44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 11, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 8, at the end of the next sitting day of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 7, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.
42 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the minister suggested today that she is looking at moving quickly and collaboratively. It is a brilliant notion, but my concern is that we have been looking to move quickly and collaboratively since I became a member in September.
If the idea is to move as quickly and collaboratively as we and our stakeholders would like to, what has taken so long?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree why the quick passage of this bill is so important. We know how difficult this pandemic has been for those most vulnerable seniors. The bill is short, concise and clear. Bill C-12 would do what I said. It would exempt pandemic relief benefits for the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits, so that seniors who took pandemic benefits last year would have the security that their GIS will not be impacted.
It is something that the hon. member and I have chatted about. This is on top of the work that was announced in the fall economic statement. I think all parties agree on the merits of the contents of the bill. Let us get it passed.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that we need to move quickly with this bill. However, even if we were to pass the bill today, nothing would change for seniors until the summer.
I remind members that we have been sounding the alarm on this issue since August. Could the minister tell me at least one other thing, aside from the bill being debated today, that she has considered to address the situation?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with the hon. member's party. I know we all agree. I also understand why there is urgency with this bill and of course, I share her concerns when moving quickly on the one-time payments we announced.
When I was appointed to this role, we moved very quickly and worked extremely hard with our officials and the Minister of Finance to make a major investment in the fiscal and economic update. My colleagues from all parties have received briefings on this. I assure them we will work quickly on that front. This bill will ensure that this does not happen again. That is what Bill C-12 is all about. I hope we can put aside our partisanship and move forward to ensure those—
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/11/22 12:39:48 p.m.
- Watch
We will continue with questions and comments.
The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, back in May 2021 the NDP sent a letter to the government outlining very clearly that we saw this as a huge risk and that action needed to be taken immediately.
When the minister talks about the government moving quickly, I simply do not buy it. We were very clear. We knew that the poorest people in our country, seniors who receive GIS and parents who were receiving the child tax benefit, would potentially lose a significant portion, if not all, of those benefits. We alerted the government to this and asked for rapid action. This is ridiculous, in my opinion.
Why is the government choosing not to listen to Campaign 2000, which called out for an advanced payment? Waiting until May is simply too long for people who have been waiting since July.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy on this issue. She and I have had conversations about this as well. From the day I was appointed Minister of Seniors, we moved very quickly on this. We worked extremely quickly with our officials and the Minister of Finance to put a major investment in the fall economic statement to fully compensate those seniors who were affected last year
I think we can put aside our partisanship for one second. This bill will do exactly what all the parties have been telling us to do. All the stakeholders are telling us to do just that. It will exclude any pandemic benefit incomes for the purposes of calculating GIS going forward. I think we have a real opportunity to work together to showcase to Canadians how a place can work in collaboration to help those most vulnerable. I want to thank the hon. member. We are going to make sure the most vulnerable seniors have the supports they need.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to speak with unanimous consent. This is very important to low-income seniors across the country, but extremely important to me as well.
While the Minister of Seniors provided a lot of important context on the urgency of this bill and the merits of passing this motion, I want to add a few points of support that hon. members can consider as we move forward.
First, I would like to acknowledge that I am joining the debate on the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people here in beautiful Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia. I am here to discuss government business no. 7, which would expedite Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. In short, this bill would exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement or allowance benefits beginning in July of 2022.
I would like to explain why we are proposing this amendment and I hope that hon. members will see the urgency and the merit of rapid adoption.
As hon. members know, we put in place the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, and the Canada recovery benefit, CRB, to help people at the height of the pandemic, and the financial sector has confirmed that these benefits have helped families avoid catastrophic income loss. However, we also know that these benefits were counted as income and had an impact on some of our most low-income seniors. This is happening because eligibility for the GIS and the allowances is based on how much net income an individual earned the previous year.
Since the CERB and the CRB are taxable, they can and do impact GIS eligibility. Unfortunately, that meant that some GIS and allowance recipients may now be facing lower benefit payments because of the income they received from these pandemic benefits. We recognize that some seniors were facing significant challenges as a result of this and we needed to move quickly to rectify the situation.
