Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Quite regularly, we hear how the NDP votes against things, so I thought I would start off my comments by talking about the things we agree with the government on in this particular one, because we have a lot we don't agree on.
The changes in clauses 449 and 450 would allow the minister to waive requirements for applying for OAS. We think that's good. We also think that voluntary deferral, in clause 451, is good. Waiving requirements for applying for GIS, in clauses 454 and 457 to 459 and 460, again is reasonable.
Now, I'll go down a bit further in my notes here, and I won't go through item by item, because we will vote on those, Mr. Chair, but the clauses that we're against and the aspects that we're against—we have said all along that there's a fundamental disagreement between the opposition and the government parties on the need to change the eligibility for OAS. We don't think it's needed.
The parliamentary budget officer has said—and he's looked at this file—that yes, there's going to be an increase of $39 billion to over $100 billion. But he says in the commentary from the government, it doesn't talk about the growth in GDP. The OECD pension team looked at it as well. They didn't agree.
The first we heard about any of this, of course, was in Davos, with the famous speech—or infamous; it depends on how you look at it, Mr. Chair. It took us ages to find out from our finance minister that this change would be $10 billion for the government. We knew it was going to be something like that because of the savings by holding people on disability for an extra two years, or holding people on welfare for an extra two years. It should be between $6,000 and $7,000, depending on your numbers, per year, per person, that you are going to save by transferring those costs to the provinces. Giving fairness to the finance minister, he said he'd try to cover those costs. We'll see how that goes.
But expert after expert has said OAS is sustainable. Even when they move it out to 2023, as they've done...it's not something that needs to be in this budget. If we're going to look at retirement security for seniors, and pensions, we need to take a holistic approach and look at everything that's out there. You look at OAS, GIS, CPP, and the private options. The PRPP that the government put in is not mandatory, so it's not going to accomplish anything. We're very concerned about that aspect and the fact that it's going to leave seniors and disabled people in poverty two years longer. The change will keep them from going to OAS and GIS, which gives them a modest increase to their monthly income. That's who you're hurting with this. It's not needed. It should be withdrawn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.