Debates of April 26th, 2013

Old Age Security Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is important to note here is that the seniors we are talking about are low-income seniors. That is the point that really needs to be emphasized.

At the end of the day, there is a serious issue with regard to poverty in our country. Our seniors are on a fixed income. Affording the opportunity for a senior to be able to get into RSPs and to be able to do some planning for the future with regard to their ultimate passing is a responsible way of dealing with legislation. I commend the member for the effort. I will have the opportunity to speak a little bit more on it shortly.

My question is this: to what degree is the member prepared to accept amendments? Does he feel that there might be some amendments if the bill were to pass, or does he feel confident that the bill is adequate to go all the way through?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I set the amount at $2,500 because that is an amount I am comfortable with. I think that with $132,400 a year it will work. However, if some people want to propose amendments to increase the limit, I am have no problem with that. I am prepared to accept amendments. All I want is for our least fortunate seniors to be able to have a peaceful retirement.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles for this excellent bill. Seniors who are already at the poverty line have come to me in my riding with the same issue. The issue is that their income in a following year is affected by their decisions in the previous year. They do not know that this is going to happen until the following year, so they cannot plan for it.

This is a simple but effective change that would change the lives of many seniors, and I wish to commend the member for his foresight in this bill.

It is a very small cost to any treasury. It is less than the cost of one senator per year.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

This woman came to my office. Receiving even just a few dollars a month through the guaranteed income supplement makes all the difference. It makes all the difference between being able to buy a pint of milk or drinking nothing for a day or two. These people primarily do this for their children. They do not even do it for themselves; they do it to avoid problems for their children. I have lost my parents, but if they had had access to this and could have made funeral arrangements in advance, I think it would have made things easier on the whole family.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being invited to participate in this debate regarding Bill C-480.

If adopted, the bill would allow guaranteed income supplement recipients to withdraw up to $2,500 from a registered retirement savings plan or RRIF in order to pay for funeral arrangements in advance without having their GIS reduced.

Let me start by saying that I can understand the good intentions behind the member's idea for moving this legislation. However, I find the proposed legislation has some serious shortcomings.

All members on both sides of the House want to ensure that Canadian seniors obtain financial security. In fact, our government has done a great deal to help our seniors prosper in their retirement years.

As the members of the House are likely aware, the most important financial support we provide to seniors is through our public pensions. Canada’s public pensions are highly regarded internationally, and for good reason. They are credited with playing a very significant role in reducing low-income rates among seniors.

Let us just look at a telling indicator. The incidence of poverty among seniors in Canada has dropped from a rate of 21.4% in 1980 to 5.3% in 2010.

Now let us look more closely at the sources of retirement income, which generally have three components.

The first is old age security. This includes the allowance for the survivor and the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, which provides additional money on top of the old age security pension to low-income seniors living in Canada.

The Canadian pension plan, or CPP, is a second component for those who have worked and made contributions.

The third pillar consists of personal savings, including employer pension plans, registered retirement savings plans and tax-free saving accounts, as well as other savings and investments.

Together, OAS and CPP are designated to provide a modest base upon which to build additional retirement income. This year, Canadians will receive over $76 billion in benefits through the Canada pension plan, old age security and the GIS.

As I said earlier, the guaranteed income supplement provides extra support to seniors with little or no income and has been a great success in reducing poverty among seniors.

In 2008, we increased the GIS earnings exceptions from $500 to $3,500. This enables low-income working seniors to keep more money in their hands. In 2011, we provided the largest GIS increase in 25 years to the most vulnerable seniors. This measure is helping to lift Canada's lowest-income seniors out of poverty.

More than 680,000 low-income seniors are benefiting from this increase. These seniors are now receiving additional GIS, up to $614 for single seniors and $859 for couples. This year we are providing more tax relief for seniors and pensioners, saving them $2.5 billion.

This measure and all of the others that I have outlined demonstrate that the Government of Canada is taking concrete steps to support seniors.

We are actively helping Canadians prepare for and achieve financial security in their later years. That is why seniors' poverty is at an all-time low in Canada.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some issues with the bill. Currently the calculation of income to determine GIS eligibility is determined in accordance with the Income Tax Act. The proposed exemption for income used for funeral arrangements would introduce a new concept of calculations of income for the calculation of the GIS. This likely would create calls for similar exemptions on other compassionate grounds. This would create a precedent for more costly measures that are not affordable under the current fiscal climate.

