44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, we all agree that we need to make things right for seniors and get them their money.
My colleague spoke about how the government has struggled to plan and manage its calendar. However, the situation we are in right now is urgent and it has been going on for months. All of the opposition parties have been sounding the alarm since June and July 2021, before the election.
What does that tell us about the government's real motivation for doing the right thing for Quebeckers and Canadians before the election?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Beauport—Limoilou's comments about the government's motivation was spot on. The Liberals are using the seniors file to score political points, to boast they have rescued seniors from a problem the Liberals themselves admit they created in the first place.
As my colleague mentioned, the opposition parties had said that they were in agreement. All we want is for the government to be accountable in parliamentary committee and to members of Parliament. We are not asking for a lot. We just want the details of this very simple bill.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to my colleague for the question about a guaranteed annual livable income. He did not answer it. We know that seniors are living in poverty, and I want to know if the Conservatives support ensuring that no seniors are living below the poverty line. A guaranteed livable income would ensure that will not happen. We are all disappointed about the Liberals dropping the ball on this clawback and why we are having this debate today, but I want to hear about long-term solutions and I want to hear if my colleague supports them.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a policy question he is asking, and I do not have a definitive answer. However, I worry about this. Why would we trust the Liberal government to create another government program when the Liberals have screwed up so many of them? They have rushed them through the House and tried to make it up through regulations or cabinet orders to patch programs incessantly. We can look at the procurement of aircraft, the procurement in the military in general and the very slow rollout of the rare disease strategy, which is off and on and off and on.
The government does not have a record of delivering anything except press releases on websites. It makes announcements, it makes a press release and nothing happens afterward. Why would we trust it to develop and execute another program?
I do not understand why the New Democrats keep supporting the government in its failed execution of whatever the heck is in the mandate letters. I do not understand this. The New Democrats have voted with the Liberals repeatedly over the past few weeks, supporting the continued failures of the Liberals. They do this time and time again. I do not understand how the New Democrats think they are serving the people of their ridings by trying to prop up a government that keeps failing to deliver the most basic government programs.
231 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Respectfully, I wonder if you could help enforce the requirement for all members to be wearing a mask in this place at all times.
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 11:57:54 a.m.
- Watch
This was raised earlier today, and I do not have the document in front of me because I gave it to the Speaker so he could get back to the House on it. The wording in the directive from the Board of Internal Economy is that members are being encouraged to wear their masks in the House. However, it does indicate that if they are in their seat, they are able to not have their mask on as long as they stay in their seat. I know the Speaker has ruled on a number of occasions that individuals should have their masks on if they do not have the floor. However, the directive seems to indicate otherwise, and I am sure the Speaker will get back to the House shortly on that.
Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years.
First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation.
The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic.
Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition.
I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together.
We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary.
It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible.
The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation.
We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through.
We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week.
Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long.
On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits.
What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important.
The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way.
The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful.
After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require.
That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it.
I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement.
For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country.
We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors.
In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support.
During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.
The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.
2180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I find really troubling is that, in the length of time that it has taken to address this issue, we know many seniors have been losing their homes. They cannot afford to eat. We know that with all of the many programs that were introduced by the government, with lots of little failures and things, they managed to put money into 800,000 people's accounts who really were not eligible to receive the benefits.
I really do not understand. Why could the Liberals not have just put the money into the accounts of seniors who were getting the GIS? They got the CERB, so they would be topped up and they would not have to wait until July of next year. They will probably have lost their houses by then.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in our civil servants who are providing the direction and have the desire to get the money as quickly as possible to the seniors who need it. The minister responsible for seniors has even developed a program that will hopefully get seniors in certain situations the money even more quickly. I am very optimistic that we will be resolving this issue. This legislation will prevent it, hopefully, from reoccurring.
At the end of the day, we have a civil service that is doing an outstanding job of being able to meet the needs of our seniors in the short term and the long term.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really like my colleague from Winnipeg North. Unfortunately, he has been known to engage in overblown rhetoric. I think he has a reputation for that in the House.
In his speech, he admonished the opposition at length by saying that our Conservative colleagues often engage in political partisanship, and he presented himself as a great defender of seniors.
