Debates of Feb. 15th, 2022

Old Age Security Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut, whom I am getting to know this evening. I thank her for being here.

If there is one thing in this file for which we should turn to the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and the Inuit, it is their relationship with our seniors. We have a lot to learn in that regard.

The decade from 2022 to 2032 is the Decade of Indigenous Languages. We must take heed and provide services in indigenous languages. It is essential. I personally consider French to be a language that is under threat, just like all the indigenous languages. My colleague can count on my support for—

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

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to disappoint my dear colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue who is sharing his time with me, but my son is putting my husband to sleep with some lullabies. He will not be joining us.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported targeted assistance programs that respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that the Liberal government failed to be proactive. We voted for Bill C-2, which was hastily passed in the fall, in order to quickly help the groups most affected by this pandemic. One of our conditions for supporting that bill was that Ottawa stop penalizing working seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, by treating the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, as employment income for the purpose of calculating the GIS.

At the parliamentary committee, the Minister of Finance even admitted that this was a significant problem, but, like senior officials of the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, she stated that it was a complex issue that would be difficult to resolve because of the computer system. She nonetheless made a commitment to resolve it.

Here we are today with a bill that would finally correct this injustice being inflicted on our seniors, but that is still disappointing on several counts.

First of all, this bill will ensure that GIS recipients will not be penalized as of July 2022. This may sound good at first glance, but this substantial reduction of their cheques has been going on since July 1, 2021. These seniors have been watching their finances worsen since last summer. Our party made several proposals to the government, urging it to act quickly to ensure that the recipients affected can obtain relief as quickly as possible—as of March 2022, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue hammered home. The government said that this was not possible for technical reasons, more specifically because of computer issues at the CRA. These so-called “computer issues” are pretty surprising for a G7 country.

Furthermore, Bill C‑12 does not include the retroactive one-time payment that the government promised in the December 2021 economic statement as compensation for the reductions that have already been made. We unfortunately do not have details on how the payment will be calculated, but we hope that it will be paid automatically and that the seniors affected will not have to do anything at all. One thing is for sure, seniors have had to wait far too long for this compensation and for their full benefits to be restored. The government only made the announcement on December 17, 2021, in a news release that stated the following:

The CERB and the CRB were designed to provide financial support to employed and self-employed Canadians directly affected by COVID-19. The Government of Canada recognizes that some GIS and Allowance recipients are now facing lower benefit payments this year because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits.

It took the government several months, way too long, to admit there had been a mistake, and now it is taking way too long to act. It is deeply disrespectful to these senior workers who have been impacted by this problem since July. The problem is affecting their financial resources and their ability to buy essentials.

What is really disappointing is that the government is once again attacking a deeply vulnerable population. Everyone knew CERB was taxable income, but when people's income is low enough to qualify for GIS, they do not pay much tax. For GIS beneficiaries who collected CERB, the problem is a simple one. For every CERB dollar they got, the federal government would claw back 50 cents from their GIS. That amounts to a federal tax rate of 50%. We can all agree that is too high.

It is important to note that no one in the federal government informed GIS recipients that their CERB income would literally melt away their GIS benefits. The Bloc Québécois sees this as a major injustice that constitutes prejudicial and appalling treatment. The FADOQ network described the situation as a tragedy. Compensation is urgently needed. The government has known this for a long time, but has not acted accordingly.

Need I remind members of the huge inflationary surge that occurred in 2021? The inflation rate in December was 4.8%, the highest it has been in over 35 years. Prices went up even more for many essential goods. Grocery prices rose by 5.7% year over year, the largest increase in a decade, while housing prices rose by 9.3% relative to December 2020.

It is the most vulnerable, especially people living on fixed incomes, such as seniors, who feel the greatest impact. It is outrageous that the government is doing this to our seniors.

Another big disappointment is that Bill C-12 will not end the inequity between GIS recipients who applied for CERB through the CRA and those who applied at Service Canada. It is important to remember that CERB was administered by the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada.

In certain circumstances, when pension income is reduced from one year to the next, claimants may request that their benefits be recalculated on the basis of an estimate of their income for the current calendar year. This is known as the “GIS option”.

We have criticized the fact the “GIS option” is available only to claimants who received CERB through Service Canada, not those who received it through the Canada Revenue Agency.

Indeed, only CERB benefits issued by Service Canada have been legally constituted as EI and are eligible for a “GIS option” review. CERB should be treated the same for all GIS calculating purposes, whether it was issued by Service Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency.

