We could talk about others, such as a 65-year-old woman from Mirabel who had earned a few dollars the previous years, was unable to continue working to make ends meet, applied for the CERB and now no longer receives the GIS. Those are the types of cases and people we are talking about.

Members on both sides of the House are getting to know me, and some must be thinking that the member for Mirabel has a flair for drama. However, I am simply repeating comments from officials with the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, a Quebec seniors' advocacy group, who are describing this as a “tragedy” for the most vulnerable seniors. “Tragedy” is a direct quote, for that is the exact word they used.

People from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, a Quebec association that advocates for the rights of retirees and pre-retirees, are saying the same thing. At a meeting I had with them, they identified this administrative error as a major problem. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Pierre Lynch and Lorraine Brunelle, who sat down with me to explain how this absurd error is having a daily impact on the budgets of those seniors who need it the most.

When people who have their GIS taken away call our constituency office, we help them. We call the CRA. The answer we get is that they knew it was going to be calculated this way when they applied for the CERB and they should have planned ahead.

I spend time with seniors. They are intelligent people. They are the ones who built Quebec, who built our society, who paid taxes their whole lives, who built the houses we live in. They are also the people who taught me and made me the person I am today. They did the same for my colleagues, and I have to admit that, in many cases, they produced good results.

These people are capable of figuring things out. However, when the program was introduced, nobody was able to figure out that it would be calculated the way the government calculated CERB income to determine the GIS.

In teaching, there are rules. I am going to add this one. When we explain something to a whole lot of people but nobody understands, that is our fault.

When we create a program nobody understands, the fault lies with the government that created the program. It is a mistake, and the mistake needs to be fixed.

Our seniors are important. That cannot be overstated. Our seniors have suffered as much as anyone else. They are part of our society. They are active members of our society and our communities.

Recognizing that a mistake has been made is a sign of intelligence. In this case, one half of the mistake has been corrected. The government recognized that there was a miscalculation and that action had to be taken. However, time is of the essence. It is winter, seniors have bills to pay, and prices are going up. We must look after them and ensure that they start getting these payments in March.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, when I was listening to the member, I was reminded of the issue regarding how Canada's population growth is taking place, in particular among our seniors. It was brought to my attention that in his previous life and during the election in particular, the member talked about the age one should be to collect OAS. I believe he advocated that we should be looking at age 67. I wonder if he could tell us why he thinks it should be 67 and the advantages of that, from his perspective.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, if the member was a sovereignist like me, he would know that I commented extensively on the Quebec pension plan at the Caisse de dépôt et placement. I think he is getting mixed up. If he would like to cross over to this side of the House and support sovereignty, I invite him to do so.

In 2015, the members opposite boasted about reducing the retirement age from 67 to 65 years of age. Once the Liberals were elected and the time came to help seniors, they decided that people only become seniors once they turn 75. I think they should sell mirrors here, in the boutique.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Richard Lehoux Conservative Beauce, QC

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent and, as usual, very passionate speech. I have a simple question for him. My colleague proposed an amendment earlier about ensuring greater transparency.

Does my colleague agree with that amendment?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the policy is problematic in terms of transparency and understanding. It is very difficult for seniors and many other people to understand certain rules. We need to recognize that. As I said in my speech, when many intelligent people have a hard time understanding a rule, it could mean that the policy is not properly designed and needs more work. I think we should always keep that in mind.

That is an excellent question. I thank the hon. member.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague pointed out, we are talking about the most vulnerable citizens in the country. We are talking about retirees, people in their twilight years and people who make so little money that they qualify for the GIS, which is reserved for seniors at the lowest income level. These are people who still have to work to make ends meet.

The NDP was very proud of the fact that in the last Parliament, we made something like 16 separate improvements to the CERB and kept closing loopholes in the government's programs. I am reminded of 2008, after the economic collapse, that the government of the day made, I think, $120 billion of credit available to the banks overnight.

Does my hon. colleague agree that the government has the resources and should have the ability to fix this problem to make sure that seniors who are hurt by this do not lose their GIS simply because of a flawed design in the CERB?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. Another member made that point earlier. It is always hard to get money from Ottawa, except for the banks. Certain government offices need to be more available to seniors and vulnerable people, rather than to Bay Street.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for standing up for seniors and emphasizing the urgency of the situation. I also like how he stressed the importance of communicating the changes in the program.

