44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I would say, essentially, that jurisdictions must be respected. In other words, trust the expertise of each province when it comes to what services are needed.
When we talk about health transfers, obviously they must be unconditional, because it is the provinces that have the expertise, not the federal government. The provinces have everything it takes when it comes to both education and health care.
I tell people that it is important for everyone to mind their own business. It is often when we do not have enough to do that we interfere in other people's business.
In the context of a pandemic where there are global challenges and a critical situation, I think we all need to mind our own business.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his inspiring speech.
We are debating a bill. However, contrary to what my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne was saying, just because we are debating a bill does not mean that we cannot consider items that are not covered by the bill but that are very important to us.
I would like to put a simple question to my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, who has been asked about jurisdictions.
Since today is Valentine's Day and I love my country, I would like to know what she thinks would happen if Quebec got to keep its own money. Would the situation be the same?
Would we be dependent upon a government that wants to spend money in any area of jurisdiction and that is not meeting the people's needs? If we had full control of our own funds, would the health care system in Quebec not work a little better?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I heard the words “predictability”, “expertise” and “jurisdiction". We must trust the people who have been saying for several months that they would have done things differently. Instead of crushing and pressuring the health care system, which broke down in Quebec, I believe we could have already introduced new solutions.
In the end, with predictability and money, we would clearly have done things in a completely different way.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑10 establishes a one-time payment of $2.5 billion to Quebec and the Canadian provinces for expenses incurred since January 1, 2022, in relation to testing.
We agree with that, but the main problem, and my colleague spoke at length about this before me, is that cuts to federal health transfers are compromising the health care system in Quebec and in the Canadian provinces. From our Quebec taxes that we send to the federal government, the money transferred to Quebec for health care formerly represented 50% of the funding for that sector in the 1970s. We cannot say it enough. Despite being increased a few times, like when the Bloc Québécois obtained a $3.3‑billion increase in transfers in 2007, Ottawa's share of the cost of health keeps going down. Today, the transfers represent only 22% of health spending.
Just before the election in 2011, the Bloc convinced Ottawa to catch up and to keep increasing the transfers by 6% over five years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives decided that starting in 2016, the transfers would stop keeping pace with the increasing costs and capped them at 3%. However, health care costs have been increasing by roughly 5% a year, due in part to population aging. In Quebec, where the population is aging faster than the Canadian average, we are being hit hard. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance. We are paying nearly half our taxes to Ottawa, but most of the public services are being provided by Quebec or the Canadian provinces, while the federal government does whatever it wants.
At the end of the day, Ottawa is undermining Quebec's finances, and Quebec taxpayers are paying the price and receiving fewer and fewer services. According to a study by the Conference Board of Canada, with the current transfer method, in 20 years, the federal government should rake in a $110‑billion surplus, based on this calculation method, but the provinces will run a combined deficit of $172 billion. That is how the federal government can afford to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
If the trend continues, federal health transfers will drop from 22% of health care expenses to 18% within a few years. It is no wonder that Quebec and the Canadian provinces are calling for the federal government to increase health transfers to cover 35% of health care spending, which would be more than $6.5 billion for Quebec. The government's position of putting off discussing the funding issue until after the pandemic is completely out of touch with reality.
I have been a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois since 2016. The one thing that struck me when I came to the House of Commons was that the Canadian government is always quick to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, but it does not step up when it needs to take care of its own business, in its own jurisdiction.
The federal government must not continue to use these payments as an excuse to increase its funding and interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction and put off discussing health transfers. The Bloc Québécois will continue to make the point that increased health transfers are a necessary part of getting us through this pandemic, and it will be even more difficult to rebuild and stabilize our health care systems.
The needs are urgent in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île. The proportion of people aged 65 and over is higher than in the rest of Montreal. Life expectancy is lower than the average. Approximately two in three people aged 65 and older in La Pointe-de-l'Île have at least one chronic illness. Lung diseases and respiratory illnesses are more common in La Pointe-de-l'Île. Quebec's health care challenges are not strictly a management issue. The refusal by the Liberals and the other federal parties to increase health transfers to 35% is a prime example of predatory federalism.