However, since I arrived here in 2019, my political party has repeatedly made three very simple proposals, as follows: increasing the old age security benefit by $110; increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $50 for single people and by $70 for couples; and, most importantly, increasing health transfers, because seniors are the ones who have paid the price for the underfunding of health care during the crisis.
The government has never paid any attention to us. That is the perfect example of partisanship. Why? The government cannot seem to handle acting on a good idea from an opposition member because it would have to give that member the credit.
If the Liberals care about seniors, why have they never increased the old age security benefit? Why have they never increased the GIS and why did they wait so long to address the issue before us today?
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have increased the GIS. We have increased OAS. We have record transfers for health care. Historic amounts of real dollars are going toward health care. When we factor in issues such as long-term care, additional hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested. When we talk about the issue of pharmaceuticals, again substantial tax dollars are being invested.
I would challenge the member to reflect on the 10 years before we came into government, and I would contrast our record and our investments any day. The member says I tend to talk a lot about how good things are. Much as the opposition will be very critical of the government, I am very proud of the manner in which we provided supports for our seniors. We will continue to do so, because they are important to all of us.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North often defers to provincial NDP politics to deflect his government's failures, including with seniors. I would like to read a story from one senior, who wrote, “Our GIS has been cut off and the $1,300 per month that we receive from the government is not enough to keep the shelter over our heads. I feel weak and depressed. Having no energy, I spend many sleepless nights crying.”
In the last session, the member's government voted against the NDP's universal pharmacare bill, when seniors are literally choosing between medication and rent. There are people in my riding who, as a result of the government's callous choice, have had their GIS cut from $600 a month to $60 a month. My party fought for a guaranteed livable basic income for seniors, not a guaranteed income supplement, but one that is livable, to lift people out of poverty. His party is nowhere on the map on that. I am proud of my colleague from North Island—Powell River, who fought really hard to get the Liberals to pull back on their brutal clawbacks on seniors.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague can respond to these concerns and not deflect.
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, one of the greatest challenges for seniors is housing. That is why the federal government works with provincial governments. It is the provinces that take the lead on social housing.
We invest, on an annual basis, in operating costs in the Province of Manitoba. We are talking about tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in rent subsidies and non-profit housing. We are talking about thousands of non-profit housing units in the province of Manitoba alone, and it is often the federal government that gives the largest percentage. That deals with trying to make housing more affordable.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I would invite my friend to stand and ask a question, as opposed to heckling.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the money his government has invested in health care in recent years. I would like to remind him that the bulk of the money invested in recent years was for COVID-19 programs.
If the roof is leaking, the shingles can be changed from time to time, but eventually, the whole roof needs redoing. That takes ongoing funding and long-term commitments, such as boosting health transfers to 35% of total system costs, which is what the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have unanimously called for. COVID‑19 made it clear that what they are asking for is legitimate and absolutely necessary.
We do not want to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about how much the government invested during COVID‑19. We know that, but all that money is from COVID-related programs. He actually admitted that there may have been some mistakes along the way, but we do not hold that against him because that is to be expected considering how quickly they had to react.
In May 2021, the Bloc Québécois raised concerns about financial assistance provided through CERB to seniors receiving the GIS. We pointed out that their eligibility for the GIS would be compromised if they received CERB. It was at that point, last spring, that the Liberals decided to move up the payment; however, the problem would not be solved before June 2022.
I realize that the Liberals are always slow to implement recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois. That is fine. Still, I would like to know when the Liberals will finally take action on health transfers. Does my colleague have any idea? He can criticize us all he wants, and we will listen—that does not bother us. I want to know when the Liberals plan to respond to the unanimous demand from the provinces and Quebec and increase health transfers to 35%.
334 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in my years serving in the Manitoba legislature, I believe that every year, for almost 20 years, if a province were asked if it wanted more money for this or that, it was always going to say yes. Provinces always want more money for health care. That is a given. Am I surprised that it is unanimous among the provinces that they want more money for health care? It does not surprise me at all.
What is important is that, since we have been in government, we have negotiated accords with all of the provinces and territories, which are indexed. We are giving record amounts in annual allotments of equalization and health transfers to provinces. It is a historical amount of money. Along with that, we continue to support other aspects of health care, which Canadians want us to do, such as additional money for things like mental health and long-term care.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about one of my favourite topics, seniors, and I have now become one.
