Evidence of meeting #30 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Balkar Bajwa  Principal, Old Age Benefits Forum of Canada
Balwinder Singh Chahal  Secretary, Old Age Benefits Forum - Vancouver
Raymond Micah  Principal, Raymond Micah & Associates, As an Individual
Samuel Olarewaju  Secretary, Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network
Kifleyesus Woldemichael  Member, Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I call the meeting to order pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 28, 2007. We are studying Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement). We will be hearing from Colleen Beaumier, who has introduced that bill, from 9 to 10, and then from 10 to 11 we have a number of people who have taken time to come and provide testimony on this piece of legislation. We thank them, and we'll introduce them at 10 o'clock.

First of all, committee, I would ask you to have a look at the first piece of business, which is the operational budget request for this study. I think all members have that in front of them. Do all members have that? I don't think there's much discussion on that, but I'll hear some if there is any. If not, I would ask for somebody to move that it be passed.

Madam Sgro.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

I so move.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Are there any questions on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

That was carried with great vigour. Thank you very much.

We are studying Bill C-362, and we have Madam Beaumier with us. Congratulations on steering this bill successfully to this point. We look forward to your testimony. I think you have ten minutes to speak, and then we'll have some questions.

Colleen Beaumier.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

Thank you.

To begin, I'd like to thank the chair and other members of the committee for inviting me to speak today, and for providing me the opportunity to answer questions concerning Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

This bill was introduced in the House, by me, on October 25, 2006. Its aim is as simple as it is important. It amends the Old Age Security Act to reduce from ten years to three years the residency requirement for entitlement to old age security. Lowering the residency requirement in this way will remedy a grave oversight in Canada's social security system, which is presently causing great stress to seniors across Canada and to the families and communities to which they belong.

All Canadians believe the elimination of poverty, especially amongst those most vulnerable in society, should be the top concern of the Government of Canada. This bill will go a long way to alleviating the hardship experienced by some of Canada's most vulnerable.

Let me take a moment to explain how it will do this. The federal old age security program came into existence in 1952 as a matter of social justice. It was motivated by a concern for the needs and welfare of Canada's senior citizens. Essentially, at that time Canadians recognized and decided that no Canadian senior should ever live in poverty.

Presently, the Old Age Security Act requires a person to reside in Canada for ten years before she or he is entitled to receive old age security. As a result, it is not at all uncommon for a Canadian senior citizen to go entirely without the benefits of old age security for many years, thus exposing them unnecessarily to the hardships of poverty.

However, I wish to emphasize that this is also about dignity and decency. Unlike the Canadian and Quebec pension plans, which are funded by contributions from each person over his or her working life, the OAS is presently funded from general tax revenues. This means OAS is funded from the taxes of every person living and working in Canada right now, not 10, 15, or 20 years ago. This is regardless of his or her country of birth. This also means that lowering the residency requirement does not affect or pose any sort of threat to the long-term viability of other pension schemes. Furthermore, OAS income is itself subject to tax, so ultimately, only those Canadian seniors most in need receive any OAS benefits.

From the perspective of social justice, a 10-year residency requirement is arbitrary and inappropriately discriminatory. Old age security, I want to emphasize, is not intended to reward seniors for services rendered. Rather, it is intended to ensure Canadian seniors will not live in poverty.

The needs of new Canadians are as genuine as the needs of those who have resided here for 10 years or more. Three years is the minimum residency requirement to become a Canadian citizen. If that's a sufficient residency requirement for citizenship, it's sufficient for old age security.

Of course, doing the right and decent thing costs money, and this bill is no exception. Based on statistical analysis undertaken by the Library of Parliament at my request, it can be estimated that if Bill C-362 comes into force for 2009, some 38,700 persons will become eligible for benefits related to old age security. That is, an estimated 32,900 will become eligible for old age security benefits, 28,100 will also qualify for guaranteed income supplement benefits, and an additional 5,800 will qualify for the spousal allowance.

When the changes are made, the total cost will be around $410 million. Of that total, approximately $40 million will be paid out in OAS benefits, $310 million in GIS benefits, and about $60 million in spousal allowances. It is estimated that the total cost per year will rise about $15 million thereafter. I should note also that the actual cost to the government will be a little lower, because some of the benefits will be recouped through taxation.

The total cost associated with the changes proposed by Bill C-362 is not inconsequential. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the total cost per person is only about $10,000 to $12,000 per year. It should be further noted that these seniors do not all live in total isolation. By helping these seniors, we will also help families and the communities of which they are a part. Moreover, the cost to fix this glaring hole in our social security net is not insubstantial only because the needs of those affected are so great.

I believe Canadians all across the country want to address the residency requirement, which imposes a very real hardship on so many seniors, their families, and their communities. No person, and certainly no member of this committee, would ever want to face a choice between poverty and a life of absolute dependence on family and friends. By guaranteeing a certain basic level of support for all Canadian seniors, we guarantee a lifetime of dignity and self-respect for all Canadians.

On the whole, Canadians are a decent people. Without exception, whenever possible, we strive to do the right thing and to right wrongs whenever we encounter them. Even to the most casual observer, the hardships created by the 10-year residency requirement is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Why? Because it is the decent thing to do.

Thank you.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Thank you very much, Madam Beaumier.