Quebec is the one providing health care services, and we are in the middle of a pandemic. Quebec pays close to half our taxes to Ottawa, yet provides the lion's share of the services.
The Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing a motion to increase health transfers even though the Liberals voted against it. We know more money will not fix everything overnight, but without higher health transfers on an ongoing basis, we cannot start building the health system we want. That includes services available to everyone when they need them, good working conditions for nurses so we can retain them, training to hire more nurses and doctors, and support services for people dealing with addictions.
We cannot make these decisions and achieve this vision unless the federal government agrees to give back the money it takes from our taxes to fund the health care system. Health transfers must be restored urgently so we can breathe life back into our system.
I would also like to emphasize a key point here. While it is up to Quebec to choose the specific health services it wants to provide, respect for jurisdiction is quite simply an essential condition for respecting democracy. There are provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions. If that is not respected, when people vote for a government in Quebec, that means they are voting for any old thing because we do not have the power to fulfill our commitments.
Quebeckers need to be given the right to determine their specific preferences with regard to health. The Bloc Québécois is against the federal government's centralist tendency. Ottawa is using the pandemic as an excuse to interfere in all sorts of domains, including long-term care institutions, mental health services and pharmacare. These elements are provincial responsibilities. Since Quebec and the provinces know what their people need, they should be the ones to determine how this money is allocated.
As we have pointed out, the government is completely isolated on this issue. My colleague said so earlier. All the opposition parties are calling for an increase in health transfers. All the provinces are calling for an increase in health transfers. All the premiers of the provinces and Quebec are calling on the federal government to increase health transfers. A 2020 survey found that 81% of Quebeckers want the federal government to increase its health transfers. That should be clear enough, but it is never clear enough.
We ask questions all the time and remind the Liberal members of this, and we are told again and again that funding has increased during the pandemic and so on. An increase in health funding during a pandemic is not a recurring increase. If health transfers are not increased, the federal share of health care spending will steadily decline, and our health care systems will be under enormous pressure. The provinces cannot make cuts to hospitals. We are asking once again, and we will continue asking, that the federal government increase health transfers. It is urgent.
1207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, whether one lives in St-Pierre-Jolys in rural Manitoba or St. Boniface in the city of Winnipeg or in rural communities in Quebec or the city of Montreal, I think there is a general feeling among people in all communities that they want to see co-operation among different levels of government on the important issue of health care.
Through the Canada Health Act, there is a significant flow of federal tax dollars to support health care so that there is a sense of fairness whether people require health care service in Montreal or in Winnipeg. I am wondering if the member could indicate why he does not believe there needs to be a sense of equality and fairness in the distribution of health care services, no matter where people live in in Canada.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, equality is exactly what we are asking for.
When we talk about increasing health transfers to 35%, it is not only Quebec asking for this, but all the provinces.
This is not something that only Quebec is asking for, as I just said. This really illustrates the problem we have with the federal system. We have a government that constantly centralizes power and makes decisions that interfere with the decisions made by Quebec and the provinces.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for his speech.
I obviously agree with him that our public health care system has really been devastated by the Conservatives' cuts to provincial transfers, cuts that the Liberals maintained.
However, my colleague and I do not quite agree on the impact of a universal public pharmacare program, which would not only enable the public health network to save money on drugs, but would also help workers and businesses save too.
My colleague does not agree with the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the Union des consommateurs du Québec that there should be a universal public pharmacare program to ensure better coverage for everyone and reduce the cost of drugs. It would also mean savings for Quebec's health care network.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has said it before, and we will say it again: Quebec leads the way on prescription drug insurance.
We are not opposed to the idea of Canada as a whole taking our lead and doing likewise. However, we do not want Quebec to be penalized because we are ahead of the curve.
We agree with my colleague's proposal, as long as there is a clause that lets Quebec opt out with full compensation so we can continue to improve our own system.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are in the final hours of Valentine's Day, and Valentine's Day is all about love.
Who else but my colleague, who speaks French with such passion, energy and love, can teach the Liberals the difference between “recurring” and “sporadic”?
