44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
I want to thank the member for the conversations we have had and for his shared advocacy.
We need far more significant investment into a mix of community, public and co-op housing across the country. We know this has been done in the past. Back in the early eighties, I believe around 8% of newly constructed rental units were co-op housing, whereas now we are down to less than 1%. Therefore, we have that example of when the federal government stepped up to the pace and scale required. I look forward to working with the member and others in the House to move back toward the scale and pace we had in the past.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and for sharing our desire to quickly address the mistake the government made. It knew about this back in May of 2021, and seniors have suffered because of the delay. I also thank him for his comments on how seniors need supports more broadly and his support for the member for Winnipeg Centre's bill on a guaranteed basic income.
Seniors are living in poverty. Could the member speak to what a guaranteed basic income would mean for the residents in his riding?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it means they would not be waiting the amount of time they have been to get to this legislation. It means it would not be piecemeal. It means they would know that the government truly does have their backs, as it would for every other Canadian across the country. That is why I think we need to rally around not only this private member's bill but any effort in this place to ensure that every Canadian, seniors included, have access to a dignified life.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change my vote in the vote that took place after question period. I had technical difficulties that prevented me from changing my vote to yea and from joining Zoom, so I would ask for the indulgence of the House to have my vote recorded as having voted in favour of Bill C-10 in that vote.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:02:48 p.m.
- Watch
In order to allow the hon. member to change his vote, we need the unanimous consent of the House.
All those opposed to the hon. member's request will please say nay.
Hearing no dissent, it is agreed.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, fantastic and magnificent member from Thérèse-De Blainville.
I am happy to be able to discuss and debate the motion concerning Bill C-12 with my colleagues, because I have devoted my life to seniors since I was 23. I spent my career serving seniors, both providing home care in local community service centres and working in long-term care homes as a social worker and health care network manager. It is therefore an honour for me to contribute to the debate we are having today.
First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑12. There is no doubt about that. We know that this bill is very important and that it is urgent.
However, we disagree with today's motion, which is disrupting the legislative process. It is important to point out that the bill has only one clause. It amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent a deplorable situation, where 183,000 vulnerable seniors had their guaranteed income supplement cut, from happening again after July 1, 2022. That is the purpose of Bill C-12.
All of the opposition parties proposed legislative work to the government for this week, because we could have managed without the closure motion, which should only be used in exceptional and urgent situations. We could have finished our work properly, in accordance with the legislative process, because this bill has not garnered much opposition. On the contrary, we are pretty unanimous about it in the House.
The bill is important, but let us be clear: It does nothing to change the situation of seniors whose GIS has been slashed every month for the past eight months. It changes nothing at all. When we saw the bill, we wondered why the date was set at July 1, 2022. Why not March? That way, those whose GIS is currently being cut would not have their benefits reduced.
Based on the minister's announcement, we know that there will be a one-time payment. Initially, this payment was to have been made in May, but after the questions we asked the minister and with the pressure she was under, she succeeded in convincing her officials to move the one-time payment up to April 19.
In my opinion, that is still unacceptable. It is two weeks earlier, and some will say that is better than nothing, but it is unacceptable that computer issues can prevent us from returning the money that was taken from vulnerable seniors before April 19. It seems to me that that could have been done by March, or even early April.
This week, the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where she answered a question from my colleagues in the third opposition party. She said that it would be done by April 19 and she was proud of that. Honestly, I would not be so proud in her shoes, because that is shameful. On April 19 it will be almost 10 months that people have had their GIS benefits cut month after month.
Today, in an article in the Journal de Montréal, two seniors who had their benefits cut described their situation to Canadians. Bob Petit, an 82-year-old senior, had his GIS benefits reduced by $350 a month, while Jacques Rhéault, a pensioner in Louiseville who worked hard all his life in a factory in Contrecoeur, lost his GIS benefit.
These two people are the luckiest people in the world, because they have the support and assistance of a very active MP who has been championing their cause from the start. Let us keep in mind that these people’s benefits have been cut since July 2021. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé represents and supports them through all of the system’s bureaucratic procedures.
However, regardless of how good an MP he is, we have learned that, although the Minister of Seniors appears to have a good heart and to listen to seniors, she cannot do more because of the technical and technological limitations of the tools she will be using to issue a nice cheque to each senior who was unfairly affected by the cuts. That is quite a long time.
I cannot help but make connections with other people’s problems. Consider sick workers. They are entitled to just 15 weeks of employment insurance in case of illness. The Bloc would like to see that increase to 50 weeks. The minister said that that was too much, that the government was looking at 26 weeks, but that computer problems were preventing it from doing anything right now.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is telling us that they want to accelerate the processing of work visa and permanent residence applications, but that there are computer issues. I am starting to wonder whether the government’s key departments, which are there to serve Canadians, are paralyzed by their computer systems.
