Debates of June 7th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Mr. Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to a standing order made on Wednesday, May 22, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 10 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to congratulate the hard work of our government and especially the Minister of Finance for the work that has led to the creation of over one million net new jobs for Canadians. This is a great achievement and demonstrates that our economic action plan is working.

We are here today to talk about the new legislative provisions to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts, in order extend occupational health and safety jurisdictions to Canada's offshore areas.

Before we talk more about these legislative provisions, I would like to set the stage by emphasizing how vital the natural and offshore resources industry is to Atlantic Canada and to our country's economy.

There is no question the offshore oil and gas industries have made an enormous economic contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that these industries have transformed the economy of eastern Canada. Not long ago the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was receiving the highest per capita equalization payments in the country.

Today it is among our strongest provincial economies and now contributes to the equalization program. Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP has performed at or above the national average in 9 of the past 13 years. A large part of that success comes from offshore oil and gas, which accounted for 33% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2011.

Resource revenues, again primarily from the offshore, have allowed the province to steadily pay down its debt. The total provincial debt was almost $7.7 billion in 2012, down from a high of $12 billion just eight years ago.

Simply put, offshore energy development has given Newfoundland and Labrador more jobs, lower taxes and new investments in services and infrastructure that play such an important role in building stronger communities. These benefits will continue to grow.

As members knows, Hibernia was the largest project of any kind ever undertaken in Newfoundland and Labrador. As valuable as Hibernia has been, the Hebron project may be even bigger. Hebron represents a capital investment of as much as $14 billion. It could deliver $20 billion in taxes and royalties to the province over the 30-year life of the project.

Just a few months ago, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board announced its latest calls for bids for exploration licences in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, netting $117 million in work commitments by major players in the oil industry.

Nova Scotia's offshore area also offers enormous potential. The Play Fairway Analysis undertaken by the Government of Nova Scotia estimates that the offshore area may contain 8 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Atlantic offshore is a major gas producer with three gas fields serving Atlantic Canada and the U.S. northeast. In the past two years, the Nova Scotia offshore area has seen the largest bids ever for offshore parcels in Atlantic Canada with more than a total of $2 billion bid for 12 parcels of land. Shell Canada and BP Exploration clearly see the potential that exists in the Nova Scotia offshore.

Meanwhile, there is an estimated 120 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and production continues to grow. Sable Island's 270 million cubic feet a day will soon be joined by 200 million cubic feet a day from Deep Panuke.

It is essential that Canada continue to ensure that our offshore industries carry out their activities safely by abiding by the most stringent environmental standards. Canadians expect to see a world-class regulatory body. Our government is taking the measures necessary to ensure Canadians' continued satisfaction in this regard.

That is why we are bringing in new legislation. We want to clarify provincial and federal responsibilities when it comes to occupational health and safety in offshore areas.

The accord's implementation acts are the cornerstone of all oil and gas activities in the offshore area. They give the boards the legal authority to regulate oil and gas activities on behalf of the provinces.

Every day, Canada's offshore workers have to deal with a difficult work environment. The harsh weather conditions in Atlantic Canada and the remoteness of their workplace are just two difficulties that come to mind. The safety of the courageous men and women who work in this environment must and always will be our main concern.

The changes we intend to make need to be mirrored by provincial legislation in order for the amendments to come into force. Our government has been working closely with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to achieve this. Both provinces introduced their legislation in May, and both have given royal assent to their respective bills. At this time, they must wait for the legislation to pass our federal Parliament for the new regime to come to fruition.

The proposed amendments will address gaps in the current legislation. They will vest authority for offshore occupational health and safety in the accord acts.

There are two safety regimes that apply to workers in the offshore. Occupational health and safety pertains to the workers, in the sense of the hazards they may face, their protective equipment, and the safeguards on the equipment they use in their functions. It also pertains to three essential worker rights: the right to refuse dangerous work, the right to information, and the right to participate in taking decisions on workplace health and safety.