Pandemic-related assistance programs were brought in quickly. However, by the summer of 2021, in other words 15 months after the pandemic began, there were no more excuses for the government to keep reproducing this inconsistency to the detriment of seniors. The government should have used the bill to correct this gap, but clearly it missed the boat yet again.

In conclusion, the COVID‑19 pandemic has affected a lot of people and businesses since the beginning of 2020, but that is nothing compared to the consequences it has had on the senior population with respect to both their physical and mental health, as well as their financial health.

The government is offering a solution that can be described as too little, too late. Once again, that shows that the government is MIA when it is time to help seniors. I would remind the House that this is the same government that chose to create two classes of seniors by increasing OAS only for those 75 and up.

Let us not forget that financial insecurity does not wait for a person to turn 75 to strike. To fix the problem, the Bloc Québécois has proposed that the OAS be increased by $110 a month for all seniors 65 and up. What do the Liberals propose?

They propose a one‑time, non-recurring cheque for $500 for seniors who will be 75 or older as of June 2022. Pre-election smoke and mirrors: such is the Liberal way of governing. With that decision, the Liberals are sending a very negative message to the 970,000 pensioners in Quebec aged 65 to 74, telling them that they do not matter.

In my opinion, Bill C-12, as presented and without the changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois, demonstrates that the government is ignoring the most vulnerable seniors, and that is deeply disappointing. When we watch what this Liberal government is doing, we have the impression that it is downplaying the problem and expecting it to fix itself, which seems to be the norm recently.

We have before us a bill that does seek to fix a problematic situation, but it is flawed. We expected better from the government, after it took so long to address such a serious situation. The people who spent their lives building the society in which we live today deserve more respect from the federal government. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to stand up for seniors.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her speech today. It was thoughtful, smart and extremely well done.

I want to follow up on some of the things that she mentioned and ask her a quick question.

Earlier in February, I was talking about seniors' issues and the GIS clawback and raised that issue with the government. One of the members from the government stood up and said he was quite concerned with respect to a senior person in his riding who was a babysitter. He thought she was taking more than was due to her. He was trying to blame a vulnerable senior who needed to do some work to supplement her income and had no thoughts at all about the idea of holding to account corporations or extremely wealthy folks who have taken some of these benefits during COVID.

Does the member have any concern that what we are seeing right now is just a further example of the Liberal government's choosing to always privilege and prioritize big business and the wealthy on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her kind words about my speech.

I completely agree. Once again, the Liberal government is adopting a wait-and-see approach for the most vulnerable in society. It is choosing to wait, instead of seeking funds and financing from those who are not vulnerable and could pay more.

The government is choosing once again to stomp on the most vulnerable, as my esteemed colleague mentioned. It is disconcerting that people have waited so long for such an appalling situation to be addressed in such a flawed manner. It is too little, too late and it is not very well done. However, we will have to support Bill C-12, because it addresses a very difficult situation.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was well put by my colleague from the Bloc.

One thing that I want to focus on when we talk about this legislation is something I have heard several members speak about. Yes, we are dealing with legislation that created undue hardship for seniors and needs to be corrected. I think there is agreement on that, but when we deal with pieces of legislation like Bill C-12, I have heard one thing spoken about repeatedly in the House today. It is about the bigger issues that seniors are facing. It is really important to have the proper time to debate bills like this while also raising the issues and concerns that seniors are facing across the country, such as housing prices, rent, the cost of living and so forth.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could speak a bit about the process. We want to make sure we have ministers here and that we as members will have as much time as possible to not only talk about Bill C-12 and talk about the correction that we believe needs to be made, but also to make sure we are getting on the record the stories of our constituents from our respective provinces and regions to make sure that seniors' voices and issues are being raised on the floor.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are two issues here.

First, we need to correct the situation that Bill C‑12 seeks to address, which is that CERB was not factored into the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement. This is not the only problem that seniors have faced, of course, but the bill must be approved relatively quickly because the government has already waited too long to fix this situation.

That said, I completely agree with my colleague that seniors are facing undue hardship, especially in terms of the lack of affordable housing and the ability to afford basic necessities. This must absolutely be addressed, and the House will be happy to discuss these issues in due course.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be here today to speak on this really important issue, especially for the many seniors across our country who are relying on us to get this piece of legislation passed.

