Bill C-319

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)

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 Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Madame Larouche will be back for clause-by-clause, and I'm sure the conversation will continue.

We'll be back on Monday, February 26, for clause-by-clause on Bill C-319. Again I would remind everyone that the deadline to submit amendments is Thursday, February 22 at noon. That was the time adopted by this committee.

As well, we have two budgets we have to deal with. You have them. They were circulated.

For the Air Canada meeting, the budget is $2,250.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Fragiskatos, thank you for this opportunity and I invite you to offer us your support when we adopt Bill C-319 during clause-by-clause consideration.

Like my colleague Ms. Larouche, I'm not supporting this cause just because I belong to the Bloc Québécois. Other colleagues around the table have noted the importance of fairness in various aspects of society, as Ms. Falk did when she introduced her Bill C-318 to provide leave for adoptive parents in the same way as biological parents.

We're in the same situation here. This is a fairness issue. Canada made the choice to establish an old age security pension plan. It decided that Canadians could receive benefits under the plan starting at age 65. Bravo! Many people in our society live solely on the assistance of public plans. We have heard extensive testimony on the subject.

Ms. Larouche, fairness is one of the values you advocate in Bill C-319, which is also based on the recognition of seniors' dignity, and I'd like to hear you discuss that aspect.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It's an investment because there's a cost to impoverishment. There are consequences to being forced to make hard choices at the end of the month in order to feed yourself adequately or when you have no more money to participate in activities. I always say that poverty can also have consequences.

I'd like to go back to the discussion of seniors 65 and over. As we said, that's the age of retirement that we established, and this debate concerns old age security. I invite you to stay focused on this aspect and not to wander onto measures that should be taken to address poor people under 65. It's one debate among others for which there are other benefits and solutions that we could consider.

Today's debate focuses on seniors who have worked, who have reached retirement age and who feel they're unfairly being forced to stay in the labour market. That's somewhat the message they're being sent. As I said earlier, some of them want to continue working, and that's why one aspect of the bill concerns them. However, some seniors don't want to work and are now completely forgotten by the government.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Larouche, do you feel that the government listens to what people 65 and over need and what they're experiencing?

You said that what we would like is for the committee to rally around the bill so that's reported back to the House of Commons. However, I don't think the debate we're having here is homogeneous or that the groups are homogeneous either.

We've acknowledged that the old age security pension applied to all Canadians starting at age 65. What arguments could we advance to say that money should be spent on this item but that it should be viewed as an investment in our seniors?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Since the bill would have a financial impact, the government's agreement would be needed to implement it.

Consequently, my answer to you is that it's a matter of political choices, as is true for many bills. It lets them polish their image, but they unfortunately don't follow up their words with actions. They just present a nice façade. It's what I call image-based politics, and I'd like to see a switch to action-based politics.

These aren't exorbitant amounts, as I said in my opening remarks, $16 billion over 5 years is nothing when it comes to helping the seniors who have been forgotten for so long, who are suffering from inflation and need help. It's a matter of political choices. First, you have to choose where to get the money, then where you're going to invest it.

We may well wonder, for the moment, whether the Liberals' investments are really being made in the right places and whether they shouldn't instead be made to implement bills that genuinely help people. I'm thinking of Bill C-319, for example, or the bill to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits. These are bills that would really change people's lives. We need to make the political choices to invest in the right things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'm counting on the support of a majority of members in the House, just as I did in the vote on second reading, with the obvious exception of the Liberals, who were on retreat at the time of the vote.

I'm counting on the vote on third reading to make the Liberals understand that they absolutely must help move the bill forward. If the Liberals are still on retreat, but the New Democrats, Greens, Conservatives and Bloquistes are united in acknowledging the precarious nature of seniors' financial situation, I'm counting on the powerful image of a majority vote in favour of Bill C-319 to make the Liberals realize that it's never too late to do the right thing. With this bill, we would be offering them a chance to put an end to this discrimination and to restore fairness for seniors.

