- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy House leader of the New Democratic Party
- NDP
- London—Fanshawe
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,911.16
- Government Page
- May/30/23 4:51:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.
I want to thank members of the House for providing me with the opportunity to talk today about this motion.
The New Democrats, of course, are disappointed by the recommendations from the special rapporteur. In order to move forward in a proactive and productive way, we are calling for the House of Commons to support our motion for a public inquiry.
Canadians deserve better than a process that raises doubts about the independence and impartiality of its conclusions. The integrity of our democratic institutions and protection of the diaspora communities are of paramount importance. It is essential that we address the allegations and concerns and restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic processes. That is what the New Democrats are trying to do through this motion today.
The NDP leader was the first leader to call for a public inquiry on foreign interference. The NDP moved the motion at PROC calling for the inquiry and forced debate and a vote in the House in March. The NDP has now put forward this motion and will continue to use every tool we have as parliamentarians on this issue. I am proud that we are not afraid to do the real work and dig into this issue, unlike past consecutive governments.
Unfortunately, the Liberals have rejected our calls from the very beginning. They had an opportunity to show that they take this issue seriously at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the NDP was pushing for a public inquiry. Instead, they decided to filibuster our motion.
The Liberals' failed to call a public inquiry and are now hiding behind the recommendations of the special rapporteur they appointed. It undermines public confidence in the electoral process. This is part of a bigger pattern and one that worries me greatly.
My colleagues and I have a great deal of respect for the former governor general. We have been very clear about that today, a lot, but on this report we disagree. Again, I reference that the majority of members of the House disagree with him. I know that some folks have forgotten this in this place, but it is possible to disagree with someone, still respect them and still treat them with respect.
I disagree with Mr. Johnston's findings and the report, and I reference the fact that when he was investigating whether the leak that China preferred a minority Liberal government was true or not, he wrote, “I asked the Prime Minister and ministers if they were aware of any orchestrated effort to elect a Liberal Party of Canada minority. They were not.” Mr. Johnston dismissed this allegation simply because the Prime Minister and members of cabinet told him it was not true. I do not believe this is a sufficient reason.
Mr. Johnston also retained a lawyer to assist in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing the materials for interviews. The same lawyer was a donor to the Liberal Party of Canada between 2006 and 2022. Why was this not flagged as a conflict of interest?
Years of entitlement have skewed the government's perspective, and at a time when we need the Liberals to step up for the health of our democracy, they seem to want to say instead that everything is fine and there is nothing to see here. The longer they refuse to step up and the longer they refuse to call for a full public inquiry, the more Canadians are losing trust in the Liberals. More worrisome is that Canadians are losing faith in the institutions that are in place to serve them. More and more Canadians are disenfranchised and divided. We need all parliamentarians to come together to protect our democratic institutions and our diaspora communities.
While the Liberals are focusing on avoiding the headlines, the Conservatives are only interested in flinging mud and scoring political points. They are not interested in finding solutions. At committee, they filibustered and used bad faith tactics against the NDP motion on a public inquiry. They have used divisive rhetoric to divide Canadians and, sadly, to fundraise.
There was expert testimony at committee around the scope of foreign interference, not just by China but from Russia, India and Iran. They refused to talk about it. We have heard about the oppressive regimes harassing and targeting activists in diaspora communities. We have heard reports about foreigners financing the “freedom convoy”. However, the Conservatives are not talking about that.
At the Standing Committee on National Defence, we just concluded a study on cyber-defence. We heard a lot of expert testimony on the threats of foreign interference and how states like Russia interfered during the convoy. I want to quote one of the expert witnesses we had, Marcus Kolga. He is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He said:
The broad goal of Russian information warfare is to undermine public trust in our democracies and the cohesion of our societies. They do this by weaponizing issues and narratives that have the greatest potential to polarize us. They inject and amplify narratives that exploit both Conservative and Liberal biases and any issues that have the potential to drive wedges between Canadians.
We have seen this type of foreign interference through disinformation campaigns in action, and we know the tool box for foreign disinformation campaigns has only grown bigger with the emergence of technology.
