44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/15/22 10:03:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to the motion adopted on Monday, February 14, 2022, regarding the illegal blockades at Canada's border crossings.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food calls for the immediate end of the illegal blockades at Canada's border crossings. At a time of severe strain to our supply chains, the blockades are interrupting millions of dollars of daily trade between Canada and the United States and are negatively impacting Canadian agriculture and agri-food industries, including producers, manufacturers and processors. All governments must play a leadership role in keeping these vital trade networks open for the thousands of agriculture businesses and workers who depend on them.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
I have the privilege of rising today to speak to Bill C‑12, which seeks to support low-income seniors whose guaranteed income supplement was affected by pandemic benefits.
I will use my time today to speak about the measures in the bill and the reasons why the government has introduced them to support vulnerable seniors. I will also speak about other measures that our government has taken to assist seniors. I am proud of these measures, which are making a difference in the lives of seniors in my riding of Kings—Hants.
My colleagues and, of course, all Canadians are aware of what we have been dealing with over the past two years. Our government has been there to support all Canadians, including seniors. We made a one-time $300 payment to seniors who were receiving old age security benefits and a $500 payment to those who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
These benefits were not considered income for the purposes of calculating old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. Of course we had work-related benefits, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and now the Canada worker lockdown benefit to support workers whose jobs were directly affected by COVID‑19.
Sometimes these measures created a situation where low-income seniors who were working before the pandemic lost access to the guaranteed income supplement because their income exceeded the eligibility threshold. Given the circumstances, it seems that all members support the principle of eliminating repercussions on the vulnerable seniors we are trying to support.
I think it is also important to talk about the measures that the government has introduced since 2015, measures that have made a difference in the lives of seniors across the country, including a positive difference in the lives of seniors in my riding of Kings—Hants.
First, it is sometimes easy to forget that it was the Conservatives who increased the age of eligibility for old age security. We restored the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 67 to 65, putting thousands of dollars back in the pockets of seniors.
Our government increased the GIS by 10% for seniors, improving the financial security of roughly 900,000 vulnerable seniors. We are permanently increasing the old age security pension by 10% for people 75 and older in July, which means that those who receive the full pension will receive roughly $766 the first year.
It is also important to recognize the platform commitment we made to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for individuals who qualify, and up to $750 for couples. I want to give an example. The Speaker and I both reside in and represent rural Nova Scotian ridings. There are individuals, particularly single senior women in my riding, who are sometimes vulnerable in the sense that these programs are extremely important for them to keep the lights on and stay in their homes. I am really proud this is something our government is committing to.
We are in the middle of a pandemic. We are working our way through it, of course, and challenges abound, but this is something I know all parliamentarians will be working toward to help support affordability measures for lower income seniors.
Let us talk about New Horizons for Seniors. For Canadians who might not know, New Horizons is a program run through the federal department of seniors that is supporting either infrastructure upgrades to communal buildings or programming that support seniors' activities.
I can speak positively about this program in my own riding of Kings—Hants. For example, the Glooscap Curling Club in Kentville, Nova Scotia, had a $25,000 investment provided by the Government of Canada to help keep that facility in top shape. It serves not just seniors but residents across Kings—Hants. It is particularly important for the seniors' programming that goes on. There are many examples of how this program is making a real difference in keeping seniors active and on the move.
We have also increased the basic personal amount, which is something that perhaps is not always talked about to the extent that it should be. That is increasing the threshold before individuals are required to pay federal tax. We have done that, which is certainly helping low-income seniors to the tune of about $300 to $400 a year. I recognize that might not solve all issues, but it is moving the yard sticks in the right direction. It is a making a difference for Canadians across the country.
What have all these measures resulted in? What has the government actually done, and what are the results? I laid out some of the measures the government has undertaken, but what are the results all members of the House can take in? It has resulted in an 11% reduction in seniors poverty since this government formed office in 2015.