It would also raise equity issues for seniors, as this exemption would only benefit those seniors who use RRSPs or RRIFs to cover their funeral expenses and would do nothing for seniors who have no savings. It would only benefit the 10% of GIS recipients who have planned for retirement by saving and would not help the poorest of seniors, who are the ones who benefit the most from the GIS.

Let us be clear on this point. The bill would not be helping the most vulnerable of seniors, but rather those who actually have investments in banks.

The Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that the additional program cost associated with this proposed amendment could be as high as $81 million in the first year, if all GIS beneficiaries with RRSPs and RRIFs used this exemption. The bill would also generate additional administrative costs. It is estimated there would be an administrative cost of up to $12 million each year. This is a total cost of almost $100 million in an era of fiscal restraint.

The guaranteed income supplement is paid 100% by taxpayers dollars. I would just ask where the NDP members are in proposing this $100 million tax increase. I think we know the answer to that: from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. I find it astounding that again and again proposals are brought forward by the NDP, but all they do is increase the taxes on hard-working Canadians.

Lastly, the bill would duplicate allowances for funeral expenses in other jurisdictions. The CPP and Quebec pension plan, for example, provide one-time death benefits of up to $2,500, or on behalf of the estate of a deceased contributor. In addition, some provinces, territories and municipalities also offer subsidies for funeral arrangements for low-income individuals. British Columbia, for examples, offers assistance of up to $3,000 for low-income residents who have little or no assets.

Similar benefits are available in Alberta, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and for first nations living on reserve. As well, some municipalities, like Toronto, offer similar assistance to cover funeral expenses. In light of these programs, this proposed bill would be doubling the efforts made at all those levels.

Given the considerable cost, the fact that it would fail to provide equity benefits for seniors, and that the assistance would not be targeted to the seniors who are in need of it most, our government will not be supporting Bill C-480. While I understand the good intentions of the member opposite, I would encourage all members of this House to join me in voting against the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address this piece of legislation. We need to deal with issues surrounding poverty and assist those individuals who are on fixed income. These are important issues.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary's response to the bill and I am somewhat disappointed. There is no doubt that she is doing a bit of cherry-picking when she says that the bill would only cater to those individuals who have registered plans or RRIF plans. A significant number of seniors live in poverty who do not have access to these types of plans.

I would suggest to the member that this legislation is much like the pooled registered pension plan legislation. That legislation was brought in by the government and we supported it in principle because we saw it as a tool for many seniors. It will not resolve all pension-related issues, but it is an important tool for seniors able to put money aside in some form of pooled pension plan.

The Liberal Party brought suggestions to the floor of the House with respect to what the government could have done to improve the plan. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not accept the amendments but still in principle we supported what the government was doing.

Now we have a private member's bill before the House. It would do two different things. It would be yet another tool that could be used by a good number of seniors in Canada who have had the good fortune to build up a nest egg through RRSPs, for example, but are still dependent on an income supplement. If they qualified for the income supplement that means they need additional resources.There is a good chance that they are living below the poverty line.

When I look at the bill being proposed by the member, I see a bill that would address an important issue facing many seniors. It is a tool that could be used to alleviate many of their concerns. To be able to use an RRSP to prepay for funeral arrangements would be a good thing.

The Liberal Party has been very supportive of initiatives that derive benefits for our seniors and in particular get them out of poverty.

During an election campaign we all have the opportunity to knock on doors. I have heard a lot of disheartening stories from seniors on fixed incomes. They may receive the OAS and the income supplement but that is just not enough. I have had seniors tell me, and I suspect others in the chamber have had seniors tell them the same thing, that they have to figure out the best way to spend a limited amount of money. They have to decide between taking a grandchild out for a snack, getting required medicine, or cutting back on their already small and limited food budget.

We have far too many seniors across our land who have been put in this position where they have to make these types of decisions. I think it is very important for us to reflect on what we provide our seniors and how we might assist them in making decisions.

For a good number of seniors, the issue of their passing is something that is there. In many cases they want to make pre-arrangements. What we have is a progressive idea on which seniors will be able to capitalize.

I question the numbers the parliamentary secretary has brought to floor. I do not believe them, quite frankly. She is presenting an extreme to the House. Whatever that dollar value is, I still want to highlight, as I did in the question, that we are not talking about the wealthiest of our society. We are talking about seniors who in many ways are in a poverty type situation by national average standards.

It behooves us, and it is our responsibility, at the very least, to see the bill go to committee. We support the bill. We want to see it go to committee. We look to the Conservative backbenchers in particular to recognize the value of what has been suggested and allow it to go to committee.