Under the current regime, occupational health and safety is a jurisdiction of the provinces. Operational safety pertains to the workplace systems, facilities and equipment, as well as the risk management and integrity of those systems, facilities and equipment. Examples of this are the prevention of gas blowout, ability of a facility to withstand storms, and fire suppression systems. This was included in the accord acts and provided that the offshore petroleum boards be responsible on behalf of both levels of government.

Following a tragic accident where a worker was killed due to an improperly installed door, the overlap of occupational health and safety and operational safety created a grey area. It was not clear whether the door's installation fell under one jurisdiction or the other. The lack of clarity prevented any party from being liable, as it was unclear under whose jurisdiction the incident should be regulated. The provinces and federal government agreed that the best course of action was to eliminate the grey area and incorporate the power for occupational health and safety directly in the accord acts.

For the section on occupational health and safety, which typically would fall under the purview of the Minister of Labour, the legislation specifies that the Minister of Natural Resources may receive advice from the Minister of Labour, and any regulations related to occupational health and safety must be made on the recommendation of both ministers.

In addition to fixing this historic issue, the legislation establishes a hierarchy of responsibility that makes—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The time for the debate has expired. The minister will have 10 minutes at the time this debate resumes.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Old Age Security Act

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if adopted, this bill will allow guaranteed income supplement recipients to withdraw up to $2,500 from a registered retirement savings plan to pay for funeral arrangements in advance without having their GIS reduced.

Let me start by saying that, while it is clear that the proposed legislation has some serious shortcomings, I can understand the good intentions of the member for moving the legislation. All members on both sides of the House want to ensure Canadian seniors obtain financial security. However, there are several reasons why we cannot support the bill.

First, it would leave the majority of seniors who do not have RRIFs or RRSPs out in the cold. Second, it would generate additional costs to Canadian taxpayers. Third, and more important, there are better ways for low-income seniors to pre-arrange their funeral expenses. While the hon. member is commended for wanting to help these seniors, we cannot agree with the methods he proposes. Therefore, we cannot vote in favour of this bill.

The OAS program is one of the cornerstones of Canada's retirement income system. It provides seniors with a minimum income so they can maintain a decent standard of living and it helps reduce the incidence of poverty among the retired. The program provides over $38 billion annually in benefits to five million seniors. This includes, $8.6 billion in GIS benefits to 1.7 million low-income pensioners.

Based on 2009 data from the Office of the Chief Actuary, it is estimated that only 10% of all GIS recipients have RRSP or RRIF income in any given year. This means that a very limited number of seniors could benefit from this bill and it would not be fair to other low-income seniors, 90% of whom do not have RRIFs or RRSPs. These seniors would get no assistance whatsoever under this bill.

Strictly from a cost perspective, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that the bill would increase the program costs by up to $81 million in the first year. In other words, it would cost up to $81 million for a measure that would benefit only one out of every ten low-income seniors who decided to pre-pay their funeral in this fashion.

There are other ways of paying for funerals and they do not cost as much. For example, the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan already provide a one-time death benefit of up to $2,500 to, or on behalf of, the estate of the deceased contributor. In 2011-12, 54% of all GIS beneficiaries who passed away had a CPP death benefit paid to their estate and the average benefit received was $2,150.

Also, some provinces and territories already offer grants and subsidies to low-income seniors to help them make funeral arrangements. For example, the province of British Columbia offers assistance of up to $3,000 to those who have little or no assets. Similar benefits are also available in Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and for first nations peoples living on reserve. As well, some municipalities, including Toronto, offer similar assistance to cover funeral expenses. This bill would duplicate public assistance with respect to the same funeral expenses.

Here is the bottom line. If people are concerned about funeral expenses, they are much better off leaving their money in their RRIF or RRSP. This way, the money can accumulate on a tax-deferred basis and they can arrange to have their estate pay the funeral expenses out of any remaining RRSP or RRIF savings upon their death. As an alternative, since withdrawals from tax-free savings accounts are not included as income for the purpose of determining GIS entitlements, GIS recipients may pre-pay their funeral and other expenses out of TFSA savings, with no impact whatsoever on their GIS benefits.

