Evidence of meeting #100 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was income.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
They would also be less likely to be employed and they would have higher expenses due to illness and disability. It seems to me that the dynamics of this support level are more focused on people who need it the most. Would you agree with that?
4:50 p.m.
Co-Founder, Bridges of Love York Region
Yes, I agree with that. When I said earlier that seniors were forced to dip into their savings, that was not a blank statement. That was not a political statement. That was a true statement based on what seniors who have spoken with me have said about having returned to work and still not being able to keep up. That's why I think raising the OAS is important, as is doing anything that can make life more affordable.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Then again, they would have had to work two years longer had the retirement age been 67. I'm glad we returned that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Casbarro.
Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to reiterate that the retirement age is 65, not 67. It was fortunately returned to 65.
But that's not the issue. We're talking about eligibility for the OAS and the fact that the government chose to discriminate on the basis of seniors' age. The aim of our bill is to restore equity.
We discussed predictability and foresight, and we are familiar with this demographic group. We are asking that equity be restored so that people from 65 to 74 receive the same amount of OAS.
Mr. Poulin, you supported this portion of the bill. Do you think restoring equity would change things?
4:50 p.m.
Responsible for the Income and Taxation Committee for Retirees Without an Employer Pension, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées
Yes.
Having lived in several countries, I know that Canada is held up as an example around the world. When countries, whether in Africa or elsewhere, are developing programs, they look at what Canada is doing. When Canada begins to discriminate between poor retirees by allowing those aged 75 to receive an increase in their pension, but not those aged 65, it fails to reflect the usual image it projects abroad, or to our families.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you.
There is another part of the bill that has not been discussed as extensively. It would increase the revenue threshold for retirees who choose to return to work from $5,000 to $6,500. Some do it because they have no other option, but they ought not to be penalized for doing so.
Do you think this is a good measure?
4:50 p.m.
Responsible for the Income and Taxation Committee for Retirees Without an Employer Pension, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées
Retirees live under the poverty line. Their income is not sustainable. So there ought to be some way for them to achieve a sustainable income and they should receive benefits to do so.
They should not receive the GIS until they have achieved the sustainable income threshold. That's an essential condition.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
Ms. Zarrillo, go ahead for two and a half minutes, and that will conclude the first round.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It was a year ago this month, actually, that my colleague MP Rachel Blaney, the NDP seniors critic, tried to have a unanimous consent motion passed in the House to get a 10% increase for all seniors age 65 and above. Unfortunately, the Liberals didn't support that at the time. Based on some of the comments we've heard today about this user-pay mentality that the Liberals have brought to the table today, we have a little bit of an idea how much of a challenge it is going to be to move this forward.
Mr. Poulin, knowing that it's going to be a challenge, I think at this time we should ask for any additional amendments. I have one thing to ask. Do you think the increase of self-employed income or employment earnings to $6,500 is enough? As well, are there any other amendments you would want to see come forward in this bill?
4:50 p.m.
Responsible for the Income and Taxation Committee for Retirees Without an Employer Pension, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées
In the document we tabled, one of the potential solutions was to achieve a sustainable income. A sustainable income can be obtained through work or increased benefits. However, those who are working need to receive benefits. They need tax credits, or at least not to have their GIS benefits cut, to ensure that they can achieve a sustainable income rather than live at the poverty line.
It should be encouraged.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
What would you want that number to be? If you were making $6,550, should they be clawing back the $50? Do you think $6,500 is a good number, raising it from $5,000 to $6,500?
4:55 p.m.
Responsible for the Income and Taxation Committee for Retirees Without an Employer Pension, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées
4:55 p.m.
Responsible for the Income and Taxation Committee for Retirees Without an Employer Pension, Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées
That's tolerable.
We're doing it one step at a time. The proposed threshold is $6,500, but ideally, retirees who are prepared to work and not receive the GIS should be able to offset it without being penalized too much. They should get some benefits.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I think I have time to ask you the same question, Mr. Casbarro. Is there any amendment that you would like to propose as this is opening up? Do you think increasing the threshold to $6,500 is enough?
4:55 p.m.
Co-Founder, Bridges of Love York Region
Personally, I have no amendments.
I believe $6,500 is a start, but I don't think it's enough.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.
That concludes our first round. We will suspend for a few minutes while we transition to the second panel of witnesses.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The meeting will resume with the second panel of witnesses.
