44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 11, 2022 10:00AM
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
Therefore I move that the motion be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “immediately after the adoption of this order” with the words “at the next sitting of the House”;
(b) by deleting paragraph (b);
(c) in paragraph (c), by replacing the words “the debate” with the words “Government Orders on the day the bill is considered”;
(d) in paragraph (d), by deleting all the words after the words “if the bill is” and substituting the following: “read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, consideration in committee shall take place the following day, provided that the Minister of Seniors be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, no later than three hours before the next sitting of the House”;
(e) in paragraph (e), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “no notice of motions in amendment shall be allowed at report stage”;
(f) in paragraph (f), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “the report stage and third reading stage of the bill may be considered during the same sitting and be ordered for consideration at the next sitting following the presentation of the report”; and
(g) in paragraph (g), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders that day or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division”.
411 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciated many of the comments the member put on the record this afternoon. I, for one, would love to see a reform of our Standing Orders. There are a number of things that we could be doing. It is not to give a strategic advantage to an opposition party or to a governing party. I think we need to modernize our rules. Many of the issues she has raised today, and I think other members have raised previously, would be well served by revisiting our Standing Orders. I hope to, at some time over the next couple of months, engage in doing that.
In regard to the legislation itself, the member seems to see the value of it. She understands the shortness of the legislation. If the member could wave a wand, when would she like to see the legislation enacted?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can certainly acknowledge that I agree this is a bill of urgent nature and yes, with regard to the minister, she suggested that there is simplicity in its nature. She also suggested that every day we wait to pass this, we are impacting seniors.
However, I must acknowledge that we have been waiting. Canadian seniors have been waiting, and I do not think that, with respect to due process, if we respect the democracy of this place and the voices of all here, we can still proceed in a timely manner.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the member's speech, especially around the reality that it was known a very long time ago that the pandemic benefits were going to have significant impacts not only on seniors and the GIS, but of course on families and the child tax benefit. It is especially sad when we look at these two benefits and how they directly link to keeping Canadians out of poverty. Having those clawed back, especially during the pandemic, seems very careless.
Would the member respond to Campaign 2000? It is asking for an advance payment to be directed to the seniors of this country who had their GIS clawed back, sort of as an interim measure as they assess and get to the next step of the final payment.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we can certainly acknowledge that we want to move as quickly and collaboratively as we can. We want to be able to help Canadian seniors as quickly as we can. With regard to the advance payment, it should have already happened, so the sooner the better. It has been too little, too late.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her nice, long speech.
I just want to point out that seniors were the first to be affected by the pandemic. This came at a time when they were isolated, living with anxiety and losing money.
There were also the retired nurses and health care professionals who decided to return to work but whose GIS payments were clawed back as a result.
I could also talk about the two classes of seniors this government has created: those aged 65 to 74, who have been abandoned to live in financial insecurity, and those aged 75 and up, who have been recognized by the government.
What does the member think we could do with this bill to address these two classes of seniors?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it seems that it does not matter where we go. At age 55, we are seniors at Shopper's Drug Mart, and at age 65, we are seniors somewhere else. At age 70, we are seniors somewhere else.
What we need to address here is that we respect the intention of the bill in principle. We want to make sure that it is heard and equally debated and listened to. The thorough passage of this, and thorough understanding and debate, are critical to moving forward.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would agree with my hon. colleague. It certainly strains credulity when one considers that it was known for so long that this was an issue. Moreover, we had a Prime Minister who called nothing but a vanity election and then waited for months to reconvene Parliament. I echo the member's sentiments, and understand her sentiments questioning the need to ram this through.
She spoke about the necessity of debate in a democratic system. What sorts of things does she wish to hear about, or what types of witnesses does she wish to hear from, and what topics may be undertaken in a study at committee?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us not be mistaken. We are all delighted that the government is finally moving on this, and we want to work together collaboratively to make this happen. With regard to listening to real Canadian stories of hardship and loss, Canadian seniors have been struggling. Low-income seniors are worthy of some healthy debate by the people they elected to be here. There is a tremendous amount of study, but this is not something that we would belabour. We need to act on it quickly. It does not need to be long and drawn-out.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened with intent during the member's speech and there are a couple of things I would like to comment on before I get to my question.
