Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to the amount of a full pension.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually.

I would like to take a few moments to review a couple of points before we hear from the witnesses. You have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. For interpretation in the room, you can use the interpretation services with the headset. For those appearing virtually, if you click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, you will be able to choose the official language of your choice.

If there is a disruption in interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand, or virtually use the “raise hand” icon, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. As well, I would like to remind members, especially those in the room, to please keep their earpiece away from the mic as it can cause popping on the sound system, which can cause injury to the interpreters. As much as possible, speak as slowly as possible for the benefit of the interpreters.

With us today in the room we have Mr. Ben Catenaccio, as an individual. From the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, we have Hélène Cornellier, political affairs adviser. From the Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors, we have Paul-René Roy, the provincial president.

We will begin with Mr. Catenaccio for five minutes.

Mr. Catenaccio, you can choose to make an opening statement, but if you don't, it's fine.

Do you wish to make an opening statement, Mr. Catenaccio?

[Ben Catenaccio, As an Individual]

I can't hear you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

While we're getting that corrected, I want to welcome Mr. Khanna to this morning's meeting. Ms. Roberts is back again for this morning's meeting.

I'll come back to you, Mr. Catenaccio.

While we're getting that corrected, I will go to Madame Cornellier.

Madame Cornellier, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Hélène Cornellier, Political Affairs Advisor, Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your work on Bill C‑319.

The mission of the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, is to defend equality between women and men at all levels of society. Founded in 1966, it has 5,400 members, the vast majority of whom are aged 65 or over. Over the years, it has worked on many issues, such as women's financial security, including in retirement.

Between 2020 and 2021, Statistics Canada noted a 2.5% increase in the number of people aged 65 or over living below the poverty line. This is the largest increase for any age group in Canada.

There are three main factors that affect women more than men and put them at greater risk of financial precariousness: lower income, isolation and non-recognition of unpaid work.

A study on the situation of the elderly in Quebec shows that senior women rely more than men on public retirement programs. For women, such programs account for an average of 47% of their income, compared to just 31% for men. This gap is due to lower wages earned by women, who are mostly confined to undervalued jobs; lack of pay equity and more frequent absences from the workforce due to family obligations also play a role.

In addition, other studies show that women, elderly caregivers, people on low incomes, indigenous seniors, immigrants, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and people living in rural or remote areas are more likely to experience isolation. The consequences of this isolation are not negligible, both for these people and for communities and governments in terms of services and costs.

Moreover, many older people offer help within the family, such as babysitting during school vacations or strikes, or looking after frail loved ones so that they receive the best care and can ideally remain in their own homes. This essential help for relatives is not without additional expense for the elderly, whose low incomes are, for many of them, already stretched to the limit.

For AFEAS, Bill C‑319 is a first step in reversing the discrimination towards some seniors created by the 2021 budget measure that increased pensions by 10% for those aged 75 or over, but forgot about those aged 65 to 74. This bill also aims to help seniors who are still working out of precariousness and poverty by raising to $6,500 the work income eligible under the guaranteed income supplement program.

In addition to supporting Bill C‑319, given the less favourable situation of older women, AFEAS makes the following recommendations to the Government of Canada. Firstly, it should undertake any changes to retirement programs based on a comparative analysis of their impact on both sexes. It should also base the calculation of retirement programs on personal income, not family income, to preserve women's autonomy. AFEAS also recommends that the federal government pay a supplement to the basic old-age pension to women who have taken care of children or relatives who are losing their autonomy. In addition, the federal government should index old age pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and all other retirement-related income replacement measures to the cost of living. Finally, it should ensure that public pension plans pay all retired people minimum retirement benefits equivalent to the after-tax low-income cut-off.

In closing, AFEAS would like the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to recommend the adoption of Bill C‑319, and do everything in their power to ensure that the House of Commons and the Senate do the same, and as quickly as possible. We ask for this on behalf of Canadian seniors.

I thank you all for listening.

Please note that we will submit a brief today at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Cornellier.

Mr. Catenaccio, it's my understanding that this is the first time you have appeared before a committee of the House of Commons.

[Ben Catenaccio]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please do not feel nervous or anything. I'm sure you will find the committee members quite receptive to you.

