44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I assure you and the member that nobody was laughing at his comments. What we were trying to do was actually remind the member that he voted in favour of all the measures that he is now criticizing. As a matter of fact, he did it through unanimous consent.
The member talked about not remembering what happened, and being surprised. Does the member not remember, back in March of 2020, when the government helped 5.4 million Canadians by putting money in their bank accounts within four and a half weeks of the WHO declaring a global pandemic? Hindsight is 20/20. Is it not great to be able to look back and be so critical? The irony in all of it is that the member voted in favour of everything he is now criticizing.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, absolutely nobody on this side of the House is mocking seniors, and the member should—
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 3:48:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was actually a member for Leeds, which is just east of Kingston.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:12:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was watching the member's speech on the TV in the lobby, and she was commenting on the unanimous consent motion the Bloc brought forward in the previous Parliament. I think it was in May of last year.
The Bloc wants to set this up as though it somehow introduced a unanimous consent motion that would have solved everything, but the reality is that the motion had a number of problems in it. It did not indicate whether things would be indexed over time or whether people who had a higher income would receive a clawback. It did not indicate anything about how long somebody had been in Canada. The motion did not address how it would handle somebody who had been in Canada for 10 years versus 40 years. It is very disingenuous for the Bloc to suggest it brought forward a motion that somehow would have rectified all this.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today is a great opportunity to rise in the House on this flag day. I want to note the importance and significance of today being the day we mark and recognize the Canadian flag, a flag we have seen on various people's knapsacks and backpacks throughout the world. It is a symbol people proudly wear to show where their home is. Unlike some other countries in the world, we are incredibly proud to show that flag as we travel in other parts of the world.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that it was MP John Matheson, who was from the riding just east of Kingston, the riding of Leeds, as it was called at the time, who played a key role in the development of the flag we now recognize as being the Canadian flag. I encourage those who are listening to look into the history of it a little. They will see the committee he led, and some of the different examples of flags that were brought forward. Ultimately, they settled on the one we have now come to cherish as the Canadian flag. I wish everybody a happy flag day. It certainly is an honour to come from the part of the country that was, at the time, led by an MP who gave a tremendous amount to the pride we now have and show through that flag.
It is an honour to rise today to talk about such an important issue. Right now we are debating the motion that would set the programming of how we will deal with this particular bill, which relates to the Old Age Security Act, and how we would make amendments to it in order to ensure those who experienced these clawbacks are properly taken care of.
I am concerned to see some of the posturing going on in the House today. We heard MPs from the Conservatives and the Bloc saying that they are supportive of the bill but not of this motion. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for recognizing the importance of this. The truth is we knew the Conservatives would be against it, which was a default, but the Bloc, quite frankly, is using this as an opportunity. It knows it has the luxury of voting against this motion because the NDP will be there to carry the weight the Bloc is unwilling to carry today. That is the reality of the situation.
We saw it with another equally important motion yesterday, where the NDP had to carry the weight of the Bloc, and now it is doing it again. I just want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for helping us get through this very important motion, and we know at the end of the day all members of the House will vote in favour of the bill because of the importance all members place on this issue.
This motion basically says that we would proceed moving forward with this bill in a very expeditious fashion, because it is very important to get it through. I can understand some of the need for rigorous studying of bills from time to time as they come to committee. I know members of the Conservative Party have said today that we need to study this bill and properly go through all of the details.
These are the same members who have been raising this issue time and time again and asking why something was not done yesterday. Now they have in front of them a programming motion that would basically expedite this and fast-track it, and they literally want to put on the brakes. They say that we need to hold on, study, give a lot of consideration in committee, and go through various procedural elements back and forth from committee and the House on what is an extremely simple bill.
The bill states:
for the purpose of determining benefits payable in respect of any month after June 2022, there shall be deducted from the person’s income for the year the amount of any payment under
It then goes on to list the four articles. That is literally the entire bill. I do not understand what could be studied in committee that would bring about some revelation of how an amendment should be made with respect to this.
This is an issue that all members of the House know about. I am happy to get into how we got to this point, which I will shortly, but it is an issue that all members of this House know about so well. They understand the content of it and exactly what this bill would do. To suggest that we should ensure that the proper, thorough, democratic process through the parliamentary system is maintained for a bill that is so direct in its nature of addressing a very specific issue is absolutely remarkable to me.
