Debates of Feb. 15th, 2022

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North often defers to provincial NDP politics to deflect his government's failures, including with seniors. I would like to read a story from one senior, who wrote, “Our GIS has been cut off and the $1,300 per month that we receive from the government is not enough to keep the shelter over our heads. I feel weak and depressed. Having no energy, I spend many sleepless nights crying.”

In the last session, the member's government voted against the NDP's universal pharmacare bill, when seniors are literally choosing between medication and rent. There are people in my riding who, as a result of the government's callous choice, have had their GIS cut from $600 a month to $60 a month. My party fought for a guaranteed livable basic income for seniors, not a guaranteed income supplement, but one that is livable, to lift people out of poverty. His party is nowhere on the map on that. I am proud of my colleague from North Island—Powell River, who fought really hard to get the Liberals to pull back on their brutal clawbacks on seniors.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can respond to these concerns and not deflect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, one of the greatest challenges for seniors is housing. That is why the federal government works with provincial governments. It is the provinces that take the lead on social housing.

We invest, on an annual basis, in operating costs in the Province of Manitoba. We are talking about tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in rent subsidies and non-profit housing. We are talking about thousands of non-profit housing units in the province of Manitoba alone, and it is often the federal government that gives the largest percentage. That deals with trying to make housing more affordable.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would invite my friend to stand and ask a question, as opposed to heckling.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the money his government has invested in health care in recent years. I would like to remind him that the bulk of the money invested in recent years was for COVID-19 programs.

If the roof is leaking, the shingles can be changed from time to time, but eventually, the whole roof needs redoing. That takes ongoing funding and long-term commitments, such as boosting health transfers to 35% of total system costs, which is what the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have unanimously called for. COVID‑19 made it clear that what they are asking for is legitimate and absolutely necessary.

We do not want to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about how much the government invested during COVID‑19. We know that, but all that money is from COVID-related programs. He actually admitted that there may have been some mistakes along the way, but we do not hold that against him because that is to be expected considering how quickly they had to react.

In May 2021, the Bloc Québécois raised concerns about financial assistance provided through CERB to seniors receiving the GIS. We pointed out that their eligibility for the GIS would be compromised if they received CERB. It was at that point, last spring, that the Liberals decided to move up the payment; however, the problem would not be solved before June 2022.

I realize that the Liberals are always slow to implement recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois. That is fine. Still, I would like to know when the Liberals will finally take action on health transfers. Does my colleague have any idea? He can criticize us all he wants, and we will listen—that does not bother us. I want to know when the Liberals plan to respond to the unanimous demand from the provinces and Quebec and increase health transfers to 35%.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my years serving in the Manitoba legislature, I believe that every year, for almost 20 years, if a province were asked if it wanted more money for this or that, it was always going to say yes. Provinces always want more money for health care. That is a given. Am I surprised that it is unanimous among the provinces that they want more money for health care? It does not surprise me at all.

What is important is that, since we have been in government, we have negotiated accords with all of the provinces and territories, which are indexed. We are giving record amounts in annual allotments of equalization and health transfers to provinces. It is a historical amount of money. Along with that, we continue to support other aspects of health care, which Canadians want us to do, such as additional money for things like mental health and long-term care.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about one of my favourite topics, seniors, and I have now become one.

I think it is really important that we have this discussion today. This is an opportunity for us to pull what I would call an ugly scab off of the issue of affordability for seniors, especially those living on a fixed income. This is a wound that has been festering for some time, and I want to start off by taking a look at the actual numbers and the situation that many Canadians are finding themselves in.

There are single seniors living on a fixed income getting OAS, GIS and CPP. For those who would get OAS, depending on the work that they did in their career, they might get as much as $7,700 a year. They might get, from GIS, if they received the maximum, about $11,500. If they had worked a long time and they had maximized their CPP, they might be getting around $9800.

What that works out to every month is somewhere between $2000 and $2400, depending on where they are on the scale. That is it.