Quite often we are afforded the opportunity on private members' bills to vote without party discipline. It does not take many to recognize the value of a bill and at the very least allow it to go committee where we can hear from some of the different stakeholders. Maybe we could even get to the bottom of what some these potential costs might actually be, which could address some of the concerns as to why many of the Conservatives or others might not necessarily want to support the bill. There is a great deal of merit to it.

I want to emphasize that we not overlook the importance of our seniors and pensions. I had a general mailer that went out to my constituents, something I do, like others, on a regular basis. One of the things I thought said so much was around the issue of pensions. As members will recall, over a year ago when while in Europe the Prime Minister made the decision that he wanted to cut back on OAS. When I say cut back, I mean he wanted to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

Like many members of Parliament, we went to our constituents and asked what they had to say. I have one small piece of paper in the form of petition. The person who sent it back to me signed it. It literally attached numerous pieces of paper. I do not want to use it as a demonstration, but I want to emphasize there are some issues that really touch the population such as why not or why we are doing this.

In this case, I would suggest for the government and all members of the House, why not? This bill shows some compassion to our seniors. It is an area I believe could receive support from all political parties. At the very least, members should acknowledge it as a bill that should go to the committee stage to allow more facts to come out.

I am relatively comfortable believing that if this bill passes, it will meet the needs and ultimately through committee, we will find that it has the support to go all the way through. We have very little to lose in allowing that to happen.

I would encourage members to reflect on the message, on the principle of the bill and what it attempts to do and on past initiatives.

We have seen ideas flow from members of all political parties on ways we can improve the living standards of those individuals who are in the low income bracket in many different forms, but especially in regard to the old age supplement and the guaranteed income supplement. Therefore, I really encourage members to reflect on the value of contributing where we can to changes that could really make a difference.

We talked at great length about expanding employment insurance program benefits to others, whether someone was caring for an elderly family member or a during a family tragedy. There are all sorts of changes we have seen to social financial support programs over the last two decades. I see this as yet another of a number that could have a very positive impact.

I appreciate the member for bringing forward the bill. We will have to hope that maybe we can get members from all sides of the House supporting it. My understanding is that members of the Liberal caucus will be supporting it.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill put forward by the member for Laval—Les Îles, who has obviously put together something that will be very helpful to a lot of the poorest of Canadians.

That is part of what the NDP has pledged to do in all of its years of existence: to ensure that the poorest of Canadians are looked after, that we are not placing wrongful burdens on people in our society, and that we are dealing with the poorest citizens and, in particular, the poorest seniors in a way that is humane, thoughtful and reasonable. That is what this bill is.

Being poor in Canada ought not to be a crime, but sometimes poor people are penalized for things most Canadians take for granted. It could be something as simple as prepaying funeral expenses as part of looking after themselves and their families in the future.

We sometimes forget the daily constraints faced by poor people, the three million or so Canadians who live below Canada's poverty line. That is one of the worst records in the G7. Finding enough money after paying the rent is a daily challenge. Too often they do not have enough money to feed their children or to look after their health or their future. It is a sad reality that in a country as rich as ours, hundreds of thousands of people need help putting food on the table and have to rely on food banks. This is a shame and a travesty.

It is said that the inevitable things in life are death and taxes. I will not talk about the tax increases in the last federal budget, which will hurt poor people more than most, but there is a cost to dealing with the practicalities of death, which are funeral expenses. The most prudent way to deal with these expenses is through a prepaid funeral plan. Death comes to poor people as it does to anyone else, but why should the poor be penalized for enlisting in a prepaid funeral expense plan? That is exactly what the government does to elderly people who, because of their poverty, qualify for the guaranteed income supplement as part of old age security.

Let us understand this. For a single senior to qualify for GIS, income must be below $16,500 a year, and for a couple, it must be below $21,888 a year. Let us face it: at those income levels, people are poor. Why, then, does the government penalize those same seniors when they withdraw a bit of money from their RRSPs to pay for the inevitable, their funerals, by cutting their GIS benefit? That is what the current law does, and that is simply penalizing the poor. The irony is astounding.

This bill would allow those same seniors to prepay their funeral expenses with money from an RRSP. This makes sense. It does absolutely nothing to change the living conditions of seniors. This is, in fact, a prudent course of action, a humane, rational, reasonable and emotional course of action to protect their families in the future from having to deal with part of the tragedy of their deaths. Some of the expenses and emotional turmoil will have been taken care of by the seniors themselves. Who better could decide how to do that?

