Human Resources Committee on May 25th, 2020

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Just to be clear, if we taxed 100% back after earnings of, say, $120,000 a year, that would only claw back about 30% or 40% of the expenditure. In other words, it would cost us about $40 billion a month to follow Mr. Kassam's advice.

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

Yes, it's right that it would cost a lot. Even if you were to set some threshold of $100,000 or $150,000 where you would claw back all this extra benefit, most Canadian families don't earn that much. You would still have a lot of money going out and that clawback wouldn't actually bring in so much. You'd end up with the kind of bill for this that would make the deficit even bigger than it is going to be.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

How many different forms of basic income are there out there?

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

There are as many as there are different economists or people who dream different ways of doing this. There are many different ways, but I think what's important is to look at the bottom line, which is that we want to try to reduce poverty. We want to try to support family incomes that have dropped during this crisis. If we keep our eye on those targets, it becomes clearer what the right and appropriate policy will be.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

That's as opposed to dropping money from a helicopter, just giving everybody cash, and hoping that we can figure it out in a year's time through the tax system.

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

I think it is clear that replacing family incomes that dropped because of the crisis was the right way to go. It was a more efficient way of delivering income to families that needed it.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

But it has to end over time. Otherwise, the costs are extraordinary.

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

I think we have to start planning that transition.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

With regard to basic income, you say that the goal should be to reduce poverty. When you say that, what component of CERB are you talking about that's different from universal basic income?

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

When I'm thinking of different models of universal basic income, what I find interesting is that in some of the models where you do cut a cheque to everyone, most of the dollars end up going to families who are not in poverty. That's why I think the programs that focus first on those in poverty are the ones that are most effective. For example, the Canada child benefit focused most resources on lower-income families and middle-income families, and pulled it back from high-income families. It was explicitly not universal. To my mind, that was its strength.

When we're thinking of these income support policies, I try to keep my mind firmly on what the goal ought to be.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

In terms of the proposal to allow people to withdraw RRSPs, if they can pay them back in a couple of years, is that not also a policy that would disproportionately benefit affluent seniors with savings? About 40% of Canadians have no RRSPs and wouldn't be supported by that program.

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

That's an idea that's been floated. I think a very narrow slice of people would benefit. At the same time, I don't think it hurts the government's revenues very much, because the money does get paid back. If it doesn't get paid back, there's a penalty, as with the homebuyers' plan or the other ways of accessing money through the RRSP.

I'm actually attracted to that idea. It certainly is not a broad-based measure, but as one part of a policy package I think it does have some merits.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

If you were going to be consistent and target people in low income or in poverty, seniors in poverty, it wouldn't be RRSPs you'd focus on; it would be a boost to the GIS or a boost to the OAS. That would be the more effective way to alleviate for seniors living in poverty.

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

Sure. That's something we saw in the package that was announced for seniors, a boost to low-income seniors through the OAS and GIS programs, which I think was appropriate. If you were to add into that something to allow people to access the liquidity they have in their RRSP, to me that would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Professor Milligan and Mr. Vaughan.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being with us today. Thank you for your patience during our technical challenges. Be assured that your presentations today will be of great assistance to the committee in our work.

We will suspend while we bring in our next panel of witnesses. We'll see if we can get all of the technical issues ironed out on the front end.

Thanks, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We are now back in session. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today.

We have with us, from the National Association of Federal Retirees, Jean-Guy Soulière, president; and Simon Coakeley, chief executive officer.

From the National Institute on Ageing, we have Dr. Samir Sinha, director, health policy research; and Michael Nicin, executive director.

Lastly, we're joined by two representatives from the Réseau FADOQ's provincial secretariat, Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, president, and Danis Prud'homme, director general.

We're going to begin with Mr. Soulière for seven minutes.

You have the floor for your opening statement, sir.

[Jean-Guy Soulière, President, National Association of Federal Retirees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, honourable members of the committee. My name is Jean-Guy Soulière. As president of the National Association of Federal Retirees, I'm grateful for the opportunity to assist in your study of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I'm joined by Simon Coakeley, the chief executive officer of the National Association of Federal Retirees. We'll share remarks. I'll be speaking in French, and Mr. Coakeley will be speaking in English. We'll both be happy to answer any questions you may have in English or in French.

The National Association of Federal Retirees is the largest national advocacy organization. The organization represents 176,000 active and retired members of the federal public service, Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police; retired federally appointed judges; and their partners and survivors. For over 56 years, we've advocated to improve the lives of all Canadians in retirement and to protect our members' earned pensions and benefits.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the association has continued to support and advocate for its members and for older adults and to ensure that they have credible and relevant information to help them remain safe, healthy and connected as we all navigate the effects of COVID-19.

