Thank you very much.
A few days ago, we received an invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on the theme of income security for vulnerable seniors. Thank you for inviting our association to present its point of view.
In 2016, the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, conducted an extensive consultation both with its members and with the general public. That consultation concerned 10 rights and four challenges, including poverty. It is summarized in the document we have submitted to you, which also includes a link to our website. Our main concern is to improve the quality of life of seniors.
What is the low-income cutoff threshold? There is a definition of it on page 4 of your report, but we could not find its dollar value in the report. Only percentages are provided. On page 1 of the document we submitted, we provided a reference source we found, Retraite Québec, for the low-income cutoff. We indexed that amount to take inflation into account and ended up with about $24,460.
Who are the vulnerable seniors of today? They are seniors who are alone or have little support from a family member. They are often isolated and lack companionship. They are seniors who earned an income that can be described as low or average, who worked over a limited period of time and have little savings. They are seniors with physical or mental health problems.
Statistical evidence shows that women live longer than men. Individuals who are now aged 75 and over earned a low income or no income, having mostly been homemakers with no earnings. In those days, planning your retirement was not a priority nor was it popular; it was only for rich people.
Why have most of those seniors become vulnerable? They were often not used to asking for help. They are embarrassed to ask for something, as they don't want to bother anyone. They were self-sufficient in the past and capable of surviving and living. They may have also experienced the sudden loss of their spouse, which radically changed their lives.
How can someone survive with less than the low-income cutoff?
In the 2017 federal budget, the government increased the maximum GIS benefit by 10%, but only for single seniors. Imagine the frustration and the feeling of unfairness for senior couples! An effort was made, but it is clearly insufficient. A new increase should be planned to move toward an increase of at least 15% for the entire client base.
Individuals who are eligible for the GIS are those who did not earn a high income during their working lives and did not have access to an employer-sponsored pension plan. Seniors with no source of public income are living significantly below the poverty line, and that leads to a risk of malnutrition, health problems and social isolation. This is a tragic situation. Added to that over the past several years is the material or financial abuse of that clientele.
When we make a senior's budget, it is easy to see that their income is too low. I show that in the document I submitted.
The tax-free guaranteed income supplement should cover the shortfall between old age security combined with other income sources and the low-income cutoff. That could be the basis of a minimum guaranteed income, which is different for every individual based on the federal income tax return.
Which senior can have the assurance of making the right choice when they complete an application for old age security or the GIS?
A few years ago, in response to political pressure from groups representing seniors, it was shown that a large percentage of that clientele did not claim its entitlement to the GIS. What about the spouse's allowance for individuals aged 60 to 64? Do they all claim it?
The federal government has all that information in the tax data from individual income tax returns. Data could be reconciled easily with today's computer equipment, and that would simplify everyone's work.
We know that the majority of seniors are known to be discreet about their accumulated wealth. They are apprehensive about relying on others after bad experiences in the past.
Many of those people did not do any major studies or even graduate from high school. For most of them, economics are limited to saving and having no debt. Saving is possible with a decent income. However, if someone has earned the equivalent of minimum wage or slightly more over the past 30 years, they had several children at home and their spouse did not work, it was very difficult for them to save for their retirement.
That is mainly why we are recommending solutions 4 and 5. I did not read them out, but they are in my presentation. In the absence of a support service, a number of community organizations across Canada could certainly provide that service if they were subsidized accordingly. Those organizations are closer to that vulnerable clientele and are more numerous across the country than Service Canada offices.
We have read in the papers horror stories about companies closing abruptly, often because they go bankrupt or struggle financially. Suddenly, employees' pensions would be reduced by more than 40%, which is drastic. Solution 7, which is in my presentation, asks the Government of Canada to take the necessary steps to address this unfairness in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, so that pensioners would become priority creditors.
In closing, solution 1 is clear: the government should guarantee a retirement income of at least the equivalent of the low-income cutoff. Regardless of the means, every senior should reach the equivalent of the low-income cutoff individually.
I see how quickly seven minutes go by.
Thank you.