Let me explain. The Old Age Security Act uses income as defined under the Income Tax Act to calculate GIS benefit entitlements. This includes any money that a pensioner receives, other than basic OAS pension, from the Canada pension plan, Quebec pension plan, employer-sponsored pensions, employment insurance benefits, RRSP withdrawals, interest, dividends, capital gains, employment income, annuity payments and RRIF withdrawals. Therefore, withdrawals from RRSPs and RRIFs are considered as income for the purposes of GIS. As long as savings held in RRSPs and RRIFs are not withdrawn, the beneficiary pays no taxes. However, as soon as the monies are withdrawn, the funds are considered as income for the purposes of calculating the GIS.

There are exemptions under the Old Age Security Act, but they generally relate to earnings and receipt of provincial, territorial and social assistance.

The GIS earnings exemption, which allows an exemption of up to $3,500 of annual employment income, allows low-income seniors who choose to work to keep more of their GIS benefits. However, the Old Age Security Act does not provide expense-related exemptions. Bill C-480 would therefore introduce a new type of exemption in the Old Age Security Act by allowing for an expense-related exemption.

The proposal to exempt RRSP and RRIF withdrawals when used for funeral arrangements would open the door to calls for similar exemptions for GIS purposes on other compassionate grounds, such as accidents, illness and medical expenses and other reasons. As we mentioned earlier, the bill would raise equity issues, as it would only benefit those seniors who use RRSPs or RRIFs to cover their funeral expenses and do nothing for those seniors who have no savings or use different types of savings vehicles.

Not only that, but the bill could possible create pressure to exempt a portion of RRSP or RRIF withdrawals as income for the purpose of determining other income-tested benefits and credits such as the Canada child tax benefit and the goods and services tax credit. In addition, those without RRSP or RRIF income could argue that a basic exemption for all sources of income for all income-tested benefits and credits should be introduced. Such exemptions would increase program and tax expenditure costs associated with income-tested benefits and credits.

Since we formed government, we have taken 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls entirely. We have increased the GIS benefits by the largest single top-up in 25 years. The increase in benefits will help more than 700,000 low-income seniors.

I can appreciate the good intentions of the member in moving this legislation. I am sure we all can. However, the cost and inequity of the legislation is not something I can support. Our government has acted to help the poorest of our seniors. Poverty among seniors is at an all-time low, thanks to the investments our government has made. For these reasons, I would encourage all members of the House to vote against this legislation.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to debate Bill C-480 and voice my concerns or support, depending at which point I will be discussing the bill. However, in the end, I will be supporting Bill C-480 so that it can be examined in detail and costed at committee.

When I say “costed”, I mean looking at both the economic value and benefit, and performing an analysis that is sometimes not done in this place based on the estimates we sometimes get from the Department of Finance, being just one number with no backup or calculations. Therefore, we will probably look to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for backup to this bill once again and have to rely on those calculations and analysis. I have not seen that yet, but I hope it is available. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill would be able to comment on that in his final comments.

As the Conservative government continues to implement its plans to slash seniors' income support benefits such as old age security, I am especially keen to discuss measures like this. We need to find ways to help low-income seniors rather than hurt them.

The only caveat I would offer is that we must make sure we are getting the greatest benefit for any public investment we may make. If Bill C-480 is passed at second reading and sent to the House of Commons committee on human resources, the committee to which I believe it would be sent, the economic cost of not passing the bill should also be looked at and thoroughly reviewed, because there is a cost in not adopting bills like this.

I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the House like the idea of finding ways to reduce what we provide to baby boomers and seniors, which is their position and approach, but it is one that I do not share. Liberals know that seniors deserve better.

I would argue that the true value of a society can be gauged by the manner in which it treats the most vulnerable of its people. This adage is perhaps most appropriate in the context of how we collectively show compassion and care for our elderly parents, grandparents, friends and neighbours who require simple accommodations to live in a dignified and financially independent manner. Having our elderly population live in poverty is simply not acceptable in a country as wealthy as Canada. No one should have to decide between food and rent and other basic necessities.