I think it is really important that we have this discussion today. This is an opportunity for us to pull what I would call an ugly scab off of the issue of affordability for seniors, especially those living on a fixed income. This is a wound that has been festering for some time, and I want to start off by taking a look at the actual numbers and the situation that many Canadians are finding themselves in.
There are single seniors living on a fixed income getting OAS, GIS and CPP. For those who would get OAS, depending on the work that they did in their career, they might get as much as $7,700 a year. They might get, from GIS, if they received the maximum, about $11,500. If they had worked a long time and they had maximized their CPP, they might be getting around $9800.
What that works out to every month is somewhere between $2000 and $2400, depending on where they are on the scale. That is it.
These are people, if they are getting GIS, that do not have huge nest eggs. They do not have huge savings to draw upon to get them out of a bad situation. Today, the folks who define the Canadian poverty line define that line as 50% of the median income. For a single person, they are saying anybody who makes less than $3600 a month is actually living at or below the poverty line. All of these seniors we are talking about are already living below the poverty line, after they have worked their whole lives and after they have built the nation.
All this rhetoric coming from the other side is ironic. Even in the 2020 throne speech, we heard the words, “Elders deserve to be safe, respected and live in dignity.” Well, if they deserve to be respected, and if they deserve to live in dignity, that is certainly not what we are seeing today.
I want to start by describing the situation before the pandemic. I will then talk about what happened during the pandemic and where the need for Bill C-12 comes from. I want to then talk about the lack of government action when all of these issues were being raised, and make a few comments to follow up based on that.
Initially during the pandemic, recognizing that people were struggling and many people had lost their jobs, the government did make an effort and the Conservatives did support many programs to replace the income that people had been making.
Sadly, many of the people we are talking about, who are on fixed incomes, had to go out and take on other jobs just to make ends meet, just to heat their homes and have groceries on the table. In my view, that is totally unacceptable for the seniors who built the country. However, that was the reality.
What did the Liberals do during the pandemic? They decided to increase the carbon tax twice. Not just once, but twice. This put up the cost of groceries, home heating and basically all goods. At the same time, we have seen inflation increasing to where we are today at nearly 5%. People on a fixed income have zero ability to adapt to that.
We know that the lack of action we have seen in the affordable housing crisis has also just gotten worse during this pandemic. Even in a riding like mine, which is not a metropolitan riding, a person cannot find something to rent for less than $1000 a month. If someone is on a fixed income, and they are only getting $2000 a month, there will not be a lot left over for food, groceries and heating.
To get seniors living at what we are calling the poverty line might take as much as $1000 or $1500 a month, depending on the location they are living in. The government is great to talk about the increases they have made to GIS in the past that raised them $60 a month. However, at the same time, Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals raised electricity prices, so people were paying $130 more a month. They were even further behind. That is not the kind of action we need from government.
Then we saw the government come with a plan to give seniors, but only those over the age of 75, a one-time payment of $500 in August, just as it was calling an election, to remind those seniors over the age of 75 to not forget about it. Those between the ages of 65 and 75 who were living on a fixed income got nothing. As well, the government is promising a raise for those over the age of 75 for the summer of 2022.
I am happy to see the mandate letter of the minister now includes all seniors over 65. What she will actually do is another story, because we always see a lot of talk and not much action. I do not know why those aged 65 to 75 were excluded. I heard all the time at the doors in my riding about how they were finding it just as tough to live as those over the age of 75.
If we keep in mind that these people do not have any other income to draw on, we can see the government was aware of the problem very early on. In March of 2020, at the start of the pandemic, I was already emailing the then minister of seniors to say that we had a problem. The people who took CERB who were also on GIS would have their GIS impacted the next year. This was raised in March of 2020. In March of 2020 the government was aware that it was a problem, and nothing was done at that time.
One of the issues I have with the government bringing this bill here today, and deciding that it needs to be rushed through, after over a year of inaction, is that there was a fix for these seniors who had their GIS reduced, who cannot pay their rent or buy food to eat. Some in my riding lost their homes and have become homeless, and they needed that money immediately.
The government had the ability to put the money in their accounts immediately. How do I know this? Let us think about it. The government knows who gets the GIS. It is deposited in the accounts of those seniors every month. It knows who got the CERB, because it deposited that into their accounts as well. It certainly knew how to put in that $500 “do not forget to vote for us” payment for the people over age 75 in August.