Can he elaborate on the importance of this, particularly for older people who might have limited internet access?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, we are talking about people with limited access to the Internet, but in general, I would say that it is important to take care of all seniors. As I said before, these people gave their all. They built our communities. They are active members of society. They are still involved. They deserve all the help they can get.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, before I speak to this motion, I want to take a moment to recognize a veteran in my riding. On November 22 of last year, at the age of 96, World War II veteran Carl Kolonsky passed away in Campbell River. He is survived by his sons Don and Darryl, his grandchildren and many nieces and nephews. I am sure that he is with his wife of 53 years, Elsie, who passed away in 2000.

The last time that I physically saw Carl, I was at the Campbell River legion in 2019 where we were observing Remembrance Day. I will always hold sacred the photo that he and I took as we were both so looking forward to participating in the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands in World War II, in Holland. I was particularly excited to accompany this tremendous veteran, who had such a spirit of kindness that was tangible to all who knew him. As we know, COVID-19 ended those dreams. Last year, Carl received letters and flowers from a Dutch city thanking him for his tremendous role and work.

Carl was well known in the community for his fighting spirit, which was demonstrated in his service in World War II, for which he was decorated. The loss of Carl has been felt profoundly in Campbell River and by those who loved him most. I thank him for his service, I send continued love to those who loved him the best, and I acknowledge the sorrow of their grief.

Today I am here to speak about seniors. In the spring of last year, the NDP began its persistent warning that the pandemic benefits calculation could have significant impacts on the poorest Canadians. In fact, multiple letters were sent out specifically on seniors and the guaranteed income supplement, otherwise known as GIS, which is a payment that some of the poorest seniors in this country receive. We knew that without thoughtful planning, the most vulnerable would pay, and they have. We have heard from seniors who have had their GIS clawed back, and from parents who have had their child tax benefit clawed back: a source of income specifically to lift children out of poverty.

One senior shared with my office that she had lost her job due to COVID, and that her office just shut down. Between her OAS, her GIS and the small income she was making, she was barely making ends meet. When she lost her job, she was terrified that she would not be able to find another job to fill that important gap, and that she would not be able to make ends meet. She did what so many other Canadians did who lost their jobs: She contacted both her MP's office and Service Canada. Both offices assured her that she was qualified for this funding. However, she was still worried, so she checked in again and was told that there would be no repercussions at all.

In July, 2021, she found out that was simply not the case. She learned that the benefits that she had received made it impossible for her to receive her GIS, and now she is living on $1,000 a month. This senior, living in the Northwest Territories, lived in her car for a month because she could not afford rent. It was a month when the temperature was below zero. I cannot even imagine being put in that position. Not only that, but like so many other seniors across this country, because she lost the GIS, she automatically lost the opportunity to get other territorial or provincial benefits.

We know that, across this country, GIS opens the doors for other provincial and territorial benefits. When seniors lost their GIS, they lost more than just that. This senior lost a further $200 a month because she no longer qualified for the territorial program to compensate people for the higher cost of living they experience in the Northwest Territories. These are impacts that simply cannot be measured because they are so devastating in their impact.

We are here to debate this super motion on Bill C-12. It is a bill that the government promises will make all pandemic payments prior to June, 2022, exempt from taxable income for seniors, and will allow them to finally have their money returned. That sounds good, until it is understood that they have to wait until May.

Seniors have been struggling since July 2021. They were told in December, in the fiscal update, that the government would finally make it right. Then we read the fine print and found out that they would have to wait months and months until they saw that money.

I am listening to seniors. I have heard so many stories. They have shared them with me so bravely and so well. I wonder if the government is actually listening to the seniors who are living through this time and experiencing this devastation.

Let me tell members about another senior. He is a 71-year-old who was working. He applied for pandemic supports because he was no longer working due to the pandemic. Then his GIS was clawed back, which was hard enough in itself. Then, not long after, he was diagnosed with cancer. What is devastating about this is that he could not afford his medication. I do not think it is right. Any person in our country, a country that is profoundly proud of its public health care system, should be able to access the basic medication they need to stay alive and stay healthy. He could not afford the medication for his treatment, and he has completely lost hope. He does not know how he is going to deal with this. He cannot wait until May.

