Human Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sweetman.

We'll now begin the first round of questioning with Ms. Roberts.

Ms. Roberts, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. I'd like to start with James.

First of all, welcome, James. It's great to see you again, and thank you for being here today and for your great work. I really enjoyed attending the conference on November 8.

Here's my issue. As you know, I volunteer in a seniors' home, so I've been participating with seniors for many years. I see a lot of issues, even in my own community. I'll address one specific situation of a senior who lives in a modest townhouse of 1,200 square feet. She raised her four children and decided, at the age of 50-plus, to go back to work.

As she joined the workforce, her husband—who had retired a few years before she did—unfortunately, came down with stage 4 cancer, so she had to, obviously, leave her job to take care of him. He passed away within two years, so she lost 40% of his CPP—widow's pension—and her CPP contributions weren't that great because, obviously, she chose to raise her family—that was a personal decision—and so she decided to go back to work.

She went back to work, and three weeks after she got a job—there she was in her late sixties—COVID hit. It was last in, first out, so then she struggled to maintain her home because she didn't have the income to support it. She managed through the process by renting out one of her rooms to a university student. Guess what? The student lost his job, so he couldn't pay the rent and she felt bad: She couldn't toss him out, but she still had bills to pay. COVID's over, so she got back to work and she still maintains the home. I agree with one thing that we're looking at, which is increasing the GIS, because for her to go back to work offsets her GIS payments, so she's no further ahead.

You care about seniors—and thank God, because I'm on my way there—what would you suggest, and what have you heard about providing support to seniors taking care of seniors?

[James Janeiro]

Thank you very much for the question, Ms. Roberts, and for coming to our conference back in November as well.

I'm sorry to hear about your constituent. Stories like that are all too common across the country. We hear them every day—as I'm sure you all do as well, from your constituents—and I'll say a few things about that.

There's a role for the state in this to increase her retirement income, which I know we can all agree is the intent of the bill, so the work on GIS to increase that amount is very good.

When it comes to earnings exemptions, there's some thought, really, that any sort of clawback of earnings is punishing people for working. You could argue, and I would argue quite strongly that CPP is our natural endowment as Canadians. We work hard. We pay into it. What we receive out of it is our entitlement as Canadians because we've all paid into it collectively to support ourselves, our families and our seniors as we age.

There is very good work to be done around addressing these earnings exemptions towards, probably, zero over time, so that seniors can work if they have to work and they're not punished for working, but ultimately these things take time. Even the conversation we're having today is illuminating the fact that far too many seniors are put in a position where they have to go back to work. It's one thing if they choose to go back to work, but if they have to go back to work, over time this should be addressed. Today this is, in my opinion and our opinion, a start to paving that way to not punishing, in this case, seniors for earning more income.

The last thing I'll say is that there's a broader role out there as well. That senior in your community would probably benefit from a more holistic local social safety net that's able to help her afford groceries a bit more, pay her property tax bill, pay her income tax every year and do all the other things. It's not just about income; it's also about the things that take part of that income over time. We can all do better in that regard.

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

I want to reiterate one thing, that this particular senior who goes to work to stay in her home also receives.... We have a food bank in Toronto, Sai Dham Food Bank, which delivers 3.17 million meals per month, and they deliver to 3,000 senior homes. I'm going to tell you something: she has to be very cautious about filling her tank, and she uses her car sparingly so she can afford to go to work and pay the bills on her home. However, if it weren't for the food bank, she would not be able to eat. Because of the cost of the carbon tax, because of the cost of high taxes, she's no further ahead.

I'm really advocating that we need to understand what this government is doing by creating this carbon tax on seniors, because it's absolutely ridiculous that a senior who's worked her whole life has to go through this just to support herself in a very modest way. In your experience have you heard any seniors complaining about how expensive it is with the carbon tax, the taxes, all of that? The fact they're still working and using food banks is absolutely shameful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you for that, Ms. Roberts. Your time has gone by.

Mr. Collins for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll bring us back to the subject at hand.

For all of us around the table, I think we're all committed to seniors. For my entire time in office, for the many years I've had the privilege to represent my constituents, services for seniors have a been a top priority. Whether it's at the local level, certainly, our former provincial reps can say the same, and, of course, at the federal, seniors continue to be a priority for all levels of government.

I want to start with the age of retirement. When I was a city councillor I watched with interest the former Harper government move to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67—and of course, we repealed that—our government did, before my arrival—and I've watched with interest other governments around the world flirting with that age issue. You might recall last year in France there was a massive protest as the French government considered increasing their age of retirement, much like the former Harper government did. I know that the U.K. has it on the books right now an increase in the age of retirement from 66 to 67, which will take place in 2026.

I know, Professor Sweetman, you have looked at seniors issues in many different areas, and I'm wondering if you could advise us on where Canada stands with some of our international comparators as it relates to support for seniors and the age of retirement issue.