Therefore, it could have just as easily recognized the impact this was going to have, put that money into their accounts and reconciled it later. It did that with the 800,000 Canadians who received a benefit to which they were not entitled, and which it is now trying to reconcile.
With the hardships that Canadian have faced, these seniors who call my office are crying. They are losing their homes. They cannot afford to eat. Something has gone wrong, perhaps with their car, and they now have no ability and no mobility. It is unfortunate that the Liberals could not, at the very least, address the problem and then come back to fill in any gaps in the legislation. They have not had any issue in the past doing things through orders in council and using various tricks, which do not involve coming to Parliament, to get whatever it is they want to spend. However, when it comes to seniors, they just forgot about them.
After I flagged the problem in March, the minister said the government would deal with it. Then it paid out benefits to people who lived in other countries. It paid out benefits to people who were ineligible. When the new minister came in in October, I asked her if there was something that could be done about it, because I had people in my riding who were writing me stories that were enough to make one cry. I could certainly read out their testimonies.
In May of 2020, the Minister of Seniors was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and was given a prepared binder by the department officials. In that binder, under section 7.2, under the heading of “Questions and Answers: COVID‑19 Economic Response Plan”, the question in the book reads, “Will income from the Canadian emergency response benefit be used in the calculation of guaranteed income supplement benefits?” The answer was “It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the allowances”. Therefore, the government actually knew then that the problem existed, but it has done nothing for a year, and here we are.
The Conservatives brought a very reasonable amendment. We understand, and we want to see seniors get their money. However, not to make this point too many times, the government could do that today if it really had the political will, but it does not. We said that we have to respect the parliamentary process. We see, too many times, the Liberals wanting to avoid parliamentary process and wanting to push things through the House. We see that they have already limited debate on the bill, as they do on many other bills, after saying they would never do that.
Here we are. We need time to debate the bill and time to amend it, because of some of the things that happened over the course of the pandemic where programs were put in place that had shortcomings, which were pointed out immediately and were never repaired. We can think of the many small businesses that were impacted at the beginning of the pandemic when they were not eligible if they were sole proprietorships. They were not eligible if the business had just started up and did not have a full year of revenue and business statements to show. There were quite a number of people who were impacted because the programs that were rolled out were flawed. Why were they flawed? It was because the Liberals tried to rush them through Parliament.
I would argue that it is worth taking some time, and I think the Conservatives brought quite a measured little amendment to this motion that would give us the time that we need to look into making sure that everything is as it should be. In our amendment, we are saying to send it to committee, get the Minister of Seniors there so that we can hear everything from her and her departmental officials, ask all the questions, identify those things that need to be repaired and fix them. We could then immediately do the clause-by-clause, make the amendments that need to be made, bring it back to the House and then get in the express lane and not use any amendments at report stage or anything like that but go right to third reading and off to the Senate.
Keep in mind that the Senate is not even sitting in the next week. We can say “emergency”, but due process is that it goes through the stages of this House and then it goes to the other place, which is not even sitting. We can hurry up here, but they will not be there to receive it and process it.
We need to correct the problem because seniors are already in a bad place. I talked about the small amount of money that seniors are making. I talked about how dire it is getting, and it is only going to get worse as we see the supply-chain issues that are currently being impacted by the trucker mandates and the lack of action on the part of the Prime Minister to address this.
As a sidebar, I think it is unbelievable that the Prime Minister has called for the Emergencies Act to be put in place when he was not even using the actions he already had the power to take in order to end the supply-chain issues that are driving up the cost of everything and making this problem even worse.
Seniors are going to have a very difficult time waiting another six months before they receive their payments, so I encourage the government to do what it can to make sure that seniors receive their payments as soon as possible after we have the discussion on the bill. At the same time, I must say that we have to look ahead to the future. We have one in six seniors in the country right now, and it will be one in four in just a few years. We cannot allow them to be this far away from living, at least, at the poverty line.
Some of the measures that can be taken would be to accelerate the OAS and GIS payments. I know the Bloc and the Conservatives supported a motion in the last Parliament that did not go ahead because of the present government. I encourage the government to try to get seniors back to where they need to be, and I am going to do my part.