The Liberal Party is known for its leadership role in defending the rights of seniors, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale.

Bill C-480 constitutes another useful tool for seniors who struggle to make ends meet because of the Conservative government's mean-spirited cuts to income support measures.

The proof is that the Liberal administrations of the past have clearly understood and acted upon this belief. Whether we were referencing the Old Age Pensions Act, delivered by the former Liberal Mackenzie King government; the Old Age Security Act, delivered by the former Liberal Louis St. Laurent government; or the Canada pension plan and guaranteed income supplement, both delivered by the previous Liberal Lester B. Pearson government, the Liberal Party of Canada has a collective legacy of valuing the long-term pension security of Canadians, a belief that is upheld in both word and deed.

It is within this context that both the Liberal critic for seniors and pensions, the member for York West, and the Liberal finance critic, the member for Kings—Hants, support the underpinnings of Bill C-480. We will vote accordingly at second reading. As always, the Liberals seek to balance compassion and social justice with a strong sense of fiscal responsibility.

As we have already heard, Bill C-480 amends section 10 of the Old Age Security Act to permit pensioners to withdraw an amount not exceeding $2,500 from an RRSP or RIF for the purposes of paying for advanced funeral planning. That amount would not be considered income for the purpose of the guaranteed income supplement. This sounds like a case of allowing seniors to use their own savings for an important life expense without penalizing them.

I support this, but there are outstanding legislative as well as economic and monetary questions that need to be addressed. Therefore, once again there is the need to send this bill to committee for further study, and hopefully improvement. The considerations would be looked at during the committee process.

Some of the considerations the committee could look at were highlighted on March 25, when the Speaker expressed concern as to the spending provisions contained in Bill C-480. Specifically, the Speaker encouraged members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany the bill to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Likewise, on April 18, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a letter which stated, “it is possible that Bill C-480 may have a material impact on Canada's fiscal framework if passed in its current form”. This is again why we state that we are looking for some amendments. I am not suggesting this is definitely the case; I am saying that there are outstanding questions.

This is why at this point of the legislative process for Bill C-480, our support is only for second reading. We will see what the reactions are from stakeholders, see if the government is open to amendments, and see if committee members can improve this bill.

The sponsor of this bill has touched on an important issue that the Liberals have long supported. At the 2012 Liberal Biennial Convention, the Liberal membership expressly supported the idea of using the Income Tax Act and other legislative measures to help bolster the income security of low-income seniors. Assuming Bill C-480 is respectful of the basic concepts of fiscal responsibility, members should be anxious to explore it once again at committee and going forward.

The Liberal Party of Canada has a long and proud history of enacting, preserving and strengthening Canadian social structure such as pensions and retirement income options. The Liberal Party, its general membership, the Parliamentary caucus, and its various leaders, both past and present, have underscored an unreserved belief that protecting and helping seniors to live with independence and dignity are necessities that deserve attention and protection in the years ahead. Bill C-480 is potentially part of the process, though not the total solution, and we are pleased to lend our support.

I wish the Conservative government would act in a similar manner and look at supporting the bill by sending it to committee.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today to the bill introduced by the member for Laval—Les Îles.

Members are no doubt aware that the bill's sponsor represents the riding next to Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We often participate in activities together, so I can attest to her community involvement and the fact that she is often featured in community media as well. I would like to thank her for her dedication and her contribution to righting the wrongs committed against guaranteed income supplement recipients.

Basically, the bill introduced by my colleague aims to amend the Old Age Security Act so that seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement have the option of taking $2,500 out of their RRSP to pay for funeral arrangements without it affecting their GIS benefits.

When a loved one dies, the family must pay for the funeral. This represents a significant financial burden for low-income households. This bill is important for the dignity of our seniors. It gives them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they will not be leaving their family with the burden of paying for their funeral.

My colleague's bill provides our seniors with an incentive to prearrange their funerals and protect themselves from the increase in the cost of living.