These are people, if they are getting GIS, that do not have huge nest eggs. They do not have huge savings to draw upon to get them out of a bad situation. Today, the folks who define the Canadian poverty line define that line as 50% of the median income. For a single person, they are saying anybody who makes less than $3600 a month is actually living at or below the poverty line. All of these seniors we are talking about are already living below the poverty line, after they have worked their whole lives and after they have built the nation.

All this rhetoric coming from the other side is ironic. Even in the 2020 throne speech, we heard the words, “Elders deserve to be safe, respected and live in dignity.” Well, if they deserve to be respected, and if they deserve to live in dignity, that is certainly not what we are seeing today.

I want to start by describing the situation before the pandemic. I will then talk about what happened during the pandemic and where the need for Bill C-12 comes from. I want to then talk about the lack of government action when all of these issues were being raised, and make a few comments to follow up based on that.

Initially during the pandemic, recognizing that people were struggling and many people had lost their jobs, the government did make an effort and the Conservatives did support many programs to replace the income that people had been making.

Sadly, many of the people we are talking about, who are on fixed incomes, had to go out and take on other jobs just to make ends meet, just to heat their homes and have groceries on the table. In my view, that is totally unacceptable for the seniors who built the country. However, that was the reality.

What did the Liberals do during the pandemic? They decided to increase the carbon tax twice. Not just once, but twice. This put up the cost of groceries, home heating and basically all goods. At the same time, we have seen inflation increasing to where we are today at nearly 5%. People on a fixed income have zero ability to adapt to that.

We know that the lack of action we have seen in the affordable housing crisis has also just gotten worse during this pandemic. Even in a riding like mine, which is not a metropolitan riding, a person cannot find something to rent for less than $1000 a month. If someone is on a fixed income, and they are only getting $2000 a month, there will not be a lot left over for food, groceries and heating.

To get seniors living at what we are calling the poverty line might take as much as $1000 or $1500 a month, depending on the location they are living in. The government is great to talk about the increases they have made to GIS in the past that raised them $60 a month. However, at the same time, Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals raised electricity prices, so people were paying $130 more a month. They were even further behind. That is not the kind of action we need from government.

Then we saw the government come with a plan to give seniors, but only those over the age of 75, a one-time payment of $500 in August, just as it was calling an election, to remind those seniors over the age of 75 to not forget about it. Those between the ages of 65 and 75 who were living on a fixed income got nothing. As well, the government is promising a raise for those over the age of 75 for the summer of 2022.

I am happy to see the mandate letter of the minister now includes all seniors over 65. What she will actually do is another story, because we always see a lot of talk and not much action. I do not know why those aged 65 to 75 were excluded. I heard all the time at the doors in my riding about how they were finding it just as tough to live as those over the age of 75.

If we keep in mind that these people do not have any other income to draw on, we can see the government was aware of the problem very early on. In March of 2020, at the start of the pandemic, I was already emailing the then minister of seniors to say that we had a problem. The people who took CERB who were also on GIS would have their GIS impacted the next year. This was raised in March of 2020. In March of 2020 the government was aware that it was a problem, and nothing was done at that time.

One of the issues I have with the government bringing this bill here today, and deciding that it needs to be rushed through, after over a year of inaction, is that there was a fix for these seniors who had their GIS reduced, who cannot pay their rent or buy food to eat. Some in my riding lost their homes and have become homeless, and they needed that money immediately.

The government had the ability to put the money in their accounts immediately. How do I know this? Let us think about it. The government knows who gets the GIS. It is deposited in the accounts of those seniors every month. It knows who got the CERB, because it deposited that into their accounts as well. It certainly knew how to put in that $500 “do not forget to vote for us” payment for the people over age 75 in August.

Therefore, it could have just as easily recognized the impact this was going to have, put that money into their accounts and reconciled it later. It did that with the 800,000 Canadians who received a benefit to which they were not entitled, and which it is now trying to reconcile.

