Debates of Feb. 15th, 2022

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C‑12

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it means they would not be waiting the amount of time they have been to get to this legislation. It means it would not be piecemeal. It means they would know that the government truly does have their backs, as it would for every other Canadian across the country. That is why I think we need to rally around not only this private member's bill but any effort in this place to ensure that every Canadian, seniors included, have access to a dignified life.

An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change my vote in the vote that took place after question period. I had technical difficulties that prevented me from changing my vote to yea and from joining Zoom, so I would ask for the indulgence of the House to have my vote recorded as having voted in favour of Bill C-10 in that vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In order to allow the hon. member to change his vote, we need the unanimous consent of the House.

All those opposed to the hon. member's request will please say nay.

Hearing no dissent, it is agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

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

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, fantastic and magnificent member from Thérèse-De Blainville.

I am happy to be able to discuss and debate the motion concerning Bill C-12 with my colleagues, because I have devoted my life to seniors since I was 23. I spent my career serving seniors, both providing home care in local community service centres and working in long-term care homes as a social worker and health care network manager. It is therefore an honour for me to contribute to the debate we are having today.

First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑12. There is no doubt about that. We know that this bill is very important and that it is urgent.

However, we disagree with today's motion, which is disrupting the legislative process. It is important to point out that the bill has only one clause. It amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent a deplorable situation, where 183,000 vulnerable seniors had their guaranteed income supplement cut, from happening again after July 1, 2022. That is the purpose of Bill C-12.

All of the opposition parties proposed legislative work to the government for this week, because we could have managed without the closure motion, which should only be used in exceptional and urgent situations. We could have finished our work properly, in accordance with the legislative process, because this bill has not garnered much opposition. On the contrary, we are pretty unanimous about it in the House.

The bill is important, but let us be clear: It does nothing to change the situation of seniors whose GIS has been slashed every month for the past eight months. It changes nothing at all. When we saw the bill, we wondered why the date was set at July 1, 2022. Why not March? That way, those whose GIS is currently being cut would not have their benefits reduced.

Based on the minister's announcement, we know that there will be a one-time payment. Initially, this payment was to have been made in May, but after the questions we asked the minister and with the pressure she was under, she succeeded in convincing her officials to move the one-time payment up to April 19.

In my opinion, that is still unacceptable. It is two weeks earlier, and some will say that is better than nothing, but it is unacceptable that computer issues can prevent us from returning the money that was taken from vulnerable seniors before April 19. It seems to me that that could have been done by March, or even early April.

This week, the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where she answered a question from my colleagues in the third opposition party. She said that it would be done by April 19 and she was proud of that. Honestly, I would not be so proud in her shoes, because that is shameful. On April 19 it will be almost 10 months that people have had their GIS benefits cut month after month.

Today, in an article in the Journal de Montréal, two seniors who had their benefits cut described their situation to Canadians. Bob Petit, an 82-year-old senior, had his GIS benefits reduced by $350 a month, while Jacques Rhéault, a pensioner in Louiseville who worked hard all his life in a factory in Contrecoeur, lost his GIS benefit.

These two people are the luckiest people in the world, because they have the support and assistance of a very active MP who has been championing their cause from the start. Let us keep in mind that these people’s benefits have been cut since July 2021. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé represents and supports them through all of the system’s bureaucratic procedures.

However, regardless of how good an MP he is, we have learned that, although the Minister of Seniors appears to have a good heart and to listen to seniors, she cannot do more because of the technical and technological limitations of the tools she will be using to issue a nice cheque to each senior who was unfairly affected by the cuts. That is quite a long time.

I cannot help but make connections with other people’s problems. Consider sick workers. They are entitled to just 15 weeks of employment insurance in case of illness. The Bloc would like to see that increase to 50 weeks. The minister said that that was too much, that the government was looking at 26 weeks, but that computer problems were preventing it from doing anything right now.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is telling us that they want to accelerate the processing of work visa and permanent residence applications, but that there are computer issues. I am starting to wonder whether the government’s key departments, which are there to serve Canadians, are paralyzed by their computer systems.