Perhaps one of the most terrible parts of this is that so many hard-working seniors who have committed their lives to this country are losing hope. They do not know who to rely on anymore when they are put into this circumstance and are unable to get the government to listen to them. They were assured by MP offices directly that if they applied for the benefit, they would be eligible and would be okay in the future. One senior told my office that neither her nor her husband would be getting the booster shot because they do not know what the point is. Living does not seem like a viable option in the circumstance they are currently living through. I do not believe that this couple can wait until May.

I want to be clear: This legislation will help. However, it will only help those who can make it until May. With no advance payments, seniors will continue to suffer for months, and so many seniors have already lost so very much. They have lost their homes. They are now living in their vehicles. They have lost their homes in a housing market that means when they finally find a new place to live, it will be at a much higher price. It means they will continue down the pathway of poverty, even with this remedy put in place. They have lost their health because they cannot afford to pay for the medication they need to keep them healthy and cannot afford to pay for food that will keep them healthy. Some of them have lost their lives because they did not have the resources to cover those basic necessities.

Not too long ago, it was brought to my attention that a senior had died and it was directly linked to the clawback of the GIS. After months of not being able to buy her type 2 diabetes medication or buy the healthy food that she requires to maintain her diet, because of the GIS clawback, she was brought into the ICU. Several days later, she succumbed to her health issues.

I have no idea what to say to the people who loved her most. I do not know what any member of the House could say to the people who loved her most. Because of something that was wrong in a process in a system in this place, people gave up everything. We cannot fix that. Perhaps the government has suggestions for me on how I could ever tell this family why this happened.

Early on in the pandemic, the NDP expressed multiple times that the most vulnerable Canadians would suffer. We looked at the policies and processes that were happening, and we knew there had to be some sort of stopgap to make sure that nobody fell through the cracks. Even though we talked about it, asked questions and moved motions in the House to protect people, the steps that needed to be taken were simply not taken.

I think many Canadians are asking themselves, as they look at these dire circumstances, why it takes so long. Why are we letting seniors wait? That is a question that really only the government can answer.

What I believe we need to discuss in this place is why we see continuous lack of planning when we know that something is coming on the horizon that will impact the most vulnerable Canadians in our country. We also have to get into a place where we recognize that, generation after generation, our systems continue to punish the most poor and vulnerable Canadians in our country. We must consider this profoundly and, as a responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves why our systems punish the poorest. While debating this motion, seniors are going out into the world without medications, without food, without a roof over their heads, without the capacity to pay for the heat that they need to stay warm during a very cold winter, and there are so many more stories our office has heard.

I believe that as a nation we are failing. We are failing to have a very important discussion about the ever-eroding bar of dignity in this country. We are watching the middle class, working class, working poor and poorer move further into poverty every single day. At the same time, we are watching the ultrarich of this country grow and expand their incomes every single year.

This is exactly why I support my friend the member for Winnipeg Centre's Bill C-223, an important bill that would create a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in Canada.

Research is showing us more and more every year that the ultrawealthy are hoarding money. When we look at the increase of automation and we see how many seniors, persons living with disabilities, people with mental health issues, single moms and working people, every day, are not even having the right to dream in this country that they will one day reach the poverty line in Canada, we must acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong.

One senior sent me this message: “Our GIS has been cut off and the $1,300 that we receive from the government is just not enough to keep shelter overhead. I feel weak and depressed, having no energy. I spend many sleepless nights crying. I never imagined my life would be like this. This is my last appeal to all. Please, I need help getting my medicine. Someone please get me my much-needed medication so I can continue to live.”

This is happening in our country. How is it possible now that it is even too much to ask for the basic medication people need just to sustain themselves?

I want to remind all Canadians that the GIS helps top up people's incomes to just over $19,000 a year if they are single and just over $25,000 if they are in a partnership. While this is happening and these seniors and so many other Canadians are facing devastating poverty, some of the biggest businesses and corporations are seeing the best year they have seen in a decade. These corporations are using the 75% wage subsidy and their profits to pay out their stakeholders. Where is the government on this? Is it chasing after those corporations and saying that if they are doing the best year they have ever done in a decade, how about they pay back some of the Canadian taxpayer dollars that subsidized their business during this time?