That makes me think there has been considerable negligence in maintaining our infrastructure. As a result, vulnerable Canadians are finding it difficult to pay their rent and buy their medications and are grappling with anxiety and stress every month. We are talking about seniors who are vulnerable and who will be affected by Bill C-12.
I do not know if it is possible to paint an accurate portrait of these people. These are seniors who, very often, have worked all their lives. These people, who may not have been unionized and who did not necessarily earn a big salary, are now retired, and tired, at age 65. Tired and without much income, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. For the past eight months, since July 2021, these people have received less money because the CERB was calculated as income. That is what Bill C-12 is intended to correct, to prevent other seniors from being penalized next year.
Honestly, I am offended and angry to see how the government’s limitations are getting in the way of the assistance these seniors require. When questioned, the minister says that the government invested so many million dollars in this and so many million dollars in that. What seniors need is a decent monthly income so they can pay their bills, meet their responsibilities and live with dignity.
Right now, seniors are calling my office saying that they feel like beggars, if I can put it that way. It is a blow to their dignity, because these are people who worked, who earned an honest living and who have felt completely forgotten and abandoned since July 2021.
Members will understand why I am emotional talking about this. I live in a riding where a quarter of the population is aged 65 or over. Today, I think it is clear that the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is an unconditional ally of the seniors in her riding, that the Bloc Québécois is an ally of seniors, and that it will do everything it can to convince the minister to issue the one-time payment before April 19.
1236 words
All Topics
- 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, we now know that the Senate, whose participation in the process is required, will not be sitting this week, and that it was really not necessary to pass Bill C-12 under closure. I am convinced that the legislative process could have taken its normal course and that we could have managed to pass Bill C-12 without a closure motion this week if there had been good will and if we had worked as a team and without partisanship.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:14:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech.
I worry when I hear the government say that it needs another computer system to pay seniors. I remember Phoenix, which did not work for five years. Why does the government need another system when the funds are usually deposited directly in Canadians’ bank accounts every month?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:15:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in a former life, I was the chief of staff to a minister. Every time we were asked to tighten the budget, IT infrastructure was cut because it has less of an impact in the short term.
I do not know if that is why all infrastructure has been neglected. I have noticed this with EI sickness benefits and immigration. I know it is complicated, and I am not saying otherwise.
However, I cannot understand how CERB cheques were issued within ten days because it was urgent, but we are unable to issue cheques for seniors who are currently in such great need and who have been experiencing stress and anxiety since July 2021. I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that the government of a rich country cannot quickly issue a cheque to help the most vulnerable seniors in Quebec and Canada.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:16:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we know, many seniors are caught in this predicament because they are the lowest income seniors.
Single seniors on GIS make a little over $19,000 a year. Those who are partnered get about $25,000 a year. The only reason they had to go to work was to supplement their income, and during COVID many of them lost their jobs. That is why they are caught in this predicament.
With this in mind, is the real issue, aside from restoring and making whole the seniors support, that we need to bring in a guaranteed livable basic income?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:17:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that the member and I agree that the government must increase seniors' monthly income and give them tax concessions that will let them work to make ends meet, pay their bills and socialize without being penalized by the taxman.
The Bloc Québécois has made plenty of suggestions to help seniors contribute without being penalized. I believe that the solution is to increase old age security for seniors 65 and over. I think that is the most important measure right now.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech. It was very heartfelt and compelling. I do not know whether I will be as brilliant, but I will try to clearly outline the Bloc Québécois's motivations when it comes to seniors. We want to take care of them, look after them and listen to their needs.
I would like to remind the many people who are watching us on ParlVu that we are talking about Bill C-12, which would exclude any emergency benefits from a person's income for the purposes of calculating the amount of the guaranteed income supplement and allowances payable in respect of any month after June 2022.
I think the bill is simple. It attempts to correct a problem as of June 2022. However, it is one year too late. Need I remind the House that it was in May 2021 that the trouble started and the issue was raised? Some seniors lost some or all of their GIS because they had received emergency benefits related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which they were entitled to.
No one in the government warned them that this would happen. Worse still, no one in the government had even calculated or foreseen this consequence, which is frankly ludicrous, considering old age security is a program that is entirely under federal jurisdiction.
It is terrible that the government showed such a lack of foresight by failing to anticipate the effect of these measures under a program that it is supposed to be responsible for. More importantly, it is terrible for the seniors who have missed out on a large portion of their retirement income for the past year. I could name several women and men in my riding who, for several months now, have been receiving $300, $400 or $500 less a month.
Those figures are significant, since only the lowest-income seniors receive the GIS. In all, OAS and GIS benefits represent almost $18,000 a year. My colleagues can surely imagine how much that comes to per month, so cutting even $100 from that monthly income is totally unacceptable.
On Monday, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities had the pleasure of receiving the Minister of Seniors. She came to tell us about her mandate letter and how much she cares about seniors. We believe her. She mentioned that she used to be a nurse, and she spoke about how seniors are faring in our health and social services networks, highlighting their vulnerability. I agree with her.
