Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

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

Thank you.

The second thing is just on the logistics. This is also with the Canada disability benefit. We know that the IT infrastructure.... This is the fault of the Conservative government, which never wanted to spend any money on upgrading infrastructure in the century that we're in. We should have proper infrastructure.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages indicated, “It would not be possible to implement the bill within the specified time frame [due to requirements] to make complex modifications to the existing IT system.”

Is this something you're hearing push-back on as well—that the government doesn't have the capacity with its IT system to implement payments to people living in poverty?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I heard that too and I don't believe it. I think it's an easy excuse to say we don't have the infrastructure to put this in place. I sincerely don't understand. Let them build it out. I don't believe that, in 2024, a country like Canada is incapable of establishing the necessary infrastructure to make this happen. I think that's just an excuse.

Incidentally, we often get wrong answers to our questions, and we can see that they're looking for all kinds of wrong answers and ways to avoid the issue rather than implement the bill.

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

I asked an Order Paper question specifically around the Canada disability benefit implementation. CRA came back and said that it can't cross-check income with a disability tax credit certification.

Have there been any Order Paper questions that you've submitted or that you're aware of? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this IT infrastructure problem.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I think that any item on the Order Paper that can help improve the situation of seniors is a good one. I put questions on the Order Paper to find out the numbers the Liberals had relied on regarding seniors 75 and over, but I never really got a satisfactory answer.

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

All right. I'll close by saying thank you so much for this.

I would like to talk a bit about the grace period. We know there are seniors—and my colleague Rachel Blaney has been pushing on that—who are in a situation of being unable to file their income tax on time, and because there's no grace period from the government, they lose their GIS the following year.

Do you have any comments on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Give a short answer, Madame Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We could try to computerize seniors' tax returns, particularly since they're often relatively easy to prepare. We think that computerizing, as it were, is the way tax returns could be made much simpler for seniors every year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

We'll go to Ms. Falk for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madame Larouche. I appreciate the work you've put into your PMB. Going through the process as well, I know how much work it is, so thank you for following through and doing all the work.

The Liberals keep talking about politicians who want to raise the age of eligibility for programs that seniors can access, but it seems as though the Liberals are the only politicians who are talking about this, and they seem to be confusing the CPP, the OAS, the GIS and these different programs that seniors may have access to. To me, it sounds like they are trying to distract or maybe give the illusion of confusion, so that they can distract from supporting this bill.

Would you agree with that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Absolutely. As I said earlier, the Liberals often tend to avoid the issue when we ask them questions. Another of their tendencies, which is troubling and distracting, is to employ the single-cheque diversion, which reveals a short-term vision and a lack of a long-term policy. We in Canada have established old age security, a universal program that provides a basic income.

During the pandemic, the Liberals issued a single cheque. I'm willing to believe it was because of the pandemic, but, just before the 2021 election, they once again offered seniors 75 and over a single cheque, this time for $500. Why did they offer that single cheque? Was it to buy seniors' votes or to create a diversion, as some people thought and told me?

They proceed that way instead of increasing the basic income for seniors, which is old age security, the universal plan that Canada has established. You also obviously have to look at the guaranteed income supplement because the income it provides is inadequate. The Liberals are clearly creating a diversion on this issue.

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

Yes, it's really interesting. I think, too, that when we actually look at the history and the facts in the most recent years, it's this Liberal government that increased OAS pension amounts for seniors aged 75 and older. Really, the Liberals are the ones who created two classes of seniors when it comes to the OAS, and your bill will help rectify that division and discrimination that some seniors are experiencing.

However, as it was said by my NDP colleague Bonita, your bill requires a royal recommendation in order to go forward.

My PMB also requires royal recommendation, and I know that if this royal recommendation is not given, because the Liberals decide not to give it, which seems to be their trend.... There are other bills—extending sick leave, for example, for Canadians to be able to access EI via sick leave— that they have voted for but failed to give royal recommendation on. They showed that they really don't care what they do or say in the House. They'll give the facade that they care, but at the end of the day, they don't.

It's the same with my bill, Bill C-318, which would give an adoption benefit for intended and adoptive parents, which they also voted against. They spoke very positively here but will not give it royal recommendation.

When that royal recommendation isn't given by third reading in the House, it just drops off the Order Paper. Our bills just disappear.

Madame Larouche, what are your thoughts? Why do you think the Liberals don't care? Clearly, they don't care about seniors, and we can look at the other bills in which we see holes. I could argue....