Why are we not having a comprehensive discussion about that kind of fairness in this country? It seems reasonable to me and I am happy to have the discussion.

What does the government say as we are seeing all of these seniors have their GIS clawed back, the poorest seniors in our country? What does the government say when we see families who are begging for more money because they had their child tax benefit clawed back and they cannot afford to feed their children? I hear nothing but silence, maybe some crickets singing a song.

In my office, we receive calls, emails and letters from seniors and those who love them the most. They are desperate, they are scared and they are tired. I have spoken to many anti-poverty groups formally and informally. I have spoken with seniors organizations and I have heard the voices of many seniors.

I have stood up in the House alongside my NDP colleagues and the member for Elmwood—Transcona and told the stories of these seniors because I want their voices to be heard. This includes the senior who told us that she has $70 at the end of each month after she pays for her basic necessities to cover the cost of food and medication.

There is also the senior who told me that her OAS only goes far enough to pay her rent and her utilities. At the end she has nothing left. She is living 100% off whatever the food bank provides for her. There is also the senior who wrote me that her niece bought her some food, but cannot help her buy her medication. She just needs her medicine. She told me she wonders if it would be better for her to simply die and no longer be a burden to her family.

We are in this place, and we are debating the lives of seniors as though the people who built our country, whatever their role, whatever their income bracket, do not matter. I believe they do matter. If the government does not want to listen to me, will it listen to the seniors who are crying out for help?

How about the group of seniors I heard from who told me that, when they heard the December economic statement update, they were excited. There was money coming. They arranged collaboratively to go to several banks. They went in carrying the economic update. I hope everybody has that picture of these seniors walking in with the economic update in their hands. They pointed to the line that said that they would be getting their money back, and they asked for a line of credit. It would help feed them and pay rent so they could stay in their homes.

Every single bank denied them. They were denied because the banks told them the economic update did not have a date or a promise of the amount that seniors would be paid. There was no certainty for the banks.

When I heard this story, I wondered why, in this country, seniors have to go into debt just to get the money they desperately need to survive and which the government has admitted it owes them.

That leads me to another question. When will this one-time payment be, and how much will it be? It needs to be that full income for the year. I have to say, and I have said it before, it will not fix the wounds that have been loaded onto these seniors.

I also want to talk about the many seniors who have gone to these predatory lending organizations. I spoke to one who said he has thousands of dollars of interest from one of these organizations. This senior is going to get that money and all of it is going to go to that predatory lending institution. That is another problem we have to fix.

I really hope that the government not only listen to those seniors who are crying out, but also to the people who advocate for them. One advocate is Laura Tamblyn Watts of CanAge, who said about Bill C-12:

This bill takes an important step forward in protecting vulnerable seniors.... However, this does not yet address the harsh reality faced by low income seniors who have had their GIS clawed back. CanAge has consistently raised the alarm that waiting until May for a one-time payment does not help put a roof over their heads, food on their tables or medications in their cupboard.

There is also Campaign 2000, which has been urgently calling for an advance payment of at least $2,500. Campaign 2000 has said that is pleased the minister has introduced Bill C-12, as this will surely give low-income seniors a sense of relief and security. However, they also say that it is of the utmost importance to address the current and urgent issue of their GIS payments that have already been clawed back for months, as seniors have been trying to find ways to make ends meet, and with the sudden loss of their GIS, the situation is getting more dire every day. Campaign 200 notes that the mental and physical health of seniors is deteriorating by the day, and in worse cases, they have heard of seniors losing their lives to suicide and illness.

In closing, I have no words to say to these seniors that will make this better. All I can hope for is that the government will finally take the much needed steps to get money in their bank accounts and to help them out if they have lost their low-income housing, so they are not put in a position, even with these resources, that they cannot afford to live because the rate of their rent is just far too high.

I would say to the government to listen to the advocacy groups and get this advance payment out immediately. There is no time to waste. Lives have already been lost, and there are so many lives that are on the line.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the fact that the NDP is supporting the legislation, but where I sometimes fall offside with my New Democratic friends, is when they try to take the ground that they can do no wrong.

I have been a parliamentarian for over three decades. I would challenge the member to show to me a government in the last 40 years that has done more to support seniors than this government. I am not just talking about the federal government. As the member knows, provincial governments play a huge role also in housing and health care, which are two major issues for our seniors.