I say that because seniors are angry and don't understand the government's reasons. I don't understand why the Liberals aren't hearing those messages. You can make numbers say whatever you want, but we're saying that 13% of Canadians 75 years of age and over live in poverty. So what I heard at the conference, but also during my tour—

[Paul-René Roy]

For now, I think we should leave the age at 65. I understand there are questions. Life expectancy is growing and people are often in better health compared to other eras. I understand that the labour shortage is seen as a good opportunity to raise the age of retirement. However, that should be left to the conscience of each individual. When they get to age 65, most people have been in the labour market for at least 35 years, if not more, so they have some latitude for deciding to retire. We should not force them to stay in the labour market. It must continue to be a choice that is theirs alone. For now, the age 65 threshold is the one that seems most appropriate to me.

That is why we support Bill C-319. We believe that people aged 65 to 74 have the same needs as people aged 75 and older, because the cost of living is the same for all seniors.

[Hélène Cornellier]

Thank you for your question. I hope I understood it correctly.

I'm not very well versed on this issue, but my understanding of how the guaranteed income supplement currently works is that the admissible working income is $5,000, and above that amount, the government deducts 50¢ per dollar earned from the guaranteed income supplement. For example, if you have earned income of $6,000, you have therefore earned an excess $1,000, and the guaranteed income supplement will be reduced by $500.

The guaranteed income supplement is already not very high, even when you receive the maximum. It's generally for people with very low incomes, those who are below the poverty line with the federal pension and their other income. It was added to help them. Now we're clawing back 50¢ on the dollar every time they work and earn more than $5,000. It's a bit of an aberration. It's taking away a big chunk of what we give them.

Now, Bill C‑319 asks that we raise this threshold to $6,500, which would already be a little better for seniors who are still working, often part-time, to—

[Paul-René Roy, Provincial President, Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of Parliament.

The AQRP represents nearly 35,000 retirees from Quebec's public and parapublic sectors. Our mission is to promote and defend the economic, financial, cultural, intellectual and social rights and interests of our members and all Quebec seniors.

In a letter sent to us on January 4, the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Mr. O'Regan, says the following: “As they age, seniors tend to have lower incomes and often face increased health care expenses due to the onset of illness or disability.” In the same letter, he goes on to stress that “the government will continue to take measures to support them and improve their quality of life”.

Yet, at present, the Old Age Security Act sends a very different message, since people under 75 are not entitled to a 10% increase in their old age security pension. In other words, a person under 75 with an illness or an inability to work will not see an increase in their income, simply because they are under 75, even if they don't have the physical capacity to work.

Paradoxically, the minister believes it is true that health care spending is increasing for Canadian seniors. In the same letter, he goes on to state: “This vulnerability is exacerbated by fewer opportunities to supplement their income through paid employment and the risk of depleting personal savings.”

The minister thus seems to be saying contradictory things. On the one hand, he concedes that drug costs rise with the onset of illness or disability. On the other hand, he refuses to grant a 10% increase in the old age security pension to all pensioners aged 65 or over, on the pretext that health problems and the related rise in drug costs are more likely to affect seniors aged 75 or over.

The minister seems to deny that inflation and health problems affect people under 75 just as much. To illustrate this point, I'll take the real-life case of Ms. Girard.

Ms. Girard is a 66-year-old retiree, a former public sector employee who worked in the health care field as a beneficiary attendant in Montreal. Her monthly income of $1,500 includes her Quebec Pension Plan and federal old age security pension. In an interview with the Noovo channel on October 23, 2023, Ms. Girard testified that the problem was that she had difficulty paying for her medication.

If we apply the minister's logic, Ms. Girard would not be eligible for a 10% increase in her old age security pension, since she is a retiree under 75. Yet she faces the reality of rising drug prices, just like a retired person aged 75 or over, and runs the risk of depleting her personal savings due to inflation. Like any retired person, she helped build the Canada we enjoy today, as the minister mentions in his letter.