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would say that we in the Bloc Québécois love Quebec enough to hope that it manages to get by after all these decisions, which basically make us less effective in our government administration.
There is only one truly sustainable solution that would free us from being at the mercy of the federal government's health transfer cuts, and that is Quebec independence. That is what I want. I am convinced it will come to this, because we have no choice, especially given that, if we want to continue to exist and develop as a people, we must have full control over our finances, our economy, our language and our culture.
In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois is the only federal party that defends and promotes the interests of Quebec as a nation and actively works to promote independence. This is our only way forward.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise tonight to speak to this important bill. I am particularly pleased to split my time with the brilliant member for Elmwood—Transcona.
This legislation is extraordinarily straightforward and simple. It would authorize the Minister of Health to do two things: first, to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund for any expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, in relation to COVID-19 tests, and second, to transfer to any province or territory or to any body or person in Canada any COVID-19 tests or instruments used in relation to those tests acquired on or after April 1, 2021.
New Democrats strongly believe that we must expand access to COVID-19 testing for Canadians and do so as quickly as possible. Therefore, we of course will be supporting this legislation.
COVID-19 has underscored the crucial role of testing and surveillance in controlling infectious disease outbreaks and guiding sound public health decisions. In fact, listening to the debate over mandates and whether we should or should not have them, I think one thing we can all agree on is that testing will be a critical component of our ability to relax and ultimately relinquish those mandates because we will be able to get quick and accurate information about the outbreak of disease, as is demonstrated in every country in the world that is using these tests.
However, it is also true that Canada has suffered from severe limitations on testing capacity through wave after wave of this pandemic as a result of the federal government's repeated failure to stockpile sufficient supplies or accelerate domestic production capacity. With the emergence of the highly transmissible omicron variant, an exponential surge of COVID-19 cases has once again overwhelmed Canada's testing capacity while the federal government now scrambles to secure supplies in a highly competitive global marketplace. As a result, COVID-19 testing has become inaccessible for many Canadians from coast to coast to coast; reported case numbers underestimate the true number of infections, making it difficult to plan public health measures; and contact tracing efforts have been largely abandoned. Canadians may remember the tracing app that the federal government unleashed to great fanfare; it is now nowhere to be found and abandoned.
In response to shortages throughout the omicron surge, many provinces have had to restrict access to PCR testing to individuals who are at higher risk of severe illness and those in settings where the virus may spread more quickly. PCR testing, of course, is more precise than rapid antigen testing, and positive results from rapid test kits are not even reported in official COVID-19 case counts, again underestimating the prevalence of COVID in our country. However, rapid antigen tests are considered an important screening tool. Research shows that they are instrumental in preventing asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 because they provide quick and generally reliable results. Unfortunately, rapid tests have also been very difficult for Canadians to access, particularly during the recent holiday season.
To stop and summarize here, we have a bill with two sections: one for $2.5 billion to get rapid tests and the other to transfer them to the provinces and territories. What do my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois say? They say we need to slow this down. They say they need to study this.
There is nothing to study. We are in an emergency. We are in a pandemic. Testing and tracing are especially important for asymptomatic Canadians and are key tools in returning to normal, so when the Conservatives say they want to reduce mandates but are slowing down the delivery of rapid tests, one of the tools to help us reduce and get rid of the mandates, it is inconceivable.
Second, there is a shortage of all tests in this country, both PCR and rapid tests. Canadians know this. In every province and territory, Canadians cannot get access to the rapid tests or the PCR tests that they need. Provinces and health care systems are rationing access to tests. What is the Conservative and Bloc response? Wait, slow it down; we need to study this. Again, there is nothing to study.
We have an emergency, we have a shortage and we have a pandemic. We need to act and, again, the Conservative and Bloc members now oppose fast-tracking the delivery of these tests to Canadians.