I will give a few examples. First, we are seeing the rapid expansion of deepfake videos. As artificial intelligence technology advances, it is becoming easier and easier to produce video content that looks incredibly real. They can create videos of politicians, newsmakers making announcements, news anchors breaking stories on major world events. These videos are completely fake and generated by a computer, but will be a powerful tool for disinformation campaigns.
Second, artificial intelligence is driving massive innovations in social media bots. Bad-faith actors will be able to create fake social media accounts, which they already do, but they will be able to engage with real Canadians and have full conversations. It will become increasingly difficult for everyday Canadians to tell the difference.
Third, the social media algorithms and data mining are always innovating. Big tech executives are finding new ways to get Canadians to increase their social media activity, and that has led to the proliferation of divisive content. These will be the new tools for foreign actors to drive wedges between Canadians, and if we do not get over the partisan and political games and mudslinging, if we do not get to the bottom of foreign interference through this public inquiry, those divisions and polarizations for Canadians will get worse. We want to work together to find a solution, a well-informed, facts-based solution.
In closing, I want to remind members on all sides of this House why foreign interference is occurring. Oppressive regimes are harassing, intimidating and silencing Canadians who are speaking out. I will quote my colleague from Vancouver East, who spoke this morning quite passionately about this issue. She said, “For people like me, who are outspoken against human rights violations, the genocide of the Uyghurs, the erosion of basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the National Security Law, we must be vigilant of attempts by foreign influence actors working to coerce, co-op, re-orient, neutralize, or even silence our voices.”
This motion is not about Liberals avoiding another scandal or Conservatives making the evening news. This motion is about protecting human rights and the integrity of our democratic institutions, and creating a path forward that is reasonable and abides by the will of the majority of parliamentarians. That is what New Democrats put forward in this House in March and that is what we are putting forward in this House today. I hope the government will see that and respect the will of Parliament.
1343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:00:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:
(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;
(b) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and
(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 10:11:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and, if you seek it, I hope that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) on Thursday, May 19 and Monday, May 30, 2022:
(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each; and
(b) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member.
(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 11:45:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing forward this motion today. I also would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for sharing her time with me and for her incredible insight on this. I am always so grateful to share these issues with her, and I learn from her every day.
The member for Edmonton Strathcona put forward a lot of really key points in her speech about what the House needs to think about. While I certainly think it is important to re-establish the special committee to examine and review all the aspects of the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China, I think we have to do so with all of the issues that she has brought to the point here in mind and with an understanding that this is a specific committee, a special committee. However, it needs to be brought forward in such a way that we get to the heart of what we need to determine the international foreign policy that Canada holds.
I also want to note that when I refer to China today, I am referring to the People's Republic of China and not the people of China. There have been a lot of references to the need for further discussion about future studies from this special committee, and of course, the continuation of issues that were already brought up by the former committee but that have not been fully addressed yet.
As a member for the Standing Committee on National Defence, I know we are wrapping up a study on security threat analysis, Canada's position in this quickly changing world and the deterioration of relations with China. These were part of the study, and they are very concerning. It is inadequate to simply say that China is an integral component of our international future, whether it be in trade, the economy, or social or security actions and considerations. It is about how we are moving forward in this world.
At a time when insecurity is heightened due to Russia's illegal war in Ukraine, we must ensure that China does not follow suit, and an example of that is with Taiwan. Last night, I had the honour to attend Taiwan night, which is a celebration from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, and many from this place spoke last night about the incredible contributions of Taiwan to the world. It was one of the first countries that helped Canada during the pandemic by sending much-needed PPE, and Taiwan has shipped over 50 tonnes of medical supplies to Ukraine because of its urgent humanitarian considerations.
This must continue and grow. We must support that. I am proud that Canada has joined with many allies in the world to fight for and hold true to the democratic principles of the rule of law and the international rules-based order in Ukraine. Again, as my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona so wonderfully, so eloquently, so rightfully noted, Canada does not do this consistently.
We can no longer pick and choose which human rights we will uphold. It is time that all parties, mine included, take a long look at our own internal policies, our determination to fight against the violation of human rights domestically and internationally for our allies, and those who are not yet aligned but hopefully will be in the future, to clearly define the principles of international human rights and a rules-based order for all.