That makes me think there has been considerable negligence in maintaining our infrastructure. As a result, vulnerable Canadians are finding it difficult to pay their rent and buy their medications and are grappling with anxiety and stress every month. We are talking about seniors who are vulnerable and who will be affected by Bill C-12.

I do not know if it is possible to paint an accurate portrait of these people. These are seniors who, very often, have worked all their lives. These people, who may not have been unionized and who did not necessarily earn a big salary, are now retired, and tired, at age 65. Tired and without much income, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. For the past eight months, since July 2021, these people have received less money because the CERB was calculated as income. That is what Bill C-12 is intended to correct, to prevent other seniors from being penalized next year.

Honestly, I am offended and angry to see how the government’s limitations are getting in the way of the assistance these seniors require. When questioned, the minister says that the government invested so many million dollars in this and so many million dollars in that. What seniors need is a decent monthly income so they can pay their bills, meet their responsibilities and live with dignity.

Right now, seniors are calling my office saying that they feel like beggars, if I can put it that way. It is a blow to their dignity, because these are people who worked, who earned an honest living and who have felt completely forgotten and abandoned since July 2021.

Members will understand why I am emotional talking about this. I live in a riding where a quarter of the population is aged 65 or over. Today, I think it is clear that the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is an unconditional ally of the seniors in her riding, that the Bloc Québécois is an ally of seniors, and that it will do everything it can to convince the minister to issue the one-time payment before April 19.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I was watching the member's speech on the TV in the lobby, and she was commenting on the unanimous consent motion the Bloc brought forward in the previous Parliament. I think it was in May of last year.

The Bloc wants to set this up as though it somehow introduced a unanimous consent motion that would have solved everything, but the reality is that the motion had a number of problems in it. It did not indicate whether things would be indexed over time or whether people who had a higher income would receive a clawback. It did not indicate anything about how long somebody had been in Canada. The motion did not address how it would handle somebody who had been in Canada for 10 years versus 40 years. It is very disingenuous for the Bloc to suggest it brought forward a motion that somehow would have rectified all this.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, we now know that the Senate, whose participation in the process is required, will not be sitting this week, and that it was really not necessary to pass Bill C-12 under closure. I am convinced that the legislative process could have taken its normal course and that we could have managed to pass Bill C-12 without a closure motion this week if there had been good will and if we had worked as a team and without partisanship.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech.

I worry when I hear the government say that it needs another computer system to pay seniors. I remember Phoenix, which did not work for five years. Why does the government need another system when the funds are usually deposited directly in Canadians’ bank accounts every month?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a former life, I was the chief of staff to a minister. Every time we were asked to tighten the budget, IT infrastructure was cut because it has less of an impact in the short term.

I do not know if that is why all infrastructure has been neglected. I have noticed this with EI sickness benefits and immigration. I know it is complicated, and I am not saying otherwise.

However, I cannot understand how CERB cheques were issued within ten days because it was urgent, but we are unable to issue cheques for seniors who are currently in such great need and who have been experiencing stress and anxiety since July 2021. I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that the government of a rich country cannot quickly issue a cheque to help the most vulnerable seniors in Quebec and Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, many seniors are caught in this predicament because they are the lowest income seniors.

Single seniors on GIS make a little over $19,000 a year. Those who are partnered get about $25,000 a year. The only reason they had to go to work was to supplement their income, and during COVID many of them lost their jobs. That is why they are caught in this predicament.

With this in mind, is the real issue, aside from restoring and making whole the seniors support, that we need to bring in a guaranteed livable basic income?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member and I agree that the government must increase seniors' monthly income and give them tax concessions that will let them work to make ends meet, pay their bills and socialize without being penalized by the taxman.

The Bloc Québécois has made plenty of suggestions to help seniors contribute without being penalized. I believe that the solution is to increase old age security for seniors 65 and over. I think that is the most important measure right now.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech. It was very heartfelt and compelling. I do not know whether I will be as brilliant, but I will try to clearly outline the Bloc Québécois's motivations when it comes to seniors. We want to take care of them, look after them and listen to their needs.

