Finance Committee on June 3rd, 2021

[Kevin Wagdin]

Again, some of the research that we looked at as part of this proposal I think my colleague Kristen has touched on. With respect to specific percentages, we do know that the percentage of OAS pensioners with incomes below $30,000 is about half of seniors 65 to 74, but it's actually 59% for those who are 75 and older. We know that 39% of seniors 75 and over receive the GIS, whereas only 29% of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 receive the GIS.

As we have spoken about, there are also the added issues that come into play with experience with disabilities and then the fact that older seniors are less able to supplement their incomes with paid work. The median employment income for a senior between the age of 65 and 74 is $10,000, whereas for a senior over the age of 75, it's only $720. That was the evidence that we looked at with respect to this proposal.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's excellent information.

Can I just clarify, Mr. Chair?

You mentioned something about 59%. Could you just repeat the data that you gave on the first one? I missed it.

[Kevin Wagdin]

Sure. According to the 2018 Canadian income survey, the percentage of OAS pensioners with incomes below $30,000—so, the percentage of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 with an income below $30,000—was 52%. That percentage increases for seniors 75 and over to 59%.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I believe we've completed the discussion on several amendments.

I will give the ruling on NDP-14. I'm bound by procedure and the rules of the House of Commons, so I may be a stick in the wheel.

The ruling is this: The amendment attempts to apply the 10% increase of pensions mentioned in the bill to people who are 65 years old, where the bill provides for the increase at 75 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it does impose a new charge on the public treasury, so I rule it inadmissible.

I will deal with these one at a time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned at the very beginning of this process, the government has the responsibility to apply a royal recommendation when very clearly they've erred. They have erred in this case. We have seen in the past, and precedent shows, that the government can provide a royal recommendation and can choose to do that.

It's not a question of being out of order. It's a question, I think, of the committee responding appropriately to what is a significant error in judgment. I would challenge your ruling on that basis and allow the committee to decide whether we should move and vote on these amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. As I said, I will have to deal with them one at a time, because they are somewhat different rulings.

Mr. Clerk, there's been a challenge to the chair's ruling. If you would like to poll the committee, go ahead.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

(Clause 272 agreed to on division)

(On clause 273)

Is there anything more you want to say on NDP-15, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

No, I think we had a fulsome debate, Mr. Chair. I'll await your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right.

The ruling is this: The amendment attempts to remove the limit of increase of pension that is in the Old Age Security Act. If adopted, the amendment would provide for an increase of pension for people aged 70 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, the chair's ruling is that this amendment, NDP-15, is inadmissible.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

With respect Mr. Chair—and I haven't done this on all of the amendments, but this is a particularly egregious error in judgment by the government—the government has the ability to provide a royal recommendation. I believe our duty is to consider the amendment and to push the government to provide that.

I will challenge your ruling, with respect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is fine, and that is every bit your right.

Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee on the chair's ruling?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall clause 273 carry on division?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Mr. Chair, it's the legislative clerk here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

[Philippe Méla]

We still have amendment NDP-16 on clause 273.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. It's a good job you're paying attention.

On NDP-16, is there anything further you want to say Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Very clearly, what this would do is provide for 65 years of age. With the compelling evidence, and our witnesses have all said the same thing, it's important to adopt this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is the same ruling as related to clause 272. That's why I was trying to ignore it, but I will read it in any event so that we're all clear on the record.

The amendment attempts to apply the 10% increase to pensions mentioned in the bill to people who are 65 years old, whereas the bill provides for the increase at 75 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment, as proposed, is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would be a new charge that would be welcome and that the vast majority of Canadian seniors want to see.

With respect again, this is a procedural tool the government is using to repress amendments that improve where errors were made in the legislation, so with respect I will challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right, we'll go back to the clerk.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

(Clause 273 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 274 and 275 agreed to on division)

(On clause 276)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're on clause 276 and there is amendment NDP-17. Do you want to add anything further on that one, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

This ruling is a little different but it amounts to the same result.

The amendment provides for a unique $500 payment to pensioners who are 65 years old, whereas the bill provides for the same payment for pensioners 75 years or older. This would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.

We'll go over to you, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All four of these rulings stem from the fact that the government doesn't want to provide seniors with the equitable supports they need and wants to discriminate.

It's bad legislation. Each of the rulings you made, Mr. Chair, has the same optics—that the government is refusing to do the right thing and is withholding a royal recommendation.

In this case, as with the others, our responsibility as committee members, I believe, is to listen to the powerful testimony we've heard from seniors' groups across the country who have said that this discrimination should not be upheld. That's why I challenge your ruling.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think my colleague just said that the government made this ruling. I think it was you who made this ruling, and I just want to put that on the record.