Human Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

No.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Casbarro, I have the same question for you. I agree with you that we have to provide support to the people who are in need, the people who are at the poverty level, the people who can't afford to pay the high cost of rent today. We have to provide affordable housing. However, do you agree with me that we should target our support to the people who require it, but not to everyone, such as the people who are making good money?

[Alessandro Casbarro]

Yes, of course, I agree with that, but when you're raising the carbon tax and inflationary spending—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Casbarro, this meeting is not about the carbon tax or the pricing on carbon pollution.

Whenever you talk about cuts, whenever you talk about carbon pricing, you should also know that 75%, or rather 100%, of the thing goes back to the people who gave it, and eight out of nine people—especially the seniors who are in the category to which we are addressing the issue today—get more than what they spend on the pricing on carbon pollution.

This is not a political forum, Mr. Casbarro.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Arya and Mr. Casbarro.

The time—

[Alessandro Casbarro]

[Inaudible—Editor] seniors, and it's abundantly clear—no politics involved—that the rising cost of living is making life more unaffordable for our seniors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Arya.

Ms. Chabot, you have six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am truly grateful to our witnesses for their support of seniors in all facets of their lives, and also thank them for the noteworthy statistics and studies they've been submitting.

With that in mind, Mr. Poulin, if you have any documentation you could provide us, the members of the committee would welcome it.

Some of the questions being asked here are complex, but that's probably what led the government to increase the OAS, but only for people 75 and older, with no increase for those between 65 and 74.

Mr. Poulin, do you believe, from the standpoint of the members you represent, that OAS recipients aged 65 to 74 don't need this increase?

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

Generally speaking, the members we represent need the GIS because they are not receiving a pension from their employer. Nevertheless, it can't be denied that the government introduced this measure to support retirees, and based it on an economic indicator.

Is it the right one? I believe that it's at least a first step. The economic indicator chosen by the government was the Canadian poverty line. In other words, the incomes of retirees below the poverty line were raised to the Canadian market basket measure threshold.

Now you're asking me whether the government should save money by not providing this 10% increase to those at the market basket measure threshold. I'm appalled. They are living at the poverty line and it's tough going.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

What impact will it have on retirees? You pointed out that most of them are living on pension income alone, and hence a fixed income. We know that a fixed income can have impact in an inflationary context in comparison to employment income. The Canada pension plan kicks in at 65. The Liberals decided on 65. However, a breach was created in the plan by treating seniors aged 65 to 74 inequitably.

How much of an impact does that have on them?

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

The main impact is what I call "economic isolation". There's a short chapter on this in the document I submitted. People on an income of $21,000 or $22,000 per year, if invited to join people at a restaurant, a theatre or a show, will say that they're busy. They don't have the financial capacity to pay for entertainment. That's what economic isolation is. Not only that, but isolation itself can contribute to dementia and Alzheimer's disease among seniors. When people retire at 65, they have to remain as active as possible and to keep moving during the first years of retirement to delay all dementia-related issues and other symptoms. That's the first impact I noted.

The second is the loss of their home. Seniors sell their house before they sell their car. That's one of the major repercussions. When people in Canada who have been earning let's say $50,000 or more, and suddenly, at the age of 64 years and 11 months they find themselves below the poverty line, with an income of $21,000, $22,000 or $23,000 a year, it's a disaster. The seniors will keep their house for a few years, then sell it and move into an apartment.

It amounts to a real crisis owing to the phenomenal rise in the cost of renting. People leave their home to rent a one and a half or two and a half room apartment. There are all kinds of horrible experiences like that at the moment, and we've been seeing them.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Do you still think, Mr. Poulin, that it's a form of ageism to have created a plan under which a category of seniors, those aged 65 to 74, have been abandoned by falsely claiming that they are doing better, have higher incomes, are richer and don't need additional assistance.

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

In 1927, when elected representatives created old age security in Canada, they had good intentions. When they reformed it all in 1966, along with the pension plan, they again had good intentions.

However, economic sustainability, mindfulness and foresight with a view to enhancing old age security were not on the agenda. Normally, social assistance for seniors would have been unnecessary after a few years if the OAS had been maintained and increased. This was not the case. The GIS is still with us today and retirees receive $21,000 or $22,000 a year. It's distressing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Zarrillo, you have six minutes, please.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate Mr. Poulin's testimony today, talking about the market basket measure. For the first time ever, the government has a poverty line and a measure, and certainly no one in Canada should have to live below it, so thank you for that.

