- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, how can the member justify the fact that he voted in the House in favour of Bill C‑319, which gives seniors over the age of 65 an increase in their old age security pension, yet there is nothing to that effect in the budget? The budget talks about housing, and seniors also have difficulty finding affordable housing.
How can he justify the fact that his government, after voting in favour of the bill in the House, did not bother to eliminate this discrimination, this double standard for seniors, even though that was part of the budget expectations we presented to the minister? What was he waiting for?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about a plan to return to balanced budgets. We agree that governments need to be able to plan ahead. It is only right for us to be able to see a plan.
My colleague is worried about inflation. Pensioners on fixed incomes and seniors are struggling to make ends meet. Does he not think that instead of giving $20 billion in subsidies to oil companies that made $220 billion in profits in 2022, we should take some of that money and increase old age pensions and ensure that our seniors can live better?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, since there is no question and comment period at this time under the rules of debate in the House, some of my colleagues push the envelope and sometimes say outrageous things.
Having said that, I would first like to recall the purpose of the bill:
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
The goal is to prevent this from having an impact on the guaranteed income supplement. Since its arrival in the House in the 1990s, the Bloc Québécois has fought hard for the guaranteed income supplement. We wanted to ensure that more and more Quebec seniors were entitled to it. We realized that people did not know they were entitled to it. We toured Quebec to raise awareness and encourage them to apply.
When we first came to the House, even though we were not a recognized party, we did a review of what was happening with the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, we found that many seniors who were entitled to it were not receiving it.
When we presented our budget expectations in 2016, my colleague from Joliette and the member for Repentigny met with the Minister of Finance at the time, Mr. Morneau. They told him that anyone entitled to the guaranteed income supplement should be automatically registered to receive it. That was the Bloc Québécois's doing. He told us that we were right and that he would implement this system in 2018.
Again, just last year, in my constituency office, I met with seniors who were entitled to it but were not receiving it. There are still people who fall through the cracks.
That said, as recently as April 6, 2023, Michel Girard, a long-time financial columnist who everyone knows, stated that 409,860 people aged 65 and over live on less than a livable income. That is incredible. That is 53% of people living alone who do not have a livable income. Over the years, seniors have become impoverished. We must fix this, especially in light of the post-pandemic inflationary context.
The underlying objective of this bill is the social autonomy of seniors. I have often had the opportunity to speak about the autonomy of seniors, but I want to remind members that seniors' autonomy is not limited to their physical autonomy. Naturally, some people lose their autonomy with the loss of mobility. That does not take away their autonomy.
Autonomy is also not limited to seniors' social autonomy. However, it is society that often impacts the social autonomy of seniors. What is social autonomy? It is the income and the place they are given so they can continue to work in society. Ageism does exist.
People approaching retirement have made an absolutely remarkable and phenomenal contribution to society, and yet the closer they get to retirement, the more they are progressively excluded from decision-making places. In fact, if it were not for advocacy groups like the FADOQ network and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, seniors would be in bad shape. I commend them for their work, and I also commend my colleague from Shefford, who has shown remarkable leadership on this issue. She was able to bring all the networks together to finally get the government to listen to reason. At least I hope so.
Senior's autonomy is not limited to their mental autonomy, in other words their cognitive ability. Many prejudices exist about that. It is believed that 20% of seniors may have cognitive impairments. Some studies in the literature say that among these 20%, 10% of the disorders are reversible, if the people are well cared for and if we do not reduce their capacity to act. Isolation necessarily creates long-term cognitive impairments.
Seniors who live at or below the poverty line are the most precious members of our society. The older one gets, the more one acquires that which society cannot do without, which is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy refers to a human being's capacity to make a just and fair decision while making sure that their decision-making capacity, their practical judgment, is accurate. That does not happen at 20 or 30 years of age. It is acquired over a lifetime. Society therefore needs to make room for seniors because they are the ones who can show us the way forward, if we listen to them and we do not push them aside as if they were unnecessary, and if we do not undermine their income and their livelihood.
Everyone knows that seniors living in precarious situations eventually become sick. People living with financial worries eventually become sick. From a purely economic standpoint, if we take care of our seniors, if we let them have more of what they need to live, we will inevitably have a healthier, less sickly society. In the end, that will cost much less. What is more, those people will enjoy living. There is nothing more important than to give life meaning. After all, we are all looking for happiness.
I am appealing to every member's sense of honour, justice and equity to make sure my colleague's bill, on behalf of all seniors across the country, including Quebec's seniors, can give them at least the bare necessities. Seniors are wise. That is something all the seniors' rights groups agree upon. What we are asking for is a decent bare minimum so as to give them a little breathing room.
993 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Even before this inflationary crisis, in 2015, 2016 and 2017, seniors in my riding were telling me that it was possible to combat isolation and the undermining of their social independence. However, ageism is currently running rampant in our society.
Seniors have experience that can be transferred to other types of jobs. They would like to get up in the morning and tell themselves that they will contribute to society, albeit at their own pace. They would like to be sure that when they do go to work, the government is not going to claw it all back, as if they were volunteering and were again putting more money into government coffers.
By working, seniors are making a little extra money for themselves. People do not save at this age. They put their money back into the economy. They are less isolated, share their abilities and skills with society, can afford a few small luxuries, and are less sick and less stressed. From an economic and human perspective, it is a good solution. It is not for everyone, but we should encourage those who want to do it.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 11:24:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second point reads that “we need to make sure the conditions of work reflect the care standards our seniors deserve”.
