Human Resources Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Isobel Mackenzie]

I believe we should be raising the age at which you are required to withdraw from your RRSP, and we should also be looking at whether we continue to recalibrate CPP and OAS in terms of how long we can defer it for and what the rewards are for deferring to age 70. What if we pushed it to age 75? What about if we pushed it to age 80?

It's another way of getting to what Bonnie-Jeanne is alluding to, which is that you could view it—if you can push it off far enough—as the insurance policy for those later years when you're actually going to be needing to buy more help with your activities of daily living than you are currently.

About 25% to 26% of Canadians aged 65 to 69 are still actively engaged in the labour force, and it is still about 7% when we look past age 70. We want to be careful not to de-incentivize people to remain in the labour force when they are actually able to but for financial reasons it doesn't make sense. We want people engaged in the labour force for a whole host of reasons.

One of the issues this committee is looking at is the isolation and engagement of seniors, and sometimes there is no better way to do that than through employment, through the workplace. This is not to say we should compel people to work who are unable to do so because of some of the chronic conditions that develop as we age, making it difficult for us to work. But neither should those who are perfectly capable and wanting to work be economically penalized for it.

I agree with RRSP raising, but we also need to keep looking at the CPP and OAS, and see whether we need to be pushing a bit further out on that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now, for three minutes, we have Rachel Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I want to come back to you again. One of the things your group is advocating for is an increase in the GIS. Can you tell us how much you think is needed?

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

No. It's part of the pillars of safety for older Canadians. I don't have the study. I couldn't tell you what amount that should be. There are all sorts of ways of looking at it, but no, I can't answer that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Can you tell me a bit about the veterans independence program and what that would look like in a larger Canadian context?

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

In the larger Canadian context...? Maybe Sayward can answer that one.

[Sayward Montague]

The veterans independence program is something that's accessible to veterans who are eligible for it, obviously. It does some things quite well, and in other ways it could be improved. Obviously, scaling that with our geography and the numbers of people involved would be a challenge. The veterans independence program looks at those extra things that Ms. Mackenzie was talking about, which come to be considered necessities of living as we age: housekeeping, grounds maintenance, personal care, and so on.

The way the program is delivered permits some flexibility in which of those additional items the veteran chooses, to some extent, or what they must access the fund for. What works well is that there is some level of integration with provincial and municipal services or programs that may be available too, so it manages to tread that line between federal-provincial programs quite well in terms of its delivery.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Mackenzie, your report “Every Voice Counts: Residential Care Survey Results” was extremely detailed and very enlightening actually, but it dealt with B.C. Based on that report and what you learned, what would you recommend and share with this federal government?

[Isobel Mackenzie]

The report that MP Blaney is referring to was a survey of all of the residents in residential care facilities in British Columbia. From looking at the raw data and comparing province to province, we know that our population is not much different from other populations in the other parts of the country.

What came out of that report were two messages. One was clearly related to ensuring that we have sufficient levels of staffing support in our care facilities to make sure people can get to the toilet when they need to, get a bath when they want it, and so on.

However, there was another equal voice that came through that's not about staffing or money. It was about the 45% of people who said that there was nobody there who they had anything in common with and the 46% who said that there was nobody there who they had things to do with. That's not fixed with staffing or money. That is a reflection of people in long-term facilities who are still able to be actively engaged, and in my opinion and the opinion of others but not everybody, could still be in the community. Where we are falling short is in making sure that our communities provide the supports necessary for those who still want to live at home, who still have some ability for independence, who still have cognitive engagement in the world around them, to remain in their communities.

Long-term care actually looks very similar from province to province. Home care supports for activities of independent living look very different from province to province. Long-term care is funded in every province slightly differently, but essentially, any Canadian senior who requires long-term care is going to be provided with it and they are not going to become bankrupt. It's not the same with the other ones.

We need national standards around what Canadian seniors are going to get that will allow them to remain independent because that's what you are seeing to a large extent in the 45% of people who say that there is nobody there they have anything in common with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

That brings us to the conclusion of the second round. We do actually have some committee business that we need to address at the end, but I want to give an opportunity for each side to have one more four-minute round. We will start with the Conservatives.

I was remiss in the beginning in welcoming David, Peter, and Majid to our committee, so I'll do so now. Thank you for joining us today.