The Conservative government has indicated that it will not give a royal recommendation to the bill because of the cost. Quite frankly, that is ridiculous.

According to the Library of Parliament's estimates, this bill will cost the federal government only $132,000 a year. This is very little given that it would help more than 300,000 Canadian seniors. Come to think of it, $132,000 is about what Senator Mike Duffy makes, and this would be a much better use of that money.

I believe that it is better to spend public funds on a program that makes it possible to prepay for funeral arrangements without a penalty than on an archaic and undemocratic Senate that abuses public funds. However, those are not the Conservative government's priorities. The Conservative Party's gravy train is chugging along, but the Conservatives are asking seniors who live in poverty to tighten their belts.

Although poverty is a problem in many Canadian households, single people who are 65 and over are particularly susceptible to poverty. The universal pension program accounts for 77% of these seniors' income.

Among seniors, poverty strikes more women than men. This is due to the fact that, in the past, many women stayed in the home to take care of their families. Although many went back to work afterwards, their careers were much shorter and they therefore did not have enough time to accumulate sufficient assets to provide themselves with adequate incomes when they retired.

In Quebec, seniors are getting poorer and poorer and accumulating more and more debt. The percentage of seniors' households carrying debt has more than doubled in 17 years. A study by the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économiques published in 2011 found that, in Quebec, the number of seniors living below the low income cutoff tripled between 1996 and 2008. This segment of the population increased from 4.6% to 12.3%.

In the Laurentides region, the Agence de la santé estimates that 7% of seniors aged 65 and older are living below the low income cutoff. This represents about 4,000 people. The Conservative government is only adding to the problem.

According to the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, by raising the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, the Conservative government will drive up the number of people living under the low income cutoff from 6% to 17%.

By changing the eligibility age for old age security, the federal government will download responsibility for more seniors onto Quebec and the other provinces, which will be forced to spend more on social assistance.

In fact, once the change is made, the Canadian government could save $6.9 billion a year while the provinces will lose more than $450 million a year and will have to increase spending on social assistance by $164 million in 2030.

As economics professor and co-author of the study, Jean-Yves Duclos, said:

The main problem with the reform is that it disproportionately attacks the poorest people and will have less of an impact on those with means, who do not often receive old age security benefits or the guaranteed income supplement.

The fight against poverty, particularly among seniors, is is central to our political action. In February 2011, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard moved a motion in the House of Commons that called on the Prime Minister to lift seniors out of poverty in the next budget. The motion read as follows:

That this House reject calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and call on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.

Unfortunately, and this does not surprise me, the motion was rejected by the Conservative government. It is clear that guaranteeing a suitable retirement for our seniors is not the government's priority.

Unlike the Conservatives, who increased the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, the NDP is proposing real measures for improving financial security for seniors. We understand how exasperated and frustrated seniors are about the cost of living and the lack of support during the aging process. We are fighting relentlessly to protect pension plans so that people with disabilities, seniors and all Canadians can live with dignity and security in their retirement.

To that end, we have come up with a plan for fighting poverty and helping seniors. We are proposing that the federal government improve the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan by gradually doubling the amount of benefits over seven years from 25% to 50% of pensionable earnings.

What is more, we are calling on the federal government to gradually improve the guaranteed income supplement. We are calling for investment in home care and services, through the public health care system. Measures for making prescription drugs safer and more affordable should also be adopted.

Finally, we call for investments in social housing and, of course, in public transit. In fact, my colleague's bill is part of a larger NDP program to help Canada's seniors.

Poverty is a big concern for me, especially poverty among seniors. I was particularly shocked to learn that because of the dithering of the Liberal and Conservative governments in contacting those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, 160,000 seniors eligible for the supplement were not receiving any payments. The government had known about this problem since 2011, but it insisted on maintaining its red tape. It is estimated that, for the whole of Canada, this helped the government generate savings of $300 million on the backs of its poorest seniors.

In March 2012, I proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act to provide for automatic enrollment for the GIS. My bill forced the federal government to take the necessary steps to reach recipients. A few weeks after I introduced my bill, the government finally picked it up and proposed a proactive mechanism to contact eligible seniors.