In the 2021 economic and fiscal update, our government committed $742 million for one-time payments to support seniors who were experiencing hardship because of this. I want to tip my hat to the minister for this because I know how hard she worked and how determined she was to get that in the economic and fiscal update. GIS and allowance recipients who received CERB or the Canada recovery benefit in 2020 will get help. We are going to compensate seniors for their loss of GIS or allowance benefits, and we are going to make it simple. Seniors would not need to take any action to receive the one-time payment. They will receive it automatically, in the same way that they receive their GIS or allowance benefits.
This automatic one-time payment will support those who saw a loss of GIS or allowance by compensating them for the full annualized loss amount. However, we did not just want to provide a quick fix. Instead, we wanted to ensure that seniors will not be facing a loss or a reduction in benefits again.
That is why we introduced this bill. Bill C-12 would exempt federal pandemic benefits from the calculation of GIS or allowance benefits beginning in July. This bill speaks directly to the needs of seniors that have been raised by members on every side of this House. Once again, we are proposing this crucial change to the Old Age Security Act to ensure that this problem never happens again. To do so, we have a very short window of opportunity at a very busy time of the year. We must have royal assent on Bill C-12 by March 4 to guarantee that this takes effect as of July 1.
Going forward, GIS and allowance recipients who received pandemic benefits will not experience any loss or reduction in their future benefits. This is something that should resonate with all members, and we have heard from so many members that it has and that they care about seniors in their communities. This will automatically prevent this from happening again to constituents.
These proposed measures are just a few of the many activities that we have undertaken, both before COVID struck and in the two years since. Indeed, the well-being of seniors has been a priority for our government since 2015. In 2016, we increased the GIS for nearly 900,000 low-income seniors. As a result of this and other government initiatives, an estimated 45,000 seniors were lifted out of poverty between 2015 and 2019. We also put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of future seniors by restoring the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for GIS benefits and the old age security pension.
Then, when the pandemic hit, we stepped up to protect the most vulnerable among us, including seniors. To help seniors cover increased costs by COVID-19, we provided a one-time, tax-free payment of $300 for those eligible for the OAS pension and an additional $200 for OAS pensioners who were eligible for the GIS. We also provided a special top-up payment through the GIS credit in April 2020. More than four million low- and modest-income seniors benefited from this top-up, which gave an average of $375 for single seniors and $510 for couples.
Our Government of Canada will also increase the OAS pension by 10% for older seniors aged 75 and over. As a first step, we have provided a one-time payment of $500 to the OAS pensioners who will be aged 75 or over as of June 30, 2022, to help meet their immediate financial needs. In July 2022, the OAS pension will be permanently increased by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over. That increase will provide an extra $766 to full pensioners in the first year and improve the financial security of seniors later in life.
These are just some of the supports that our government has provided to improve the lives and financial situations of Canadian seniors. We continue to search for ways to improve our supports and services for seniors, and we will listen to all members who have suggestions.
During the pandemic, we focused our support on people. We put in place the CERB and the Canada recovery benefit to help people at the height of the pandemic. We helped millions of Canadians pay the bills and put food on the table with this support. However, we also know that it is now having an impact on some of our most vulnerable and we are taking action today to deal with that.
This bill is focused on dealing with this issue on a go-forward basis. We need all members' support to make that happen quickly. With Bill C-12, we would make an important legislative change that would provide seniors with peace of mind and certainty in knowing that they will not face any undue financial hardships if they continue to access pandemic benefits in the future. We hope they will not have to, but we committed to being there for Canadians as long as it takes. The pandemic has highlighted the many challenges facing our most vulnerable seniors. We have done a lot, but it is an area where we still have more to do.
The minister and I will continue to be available throughout this process to talk about this bill. We have already spoken to many members in the House about this. I know that all members here have expressed that they want to solve this issue in exactly the way this bill would do. All parties have suggested that.
Therefore, we should put politics aside and put people first in this case. Canadians expect that much of us when it comes to low-income working seniors who need this worry taken away. Let us support these most vulnerable seniors by quickly passing this bill, through this motion.
1332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this government motion will push through Bill C-12 with minimal debate, zero committee study and no opportunity to improve it or strengthen it. Can the member perhaps acknowledge that this is deviating from standard practice that is entrenched in this place?
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her advocacy on this very important topic.