Everyone agrees that we have a collective responsibility to care for our seniors as individuals. However, the conditions of work in long-term care facilities and seniors' residences do not fall under federal jurisdiction. That is the first problem, and I will come back to it.
The third point states that “the management of long-term care facilities is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction”. Here, they are basically admitting that it is none of their business. At least they are acknowledging it.
The motion continues by saying, “we share the goal of ensuring safer, better care for seniors”. Well done. I am very happy to see that the federal government has the same goal as Quebec and the provinces, that is, to ensure better quality care for seniors. That is effectively what Quebec wants.
However, health care is not under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government truly wishes to help the provinces and Quebec, it should convene a summit to discuss a sustainable increase in health care funding and health transfers, as requested unanimously by Quebec and the provinces, which are united on this. I will come back to this point.
The beginning of the second part of the motion states that, “in the opinion of the House, the government should work with the provinces and territories to (i) improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds”. Quebec already has a plan for revamping its health care system. Parliamentary debates will be held to improve the plan, to determine whether it is sound and to look at the pros and cons, but that is the responsibility of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, not the House of Commons.
What our health care systems are missing is financial resources, meaningful recurrent investments, and a substantial increase in the federal government's contribution. That means increasing federal health transfers from 22% of system costs to 35% and increasing the escalator from 3% to 6% per year. That is what is being called for by Quebec and the provinces, as well as by many other stakeholders. I will come back to that later.
The second point in the second paragraph of the motion states, “implement strict infection prevention and control measures, including through more provincial and territorial facility inspections for long-term care homes”. Quebec has assessed, and continues to assess, its actions during the pandemic. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec what to do or how to do it. Besides, the feds do not even have the required expertise. The best solution the federal government can come up with is to take best practices found from coast to coast to coast and impose them, as if that were within its jurisdiction.
The third point in that second paragraph states, “develop a safe long-term care act collaboratively to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live”. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously opposed such federal standards, and let us not forget that the House of Commons voted against imposing standards when the NDP moved a motion in March 2021, in the 43rd Parliament. The Liberals voted against that at the time.
The Liberal Party must be suffering from amnesia, because during this 44th Parliament, it is at it again with this motion. I have to say, since the advent of the NDP-Liberal government, positions have become muddled. One thing remains clear: their appetite for interfering in things that do not concern them.
Has a federal government ever been defeated in an election over issues related to health? The answer is no, because the provision of health care is not a federal responsibility. In Quebec, we have often seen governments get the boot over health-related matters.
Health has been an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces since 1867. Quebec has exclusive authority over health, except when it comes to the health of indigenous peoples, military hospitals, drug approval and quarantines. It is therefore up to Quebeckers to have this debate and make the decision. In a democracy, it is up to voters to sanction their government.
A debate has been raging for months in Quebec over the issue of long-term care and the decisions that were made during the COVID‑19 crisis. That debate is still going on, and it is the Quebec government that will take steps to correct the situation and the public that will decide, this October, if it is satisfied with the actions of its government.
Quebec already has solutions. It does not need the federal government to provide them.
In his November 23, 2021, report, the ombudsman pointed out flaws, but he mostly identified measures that the Quebec government must implement so that this never happens again.
In response to that report, the Quebec government presented its plan for reforming the health care system. The plan includes an array of measures, such as large-scale recruitment, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals, and increased accountability for executives. Additionally, the coroner is still investigating. People are calling for a public inquiry into the situation at long-term care facilities.
In any case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and to fix their system. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Quebec already has standards. Quebec's Act respecting health services and social services includes regulations for long-term care homes. I remind members that 86% of long-term care homes in Quebec are public facilities.
The report prepared by the Canadian Armed Forces at the end of its deployment to Quebec's long-term care homes is clear. There are already plenty of standards and rules for things like contamination prevention and control and PPE. However, that was not enough to stop the virus.
Why was Canada's federal stockpile empty? Why did we send PPE to mainland China when we were about to be hit hard by the virus? The government should answer these questions before lecturing others.
The main reason these rules were more difficult to follow is also very clear: There was a labour shortage. I will quote the Canadian Armed Forces report: “According to our observations, the critical need for CHSLDs is an improved level of staff with medical training”.
If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec get through the pandemic and improve care for our seniors, it needs to stop patronizing us. It needs to drop this idea of mandatory national standards that are ill suited to the different social and institutional contexts, and it needs to increase health transfers, which will allow the provinces and Quebec to attract and retain more health care workers.
That is the federal government's job. It needs to increase health transfers. It knows that, but it thinks it can keep making one-time investments instead of recurring investments, even though we need to get through this pandemic.
The Bloc Québécois is steadfast in its demand for the federal government to immediately increase health transfers to 35% of costs and to index them going forward. The Parliament of Canada itself made this demand when it adopted a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public. All of the premiers have made this demand. The Quebec National Assembly has made this demand. All of the unions, the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the CSD, have made this demand, pointing out that the systemic funding problems facing the provinces and Quebec are hampering Canadians and Quebeckers from accessing the services they need.
On April 4, 2022, the Quebec medical community, including the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec and the Association des médecins hématologues et oncologues du Québec, along with several unions, joined the Bloc in calling on the federal government to hold a public summit on health care funding. All voters across Quebec and Canada want our health care systems to be improved. According to a Leger poll, 85% of voters support the recommendation made by the premiers and their united stance.
This motion is as pointless as the last election. It is not standards that will ensure better care, but rather the funding needed to deliver that care.
1482 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