Appearing today are Laura Watts, chief executive officer, and Aiman Malhi, policy officer, from CanAge; and Isobel Mackenzie from the Office of the Seniors Advocate of British Columbia.
I want to advise the committee that the third witness who was to appear did not have the proper headset. They will therefore be rescheduled for the next time we're here.
Both groups today have five minutes for their opening statements.
Ms. Watts, I believe you are giving the opening statement on behalf of CanAge. You have the floor for five minutes.
5 p.m.
Laura Tamblyn Watts Chief Executive Officer, CanAge
Thank you for the opportunity to give submissions today.
My name is Laura Tamblyn Watts. As noted, I am the CEO of CanAge, which is Canada's national seniors advocacy organization. We're a non-partisan, non-profit organization that seeks to improve the lives and well-being of all Canadians as we age.
With me today is Aiman Malhi, who is a CanAge policy officer and a master's student at the University of Toronto. We're going to divide our time, and I will personally be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
In brief, we are strongly in support of this bill to extend the 10% increase in OAS to persons aged 65 to 74 and to increase the exemption rate from $5,000 to $6,500.
To illustrate why, I want to share with you the story of one of our members, whom I will call Mary. She is 70 years old. She is from a rural community just outside of Ottawa, where many of you are today. Mary buried her husband when she was a young woman, and she raised her two children on her own. She made ends meet somehow, and she worked hard her whole life as a custodian and a cleaner until her arthritis prevented her from working any longer. She told me that when she had her 65th birthday, it was the first time in her life when she thought “I can finally make ends meet.”
However, Mary was wrong. She fell into the category of seniors who fall short of qualifying for GIS but who still struggle every day. With housing increasing by up to 40% in some areas in the past few years, and with skyrocketing consumer costs for basics like food and gasoline, Mary just can't manage. She said to me a few months ago, “So, you're telling me that if I was 75, I could get this additional 10%. That makes no sense. I'm a senior. I can't afford my basics and medications. Without the help, I may not make it to 75.”
Mary is right. The committee, I'm sure, has heard a lot about the economic impacts of rising costs and inflation and the challenges seniors face.
We're going to focus on a few key areas.
I do want to acknowledge that the Liberal government has been actively working to modernize the IT infrastructure for the OAS system. However, we believe that the government should find a way to flow money on a stepwise approach to people in need, as it has done previously.
We think that the bill should move forward, for three reasons. One, things are markedly more expensive now than they were in 2021. Two, this change costs less and keeps seniors healthy. Three, the age cut-off doesn't just cause age inequality; it is also causing inequalities in more than one area.
I'll turn to my colleague now.
5 p.m.
Aiman Malhi Policy Officer, CanAge
Thanks, Laura.
Of course, as you mentioned, things are more expensive now than they were in 2021. We also believe that this would help catch up to the increased costs that seniors on fixed incomes face. The economic circumstances today have changed since the government first introduced the allowable amount for seniors over 75 in July 2022. Things are more expensive now than they were when this was made in 2021.
For instance, the Bank of Canada increased inflation rates 10 times between May 2022 and July 2023. That's a span of a little more than a year. In 2022 alone, prices for day-to-day basics rose sharply. For example, transportation rose by 10.6% and food increased by 8.9%, while shelter increased by 6.9%.
Seniors, of course, experience inflation and costs differently. StatsCan found that seniors spend proportionally less on transportation, gasoline or a new car, but spend way more on housing and food. In 2005, it was found that for every $100, they spend $56, compared to $45 for all other households.
Also, how we measure poverty does not accurately reflect the real costs that seniors face. In particular, the market basket measure is under review. Currently, the MBM threshold looks at family disposable income, but many of the costs that seniors are facing are not counted. For instance, health care costs are not included.
5:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, CanAge
Thank you.
I'm also going to point out that it actually costs less to keep seniors healthy. That means that this additional money can help people be more socially connected, eat better food and be more connected through transportation. This additional amount would really make a big difference in seniors' healthy eating, living and relationships.
The last point is that the age cut-off at 75 causes other inequalities. We know that it has made two classes of seniors, but what it also does is change things for people who are struggling with disabilities, for older women and for people who are providing care as unpaid caregivers.
We know that the committee will have many questions, and we look forward to answering them today.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Tamblyn Watts and Ms. Malhi.
Now we go to Ms. Mackenzie for five minutes.