I would like to remind the many people who are watching us on ParlVu that we are talking about Bill C-12, which would exclude any emergency benefits from a person's income for the purposes of calculating the amount of the guaranteed income supplement and allowances payable in respect of any month after June 2022.

I think the bill is simple. It attempts to correct a problem as of June 2022. However, it is one year too late. Need I remind the House that it was in May 2021 that the trouble started and the issue was raised? Some seniors lost some or all of their GIS because they had received emergency benefits related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which they were entitled to.

No one in the government warned them that this would happen. Worse still, no one in the government had even calculated or foreseen this consequence, which is frankly ludicrous, considering old age security is a program that is entirely under federal jurisdiction.

It is terrible that the government showed such a lack of foresight by failing to anticipate the effect of these measures under a program that it is supposed to be responsible for. More importantly, it is terrible for the seniors who have missed out on a large portion of their retirement income for the past year. I could name several women and men in my riding who, for several months now, have been receiving $300, $400 or $500 less a month.

Those figures are significant, since only the lowest-income seniors receive the GIS. In all, OAS and GIS benefits represent almost $18,000 a year. My colleagues can surely imagine how much that comes to per month, so cutting even $100 from that monthly income is totally unacceptable.

On Monday, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities had the pleasure of receiving the Minister of Seniors. She came to tell us about her mandate letter and how much she cares about seniors. We believe her. She mentioned that she used to be a nurse, and she spoke about how seniors are faring in our health and social services networks, highlighting their vulnerability. I agree with her.

She underlined all kinds of consequences, but focused on measures this government will introduce to reduce seniors' vulnerability, such as national standards in long-term care homes, aging in place and so on. The government is devoting tremendous energy to overtly encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and so little energy to fixing a problem we are all very aware of and that is that seniors are economically vulnerable, and they are getting poorer.

I would like the Minister of Seniors to know that I, too, am a nurse by trade and that I was a nurses' union representative in Quebec for many long years and the leader of a major public service labour union. My professional and union experience gave me opportunities to advocate for better working conditions in Quebec and reforms to improve the systems we have in place to care for seniors and the rest of the population.

We have fought hard on these issues in order to push ahead and improve the quality of care and services, but at no point throughout my career would it ever have occurred to us to knock on Ottawa's door to ask for help, because it is none of Ottawa's business. This does not fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction. The only battle we have fought together with civil society and the governments of our province is to demand that the federal government make a contribution through the Canada health transfers that is commensurate with the health and social services needs in Quebec and the provinces. This has been our struggle. I have been on the front lines for a long time on the issues that relate to the feds. However, our working conditions, living conditions for seniors and care conditions all come under our jurisdiction.

I have a suggestion for the government. It should drop those mandates, focus on what it needs to focus on and give the provinces health transfers covering 35% of costs. We could have asked for 50%, as was agreed to in the 1950s, but we did not. We have asked for 35% because we have been starving ever since. The government is starving the health care systems and making them vulnerable. To top it off, the government has appropriated the right to spend. However, it does not grasp the urgency of spending money in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as the GIS, which is one of the most important social safety nets for our retirees and seniors.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressure had to be applied for seniors to be recognized, and this earned them a meagre cheque of $500. On this issue, the government came in for more criticism than accolades.

The Bloc Québécois had to fight, apply pressure, write letters and come to the House to sound the alarm a year ago about the totally unfair situation of seniors whose GIS was reduced because they had received emergency benefits. The government said it had other things to do. Managing its own affairs must not be part of its responsibilities.

Now, here we are, almost a year later, with a bill that we will pass but that will only remedy the situation going forward to ensure this does not happen again. A bird in the hand is worth—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I tried to indicate to the member earlier that she had only two minutes left. Her time is now up. She will be able to continue during the period for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if the Bloc members are nothing else, they are consistent in regard to the health care issue.