In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support the exceptional bill introduced by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles to ensure that all seniors can age with dignity.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Laval—Les Îles for introducing this bill, which addresses a very significant problem for seniors.

While it is not illegal for guaranteed income supplement benefits to be reduced if recipients take a small amount of money out of their RRSP to prepay for a funeral, it is morally unacceptable.

The member for Laval—Les Îles tried to limit his bill to something quite reasonable and suggested a $2,500 maximum withdrawal. Once taxes are withheld—because money taken out of an RRSP is taxable—the remaining amount can pay for cremation. I am not talking about an entire funeral, just something very simple.

That is why I feel this bill is reasonable. The bill is designed to keep guaranteed income supplement recipients from seeing a drop in their benefits the following year. That is important, not from a taxation point of view, but from the recipients' point of view.

It is important to understand what these people want to do. They feel it is important not to burden the next generation with their personal problems. It is a question of dignity. They simply want to avoid problems for their children when they pass on. It is not complicated. That is all they want to do. Can we support them in this simple human wish? That is what I am asking.

We have to remember that these people do not have a lot of income. To be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, a single person's taxable income cannot be more than $16,600. For a couple, the figure is a little less than $22,000. This is not asking too much. These people are living in poverty.

What is more, we cannot forget that the $2,500 they take out is taxable. On top of that, their guaranteed income supplement benefits would be cut. According to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which oversees the program, I believe, how much money would they lose out on each month?

Depending on the individual's or the couple's income, that would be between $50 and $100 per month. That means that a person who withdraws $2,500 will keep just 20% or 25% of that amount to pay for a pre-arranged funeral. To me, this smacks of double taxation, the kind of double taxation that even the wealthiest are not subject to.

I would like to talk about costs. The Library of Parliament estimates that this would cost $132,000 for a very simple reason. Not everyone is going to rush out to pre-pay their funeral the day this bill is passed. That is not how it works. It was determined that some people would do so over the next 10 years. That is why the costs are so low.

It is important to remember that only 11% of retirees at all income levels pre-arrange their funerals, and 47% of them use their RRSPs to pay for it. That is about one person in 20, which is relatively few people. I am not suggesting that this is a measure for everyone.

Had the government listened to our proposal to get all seniors out of poverty by enhancing old age security, my colleague would not have had to introduce his bill. The problem would have solved itself.

According to the government, the Office of the Chief Actuary determined that this measure would cost $81 million plus $12 million in administration costs. The government might have exaggerated a little and spoke about $100 million. That is a lot of money.

Considering what I just said about individuals who pre-arrange their funerals and about how much of their RRSPs they use to pay for it, and considering a third element, their income, I doubt it will cost that much. It looks like somebody wanted to do the math quickly.

I would like to know how they came up with $81 million. Even more surprising is the $12 million it will cost to say that the money is not taxable income.

Some were saying that people would be receiving money from the government twice, because, on the one hand, the guaranteed income supplement is not taxed, and on the other hand, there are various public pension plans that pay benefits for funeral costs. However, as I said earlier, personally, I think this smacks more of double taxation, rather than double payments to people.

At one point, someone else said that this would introduce a new method for calculating GIS income. Basically, that is false. Technically, all this would do is stipulate that when the RRSP is cashed out for this purpose, it would not count as taxable income. It is as simple as that. Not everyone seems to understand the tax mechanisms. The RRSP counts as a deferred tax. In some cases, the government could even withdraw some money, but we are not talking about those kinds of calculations.

I would like to point out that we are talking about a population that spends 60% of its income on housing and food. These people want to make an additional effort. In fact, all they want to do is sacrifice part of their future income to pre-pay for their own funeral.

I think it is only reasonable to support this bill at second reading. As I said, the parliamentary committee can look into the real costs associated with this measure, and we can then further debate its merits at third reading. I think this deserves further consideration. A parliamentary committee could look into this matter, call in some experts and thoroughly examine the issue—all in the name of dignity for our seniors.