With the hardships that Canadian have faced, these seniors who call my office are crying. They are losing their homes. They cannot afford to eat. Something has gone wrong, perhaps with their car, and they now have no ability and no mobility. It is unfortunate that the Liberals could not, at the very least, address the problem and then come back to fill in any gaps in the legislation. They have not had any issue in the past doing things through orders in council and using various tricks, which do not involve coming to Parliament, to get whatever it is they want to spend. However, when it comes to seniors, they just forgot about them.

After I flagged the problem in March, the minister said the government would deal with it. Then it paid out benefits to people who lived in other countries. It paid out benefits to people who were ineligible. When the new minister came in in October, I asked her if there was something that could be done about it, because I had people in my riding who were writing me stories that were enough to make one cry. I could certainly read out their testimonies.

In May of 2020, the Minister of Seniors was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and was given a prepared binder by the department officials. In that binder, under section 7.2, under the heading of “Questions and Answers: COVID‑19 Economic Response Plan”, the question in the book reads, “Will income from the Canadian emergency response benefit be used in the calculation of guaranteed income supplement benefits?” The answer was “It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the allowances”. Therefore, the government actually knew then that the problem existed, but it has done nothing for a year, and here we are.

The Conservatives brought a very reasonable amendment. We understand, and we want to see seniors get their money. However, not to make this point too many times, the government could do that today if it really had the political will, but it does not. We said that we have to respect the parliamentary process. We see, too many times, the Liberals wanting to avoid parliamentary process and wanting to push things through the House. We see that they have already limited debate on the bill, as they do on many other bills, after saying they would never do that.

Here we are. We need time to debate the bill and time to amend it, because of some of the things that happened over the course of the pandemic where programs were put in place that had shortcomings, which were pointed out immediately and were never repaired. We can think of the many small businesses that were impacted at the beginning of the pandemic when they were not eligible if they were sole proprietorships. They were not eligible if the business had just started up and did not have a full year of revenue and business statements to show. There were quite a number of people who were impacted because the programs that were rolled out were flawed. Why were they flawed? It was because the Liberals tried to rush them through Parliament.

I would argue that it is worth taking some time, and I think the Conservatives brought quite a measured little amendment to this motion that would give us the time that we need to look into making sure that everything is as it should be. In our amendment, we are saying to send it to committee, get the Minister of Seniors there so that we can hear everything from her and her departmental officials, ask all the questions, identify those things that need to be repaired and fix them. We could then immediately do the clause-by-clause, make the amendments that need to be made, bring it back to the House and then get in the express lane and not use any amendments at report stage or anything like that but go right to third reading and off to the Senate.

Keep in mind that the Senate is not even sitting in the next week. We can say “emergency”, but due process is that it goes through the stages of this House and then it goes to the other place, which is not even sitting. We can hurry up here, but they will not be there to receive it and process it.

We need to correct the problem because seniors are already in a bad place. I talked about the small amount of money that seniors are making. I talked about how dire it is getting, and it is only going to get worse as we see the supply-chain issues that are currently being impacted by the trucker mandates and the lack of action on the part of the Prime Minister to address this.

As a sidebar, I think it is unbelievable that the Prime Minister has called for the Emergencies Act to be put in place when he was not even using the actions he already had the power to take in order to end the supply-chain issues that are driving up the cost of everything and making this problem even worse.

Seniors are going to have a very difficult time waiting another six months before they receive their payments, so I encourage the government to do what it can to make sure that seniors receive their payments as soon as possible after we have the discussion on the bill. At the same time, I must say that we have to look ahead to the future. We have one in six seniors in the country right now, and it will be one in four in just a few years. We cannot allow them to be this far away from living, at least, at the poverty line.

Some of the measures that can be taken would be to accelerate the OAS and GIS payments. I know the Bloc and the Conservatives supported a motion in the last Parliament that did not go ahead because of the present government. I encourage the government to try to get seniors back to where they need to be, and I am going to do my part.