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

My sense is that Canada does reasonably well, as reflected in the numbers I read at the beginning of my opening. The poverty rate for seniors in Canada is well below the national average. Canada's old age security system—the entire system, not just the things covered in the act—has been extremely successful in helping seniors in reducing the poverty rate for seniors. Having said that, there are clearly some seniors who are in dire situations.

My answer to the second part of the question or the second part of the bill is that we would be better served by a more targeted, focused policy that tried to help seniors in need, rather than also helping high-income seniors. People like you and me don't need a little bit more money. I'd prefer—and I think you would prefer—some of that money being redirected towards people who are in need, and the second half of the current bill doesn't do that.

I think that's an issue that's being faced internationally as well. All countries are dealing with this trade-off between having broad, general programs that focus on a large percentage of society—in Canada, something like 95% or 96% of people over age 65 receive OAS—versus a targeted program like GIS. I think many countries are turning towards something like what Canada has, where you have a multi-stage program that focuses a lot of resources on people at the low end and some resources on people at the higher end, because you need political buy-in at the high end in order to support the entire program, in order to support the redistribution. I think what's happening internationally is that many people are dealing with the struggles we're dealing with with aging populations, and they are dealing with that trade-off between a broad, universal program, which is extremely expensive and taxes our fiscal capacity, versus more focused program, which helps people who are most in need.

In terms of the age of retirement, people are clearly healthier for longer and living longer, and many countries are moving towards an increased age of retirement in recognition of that. That's a decision that societies need to make about how much leisure—in some sense, how much free time—we want to offer seniors, not require of seniors. They can go on working if they want, obviously, but we offer it to seniors. Our society has been flip-flopping on that as an electorate and I don't think we've settled the question yet. We may end up doing something more like the U.K. in the future, or we may not.

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

Thanks, Professor Sweetman.

I have about two minutes left.

I want to take you through the range of options you've talked about with the targeted approach, which I think is a theme that our government picked up on with some of the changes we made to the Canada child benefit and the targeted approach to seniors that we've taken throughout the pandemic. I know you've done a lot of studies on the impact of COVID on seniors. Of course, there's a whole range of social supports we can provide to seniors. Housing is a great example. Seniors make up the vast majority of those people who sit on affordable housing wait-lists across the country.

Along with some of the evidence you provided in terms of a targeted approach, you mentioned pharmacare. Of course we've just released our dental benefit, and hundreds of thousands of seniors have already registered for that. I'm hoping you can expand upon why it's important to look at issues like the dental benefit, pharmacare and housing supports for seniors, instead of taking a blanket approach that provides benefits to some of Canada's most wealthy individuals. Can you expand upon why that targeted approach is important and expand on some of those other areas in which we could provide additional support for low-income seniors?

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

I think what you're saying is very much aligned with what I am saying. We need a targeted approach but not necessarily in the Old Age Security Act. Some of those targets will be with respect to, as you said, support for living, accommodation, housing, dental care, and health care. I think many seniors would prefer to have, rather than a 10% increase in their OAS, a much-improved access to emergency departments or to primary care.

We need to think about how we spend our money. When we're spending it on seniors in something like the Old Age Security Act, we need to think about whether we're taking a broad brush and giving it to high-income and low-income seniors alike or whether we want to focus some of that money—not necessarily all of it, but a great proportion of it—on low-income seniors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Sweetman.

[Prof. Arthur Sweetman]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot is next.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here to discuss this important bill. I would like to disagree with a number of the comments I've just heard, but that's not the basis of my intervention.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fair treatment for all seniors. Old age security in Canada is a universal program, subject to a few conditions. However, in my opinion, the decision was made for the first time to create a gap in the program by distinguishing people aged 65 to 74 from people aged 75 and over, without taking into account the reality of seniors. The bill corrects this unfair treatment based on age, which is a form of discrimination because it does not at all take into account the needs of people aged 65 to 74.

Ms. Tassé-Goodman, you supported Bill C‑319 long before the Liberal government decided to increase old age security, which it had promised to do, but only for seniors aged 75 and over. Not a day goes by without your members asking you when there will be fair treatment for people aged 65 to 74.

What are people telling you and what motivations lead you to support this bill?

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

As I have already said in parliamentary committee—you will recall, Ms. Chabot—and as the Réseau FADOQ regularly mentions, the needs are there. Many women volunteer and are therefore deprived of this program, not to mention the costs associated with that.

I'll leave it at that. I will yield the floor to Mr. Poirier-Monette so that he can answer that question.

[Philippe Poirier-Monette, Special Advisor, Government Relations, Réseau FADOQ]

Thank you for your question.

There is indeed a lot of discontent among people aged 65 to 74. Since old age security was increased by 10%, we have been hearing about it every day. Those people do not understand why they are excluded.

Financial insecurity exists among people under the age of 75. Some people have to leave the labour market or have been laid off, for example, because of ageism in the workplace. Some are forced to stop working because they are no longer able to. Mr. Janeiro was talking about family caregivers. Yes, many of them have to stop working to take care of their loved one, and that has an impact on their savings, as well as on their ability to contribute to a universal or private pension plan.