Having an RRSP is not a crime in this country. Some seniors have RRSPs. The government encourages savings through RRSPs, and 47% of seniors on OAS have an RRSP. Surely being poor and dying, as we all do, is not a crime. Using a modest sum of $2,500, a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, to pay for funeral expenses should never be considered income in the hands of a senior, but that is what the government is suggesting it is and that is, in fact, the case now. If seniors withdraw $2,500 to prepay funeral expenses, that withdrawal becomes income in that year.

Did they themselves receive a benefit from that $2,500? Did they go out and buy a new TV or an old clunker of a car? Did they do anything to improve their lot in life? No. They are protecting their loved ones from the problems that will face them with when those individuals pass away, and that is not something that should be counted as income. That is what this bill proposes in the calculation of the future GIS.

Luckily, I am not the only one who sees the irony. A single senior with an annual income of $16,000 a year could not afford this any other way. Nobody is going to be able to afford to prepay funeral expenses without dipping into their RRSPs.

The bill stands on its own merits. It is a clear example of a commitment we in the NDP have made to reduce poverty among seniors. I need not remind the government that the NDP, in fact, voted against the budget in 2011 because it did not actually take all seniors out of poverty. Jack Layton and the NDP had suggested to the government, in 2010, in 2009, in 2008, that we needed to deal with that. The government only did a half-measure, which was to raise the level of the GIS, but it was nowhere near enough to get all seniors out of poverty. Then the next year, it took all the money back by telling seniors they could not retire until they are 67 anyway, and actually take more than that money back. We have a government that gives with one hand and takes back with the other.

The irony of this situation is that these seniors are the poorest of the poor in the seniors' world, yet the government will, as the parliamentary secretary has already said, vote against the bill on the basis of some fabricated cost. Some of the government members will anyway. It is a private member's bill and the vote is up to each individual member.

In fact, only those seniors who have an RRSP and only those seniors who decide to do this will benefit, but they will not actually benefit. What will happen is the government will continue to pay them what it has paid them already. Therefore, we are not talking about a cost. We are talking about a reduction in tax savings that the government is taking from these seniors. It is taking money out of the pockets of seniors who do this in the year following their use of this money to prepay their funeral expenses. That is what the government is currently doing. It is taking money out of the pockets of seniors.

We are suggesting that these are the poorest of seniors to begin with. We should not be taking money out of their pockets in subsequent years. The minister has suggested this is an outrageous and exorbitant amount of money. Our calculations are about 1,000 times less than the minister's own calculations. I feel our calculations are much more accurate and more closely reflect what it would mean when it stopped taking money out of the pockets of seniors.

We are not suggesting this money should not be taxable. If a seniors withdraw money from their RRSPs, none of those rules would change. There is no huge administrative expense to this. There is no enormous burden. This is a simple and effective way to allow seniors to plan their death. This is something all seniors should be able to do with dignity, just as the rest of Canadians do.

We firmly believe this is part of an overall policy of ensuring that the people who built this great country, our seniors, are in fact looked after in the best and most humane way. We have been unsuccessful in convincing the government to lift them all out of poverty and we have been unsuccessful so far, however, in 2015 we will change that, in convincing the government to back off on making them wait until they are 67 before they get any of this money. That two-year wait will cause untold harm on a number of seniors in our country.

However, we can, and should, take this simple and straightforward approach and this simple and straightforward forward measure of ensuring that seniors who want to plan their death have the ability to do so without it costing them out of pocket the following year as the government takes the money back.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-480.

The bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to exclude from the calculation of income for the purpose of guaranteed income supplement, GIS, the lesser of the amount of benefits received from a registered retirement savings plan, RRSP, or a registered retirement income fund, RRIF, and the amount not exceeding $2,500 paid to or under an eligible funeral arrangement.

To simplify this, it means that seniors receiving GIS would be able to withdraw up to $2,500 from their RRSP or RRIF to pre-arrange their funeral without having that money be part of the calculation as to whether or not they qualify for GIS.

The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles maintains that this would be a step toward reducing poverty among our seniors. On the surface, this seems like a very compassionate action to take. However, I cannot support the bill.

Let me explain a few things about federal income programs for Canadians over 65. The old age security pension is a monthly payment available to most seniors age 65 and older who meet the legal status and resident requirements. If individuals meet these requirements, they can receive the OAS pension, even if they are still working or have never worked.

The OAS is financed from taxes collected by the Government of Canada, which means that increases and benefits immediately affect the balance of the budget.