I will be sharing my time with the amazing member for Nunavut, who has some very important things to share with us about the region she represents and how unique those experiences are for seniors.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize that over 50 more children's bodies have been found outside of a residential institution. All of us sit in this place, a place that created all of the framework for what happened and continues to happen to indigenous communities, and I hope we are all listening. For every single child we hear about and for every community that is talking about what happened and are sharing these stories, I hope we are all listening and carrying those stories and communities with us. I would like to express my sincerest condolences to those communities and let them know I will be thinking of them during this very painful time. I continue to think of all the communities that are in the process of still looking for children who have been lost and are still waiting for them to be recovered, and of course I recognize all of those who have been found.

We are here tonight to talk about seniors and the fact the government made a colossal mistake that really impacted seniors profoundly. Working seniors did what every other Canadian did. They lost their jobs because of the pandemic and they applied for pandemic benefits to help tide them over during this very difficult time.

As we have these discussions, I hope we recognize seniors across this country, the most vulnerable of them, the ones who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, are hitting a crisis point. Even with this payment that I am very grateful to see happen, it is far too late. July of last year was when these seniors lost their GIS, some partially and some completely. During that time, they have not only lost this amount of money but lost the provincial benefits that are automatically given to them because they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement.

I talked about those people in the House of Commons repeatedly, because it is important all of us as legislators understand the impacts we have when we make decisions, the impacts the government creates when it makes decisions without really looking at the ramifications, especially for those of us who are challenged the most.

Even with this money coming sooner than we expected and opening up stores so Service Canada can work with members to identify the seniors who are the most vulnerable and get them the money even sooner, we know they have lost so much during that time. I think of the many seniors who lost their homes. They lost the places where they lived and are now put in a bad situation. We all know in this place, because we are hearing in all our communities and constituencies, that the cost of living is going up dramatically. The cost of housing is one of the most profoundly expensive costs we have.

When we look at some of these low-income seniors, they lost their housing when they lost their GIS. They lost the stable housing they could afford and are now living in vehicles or in someone's basement. They are living an experience they hoped they would never have to. Something I will also think about when I remember this time is how many seniors said they never thought they would be in this position in their eighties.

Here they are now and they are finally getting a one-time payment. They are going to be retroactively paid, and then into the future we are being promised by the government that there will be no more cutbacks, that they will return to their normal GIS and that things should continue. However, they have already lost so much, and now they are having to pay a lot higher rates for their rent. In some cases, they have lost their health because they have not been able to afford their medication.

I do not know about the other members in the House, but as the senior spokesperson for the NDP, I am hearing not only from my constituency but from seniors across Canada who are writing to ask if they will be punished again in the next tax season. They are asking me if this is really going to be over and if I can promise them this is going to be over.

I really hope that the minister thinks about that as this rolls out and that we make sure that seniors across this country are educated so they know that things should get better. More than anything I hope that of course this place will make sure that this does not happen again.

It does really outline something that I believe this place has to take more consideration of and that is the growing poverty across our country. Persons living with disabilities and seniors are some of the poorest people across our country. We need to look into that and figure out how we can do much better. All of us have been shaken by this. When we recognize that, for single seniors, the GIS tops them up to just over $19,000 a year and if they are in a partnership just over $25,000 a year, most of us cannot imagine, especially with the cost of everything increasing, living on that low income.

I hope and have encouraged the minister to start talking meaningfully about a guaranteed basic livable income. We need to have this conversation. As we see the world changing and see automation increasing, we need to see the bar of dignity extended and not dismissed as it has been.

We also have to have big conversations about how long seniors are working, some by choice and some because they do not have a choice, and make sure that the tax system works for them. We know a lot of seniors are working into their mid-seventies and when they hit a certain point in their seventies, they are no longer able to pay into the Canadian pension plan. That can be a big deterrent for people who have good health and want to keep working.

I also want to talk about the guaranteed income supplement and one of the big faults that it has. Every year between 20,000 to 30,000 seniors in July lose their guaranteed income supplement. They lose it in part because they filed their taxes a little too late, because somebody they loved was ill, because they themselves were ill, and sometimes because they are having an onset of dementia. There are multiple reasons that happens.

I have asked the minister to consider a bill I presented that would look at making sure that every senior who received the guaranteed income supplement had a one-year amnesty. If they got their taxes in a little late, they would not be worried about being able to pay their rent in July.