I want to talk for a moment about accountability, because that has been raised by the Conservatives. I agree that $2.5 billion is a significant amount of money. What did the NDP do? We identified that feature to the government, and we did what every responsible opposition party should have done. We did not hold up delivering rapid tests to Canadians; instead, we negotiated accountability measures with the government. I give the government credit, and I want to thank the Liberals for this. They agreed that they will report to Parliament, every six months, the number of tests delivered, where they were delivered and when, providing accountability not only to Parliament but to Canadians. That is responsible behaviour in a minority Parliament. That is effective opposition.
We know that the $2.5 billion will provide about 400 million tests. That sounds like a lot of tests, but it is not. Dr. David Juncker at McGill University estimates that we need 600 million to 700 million rapid tests per month, and then after omicron subsides, we would need two tests per person every week. We are already hearing that there is another variant on the way, omicron B.1, so we know that testing is going to be a requirement in this country for months if not years ahead. We also know that Canadians need them now.
I want to chat for a moment about what I have to describe as disarray in the Conservative Party and a total contradiction. Its members say it is the party of law and order, but they are now supporting anarchy and lawbreakers in the streets. They said for a year and half that rapid tests were what we needed. They identified rapid tests as critical to Canada's COVID strategy repeatedly, in every week and every month, right up until February of this year, and they were correct to do so. They were right. However, today, when this simple bill to get rapid tests quickly to Canadians comes before us, what do they want to do? They want to delay. They do not want rapid tests to go out tonight. Instead, they take up valuable time in the House so that we have to debate that we need rapid tests for Canadians, even though for years this is exactly what they have been calling for. They want to study it, but study what?
Today, I was shocked to hear a member of the health committee, a physician, question the value of testing and the science of testing. There is no science or reputable scientist in this country that supports this view. No one has raised the issue of the validity, the necessity or the utility of telling Canadians what their COVID status is or giving them the means to have a quick test. Ironically, that fits with Conservative MPs when they were resisting mandatory vaccination to come in the House. They told us to give them tests so they could show us they were negative to come into the House. They wanted rapid tests for themselves, but stand here in the House today and tell Canadians they cannot have rapid tests and they do not need them right away because we need to study this. That is rank hypocrisy of the highest order, and it is bad public health policy.
I want to end by talking a bit about equality, something that has not been mentioned in the House.
Federal measures to increase the supply of rapid testing kits are expected to particularly benefit people who are most at risk for contracting COVID-19 with severe outcomes. This includes people over the age of 60, people with chronic medical conditions, members of racialized communities and low-income Canadians, particularly those who work in frontline positions, like the clerks working in our stores, who come to work every single day to work with the public. The Conservatives and the Bloc tell us to hold up getting tests to those people, when they are putting their health on the line for us. Those working frontline jobs stand to benefit from reduced transmission, and they get that because of increased rapid testing, among other things.
Women are also overrepresented among the beneficiaries of this investment. We know that women comprise 53% of those aged 60 and over and 66% of those aged 90 to 95. Racialized women also stand to benefit, as they are more likely to be in essential frontline industries. In 2016, they accounted for 17% of those in health care and social assistance, compared with only 10% of overall employment.
I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues.
1528 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his remarks in the House this evening. It has been a very long day.
I want to talk about how we work together in the House. My colleague made a lot of really important points about the importance of science, the importance of data, the importance of a timely response and the importance of equity. I am sure my colleagues across the way would like to hear how important that really is.
In addition to the importance of rapid testing, we know we need more of it to have a sustainable supply to contend with omicron in the future. We have had much debate, and my colleagues across the way keep holding things up, including this legislation. However, they are also holding up the ability for us to collect the timely data we need from the Telus data for good project.
I would like to know if my colleague from the NDP will be supporting us in our efforts to work together to make sure we have all the science and all the data to keep Canadians safe.
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises something very important, which is that health policy in this country should and must be driven by data, science and evidence. It should not be driven by political interests or wedge issues. I was very disappointed to see members of the Liberal caucus stand up and accuse the Prime Minister of using the COVID pandemic as a partisan wedge issue. I think members of the Conservative Party, who are flirting with insurrectionists in this country, are also engaging in politicizing this pandemic. Canadians can see that, and this should have nothing to do with how we deal with it.