Canada's response to COVID-19 has set our country apart from its global counterparts, and much of that has been made possible by Canada's public servants. I hope that the committee will join me in recognizing their contributions.

As some of you may know, I was the first chair of the National Seniors Council. I held this position from 2007 to 2013. Many of the issues that we see today with seniors and COVID-19 were raised during my tenure with the National Seniors Council and during this committee's 2018 study entitled “Advancing inclusion and quality of life for seniors.”

The situations that we're seeing today are, tragically, unsurprising. That said, I'll again state that Canada's federal response to COVID-19 has been strong. We saw quick action to reduce the amount that older adults are required to withdraw in 2020 from registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. The GST rebate was increased. One-time payments under the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs were welcomed, particularly by the people eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, since they're financially vulnerable and likely to be most in need.

Steps have been taken to protect pensions and pension plan members through solvency funding relief for 2020 and through pension protection requirements under the large employer emergency financing facility, or LEEFF.

Of course, there's room for improvement, such as in the details and communications provided regarding programs for seniors. People need clear and accurate information quickly.

As we continue to respond to COVID-19, attention must be paid in the short term to older adults who are slipping through the cracks. For example, some older adults have lost work opportunities as a result of COVID-19, and they don’t meet the eligibility criteria for the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, because their employment earnings put them just below the $5,000 threshold. While the old age security and guaranteed income supplement one-time payments are relevant, the payments may not meet the financial needs of all seniors.

Consideration must be given to further increases to the guaranteed income supplement; automatic enrollment for the guaranteed income supplement in 2021; and reviewing the implementation of the promised 10% increase to old age security for seniors aged 75 and up. These measures should be implemented swiftly and should target financially vulnerable older adults.

As you'll note in our brief, defined benefit pension plans are important to Canada's economy as institutional investors and to enable Canadians to keep contributing to the economy. These plans are the most secure, efficient and cost-effective retirement savings option.

While some pension funds will be affected over the coming months, pension plans are built for the long term. Some of the pension plans will eventually recover their losses, as a result of adequate care and discipline on the part of plan sponsors and ongoing government regulation to ensure that the plans continue to be managed properly.

As areas of focus, we suggest the implementation of a strong policy framework to curtail contribution holidays, a review of the solvency funding requirements of plans, and the elimination of inefficiencies in defined contribution plans and RRSPs. These areas are described in more detail in our brief.

Thoughtful and intentional planning by the federal government, with provincial and territorial collaboration, is essential for the long-term retirement security of Canadians. Now is the time to start planning for the retirement security system that we want to have in two years, five years, ten years and afterwards.

I'll now ask Mr. Coakeley to make remarks relating to health care, senior care and COVID-19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Coakeley, I am very sorry, but your colleague has used all of the time allocated for your opening statement. If you haven't already done so, I would encourage you to submit it in the form of a brief. Let's hope some of the points you wanted to make in your opening statement will come up in the course of questions.

Next we have the National Institute on Ageing.

Dr. Sinha, are you speaking on behalf of the organization?

[Dr. Samir Sinha, Director, Health Policy Research, National Institute on Ageing]

Michael Nicin will start, and then I will complete it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You have seven minutes between the two of you.

Please go ahead, Mr. Nicin.

[Michael Nicin, Executive Director, National Institute on Ageing]

Thank you very much.

Hello. I'm Michael Nicin, executive director of the National Institute on Ageing, a Ryerson University-based think tank focused on addressing the reality of Canada's aging population.

The NIA's mission is to help governments, health care systems, the financial sector, businesses and Canadians themselves to enhance successful aging by conducting research and generating evidence-based policy solutions.

I'm joined today by Dr. Samir Sinha, the NIA's director of health policy research. He's also the director of geriatrics at Sinai Health System and University Health Network in Toronto as well as the Ontario government's expert adviser, since 2012, on long-term care and seniors.

I'm going to turn over the bulk of our time to Dr. Sinha, but before I do, I want to take one moment to acknowledge the nearly 6,000 older Canadians who have died thus far from COVID-19, and also acknowledge their families and caregivers.

In acknowledging long-standing issues, there's a growing public discourse on whether the federal government should play a greater role in the provision of long-term care, whether it should be incorporated into the Canada Health Act and whether or not we should reduce our reliance on private sector delivery of care. These are all questions that we must pose and answer, but they are only a select number of tools by which we could work to improve long-term care across this country.

In our view, the substance of our ensuing public discourse and action should focus on the following two core issues. One, how can we improve the provision of long-term care for as many Canadians as possible, and encourage them and allow them to age at home for as long as possible so that we never experience what COVID has taught us in these past two months ever again? Two, what are the most cost-effective—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Nicin, perhaps I could interrupt for a minute. The speed at which you're speaking is difficult for the interpreters to keep up with. I'll give you an extra 30 seconds if you slow down a bit.