The Government of Canada is not an ATM that just distributes money. We have the Canada Health Act, and Canadians from all regions of the country recognize that the national government has an important role to play in health care. Whether the Bloc members agree or disagree, quite frankly, is irrelevant. We are here to support a healthy health care system where we can, looking, for example, at long-term care and at issues around mental health. These are important issues to people, no matter where they are in Canada.

Why is my friend teaming up, once again, in that coalition with the Conservatives and the Bloc to try to get things done here in the House? I am glad she is supporting the bill, but why does she not support the actual motion to see it come to a conclusion today?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the first part of the question.

Mind your own business. Your business is providing funding for provincial health care systems. Your business is looking after retirees and seniors. You have programs and it is up to you to support them. That is your responsibility.

I would, in turn, ask you why you are in such a rush to interfere in our business and in less of a rush to take care of your own?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member that she must address her questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the government or a member. I have already reminded her of that today.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree very much with my hon. colleague about the importance of the Canada Health Act and federal spending. I also worked for a union for 16 years, so I appreciate her contributions to working people.

However, I must take issue with the member's inaccurate statement that health care is provincial. I am going to read from the Library of Parliament paper on the jurisdiction. It states that “...the Constitution Act, 1867 does not expressly include “health” as a legislative power assigned either to Parliament...or to the provincial legislatures....” The Supreme Court of Canada has not interpreted section 92 as giving provincial legislatures exclusive jurisdiction over health care.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Schneider v. The Queen, stated:

...“health” is not a matter which is subject to specific constitutional assignment but instead is an amorphous topic which can be addressed by valid federal or provincial legislation, depending in the circumstances of each case on the nature or scope of the health problem in question.

The Schneider decision also says that the national concern doctrine is a basis for a federal health jurisdiction, saying:

...federal legislation in relation to "health" can be supported where the dimension of the problem is national rather than local in nature....

Therefore, when my hon. colleague says that it is not the federal government's business to be in health care, she is constitutionally wrong. Is the member aware that the phrase “health care” does not occur in the Constitution and that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that health care is federal—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do have to allow the hon. member to respond.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, in response, I would tell him to go read everything that might be constitutional on the issue.

I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that the provinces and Quebec have jurisdiction over organizing services and care, and that the role of the federal government is limited to paying its fair share to support the provinces and Quebec.

What is more, it is also the responsibility of the federal government to support our seniors by significantly increasing old age security and never again denying seniors their guaranteed income supplement.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked my colleague, who delivered a very fine speech, to remind the House that the Bloc has also made proposals to support seniors, such as increasing the earnings ceiling for the GIS from $5,000 to $6,000 in order avoid penalizing seniors who want or have to work. Can she explain why this is so important?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is very important, especially in the context of a labour shortage, because this will allow our seniors to earn a comfortable retirement income so they can continue their substantial contribution to society. This will also allow them to rise above the poverty line.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, today is a great opportunity to rise in the House on this flag day. I want to note the importance and significance of today being the day we mark and recognize the Canadian flag, a flag we have seen on various people's knapsacks and backpacks throughout the world. It is a symbol people proudly wear to show where their home is. Unlike some other countries in the world, we are incredibly proud to show that flag as we travel in other parts of the world.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that it was MP John Matheson, who was from the riding just east of Kingston, the riding of Leeds, as it was called at the time, who played a key role in the development of the flag we now recognize as being the Canadian flag. I encourage those who are listening to look into the history of it a little. They will see the committee he led, and some of the different examples of flags that were brought forward. Ultimately, they settled on the one we have now come to cherish as the Canadian flag. I wish everybody a happy flag day. It certainly is an honour to come from the part of the country that was, at the time, led by an MP who gave a tremendous amount to the pride we now have and show through that flag.

It is an honour to rise today to talk about such an important issue. Right now we are debating the motion that would set the programming of how we will deal with this particular bill, which relates to the Old Age Security Act, and how we would make amendments to it in order to ensure those who experienced these clawbacks are properly taken care of.