Go ahead with your five-minute opening statement, Mr. Catenaccio.

[Ben Catenaccio]

Good morning, honourable members of the House of Commons. Thank you for inviting me to participate in these hearings.

My name is Ben Catenaccio. I'm appearing here as an individual. I am a 78-year-old senior who came to Canada from Italy in 1967 at the age of 22, looking for a better life. My father passed away when I was seven years old. I became responsible for taking care of my mother and sister.

I began working in Canada right after my arrival. Although I have only a grade 10 education, I fulfilled my promise to work hard and contribute to Canada, the country that allowed me to raise a family. I was a mechanic by trade and worked hard to become a small business owner. I retired in 2007 at the age of 62, due to medical issues. My wife, also an Italian immigrant, arrived in Canada in 1972. She worked at several different jobs until her retirement in 2013 at the age of 65.

During our careers in Canada, we worked hard and tried to save money to provide for our family and have some money for our retirement. Neither my wife nor I have a company pension plan, so we depend on our government pension, some money we invested in RSPs and our personal savings.

My wife and I are both retired and are trying to enjoy our golden years together after working in Canada for over 40 years. Unfortunately, my wife and I are not enjoying our retirement, as the cost of living is out of control and we can't afford to enjoy our retirement as we should. The government has made life unaffordable for Canadians, but even more for the seniors who have worked to help build this country and should now be enjoying their retirement.

The cost of everything has gone up, including heating my home, groceries and gas. I am able to reduce the amount I pay for heating and air conditioning by lowering the temperature so that I can save money. Just as an example, my car insurance has increased this year from $1,690 to $2,149. That is an increase of almost $460 per year. When I called the insurance company, they told me it was because of all the cars being stolen.

Just last week I received a letter from the government, saying I was eligible for the new dental care program, but they would cover only 40% of the expense because of our income from last year. My wife and I had just under $80,000 in total income. However, only about $35,000 of it was from our pensions. The rest of the income was from my RSPs and other things, such as interest on a few investments I made many years ago. The biggest part of the extra money was from withdrawing from my RSPs.

I understand that I have to pay tax when I withdraw from my RSPs, but it is now affecting the benefits I would receive from this dental program. Why is the government punishing seniors who were able to save some money in their RSPs but are losing their benefits, such as the dental program?

Once my RSPs are finished, I don't know how we will be able to afford such basic things as groceries and gas. I receive $926 from CPP and $784 from OAS. My wife receives $873 from CPP and $784 from OAS. That equals just over $40,000 per year. How can two people live on $40,000 per year? If this continues, we may have to sell our home in order to survive. Canada should be a place where seniors can age with dignity and in their own homes, after being the ones who helped build this country.

My RSPs and my savings are almost gone because of the high prices we have to pay in Canada because of the carbon tax and inflation from all the debt. Imagine having to wear a sweater in your home in winter in order to save money. Imagine having to shop at discount grocery stores because you can't afford to pay full price for food. Imagine feeling terrible for not seeing your granddaughter as much as you would like in order to save money on gas for your car. Imagine not being able to take a short vacation because you can't afford it.

Well, I don't have to imagine it, because that is what our lives have become.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Catenaccio.

We will now go to Mr. Paul-René Roy.

Monsieur Roy, you have five minutes, please.

[Paul-René Roy, Provincial President, Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of Parliament.

The AQRP represents nearly 35,000 retirees from Quebec's public and parapublic sectors. Our mission is to promote and defend the economic, financial, cultural, intellectual and social rights and interests of our members and all Quebec seniors.

In a letter sent to us on January 4, the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Mr. O'Regan, says the following: “As they age, seniors tend to have lower incomes and often face increased health care expenses due to the onset of illness or disability.” In the same letter, he goes on to stress that “the government will continue to take measures to support them and improve their quality of life”.

Yet, at present, the Old Age Security Act sends a very different message, since people under 75 are not entitled to a 10% increase in their old age security pension. In other words, a person under 75 with an illness or an inability to work will not see an increase in their income, simply because they are under 75, even if they don't have the physical capacity to work.

Paradoxically, the minister believes it is true that health care spending is increasing for Canadian seniors. In the same letter, he goes on to state: “This vulnerability is exacerbated by fewer opportunities to supplement their income through paid employment and the risk of depleting personal savings.”