The Canadian pension plan, on the other hand, is a contributory program that people pay into when they work. The CPP provides a range of benefits to contributors and their families, including retirement, post-retirement, disability, survivor and death benefits. This is a savings program where Canadians save a portion of their income, which is then used to pay their benefits in their later years.

The OAS program and the CPP combined with Canadians' personal retirement savings, investments and private pension plans provide Canadians with one of the best retirement income systems in the world.

In addition to the OAS pension benefit, the OAS program has three types of benefits that provide additional support to seniors who have low incomes: the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance, and the allowance for the survivor. To use the technical term, these three benefits are income tested. That term is important. The amount of GIS individuals are entitled to receive is based on their income. If their income in retirement is below a certain threshold, they can receive the GIS. If their income rises above that threshold, they cannot.

The Old Age Security Act defines income in the same way the Income Tax Act does. In the Income Tax Act, withdrawals from RRSPs and RRIFs are considered income, and therefore, they are also considered income for the purposes of the GIS.

Let me provide a hypothetical case. Martin is retired and receiving the OAS. Even with the OAS, his monthly income is only $1,000. Because his income is so low, he is eligible for additional support immediately through a monthly GIS benefit. Martin has $30,000 in an RRSP, but as long as it stays in the plan, it is irrelevant to his receiving the GIS.

However, let us say that he makes the decision to withdraw $10,000 from the RRSP. His income for the year has now gone over the GIS threshold, and his benefit would be cut back.

The Old Age Security Act currently does not allow expense-related exemptions, other than the ones already provided under the Income Tax Act. Rather, the existing exemptions under the Old Age Security Act generally relate to earnings and receipt of provincial or territorial social assistance.

The amendment proposed by my hon. colleague would create an exemption for money withdrawn for funeral expenses. Of course, these expenses would have to be documented and forms submitted to the GIS authority for review. This would increase the paperwork that the government would have to do and raise the cost of administering the program by $81 million, as estimated by the Chief Actuary. It is also estimated that the administrative cost of the program could be up to $12 million in addition, almost $100 million in cost.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would also raise issues of fairness, as it would only benefit the seniors who have RRSPs and RRIFs, and it would do nothing for seniors who have no savings or use different savings vehicles.

The legislation would not be helping the poorest of seniors. It would be helping those who still have savings in various registered investments.

I would also point out that the Canada pension plan already provides a one-time death benefit of up to $2,500 to the estate of a deceased contributor. That money can be used for funeral expenses. For people who receive the CPP, the proposed amendment would duplicate public assistance for the same expense.

The hon. member for Laval wants to reduce poverty among seniors, and so do we. Our government is committed to financial security for older Canadians, and we have done a lot to help since we formed the government. Together, the CPP, the OAS and the GIS have contributed to reducing the rate of poverty among Canadian seniors to one of the lowest levels in the world. In fact, poverty among seniors is lower than that of the general population.

In 2011, we provided the largest GIS increase in 25 years to the most vulnerable of seniors. This measure is helping to lift Canada's lowest-income seniors out of poverty. More than 680,000 low-income seniors are benefiting from that increase. These seniors are now receiving an additional GIS, up to $614 a month for individuals and up to $859 for couples.

This year, we are providing more tax relief for seniors on pensions, saving them more than $2.5 billion. This is in addition to creating pension splitting for seniors, allowing couples to significantly reduce their tax burden in many cases. Since we have formed government, we have also taken 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls completely.

I can appreciate the good intentions of the member in moving this legislation. However, we cannot support the cost and the equity of this legislation. We are living in a time of fiscal restraint. Our government has acted to help the poorest of seniors, those who need the most help. Poverty among seniors is now at an all-time low, thanks to the investments this government has made.

For these reasons, I encourage all members of the House to vote against this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Montcalm has nine minutes.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill introduced by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles, Bill C-480, which would help reduce poverty among seniors.

My NDP colleague has a huge heart, but he is also a man of action. This bill before us proves it, because he is trying to fix a problem that primarily affects our seniors. I commend him for trying to bring in a measure to reduce poverty among seniors.

This bill would amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to funeral arrangements. Old age security recipients who have an RRSP could withdraw the taxable amount of $2,500 from their RRSP to make funeral arrangements in advance. This amount would be excluded from their income for their guaranteed income supplement calculation the following year. As a result, their guaranteed income supplement benefits would not be cut or decreased the following year.

All members know that many Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet, and having to cope with funeral costs only makes their existing financial burden worse. This is a tangible measure to combat poverty among seniors and improve their financial security.

