Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

[Paul-René Roy]

As I said earlier in my introduction, whether you are 65 or 67 or 71 or 77 years old, your expenses are about the same. Ms. Cornellier alluded to those expenses, so I am not going to repeat them all. With the inflation we are now seeing, on top of the major housing crisis we are currently experiencing, I want to draw your attention to a few things.

The proportion of people who live alone is much higher among seniors than among the general population. So these people are isolated. If they are not able to get out and about in their community and socialize, it creates problems for them. If they do not have enough income to do that, the situation becomes very hard for them.

We must not forget that at present, we are seeing several phenomena going on. In some large municipalities, we are seeing homelessness hitting seniors. This is a sign that is starting to be a source of not a little concern that all our governments should be worrying about. We must not forget that these people have contributed to building the society we live in today. Contrary to what some people think, not all pensioners have very high incomes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

[Paul-René Roy]

Okay, I understand that time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's right.

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Everybody went well over, so I'm being equally undisciplined.

Ms. Zarrillo, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate so much Madame Cornellier's testimony. It said everything that women know and have experienced in the workforce.

Madame, you mentioned that it's not the 1970s anymore, but, unfortunately, women who are seniors are living the effects of that long-standing gender discrimination.

I think about flight attendants, specifically, who, in the 1970s, had to sign papers that they needed to leave their profession at age 32, because their looks weren't good enough for them to be flight attendants anymore. They couldn't be pregnant.

I was having a conversation with my own mother a couple of weeks ago. She worked in a doctor's office. When she got pregnant and visible, she had to leave. She had to leave the doctor's office.

I really appreciate your testimony so much today and talking about how all of these policies need to have a GBA+ analysis.

I really thank you for shining a light on the invisible and undervalued work that women have done. Even when we talk about employment insurance, it was built for men. It was built for men, who were perceived as the breadwinners, but if women hadn't been there doing the unpaid labour, those men would not have advanced in the way they did. Women were caring for children and for family members. I raise my hands to you.

I have two questions for you, Madame Cornellier.

Do these two levels of seniors disproportionately disadvantage women, and how? Why do we need the $6,500 cap, or the $5,000 cap as it stands right now?

[Hélène Cornellier]

The disparity in the treatment of seniors as a result of this 10% increase is definitely a form of discrimination. There is no reason for that measure to be applied.

The AFEAS questioned the Prime Minister on this issue in June 2021. We have never received an answer, but we know the measure has not been changed. We hope that the present Minister of Finance will revise her decision in her 2024 budget and give people aged 65 to 74 the 10% increase.

In a country like Canada, we have to fight discrimination every hour of every day. Discrimination is prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So why are we discriminating between two groups of seniors based on age? It is inconceivable. There is really no excuse. Seniors aged 65 to 74 have as many expenses as seniors aged 75 and over. The situation may be different for some people, yes. However, this issue can't be resolved by doing arithmetic. That makes no sense.

On the second question, can you remind me of what you said, please? I know your second question was about the amount of allowable income for the GIS.

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

The government has put in an arbitrary cap. It's going to let people make only $5,000 per year before it starts getting clawed back, and it's been asked that this be raised to $6,500.

Does it need a cap at all? Why would it need a cap?

[Hélène Cornellier]

I imagine that the government thinks—and this is not how AFEAS sees things—that this cap would allow it to take back part of the GIS that it would otherwise have to pay. So it has to give less to a person who earns more than the cap.

This means that a person who is receiving the GIS is better off not earning a penny over $5,000. The bill is proposing to raise the amount after which the government would take back part of the income earned to $6,500. That would be better than $5,000, given how everything has gone up over the last two years. However, even if a person had the opportunity to earn more, setting a cap might be a disincentive to working more.

We have to remember that in today's economy, we are asking seniors who are able and want to keep working to do so. There is not much of an incentive for someone who is receiving the GIS to work enough to have an income over $5,000 or potentially $6,500. This does not necessarily help the economy. So people should be allowed to work as they can. If they earn income above the poverty line, maybe they will no longer be entitled to the GIS, but they will be earning a better income that will enable them to cover their day-to-day expenses.

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

Thank you so much.

I'm going to ask Mr. Roy a similar question, because just mentioning that, just talking about how seniors are being disincentivized.... They don't want to put their GIS at risk, because they may not be able to earn similar income the next year.

Is that something you're hearing from your members? Can you expand on that and maybe just mention whether you think the arbitrary cap of $5,000 is necessary?

[Paul-René Roy]

More and more seniors are returning or want to return to the labour market, for various reasons. Some want to do it for financial considerations, while others are doing it to break their isolation, to socialize with other people and to have an activity outside the home as they had when they were in the labour market. These people need incentives or benefits, so they are not penalized if they want to return to the labour market.

You know we are experiencing a major labour shortage in various sectors. By returning to the labour market, these people can be very useful, not just to make up for the labour shortage, but also to act as mentors for the next generation of workers. These people have a lot of experience, regardless of what work they did in society. Certainly, if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Everybody went over by the same amount. Thank you.

Mrs. Gray, you have five minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.

My first questions are for Mr. Catenaccio.

You talked about what was Canada's promise to its citizens: If you work hard, you should be able to get ahead. Do everything right—maybe do a little investing and put some money into RRSPs—so that once you're a senior you should be able to live with dignity in your golden years.

Do you think that Canada's promise has been broken?

[Ben Catenaccio]

Absolutely.