We have been asked by all members in the House to move quickly. This bill would do what we have been asked to do and what is needed to do to help these most vulnerable seniors. Moving quickly is very important. That has been said in the House many times. I urge this member and her colleagues on the other side to support this.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois sent many communications before and during the election campaign, but the government did not realize until December 2021 that things were not okay.
My question for the parliamentary question is simple. He used the word “quickly” a lot, so I would like to know what, exactly, “quickly” means to this government.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc members for being supportive of Bill C-12. There have been lots of conversations with the critic and with individual members and I know that the Bloc supports this. If the Bloc will be willing to support Bill C-12, through this motion today, we will move this along more quickly.
The last thing we need to have happen is to have this go past the March 4 deadline and delay this any further. This is a simple fix. This bill is not pages long. It is five lines and it speaks to what is needed and what has been asked for.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, this is a simple fix. This, of course, could have been done before the last election. It was something the NDP brought to the government's attention as a critical issue for seniors. Of course, the government did not do that and the election happened. Even after the election, it is not until now that this bill is being brought forward.
With that being said, even if the measures in the bill go through in an expedited fashion, seniors will still not get the resources they need to survive. In my riding of Vancouver East now we have seniors who are getting evicted. They cannot wait some more months to get the help they need. Will the government do what Campaign 2000 asked for, which is to advance payments to seniors before the bill is passed?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the urgency in the hon. member's voice is exactly why we need to move quickly to get this passed, pronto. If we think back to Tuesday, when we had the Conservative opposition day motion, everyone in the House knew it was the right thing to do and voted together in support. Let us not let perfect be the enemy of better. Let us pass this bill quickly so this does not happen to our lowest-income, vulnerable seniors in the future.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this has been a source of such grief. I do not think there is a member in this place who has not heard from distraught seniors about the unintended consequences of their decision to accept the CERB and then be punished in the way they have been punished. I regret that it took legislation to fix this mistake.
However, I want to make the point I have been trying to make throughout the morning about how quickly this is going through and share this with perhaps the newer members who are not as used to seeing how often members of Parliament pass billions of dollars of spending without a chance to look at that at all. My first time here, actually it was in Centre Block, there was a Speech from the Throne under the Harper government. I walked down to the Senate chambers to listen to the speech. I was waiting for a hip replacement in those days, so I walked back slowly. By the time I got back to the House, this entire place, through unanimous consent, had deemed that over $5 billion of spending had been studied by committee, had been reviewed and we all said we should spend the money. It is not uncommon.
I think this will get studied at committee, so I want to ask if this is uncommon in the experience of the parliamentary secretary.
234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/11/22 12:55:14 p.m.
- Watch
I will allow the parliamentary secretary about 30 seconds to finish that up.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was going to have any time to respond to my friend from the Green Party from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank her very much for the question and for everything that she does in the House. I know she is a person who does not put politics before the things that are important to Canadian seniors in this country, so I hope she will support moving forward on this simple five-line bill.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to rise today to speak positively of the first piece of legislation in my portfolio. I wanted to share with the House how helpful the new Minister of Seniors has been. I wanted to be able to point to the past week as an example of this legislation putting aside partisan differences to deliver results for Canadian seniors. Instead, what we have is the government House leaders's office using Canadian seniors to play petty procedural games.
The situation is urgent today. It was urgent a month ago. It was urgent a year ago. Many Canadian seniors are feeling neglected and desperate. After we raised the hopes of low-income seniors, they are exhausted, fed up and tired of hearing the government has their backs.
A payout timeline for May 2022 would leave impacted seniors waiting over 10 months. This situation did not happen overnight. It has been a long time coming, and it was not acted upon until the government was continuously pressed on this by my colleagues of all stripes in the House.
Our Prime Minister identified that it was an unintended conflict between the CERB and the GIS programs. If the magnitude of the impact of the GIS clawback were truly understood or fully appreciated by the federal government, distribution of the clawback repayment would have and should have already happened. The outrage I have heard from constituents and stakeholders in Hastings—Lennox and Addington and seniors across our great country is alarming. We need to get the money into the pockets of our seniors immediately.
