Iqra Khalid

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in the past six years, the member has done phenomenal work for her community and in this House. I look forward to engaging in conversation with her about a guaranteed livable income as we continue to do better to support seniors and all Canadians through these difficult times.

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for six years representing the wonderful people of Mississauga—Erin Mills. Over the past year I listened to the parties opposite rant and rave about how they have no faith in this government and that they do not support it. The government put the test to Canadians and Canadians told us that we had to work together in this place as a minority in a co-operative way. I ask members opposite if we can please do that.

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. If we are trying to move this legislation forward and if the member opposite agrees that seniors need that support, then why is he not supporting the expedient passage of the bill?

Over the past six years, we have lowered the threshold for people to qualify for benefits from 67 to 65, we have increased GIS by 10% and we fixed CPP for future seniors. We have programs like the New Horizons for Seniors to help support seniors organizations in my riding, like the Fenghua Senior Association or the Shubh Helping Hands organization. There is a lot more to do. Can we get on with it already?

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, supporting our seniors is one issue I think all parliamentarians have been quite unanimous on. We saw our seniors throughout all communities, rural and urban, struggle so much during this pandemic. We as the Liberal government put in those measures to provide extra support, and now seniors should not be penalized for taking that extra support. That is really what the crux of this debate is all about.

I do not think that any member in this House disagrees with what we are trying to do as a government here, but we have heard throughout the day from the opposition. They do not disagree with the merits of this bill, Bill C-12, but rather with the process. We are here to debate the process of passing this bill and how we spend our time here before having the final vote on this bill.

The amendment that was moved by the Conservatives proposes that we should try to scramble committee resources to have a meeting on this when they know that committees' technical capacities are pushed each week to the max in order for them to meet. Committees have set agendas and have a lot to achieve on behalf of Canadians. If the amendment passed, they would be sent a motion by this House saying that the Minister of Seniors should be available to appear before them.

Hon. members opposite may know that the motion, if passed, would both not be binding and possibly obstructed, as the Conservatives did on Bill C-3, when the Minister of Labour made himself immediately available to deal with another urgent matter. Conservatives played politics and risked not getting the bill passed quickly, despite the importance of the matter. I worry that they would again play games like this if they were given that opportunity at committee. Having chaired a committee in the past, I have seen those games.

Further, they are ignoring what has been identified already, which is that the Minister of Seniors has been at committee. She was there yesterday. She has answered questions on this and on other issues that were in her mandate letter. Under the Conservatives' proposal, the same committee members would reconvene to debate a bill that I could read in this speech and still have six to seven minutes left over. They would reconvene to ask questions when they had an hour to ask but decided not to.

To me, any technical question could be asked and answered on this short bill through other means, given the importance of passing it through the House with expediency. The government has also offered time with civil servants in an all-MP briefing on this bill. It was held last week, after introduction. I would note that the English briefing only had two questions, that neither was from a Conservative MP, and that it ended in 10 minutes, as opposition members clearly did not see fit to take the opportunity to speak to the officials and the minister's office staff directly.

It seems convenient when certain opposition members say that they do not get answers, as they do not seem to ask a lot of real questions when the time comes. It seems quite disingenuous. They could have asked those real questions that they have, but it is clear that they would rather complain about not having that opportunity, an opportunity that I have identified just now that they had. I will leave Canadians at home to decide why that might be.

As identified as well by the member for Winnipeg North during his remarks, it is ironic to see the Conservatives dispute the process so inconsistently. At times the process matters and at times it does not. Why is that? The member well identified that the Conservatives and the Bloc would rather spend the full time debating and going into the details of a five-line bill just to delay the government. This amendment would only serve to delay these payments to seniors, although I suppose the Conservatives are no strangers to delaying payments to seniors, as we saw that they used their powers to push back the retirement age to 67 to keep Canadian seniors working. To quote most parents at some point or another, and I know my mom says this all the time, “I am not mad; I am just disappointed”.

The debate on how we debate does not make much sense to our constituents, especially on such a simple bill. As an important reminder, we all agree on the merits of this bill. Our constituents want to see Parliament do things, not debate about debating or about how much longer we should all agree with each other on this bill. We agree, so let us move forward. There are many other urgent and pressing things on our government's agenda that we must get to as parliamentarians.

I note for hon. members that we are still in a global pandemic. There are still seniors who are isolated and facing challenges to their mental health and to their well-being. There are still seniors in long-term care environments who are at a higher health risk of pandemic outbreaks and infection. They have hopefully been better protected through our government's rapid response and monumental work to get vaccines available for provinces and territories, and to distribute them.

There are still high costs to stay at home and to stay safe. There are working seniors who still cannot go back to their workplace to supplement their pension benefits with work income. We have continued to make pandemic benefits available to eligible seniors who cannot get to work. It is exactly for that reason that we introduced Bill C-12 in the first place. We know there are seniors who took benefits in 2021. There are seniors who are taking them now. We never know what the future is going to hold. These benefits will count as income this year and affect GIS and allowances if we do not pass Bill C-12.