We need data, and I want to point out, as I said in my speech, that when we do not have enough tests, we do not get an accurate view of how many people are testing positive or negative. When we do not have that data, we cannot create the kinds of public health responses we need, or target them in the right regions or areas, to respond appropriately.
We need to get this legislation passed right away. We need to get testing and every other public health tool into the hands of Canadians as soon as possible.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague from Vancouver for his great speech here tonight. One of the things folks back home are wondering about is the Liberal-NDP coalition that we seem to have in this place. I wonder if he could give his thoughts as to why he voted against our opposition day motion that we voted on earlier today.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague called my speech “great”.
There are a number of reasons for this. I think I speak for all Canadians when I say that we are entirely fatigued by COVID. Everybody wants to see a return to normal as soon as possible. However, we in the NDP believe that should be based on science and data, not on politics. We saw the interim leader of the Conservative Party move a motion in the House to get rid of mandates right after she was out publicly cavorting with the convoy and the people who are calling for an insurrection in this country. They are anti-vaxxers. They are flying swastika flags and Confederate flags. It shows the Conservatives are playing politics with this matter. The truth is that we are still in a pandemic, and we need public health officials to be guiding policy in this country, not politicians who are playing politics with the pandemic.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I already asked the member this, but I think he told me that the NDP would support health transfers up to 50%, even.
I asked him why he often proposes programs that would infringe on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
We are not against pharmacare or dental insurance. However, as these fall under provincial jurisdiction, we want them to be put in place by Quebec and the provinces.
Could he elaborate on that a bit?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the major difference, with great respect, is that the people in the Bloc Québécois continually misconstrue the Constitution. They think health care is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, but it is not. It is a shared jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada said the federal government has the spending power, the criminal law power and other powers to enter into this area. We will not find the words “health care” in the Constitution. All that is in it is the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. That is what the provinces have. It does not say anything about dental care.
We need all levels of government working together to build the kind of health care system we need in this country. I believe the federal government should be a partner with the provinces. It is not just an issue for the provinces alone.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-10 is about funding rapid tests and we have been talking a lot in the House today about the pandemic, the nature of public health measures and how long they should or should not last, I want to start by recognizing how tired everybody is of the pandemic. Whether people support lifting all public health measures right now or not, we are all feeling pretty fatigued and we would like to see our way out of this. However, it is not something we can just declare an end to by fiat. If we could do that, we would have done it a long time ago.
I do not really believe anyone is happy about the restricted lives we have all had to live over the last two years. It is something we did out of necessity before the vaccine in order to protect ourselves from infection, the consequences of being infected with COVID and the severity of it from a health point of view without vaccination. Since vaccination, we have continued to live a restricted lifestyle because transmission continues and we know we are up against a virus that is adapting even as it spreads. It is one of the reasons it is so important that we get vaccines distributed to the rest of the world. Vaccinating those in Canada or in one particular country will not be enough. These variants multiply, and given how small a planet we now inhabit with the technology of travel and everything else, variants eventually come here to roost. That is why we are not out of the woods yet.
As much as the political debate has intensified in light of recent events and some provincial governments have decided to change course, we may well end up getting different advice from federal public health officials in respect of federal mandates. However, all that Dr. Tam has said so far is that it might make sense to re-evaluate them. She has not called for lifting them. I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that this debate has to be led by public health officials, who have our best interests at heart. I know they are trying to keep up to date with the emerging science of the pandemic and are giving their best recommendations for how to reduce suffering and death as a result of COVID-19. It is our job to focus on how we support people through the economic challenges that we have to face, while the health challenges are addressed by public health officials and frontline health workers who treat those who have been infected.
COVID-19 tests are going to be an important part of that and, indeed, it was not that long ago that it was the preferred solution by the Conservatives, who now seem to be of the view that we can lift all public health measures and be done with them. However, governments have tried that before, and we do not have to go outside the country to see that. We just have to look at Alberta as one example. In the summer, it decided to lift all public health measures, and it very quickly found itself in distress with high rates of hospitalization. It is pretty clear that when we take that approach, it does not work out in the way that we would all hope and wish for. We have an obligation as decision-makers to be sober-minded about these things, listen to what public health officials are saying and look at the evidence. That does not mean there is no room for debate, and the country is currently having a very lively debate. However, it does mean that we still have to let public health officials lead that discussion based on the best available evidence.