Let me tell a story. A fine gentleman of 71 years old from my riding is working hard with extra shifts to cover increased rent. He is too proud to acknowledge to his own family how much he is struggling. He opened up to me. He shared stories with me from the good old days, stories of his late wife and the family reunions and trips they used to go on. Today, sadly, he lives very modestly. He volunteers at the food bank two days a week, in part because he loves the social aspect of it, but more importantly because those are two days he can have a warm meal. Another gentleman, whom I have known most of my life, is now evicted and is living in his car.
These are just a few examples of hundreds of real stories of human lives being affected. Our vulnerable seniors are feeling sad and forgotten. Everyone has a story. Everyone makes choices on how they navigate through life. However, we can all agree this country is in chaos. Many of our Canadian seniors have stepped up and done what they needed to do, and now it is time for our Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to do the same.
Growing older, becoming more seasoned and entering into a different phase of our life can be beautiful. Aging gracefully and staying engaged mentally, spiritually and physically in our retirement years is a special chapter of life to embrace. Sadly, this is not the case for all. Many of our vulnerable seniors are done. They are tired of living. Heating their homes is more expensive. In fact, yesterday I spoke with a constituent who has ice on her window ledge in the room where she sleeps, and she bundles up with extra blankets. On top of this, many are experiencing loss and loneliness, which have been highlighted by this pandemic, regret, lack of proper care, lack of hygiene, dementia, financial and physical abuse, and fear of technology. The list goes on. Now seniors are being put on the sidelines until May so that between now and May, they need to live each day in the hope that they can persevere until the next.
Currently, COVID-19-related benefits are not listed exemptions under the act for the purpose of benefit calculations. The proposal is to amend the definition of income in the OAS by deducting the amount received from three COVID-19 benefit acts. Do not get me wrong. I am delighted that the government wishes to move forward on this. The goal of the legislation is not to have a repeat of the 2021 GIS clawback. This is great news. My concern is, why the delay? More specifically, why would we not be allowing the House to properly and respectfully review the options that have been presented, respect the process of healthy debate and swiftly move forward in the best interests of all seniors being impacted? I can appreciate that time is sensitive and action is required, but not at the expense of ensuring that this bill is presented in its best, most thorough possible form.
Yesterday, in response to the Thursday question posed by my very capable colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, the government House leader indicated that the reason for ramming through Bill C-12 was to move as “expeditiously as possible”. I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard the member say that, and this is why. When ministers are called before committees, they have a document prepared for them. It briefs them on topics that may be raised, including answers to potential questions. These binders are available online for anyone to read.
In May 2020, the then Minister of Seniors appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As is standard practice, the minister was prepared a binder by departmental officials. In that binder in section 7, under the heading “Questions and answers—COVID-19 Economic Response Plan: Support for Canadians and businesses” and under “Interaction with CERB and GIS”, the following question appears: “Will income from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit be used in the calculation of Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits?” The answer is as follows:
It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances.
This being said, this will not affect the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances for about a year. Income received from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit in 2020 will only affect GIS and Allowances benefit amounts beginning in July 2021, as those benefits will be based on 2020 income.
That is a direct, verbatim quote from the government's own briefing binders, proving the government was aware of this issue for at least 21 months and chose not to act. We keep hearing that this legislation is urgently needed. On this side of the House, we have been constantly asking the government about this, since I have been here and for months before that. Flags were raised to the government and it did not do anything. In fact, not only did it do nothing to address the issue, but it actively chose to dither. Its own briefing binders point out that this was going to be an issue a year down the road.
The government, knowing full well what its decision would mean, did nothing. After tens of thousands of seniors began reaching out to their members of Parliament, including, I would suspect, every single member on the other side as well, the decision was to do nothing. To be clear, I do not necessarily pin all of this on the minister. I can certainly appreciate that it takes time to settle into a new role and get accustomed to the file, especially one that stretches laterally across so many different policy areas, as the seniors file does.
While I am so happy to see movement on this file, I must reiterate that government inaction is the reason we are even considering the motion before us. This should have been addressed months ago. Hopefully, moving forward, the government will realize that there are real costs to inaction, which are being borne by our most vulnerable seniors during the deadliest pandemic in a century. It did not have to be this way. Canadian seniors did not need to be placed by the government in a position to choose between food, medication and shelter, but this is where we find ourselves, and I pray that it will never happen again.