I am concerned to see some of the posturing going on in the House today. We heard MPs from the Conservatives and the Bloc saying that they are supportive of the bill but not of this motion. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for recognizing the importance of this. The truth is we knew the Conservatives would be against it, which was a default, but the Bloc, quite frankly, is using this as an opportunity. It knows it has the luxury of voting against this motion because the NDP will be there to carry the weight the Bloc is unwilling to carry today. That is the reality of the situation.

We saw it with another equally important motion yesterday, where the NDP had to carry the weight of the Bloc, and now it is doing it again. I just want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for helping us get through this very important motion, and we know at the end of the day all members of the House will vote in favour of the bill because of the importance all members place on this issue.

This motion basically says that we would proceed moving forward with this bill in a very expeditious fashion, because it is very important to get it through. I can understand some of the need for rigorous studying of bills from time to time as they come to committee. I know members of the Conservative Party have said today that we need to study this bill and properly go through all of the details.

These are the same members who have been raising this issue time and time again and asking why something was not done yesterday. Now they have in front of them a programming motion that would basically expedite this and fast-track it, and they literally want to put on the brakes. They say that we need to hold on, study, give a lot of consideration in committee, and go through various procedural elements back and forth from committee and the House on what is an extremely simple bill.

The bill states:

for the purpose of determining benefits payable in respect of any month after June 2022, there shall be deducted from the person’s income for the year the amount of any payment under

It then goes on to list the four articles. That is literally the entire bill. I do not understand what could be studied in committee that would bring about some revelation of how an amendment should be made with respect to this.

This is an issue that all members of the House know about. I am happy to get into how we got to this point, which I will shortly, but it is an issue that all members of this House know about so well. They understand the content of it and exactly what this bill would do. To suggest that we should ensure that the proper, thorough, democratic process through the parliamentary system is maintained for a bill that is so direct in its nature of addressing a very specific issue is absolutely remarkable to me.

However, the Bloc has the luxury of not having to vote in favour of this motion so it can somehow stand on principle, but it only has that luxury because the NDP is once again creating a scenario for the Bloc to be able to do that. I again want to thank my NDP colleagues for staying above the partisanship of this and making sure we can move forward with this as quickly as possible.

I want to take a few minutes to congratulate the new Minister of Seniors on tackling this issue. She had not been a minister prior to this session of Parliament. She is the member for Brampton West. When she was appointed, she tackled this issue head-on, along with her parliamentary secretary, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

As she indicated in her comments earlier today, she made sure she consulted with various parties. She made sure she went to committee and answered the questions of committee members. She made sure she communicated with various seniors groups and groups that represent seniors' interests and that when she did this, she would get this right, in line with her mandate letter from the Prime Minister and in line with the very reasonable requests being made by seniors throughout the country.

I want to thank the minister for the work she has done to get us to this point, so we can ensure that seniors who experienced clawbacks relating to the CERB and other programs indicated in the bill are properly taken care of. Her mandate letter specifically says that she will, “Ensure seniors' eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not negatively impacted by receipt of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit...and the Canada Recovery Benefit”, and that is exactly what this bill would do.

Bill C-12 builds on our commitment to old age security, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for single seniors and $750 for couples starting at the age of 65. Bill C-12 would also ensure that GIS cutbacks due to collective COVID supports will not happen again in future tax years. All parties, as I indicated, have raised this issue for sometime, so it is very odd to see that our Conservative friends across the way and the Bloc wanting to drag the parliamentary process down with this motion as opposed to just passing it so we can eventually vote on the bill.

I would like to go back to the creation of these particular programs and how we got to the position we are in. I found it very fascinating and quite perplexing, while listening to the member for Abbotsford this morning, when he pointed the finger at the government, as though the government is solely responsible for the issue that has been created. I would remind all members that these programs were passed by unanimous consent, by all members of this House.

Unanimous consent, for those watching, is when all members of the House agree to bypass a number of parliamentary procedures in order to get programs into place immediately. That is the manner in which unanimous consent was used back in March of 2020 and a few times afterward. Unanimous consent basically means that everybody agrees.