However, the Bloc has the luxury of not having to vote in favour of this motion so it can somehow stand on principle, but it only has that luxury because the NDP is once again creating a scenario for the Bloc to be able to do that. I again want to thank my NDP colleagues for staying above the partisanship of this and making sure we can move forward with this as quickly as possible.
I want to take a few minutes to congratulate the new Minister of Seniors on tackling this issue. She had not been a minister prior to this session of Parliament. She is the member for Brampton West. When she was appointed, she tackled this issue head-on, along with her parliamentary secretary, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
As she indicated in her comments earlier today, she made sure she consulted with various parties. She made sure she went to committee and answered the questions of committee members. She made sure she communicated with various seniors groups and groups that represent seniors' interests and that when she did this, she would get this right, in line with her mandate letter from the Prime Minister and in line with the very reasonable requests being made by seniors throughout the country.
I want to thank the minister for the work she has done to get us to this point, so we can ensure that seniors who experienced clawbacks relating to the CERB and other programs indicated in the bill are properly taken care of. Her mandate letter specifically says that she will, “Ensure seniors' eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not negatively impacted by receipt of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit...and the Canada Recovery Benefit”, and that is exactly what this bill would do.
Bill C-12 builds on our commitment to old age security, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for single seniors and $750 for couples starting at the age of 65. Bill C-12 would also ensure that GIS cutbacks due to collective COVID supports will not happen again in future tax years. All parties, as I indicated, have raised this issue for sometime, so it is very odd to see that our Conservative friends across the way and the Bloc wanting to drag the parliamentary process down with this motion as opposed to just passing it so we can eventually vote on the bill.
I would like to go back to the creation of these particular programs and how we got to the position we are in. I found it very fascinating and quite perplexing, while listening to the member for Abbotsford this morning, when he pointed the finger at the government, as though the government is solely responsible for the issue that has been created. I would remind all members that these programs were passed by unanimous consent, by all members of this House.
Unanimous consent, for those watching, is when all members of the House agree to bypass a number of parliamentary procedures in order to get programs into place immediately. That is the manner in which unanimous consent was used back in March of 2020 and a few times afterward. Unanimous consent basically means that everybody agrees.
If one person disagrees with unanimous consent, it would shut it down, right there in its tracks, and the various pieces of legislation would have to go through the regular parliamentary process. However, we agreed to unanimous consent at the time because we recognized the incredible need that was out there for Canadians at the time.
Not only that, the minister at the time, Minister Morneau, went to great lengths when we heard the complaints about various different pieces of the supports from the other side of the House, and they were improved upon. I can remember, for example, that the original proposal by the government on the wage subsidy fell short, quite frankly, of what was really needed. The Conservatives were there to highlight that issue and to say that this particular support was not good enough and that we needed to do better. As a result, by working with the minister behind the scenes and outside of this chamber and fixing the legislation, we saw much better wage subsidy legislation end up coming forward.
If the member for Abbotsford is somehow saying that the government completely botched this legislation, well, he and the Conservatives had the opportunity to try to improve upon the programs at the time. In some instances they did, and in some instances issues were missed, but let us remember where we were at the beginning of this pandemic. At that time it was absolutely critical to get supports to Canadians as quickly as possible to support those in need, those who were affected.
Let us remember that at the beginning of the pandemic, nobody had any idea what was happening. We were shutting down businesses throughout the country. Provinces were bringing in lockdowns. We did not have the luxury of knowing what a lockdown is, as we do now. If a lockdown was brought in now, we would know what to expect. Back in March 2020, we had no idea what it meant, what the short-term, mid-term or long-term impacts of a lockdown would be. We have that luxury now, because hindsight is 20-20, but back then we did not. We did not understand what was happening.
The government—with the incredible support of the public service, I might add—developed these programs, working day and night, with the objective of helping as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Perfection was not an issue at the time. It was not seen, in my opinion, as a priority at the time. The priority was getting the supports out to people who needed them the most. That is what happened. That is what the government was able to deliver on, again with the incredible support of the public service.
I have said it a number of times in this House, and I will said it again: 5.4 million Canadians had money in their bank accounts within five weeks of the World Health Organization declaring a global pandemic. Let us compare that to the United States or any other jurisdiction in the world. It was regarded as the gold standard for taking care of Canadians in their absolute dire moment of need. That is what the public service was able to deliver for Canadians. That is what we were dealing with at the time.