The government has been there for seniors since it was elected in 2015, whether it was increases in the guaranteed income supplement or the emergency payments during the pandemic. We have brought 250,000 seniors out of poverty and we are also proposing to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 above and beyond what this legislative measure represents.
Constituents in my riding remember that when the Harper Conservatives were in government, they increased the OAS eligibility up to 67. I know the member opposite was not part of that government at the time.
I am proud of the government's record. I am concerned that the member, in one breath, says that we have to get support out to seniors, but yet procedurally is saying it is absolutely important, notwithstanding the fact that we could have agreement in the House to move forward with this measure, and she does not want to move in that fashion.
My question to the member is on solutions. The Conservative Party is often calling for pulling back on finances. I am fine with that if that is its principle, but at the same time, she is saying we need to do more for seniors. What would her solutions be? Is it to put more money back into seniors' pockets by government spending more? Is it spending less, and if so, what impact would that have on seniors? Can she speak to that?
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, six years ago I still had a BlackBerry. I was not part of the Harper government and I will not speak to that today. The focus of the debate is seniors. The official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, is suggesting constructive, thorough and timely action. We are not disagreeing with the government. This should have been acknowledged months ago and I am happy to be part of the solution.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a subject that is very dear to my heart, namely, the living conditions of our seniors. I would also like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mirabel.
Bill C-12, which is currently before us, seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act to exclude any pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement.
It is important to note that, as it now stands, the bill would exclude those benefits only as of July 2022. It will come as no surprise when I say that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will support the bill introduced by the Minister of Seniors because it is a first step, however timid, toward correcting the tragic injustice that has befallen thousands of seniors, who are being penalized for taking advantage of measures that were supposed to help them.
It is appalling that, after working their entire lives, our seniors are experiencing a lower quality of life, a loss of purchasing power and a loss of dignity because of an uncaring government's administrative incompetence.
The Bloc Québécois has a deep and unwavering conviction that we must either acknowledge or at least have the decency to make it possible for each of our seniors to live with dignity, sheltered from financial insecurity.
As a Quebecker from the Lower St. Lawrence, I know that the progressive, prosperous and proud society that I had the good fortune to grow up in, and now devote my work to, was built by those who came before me. Architects and labourers of the Quiet Revolution, our grandparents and parents dedicated their lives to building today's modern and innovative Quebec.
On a more personal level, I would like to acknowledge that I am lucky and privileged to represent the people of Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, 26.8% of the people are 65 or older, while the Quebec average is around 19.7%. By 2040, it is estimated that more than one-third of my constituents will be 65 or older.
It goes without saying that measures that have an impact on the living conditions of seniors are acutely felt in my neck of the woods, and the current problem is no exception. In fact, at my offices in Rimouski and in Témiscouata‑sur‑le‑Lac, I have gotten many calls and messages from seniors distressed by cuts to their GIS since July 2021.
These benefits help them meet their basic needs, and the hardship they are experiencing cannot be overstated. They do not understand why the government is failing to show any leadership to correct the situation.
Take for example Ms. Gagnon from Trois‑Pistoles. She was receiving a combined pension of $1,409 a month, and she received the CERB in 2020 after abruptly losing her job. In October 2021, her monthly income went from $1,409 to $719 when her GIS was completely cut off.
Imagine having $690 clawed back from one day to the next. Ms. Gagnon could not maintain her standard of living when her benefit barely covered her rent. To put food on the table, she had to resort to a food bank. To fill the tank, she had to max out her credit card. That is because Ms. Gagnon is now being taxed at an effective federal rate of 50%, which is almost twice the marginal rate that Canada's wealthiest taxpayers pay.
My hon. colleague from Mirabel is an economist by trade. Given that we are talking about marginal rates, of course it made sense to share my time with him.
Even though it was decided at the beginning that the CERB would be taxable, nobody in the federal government notified GIS recipients that collecting the CERB would cut into their benefits quite this much.