The minister thus seems to be saying contradictory things. On the one hand, he concedes that drug costs rise with the onset of illness or disability. On the other hand, he refuses to grant a 10% increase in the old age security pension to all pensioners aged 65 or over, on the pretext that health problems and the related rise in drug costs are more likely to affect seniors aged 75 or over.

The minister seems to deny that inflation and health problems affect people under 75 just as much. To illustrate this point, I'll take the real-life case of Ms. Girard.

Ms. Girard is a 66-year-old retiree, a former public sector employee who worked in the health care field as a beneficiary attendant in Montreal. Her monthly income of $1,500 includes her Quebec Pension Plan and federal old age security pension. In an interview with the Noovo channel on October 23, 2023, Ms. Girard testified that the problem was that she had difficulty paying for her medication.

If we apply the minister's logic, Ms. Girard would not be eligible for a 10% increase in her old age security pension, since she is a retiree under 75. Yet she faces the reality of rising drug prices, just like a retired person aged 75 or over, and runs the risk of depleting her personal savings due to inflation. Like any retired person, she helped build the Canada we enjoy today, as the minister mentions in his letter.

According to a survey by Sun Life Insurance Company, one in three Canadian seniors has been greatly affected by the rising cost of living in 2023. This means that inflation is eating into the wallets of Canadian seniors aged 65 and over. In this case, we're talking about more than a third of Canadian seniors. That's why the AQRP is calling on the Liberal government to extend the 10% increase in the old age security pension to everyone aged 65 or over. The association considers it unacceptable that in a context of inflation, people under 75 should be excluded from the guaranteed income supplement exemption.

On behalf of AQRP, I am grateful for your attention. I remain at your disposal to answer your questions and hear your comments on Bill C‑319.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

We will now begin with Mrs. Roberts for six minutes.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for bringing this important issue to our committee.

I want to start with Mr. Catenaccio.

You mentioned a couple of things in your introduction, such as the carbon tax, car insurance, groceries, and we could probably go on. I want to ask your opinion on something.

As of December 8, 2023, the cost to administer the carbon tax plan cost taxpayers $200 million since its inception in 2019. Last year, it was $82.6 million, and they hired 465 full-time employees.

I'd like to know what you think about that, because that $200 million would have really helped reduce the cost of inflation.

What do you think about those numbers?

[Ben Catenaccio]

For me, $200 million is very high. I don't even know how to write $200 million.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

You mentioned that you're paying the carbon tax. You're trying your best to reduce that expense by lowering your heat and air conditioning. You're being smart about where you shop in order to maximize your funds.

What do you think would be an idea for something this government could do to help seniors in your position?

[Ben Catenaccio]

They should increase the pension by at least $200 a month.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Okay.

You said you're at the point where you've exhausted all your savings and RRSPs—

[Ben Catenaccio]

Almost, yes.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

In order to survive, your plan is to sell your house.

However, if you do that and you go to renting, is that going to be any more cost-efficient for you, given that where you live the rent is over $2,000 a month?

[Ben Catenaccio]

What choice do I have? I don't have any choice. If I want to live, I have to sell the house to eat.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

It's very sad.

[Ben Catenaccio]

There is nothing I can do about it, unless I go and rob a bank.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

No, we don't encourage that.

[Ben Catenaccio]

No, I wouldn't do that. Absolutely not, but—

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Your car insurance went up, but you use your car very minimally. It's not like you're working and driving every day. You obviously plan your day to reduce the cost of your gas, which now, with the carbon tax going up on April 1, will add to your budget.

How is that going to impact your groceries?

[Ben Catenaccio]

I'll give you an example.

Two weeks ago we went shopping at No Frills. That's the store we shop at. Also, there is another one, Food Basics. We get a little bit here and a little bit there—always on special.

There was canary melon, and the price was $6.99. My wife said that we will go to the other store, where they usually sell them for $5.99. She said that since we have to go there, we might as well buy them there. We went there, and there were no melons, so we kept going.

The next day I had to go to the doctor, and I went back to No Frills. The same canary melon was $14.25 that day. Figure that out.