Issues are going to come up, as the member for Abbotsford has indicated now that he has luxury of looking back on it 24 months later. Issues are going to pop up. The key is how we deal with those issues now to make sure that people are treated in a fair manner. That is exactly what we are seeing now. We are not only fixing some of those problems that existed before but also putting safeguards in to make sure that they do not continue to happen. It is the reasonable and responsible thing to do. It is the thing the minister was tasked to do in her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, and she has moved very quickly on it with her department.
I also find it extremely rich when I hear my Conservative colleagues across the way in particular trying to position themselves as the champions of seniors. It is absolutely remarkable when I hear the rhetoric that comes from across the way.
This is the party that in the last government sought to increase the age of retirement to 67 from 65. What grounds they think they have to stand on this issue as it relates to seniors I do not understand. I do not know where they are coming from. That is their record. They increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. That is their record.
Our record is this: We enhanced the CPP. The QPP followed suit. We strengthened old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We increased in general the number of services available to seniors. We provided a one-time $500 payment to seniors. This year we are increasing old age security by 10% for those seniors over the age of 75 because we know that once they get into that age category, they need more support. The data shows that as they reach the age of 75 and older, seniors have burned through more of their savings, their medical expenses are higher, and as such they need more resources in order to support themselves. We want seniors to support themselves. That is the objective, so increasing the old age security benefit for those who are over the age of 75 is an investment.
I am absolutely perplexed by the position of the Conservatives when they try to tout they are the champions of seniors, but I am equally concerned about what I hear coming from the Bloc. The last two Bloc members who spoke made reference to a unanimous consent motion when I asked a question. Let us understand this. Eight months ago, the Bloc members brought forward a unanimous consent motion. At the time, they were willing to deal with this problem through unanimous consent, as I described earlier, but now they are not even willing to vote in favour of this motion that expedites the process.
That is the hypocrisy. They referred to a unanimous consent motion to fix the entire problem through that one quick motion back in May, which they felt was fine to do then, and they chastised us for not agreeing to it; now we have a programming motion that would allow us to do this quickly, but they are totally unwilling to vote in favour of it. Again, this goes back to the luxury of not having to do it because the NDP is picking up the slack for the Bloc, as we are seeing.
I have already talked about the unanimous consent motion that the Bloc brought forward and the problems that existed with it. It was not indexed over time. It did not take into account the length of time that people had been in Canada. It did not have any kind of clawback based on income so that higher-income individuals would get less than those who really needed it. It was extremely problematic, yet they were willing to do that through a UC motion. Unfortunately, that just comes down to the politics of this place that we see time and again.
Quite frankly, we see it more often from the Conservatives. They bring forward these unanimous consent motions not because they think they will pass and fix the problem, but so the Bloc members can then go back to their constituents and tell them that they tried to help them but nobody wanted to agree with them and help them out. That is what we are seeing. Quite frankly, that is what the Bloc Québécois is doing in partnering up with the Conservatives. We saw it yesterday and we see it today. The Bloc and the Conservatives are continually partnering up together, and it makes me wonder why. I thought the Bloc was more concerned about seniors, as opposed to playing politics in this place in dealing with this bill.
I see that my time is coming to an end. I appreciate the opportunity to have provided some comments on this process and I look forward to any questions my colleagues might have.
2770 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:54:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I take exception to the fact that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan would suggest that I do not appreciate, value or see the benefit of various members' input in this House. As a matter of fact, if he listened to my speech, I actually gave credit to the Conservatives for helping to make the wage subsidy program better. I am totally and absolutely willing to do that when I see it coming from across the way. They made that particular program better as a result of their interventions.
My issue was with respect to the fact that the member for Abbotsford was somehow very critical of this particular program, but at the same time, he knows full well that he helped pass that through unanimous consent and had input into those programs at the time.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not saying that the Bloc is delaying the process. What I am saying is that it is because of the NDP that the Bloc members have the luxury of being able to vote against this motion. The Bloc members know full well that if they were not in this position and the NDP was not voting in favour of this motion, they would have a lot more pressure to vote in favour of it.
Where I am identifying the hypocrisy is that the Bloc members were willing to deal with this issue through a unanimous consent motion that they raised on a number of occasions today, to deal with it swiftly in one quick motion, in less than 15 seconds, yet they will not vote in favour of this motion to move it along just as quickly. That is the hypocrisy.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:59:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member knows just as well as I and every other member in this House about the challenges of the legislative calendar.