According to a survey by Sun Life Insurance Company, one in three Canadian seniors has been greatly affected by the rising cost of living in 2023. This means that inflation is eating into the wallets of Canadian seniors aged 65 and over. In this case, we're talking about more than a third of Canadian seniors. That's why the AQRP is calling on the Liberal government to extend the 10% increase in the old age security pension to everyone aged 65 or over. The association considers it unacceptable that in a context of inflation, people under 75 should be excluded from the guaranteed income supplement exemption.

On behalf of AQRP, I am grateful for your attention. I remain at your disposal to answer your questions and hear your comments on Bill C‑319.

Thank you.

[Hélène Cornellier, Political Affairs Advisor, Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your work on Bill C‑319.

The mission of the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, is to defend equality between women and men at all levels of society. Founded in 1966, it has 5,400 members, the vast majority of whom are aged 65 or over. Over the years, it has worked on many issues, such as women's financial security, including in retirement.

Between 2020 and 2021, Statistics Canada noted a 2.5% increase in the number of people aged 65 or over living below the poverty line. This is the largest increase for any age group in Canada.

There are three main factors that affect women more than men and put them at greater risk of financial precariousness: lower income, isolation and non-recognition of unpaid work.

A study on the situation of the elderly in Quebec shows that senior women rely more than men on public retirement programs. For women, such programs account for an average of 47% of their income, compared to just 31% for men. This gap is due to lower wages earned by women, who are mostly confined to undervalued jobs; lack of pay equity and more frequent absences from the workforce due to family obligations also play a role.

In addition, other studies show that women, elderly caregivers, people on low incomes, indigenous seniors, immigrants, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and people living in rural or remote areas are more likely to experience isolation. The consequences of this isolation are not negligible, both for these people and for communities and governments in terms of services and costs.

Moreover, many older people offer help within the family, such as babysitting during school vacations or strikes, or looking after frail loved ones so that they receive the best care and can ideally remain in their own homes. This essential help for relatives is not without additional expense for the elderly, whose low incomes are, for many of them, already stretched to the limit.

For AFEAS, Bill C‑319 is a first step in reversing the discrimination towards some seniors created by the 2021 budget measure that increased pensions by 10% for those aged 75 or over, but forgot about those aged 65 to 74. This bill also aims to help seniors who are still working out of precariousness and poverty by raising to $6,500 the work income eligible under the guaranteed income supplement program.

In addition to supporting Bill C‑319, given the less favourable situation of older women, AFEAS makes the following recommendations to the Government of Canada. Firstly, it should undertake any changes to retirement programs based on a comparative analysis of their impact on both sexes. It should also base the calculation of retirement programs on personal income, not family income, to preserve women's autonomy. AFEAS also recommends that the federal government pay a supplement to the basic old-age pension to women who have taken care of children or relatives who are losing their autonomy. In addition, the federal government should index old age pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and all other retirement-related income replacement measures to the cost of living. Finally, it should ensure that public pension plans pay all retired people minimum retirement benefits equivalent to the after-tax low-income cut-off.

In closing, AFEAS would like the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to recommend the adoption of Bill C‑319, and do everything in their power to ensure that the House of Commons and the Senate do the same, and as quickly as possible. We ask for this on behalf of Canadian seniors.

I thank you all for listening.

Please note that we will submit a brief today at the end of the day.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to the amount of a full pension.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually.

I would like to take a few moments to review a couple of points before we hear from the witnesses. You have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. For interpretation in the room, you can use the interpretation services with the headset. For those appearing virtually, if you click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, you will be able to choose the official language of your choice.

If there is a disruption in interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand, or virtually use the “raise hand” icon, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. As well, I would like to remind members, especially those in the room, to please keep their earpiece away from the mic as it can cause popping on the sound system, which can cause injury to the interpreters. As much as possible, speak as slowly as possible for the benefit of the interpreters.

With us today in the room we have Mr. Ben Catenaccio, as an individual. From the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, we have Hélène Cornellier, political affairs adviser. From the Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors, we have Paul-René Roy, the provincial president.