As I mentioned, I am a member of the national defence committee, and we have clearly heard from witnesses at that committee that China is a security concern. Canada sent the HMCS Winnipeg through the Taiwan Strait as a signal of support and a showing of strength against that aggressive posturing of the People's Republic of China.
That is simply one example of why I support this motion and the re-establishment of this committee. The global security environment should be a focus of this committee. I would also insist that the committee study the vital need to fix the diplomatic crisis between Canada and China. We need to do a deep dive into the past four years and the mismanagement of this diplomatic disaster.
The incarceration of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor continued for more than three years. They experienced severe conditions and a failure to have legal counsel or contact with their families. This was a horrendous situation. Although they were thankfully released, as my colleague noted, there are so many that still remain incarcerated. I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are still very concerned about this issue.
Canadians asked us to work together and New Democrats are always willing to do that work. We must work together to make life better for Canadians and for everyone all over the world.
Canadians are concerned about what is going on in China. The protests and demonstrations in Hong Kong have been of much concern for a long time now. Canadians are concerned as to what is happening to the people of Hong Kong and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong. They are concerned about human rights in Hong Kong and the imposition of the government of China’s one country, two systems policy. It is a complex relationship, certainly from a human rights perspective.
Concern for the Uighurs is extremely high in Canada. We have to find ways to put pressure in whatever way possible to seek to resolve some of these issues. Of course, we have long-standing concerns about Tibet as well.
Again, we have that complex relationship and significant trade relations with China. We have seen how disruption in that trade can so quickly and seriously affect Canadians, particularly as we have seen for Canadian farmers with canola, soybeans, peas, beef and pork, which have cost millions and millions of dollars for Canadians and farmers. Some of these issues have been resolved, but others are still outstanding. This important relationship is something we have to take very seriously.
This motion could put into effect the kind of collaboration that Canadians want to see in the government of Canada. We still have a Liberal government, at which I shake my head sometimes, but we have other voices that will come to the table. I believe that the continuation of this committee in another Parliament is an important part of the collaboration.
Interestingly, my colleague, Jack Harris, the former member of Parliament for St. John’s East, spoke to the first Conservative call for this special committee in 2019. He spoke about that collaboration. While he is recently retired from this place, I am sure he heard his fair share of rhetoric and raised tempers in the House, and maybe sometimes it was his own. I would have to say that I believe those have increased since he left. In his speech to the House, Jack spoke to the former special Canada-China committee, stating:
That is an opportunity for a special committee to look at that whole [nation-to-nation] relationship and see if there are ways that we can improve that relationship beyond what is being done now and in different ways. There may well be things that are being overlooked. There may be other opportunities.
I certainly hope that the government would see this as an opportunity to reset the tone, to set up a new relationship and send a signal to China about what we want and how we want to achieve that in ways that we could not do in another form in this Parliament. Of course, I cannot prejudge what will happen at the committee, but New Democrats certainly do not want this to be another point for political battle between the opposition and the government or to see finger pointing. We do not think that is going to help the circumstances.
As my colleagues have rightfully mentioned at the foreign affairs committee, as well as other committees, this can be where things get held up, when we do not get to the key issues or talk about all the incredible ways that Canada could be an important part of that human rights conversation. It is one thing to be critical, of course, of the government's failures. I am, and they are certainly obvious in some cases.
In his discourse, Jack Harris stated:
We have to recognize that diplomatic relations are just that, diplomatic, and they have to be carried out in a spirit of willingness by all members in this House who might participate in this committee, and by all parties in this House, and that must be kept in mind in the operation of such a committee. Without that spirit of collaboration, there could be a danger that the relationship could be harmed. It is a leap of faith of the members of this House, a test of the notion of collaboration and a test of the maturity of this Parliament to be able to operate such a committee in a way that meets the needs of Canada in trying to find a solution, but it is also an opportunity for constructive criticism or at least for attempting to find out what does work and what does not work.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that we do support this opposition motion. A Canada-China committee is an important tool for parliamentarians to study the many issues that affect Canadians in our relationship with China. We support that reset of that relationship. We support Canadians knowing that they are safe and that they will benefit from this important and challenging relationship.