There are seniors who thought they were going to be able to retire with a pension and are unfortunately not able to do that or have less pension than they expected because their employer went bankrupt. I am bringing a private member's bill forward, Bill C-228, the pension protection act, which would cause businesses to every year table a report on the solvency of their fund so that we have transparency to see whether those funds are in good shape. If they are not, it would provide a mechanism for funds to be transferred in without tax implications. Then, if the organization cannot transfer and top up the fund immediately, they would have the ability to get insurance while they are able to, over a series of years, restore the fund to solvency. In the case of bankruptcy, pensions would be paid out to seniors and they would be paid out before large bonuses to executives and large creditors.
This would solve the problems of many seniors, including those who have lost their employment due to the bankruptcies of Eatons, Sears, Algoma, Caterpillar, Nortel and numerous other companies that have left employees in that situation. We can see from the information I read at the beginning of my speech that if seniors have to rely on OAS, GIS and maybe CPP, they are still living below the level that Canadians would consider acceptable. We cannot have that for our seniors. It is very hard for our seniors when they see new people coming into the country who are receiving more money than they are making, when they helped build the country. I think we can agree that we want all Canadians to be living with a reasonable standard of living.
The last thing I am going to say on this topic of Bill C-12 is that I do need to commend the new Minister of Seniors for at least bringing the legislation forth in reasonable time. She is not the one who knew about it last year and did nothing, so at least we have the bill before us today. As has been said, the Conservatives will support this to go to committee, but we will have our eyes on the legislation to ensure it is solid and we are not going to see more loopholes that would cause further issues for our seniors.
At the same time, I could not get up and speak about seniors in this place without talking about some of the other advocacy I have done on behalf of seniors. As members know, I brought forward a palliative care bill in the first session of Parliament, and I would say there has never been more of a need to continue the work done on that. Now, with the pandemic, we have been distracted from that. I would encourage the government to come up with a plan to exit the pandemic and restore the economy, so that we can then start talking about some of the other issues that are facing seniors. They certainly need to have good options at end of life to get the dignity the throne speech indicated. They certainly need to be able to get the drugs and essential medicines they require.
Certainly, I want to see the government do something on that, but today the call is for the government to listen to the Conservatives and take our advice. Let us support the motion my colleague brought forward, which says, let us get this to committee, all sit down, roll up our sleeves, get the amendments that are needed and then get this done. Let us not make seniors wait until July 2022 to receive the payments they desperately need today in order to keep them from becoming, in some cases, homeless.
2912 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite speak about the importance of protecting the dignity of seniors and supporting their quality of life. That is an objective we all share. One of the things I and a number of MP colleagues have advocated for over the past year is national standards for long-term care. We have advocated for that, and the government has committed to it. The reason we advocated for it was that we saw, especially during the pandemic, the Canadian Armed Forces expose the reprehensible quality of care some seniors experience in some of our long-term care homes. Our belief is that national standards would ensure that seniors achieve the quality of care that seniors deserve.
I wonder if the member opposite could comment on whether she supports national standards for long-term care.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important point. Certainly we studied this when I was at the health committee and talked about what would go into national standards. In fact, there have been numerous reports written about what is required. At the end of the day, I support the best practices being leveraged across the country, but that is not where the limitation is. It is not that we do not know what needs to be done.
When it comes to the ratios of staff to clients who are in long-term care, more funding is needed. When we see some of the conditions there, more funding is needed. We know that the provinces, although they have that under their jurisdiction, do not have the wherewithal to do everything that is needed. Therefore, it is important that the government work with provinces and territories to leverage those best practices in long-term care but also to identify how we can get the funding there and how we can actually get the workers there. As members know, we have seen a drop-off in the number of personal support workers, nurses and all of these kinds of careers.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my question is simple and yet not so simple.
Most seniors who live the longest are women. Many women who receive OAS and GIS benefits were stay-at-home moms first and later stay-at-home grandmothers, although this is not true of all of them, fortunately. Many set their careers aside, so their incomes were substantially reduced, which affected their pensions. Some have part-time jobs to try to make ends meet.
Would it be fair to say that most of the seniors affected by these pension cuts are, once again, women?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.
Absolutely, single senior women are the poorest. It is important to have a policy that recognizes that more money is needed for senior women living in poverty, because they are struggling to put a roof over their heads.
More funding may be needed and pensions may have to increase to ensure that women can be properly housed.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