It makes absolutely no sense that the most vulnerable seniors in our society should have to face such an injustice. Furthermore, the corrective measure proposed in Bill C-12 does not take effect until July 2022. This means that GIS recipients will have had to cope with a drastically reduced monthly payment for 12 long and difficult months. Why did the government not act sooner?
The Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance before the last election was even called this past August to bring this matter to their attention before it was too late, but to no avail. This government decided to call an election in the midst of a pandemic, and meanwhile, it is taking more than a year to correct a situation that is having a devastating impact.
The Bloc Québécois has also called for the measures in the bill to take effect as of March 2022 rather than July. We were told that this was impossible for IT-related reasons, which is both absurd and appalling. How can an IT system be so rigid that the government would rather force seniors into financial insecurity than change the parameters of the system?
In closing, not only is Bill C‑12 arriving far too late, it is missing a core element for it to really address the problems that the pandemic relief measures created for GIS recipients. What is strikingly missing from this bill is the $742 million in retroactive one-time payments promised in December's economic and fiscal update. This one-time payment was supposed to compensate GIS recipients who had received the CERB or the CRB in 2020, by alleviating the financial difficulties they are facing.
This government promised $742 million to vulnerable seniors who desperately need it. Today, it has chosen to take a pass on keeping its promise. How long will seniors have to wait before receiving the amounts they were promised and are owed?
Need I remind my colleagues that Quebec and Canada are facing the highest rate of inflation in 35 years and that the poorest are bearing the brunt once again?
Instead of debating a bill that focuses solely on stopping the undue slashing of seniors' benefits, we should stand together to increase their pensions. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a $110-a-month increase in old age security for seniors 65 years of age and over for a long time. As I stated earlier, I will support Bill C‑12, but, when I see all these blind spots and missed opportunities, all I can say is that the Liberals squandered an opportunity to do much better.
1139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree in the House that supporting seniors is an important initiative, and that is why this government has been working on a lot of different elements.
I do not know what the member opposite's profession might have been before he came to the House, but the problem I have is that it is easy to get up and say he wants to increase old age security by $110. In fact, the Bloc Québécois brought a motion in the 43rd Parliament to do just that. Unfortunately, what he does not explain is the actual cost of delivering that program, which would have been approximately $8 billion a year, year over year. This is the same member who also talks about increasing health transfers by $28 billion.
How does the member square how, within the fiscal framework, this is possible? Could he perhaps bring forward some ideas about how we are going to raise funds for 35 billion dollars' worth of initiatives added to the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada?
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his question.
What is surprising is how the government was digging in its heels during the previous Parliament. It did not want to increase seniors' income. However, during the election campaign, the government saw the light and decided that it could use this opportunity to show some goodwill and increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors starting at age 65.
What I can tell my colleague is that some of the money from the increase to the old age security pension will go back into the economy. These seniors will have more purchasing power and will be able to spend more, thus enabling the government to recover some of that money through taxes.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned several times that this legislative measure will finally correct a mistake made on something that the government should have known from the start. I agree with him on that. Many Conservative and Bloc members mentioned it, and the government changed its mind on the subject during the election campaign.
Does my colleague think it is a good idea to try to rush the bill through the House, as the government House leader has decided to do, rather than taking a little more time in committee to debate and to hear from witnesses who might be able to share some other ideas on how to fix this law so we can ensure that seniors get the benefits they deserve?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question.
I think he would agree that the Bloc Québécois is not exactly a fan of gag orders. We do not understand why the government, which took a month to recall Parliament after that pointless election and then took another month to hand out mandate letters to its ministers, waited two months after Parliament resumed to introduce this farce of a bill, which will not fix the situation.
Yes, the Bloc Québécois completely agrees that we should take the time to do things right and study this matter carefully in committee.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. It was very interesting.
Why does the member think the Liberals feel as though they can make seniors wait until May to fix their mistake? Why do the Liberals think they can make the poorest and most vulnerable of our seniors wait?
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