We're going to go to questions, starting with seven-minute rounds.

As well as our usual committee members, we have a few visitors today: Monsieur Pacetti for the Liberals, Monsieur Gravel for the Bloc, and Ms. Chris Charlton for the NDP, who is an intermittent member of this committee—welcome back.

We'll start off with Ms. Dhalla, for seven minutes, please.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you, Ms. Beaumier, for all your work in regard to this issue. You have the riding adjacent to mine. We all know it's a tremendous issue of concern to many seniors across the 905 belt, but also, I think, to all Canadians, all over Canada, out in British Columbia on the west coast, and on the east coast as well.

Could you just elaborate on the amount it would cost if this were implemented?

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

The total cost, if this were to take effect in 2009—I think we're a little late for 2008-09—is estimated to be about $410 million. The cost will rise about $15 million each year. The changes in the OAS will be $40 million of that; GIS, $310 million; and the changes in spousal allowance, $60 million.

I should also note that the actual cost to government will be lower because some of this will be taxed back. Many seniors have other investments and do pay taxes, and the additional income will be taxed back.

I have a chart here for 2009 to 2012, which I can distribute to the members' offices. The numbers I have were prepared by the Library of Parliament using Statistics Canada's social policy stimulation database. These estimates may be a little on the low side; however, I think they're pretty close. You can only really guesstimate from Statistics Canada.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Do we know how many seniors are impacted with this differentiation in the residency requirement of three to 10 years?

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

Yes. I think for OAS it's 32,900 seniors; for GIS, out of that would be 28,100; and then for the spousal allowance benefits, it's 5,800.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Of those seniors—you can even speak from your own personal experience of having been a parliamentarian who's interacted on and advocated for this issue over a number of years—how many of those individuals would you think have hardship or have to rely on social assistance because they don't have access to these types of benefits?

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

I don't have those numbers. I know that the Province of Ontario claims the federal government owes them a few billion dollars to recoup some of the costs of this.

What has been an important issue for me, if you really want to look at the numbers and costs, is that many of these people come here and provide full-time day care for their grandchildren. And, Ms. Dhalla, considering that day care is your issue, you know what it costs to provide subsidized day care and day care facilities for people who would qualify. I think that offsets many of the costs that the government has never even had to address.

So if we look at these people as being an added burden to the government, I think we're wrong; I think they save the government a tremendous amount of money on day care.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Also, there are organizations like the Old Age Benefits Forum, comprised of seniors from all over the country, who advocate strongly for seniors who have been impacted—particularly seniors from those countries where they receive their benefits after a period of 10 years.

Perhaps, for the benefit of all committee members here, can you tell us a little bit about the Old Age Benefits Forum and some of the work they've done in advocating on this particular issue?

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

We've had a tremendous amount of support from the Old Age Benefits Forum. Many of them are not immigrants; many of them are seniors who have lived in Canada all their lives and feel this is extremely discriminatory.

We talk about equality. Without equality there is no justice in our society. We have two classes of citizens currently: we have seniors who qualify for OAS and we have those who don't, based on their country of origin. We like to pound our chests and talk about what a just society we have and how there is equality and how everyone is treated the same. Well, we have two classes of citizens currently. I personally think—and there are many who share this view—that it is completely, completely unjust.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

I want to echo to my colleagues on the committee what Ms. Beaumier is saying, that this is an issue. I know that since I was elected in 2004 it has been of concern to many seniors. There is, I would say, a process of discrimination, where some seniors are receiving their benefits after three years and others are receiving them after 10 years. One only has to talk to some of these seniors to realize the challenges they face; without the benefits, they are put very close to the poverty line in this country.

As I said in the House of Commons last week, I don't think a senior should have to make a choice between filling up their gas tank or filling up their fridge or having to fill their prescriptions.

The passage of this bill brought forward by Ms. Beaumier, which I hope will be supported by all committee members, would help to ensure that we reverse this inequality, so that we will have a system that is fair and treats all citizens—seniors especially, regardless of which country they're from—with the utmost respect. So I hope we can count on the support of all of our colleagues around the table.

In closing, could I request that Ms. Beaumier forward to the clerk, who could distribute to us, the costing analysis that was done, along with the amount of people who are impacted by this particular inequality?

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

I will do that.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Mr. Chair, on a quick point of order, the person at the table with Ms. Beaumier has not been identified.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

I'm sorry, I should have identified him. He wrote my introductory remarks, you see, and he didn't include his name in it.

This is Sterling Lynch, from my office. He's done much of this research for me.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Lynch.

We will move along to Monsieur Lessard, sept minutes.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Beaumier, for introducing this bill and for being here this morning to explain it to us.

From the outset, I want to tell you that the Bloc will support this bill. However, a few questions are in order concerning the road map that may accompany it. Will your party support it?

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

I know that our critic is supporting the bill, but it's a private member's bill and we don't whip votes. But most of my party is supporting this bill—perhaps all. Maybe not one or two, but generally, yes.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

We agree on your analysis of the lot reserved for seniors, particularly as result of policies put in place in the past 15 years. That takes nothing away from your bill because, as I said earlier, we will be supporting it, and we'll see whether there is any reason to move amendments.

Does the bill require royal recommendation?

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West, ON

Yes, it does require royal recommendation.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Will your leader seek royal recommendation?