So there are a lot of challenges. It is difficult to understand, and even to see, that people aged 65 to 74 receive, through the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, an income that is below the poverty line set by the government itself. Therefore, if old age security benefits were at least increased by 10% for that age group, people would be able to reach at least the lower end of the market basket measure, the MBM. I would remind you that the MBM aligns with basic needs. People survive on that. That does not include a lot of medical, hearing or eye care, among other things. A lot of spending is not considered in the MBM; it's just the bare minimum.

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

Thank you.

I toured seniors' residences because I wanted to be attuned to their needs. Many of them were very concerned about the cost of living and the issue of housing. Like you, we had concerns about the old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, which are the government's responsibilities.

Of the 550,000 FADOQ members, how many people's only income is old age security? Do you know the number?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Presumably, about half of those people are single and living on less than $26,000 a year. They basically receive old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. So there is a lot of financial insecurity among seniors, particularly single individuals. Many of them are women, widows. That's a problem.

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

According to the low-income measure, or LIM, more than 23% of Quebec seniors live in poverty. Interestingly, the study found that this percentage was lower than for those under the age of 65. That said, the LIM does not distinguish between those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. As you say, where there is a distinction is among women. Compared with men, 17% of women live in poverty.

In your opinion, why does the principle of fairness in old age security benefits absolutely have to apply?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

That's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Next is Madam Zarrillo for six minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses who have come today.

I really appreciate the gender lens that's been put on some of this in the discussion today. We know that women are punished for caring for family earlier on in their careers and there's also the wage gap. I really appreciate the light that's been shone on that.

There's also the fact that seniors are still working in paid and unpaid work, and certainly in care. There is a lot of unpaid care that's done by seniors.

This is an opportunity, as this comes to committee, to talk about amendments that could potentially come into this bill.

I will ask Mr. Janeiro first.

If there was an opportunity to amend this bill to include something else that is important at this time, is there anything that you would propose?

I also want to know your thoughts on this: The NDP has been asking for some grace period. A lot of times, seniors don't get their income tax filed on time. They can lose their entitlements because they didn't get their income tax in.

I think this might be an opportunity, as we open Bill C-319, to make sure that we also give seniors some grace period. If they become sick or they are caring for a loved one, the income tax falls to the wayside and they lose their entitlements. It seems unfair.

Mr. Janeiro, would you mind giving your thoughts on that?

[James Janeiro]

Thank you very much for the question, Ms. Zarrillo.

Yes, certainly, there is a very good opportunity to look at some amendments here.

On your point about tax filing, by way of a slight anecdote, my grandmother's accountant retired last year. Now we're scrambling to find somebody she knows and trusts and who speaks Portuguese, etc. The odds are that her taxes will be late this year. She is fortunate that she has people like me and many others around her who support her to do this work.

Any sort of consideration of the fact that seniors often lead difficult lives.... Their worlds are getting smaller and smaller. I don't mean to paint this with a general brush, but to make a point here, worlds get smaller. They need more and more support. The caregivers around them often have a lot on their plates as well. Anything that can be done to ease these seniors' interactions with institutions—like tax filing for CPP purposes, and interactions with telecoms and with airlines, etc.—and to ease the friction between seniors and these large institutions would be a good thing to consider, including in the context of the CPP.

With regard to specific amendments, perhaps, to this piece of legislation, I think it would be very interesting to park in here an idea that perhaps it's time to help seniors who reach old age and start receiving CPP but who have had to opt out of the labour market for a long period of time—often that's women, as I note in my comments—because of their care responsibilities, be it for children or others in their lives. In other countries, the state pays their state pension contributions while they're off caring for others. We see this in the U.K. We see this all over Europe. Perhaps it's time to consider that here, as an indirect way of supporting those seniors who were caregivers earlier in life and who potentially become caregivers later on in life, and of making sure they're not punished for having cared for others when they were younger and could otherwise have been working.

For people who have been in that situation, where you're choosing between working full time and caring for a loved one, most of us, I think, would choose caring for a loved one. That's what we do for our families.

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

Thank you so much.

Monsieur Poirier-Monette, I wonder if I could ask you the same question.

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Yes, many things can be proposed.

As Ms. Tassé-Goodman said in her remarks, provisions could be added to Bill C‑319 on the method of indexing old age security, among other things. That pension is indexed to the consumer price index, or CPI, while wage growth is about an additional percentage point above that index.

Simply put, the old age security pension currently replaces about 15% of the average wage. However, because of the method of indexing this pension, the replacement rate decreases over time. Therefore, in 10, 15, 20 years, the amount of the old age security pension would represent a smaller percentage of the average salary.

This is problematic because old age security is the first pillar of retirement. It represents the universal plan, which is supplemented by the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan and personal savings. Since that is the foundation, it has to be solid.

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

Thank you so much for that.

I also wanted to go back to Mr. Janeiro around some of the data they've gathered and published. With the data you spoke about today, I'm wondering if there is a gender split.

Was the data collected on a gender split? The reason I'm asking is the disproportionate amount of women who are doing that hardship.