Mr. Speaker, I am truly delighted to speak in support of the motion by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques asking Parliament to review the old age security program with a view to putting a system in place that would not require seniors to repay their benefits, and paying the savings the program achieves to guaranteed income supplement recipients, giving priority to single, divorced and widowed seniors.
Many of those seniors are women.
According to a Statistics Canada profile of seniors, in 2005 women accounted for 52% of persons aged 65 to 69 and almost 76% of persons aged 90 or older. Men are catching up to women in their longevity. Between 1981 to 2005, numbers of men between 80 and 84 years increased to 39% of seniors. They had previously been at 37%. By 2021, they could account for 43%.
The motion calls on the government not only to improve the guaranteed income supplement, but also to give special attention to seniors who did not have an opportunity to prepare for retirement.
We are talking about people who have always lived below the poverty line—single seniors who never married, or divorced or widowed seniors, some of whom worked in the home or worked for minimum wage.
So if the government truly intends to help seniors, this motion with give it the direction it needs.
The direction laid out in the motion means allowing seniors who want to continue working, who need to continue working and who are able to work to do so without suffering a financial penalty.
Let us use the scarce resources we have at present, because to all appearances the Conservative government has spent the surplus accumulated by the Liberals when we were in government.
Some seniors would like to be able to continue working part-time without jeopardizing their pensions or their guaranteed income supplement, particularly seniors who live in housing where the cost keeps going up exponentially.
There is a shortage of affordable housing for seniors.
In 2004 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation told us that even though 2001 census results confirmed that the majority of Canadian households lived in housing that was affordable, uncrowded and in a good state of repair, even though fewer households were in core housing need in 2001 than in 1996, and even though the percentage of Canadian households in core housing need fell from 17.9% to 15.8%, the incidence of core housing need remains high among four segments of the population: seniors aged 65 or over living alone, lone parents with children under 18 living at home, aboriginal households, and recent immigrants.
If the government is really as concerned about seniors as it professes to be and if the government is really concerned about accountability, as it has repeated endlessly, it must be accountable to the seniors of the country, to the seniors of my riding of Davenport, and to seniors of cities throughout the country. It must use those remaining resources to target the seniors who cannot afford not to work without penalizing them financially.
This motion is very similar to that proposed by the Liberal women's caucus and is part of our party's policy.
The Liberal Women’s Caucus Pink Book recommended that seniors be allowed to earn income, including RRSP withdrawals, equal to 10 times the benefits they receive from the old age pension, the OAP, and the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, before having their GIS reduced. Ten per cent of those two benefits would amount to about $1,400.
The Pink Book also recommended that the guaranteed income supplement application form be eliminated. All the information is available on the income tax return.
It also recommended dividing the GIS cheque in proportion to a couple’s income. For example, if one individual earns 80% of the income, he or she would get 20% of the GIS and the spouse would get 80%.
The Pink Book also recommended working with the provinces to eliminate the 11-month limit on retroactive payment that now applies to Canada pension plan benefits. That change means that a person who applies late for CPP would not be penalized.
In conclusion, while I agree with the sentiments in this motion, I would like to ask for the Speaker's indulgence to allow a friendly amendment to the main motion in order to clarify it. The mover of this motion, I understand, is also in agreement with this proposal.
At this moment, I also would like to thank my colleague, the member for Laval—Les Îles, who has worked so hard on behalf of seniors across this country and who also has put forward this amendment.
Therefore, at this stage of the debate, I move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting sections a) and b) from the text.
The new version would read as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should review the Old Age Security program with a view to:
a) improve the Guaranteed Income Savings benefits for elderly single, divorced and widowed individuals; and
b) increase the other income threshold so that Guaranteed Income Savings recipients may receive the equivalent of 15 hours per week of work at minimum wage in their province of residence without penalty.
That is the amendment, which is seconded by my colleague from London North Centre.