1621 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:51:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona.
Today, I rise in the House to speak to the opposition day motion proposed by the Conservatives about Canada's future defence spending requirements under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have much respect for my colleagues, especially the member for South Surrey—White Rock who introduced this motion, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee for National Defence. I have enjoyed working with her thus far; however, I cannot agree with her today.
I want to be very clear and ensure that New Democrats are on the record for being in favour of adequate federal government spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. New Democrats have long pushed for the government to make sure that our troops have the equipment, training and support they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to undertake. We support upgrading outdated equipment and providing a clear mandate, while also providing a realistic and responsible spending plan to deliver on these goals. We need to make sure funding is adequate to support our national and international roles, but should not adopt an arbitrary target for spending.
Therefore, we cannot support a call for the federal government to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of 2% of GDP, as we believe this request from the international military alliance is just that: arbitrary. Members do not have to believe me on this. I will quote Dr. Robert Huebert, associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary, who said:
“Let's recognize that the 2% increase, when it was created by NATO, is a political target. We need to have the ability to go beyond just simply saying, okay, 2% or 1.9%. Those are numbers. They don't mean anything.”
I could also quote Dr. Kimball, associate professor of political science from the University of Laval, who said:
One thing that is clear is that 2% is clearly a political target. Two per cent does not come from any sort of quantitative analysis. It doesn't come from any sort of strategic analysis or anything like that, and I can say that relatively confidently because, in doing my NATO research, I've looked at over 200 pieces of research published on NATO burden sharing—policy papers, books, articles and all of that. The first thing I can say is that 2% is something that politicians created, which defence budgets had to very much react to and try to attain afterwards.
If 2% is arbitrary, why specifically demand that it be spent? The Conservatives are demanding a huge increase in military spending based on an arbitrary political target. Currently, Canada spends $24.29 billion on the Department of National Defence. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, hitting NATO's 2% target would mean spending $54 billion to $56 billion a year on defence.
The PBO recently reported that the Department of Defence struggles with actually spending the current allocation of $24 billion, and it delays planned expenditures until later years. Former Liberal MP and retired general Andrew Leslie commented clearly on this inability for the Department of Defence to spend its full allocation, saying:
The department has a chronic problem with actually using the funds. You can promise the moon and the stars. If you can't get the money out the door, then it's of no value.
The department cannot spend what it has now, so how can the Conservatives expect it to spend double? I do not believe that we should be spending double our current budget, but there are reasons why we should increase defence spending.
We in the House know that the Canadian Armed Forces have a significant recruitment and retention problem, and it is absolutely something the federal government needs to address. Each year, the Canadian Armed Forces must select and train thousands of recruits, and retain a substantial number of its trained personnel to maintain operational readiness.
The CAF comprises approximately 65,800 regular force members, 27,000 reserve force members, 5,200 Canadian rangers and more than 27,000 civilian employees, who support the CAF. At the end of February 2022, we were almost 4,000 people short of the 69,750 funded positions that would make up the CAF's authorized strength. At approximately 37%, the largest portion of DND's budget is allocated for personnel, but of course if it does not have the personnel to pay, it is unable to spend that money that is allocated.
A lack of inclusion is also a major barrier to both retention and recruitment. The CAF must attract, recruit and retain talent that is representative of Canadian society.
New Democrats have called on the government to create and fund a special program within the Canadian Armed Forces aimed at the recruitment of women and under-represented groups, as recommended by the Auditor General in 2016.
In the last Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We studied the horrific problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. This has, of course, impacted the CAF's ability to attract and retain individuals. Articles in Maclean's and l'Actualité in 2014 estimated that 1,780 sexual assaults per year occurred in the CAF.
New Democrats continue to call on the Canadian government to fully implement all recommendations of Justice Deschamps's 2015 report. Despite having the Deschamps report, the Justice Fish report and two other reports from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, this Liberal government has delayed action and stated that it will wait yet again for another report from Justice Arbour. It continues to wait. It continues to make women in the CAF wait, and the solutions are already known.
All women, including women who serve, deserve much better from this government. We need to ensure that women who serve can do so equally. We need to adequately fund the supports for women who serve, and adequately fund the educational programs needed to change the toxic culture within the forces.