If one person disagrees with unanimous consent, it would shut it down, right there in its tracks, and the various pieces of legislation would have to go through the regular parliamentary process. However, we agreed to unanimous consent at the time because we recognized the incredible need that was out there for Canadians at the time.

Not only that, the minister at the time, Minister Morneau, went to great lengths when we heard the complaints about various different pieces of the supports from the other side of the House, and they were improved upon. I can remember, for example, that the original proposal by the government on the wage subsidy fell short, quite frankly, of what was really needed. The Conservatives were there to highlight that issue and to say that this particular support was not good enough and that we needed to do better. As a result, by working with the minister behind the scenes and outside of this chamber and fixing the legislation, we saw much better wage subsidy legislation end up coming forward.

If the member for Abbotsford is somehow saying that the government completely botched this legislation, well, he and the Conservatives had the opportunity to try to improve upon the programs at the time. In some instances they did, and in some instances issues were missed, but let us remember where we were at the beginning of this pandemic. At that time it was absolutely critical to get supports to Canadians as quickly as possible to support those in need, those who were affected.

Let us remember that at the beginning of the pandemic, nobody had any idea what was happening. We were shutting down businesses throughout the country. Provinces were bringing in lockdowns. We did not have the luxury of knowing what a lockdown is, as we do now. If a lockdown was brought in now, we would know what to expect. Back in March 2020, we had no idea what it meant, what the short-term, mid-term or long-term impacts of a lockdown would be. We have that luxury now, because hindsight is 20-20, but back then we did not. We did not understand what was happening.

The government—with the incredible support of the public service, I might add—developed these programs, working day and night, with the objective of helping as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Perfection was not an issue at the time. It was not seen, in my opinion, as a priority at the time. The priority was getting the supports out to people who needed them the most. That is what happened. That is what the government was able to deliver on, again with the incredible support of the public service.

I have said it a number of times in this House, and I will said it again: 5.4 million Canadians had money in their bank accounts within five weeks of the World Health Organization declaring a global pandemic. Let us compare that to the United States or any other jurisdiction in the world. It was regarded as the gold standard for taking care of Canadians in their absolute dire moment of need. That is what the public service was able to deliver for Canadians. That is what we were dealing with at the time.

Issues are going to come up, as the member for Abbotsford has indicated now that he has luxury of looking back on it 24 months later. Issues are going to pop up. The key is how we deal with those issues now to make sure that people are treated in a fair manner. That is exactly what we are seeing now. We are not only fixing some of those problems that existed before but also putting safeguards in to make sure that they do not continue to happen. It is the reasonable and responsible thing to do. It is the thing the minister was tasked to do in her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, and she has moved very quickly on it with her department.

I also find it extremely rich when I hear my Conservative colleagues across the way in particular trying to position themselves as the champions of seniors. It is absolutely remarkable when I hear the rhetoric that comes from across the way.

This is the party that in the last government sought to increase the age of retirement to 67 from 65. What grounds they think they have to stand on this issue as it relates to seniors I do not understand. I do not know where they are coming from. That is their record. They increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. That is their record.

Our record is this: We enhanced the CPP. The QPP followed suit. We strengthened old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We increased in general the number of services available to seniors. We provided a one-time $500 payment to seniors. This year we are increasing old age security by 10% for those seniors over the age of 75 because we know that once they get into that age category, they need more support. The data shows that as they reach the age of 75 and older, seniors have burned through more of their savings, their medical expenses are higher, and as such they need more resources in order to support themselves. We want seniors to support themselves. That is the objective, so increasing the old age security benefit for those who are over the age of 75 is an investment.

I am absolutely perplexed by the position of the Conservatives when they try to tout they are the champions of seniors, but I am equally concerned about what I hear coming from the Bloc. The last two Bloc members who spoke made reference to a unanimous consent motion when I asked a question. Let us understand this. Eight months ago, the Bloc members brought forward a unanimous consent motion. At the time, they were willing to deal with this problem through unanimous consent, as I described earlier, but now they are not even willing to vote in favour of this motion that expedites the process.