I would take our record in the last six years and contrast that to any other government. In Winnipeg North, hundreds have been lifted out of poverty. We have been there during the pandemic, and prepandemic, and we will continue to be there in the future. Could she tell me a government that has done more?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:15 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the debate we are having today is actually not about him and the feelings of his conscience. It is about the seniors who have lost everything already.

At the end of the day, we have to be accountable to the people. I am not going to do some sort of chart of fairness, because seniors are dying. That is all I need to hear, and I will continue to advocate for them and fight for them. If the member wants to heckle me as I do that, I will happily let him do that because seniors matter more than me, and they certainly matter more than the government.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Madam Speaker, the situation is urgent, and I certainly agree with a lot of the statements that were made during the hon. member's comments. There was a lack of planning by the government, when it full well knew that this was anticipated to come, so it was a delay that could have been avoided.

Might the member agree that the need for a timely yet thorough debate is essential, and be supportive of my amendment not to fast-track it?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the continued discussion in here about how quickly we need to move for seniors. I definitely understand that the government at any point could have taken the steps necessary to prevent this in the long run. As we move forward, I hope all of us have a discussion about poverty, its impacts on communities and how long-standing they are. I will definitely review the member's motion and happily give her feedback later.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River for her speech.

She did a great job of explaining how the bill does not repair all of the harm that has been done to seniors. Members have mentioned the interest seniors had to pay, but their health deteriorated too. In the best case scenario, the government is fixing only a little of the damage that it has done.

Would it not have been a good idea, long before we got to this point, to increase old age security for people aged 65 and up?

Furthermore, had the government acted sooner to increase the amount of employment income seniors could earn without losing any of their GIS benefits, the situation would not be quite so serious.

Should we not have had this debate a long time ago?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, as we move forward through these, I do hope we have continued conversations about how we make sure to support people in our country so they do not reach this bar of disparity and poverty. We are seeing too much of it across our country in people who are working jobs. I think we really have to look at what we are going to do, so that people have enough money to live on.

When it comes to seniors, I think this is a huge and broad discussion. We need to talk about raising the GIS, which I agree with. I agree we need to raise that bar of dignity, which means they can work and have more capacity. I think we have to look at how we tax people as they age, because we know that people are living a lot longer than they were before. There are a lot of changes we have to discuss, but at the core of it, I want to come back to the idea of a basic, livable and survivable income. We need to make sure people have that, and that this bar of dignity is high enough so that we do not have people in desperation.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for North Island—Powell River. Her compassion and dedication, not just for the seniors in her riding but all across Canada, came through so clearly in her speech, and I think seniors are so fortunate to have her in their corner. Learning about this issue, one of the things that struck me the most was the amount of time it has taken to get to this point, despite having our colleagues raise this issue from the very beginning, when it became evident.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to what that long delay says about the government's priorities. Why did it take so many months for us to get to the point we are at now?

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I talked a lot in my speech about why the most vulnerable have to wait while the most wealthy in our country get off scot-free with anything they do. We need to have a really important discourse in this country. We know that, when we look at the disparity over the last 30 to 50 years, we see a vast and ever-growing expanse between everyday working people and the ultrarich: the people who make a tremendous amount of money. We are not having that discussion in this place.

Really, we have to leave it to the government to lead that pathway, and it is choosing not to. Its members do not want to make sure to tax people, who are making a significant amount of money, so that we can have those resources support the social network we desperately need. Right now we are seeing the cost of living go up dramatically. I think of my riding, and some of the small communities where they have seen the housing costs go up 50%, 60% or 70%. Everyday people who work in those communities are no longer able to afford that housing. We need to make action happen.

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12Government Orders

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the NDP critic for seniors, raised many issues that seniors in my community of Vancouver East are experiencing. They cannot understand how it is possible that the Liberal government continues to ignore their pleas for help. The government knew the GIS cut was going to hurt seniors, that it was going to displace them and render them homeless and unable to survive.

With this bill, the government says it will do something, but it would not take effect until July. It will be too late for many seniors, and for some it already is too late.

I ask the member to please clarify for me exactly what the government can do immediately to help seniors now so they can stop suffering.