Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rules.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
The Clerk
A suggestion might be be, “That the Standing Committee on Finance invite”—then insert the name of the committee—“to review...” specific clauses in Bill C-29 “and submit proposals for amendments to” those specific clauses, with a deadline to submit them prior to the clause-by-clause examination on the 28th, “and that those proposed amendments be deemed moved during the clause-by-clause study of the bill.”
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
As a point of order, Mr. Chair, don't you require unanimous consent to go past 5:30 p.m., which we've already done? Wouldn't that be in order first?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Actually, we saw that initiated from a nod from that side.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Well, no, I didn't ask. If we want to, I would need unanimous consent to go beyond 5:30, if we went to 6 p.m.
I'm told now that I don't need unanimous consent to continue. We definitely need unanimous consent when the bells ring.
Are you moving a motion, then, that the chair write the committee asking them if they want to review this employment insurance section?
5:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Can you specify the committee and what part you want to...?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
The Clerk
On what clauses...?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
It's the clauses we were just reviewing, specifically the EI clauses.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'll keep it very brief, because we have votes.
The chair, our elected leader, has made a suggestion. I agree that we should at least invite them.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right. The question is on the motion
(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It's lost.
Okay, we'll deal with it at this committee. Those are the difficulties of life.
We'll turn to part 4, division 2.
Go ahead, Ms. Martel.
5:35 p.m.
Nathalie Martel Director, Old Age Security Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm Nathalie Martel, director of old age security policy at Employment and Social Development Canada. I'll be quick.
Division 2 of part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to allow more low-income couples to receive higher benefits when they must live apart for reasons beyond their control.
Allow me to explain.
Senior couples who must live apart for reasons beyond their control—for example, when one spouse must live in a nursing home—face higher costs of living and are most at risk of living in poverty.
In the case of low-income couples, when both spouses receive the guaranteed income supplement and must live apart for reasons beyond their control, the legislation already allows the guaranteed income supplement to be paid at the higher single rate based on their individual incomes rather than on the combined income of the spouses. This generates higher benefits.
However, for other low-income couples, when one spouse receives the guaranteed income supplement and the other spouse receives the allowance, the act is silent and thus does not permit the same advantage.
By the way, the allowance is provided to low-income individuals aged 60 to 64 whose spouse or partner receives the guaranteed income supplement.
I will continue in French.
The amendment proposes extending the same right to couples in which one member is receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the other is receiving the benefit. We estimate that about 750 couples will benefit from this change, for an annual cost of $2.6 million. The change will enter into effect on January 1, 2017.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I do have questions.
Thank you, Ms. Martel, for those comments.
It seems to me this this change in OAS is deemed for low-income seniors but also seniors when one may be in a nursing home and one is at home.
5:35 p.m.
Director, Old Age Security Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Exactly. The provision already exists when both spouses are 65 and over and both receive the guaranteed income supplement. There is a provision already in the Old Age Security Act that allows the benefits to be calculated at the single rate based on their own income, which generates higher GIS benefits, but as you mention, in the case of couples when one spouse is younger and between the age of 60 to 64 and thus entitled to the allowance, the same provision doesn't exist. The amendment wants to just mirror the provision that already exists for these other couples.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Okay.
Do we have anything to quantify what investment this measure is going to take and how many individuals it will assist?
5:35 p.m.
Director, Old Age Security Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
We estimate that maybe 750 couples would benefit from the amendment, for a total cost of $2.6 million per year. It means, on average, about $3,500 per couple.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
So it's quite a significant measure for a number of couples who actually really need it.