When I was first elected, I had a call from a senior who was 84 years old, telling me that she got her taxes in a little late because she was sick with the flu during tax time. She had lost her GIS and did not know when it was coming and was going to be evicted from her apartment. I do not think anyone in the House wants to see an 84-year-old evicted simply because she was ill.

My bill would look at creating a space for people to be secure in their income, for those like this amazing senior who was so brave to reach out. For seniors to have to humble themselves, who have worked hard their whole lives, the vast majority of seniors receiving GIS are single women or the working poor. That is who they are. They have worked hard all of their lives. They do not want to ask for handouts. They want to look after themselves, so this has been really hard. We were able to work with the senior, her landlord and with the CRA to make sure that she got her money quickly and assured the landlord she would be able to pay her rent, if a little late.

I hope as we go through this experience all of us remember it is our job here as legislators to make sure that the most vulnerable in our country are cared for. When we look at the processes that we are putting into place, we need to think first of those who need us to think of them and not think of those who have so much that they can fill in those gaps when they need to.

It has been said to me many times that we know who we are by how the people who are the most vulnerable in our communities are doing. Canada must do better. We have seen this example for seniors. Let us make sure that we no longer punish the poor for simply doing the hardest work they can to look after themselves.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know my committee colleague from the NDP has risen several times in the House to advocate specifically on the legislative change that we are seeing. I want to pick up on the point of timing and she raises a very good point. We started to hear a lot of confusion when CERB was rolled out about the impacts it would have in July in that renewal period. Those with busy constituency offices would know that, but again, it has been several months since this has been highlighted and we are finally getting a change.

I wonder if the member could speak about the process and the frustration that I have heard in that it has taken so long to get to this point and the fact that we are here at 10:45 eastern time debating the bill as quickly as we possibly can with a timeline against us. Could she speak about the frustrations and the lack of timeliness to get seniors this change and the impact that they face? Yes, they will get an arrears payment, but the credit card debt, the line of credit, the IOUs with landlords and other bills have been significant. I would welcome her comments on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also enjoy my time in committee with the member. This is probably the most devastating reality. The NDP has been very clear since August that something needed to be done. Earlier in the spring, we brought up multiple times that we were concerned that as these rollouts happened the most vulnerable would pay. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen.

We have seen seniors with the GIS lose their fundamental ability to pay for the basics. We have also seen low-income parents who have lost or had part of their child tax benefit removed. The child tax benefit is there to make sure that children are not in poverty. That is what it is there for, yet we have seen this clawed back as well.

Therefore, I am frustrated. The reality is that this is too late. Seniors have died because they do not have the resources to pay for their medication. That has happened in this country because of this clawback. We know of seniors who were sleeping in their cars. One story that always sticks out in my head is from the Northwest Territories, where an elderly person was sleeping in her car when it was below zero outside.

How do we repair this? Why did it take the government this long? Only the government members can answer that. I am just here debating to try to get the money to the seniors as quickly as I possibly can.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her compassion shines through.

My question for her is very simple. How does she explain that the bill says June 2022 instead of March 2022? Would it have been possible to simply change the date and stop the benefit reductions sooner? Would that not show more compassion? Why did the Liberal government not do that?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for those kind words. It really means a lot to me because I do care passionately. I share that with him and I just want to acknowledge that.

I could not agree more. This needs to happen now. It needs to happen sooner. I have been talking to a lot of people in different departments of the government, talking to different ministers, pleading for the reality that these seniors are facing. I wish it were sooner. I am glad that there are some ways that we are going to be able to get money to seniors as quickly as possible, working with MPs' offices and Service Canada, in March if they absolutely need it, and there are so many who absolutely do. I think of my area. In my riding, 810 seniors have lost their GIS, so we need to work and we need to work quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague from North Island—Powell River. I certainly commend her for everything that she has done to raise this issue. I am particularly struck by her private member's bill, which is not directly related to this, except, of course, it is about poverty among seniors. I wonder if her private member's bill is in this current Parliament, what its current number is, or if it was from the last Parliament. I certainly want to do everything I can to support it. With respect to late filings of income tax, I have had similar cases in my own riding and certainly it is appalling.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her support. I have not tabled it in this Parliament, but it is in front of the minister's office right now and we are looking forward to having conversations on it. It is true that if we think about it, between 25,000 and 35,000 seniors across this country every year lose their GIS for up to four months. It is very concerning.

I look forward to the member's support and I believe that we will continue the fight against poverty among seniors.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for North Island—Powell River. I have appreciated her leadership on this important issue.