She underlined all kinds of consequences, but focused on measures this government will introduce to reduce seniors' vulnerability, such as national standards in long-term care homes, aging in place and so on. The government is devoting tremendous energy to overtly encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and so little energy to fixing a problem we are all very aware of and that is that seniors are economically vulnerable, and they are getting poorer.
I would like the Minister of Seniors to know that I, too, am a nurse by trade and that I was a nurses' union representative in Quebec for many long years and the leader of a major public service labour union. My professional and union experience gave me opportunities to advocate for better working conditions in Quebec and reforms to improve the systems we have in place to care for seniors and the rest of the population.
We have fought hard on these issues in order to push ahead and improve the quality of care and services, but at no point throughout my career would it ever have occurred to us to knock on Ottawa's door to ask for help, because it is none of Ottawa's business. This does not fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction. The only battle we have fought together with civil society and the governments of our province is to demand that the federal government make a contribution through the Canada health transfers that is commensurate with the health and social services needs in Quebec and the provinces. This has been our struggle. I have been on the front lines for a long time on the issues that relate to the feds. However, our working conditions, living conditions for seniors and care conditions all come under our jurisdiction.
I have a suggestion for the government. It should drop those mandates, focus on what it needs to focus on and give the provinces health transfers covering 35% of costs. We could have asked for 50%, as was agreed to in the 1950s, but we did not. We have asked for 35% because we have been starving ever since. The government is starving the health care systems and making them vulnerable. To top it off, the government has appropriated the right to spend. However, it does not grasp the urgency of spending money in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as the GIS, which is one of the most important social safety nets for our retirees and seniors.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressure had to be applied for seniors to be recognized, and this earned them a meagre cheque of $500. On this issue, the government came in for more criticism than accolades.
The Bloc Québécois had to fight, apply pressure, write letters and come to the House to sound the alarm a year ago about the totally unfair situation of seniors whose GIS was reduced because they had received emergency benefits. The government said it had other things to do. Managing its own affairs must not be part of its responsibilities.
Now, here we are, almost a year later, with a bill that we will pass but that will only remedy the situation going forward to ensure this does not happen again. A bird in the hand is worth—
996 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:28:12 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I tried to indicate to the member earlier that she had only two minutes left. Her time is now up. She will be able to continue during the period for questions and comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the Bloc members are nothing else, they are consistent in regard to the health care issue.
The Government of Canada is not an ATM that just distributes money. We have the Canada Health Act, and Canadians from all regions of the country recognize that the national government has an important role to play in health care. Whether the Bloc members agree or disagree, quite frankly, is irrelevant. We are here to support a healthy health care system where we can, looking, for example, at long-term care and at issues around mental health. These are important issues to people, no matter where they are in Canada.
Why is my friend teaming up, once again, in that coalition with the Conservatives and the Bloc to try to get things done here in the House? I am glad she is supporting the bill, but why does she not support the actual motion to see it come to a conclusion today?
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:29:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer the first part of the question.
Mind your own business. Your business is providing funding for provincial health care systems. Your business is looking after retirees and seniors. You have programs and it is up to you to support them. That is your responsibility.
I would, in turn, ask you why you are in such a rush to interfere in our business and in less of a rush to take care of your own?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:30:24 p.m.
- Watch
I remind the hon. member that she must address her questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the government or a member. I have already reminded her of that today.
The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:30:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree very much with my hon. colleague about the importance of the Canada Health Act and federal spending. I also worked for a union for 16 years, so I appreciate her contributions to working people.
However, I must take issue with the member's inaccurate statement that health care is provincial. I am going to read from the Library of Parliament paper on the jurisdiction. It states that “...the Constitution Act, 1867 does not expressly include “health” as a legislative power assigned either to Parliament...or to the provincial legislatures....” The Supreme Court of Canada has not interpreted section 92 as giving provincial legislatures exclusive jurisdiction over health care.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in Schneider v. The Queen, stated:
...“health” is not a matter which is subject to specific constitutional assignment but instead is an amorphous topic which can be addressed by valid federal or provincial legislation, depending in the circumstances of each case on the nature or scope of the health problem in question.
The Schneider decision also says that the national concern doctrine is a basis for a federal health jurisdiction, saying:
...federal legislation in relation to "health" can be supported where the dimension of the problem is national rather than local in nature....
Therefore, when my hon. colleague says that it is not the federal government's business to be in health care, she is constitutionally wrong. Is the member aware that the phrase “health care” does not occur in the Constitution and that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that health care is federal—
272 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:32:12 p.m.
- Watch
I do have to allow the hon. member to respond.
The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:32:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in response, I would tell him to go read everything that might be constitutional on the issue.
I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that the provinces and Quebec have jurisdiction over organizing services and care, and that the role of the federal government is limited to paying its fair share to support the provinces and Quebec.
What is more, it is also the responsibility of the federal government to support our seniors by significantly increasing old age security and never again denying seniors their guaranteed income supplement.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