I would like to close by thanking my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles for addressing one of the concerns of those less fortunate. I thank him very much.

By passing this bill here in the House, we have an opportunity to show the most financially vulnerable people in our country that Parliament is here to help them. I therefore invite everyone to support this bill at second reading.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I want to sincerely thank the NDP member for Laval—Les Îles. I was the critic for seniors and pensions following the 2008 election. Jack Layton asked me to take on this file. I travelled over the next two and a half years to 57 town hall meetings across the country. I listened to seniors and heard stories about how difficult it was for them to get along in society. They had contributed to this society, but in many ways, they were excluded from the benefits of society.

Before I go further, a previous speaker for the Liberals, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, talked about what the Liberals had done for seniors. I want to add a little more. Yes, the Liberals brought in OAS and CPP, but OAS was proposed to them by J.S. Woodsworth of the CCF, following the fact that on the Prairies, in those days, many farmers and their families were actually starving.

Again, in the 60s, in a minority situation in Parliament, Stanley Knowles, who was like the dean of this place, par excellence, brought forward the concept of the Canada pension plan. In both instances, we worked together to bring these forward.

I just thought it would be worth putting that on the record for people to hear to remind them of the participation and leadership shown by the CCF and the NDP in the House when it comes to seniors.

The member for Laval—Les Îles, who brought the bill forward, is actually moving forward on things we had in our 2011 platform.

I want to speak to a statement made in the House by a Conservative speaker about how they increased the guaranteed income supplement. Yes, they did do that, and we will give them some credit for that. However, in our proposals in the 2011 election, we proposed an increase of $200 a month for seniors on OAS and GIS who had a combined income of approximately $1,400 a month, just to bring some 300,000 of those folks to the poverty line.

I have spoken many times in this place of the hardships people face when they are on such a meagre income. Yes, the Conservatives brought in their $50 a month, but it is nowhere near what is needed to address the situation.

It has been stated by others in this place that it would benefit members to take the bill to committee to examine the pros and cons. If there are improvements we can make to the bill, that is the appropriate place to do that. However, we should think for a moment about the intent of the legislation.

The people I have spoken to and have listened to are in their senior years. I know that when members of their families pass away, and they are suddenly hit with $8,000 or $10,000 in costs, and for a number of reasons they have not set aside any money earmarked specifically for that but have perhaps put aside a little in an RRSP, to be able to take out $2,500 and put it toward that cost would take the edge off the stress during that time of loss.

It really needs to be stressed that it is not intended to do anything to replace the benefit from CPP, which some people are able to get.

There is another issue it is important to talk about. Some people who are on GIS have gotten part-time jobs and have earned a little money. The following year, after they have honestly filed their taxes and have brought that to the attention of the tax folks, their GIS has suddenly decreased. The provisions in the bill would ensure that this is not the case. In fact, their GIS would not go down, and they would not be penalized.

There is a reality, though. The bill says that the $2,500, when put to use, would have to have taxes paid on it. That is only fair to other Canadians.

Going back to the financial burden on seniors, oftentimes, when they have lost a lifelong mate, it is a burden. This is just a small way we can help these seniors deal with those times of trial.

Again, I spoke about the fact that in the 2011 election, my office and staff put together our platform on pensions and for seniors. I am very pleased to see the member for Laval—Les Îles bringing forward a concrete measure to this House in line with our thinking of that time.

I cannot say the same for the Conservatives. They are increasing the eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67, and adding another two years of burden on workers who perhaps works in a mine some place or as a waitress who has been on her feet all the time. I have had people actually say to me, “I do not know whether I can do it.”

I recall in my days at Bell Canada, there was a gentleman who worked to about 68 years of age. We were frightened every day, because he would go out and climb poles. He strapped spurs on his legs, and his legs were so spindly the spurs hardly even fit him properly. It was his choice to work that long. However, the government is saying, “You have reached 65 but you must work two more years” in either a hazardous job or one that is strain, like for the waitress. People just do not know how they are going to do this.