Uqaqtittiji, from the beginning, the government has broken many promises made to Nunavummiut and indigenous peoples broadly, and specifically when it came to rolling out pandemic supports.

In this statement, I will paint a picture of the structural challenges Nunavummiut experience and highlight the importance of passing this important bill. Bill C-12 would fill a small gap in serving the needs of Nunavummiut; however, its insufficiency still presents a problem when one considers the structural challenges already in our wake.

Well before this pandemic, Nunavummiut have also been struggling with an affordability crisis, unemployment, poverty and food insecurity. The Government of Canada states that Nunavut has the highest cost of living. Roughly four in 10 residents of Nunavut are on social assistance, the highest proportion in the country. Basic needs like heating and electricity are even more expensive because almost all of Nunavut's electricity is generated from diesel fuel. There are 25 power plants operating in all of Nunavut's communities that run solely on diesel fuel to produce electricity.

In 2016, 18% of those of working age in Nunavut were unemployed. For the rest of Canada, that number was 7%. According to Food Banks Canada, 57% of households in Nunavut are food insecure and are unable to afford food for their families.

All the while Nunavummiut also continue to struggle amidst a housing crisis. A 2020 report from the Nunavut Housing Corporation said there are an estimated 56% of Inuit that live in overcrowded homes. The Government of Canada states that Nunavut has the highest number of people per household. Overcrowded housing is a central cause of the spread of COVID-19. Why are these structural challenges a persistent struggle for Nunavummiut?

Research from the First Nations Tax Commission notes that hundreds of millions of infrastructure proposals are shovel-ready; however, it currently takes about five times longer to make an indigenous project shovel ready compared to provincial systems.

Why do I share all of this? It is because there are too many structural challenges in the way for Nunavummiut, and they have been waiting far too long for redress by the federal government. Clawbacks on pandemic supports are just another structural failure hurting Nunavummiut, only it is not just another challenge. These failings on the most basic livelihood needs and rights compound and exacerbate the challenges experienced by Nunavummiut.

It is clear that Nunavummiut struggle with an affordability crisis. There is a prevailing struggle to feed families, keep houses warm and keep families safe and out of overcrowded housing, yet the government clawed back the supports Nunavut depended on. It is just not right.

Now that I have laid out this context, I would like to speak more to just how pandemic supports have not only failed Nunavummiut but deepened their struggles. In early fall 2020, the Government of Nunavut expressed fear of possible tax implications, repayment and impacts to social assistance. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated asserted that many Nunavummiut thought it was a universal benefit and applied in good faith. Messaging was not accessible to Nunavummiut.

The Minister of Health in Nunavut, Minister Main, noted in January 2021 that there was a potential for his clients to get hammered with repayment requirements or clawbacks. Minister Main criticized communications around the CERB rollout in Nunavut saying there was no information provided in Inuktitut.

That, compounded by the lack of Service Canada offices in many Nunavut communities, led to rumours flying about what CERB was and who it was intended for. The Government of Canada later admitted that it had provided poor information.

According to Statistics Canada, close to 10,000 recipients in Nunavut, of which a couple of thousand were income assistance clients, switched to CERB. This ultimately impacted Nunavummiut's eligibility for income assistance programs, which they depend on, like the guaranteed income supplement. Similar to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut treats CERB as unearned income. This has had the effect of reducing social assistance benefits dollar for dollar. This occurred despite the overwhelming struggle with an affordability crisis.

Inuit living in extreme poverty were not in a position to repay. CERB benefits largely went to buy food. We saw food bank visits go down, because CERB finally allowed Inuit to afford to feed their families. Now the government wants them to repay a debt because of the Liberals' mistake. In October 2020, delegates to the Nunavut Tunngavik annual general meeting asked in a resolution that Inuit who had collected CERB despite being ineligible should not have to repay it. Nunavummiut had been waiting for the government to deliver on their most basic rights, not to have these rights further withheld.

Nunavummiut cannot wait any longer. Seniors across Canada cannot wait any longer. The bill before us does not address the many immediate critical needs of many Nunavummiut, but it alleviates the struggles of the most respected in our Inuit community. Canada's poorest working seniors have been cruelly punished by the government simply for receiving legitimate pandemic supports like any other working Canadian received.

New Democrats support Bill C-12 because it answers our demand to exclude pandemic income supports from future calculations of the guaranteed income supplement. The bill would allow some pressures to be relieved from the seniors whom we look so highly to. I hope we can work together on this and do right by our elders and in respect of our elders.

