Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
I have the privilege of rising today to speak to Bill C‑12, which seeks to support low-income seniors whose guaranteed income supplement was affected by pandemic benefits.
I will use my time today to speak about the measures in the bill and the reasons why the government has introduced them to support vulnerable seniors. I will also speak about other measures that our government has taken to assist seniors. I am proud of these measures, which are making a difference in the lives of seniors in my riding of Kings—Hants.
My colleagues and, of course, all Canadians are aware of what we have been dealing with over the past two years. Our government has been there to support all Canadians, including seniors. We made a one-time $300 payment to seniors who were receiving old age security benefits and a $500 payment to those who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
These benefits were not considered income for the purposes of calculating old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. Of course we had work-related benefits, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and now the Canada worker lockdown benefit to support workers whose jobs were directly affected by COVID‑19.
Sometimes these measures created a situation where low-income seniors who were working before the pandemic lost access to the guaranteed income supplement because their income exceeded the eligibility threshold. Given the circumstances, it seems that all members support the principle of eliminating repercussions on the vulnerable seniors we are trying to support.
I think it is also important to talk about the measures that the government has introduced since 2015, measures that have made a difference in the lives of seniors across the country, including a positive difference in the lives of seniors in my riding of Kings—Hants.
First, it is sometimes easy to forget that it was the Conservatives who increased the age of eligibility for old age security. We restored the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 67 to 65, putting thousands of dollars back in the pockets of seniors.
Our government increased the GIS by 10% for seniors, improving the financial security of roughly 900,000 vulnerable seniors. We are permanently increasing the old age security pension by 10% for people 75 and older in July, which means that those who receive the full pension will receive roughly $766 the first year.
It is also important to recognize the platform commitment we made to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for individuals who qualify, and up to $750 for couples. I want to give an example. The Speaker and I both reside in and represent rural Nova Scotian ridings. There are individuals, particularly single senior women in my riding, who are sometimes vulnerable in the sense that these programs are extremely important for them to keep the lights on and stay in their homes. I am really proud this is something our government is committing to.
We are in the middle of a pandemic. We are working our way through it, of course, and challenges abound, but this is something I know all parliamentarians will be working toward to help support affordability measures for lower income seniors.
Let us talk about New Horizons for Seniors. For Canadians who might not know, New Horizons is a program run through the federal department of seniors that is supporting either infrastructure upgrades to communal buildings or programming that support seniors' activities.
I can speak positively about this program in my own riding of Kings—Hants. For example, the Glooscap Curling Club in Kentville, Nova Scotia, had a $25,000 investment provided by the Government of Canada to help keep that facility in top shape. It serves not just seniors but residents across Kings—Hants. It is particularly important for the seniors' programming that goes on. There are many examples of how this program is making a real difference in keeping seniors active and on the move.
We have also increased the basic personal amount, which is something that perhaps is not always talked about to the extent that it should be. That is increasing the threshold before individuals are required to pay federal tax. We have done that, which is certainly helping low-income seniors to the tune of about $300 to $400 a year. I recognize that might not solve all issues, but it is moving the yard sticks in the right direction. It is a making a difference for Canadians across the country.
What have all these measures resulted in? What has the government actually done, and what are the results? I laid out some of the measures the government has undertaken, but what are the results all members of the House can take in? It has resulted in an 11% reduction in seniors poverty since this government formed office in 2015.
I do not say that lightly. I know there will remain challenges. Indeed, many members of the House talk about instances where individuals continue to face challenges, and I am not naive to that, but the fact is 11% is not just a number in the House. That 11% represents the lives of individuals who have been supported and aided by the government programs we put in place, and I am certainly proud to stand on this side of the House, which has been part of making that happen.
I will now compare and contrast. I mentioned earlier that it was the Conservative Party that had increased the old age security threshold to 67. We, of course, brought that back down to age 65. I had the privilege of sitting in the House in the 43rd Parliament. I had the opportunity to hear a unanimous consent motion that came from the Bloc Québécois, perhaps an opposition day motion, that talked about increasing old age security by $110 across the board for every senior.
I voted against the motion, not on the idea that we should not be supporting seniors, but sometimes it is easy for opposition members in the House to say things and not really give a full reflection of the cost of the programs. I had the opportunity to tell the Bloc members what they did not say in that motion, which is that it would be an $8-billion expense per year, at a time when the fiscal framework is under duress.
I offered to my Bloc colleagues that, if they want to make those types of suggestions in the House, I hope it is also coming with concrete measures on how to grow the economy and increase government revenue to pay for it.
On the Conservative side of the House, the Conservative Party will often say this government is spending too much money. As someone who identifies as a business Liberal, that is fair by me. If we want to be able to rein in spending, it is important we remain fiscally prudent, but at the same time, how do we make sure we support those individuals who are vulnerable?
We are talking about programs. We are talking about a $700-million measure. How do Conservative members square the fact that they want less spending, but they also want us to do more in certain areas? Perhaps it is do more for seniors and do less elsewhere. I do not know, but those are some of the legitimate challenges we, as parliamentarians, face. How do we balance fiscal prudence versus also supporting lower-income individuals who could use help?
Those are my thoughts. I am happy to take questions from my hon. colleagues.