We obviously hope that we do not need to continue pandemic benefits through to future years, but we want to assure people that they would be covered through this legislation. We said we would be there for seniors for as long as it takes, and that is what this bill is going to help us do. In order to get to this place, we need to let our officials get to work to make the changes needed in the system. As we know, the CRA is really busy through this time of year. ESDC is renewing GIS for 2.2 million seniors at this time as well. They are doing all this while doing a lot of other things too.

We have to respect the work of public servants and not play political games with technical measures that would help them support Canadians in a way that we have all asked them to. It is about respect for their time and their work, and I do not think that the Conservatives remember how important the work is that public servants do. They did not show respect to public servants when they were in power, and that is not really a big surprise.

I think hon. members opposite should consider focusing on what is really important here, which is low-income seniors who are working. These people rely on month-to-month income from pension programs, combined with these benefits. These people want to work, but they cannot. This pandemic benefit income is not normal income, because these are not normal times.

The Conservatives want to spend this debate telling us that process matters while also agreeing that it is an emergency. They cannot have it both ways. The merits of this short, simple matter are clear. It does one thing, and only one thing: It exempts pandemic benefit income going forward for the purposes of calculating GIS and allowances for seniors. If we agree on this matter, we should move forward quickly. Seniors are worried now, but are seeing politicians squabble over the most agreed-upon, simple bills that have ever been presented in this place.

Call me idealistic, but I hope the Conservatives and the Bloc will join the rest of the members in this House to recognize that this is an urgent matter. We need to get that support to our seniors. I hope they can join with us and work together, as we have been able to do in the past, and make sure that this support gets to seniors as soon as possible.

[COVID-19 Protests, February 14th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, “I am Canadian and I am triple vaxxed. For my family, my neighbours, my co-workers, our healthcare workers, for my country. I will not be bullied.”

These words, written by Ms. Jean Yoon and countless Canadians over the past few days, have become a rallying cry. Make no mistake: After two years, we are all tired of this pandemic. We are tired of not being with our loved ones, tired of seeing small businesses and communities struggle, tired of this illegal blockade that has terrorized Canadians and attacked our supply chains. We have sacrificed so much to be where we are today, and we will not back down. It is our obligation to one another to do what is necessary to protect Canadians.

It is time for the members of this House to start putting first their obligations to the citizens who elected us to serve, to put petty politics aside and to work together. Together let us show an effective plan to see us through to the end of this pandemic. Let us show what Canadians have proven: that we are united.

[Opioid Crisis in Canada, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his very impassioned speech.

There are a number of different schools of thought about how justice should be conducted and how we should conduct our society. I wonder if the member can share some of his thoughts around how mandatory minimum sentences impact those who are suffering, those who are going through the opioid crisis and are in need of support.

Perhaps the member can share his thoughts about mandatory minimum sentences and the role of the justice system, as opposed to the health care system, when we talk about matters like these.

[COVID-19 Protests, February 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the member said in his speech that the Prime Minister's job is to unite, as is everyone's in this place. Over the past two years we have seen 34,000 Canadians die from COVID and five million across the world. People in Ottawa have had to file injunctions, as the member said himself, in order to get a bit of peace and quiet. When we see members from the opposite side going and joining this occupation of Ottawa, which is disturbing the residents and the peace of Ottawa, does the member not think that he has a responsibility to do the right thing, be democratic and stand up for the values of democracy of our great nation?

[National Day of Remembrance and Action Against Islamophobia, January 31st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, an act of hate took the lives of Ibrahima, Mamadou, Khaled, Aboubaker, Abdelkrim and Azzeddine in Quebec City. Seven months ago, another act of hate took the lives of the Afzaal family in London, Ontario.

On Saturday, the first National Day of Remembrance and Action Against Islamophobia, we recognize that prejudice is the link between these attacks and more. When everyday Islamophobia is normalized, it builds and eventually spills over into violence. Our government continues to take action in combatting discrimination, including by bringing governments and communities together for a national summit on Islamophobia and committing to the important work ahead.

Hate and prejudice are poisons that threaten the fabric of our society. Every one of us must stand against hate wherever and however it may appear without hesitation, because we know the consequences if we do not.

I remember.

[Diversity and Inclusion, December 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, since my Motion No. 103 in 2017, we have changed the conversation so that no federal leader could ever pretend that Islamophobia is not a threat. We have made progress since then, including a national summit earlier this year, but as long as Muslim Canadians fear for their safety in the workplace or walking down the street, we have to do more.

Could the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion please tell the House what the government is doing to continue combatting Islamophobia in Canada?

[Criminal Code, December 15th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament, the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam's private member's bill addressed the issue of decriminalizing those who were seeking those safe injection sites, and good on him for doing that. One bill is not an answer to addressing a systemic problem. There needs to be a lot more cognizant effort by our government and by all parties in the House to ensure we address this issue.