Qujannamiik.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut, because I learned something tonight in this debate. That was one of the best speeches I have heard this entire evening. It goes to show what the member outlined in terms of the miscommunication from the government on what programs were accessible to Canadians and speaks to why I wish closure had not been enacted on the bill.

I do support this legislation and agree that we need to get it finished this week, but a more detailed committee study could have outlined in further detail some of the struggles Canadians and the Nunavummiut in the north have with the bill. If the member would comment briefly on that, it would be very helpful.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, in hindsight, I think we all feel like we can learn from the past. All we can do is use that new knowledge to do what we can to make a difference now so that we can make sure that mistakes like these do not keep going on in the future. I have been listening to the debate and really appreciate that we need urgency on this matter.

Hopefully, in the rollout the CERB will be communicated better. As I mentioned, much of the rollout was all in English, which is quite unacceptable in Nunavut. I am really hoping that improvements will be made for this rollout so that all first nations, Métis and Inuit who prefer to communicate in their indigenous language are able to receive it in their language, as well as, of course, the French language, which, as we know, is a strong language in Canada.

Qujannamiik.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her eloquent speech.

I would like to hear what she has to say about the services that the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada provide to the Inuit and indigenous peoples. I understand that there is a serious lack of communication from these departments and that many errors could otherwise have been avoided.

How does she propose that the government improve service delivery, especially to the first nations?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Madam Speaker, the services for Inuit might be slightly better compared to first nations and Métis. In the past they have tried to hire bilingual Inuktitut-speaking agents, but the availability, the consistency and the retention has not allowed the services to consistently be provided in Inuktitut, so there can definitely be improvements.

Because of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, both the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada have obligations to meet language requirements for the services that are offered for Inuit. Unfortunately, those targets are hardly ever met. I am still learning my role as the indigenous critic and I am still not fully aware of the issues for other first nations and Métis languages in Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member so clearly laid out the structural challenges that the federal government has created and that Nunavummiut face. Every time I hear her speak in this chamber, I am always struck by what a strong and powerful advocate she is for her territory.

In my riding there are seniors who have lost access to provincial benefits because of the GIS clawback. For example, the rental assistance program SAFER requires recipients to be on GIS. However, the impact of CERB repayment requirements on people who are on income assistance have an even more dire impact because of the government's miscommunication on CERB.

Could the member speak a bit more about the difference it would make for Nunavummiut seniors and elders to have amnesty when it comes to CERB repayments?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Madam Speaker, it would be critically important.

The information we need to get for all first nations, Métis and Inuit needs to be in the language that is the preference of our first peoples. When people understand this information, people will use it for their purpose. It is so important that these programs, whatever they are—

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

I apologize, but we have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate in this place. I am glad that everyone is so chipper even though the debate is going late here this evening. I also thank you, Madam Speaker, for guiding the debate over the course of this evening.

As we address the many challenges we face as a nation, I think it is important that I just make a couple of comments that are not directly related to the subject matter at hand. With the utmost seriousness, we are seeing some of the events taking place around the world, specifically the unrest in Ukraine. My heart and my prayers are with the people of Ukraine this evening, as it seems like a rapidly evolving situation there.

Certainly, it is of the utmost importance that our country has a strong response. I know for myself, and for the members of the Ukrainian diaspora who live in my constituency, it is a very serious evening as they wait on what could be an incredibly challenging time for that country. I would just like to acknowledge that. I want the people of Ukraine who might be watching this to know we are thinking of them and praying for them. I hope, as we face these challenges, that Canada will be there to stand for democracy and what is right in the world.

We are here again for the second debate this week for which closure has been invoked. For all of those who are watching at home, as I am sure there are many, it is when the government moves a motion to limit debate on a particular issue. In this case, it is a problem that the government created. As it was yesterday, when we entered into debate on the situation regarding rapid tests, it is pandemic-related.

Canadians expect all of us in this place to be responsive to the challenges that we face as a country. I would like to backtrack a bit, to July of last year. This concerns those who are 65 and older and, quite frankly, many other Canadians who have depended on or received certain benefits from the government. It is on July 1 that they, in many cases, figure out exactly what the calculation is for their next year's benefits.

As we finished up the spring sitting of Parliament this past June, I started hearing from constituents, as I am sure others in this place started hearing from their constituents, who were concerned that their benefits were going to be clawed back. What has become commonly referred to as the GIS clawback has had a significant impact on many of my constituents. I am sure I am not alone, as I have listened to some of the speeches by other members over the course of the debate today.

