Evidence of meeting #78 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Gingras had suggested that it was clear the OAS was not going to be sustainable, which was counter to most of the evidence that I think actuaries actually presented at the time the change was implemented. I just wondered whether we could get access to that information.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Before we get into that, I'm not so sure it's relevant to the topic of study. It is relevant to the question you posed, but it's not relevant to the topic we're studying: engaging experience: opportunities for older persons in the workforce.
My initial thoughts are that's not what we're studying, and therefore, I wouldn't have the department officials digging into that unless we were going to study it.
Now, before there's any commitment, I don't know what your position was. He never answered the question, but I think ultimately, I'd probably put it to the committee if it became an issue.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Could I just ask, Chair, whether those were public documents. There wouldn't be any reason for you not to share them, would there?
11:20 a.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Yes, the Chief Actuary of Canada did a report showing the evidence that we used, and this is a report that is publicly available.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Of course, you can find it if you wish, but I don't think it relates to this study that we're doing here. My sense is if it's publicly available, you can get it, but I don't think it's part of this study and if the committee wants to....
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I would think it would relate to this. When the officials refer to removing disincentives and they identify the increase in the OAS as a disincentive, I would think it's relevant to the study.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
A disincentive to encourage people to engage in the workforce...?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
April 30th, 2013 / 11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I'd like clarification on that, because I didn't hear that. It was not included in this. Ms. Charlton brought it up to make a political point. That's why she did it.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
11:25 a.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
It was part of the testimony. It was shown as part of the plan to increase...incentive.... It was there, much before my colleague started to ask any questions.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Yes—
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Senior Director, Economic Policy Directorate, Labour Market Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Well, it is under that theme, because, not so much the age 65, moving the age from 65 to 67, what I was referring to is giving workers the possibility to defer their receipt of the pension by five years. It gives them the flexibility to decide if they wish to obtain their pension earlier or later.
That notion of flexibility gives them some choices to do some tax planning or decide if it makes more sense for them to receive that pension earlier or later, given their work patterns.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
That's a very different question from the one that Ms. Charlton's posing. She's saying delaying the pension from 65 to 67 would be a disincentive. That's what I think she was referring to, not that particular statement.
Does someone else wish to make a comment?
11:25 a.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I just wanted to make sure I was in the same room.
My colleague asked if it was possible to table the document that allowed you to say that that there were economic and administrative reasons for this change. That did not imply that she was saying that it was an incentive.
It is on the table. The officials have told us today that it was part of the plan. So it is directly linked. As I see it, asking if it has real consequences on the public purse is a fundamental aspect of our work as parliamentarians. It goes right to the heart of this subject. I do not see how it could be separated.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I don't see it that way, but I'll put it to the committee shortly.
Back to the first point you raised about the flexibility for pensions, that's one thing, but the raising of the age from 65 to 67 that you particularly talked about is another thing. Did you indicate that one way or another as being a disincentive?