I do not say that lightly. I know there will remain challenges. Indeed, many members of the House talk about instances where individuals continue to face challenges, and I am not naive to that, but the fact is 11% is not just a number in the House. That 11% represents the lives of individuals who have been supported and aided by the government programs we put in place, and I am certainly proud to stand on this side of the House, which has been part of making that happen.
I will now compare and contrast. I mentioned earlier that it was the Conservative Party that had increased the old age security threshold to 67. We, of course, brought that back down to age 65. I had the privilege of sitting in the House in the 43rd Parliament. I had the opportunity to hear a unanimous consent motion that came from the Bloc Québécois, perhaps an opposition day motion, that talked about increasing old age security by $110 across the board for every senior.
I voted against the motion, not on the idea that we should not be supporting seniors, but sometimes it is easy for opposition members in the House to say things and not really give a full reflection of the cost of the programs. I had the opportunity to tell the Bloc members what they did not say in that motion, which is that it would be an $8-billion expense per year, at a time when the fiscal framework is under duress.
I offered to my Bloc colleagues that, if they want to make those types of suggestions in the House, I hope it is also coming with concrete measures on how to grow the economy and increase government revenue to pay for it.
On the Conservative side of the House, the Conservative Party will often say this government is spending too much money. As someone who identifies as a business Liberal, that is fair by me. If we want to be able to rein in spending, it is important we remain fiscally prudent, but at the same time, how do we make sure we support those individuals who are vulnerable?
We are talking about programs. We are talking about a $700-million measure. How do Conservative members square the fact that they want less spending, but they also want us to do more in certain areas? Perhaps it is do more for seniors and do less elsewhere. I do not know, but those are some of the legitimate challenges we, as parliamentarians, face. How do we balance fiscal prudence versus also supporting lower-income individuals who could use help?
Those are my thoughts. I am happy to take questions from my hon. colleagues.
1309 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to differentiate in what he just said.
I said in those remarks, and of course he has the Hansard in front of him, that it is an opportunity to look at private delivery while keeping it under a first-payer model, which means that the government, the public system, continues to pay for the cost. However, how do we look at innovative ways to use the private sector to create efficiencies in the actual delivery of services?
It is not about the size of one's wallet; it is about how we can use the ingenuity of the private sector in concert with the public service to deliver services to low-income seniors, to people who need them. It would not be on the basis of their wallet. It would be under a first-payer system, but using that ingenuity to deliver services.
I think it is quite clear.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, although my hon. colleague might not have it on the record, I understand that he might identify as a progressive Conservative, and I may too suggest that those are rare on this side of the House as well. That is certainly what I have heard through the grapevine. I applaud him if he is and I hope he will continue to try to keep his party near the middle of the spectrum.
With regard to his question about efficiency and how we move forward in our work, speaking as a business Liberal, I hope my hon. colleague would also understand that there are five lines to this legislation. All parliamentarians agree that we have a busy legislative schedule. The Prime Minister just announced that we are invoking the Emergencies Act. We need to create room in the legislative schedule to tackle meaningful issues. This is important, but it is not really that controversial. Let us move it forward. Let us make a difference for seniors.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Once again, I want to say that I am proud to work with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As I said in my answer to the previous question, I believe that it is important to move this bill forward and to create space on the parliamentary calendar for other bills.
The measure will go into effect in July, but it is also retroactive for those whose benefits were cut because of the pandemic. They will receive a payment, which will help them cope.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched upon the idea of a guaranteed basic income. At the end of the day, I will put my own thoughts on the table and then ask the question. I think the idea of looking at the variety of social safety net programs, both provincially and federally, and consolidating those programs to have one guaranteed payment that would be available, as well as to get administrative savings from some of the delivery of these programs from the bureaucracy to augment those programs, is an idea worth exploring.
I am wondering where her thoughts are. Sometimes every parliamentarian has a different view on whether we are adding this program on top of the existing social safety net. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it could be close to $90 billion per year to do something of that nature.
Could the member describe to the House exactly the parameters? Would it be adding to the safety net, or trying to solidify and make efficiencies in our existing system?
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