Members would think that the government would be quick to respond on what appeared to be a fairly technical bureaucratic issue with the way the benefits were calculated. It depended on how a particular senior, in this case, applied for a benefit, and whether they applied through the EI system or the CRA system, which administered the CERB and other pandemic benefits. In fact, one of my constituents said they applied on the wrong day. If they had applied one day earlier, they would have been okay, but in this case they were facing a significant personal difficulty because of that one-day difference causing a GIS clawback.

There is a reason why I wanted to talk about that time, seven months ago. The government had a responsibility, and I started bringing this up. Letters were sent, my staff were working with constituents, and we were trying to work with the minister's office.

I saw an alarming lack of a response from the various avenues of government that should be ready, one would expect, to serve Canadians, especially some of the most vulnerable in this country, who depend on things like the GIS.

About a month and a half later, after many of these benefits were recalculated for many seniors across this country, which media reports at the time were talking about, we found out that the reason the government was not responsive was because it was putting all its energy and focus not in the best interest of Canadians, but, rather, in an election. It is incredibly unfortunate that however many months later, six or seven, we are now finally getting to the meat of addressing the challenges that these Canadians are facing.

It is unfortunate because this highlights what has been a very concerning trend with the Liberal government. We heard the Liberals say today that somehow it is the Conservatives' fault that we even want to ask simple questions about Bill C-12. I know it is not only Conservatives who have questions. I have heard other questions from my colleague in the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party. There are a lot of questions, and the Liberals will have to forgive me if them saying, “just trust me” is not a good enough answer when it comes to addressing the challenges that these Canadians are facing.

When Canadians expected their government to be working for them, it was planning an election, yet it now claims it needs a team Canada approach and that it is the bad Conservatives who are all about delay, or whatever its talking points are for the day. The reality could not be further from the truth. We have a bill before us that would attempt to fix what was a Liberal problem, which has had a pretty significant impact on the challenges faced by seniors.

I spoke to my constituency assistant and case manager earlier today and told her I was going to be speaking this evening on Bill C-12, which has to do with the GIS. I asked her to share with me some of the calls that my office received over the last number of weeks, just a light synopsis so that I could share some of the challenges that seniors are facing. She sent me an email with a number of stories, one of which I would like to read.

A constituent named Larry had to move out of his home, the home he had lived in for more than 40 years, because he could not afford his bills. Further to that, shortly after selling his home and moving into a rental property, he got a notice from the landlord saying that his rent was going to increase the maximum allowed because of the challenges associated with heating costs. Larry had thought that he was in a good position going into retirement, and now he is facing incredible challenges. My constituency assistant listened to his story and his uncertainty about whether he would be able to even get the benefits we are talking about here tonight. These are real stories about real people.

A number of folks have reached out about the cost of heating. I have been sent dozens of heating bills from constituents over the course of the last number of months, as I know members opposite have as well. What is quite tragic is that often the cost of energy is one of the smaller items on those bills, aside from things like the carbon tax, distribution fees and whatnot. Not all of them are in federal jurisdiction, but the costs, especially for those on fixed incomes, cannot simply be absorbed.

There are many challenges that seniors are facing, such as the cost of living. A number of seniors have shared that when they go to the grocery store, they now, more than ever, have to look at things like the cost of milk and decide whether they can buy a jug of milk that week or whether they have to find a less expensive alternative. They have to decide whether they can afford meat or not.

One senior shared with me that her benefit increase, according to inflation, was 65¢ a month. I am not sure if members have been to the grocery store in the last little while, but with the cost of everything, there is not much we could buy for 65¢. These are the challenges that real people are facing.

Further, I have heard from some seniors, including those who have been impacted by this GIS clawback, that they have had to take on debt in order to make it through. Now they are watching the evening news and hearing talk of interest rates. The debts they have had to take on are not long-term, secure lending options; these were last-ditch efforts to try to put food on their tables, and now they are hearing talk about interest rates and feeling more uncertainty.

It is incredibly unfortunate that this is the reality for so many, yet I hear the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister, whenever she is asked a question about the economy, making accusations that the Conservatives are somehow dragging down the economy. In real terms, the inflation in this country is about twice the amount that wage growth is. That is the minimal indexing that seniors' pensions and benefits get as well as the young family or the student who is simply having trouble making ends meet.