Some things are crucially important to seniors. We know how seniors tend to worry a bit more about some things in life, such as whether the kids in the neighbourhood are putting up too much graffiti. These things look larger to seniors. If the noise level of the party next door is too much, things like that bother them. We can imagine the feelings of loss of a family member, and then the additional sorting out of the finances. If this, in some small way, helps then I think it is well worthwhile.

Again, we are simply talking about sending this bill to committee to study. I look forward to our people from the NDP on that committee working with the government side. Perhaps there are ways to improve the legislation to make it better for seniors. We will be pleased to do that.

Some of the speakers on the government side today sounded somewhat reluctant. They have proposed some reasons why they have concerns about it. That is fair.

However, let us send it to committee so that it is studied properly. Experts can be brought in and we can look at this in a comprehensive fashion. Then, whatever comes back to the House will be as good a bill as we can possibly make it. I think it is a responsibility of all of us at committee. Sometimes we do not live up to that responsibility for a variety of reasons.

I want to stress that from those 57 town hall meetings that I attended, we brought notes back to my office and shared them with our colleagues. We set our agenda for the last election.

It also carries forward beyond that, because the problems that were there have not yet been addressed. For us, this is a continuation of ensuring that senior Canadians understand that they are a priority to the NDP. They should be a priority for this entire House.

There are some programs, like CPP or the Quebec pension plan, that have similar credits to this. Again, I want to stress this is not intended to compete with them in any way. It is intended for a very simple, direct purpose. It is to assist seniors in a time of need, both financially and emotionally.

I have brought up, a number of times in my remarks today, the importance of doing what we can to add peace to the life of seniors who have had a loss.

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

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the Conservatives' approach to my bill, something struck me.

The Conservative approach does not take into account the fact that every retiree who receives the guaranteed income supplement can already deduct $3,500. What is more, the Conservative approach does not take into account the fact that not all retirees are fortunate enough to have an RRSP. Finally, this approach assumes that all eligible retirees would prearrange their funerals in the first year.

That is not what my bill is about at all, even though I would certainly like to be able to give our retirees $81 million. By the way, $81 million is only 1% of the total envelope.

Unfortunately, my approach just seeks to correct a glaring injustice done to some of the least fortunate retirees. Let me explain. If tomorrow morning, every Canadian withdrew money from an RRSP in order to prearrange their funeral, only 9,000 of them would take a hit to their income in 2014. You heard right: out of 37 million Canadians, only 9,000 of the least fortunate would be penalized, according to official data from the Library of Parliament.

To me that is unfair and unacceptable. This bill is about those 9,000 people, and that is where the $132,400 figure comes from.

Why take two different approaches in the same bill? For the simple reason that we did not have the time or the opportunity to sit down together and take a close look at the purpose of my bill. That is why all of the parties in the House should at least have a chance to take a thorough look at my bill in committee.

I am therefore asking all members of the House to give this bill a chance to go to committee for thorough study and debate. The committee is the only place where we can make amendments to align the two objectives in my bill and find a solution that makes everyone happy.

As I have been saying since the beginning, I am open to amendments because my goal here is not to make political hay; it is to help Canadian seniors who really need help. Let us not forget that, as I have said, this bill targets a small number of people who unfortunately belong to one of the neediest groups in society. These are people who built our great country, who made it what it is today. They deserve all of our respect, and they especially deserve to have us find a solution to a problem that affects only the poorest seniors.

As I said earlier, no other Canadians are penalized income-wise the year after they withdraw money from an RRSP to pay for a pre-arranged funeral. Only these nation-builders, who worked so hard their whole lives and managed to put some of their hard-earned money aside in their RRSPs, are penalized. If they want to help their families cope with the grieving process once they depart for a better world, they will be penalized.

I am therefore asking all members of the House to set partisanship aside and support my bill so that we can work together to find a way to help our poorest seniors enjoy their well-deserved retirement a little bit more.

In closing, I would like to thank all of the members who spoke to my bill. I appreciate that very much.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, June 12, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

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.)