I would add that the Canadian Armed Forces must do a better job of responding to mental health issues among its members. This plays a huge role in retention as well, and it is something that the federal government must invest in for its members. On average, the Canadian Armed Forces still lose one serving member per month to death by suicide.
My colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has a bill, Bill C-206, that would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence. By making this change, the government could show leadership and mark a major shift in attitude and policy on mental health. In addition, it could provide more funds for mental health supports to all forces members. It needs to start by recognizing that although not all injuries are visible, those invisible injuries are injuries all the same.
Again, I say yes to responsible spending for the Canadian Armed Forces, but I return to the question of the arbitrary 2%. If spending was increased to 2%, this would make military spending the largest expenditure of the Government of Canada, even compared with the Canada Health Transfer of $45 billion per year.
I find this a bit strange for a party that touts fiscal responsibility. Why would the Conservatives push so much for such an incredible increase? When the NDP calls for a national pharmacare program, a national child care program or a national dental care program, they scream bloody murder. When we call for the federal government to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers in the form of services and programs, they say that we are being unrealistic, irresponsible and, dare I say, socialists. This increase in spending that the Conservatives are calling for in today's motion is equivalent to a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program combined.
New Democrats certainly agree that Canada needs to spend more on defence to make sure we can meet our international obligations and to make sure the Canadian Forces have the support, training and equipment they need. The war in Ukraine, and the growing tensions around the world, demand that we take a serious approach to upgrading and equipping our military. Our armed forces stationed in Latvia and protecting us at home certainly deserve it. Canada needs to be a force for stability in this increasingly unstable international climate, but I do not think we get there by choosing an arbitrary figure. We must plan efficiently, effectively and reasonably.
Canada can be a stabilizing force by increasing our funding to international humanitarian aid and increasing resources to our diplomatic efforts. We could take a leadership role in fulfilling NATO's goals of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. Canada could support the agenda of the NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security with a commitment of additional resources to that agenda, including measures to promote increased recruitment of women in peacekeeping.
We can increase military spending wisely by streamlining our defence procurement system and ensuring that we get better value for our money by ensuring that money is spent domestically. We can invest intelligently by stopping the outsourcing and privatization of Canadian Forces maintenance and repair work: This is work that has traditionally been done by either DND employees or regular serving members. We can provide those stable, public jobs as part of that domestic economic health. We can invest in the programs and services needed by members of the armed forces, such as supports the department used to provide for members to secure affordable housing, family and medical services.
All of this is necessary and is a valid argument for responsible defence spending, but to double the budget based on an arbitrary political figure to simply appear as though we are contributing to the international defence community is unsound, and New Democrats will not support such fiscal folly.
1700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I just wanted to let members know I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.
Everyone deserves to be able to live and age with dignity as a valued member of their community, but for more and more Canadians the prospect of retirement is a cause for anxiety. As costs keep rising and wages fail to keep up, people are struggling to save for their retirements during their working years. Seniors across the country were shocked to learn that the benefits they rely on, such as the guaranteed income supplement, had been cut because they received pandemic supports like the CERB.
For months now, the Liberal government has ignored calls to address the intensifying financial crisis for many of Canada's poorest seniors. Over 183,000 seniors across this country were impacted, 610 in my riding of London—Fanshawe. This crisis is a direct result of the government choosing to count emergency pandemic income support in the calculation of eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement. I, along with my New Democrat colleagues, have heard from seniors from across the country who were being evicted just as winter was setting in. This situation, created by the government's own mismanagement, has left many seniors worried they will not be able to afford their rent, food or medications.
I am supporting this motion, because I have heard from so many seniors who are desperately looking for a solution to this problem. Many do not know where to turn now, and they have lost a vital part of their incomes. In the House, I have repeatedly asked for the government to show more compassion for people who find themselves in this desperate circumstance. On December 7, I asked the government to take action. I spoke of Emanuel Benjamin, a 71-year-old senior from my riding, and his GIS benefit that was clawed back by the government because he accessed the CERB in good faith. Before the pandemic, because of the abhorrent way we treat our seniors, Emanuel was living below the poverty line. Now, because of more abhorrent treatment by the government, his income was reduced from $1,500 a month to just $600 a month. Emanuel cannot afford his rent, his food or his medication, and it was only through the generosity of strangers in London, who were able to pool some money, that he could continue to hold on. Emanuel needs a legislative fix for this situation, a situation created by the government, which we must now fix immediately.