The government's motion would ram through Bill C-12 with minimal debate, zero committee study, no ministerial accountability and a total denial of an opportunity for amendments to be proposed to improve and strengthen those very important measures. While this may be fairly obvious to my colleagues in the House, we must be absolutely positive that any deviation from standard practices is considered greatly and not done without heavy thought.
What I am particularly concerned about here is the divergence from long-standing, well-established practices. In their defence, I will turn to the wisdom of those who came before us, those who have examined and established the rules of today.
On September 24, 1968, the House of Commons ordered a special committee of this place to be struck. Its objective was to “report upon the advisability of making changes in the orders concerning the business of supply, the business of ways and means, the stages of the legislative process, and the operation of the standing committees of this House”. Over 26 meetings, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House produced its report. The fourth report recommended changes to the legislative process and is the genesis for so much of what we have today, including what our predecessors envisioned as the role of each stage of the debate process. The authors had this to say:
10. In considering the reform of the legislative process your Committee has taken into account the need to eliminate obsolete procedures; the desirability of providing more meaningful opportunities for Members, and particularly back benchers, to participate in the consideration and shaping of a bill; the desirability of identifying the crucial stages in a bill's passage which, in your Committee's opinion, should occur later rather than earlier in the legislative process; and the necessity of ensuring that the legislative programme of a session, following reasonable consideration by Parliament, should always be completed in this age of heavy governmental responsibilities.
11. In the hope of achieving these aims the Committee's recommendations, which are contained in its Fourth Report, are based on the following principles:
(d) The motion for the Second Reading would read:
“That this bill be now read a second time and referred to a committee”.
This motion, if passed, would imply that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any commitment as to the final passage of the bill, had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny. Your Committee believes that the significance of the Second Reading stage has been exaggerated in the past, and that the decisive stage should occur later in a bill's passage after it has emerged from a committee. The purpose of the Second Reading stage is to define the scope of a bill, and to extend its significance any further is, in our opinion, to distort the meaning of the legislative process.
I do not believe the authors could have been any more clear. It is extremely evident that they placed a great importance on the committee stage, and subsequently on third reading over second.
The report continues:
The motion for Third Reading would read: “That this bill be now read a third time and passed.” This wording would indicate clearly and unambiguously that the final and most crucial decision relating to the passage of a bill would be taken at the Third Reading. At present the Third Reading is seldom debated and has become almost a formal stage. Your Committee does not envisage that a debate should necessarily take place at the Third Reading, but it attaches great importance to the preservation of the opportunity for debate at this stage. We wish to emphasize that the Third Reading should always be the decisive stage and that in the case of a highly controversial bill it could be a most crucial debating stage.
The report of the Special Committee on Procedure also had quite a bit to say regarding the importance of committee, another key stage of the legislative process that this motion would do away with.
It further states:
It will be apparent from the recommendations already made in relation to supply and the legislative process that your Committee envisages a significant extension of the functions of the Standing Committees and in consequence a substantial strengthening of their importance and influence. They would become the forums in which the details of expenditure and legislation would be closely considered. They would investigate the operations and continuing programmes of government departments and would develop areas of subject specialisation. We would expect debate in the Standing Committees to be well-informed and pertinent; their members to become influential in the areas of their specialised experience; and their reports to the House to assume a critical significance related more closely to the national interest as a whole than to simple political differences. We also anticipate that the business of the House would be greatly expedited and handled more efficiently through exploiting the potential of the committee system of the House to the full.
The importance of these stages of the legislative process cannot, and must not, be understated. What we have in front of us is admittedly a very important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that should have come long ago. Many Canadian seniors are waiting. Many are desperate, and our federal government has a significant role to play.
I have mentioned before while standing in the House that the role of an effective opposition is not just to oppose and critique. Our responsibility is to build solutions. We need to ensure that all low-income seniors who saw their GIS clawed back in 2021 are included in appropriate and timely, yet thorough, legislation. This portfolio need not be partisan.
I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the minister to ensure that we are working together in the best interests of all Canadian seniors. This brings forward the very obvious question of how we balance the importance of legislative scrutiny with the need to get this legislation passed in a timely manner. I think I have the solution.
2410 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