One of the important tools for public health officials, to the extent that they want to collect data about what is happening with COVID, is a testing regime, and rapid tests are important in that regard. It is difficult in Canada right now to access rapid tests. Even if we do not take the macro point of view of a public health official, there are a lot of Canadians out there who maybe want to go visit their mom and dad or granny and grandpa or a vulnerable family member who is immunocompromised. They want to take a rapid test before they head over there because they know that COVID is around and is easy to catch.
Someone may have it and not be symptomatic, so folks would like to be able to have access to tests as a best practice or an added layer of protection or reassurance in order to be able to make those visits and have some confidence that, when they visit their loved ones or their friends, they are not taking COVID-19 into their home and into their life. That is another reason, beyond the public health arguments and beyond the economic arguments in terms of testing, if we are going into a workplace, why it is important to have access to rapid tests and why this money is important.
There are some real issues around accountability with money in the Liberal government. I will spare members the list, because I certainly do not have enough time to give it all, but as the member for Vancouver Kingsway, my colleague and NDP House critic, was just highlighting, that was why when we were negotiating with the government around the swift passage of this bill, which is just a two-paragraph bill that authorizes spending for rapid tests and their distribution to the provinces, we were keen to include some better financial reporting requirements in there. That is why we got a commitment from the government to table information every six months in the House on how this money is being spent, such as how many tests and where they go. That is important. It is important, because we are talking about large sums of money. It is important, because there have been legitimate questions raised about the way the government has spent some COVID-19 funds, including around sole-source contracts. I think Canadians should get information on how this money is being spent and they should get it in a timely way.
One of the most recent reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted the fact that the government was late in tabling its public accounts. It didn't table them until December. Normally, in the countries of most of our allies and trading partners, that happens on a six-month timetable after the end of the fiscal year, so tabling them in December was very late. I think it is true, especially when the government is spending large sums of money, that accountability and transparency become that much more important. They do not become less important because we are spending more money; they become more important as we spend more money.
That is why I am proud that the NDP has been able to negotiate some reporting requirements around this. I look forward to trying to secure a similar reporting requirement for Bill C-8, which includes another $1.72 billion in spending authority for rapid tests.
That was not the only thing negotiated around the passage of this bill. We in the House all know and Canadians listening may well know that the government made a choice to claw back the CERB benefits from working seniors who were on the guaranteed income supplement.
We were talking about it as New Democrats before the last election. We talked about it during the election. We have talked about is since the election. The government finally, just as a result of public pressure, felt an obligation to say something about it in the fall economic statement. They said money would be coming, but then it seemed it would not come until May. Then we heard maybe June. Then we heard maybe July. As part of the negotiations around swift passage of this bill, earlier today we were able to secure a commitment from the government that those seniors who have had their GIS clawed back would be paid no later than April 19, and for some of those in the most desperate need, that help may flow as early as mid-March.
That is a real concrete benefit for Canadians who were hurting. I have talked to seniors who have already been evicted from their homes. We have heard reports of seniors who have taken their lives because they had no sense of hope when they heard it would be so long until the GIS clawback was rectified. We have heard stories of seniors who have had to pass up on medication or are going hungry. This demanded swift action. It was something we were hoping to see the government do around Bill C-2, and we finally got it done.
To get Canadians access to more rapid tests and to get some of our most financially vulnerable seniors the help they need in order to stay in their homes or to be rehoused after being evicted all in one go I would say is a good day's work for a parliamentarian, and I am proud of that work.
1556 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge everything my colleague said. Yes, we need rapid tests. That being said, the Senate is not sitting until next week.
We are not talking about having endless debates and studies, but simply giving ourselves the rest of the week to discuss and ensure that we are able to propose amendments that would guarantee that the money goes to the tests and the right companies, not to the Liberals' friends.
Why this rush to pass this bill on a Monday instead of on Thursday or Friday, or not at all according to the studies—
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 11:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