There are seniors who thought they were going to be able to retire with a pension and are unfortunately not able to do that or have less pension than they expected because their employer went bankrupt. I am bringing a private member's bill forward, Bill C-228, the pension protection act, which would cause businesses to every year table a report on the solvency of their fund so that we have transparency to see whether those funds are in good shape. If they are not, it would provide a mechanism for funds to be transferred in without tax implications. Then, if the organization cannot transfer and top up the fund immediately, they would have the ability to get insurance while they are able to, over a series of years, restore the fund to solvency. In the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out to seniors and they would be paid out before large bonuses to executives and large creditors.

This would solve the problems of many seniors, including those who have lost their employment due to the bankruptcies of Eatons, Sears, Algoma, Caterpillar, Nortel and numerous other companies that have left employees in that situation. We can see from the information I read at the beginning of my speech that if seniors have to rely on OAS, GIS and maybe CPP, they are still living below the level that Canadians would consider acceptable. We cannot have that for our seniors. It is very hard for our seniors when they see new people coming into the country who are receiving more money than they are making, when they helped build the country. I think we can agree that we want all Canadians to be living with a reasonable standard of living.

The last thing I am going to say on this topic of Bill C-12 is that I do need to commend the new Minister of Seniors for at least bringing the legislation forth in reasonable time. She is not the one who knew about it last year and did nothing, so at least we have the bill before us today. As has been said, the Conservatives will support this to go to committee, but we will have our eyes on the legislation to ensure it is solid and we are not going to see more loopholes that would cause further issues for our seniors.

At the same time, I could not get up and speak about seniors in this place without talking about some of the other advocacy I have done on behalf of seniors. As members know, I brought forward a palliative care bill in the first session of Parliament, and I would say there has never been more of a need to continue the work done on that. Now, with the pandemic, we have been distracted from that. I would encourage the government to come up with a plan to exit the pandemic and restore the economy, so that we can then start talking about some of the other issues that are facing seniors. They certainly need to have good options at end of life to get the dignity the throne speech indicated. They certainly need to be able to get the drugs and essential medicines they require.

Certainly, I want to see the government do something on that, but today the call is for the government to listen to the Conservatives and take our advice. Let us support the motion my colleague brought forward, which says, let us get this to committee, all sit down, roll up our sleeves, get the amendments that are needed and then get this done. Let us not make seniors wait until July 2022 to receive the payments they desperately need today in order to keep them from becoming, in some cases, homeless.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite speak about the importance of protecting the dignity of seniors and supporting their quality of life. That is an objective we all share. One of the things I and a number of MP colleagues have advocated for over the past year is national standards for long-term care. We have advocated for that, and the government has committed to it. The reason we advocated for it was that we saw, especially during the pandemic, the Canadian Armed Forces expose the reprehensible quality of care some seniors experience in some of our long-term care homes. Our belief is that national standards would ensure that seniors achieve the quality of care that seniors deserve.

I wonder if the member opposite could comment on whether she supports national standards for long-term care.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important point. Certainly we studied this when I was at the health committee and talked about what would go into national standards. In fact, there have been numerous reports written about what is required. At the end of the day, I support the best practices being leveraged across the country, but that is not where the limitation is. It is not that we do not know what needs to be done.

When it comes to the ratios of staff to clients who are in long-term care, more funding is needed. When we see some of the conditions there, more funding is needed. We know that the provinces, although they have that under their jurisdiction, do not have the wherewithal to do everything that is needed. Therefore, it is important that the government work with provinces and territories to leverage those best practices in long-term care but also to identify how we can get the funding there and how we can actually get the workers there. As members know, we have seen a drop-off in the number of personal support workers, nurses and all of these kinds of careers.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple and yet not so simple.