We will begin with Mr. Catenaccio for five minutes.

Mr. Catenaccio, you can choose to make an opening statement, but if you don't, it's fine.

Do you wish to make an opening statement, Mr. Catenaccio?

[Isobel Mackenzie, Seniors Advocate, Office of the Seniors Advocate of British Columbia]

Thank you very much, and thank you to the committee for inviting my testimony.

I am the seniors advocate for the Province of British Columbia. This is a statutory office of the provincial government with a legislated mandate to monitor services to seniors, undertake systemic reviews and make recommendations to government on how to improve supports and services for B.C. seniors. In addition to health care, housing and transportation, income support is also included within my mandate.

Currently, for the most part, it is the federal government that has assumed the role of providing an income for retired Canadians through the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan.

I'm just going to give some quantification or numbers to some of the stories that previous speakers, like Laura, and speakers in previous sessions spoke to.

A Canadian retiree who is wholly dependent on their public pensions—meaning they're getting the average amount of CPP and getting a little bit of GIS and OAS—will have an annual income of $24,000 if they're 75 and under, or a little bit more than $25,000 if they're over 75.

If a senior has very little or no CPP, they'll receive the maximum GIS, and their total income will be $22,500 if they're under 75, or $23,400 if they're 75 and older.

I want to point out that in all cases, the income they will receive is well below the income of a person who's working at minimum wage in any territory or province in this country.

Most Canadian retirees do provide some private pension, either from their RRSP or their workplace pension, but the additional amount is very limited, as the overall median income—so 50% of seniors in this country—is very low.

In British Columbia, which mirrors Canada for the most part, the median income of a senior is $33,000. In our province, that is still below minimum wage, the rate at which 6% of the labour force is employed. Most stunningly, it is 65% lower than the median income of the working-age population aged 35 to 55.

Many have referred to the market-based measure of poverty, and Aiman did that as well. I would challenge that it is not the best tool to look at. Laura has spoken to some of the reasons why, but there's another reason, which is that it is a threshold where, if you're a dollar above it, you're off. When you look at seniors, they are very clustered around that poverty line. Therefore, it's counterintuitive that 7% of seniors live in poverty as defined by the market-based measure, but almost half of seniors are living on an income below minimum wage. I think that is something that is underestimated by a lot of policy-makers.

Using median incomes—not average, because they reflect a small group of higher income-earning seniors—is arguably a better measure of the actual poverty within our seniors population.

Those who have testified before me have spoken of the challenges that seniors are facing with the rising costs and with incomes that are not able to keep pace with inflation. Laura has told you the story of the senior in Ottawa, and the speakers in the session before me were also talking a lot about that.

My office does hear increasingly from seniors around affordability issues, most particularly food. For those who rent, it's the cost of rental housing, which is not surprising, given that B.C. is home to the most expensive housing market in the country.

We also do hear from a large number of seniors on dental care costs, which is why I'm so very pleased with the new federal dental plan, and I expect that this will address many of the concerns we've been hearing.

The stories we hear of seniors living with very limited incomes are, of course, very distressing. The numbers would indicate that these experiences are not only very real but being felt by a larger number of seniors than we might anticipate, particularly those two out of 10 seniors who are renters, not homeowners.

Obviously, I wholly support the provisions of Bill C-319 to raise the OAS for those aged 65 to 75 by 10%, for all of the reasons the previous speaker has spoken of, and I don't need to repeat those.

What I would do is further challenge the committee members to use their influence to look at including CPP in the earnings exemption.

In the previous session, one of your members spoke to providing an incentive for people over 65 who are able to work to continue to work. That's why we have the earnings exemption for GIS. That's true, and that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that we're penalizing those who can't work.

To put this in perspective, if I am 66 years of age, and if I defer my CPP and I earn $6,500 a year from employment, my total income will be $27,400. That's my OAS, my top GIS and my $6,500 in employment income.

