Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).
This bill is intended to correct a mistake made by the government, a mistake that resulted in discrimination against people aged 65 to 74 and thus created two classes of seniors.
Yes, I will boldly speak about discrimination here, not only discrimination based on age, but also discrimination based on sex. I will therefore explain to the House why the government saw fit to adopt a doubly discriminatory measure. I will show that the government’s arguments barely hold water. I will show that the measure in fact discriminates in two ways. Finally, I will explain why it is essential that this mistake be corrected.
When the government decided in 2019 to make an election promise to increase the pension for seniors 75 and over, it essentially had two arguments, only one of which was stated loud and clear.
The first argument, which is not often raised, was that the increase in life expectancy means that pensions are paid out over a longer period, which puts pressure on the pension fund and its fiscal capacity to cover the additional years of life, especially as there will be more old age security recipients than workers contributing to the fund as a result of an inverted age pyramid. This situation gives the government two choices: Raising workers’ contributions, either by increasing the number of workers or the amounts paid by those workers, or reducing the amount paid to seniors every month.
Increasing the monthly amount of the pension for seniors aged 75 and over falls into the second category, as strange as that may seem. Indeed, refusing to increase the pension for those aged 65 to 74 is a roundabout way of reducing the monthly amount they are paid, given that they are on a fixed income while their expenses keep rising. Inflation is not fixed. A dollar today is not the same as a dollar five years ago. Their income is fixed, but the costs of meeting their basic needs are not.
The second argument, the one most commonly put forward, is that people aged 75 and over have higher health-related costs. These people may need help at home, including specialized care or help with housework or meal preparation. In short, according to the government, people aged 75 and over have expenses that those aged 65 to 74 do not have. That is true in some cases, but not always.
The government has made a massive generalization, forgetting that plenty of people aged 75 and over will never need home support or specialized care. It has also forgotten that plenty of people between the ages of 65 and 74 do need specialized care and home support. That has been completely erased from the government's reasoning. These people do not receive a penny, even though their needs are just as great, if not greater, than some people aged 75 and over.
The other argument that would, according to the government, justify an increase for those aged 75 and over is that seniors aged 65 to 74 are healthy enough to work and have an income that could meet the needs they or their spouse might eventually have. This is also true in some cases, but not always.
Those over the age of 65 who want to work quickly realize that they are paying out of their own pocket to do so. This is because they are taxed at a higher rate, one that is closer to the rate paid by single people, when they have paid taxes all their lives. What is more, if they earn a little too much money or a little more—and we are not talking about astronomical amounts here—their old age pension is reduced.
We are talking here about double taxation that does nothing to encourage people to work. I would like to remind the House that the Century Initiative strongly suggested that the government encourage people between the ages of 65 and 74 to stay in the workforce. Is giving more money to people aged 75 and up another roundabout way to respond to this suggestion by the Century Initiative? One has to wonder.
As I said, those aged 65 and up who want to work and who are in good enough health to do so are held back by double taxation. Bill C-319 makes it possible for those people who want to work—and not everyone does—to do so and to earn more money before cuts are made to their old age pension. The bill would increase the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000. That is not a huge amount, but it can make all the difference for someone who does not have much income. In fact, $6,000 is practically a bonanza for such people.
Seniors should never have to work if they do not want to, if they are not healthy enough to work. It should always be a choice. These individuals have worked their entire lives, whether they were paid on the job market or they volunteered. People always forget to include the value of volunteering. It is a lot of money. Rather than paying someone $30, $40 or $50 to deliver meals, we can ask a volunteer to do it. At the same time, that volunteer helps another senior come out of isolation and ensure that the senior is in good shape. Volunteering is worth a fortune, but it is never counted in our calculations. It is invisible work.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that the government's measure to increase pensions for seniors aged 75 and over is discriminatory in two ways. It discriminates by age, and that is obvious, I think. When the old age security program was put in place, it was universal. When someone turned 65, they could start receiving their old age pension. It was universal.
Now they decide to create two categories of seniors. It is discriminatory because historically women are the ones who had lower incomes. They are the ones who often end up without an RRSP for a variety of reasons. I know a woman who had to cash in her RRSPs because she could no longer work at age 45 after a workplace accident. At 65, her RRSP was completely depleted and she was left with $600 a month to live on with a $400 rent to pay. She is still lucky that her rent is only $400, but that leaves her with just $200 for everything else.
Bill C‑319 seeks to correct this mistake that was made by the government. Let us not forget that aging is a part of life. When we help our seniors live with dignity, live well and have social activities, essentially, we are helping our own children by extension. Eventually, they will be old, like us, and will need support. We never know what life has in store for us. Becoming a senior and having to skip meals or eat soda crackers for supper is not living with dignity.