Years ago, I was working and was able to save some money and invest some money. Today, I can't do it. It doesn't matter how much you make. Rent is up. Groceries are up. Gas is up. It's hard to make a living today.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

You said earlier in your testimony that you're not visiting your granddaughter as much due to the high gas prices, that you're making your own pasta and your own bread in order to save money, and that you're turning down the heat so that you can try to live within your means.

Do you think that the Government of Canada should stop its wasteful, inflationary deficit spending and live within its means so that inflation and interest rates can come down?

[Ben Catenaccio]

Absolutely. I think this government should look after their own backyard before they help somebody else outside the country. That's my view.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to turn my questions to Mr. Roy.

Thank you for being here. You said back in November that the threat of rising interest rates is forcing seniors to delay retirement. Are you still seeing that now? Are you still hearing that?

[Paul-René Roy]

Yes, some people are seriously considering the possibility of postponing their retirement because they anticipate a significant drop in their income.

We have to remember that unlike what we might reasonably think, a majority of seniors cannot be considered to be well-to-do.

For example, wages are said to be very good in Quebec's public service. However, after people in who have paid into the Quebec government employees' pension plan leave the public service, they receive an average pension of about $25,000. Now, $25,000 per year is not a fortune that lets people make ends meet when we are seeing high inflation rates and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find adequate housing.

So this is a really important aspect.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's great. Thank you.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada has confirmed that high government spending contributed to high interest rates. Among the people you work with, are you finding there are some seniors who still might have mortgages to pay off or who maybe have lines of credit? Do you feel that high interest rates also hurt seniors?

[Paul-René Roy]

One thing is for certain: the older people get, the less income they have. When people retire, many of them are living on fixed incomes. They do not all have RRSPs to make up for the loss of income associated with stopping work. These factors are absolutely important. A higher interest rate definitely has a very negative effect on seniors.

Of course, we understand that there are ways to manage the economy so that inflation ultimately declines. However, there are people who are sort of left by the wayside in these battles. This is the case for seniors. We must also not forget what Ms. Cornellier said earlier, that in the universe of seniors, women make up a much higher proportion than men, because women's life expectancy is much longer. In general, the income earned by women in the labour market is much lower than men's. Total equality has not yet been achieved.

It is therefore extremely important that we address these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

This round, I'll have to keep you right on the clock so we can get four in.

Mr. Collins, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses today. Maybe I'll start with Mr. Roy.

Mr. Roy, we've had a number of witnesses appear before the committee. I'm not certain whether you've watched some of the previous meetings leading up to where we are today, but one of the common questions that have been asked is the question my friend and colleague Mr. Fragiskatos asked earlier about age of eligibility. Not one witness to date has suggested we fiddle with the age.

You heard the reference, I think, today, to former prime minister Harper raising that age to 67, which is not uncommon. I can tell you that a conservative Republican in the States right now, Ms. Haley, is flirting with changing the age of eligibility in the United States. Of course, we watched last year in France as a million people took to the streets when their government tried to increase the age and redefine what it is to be a senior. It seems almost universal that at every level of government, in the eyes of a government, a senior becomes a senior when they turn 65.

I think you're the only one here today who hasn't been asked that question. I didn't see a recommendation from you in terms of changing that age or hear one in your testimony. Can you provide your opinion in that regard and tell us why it may or may not be important to retain the age of 65 as the age of eligibility?

[Paul-René Roy]

For now, I think we should leave the age at 65. I understand there are questions. Life expectancy is growing and people are often in better health compared to other eras. I understand that the labour shortage is seen as a good opportunity to raise the age of retirement. However, that should be left to the conscience of each individual. When they get to age 65, most people have been in the labour market for at least 35 years, if not more, so they have some latitude for deciding to retire. We should not force them to stay in the labour market. It must continue to be a choice that is theirs alone. For now, the age 65 threshold is the one that seems most appropriate to me.

That is why we support Bill C-319. We believe that people aged 65 to 74 have the same needs as people aged 75 and older, because the cost of living is the same for all seniors.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Roy.

Ms. Cornellier, your opening statement was laced with references to some of our most vulnerable seniors. You talked about those who live below the poverty line; you talked about those who, through their careers, had low wages, and you talked about low income.

One of the other witnesses that we had at a previous meeting, Professor Sweetman from McMaster University, talked about a targeted approach from government in terms of providing benefits, whether in housing, dental care, as was referenced here today, or other government supports for seniors. Professor Sweetman talked about providing a very targeted approach to seniors who are in the very situation that you outlined in your opening, instead of the other approach, which is just providing support for everyone, whether they need it or not. When I say targeted, I mean based on income.

Can I get your opinion on that in terms of when it comes to support for seniors in housing, the dental care program that we have, and the benefits that we're talking about today? Can I ask you about the importance of basing those benefits on an income or not?

[Hélène Cornellier]

That is a big question. I think there are two aspects to it.

Obviously, it is important to have targeted measures, for example for dental care or affordable housing. However, we still do not have measures for affordable housing or dental care. In the case of dental care, it has not yet taken effect and we really don't know where it is at. Personally, I have not yet received my letter about that.

In spite of the targeted measures, it is essential to have a basic measure, and that is the OAS. For very poor or moderately poor people, primarily women, it is the base for them. If we add targeted measures, for example benefits for dental care or affordable housing, that is additional assistance.

However, the fact that there are targeted measures does not mean we can discriminate in the case of OAS. We believe that this pension is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Cornellier.

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Ms. Chabot, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.