Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Again, there would be 3.7 million OAS recipients in March 2021.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I know the number. I'm just asking you for the percentage.
Director, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
It is 57% of the total client group who would be between the ages of 65 to 74.
Director, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
With respect to income distribution, while I don't have it broken down by 65 to 74, I can say, just to supplement our previous figure, 55% of all of our OAS pensioners have incomes below $30,000. That's just to add some more precision to the previous data we provided.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
These are important figures for us to know because we have a very important decision to make. You said 55% of Canadian seniors have incomes that are below $30,000.
Director, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
That's correct.
NDP
Director, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Again, while I don't have a specific number there, what I can say is that for our guaranteed income supplement benefit, which is our targeted income supplement, of the previous figure that I had provided for you—the 57% who are between 65 and 74—about 50% of those recipients.... Pardon me, there were about 1.1 million who were on the guaranteed income supplement, so they had income low enough for that. Of the 2.8 million seniors who are getting an OAS pension who are 75 and older, it was, again, about 1.1 million who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
An argument very clearly can be made that the needs are just as great from 65 to 74 as they are from 75 and over, and in fact we're missing the majority of seniors who are living under the poverty line. Thank you for that. That helps to clarify the facts.
We have an important decision to make soon about amendments, but I think it would be clear to all members of the finance committee that clearly we can't exclude most Canadian seniors living in poverty from a budgetary measure that is supposed to help all Canadian seniors.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's it for questions on this point.
(Clauses 269 to 271 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 272)
On clause 272 there is an amendment.
Mr. Julian, I have looked—and I know you said you'd like to block these—and the rulings for at least two of them are substantially different enough that I'm pretty near going to go clause by clause with each amendment. Your argument can be made on the whole works, but I will have to do a separate ruling at least on clauses 272, 273 and....
Go ahead, Peter, on your amendment NDP-14.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I think I will move all four of them, explain the rationale for all four of them and appeal your decisions as they come.
I'll start off by saying, of course, that this committee has the right to do the right thing in terms of this legislation. When we talk about royal recommendations, in the past in minority governments, certainly with the famous Jack Layton budget, the government provided the royal recommendation for substantial changes in the initial budget when it became clear that, without those substantial changes, it would not pass the test of getting through Parliament. I'm very confident in saying that it is up to the committee to decide whether these amendments should be voted on and carried forward.
The four amendments in question obviously address what we have just heard is a profound discrepancy, that 57% of Canadian seniors are under the age of 75, and that the majority of Canadian seniors live at what can only be stated as close to poverty level, $30,000 a year. That is a profoundly difficult income level, especially when we see the extent to which COVID and the pandemic has hit Canadian seniors.
There is simply no sense or logic to what the government is proposing, that seniors 75 and over get a 10% bump in the OAS and a $500 bonus, when Canadians under 75 need it as desperately. There's just no sense, no logic. I think we've heard from our questions very clearly that the statistics and the facts show that, for the committee to do the right thing, we must extend the OAS increase to all seniors and provide the one-time supports of $500 to all seniors.
That is a slam dunk. Canadians who are listening to us would all agree that this is the right thing to do. Canadian senior groups have all intervened, including at this committee, saying that this makes absolutely no sense or logic. It penalizes and hurts seniors who are under the age of 75. For us to force them to spend 10 years before they can get a slightly more adequate income.... It is beyond belief that a government would propose that and that a finance committee would say, “That's okay.”
I have certainly heard, from questions from my colleagues, that they understand the dynamic. We cannot discriminate among seniors. We now know that the imperative for seniors under 75, as well, is as deep and profound as it is for seniors 75 and over.
That is why these four amendments would provide the $500 support to all seniors and ensure that the OAS increase goes to all seniors. I think we've heard compelling testimony in the answers to our questions. Even if the government uses the procedural trick of saying that it's going to withhold the royal recommendation, we should be pushing it to provide that royal recommendation, as it has done in the past and as the government has the right, and I would say, the responsibility in this case to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. I have a couple of people online for questions.
I would ask if you know what the cost of that might be. I'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz, if you want to think about that in the meantime.
Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear what Mr. Ste-Marie says first before I go, if that's okay.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
I thank my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz for her courtesy.
Mr. Julian, thank you for your proposed amendments. Indeed, the seniors and groups that came to the committee to testify about Bill C-30 told us that it was unacceptable to create two classes of seniors and that it was discrimination. The president of the FADOQ network, the Quebec golden age federation, reminded us that seniors aged 65 to 74 often have additional expenses. For example, these people, often women, do not have a private pension plan and are caregivers. They have to take care of their spouse, or even their parents or relatives. As a result, they sometimes have to go to the hospital, which results in additional expenses.
The statistics that senior officials have provided clearly demonstrate the importance of not creating two classes of seniors. I fully understand the opportunity for the committee to vote on these motions. Then the government can table a notice of ways and means motion based on that. So I fully support the motions that have been put forward. They are good motions.
However, I would like more clarification on amendment NDP-15. I would like Mr. Julian to explain in more detail what his amendment 15 is actually trying to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
To respond to that question, we'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian. Could you explain NDP-14 a little further?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
NDP-15, okay.
I'm going to give a separate ruling on each, so I'll deal with NDP-14 first, and then I'll ask....
Okay, give it now, Peter. Give your response to NDP-15 now. Although it's a different chair's ruling, we'll have all the discussion now.
Go ahead.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I thank my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie for his question.
When we consulted with parliamentary counsel, they said that yes, the age of 65 should be specified in the provisions. That is what amendments NDP-14, NDP-16 and NDP-17 do. In all three cases, the intent is to specify that the provision comes into effect at age 65. Amendment NDP-15 removes a section of the law that prevents these three amendments from actually setting that threshold at age 65. Therefore, it is a consequential amendment since it is related to the others.
Liberal
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Look. Just in terms of the debate of these, there is no intention or desire to discriminate. I don't agree with the premise of what Mr. Julian has said. I think everybody knows that in every budget there are choices that need to be made when there are limited dollars. I think that we heard very clearly from our officials that half of those over 75 have a disability of which 56% are severe, and 75% of them are women, who live longer and have lower incomes. There is a desire to provide some additional support to this group.
I guess maybe I'll end with a question to officials that I hope will be helpful in this discussion. Is there research that shows how the costs for seniors increase once they pass the age of 75 and why financial assistance is useful at this moment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's for whoever wants to take it.
Did you hear that, Ms. Underwood? Go ahead if you did. I know your computer is just so-so.
Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I did hear it, but I may turn to my colleague Mr. Wagdin. We have done some research.
Kevin, do you want to give it a go?