Most seniors who live the longest are women. Many women who receive OAS and GIS benefits were stay-at-home moms first and later stay-at-home grandmothers, although this is not true of all of them, fortunately. Many set their careers aside, so their incomes were substantially reduced, which affected their pensions. Some have part-time jobs to try to make ends meet.

Would it be fair to say that most of the seniors affected by these pension cuts are, once again, women?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

Absolutely, single senior women are the poorest. It is important to have a policy that recognizes that more money is needed for senior women living in poverty, because they are struggling to put a roof over their heads.

More funding may be needed and pensions may have to increase to ensure that women can be properly housed.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am deeply frustrated that we are in a situation that has taken us so long to get to.

I do not want to go back to seniors in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona and say that we delayed this any longer than we had to. Of course the Liberals took too long to fix this mistake. Of course seniors are in such desperate straits right now that we have to act as fast as we possibly can.

Fixing this problem and looking forward, I did appreciate how the member talked in her intervention about the things we need to do for seniors. The things that would make seniors' lives better are investments in making our long-term health care centres public, in having a guaranteed livable basic income and in having things like pharmacare. Things like this would help seniors, but they would also help so many Canadians. Would the member be supportive of these calls that the New Democratic Party has put forward for things like a guaranteed livable basic income, like public long-term care centres and like pharmacare?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has always been a strong advocate on these issues. We do need immediate action from the current government. As I pointed out in my speech, the Liberals know the bank account numbers. They made 800,000 other mistakes where they gave people money who did not deserve it and are trying to get it back now. Certainly with seniors who are on GIS, they could immediately take action to put that money in their accounts and that is what they need to do.

Longer term, there is no doubt that, with an increase in the number of seniors from one in six right now to one in four in the future, we are going to have to do something to address the fact that seniors are not living decently and that they are not receiving essential medications and items that they need. I look forward to working with that member to solve those issues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton's speech. Of course, I do not agree. This is one of the few times that I actually want to see a bill passed through this place without going to committee first, but I want to follow up on something that we do agree on. I would like to hear more about her private member's bill to deal with the long-standing problem of corporate pensions that are not secure for our seniors.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, because I do not get to intervene during private members' business and ask questions of the mover of a bill, I would love to hear more about it now.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely always happy to talk about my private member's bill. The problem is that we have seen seniors work their whole lives and expect to have a pension to retire on, and then the company goes bankrupt, pays big bonuses out to their executives and leaves the seniors with either no pension or pennies on the dollar.

What got me going on this was a neighbour of mine, who worked for Sears for 30 years and ended up getting 70 cents on the dollar after 30 years of working. My bill is going to keep that from happening, first of all by giving transparency to see whether there is solvency in the fund; second, by creating a mechanism to top up that fund if it is not solvent; and third, by making sure that if companies do go bankrupt, the people who have worked all their lives and paid into their pensions receive their pensions before big bonuses are paid out or large corporations are paid out.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleague that we also introduced a bill to ensure that retirees are the first creditors in line. We support my colleague.

However, I have a question about something else. Earlier, a Liberal colleague asked her a question about national standards for senior care. She responded that the thing that matters most is the health transfers, which need to be made quickly. I would just like her to refine her answer and clarify whether she agrees that health is a provincial jurisdiction.

I do not see why the federal government would impose such standards. That would be as absurd as having a province impose standards for national defence. I would like my colleague's opinion on that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I completely agree. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. However, I think there is not enough funding for the provinces to provide excellent care.

What is more, while some provinces have very good practices, I would like everyone to be able to benefit from those best practices and for funding to be accessible to put those practices in place. I think that the federal government has a role to play in that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked passionately about the need to support seniors. Clearly this is an urgent situation. These are the most vulnerable seniors in our country that the government has gone after with clawbacks. I really want to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for the important work she did on pressuring the government to respond to this situation.