We know that low-income seniors typically spend 60% of their monthly budget on housing and food. Their already tight budgets are further consumed by health care necessities, such as medication. They often have to go without essential care because they cannot afford it, and then on top of that, they have to cope with the cost of funeral arrangements, which is a considerable expense for these families.

This bill is in line with our social democratic values and our dedication to social justice. We believe that all seniors should have the right to a comfortable retirement. We want to reduce poverty among seniors, and this bill is part of the philosophy that inspires us as New Democrats. We should enable our seniors to grow old with dignity, and we should guarantee them financial and moral peace of mind. That is the goal of this bill. Seniors should not have to put themselves in a difficult financial position to pay for funeral arrangements in advance.

This bill would take care of that because the guaranteed income supplement would not be affected during the following fiscal year. It is unacceptable that families should have to bear such a huge financial and moral burden alone. Why give them another problem to deal with when they are already grieving the loss of a loved one? This measure will help our neediest seniors, those who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

We are working hard to fight poverty among seniors, but the Conservatives are doing just the opposite with their reforms. We know that two-thirds of the population does not have a private retirement fund and has to depend on public money after the age of 65. Need I remind the House that state support for seniors is minimal indeed?

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not coming up with any concrete solutions to address poverty among seniors. On the contrary, it is proposing delaying access to old age security for two years. Raising the legal retirement age from 65 to 67 will only increase poverty for many people. It will only add to the number of seniors already living below the poverty line in Canada. According to a recent study by the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, or CIRANO, this increase will raise the proportion of people aged 65 and 66 living under the low income cutoff from 6% to 17%.

This bill proposes the exact opposite. It would help those who are the least fortunate in our society, and more specifically, it would help reduce poverty among our seniors. By supporting this bill, we can eliminate a huge financial burden for our seniors and their families. Fighting poverty among seniors was one of our campaign promises, and clearly, we are keeping our word.

We want to come up with real solutions to the problems facing Canadians, instead of making irresponsible cuts to old age security. The government should not be going after Canadian workers like this.

We in the NDP are committed to lifting seniors out of poverty and guaranteeing a comfortable retirement for all Canadians. We want to reduce social inequality and help those less fortunate so they can live in better conditions.

My colleague's bill has the support of many stakeholders. According to Janet Gray, certified financial planner and elder planning counsellor, everyone wants to help needy seniors. This bill is a good way to do that.

The Canada pension plan provides $2,500 to cover funeral expenses. However, Ms. Gray believes that today's seniors, especially older seniors, are less likely to have worked full time for most of their career and therefore may not be eligible for CPP. She also noted that the CPP benefit cannot be used to pay for funeral arrangements in advance. It can only be used to pay for funeral arrangements made after the death of the beneficiary.

It is true that the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan have similar benefits. However, the purpose of this bill is to establish a complementary measure not a competing one. It will help those most in need, our seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

This bill shows that we are listening to our constituents and that, as MPs, resolving their problems should be our priority.

However, that is not all. This bill will also boost sales for co-operatives and stimulate the local economy. It will serve as an added incentive for people who are thinking about making funeral arrangements in advance. In the end, the sales of funeral co-operatives will increase, which will in turn stimulate the local economy.

That is the essence of this bill. It seeks to implement a practical measure to reduce poverty among seniors while allowing them to continue to have a respectable financial situation after paying for funeral arrangements in advance. Their guaranteed income supplement will not be affected in the following fiscal year. They will therefore have peace of mind and financial security, knowing that they will not be leaving their family with the burden of paying for their funeral.

It is high time we provided financial help to the most vulnerable members of our society. This bill does just that.

Given that the income gap between the rich and the poor has only grown over the years, it is time to take action. The income gap is the biggest it has been in 30 years. Given that financial status is one of the primary determinants of health, poverty should not be taken lightly.

Socio-economic inequalities are getting worse every day. This has a significant impact on people's health and on a growing number of older people, many of whom have barely enough money to house and feed themselves adequately, let alone pay for other essential resources.

Poverty is costly, and we have to do something about it. That goes double for vulnerable people. Seniors, who are at greater risk of living in poverty, are among those most vulnerable.

According to a study by the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économique, the number of low-income seniors climbed dramatically from 4.6% in 1996 to 12.3% in 2008.

We must take steps to improve our seniors' financial health. That is why I am asking all members to support this bill at second reading.

I would like to add that this is not about money. Those who support this bill will demonstrate good will, empathy and humanity. I urge them to listen to their hearts and realize that, because they cannot be against what is right, they cannot be against this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)