Government Operations Committee on May 8th, 2023

[Yves Giroux]

I don't know how many exactly, because I think the intent was to implement it gradually—advancing or postponing the age of retirement or eligibility for elderly benefits by two months per year or something like that. It would have made a difference to probably thousands and thousands of seniors.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You could agree that trying to save money on the backs of our seniors is not a good idea, as the Conservatives have put forward. Is that correct?

[Yves Giroux]

That's a policy decision. I'll let you, amongst yourselves, as parliamentarians, debate what is a good idea and what is a bad idea when it comes to policy decisions.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me switch to some good news. This year, 2023, is the year when the basic personal amount, which was increased by the Liberal government in 2019, I believe, has been fully implemented. It's this tax year, in 2023.

How many seniors will benefit from the fact that the basic personal amount has been increased to $15,000? What impact will this have on our seniors?

[Yves Giroux]

It will certainly make more seniors tax-free. It will ensure that more seniors do not pay taxes. Those who still pay taxes will pay lower taxes, with the increase in the basic personal amount.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That is our time, I'm afraid.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

This Liberal policy will put more money back in the pockets of Canadian seniors. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk. There will be one more round.

Mrs. Vignola, go ahead, please.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Giroux, the 2023-2024 budget puts in place new, unannounced measures of about $800 million. I could not find any specific data on the end use of these funds; it is quite unclear. Is it usual not to have details on the end use of unannounced funds, or is this new?

[Yves Giroux]

It's not something that's usual, especially when the amounts are fairly specific and vary from year to year. You mentioned the net amount over five years, I believe. Again, the amounts are positive and fairly accurate in some years, but negative in other years. So the absolute value of these amounts hovers around $12 billion, over a five-year period.

This raises a lot of questions, but doesn't give us any answers. We have asked officials these questions and they have not answered us, as they are not authorized to provide us with those details. This is highly unusual.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You're anticipating my next question. I was just wondering if you had any answers. So you don't have an answer and we don't have an answer. Should we be concerned that we don't have an answer about $12 billion?

[Yves Giroux]

I do not want to suggest that there is anything untoward or unduly hidden. However, I am concerned for one reason: When the government announces the measures behind these amounts, it will be very difficult to match the amounts that are mentioned in the budget with the initiatives that will be announced. So it will be very difficult to know when these amounts will be revealed, used or reallocated. When the amounts are negative, savings are implied. It will be difficult to determine the source and bring that back to the amounts that are in the 2023 budget.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The government recently increased seniors' pensions by 10%, but only for those aged 75 and over, leaving out those aged 65 to 74. Do you have an estimate of how much the pension increase for those aged 65 to 74 would be?

[Yves Giroux]

We have not estimated the value of such a measure, but I believe the committee has expressed a desire for me to do that work. So, if that is indeed the desire of the committee through a motion, we can provide you with a more detailed estimate of the cost of applying this to seniors aged 65 to 74 at a later date.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

When you live in poverty, lack food, don't have money for clothes or a decent roof over your head or to get the one you have repaired, among other things, physical health and psychological health take a hit. Ultimately, this ends up driving up the costs to the health care system and community organizations, among others.

Have the direct, indirect and induced impacts of not increasing the pension for seniors aged 65 to 74 who fail to support themselves until they reach 75 and get their 10% supplement been calculated?

[Yves Giroux]

To my knowledge, no cost-benefit analysis has been done—as I think that's what you're referring to—on whether or not to increase benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74 by 10%.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Has the calculation of the economic impact of increasing seniors' pension ever been done? What does increasing that pension by $1 mean in terms of economic and social benefits, not just in terms of short-term spending, but also in terms of medium-term spending? Has that kind of calculation ever been done from a prevention perspective?

[Yves Giroux]

That calculation may have been done before, but not recently, at least not to my knowledge. I know it's not something we've done. I don't know if it was done by the government when the 10% increase for those aged 75 and older was being considered or announced.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Johns, go ahead, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

On that thread, we saw how the Conservatives want to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. Now we see this government creating a two-tiered OAS system: They are giving a 10% increase to those over 75, but those between 65 and 75 aren't getting it, despite the fact that we're in an inflation crisis.

Do you see that as a policy designed to force seniors to continue in the workforce in order to make ends meet?

[Yves Giroux]

That can be one of the intentions behind that. I'm not sure about the extent to which that will be effective, because it's not something that I have personally studied, nor have we looked at the incentive impact of a differential treatment of those ages 65 to 74 versus 75 and above, but it's quite possible.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

As I said earlier, this is about the same price as a 1% corporate tax increase based on 2015, which has significantly risen, to cover the increase for those 75 and older. A 1% corporate tax would cover that.

We saw the government announce that over 10 years they're going to contribute $25 billion in health care transfers in four areas: rural health, health care workers, mental health and modernizing the health care system and data. I'm going back to the mental health discussion. We have some provinces.... My home province, with the new Eby announcement, is going to have about 9% of health care spending on mental health and related to substance use; Ontario is at 3%, with a Conservative government here.

Have you seen any precedent in transfers on that health care transfer where there's money that has to be spent on a certain area, like mental health?

[Yves Giroux]

Yes, that was taking place years and years ago when the federal government was setting up trusts for specific areas, notably for the purchase of medical equipment, way back when, when money was made available to provinces and territories for these specific purposes. I remember wait times, and I remember medical equipment. That was mostly end-of-year money that was provided to provinces through the establishment of trusts.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Do you find it difficult to calculate that yourself? Given that this $25 billion is going to be in four areas, it's not going to be very clear—pretty cryptic, at best—how much of that will end up going to mental health care.