We're talking to Canadians and we're hearing what their concerns are. That's why we do all this work for private members' bills. It's to make life better for Canadians.

Why do you think they're just so hell-bent on not working collaboratively and are so arrogant and proud, and not a little humble and saying, “You know what? You're right. Let's collaborate. Let's make this work. This is better for Canadians”?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Since the bill would have a financial impact, the government's agreement would be needed to implement it.

Consequently, my answer to you is that it's a matter of political choices, as is true for many bills. It lets them polish their image, but they unfortunately don't follow up their words with actions. They just present a nice façade. It's what I call image-based politics, and I'd like to see a switch to action-based politics.

These aren't exorbitant amounts, as I said in my opening remarks, $16 billion over 5 years is nothing when it comes to helping the seniors who have been forgotten for so long, who are suffering from inflation and need help. It's a matter of political choices. First, you have to choose where to get the money, then where you're going to invest it.

We may well wonder, for the moment, whether the Liberals' investments are really being made in the right places and whether they shouldn't instead be made to implement bills that genuinely help people. I'm thinking of Bill C-319, for example, or the bill to increase the number of weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits. These are bills that would really change people's lives. We need to make the political choices to invest in the right things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

Mr. Van Bynen, you have five minutes.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm interested in some of the research you did. You mentioned that you'd been throughout the province and spoken to different groups.

Can you give me an overview of the majority of people you spoke to in terms of their age, their income levels and whether they were renters or homeowners? What would be the highest percentage of people that you spoke to?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'd say it was quite varied. This summer I went to more rural places, such as Amqui, and more urban places, such as Quebec City. I met people with higher incomes who had worked all their lives and who were fortunate to have additional amounts of money but who acknowledged that not all seniors were in that situation. I met with renters and owners. I therefore met a variety of people in various places in Quebec.

However, all their testimony was based on the same principle: this is a question of fairness and recognition. It was quite unanimous. This program was introduced for people 65 years of age and over. I spoke with people 75 and over who felt it was unfair, even though they had received a 10% increase, as did those under 75. I travelled through many ridings and visited the constituencies of my Bloc Québécois colleagues. I even visited Ms. Chabot's riding to meet with seniors in her region, activist groups and ordinary citizens.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'm trying to get some sense of what the majority of the people were. Were they mostly age 65 to 75? Did they mostly have incomes of, say, $100,000? Were they homeowners?

I'm trying to get a sense of what was driving the consideration for you to bring this forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

What has inspired me are the comments that I've been receiving from seniors since I was elected. It's what I've heard since the Liberals proposed to increase the pension by 10% solely for people 75 and over. I hear it from all seniors, regardless of income, whether they're owners or renters or whether they're older or younger than 75: you're overlooking half of all seniors, because those aged 65 to 74 aren't getting a 10% increase in the old age security pension.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

We heard earlier from a witness who owns a home that is worth probably close to $1 million, has an $80,000 income and has a concern about this.

Would you say that was the average individual among the people you spoke to?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I spoke with some seniors who were better off, but I also heard the testimony of many poorer people. In any case, you know that old age security benefits are taxable. People with greater incomes—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am not hearing the interpretation very well.

I'm sorry, Madame Larouche. I wasn't hearing you very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is it okay now?

Okay, Madame Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

As you know, that's not the view of most seniors.

The representative of the Association féministe d’éducation et d’action sociale came and testified earlier about single women who live alone, who are widows, who have stayed at home and who for too long have had no other income. I heard a lot of testimony from them on the subject of women who live on old age security alone. There are 1,814,000 old age security program recipients. There are also 731,000 guaranteed income supplement recipients in Quebec and 866,000 in Ontario. Many seniors live on welfare.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you for those facts. I just had a minute. I wanted to have an understanding of how valid the issues were with respect to the earlier witness.

Now, we talked about age discrimination and fairness. Even if we did go with this increase to age 65, isn't that still discriminatory? What about people who are aged 45 who are impoverished? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about a guaranteed basic income that is not discriminatory towards age in any way.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

This study concerns the age of retirement and the so-called old age security program. Obviously, some people are poor before the age of 65, and you may think of measures to address that if you want to help them. However we're now discussing a universal program that would guarantee a basic income for seniors and that's clearly inadequate.

What happens to seniors who have barely a few dollars more than the $21,160 they receive every year? They can't even access the guaranteed income supplement. They live in a state of poverty. You can't go very far these days living on those annual amounts.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

What about people who aren't seniors and who don't have access?