Every day I see such selfless acts in London, like the one that helped Emanuel. We are a community that truly stands up for each other, but Emanuel's story is not a unique one, and it certainly is not a happy one. It is the story of a government that is so out of touch with the struggles of Canadians that it ignored the pleas for help for so long that, in some cases, the damage is irreparable. My colleague, the MP for North Island—Powell River, has brought to our attention many stories from seniors in dire need. One example of the personal devastation wrought by the government was of a senior who committed suicide because he could not face the stress of losing his home and living on the street.
There is a restaurant near my constituency office on Dundas Street where the server noted they have a huge rush every morning for breakfast, and it is often the only meal community members, seniors, can afford. That breakfast is $5.99, and it is the only meal they will have that day. A breakfast special at a local restaurant is not an acceptable substitute for a social safety net, a safety net that was already full of massive holes, which were made even larger by consecutive government cuts and clawbacks.
I had one senior reach out to my constituency office, and they wanted me to know how expensive life had become. This constituent buys the same items from the grocery store every week, and she wanted me to know that those same items that she relies on weekly have increased by $8. To many that does not seem like a lot, but to someone who is living on a fixed income, it can mean the world.
Last Parliament, the Liberals voted in favour of a motion that said, “those who have applied in good faith for and received benefits through CERB or other programs to support them through this crisis will not be unjustly penalized”, yet the government did just that. It is penalizing people who can barely make ends meet.
These seniors were not told that accepting emergency benefits would disentitle them to their regular income supports the following year. Among the seniors I have talked to are some who used that bit of extra income to pay bills that were long overdue. They got dental work they had not been able to afford for years, and they had been living in constant pain. They spent the money to restock their pantry, because it was empty and they could not afford to fill it before.
In addition to the sudden reduction in their GIS benefit amount, they are now being denied other services and supports from various levels of government that tie their eligibility to the GIS.
We have also heard from people who believe that these seniors should not have received the CERB benefit or somehow should have known better than to apply for it in the first place. New Democrats disagree. Canada's cash-strapped seniors should not be punished for legitimately receiving emergency pandemic supports. These are elderly Canadians who already live below the poverty level who were working to supplement their meagre incomes. They were eligible for pandemic income support, just like any other working Canadian, and the GIS clawback was cruel, unnecessary and is still having deep impacts on the poorest of seniors.
While we view this bill as a step in the right direction because it capitulates to our demand to fix the GIS problem moving forward, it does not address the urgent need to provide immediate greater financial support to seniors. These seniors cannot continue to wait for the government to figure itself out. New Democrats will work to ensure the government issues the immediate emergency payments to affected seniors to help them bridge the gap until the budgeted one-time payment is released in May of 2022, but we will also fight for permanent supports. That is why I am proud to have seconded my colleague from Winnipeg Centre's private member's bill with respect to the provision of a guaranteed livable income, to ensure they no longer have to live below that poverty line. Too many seniors who have gone hungry, missed or split their medications or faced eviction because they live in poverty need a permanent solution and it is the responsibility of the government to provide that.
I support this motion because we have to fix this problem, but I certainly hope the next time the government receives a warning that its policies will cause serious hardship to Canadian seniors it acts immediately, without months of political pressure to convince it to do the right thing.
In closing, I have a quick message for those seniors in London—Fanshawe. Both I and my amazing team in the constituency office, without whom I could not do the work that I try to do here, are here to help them. We might not be able to get them everything they need, but we will fight as hard as we possibly can to make sure they get as many supports as we can find. In this House, I will continue to make sure their voices are heard. Please know that Canadians will always be able to count on New Democrats to fight for them.
1330 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 11:02:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) on Tuesday December 7th and Wednesday December 8th
a) the time provided for consideration of the supplementary estimates (b) in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;
b) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