David, the next four minutes are yours, sir.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to personally thank the witnesses for participating in this study, which is very important because we'll all be there.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

I'm there already.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

It's getting close for me too.

We have heard a lot about federal and provincial responsibilities, but one element that is really missing is the municipal side of things. From a municipal background, we subsidized a lot of things for seniors and we thought it was very important. It's quality of life. It's transportation. A lot of municipalities provide seniors with busing, but some don't. It's a geographic issue too. Some municipalities cannot afford to have the luxuries for our seniors.

I'd like each of the witnesses to touch on how important it is for municipalities to be part of the discussion and also part of the national seniors strategy because I think that's one component that I haven't heard mentioned today.

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

If I could, many municipalities are already participating in this. It's called the age-friendly city.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Yes, age-friendly communities....

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

There are many communities. This was not invented by Health Canada, but certainly recommended and put in place by Health Canada some years ago. Also, we're really leaders in this country for having so many municipalities participating in this. The original concept of age-friendly cities was to make the cities friendly for seniors. It's age-friendly, though. It's for everyone, so whatever is done is of benefit to all Canadians.

Part of the strategy is to continue on that path. I don't know if it's still named that or if it's some other title now, but as I said, within Health Canada, there is a component that has world-leading experts on age-friendly cities. We should perhaps put a little bit more money in that. It's a collaboration between the three levels of government to have these programs in cities.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I'd like to hear more about the rural part of things, because the major cities really have it done well. It's the smaller communities that have limited access to doctors, have shortages. We paint everybody with the same brush, but we always miss out the rural communities, so if you could add that to your answer, I'd appreciate it.

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

That would be part of the strategy.

[Sayward Montague]

It would be part of the strategy. It's something to recognize that in Canada not all municipalities are created equal. It comes back to what I said to Ms. Blaney about the veterans independence program and what the discussion focused on earlier. There are great examples of innovative or sensible programs and use of resources to ensure that seniors' care needs are met in rural communities. I can think of one example where there's a coordination with paramedic and ambulance teams to do wellness visits, and so on, and flagging any areas that can be of concern for certain senior individuals within a community.

That exists in other countries. There are similar programs. It's having a good, hard look at those things and bringing it together under some coordinated umbrella or leadership with all three orders of government, but then looking at the home care, the health care situation. The retirement income security is vastly important and complex, as we heard today, so marrying it all together under a strategy is critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Majid, welcome. You have four minutes or less.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be on this committee for such an important topic.

My riding is Richmond Hill. I had the opportunity to hold a town hall meeting over the summer on seniors, as well as look at the 2015 data. What the data showed and what I heard in the town hall was alarming. The rate of increase of seniors in my riding was almost triple. We went from 10% in 2006 to about 14.6% in 2015.

Also, when we did the town hall, we heard there are two major issues. One was indexing, and the other one was home-based care by caregivers. I was glad to hear Mr. Janson touch on the indexing. If I understood you correctly, you talked about moving from a price-based system to an economy-based one.

Also, Bonnie, you touched on what I call home-based care services, through the model you mentioned, paying an informal caregiver.

I have two questions. They're questions more on the clarification of the definition, and also the economic impact, the dollar-value impact, because as a government we always say, “Where's the money going to come from?”

I'm going to start with Mr. Janson. Can you explain the impact of moving from a price-based to an economy-based system, and how we should account for that?

Then, Bonnie, could you explain where the money for paying informal caregivers should come from?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You each have about a minute.

[Mark Janson]

Regarding the price-based system, as I said, the chief actuary is predicting prices to increase by 2% a year, and the wage measure would be about 3% a year. Essentially, the OAS costs are increasing by 2% a year now; they would increase by 3%.

In one year, it's not going to make a huge amount of difference, but over 10 or 20 years it starts to add up significantly. The chief actuary has costed this in his recent actuarial reports. The numbers are there as to how much it would cost to move from a price-based system to a wage-based system. It's not especially cheap over the long run, but it's an important step. There are places where you could land in the middle, too, if you didn't have the fiscal room.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

How much money does that translate to, that 1% increase?

[Mark Janson]

I would have to confirm it in the report, but I believe his projection was that the difference 60 or 70 years from now would be about 1% of GDP in expenditure.