I have some unfinished business from the last meeting that I want to address first, Mr. Chair. This is in relation to two of the witnesses at the last meeting talking about the Canada caregiver credit. I want to read a piece of correspondence that I received this week: “I am a 70-year-old wife, and my husband is a stroke survivor. I am reaching out to you, seeking assistance and support. I am currently providing crucial care to my husband, who suffered a stroke. Every day I dedicate my time and energy as a full-time caregiver, ensuring he receives the necessary attention, including tube feeding. Despite my commitment, it feels like my efforts often go unnoticed, and the financial strain of these medical requirements is substantial. Balancing this caregiving role with my health has become challenging. I am investing both time and resources to ensure the well-being of my loved one; however, it has been disheartening to find a lack of recognition or support from various avenues. In my pursuit to provide the best care possible, financial assistance becomes a pressing need. Currently my old age pension is the sole source of income, and it falls short of covering the escalating costs associated with my husband's medical care. I kindly request your support in addressing this matter and exploring available avenues for assistance.”

It goes on, Mr. Chair, but I want to move a motion in relation to that and in relation to testimony we heard from two witnesses saying that they'd like to see the Canada caregiver credit be made into a refundable tax-free benefit.

I will read the motion for consideration:

That the committee write to Minister Freeland to highlight her mandate to convert the Canada Caregiver Credit to a refundable tax-free benefit, and ask that it be part of the upcoming Spring budget so that Canadians who care for their loved ones are also looked after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

The motion is in order. It has been circulated in both official languages. Are there questions on the motion?

Seeing no questions, we will go to a vote on the motion of Ms. Zarrillo.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Ms. Zarrillo, you have two minutes and 50 seconds left of your time.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for considering that. I'm sorry, but it was just a very easy one that I wanted to make sure moves forward after testimony.

Monsieur Poulin, I wanted to ask about tax filings.

I've heard from many seniors that if they don't get their taxes filed, they also lose some of their entitlements and their benefits, which sometimes are not being reinstated for 18 months or more. Is this an experience you've seen, and how do you think the Government of Canada can correct that?

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

Many tax credits are not refundable and an income tax return has to be filed in order to use them. As I'm not a specialist, I can't give you an answer with respect to refundable tax credits. However, I know that for non-refundable credits, invoices and income statements are required for eligibility. Forty-nine percent of retirees don't have access to them.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sorry. I'm going to restate my question.

When it comes to getting OAS or GIS, if a senior doesn't file their taxes from a year or two years before, they can lose their GIS and also their OAS, because they haven't filed taxes. I'm just wondering if that's a situation you've seen and how the government could amend that.

For example, the NDP is suggesting that seniors could have a year's grace period if they haven't been able to file their taxes so they wouldn't lose their entitlements like GIS or OAS.

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

Definitely. Moreover, it's extremely important to consider those who have become homeless. Retirees who have lost their home or their business and are living in dire circumstances or affected by a serious illness no longer have an address and squat just about anywhere. It's very difficult for them. They need to be given serious consideration and time. A grace period would definitely be helpful.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I have 10 seconds.

You mentioned in your testimony the need for pharmacare and medication. There is a dental care program now for seniors, and we're looking at having pharmacare. How would this help seniors? How would these two social programs help seniors?

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

At our association, members are deliriously happy when they can at least have basic dental care for things like having their teeth cleaned.

I'd like to point out that the 49% of seniors who don't have to pay taxes can't deduct dental care expenses. With a low income of $21,000, it's not unusual for many of them to have their teeth pulled and replaced with dentures. Investment in a dental care program to help these seniors is really a positive step.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo and Mr. Poulin.

Mrs. Falk, you have five minutes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First of all, I want to thank both of you for taking the time to be here, for this service you provide for seniors and for the work you're doing to help those who, as has been said, have built this country and contributed so much to it.

I also want to note that the arrogance we've heard today from the other side is really appalling. It is appalling to me. It was the Liberals who decided to discriminate against seniors and form two classes: those who would receive 10% more and those who wouldn't. If the Liberals truly cared about seniors, maybe they would have done this through the GIS as opposed to the OAS, so this is a mess they have created. OAS is clawed back, anyway. Isn't that right? For seniors who make an income, wealthier seniors, OAS is clawed back.

I also want to note that to say this meeting isn't about the carbon tax is also untrue and tone-deaf. I hear from people, especially those on fixed incomes, about how everything is more expensive. The basics—the basic necessities like food, fuel, home heating—are necessities that Canadians need to live and to live healthy and long lives. I just can't believe the line of questioning that came from the other side.

I think it makes a good point also.... The cost of living is increasing, and it's set to go up again on April 1. We know the carbon tax is going to increase once again, and there are so many seniors—I hear this all the time in my office—who are being forced back to work. It's either you get a job and go back into the workforce or you lose your home, or you starve to death or you die because you cannot afford the basic medication that you need in order to live.

My first question is for Monsieur Poulin. I'm just wondering, does your organization measure at all the number of seniors who have to return to the workforce after retiring?

[Pierre-Claude Poulin]

We are currently conducting surveys to collect actual numbers and comments from our members who return to the workforce, but I'm not in a position to give you any numbers yet. We'll be able to provide that information within a few months.

Nevertheless, there are indeed people who return to work or who simply never retire.