Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

[Ben Catenaccio]

I think it would be very bad.

I'm sorry to say this, but it looks like when we are young, we are assets for the government, but when we get old, we become a liability. Everybody's trying to take money away from seniors, which is not right.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

No, it's not right at all.

There are still some politicians who think that we should go back to what Mr. Harper tried to do a few years ago. Our government pushed back against it and stopped it from happening. Mr. Harper wanted to move the eligibility for old age security from age 65 to age 67.

Do you think the country should look at that again? Sometimes I hear Conservative politicians say that we should go back to that.

[Ben Catenaccio]

I think so. I don't know what the threshold is now. Maybe it's higher. Eight years ago it was 65.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Yes, it's 65 now, because of the government's change.

[Ben Catenaccio]

It's 65 now, so it hasn't changed in the last 10 years.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

There are some that are calling for it to be put to 67, though.

[Ben Catenaccio]

Two years don't make much difference, I think.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

What do you think of the support for dental care that is available now for Canadians, including seniors? There's support that Canadians can access. If they couldn't afford to see a dentist before, they can go now and get basic checkups, fillings and other things that they might need.

Are you happy with that?

[Ben Catenaccio]

No, absolutely not. It looks like a joke.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

No? Oh, okay.

[Ben Catenaccio]

To me it's a joke. You go to the dentist just to clean up, and then they want $175 to $200.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Right, but the dental benefit is available now. With the program, Canadians—

[Ben Catenaccio]

I haven't seen the program. I see only what they send me. They haven't sent me the whole brochure yet.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

You can apply and be eligible. I know that seniors in my community are.

[Ben Catenaccio]

I did, but I haven't got my papers yet.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm happy to share information with you on that. Perhaps your member of Parliament can provide you with that information as well.

I'd like to ask the other witnesses the same question regarding pensions.

What is the importance of pensions and Premier Smith's proposal to cut the Canada pension plan by 53%? That's for any witness who wants to take it.

[Hélène Cornellier]

I will take the liberty of answering this question.

I think it's an aberration.

For example, in Quebec, the Quebec pension plan annuity and the OAS pension are in principle calculated to represent 25% of your pre-retirement income, which is next to nothing. You can't live on 25% of your income when you're 65 or over if you don't have other income or another retirement plan, such as an RRSP, a TFSA or other income from your employer. Yet many people have no other income and live on both pensions. The same is true in the rest of Canada, where people live on the Canada pension plan pension and old age security, which amounts to 25%.

Groups in Quebec and several other Canadian provinces have asked both levels of government to increase this double pension, that is the provincial or federal pension and the old age security pension, to have it reflect 50% of pre-retirement income, to prevent people from being trapped in poverty. We've seen this since the pandemic, since interest rates rose, as well as the cost of rent, groceries, gasoline, insurance and so on. The gentleman has just told us about his family situation. It's the same for everyone. At the end of the month, it's hard to pay all the expenses.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have the same question on changing the eligibility for OAS to age 67. Some are still pushing for this, it would seem.

What is your view?

[Hélène Cornellier]

At AFEAS, we reject this, both in Quebec and at the federal level. I think it's up to the individuals themselves to decide to pursue their careers, whether it's out of interest or for financial reasons. It's often because of financial need, to add income to those pensions, basically.

I think that 65 is old enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos and Ms. Cornellier.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, esteemed witnesses. Thank you for your testimony.

If our committee had the opportunity, we would certainly hear other testimony like that of Ms. Girard, which you referred to, Mr. Roy, and which constitutes what I would call a cry from the heart. It is aimed at getting people to recognize that in Canada, the old age security pension must be raised to ensure a predictable, sufficient income threshold for all those whose only income is public pension plans.

Ms. Cornellier, even though some of the questions you were asked did not relate to the purpose of the bill under consideration here, you did illustrate the poverty that can be experienced by seniors as early as age 65, as well as the disparity between women and men; this is consistent with the situation that can also be observed based on various other indicators.

The problem here is that we have discriminated against older people on the basis of age. The issue being debated here is the decision to increase Canada's old age security pension by 10% for people aged 75 or over, leaving those aged 65 to 74 out in the cold.

What impact does this discrimination have on people aged 65 to 74, particularly women?

[Hélène Cornellier]

Is the question addressed to me, Ms. Chabot?

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

Yes.

[Hélène Cornellier]

I think the impact on people aged 65 to 74 is very big. These people's expenses have been rising recently.

A large proportion of people now aged 65 or over have not had, in their lives, incomes as high as people in the generations that follow them. We're in a new economy, wages have risen a lot and young people have very good incomes. This was not the case for many of those who are now 65 or over, particularly women. Some have stayed at home for part or all of their lives, and therefore only receive this pension. Some have worked for a while, but have continually interrupted their working years to care for their children or loved ones. As a result, their retirement income, whether in Canada or Quebec, is much lower. They need public pensions, since they often have no private pension.

Age shouldn't be a criterion. From the age of 65, one is considered retired. This pension increase should have applied to all retired men and women, regardless of age.

Old age security has always been a program to give everyone some basic income. There is no justification for offering a 10% increase in old age security only to people aged 75 or over on the grounds that they have many more expenses. The same is true for people aged 65 to 74. They have expenses when they help relatives. They have to pay for health care. Rent goes up, groceries go up. We keep repeating this list, but it's reality. We're not in 1960 or 1970; we're in 2024, where everything has been increasing for two or three years, since the pandemic.

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

I thank you very much for your commitment. We are very lucky in Quebec to have groups like your feminist association. You make a great contribution to the lives of the people you represent and to society.

Mr. Roy, you rightly referred to the doublespeak of the Minister of Labour and Seniors, and I would even go so far as to say the current government. As you've seen since the beginning of the testimony before the committee, the current government is trying to avoid debate. To justify the decision to grant the pension increase only to people aged 75 or over, they say that people aged 65 to 74 don't need it, since they're richer and doing better.

What do you think of these arguments used to refuse to increase the old age security pension from age 65?