If I am 72 years of age—

[Alessandro Casbarro, Co-Founder, Bridges of Love York Region]

Thank you.

My name is Alessandro Casbarro and I am honoured to represent Bridges of Love of York Region, a seniors non-profit organization committed to enhancing the lives of seniors in our community. Our organization operates on the fundamental belief that every senior deserves to age in place with dignity, independence and respect.

Bridges of Love of York Region provides snow removal and lawn maintenance services to seniors in need, allowing them to remain in their homes and age in place comfortably. Our team works tirelessly to ensure seniors have the support they need to navigate the challenges of aging while maintaining their autonomy and quality of life. Through our programs and services, we strive to create a supportive community where seniors feel valued, engaged and empowered.

In our work, we have had the privilege of engaging with countless seniors in our community and listening to their stories, concerns and aspirations. As we all know, Canada's senior population is growing rapidly. With that, the challenges they face are becoming increasingly complex. Expenses for basic necessities such as housing, utilities, groceries and health care continue to rise, often outpacing the income of our seniors, especially those reliant on fixed incomes like old age security pensions.

In recent years, we have witnessed a disturbing trend where many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to make difficult decisions between paying for essential needs and compromising their quality of life. This is particularly concerning as it directly impacts their ability to age in place with dignity and independence, which is a fundamental principle we strive to uphold.

One of the most distressing consequences of this financial strain is the prospect of seniors having to sell their homes, which they have worked so hard to obtain and maintain over the years. For many seniors, their homes represent a place of comfort, stability and cherished moments. It is where they have raised families, celebrated milestones and built their lives. The thought of having to part with their homes due to financial constraints is deeply distressing for seniors, as it not only disrupts their sense of security and stability but also severs the ties to their community and support networks. Selling one's home is often seen as a last resort for seniors—a decision made out of necessity rather than choice, one that can have profound emotional and psychological impacts.

At Bridges of Love of York Region, we firmly believe that seniors should not have to face the prospect of selling their homes simply to afford basic necessities or cover rising expenses. Our homes are more than just bricks and mortar. They are symbols of our hard work, perseverance and the memories we hold dear.

By increasing the amount of the full pension provided to seniors under the Old Age Security Act, as proposed in Bill C-319, we can help alleviate some of the financial burdens faced by seniors and ensure they can afford to remain in their homes with dignity and independence. This is not just about financial assistance. It is about honouring the contributions and sacrifices made by our seniors and affirming their right to age in place.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the profound impact that the rising cost of living has had on the well-being of our seniors and to support measures that enhance their financial security and independence. By prioritizing the needs of our aging population, we can build a more inclusive and compassionate society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will continue its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually by Zoom.

I want to take a moment to review procedure.

Those attending in the room and by Zoom have the option of speaking in the official language of their choice. Use interpretation services with the headphones in the room. Those appearing virtually can use the globe icon on the bottom of their screen and select the official language of their choice. If there's an issue with interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand or using the “raise hand” icon on your screen. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Please address all questions through the chair. To get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.

I also want to advise members in the room to keep their earpiece away from the mic when they're not using it and to keep their phone away from their microphone, because this can cause issues with the interpreters' hearing. We do not want any of them to have any issues.

I know one can get passionate from time to time, but if you can remember to speak slowly for the benefit of the translators, that would be good, as well.

With that, I would now like to introduce our witnesses for the first panel.

We welcome Mr. Pierre-Claude Poulin, of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées.

Welcome.

As well, from Bridges of Love of York Region, we have Mr. Casbarro here in the room. Welcome.

As you know, each of you has five minutes to give an opening statement.

Go ahead, Mr. Poulin.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the opposition parties for allowing Bill C‑319 to pass through the House. We now have an opportunity to look at some fundamental issues that I hear less about in the discussions between the two parties.

Mr. Poirier-Monette, what is the impact of the fact that a fixed income such as the old age security pension has not been increased for seniors aged 65 to 74?