Does my colleague agree that the government is paying for the pandemic off the backs of poor Canadians by going after seniors in this circumstance? Does she agree that instead it should be going after the billionaires and the big corporations that have profited from the pandemic?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I think that everybody needs to pay their fair share, but it is outrageous that 12 months has gone by. The government has known that this problem exists and has done nothing. If someone did not pay their rent for 12 months, would they have a place to live? If someone did not have their heating bill paid for 12 months, would they still have heat? That is the situation Canadians are in. That is why it is urgent, and it needs to be addressed.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back in the House debating an important bill.

Bill C-12 is aligned with all the measures that the government has implemented since 2015.

It is important that we go over everything that we have done because we know that Canadians watching us may not tune in every day. It is important that we be there for them. However—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt my colleague, but I was just wondering if he was going to split his time with someone.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my friend and colleague from Fredericton in the wonderful province of New Brunswick.

However, I would like to speak about what we have put in place from the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic. I would like to speak about this because it is also part of the support that we are providing to older Canadians.

I think it will show that our approach to the seniors issue, since day one in 2015, is one that has been consistent. It is one that comes from a trend of support for low-income seniors for a very long time, a rapid approach to putting in place needed supports, especially when emergencies face our vulnerable populations, including seniors.

It is vitally important to pass Bill C-12 quickly. This motion today has been well defended. I think that will be clear once we understand how a low-income senior faces so many challenges. After a lifetime of hard work, Canadian seniors have earned a secure and dignified retirement. Pandemic or not, they deserve a retirement without financial worries. Allow me to briefly touch on the many of things we have done for seniors since forming government in 2015.

The Liberal government has strengthened Canada's public pension system. We are helping Canadians with their higher costs later in life. For short-term support, we issued a one-time $500 payment in August 2021 to OAS pensioners 75 years and older. We are permanently increasing the old age security pension by 10% this July 2022 for those seniors aged 75 and older, providing over $766 for the first year for pensioners receiving the benefit. We must remember this benefit is indexed to inflation, so seniors will continue to receive an increase.

We restored the age of eligibility for old age security and GIS to 65 from 67 years of age. The age for eligibility had been increased by the Conservatives prior to our winning a majority government. That is something I am very proud of in the six years I have been here in the House. We are putting literally thousands of dollars back into the pockets of seniors.

As promised, our government increased the GIS by 10% for individual seniors, improving the financial security of about 900,000 vulnerable seniors. To help working seniors keep more of their benefits, we increased the GIS earnings exemption to allow seniors to earn up to $5,000 without any reduction in benefits and we provided a partial exemption for the next $10,000. It now includes self-employment income.

When our increase to the basic personal amount is fully implemented in 2023, 4.3 million seniors will benefit, including 465,000 whose federal income tax will be reduced to zero. This is something I fully championed, and it was wonderful to see it in our platform in 2019. It means up to $300 for individuals and $600 for couples. I am so glad that this was part of our 2019 platform. This is literally billions and billions of dollars in tax reductions every year for our Canadian seniors, Canadian workers, Canadian students, and it is wonderful policy.

Our middle-class tax cut in 2016 reduced the second personal income tax rate by 7%, saving middle-class Canadians an average of $330 and couples an average of $540 a year. Again, it is real change, and that goes with our mandate of helping the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.

Seniors have also benefited from this. Tax reductions, benefit increases and policy revisions implemented by our government have reduced the number of seniors living in poverty in Canada by 11% since 2015. Our plan to improve support for seniors is working, but yes, there is still more work to do. As seniors ensure their safety by staying home during the COVID-19 pandemic, financial and other supports were and are still here. They are critical to help them access the goods and services they need and to reduce the social isolation that can take a toll on their mental health and well-being.

As the government, it was our responsibility to help, especially with those extra costs. First, we provided a one-time tax repayment of $300 to eligible OAS recipients, plus another $200 to eligible GIS recipients. We also provided a special top-up payment for the GST credit in April 2020. More than four million low- and middle-income seniors benefited from this top-up.