That is the hypocrisy. They referred to a unanimous consent motion to fix the entire problem through that one quick motion back in May, which they felt was fine to do then, and they chastised us for not agreeing to it; now we have a programming motion that would allow us to do this quickly, but they are totally unwilling to vote in favour of it. Again, this goes back to the luxury of not having to do it because the NDP is picking up the slack for the Bloc, as we are seeing.

I have already talked about the unanimous consent motion that the Bloc brought forward and the problems that existed with it. It was not indexed over time. It did not take into account the length of time that people had been in Canada. It did not have any kind of clawback based on income so that higher-income individuals would get less than those who really needed it. It was extremely problematic, yet they were willing to do that through a UC motion. Unfortunately, that just comes down to the politics of this place that we see time and again.

Quite frankly, we see it more often from the Conservatives. They bring forward these unanimous consent motions not because they think they will pass and fix the problem, but so the Bloc members can then go back to their constituents and tell them that they tried to help them but nobody wanted to agree with them and help them out. That is what we are seeing. Quite frankly, that is what the Bloc Québécois is doing in partnering up with the Conservatives. We saw it yesterday and we see it today. The Bloc and the Conservatives are continually partnering up together, and it makes me wonder why. I thought the Bloc was more concerned about seniors, as opposed to playing politics in this place in dealing with this bill.

I see that my time is coming to an end. I appreciate the opportunity to have provided some comments on this process and I look forward to any questions my colleagues might have.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member across the way to not be so dismissive of the role and functioning of Parliament. The rules of Parliament do not exist to protect just members of the opposition but also members of the government, who will one day be in opposition.

The member did not at all address the actual issue we are debating right now, which is the Conservative amendment to the government motion. It is important to underline that the Conservative amendment would still involve this bill being expedited, but also involve, for instance, the minister testifying before the health committee tomorrow in a context where amendments could be made to the bill, but all of that would have to be wrapped up by 11 o'clock. Our amendment involves an extremely expedited process but still involves the possibility of the minister testifying. It involves the possibility of amendments coming forward. It involves a genuine look at the bill. Why will the member not support this reasonable amendment that still involves expediting the bill, recognizing that it will not fundamentally change the timelines for the bill, as the Senate is not back until next week?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take exception to the fact that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan would suggest that I do not appreciate, value or see the benefit of various members' input in this House. As a matter of fact, if he listened to my speech, I actually gave credit to the Conservatives for helping to make the wage subsidy program better. I am totally and absolutely willing to do that when I see it coming from across the way. They made that particular program better as a result of their interventions.

My issue was with respect to the fact that the member for Abbotsford was somehow very critical of this particular program, but at the same time, he knows full well that he helped pass that through unanimous consent and had input into those programs at the time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a little earlier about the Canadian flag. I would like to take this opportunity to say that in Quebec, on February 15, we celebrate Patriots' Day and their tricolour flag.

My colleague may not be aware of this, but on February 15, 1839, five freedom fighters in Quebec were hanged by the British authorities. Just before he was hanged, Chevalier de Lorimier cried out, “Long live freedom, long live independence!” That is what we are celebrating today in Quebec.

Getting back to the motion before us, my colleague is accusing us, the Bloc Québécois, of delaying the process. That is rather fascinating. Vulnerable seniors have been waiting for a cheque for a year, but it is the Bloc Québécois that is delaying the process.

Let us talk about employment insurance. There are 90,000 households in Quebec waiting for a cheque because the government is paralyzed, but we are the ones delaying the process.

Let us talk about immigration. There are hundreds of thousands of family reunification cases. There are some in my riding, including families from Haiti. The mother is here, the father is over there and there is no reunification. There have been delays for the past year or two because the government is paralyzed, but it is the Bloc Québécois that is delaying the process.

Is my colleague not a little embarrassed today to hear about all these vulnerable people who are unable to get their due because the government is paralyzed?