[Michael Nicin]

Thank you very much.

Two, what are the most cost-effective and sustainable ways to deliver the highest possible care in line with the needs, preferences and values of older Canadians, their families and their caregivers?

In this we mustn't be guided by ideology or partisanship, but by the ample evidence that exists and is now emerging across Canada and beyond from places that have better addressed the long-term care needs of their populations. Furthermore, we must be open to every legislative, regulatory and policy option available to produce the best outcomes while efficiently using our public resources.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to Dr. Sinha.

[Dr. Samir Sinha]

Thank you, Michael.

While I hold many titles, I want to speak to you, first and foremost, as one of Canada's only 305 geriatricians who work with older adults and their families challenged by complex health and social care issues like navigating long-term care needs. The aging of Canada's population should be seen as a triumph as we've extended our life expectancy from 51 years in 1900 to 82 years today. When we established medicare, the average Canadian was only 27 and would not live beyond their sixties, so it's understandable that the provision of long-term care was not an original priority.

While other countries acted clearly and decisively to address these shortcomings as they have aged, Canada didn't. This inaction cumulatively helped to sow the seeds of the tragedy we have been witnessing, in which 81% of Canada's deaths to date from COVID-19 have occurred in long-term care settings, and in which Canadians are 24 times more likely to die from it than they would be if they were living in their own homes in the community.

While some thought I was being alarmist on April 2 when I was quoted in the Globe saying that if my mom were in long-term care I would pull her out, most Canadians have come to appreciate that our long-term care system was utterly ill-prepared to deal with this pandemic. Our NIA research shows that at least 430,000 Canadians have unmet home care needs while 40,000 were on wait-lists for care homes even before COVID. Of course, people have the right to pay privately for their own services but this is not an option for the majority of Canadians who retire without a workplace pension and with only $3,000 on average in the bank.

Public long-term care funding has also been inadequate. Its nurses or personal support workers, for example, make far less than they would in our hospitals. With 80% of homes before the pandemic reporting trouble recruiting and retaining staff, the majority of workers they could recruit were often racialized women who didn't really have many other options. We owe them a debt, the 10,000 who have contracted COVID and the nine who have died so far, because they are caring individuals trying to make ends meet, who were willing to keep doing this dangerous work. If we think our usual staffing approaches are the right way to enable the system that we may all need in the future, then we are deluding ourselves.

Indeed, to contain costs, most homes employed those workers on a part-time basis without benefits, such as sick days, so many would work across multiple settings, placing them at increased risk of contracting and spreading COVID. After SARS, many countries ensured that their homes offered only single rooms, but we still have Canadians receiving care in rooms with two, three and even four beds. All together, these staffing and physical plan deficiencies have become known as our systemic vulnerabilities, which led to the rapid introduction and spread of COVID in and between Canada's homes.

During a pandemic, quickly applying definitive actions to prevent the introduction and spread of a novel infection based on rapidly emerging evidence is key. B.C. gets top marks for implementing key preventative measures well ahead of any other province. They stemmed their outbreaks to 11% of their homes while in Ontario, for example, close to 30% of the homes have now experienced outbreaks.

The NIA issued its evidence-informed “iron ring” guidance on March 27, which informed your April 8 federal guidance, and yet some provinces still hesitated to act on these recommendations for at least another week. Ontario and Quebec have tried to stabilize their situations with the help of hospitals, the armed forces and even school board employees, but this has not been seen as a stable solution for a system that has lost the faith of many of its residents, families and workers that their care needs and safety can actually be ensured.

Where do we go from here? Most experts agree that we will be living with COVID-19 for a while. We did better than many other countries in implementing our lockdowns early, allowing us to keep our community dwelling population and elders relatively unscathed. As we anticipate future waves, we need to take the early lessons we have learned and apply them to further protect the 411,000 Canadians who are living in our 5,800 long-term care and retirement homes, who've not yet been infected or killed by COVID-19. Our provinces and territories need to act more definitively to apply the current evidence-based recommendations. We still have inadequate public health data collection and reporting systems to help us understand how and why COVID-19 is affecting our long-term care settings and what makes them more vulnerable.

The NIA thus created a LTC, long-term care, tracker for this purpose. Most of what we need to do has been well known for years and luckily isn't rocket science, but it will take political will and federal-provincial-territorial coordination of efforts.

We thus recommend that the federal government create a national, representative long-term care task force or advisory board with clear deliverables and timelines to provide a thoughtful, evidence-informed approach that will be a resource to provinces and territories in addressing these issues once and for all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Dr. Sinha.

We'll now hear from Ms. Tassé-Goodman from the Réseau FADOQ.

You have the floor for seven minutes.