I am not going to say that this could not have been done sooner; I would have loved to have seen this done sooner as well. What I will say is that this particular minister was clearly seized with this file on day one after being appointed. She moved as quickly on it as she could, in addition to dealing with other obligations that she had to bring up to date in her files, and introduced this piece of legislation. We have been able to fit it into the legislative agenda.
The mere fact that we are debating this closure motion all day long makes it obvious that we have a problem with moving legislation through this House. We have dealt with obstacle after obstacle in order to get to this place. I wish we could have done this motion that we are debating all afternoon as a unanimous consent motion, but clearly the Bloc and the Conservatives would rather play games, so we are in this position.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 5:01:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, he clearly understands the problem that we are in, yet he is not willing to be part of the solution. That just proves what I have been saying all along, which is that this weird coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives to somehow slow down the legislative agenda is impacting legislation. He literally just told us that he understands what the problem is, so he should vote in favour of this. Let us get moving on it. Instead, they have the luxury of being able to be against the government on this motion, but for the bill. It is a luxury that unfortunately the NDP does not have, but to their credit they have seen the importance of this. They are willing to see beyond that partisanship, and are actually helping to move this forward.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 5:02:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can cast light on that. As one of the only Liberals in the House, I physically sat in the House for five months last winter and spring. I saw the games being played in order to prevent legislation from going through. That was coupled with everything that had happened during the pandemic. I have no problem saying that I felt that it was time for Canadians to weigh in on this and see where they were with it.
I would never accuse the member in particular of doing this, but I understand that it is a very easy political argument to make. That is why we hear it from the Conservatives so much. I actually do not have a problem with letting the electorate weigh in and tell us how they think we are doing, especially after the amount of money that had been spent on the pandemic and what had happened during the pandemic. To let the public weigh in is to give them their voice. I think they told us what they thought through their votes, and we are back here in the House to continue acting on their behalf as a result of that.
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, toward the end of the member's speech, in the last few sentences, she referenced the need for the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act. I am curious if she agrees with that as a proper measure and if she plans to vote for it. There will be a debate on that, as required by the legislation, in the House. Is she planning to vote in favour of it? Is it the right action to take, or does she agree with the protests that are going on outside?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for speaking about the impact this particular piece of legislation will have on Canadian seniors. At the end of the day, we need to get this bill passed quickly because it is absolutely critical that we get these measures in place for the next tax season.
I am wondering if the member could expand on the urgency of this and how important it is for constituents in her riding that this happens now, today, instead of waiting even another day or two.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, Government Business No. 7 be amended:
a) in paragraph (c), by deleting all the words after the words “recorded division is requested” and substituting the following, “it shall be deferred to the next sitting day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, and the House shall then adjourn to the next sitting day”; and
b) by deleting paragraph (g)
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on introducing this very important piece of legislation. From what I understand, this is the first and only piece of legislation that has been introduced by the newly created Minister of Seniors position.
What we have seen today, in my opinion, is a reluctance to move forward on this, despite the fact that everybody in the House knows how incredibly important it is to get this legislation in place so that seniors can be properly taken care of.
Can the minister explain to the House why it is so critically important that this happen right now?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member, as she reflected on the Harper years, referenced back to things like tax-free savings accounts and registered retirement income funds, all stuff that well-off seniors can afford. I do not know many low-income seniors who are tapping into the tax-free savings accounts. Yes, the Conservative Party certainly does have a history of being sure to take care of those who are well off.
Nonetheless, I took great issue with her comment that the NDP is somehow having to come up and cover up mistakes. The NDP is actually the only party that has been participating over the last two days in moving forward with legislation to get things into people's hands, and to get legislation passed for the betterment of Canadians. The New Democrats have actually been participating in making that happen.
This member identified the problems and the urgency of moving quickly, but then in the same breath asked why the NDP is supporting us to move quickly on this. She is being hypocritical in her approach to this, and I cannot help but think that is just for partisan interest.
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the question that my NDP colleague asked previously because she made an excellent point. This member allowed to pass all stages of the conversion therapy ban bill, all in one quick unanimous consent motion where everybody agreed to all stages of it and it passed unanimously, so quickly, and this member clearly voted in favour of it.
Why does this member not care about seniors the same way that he clearly does the LGBTQ community?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 11:55:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