It may be all well and fine for property owners. It may be all well and fine for those who have consistent incomes with guaranteed escalators that many blue-collar Canadians would dream about, but when it comes to the real impacts of the policies of the government, those policies are hurting Canadians.

When we come back to the reality faced by Bill C-12, we do have a chance here to fix a problem, but I think what needs to be noted very importantly is that the role of this place is to ensure against things like the mistakes that have been highlighted and the government's admission of those mistakes through the tabling of Bill C-12, and they cannot blame the significant delays that have been then faced on the Conservatives.

I can tell the House a secret: The only person in the House who can decide when an election will be called outside of the fixed election date that was brought in by the former Harper government is the man who sits in the chair across the aisle. The election had nothing to do with the opposition. I am sure that if the Prime Minister was able to find some creative way to meander around a cleverly worded talking point, he would try to blame the opposition, but he chose to call an election, so here we are at the last minute and the last hour, trying to get this stuff sorted out for Canadians.

I do not think I am even talking in hypotheticals, but my submission is that had we had the chance to more thoroughly debate many of these things, we would not be in this situation. We were criticized yesterday, and it is very relevant to this debate, for asking simple questions about things like the delivery of rapid tests. We have heard many questions today about what this would look like in terms of its possible impacts on future benefits for seniors. In fact, when I heard the minister talk earlier today, she was being completely misleading about former Conservative policies regarding benefits in what I think was an attempt to score some cheap political points. It was truly misleading when she brought forward some of those comments.

This place is unique in the sense that every corner of our country is represented. There is no forum like it. Literally every square inch of our country is represented by the 338 individuals who have the honour of sitting in these seats. What is important and what makes up the strength of our democratic system is the fact that we come to this place with different levels of expertise and different political affiliations. Although I was somewhat disappointed with the number of seats each party got after the last election, which the Prime Minister said he would not call but did anyway, we still ensured that every square inch of this country was represented.

The fact is, we can have debate and can hear from the people of this country. We have a wide diversity of perspectives represented, not just the political and ideological perspectives, but perspectives from different backgrounds. We have a medical doctor who sits as a Conservative, and it is interesting that there are some spin doctors on the other side. Regardless, it speaks to the strength of our system. We have lawyers, social workers and farmers, and I am proud to have a farming background. It is also interesting to note, especially for a certain demographic that happens to be involved in a certain protest that has dominated headlines of late, that I am proud to have a class 1 licence, which means that I can drive those big rigs out front. If anybody needs help moving them I can actually do it legally. I am not sure the Prime Minister can. It is just a little something I am proud of, like the fact that I still farm. I am sure some of my colleagues can share some fun experiences about that.

The strength of this place is in the diversity represented: women, men and different ethnic origins. There are some with a Ukrainian background, and I mentioned some of the challenges they are facing. There are some who are fairly new to Canada, fairly recent citizens, and there are some, like me, who are multi-generational. That is why I find it so frustrating that over the course of my time here since being elected in 2019, the Liberals have seemed to avoid, at all costs, the democratic discourse this place needs to function. That harms our ability to succeed as a country. That harms our ability to be able to function well.

We will disagree about different aspects of politics. Chances are that there are those within this place who will want to read and agree with the opinion columns of the Toronto Star. There are those who would probably agree with what is talked about on rabble.ca. There are those who read the National Post or The Globe and Mail. It speaks to the strength of our democratic institutions.

As I come to the end of this very important discussion, I think it is important to acknowledge, with regard to the substance of this bill, that so many people have been affected by it. We have to take the time that is needed to get it right, because in many cases, seniors like Larry need us to get things right, not like with the CEBA. I think it was after the third or fourth try that it was finally fixed. There are so many other examples, and the discourse that happens in this place is so very important for solving and dealing with the challenges Canadians are facing.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from the member opposite. We are discussing a bill relating to seniors tonight.

I have a question for the member. Does he still agree with his party's position, which apparently has not evolved, at least not that I am aware of, that the age of eligibility for OAS should be 67, which they changed it to a number of years ago under the Harper government, or should it in fact be 65, which is what this government restored it to? What does he think about that?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there it is. We have a Liberal who thinks they can score a cheap political shot. It was the minister, interestingly, in her remarks, who suggested that that age of eligibility was going to be applied to everything, I think, probably even to the child benefit. Wait until someone is 67 for the child benefit. That could not be further from the truth.

First, let us get the facts on the record. The previous Harper government—