In addition, we announced a one-time payment for persons with disabilities, including seniors. These individuals received a total of $600 in special payments. Of course, we know we had the backs of all Canadians during the pandemic and we continue to do so. We created various income supports, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, which helped millions of Canadians, including seniors, by delivering direct payments quickly to seniors and families.

Our government was concerned not just about financial security, but also about seniors' isolation, which has real consequences. In fact, research shows that the isolation of older people can have health consequences. That is why we made it our mission to promote social participation and inclusion.

We helped connect seniors with essential services and supplies. We invested $9 million in the United Way to support more than 876 organizations across the country that offer more than 936 programs. We invested an additional $20 million in the New Horizons for Seniors program. We also funded more than 1,000 community projects to reduce the isolation and improve the well-being of seniors during the pandemic.

With regard to safety in long-term care institutions, we introduced important measures even though long-term care is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. In addition, the safe restart agreement signed with the provinces and territories includes $740 million for support to Canadians.

Yes, we have the backs of all Canadians, and, of course, the seniors.

We want to support those who are receiving long-term care, home care and palliative care and who are the most likely to get seriously ill from COVID-19.

On top of all that, we also created a $350‑million emergency community support fund to help charities and non-profit organizations adapt the services they provide to vulnerable groups, including seniors, in response to COVID-19.

The pandemic is still ongoing. That will not stop us from putting forward additional measures to benefit seniors' financial ability. I want to give a shout-out to the 25,000 or so seniors in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I get to see them again. I have missed them over the last two years. I know they have suffered from social isolation by staying home. I am going to see them in the community centre on my break week and maybe play a little bocce or play cards.

These seniors represent the best of what Canada is about. They come from various backgrounds. They have built this country. We have to respect them. We owe them so much gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices they have made. They have not asked for a lot. They ask to be respected and they ask us to make sure, in their golden years, that they have a secure and dignified retirement. That is what our government has done since day one.

Looking to the future, we know Canada needs to better address older seniors' needs. Seniors in Canada are living longer, which is great, and I think a key indicator of our progress as a country on all scales. As seniors age, 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. As mentioned before, we are responding to that need with a major OAS increase for older seniors as their needs increase.

Least but not last, we have proposed $742 million to support vulnerable seniors who have experienced reductions in the guaranteed income supplement as a result of accessing pandemic benefits.

In closing, the pandemic has not always been easy, particularly for seniors, and people are still struggling. Pandemic or not, our government is committed to giving all Canadians the opportunity to build a better life, contribute to our nation's prosperity and benefit from it. That is why we have made every effort to support all Canadians, including seniors.

We recognize the remarkable contribution Canadian seniors have made to our society and economy over the years. They can count on our Liberal government to continue to take steps to make sure they can live with dignity. Let us all come together and pass Bill C-12 expeditiously.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, seniors 75 and older are supposed to be getting an increase to their old age security, and of course there was the pre-election lump sum that was encouraging them to vote a certain way.

There are seniors who wanted to top up their incomes with part-time jobs, but when they applied for CERB, they could not apply for a partial CERB, so they got the whole $500, and some of those people took money out of RSPs to pay the taxman, who wanted all the CERB back.

Would the people who already paid the CERB money back be reimbursed? Are they going to continually be behind the eight ball because, having taken money out of their RSPs, that again props up their income so that they qualify for less of the supplement?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I would advise any senior or individual here in Canada to seek financial advice on how they manage their affairs. With Bill C-12, we want to ensure that for the literally hundreds of thousands of seniors who may have been affected by any sort of clawback on their GIS, the income they received from CERB and other benefits is not included in their taxable income for determination of benefits going forward.

For an individual in Canada, it is correct that if they pull money out of their RRSP, it is taxable income and they would pay taxes on it. When we make an RRSP contribution, we receive a nice deduction for it, and I encourage Canadians to make an RRSP contribution if they have the ability to do so.

All individual cases should be looked at by the member and should be brought to the attention of the minister and the parliamentary secretary.