Human Resources committee  No.

Human Resources committee  That's tolerable. We're doing it one step at a time. The proposed threshold is $6,500, but ideally, retirees who are prepared to work and not receive the GIS should be able to offset it without being penalized too much. They should get some benefits.

Human Resources committee  Yes. Having lived in several countries, I know that Canada is held up as an example around the world. When countries, whether in Africa or elsewhere, are developing programs, they look at what Canada is doing. When Canada begins to discriminate between poor retirees by allowing those aged 75 to receive an increase in their pension, but not those aged 65, it fails to reflect the usual image it projects abroad, or to our families.

Human Resources committee  Retirees live under the poverty line. Their income is not sustainable. So there ought to be some way for them to achieve a sustainable income and they should receive benefits to do so. They should not receive the GIS until they have achieved the sustainable income threshold. That's an essential condition.

Human Resources committee  In the document we tabled, one of the potential solutions was to achieve a sustainable income. A sustainable income can be obtained through work or increased benefits. However, those who are working need to receive benefits. They need tax credits, or at least not to have their GIS benefits cut, to ensure that they can achieve a sustainable income rather than live at the poverty line.

Human Resources committee  The morale of those who had planned to retire when they were 65 has taken a hit. High-income earners are generally not affected. In fact, they also get a pension from their employer. This therefore tops up the pension from their employer. Conversely, for factory workers things are extremely tough.

Human Resources committee  The priority is to increase the OAS because 10% of retirees who received a pension do not get the guaranteed income supplement and will never have access to it. The only way for them to increase their income and change their circumstances would be through an increase in the OAS.

Human Resources committee  We are currently conducting surveys to collect actual numbers and comments from our members who return to the workforce, but I'm not in a position to give you any numbers yet. We'll be able to provide that information within a few months. Nevertheless, there are indeed people who return to work or who simply never retire.

Human Resources committee  Of course.

Human Resources committee  Mainly because of a shortage of income. I talked about municipal taxation, for instance. Municipal taxes have been increasing significantly. There are cities in Quebec where they have increased by 9%. Those who are only receiving benefits from the Régime de rentes du Québec, or the CPP and OAS, only have these small amounts indexed.

Human Resources committee  Many tax credits are not refundable and an income tax return has to be filed in order to use them. As I'm not a specialist, I can't give you an answer with respect to refundable tax credits. However, I know that for non-refundable credits, invoices and income statements are required for eligibility.

Human Resources committee  Definitely. Moreover, it's extremely important to consider those who have become homeless. Retirees who have lost their home or their business and are living in dire circumstances or affected by a serious illness no longer have an address and squat just about anywhere. It's very difficult for them.

Human Resources committee  At our association, members are deliriously happy when they can at least have basic dental care for things like having their teeth cleaned. I'd like to point out that the 49% of seniors who don't have to pay taxes can't deduct dental care expenses. With a low income of $21,000, it's not unusual for many of them to have their teeth pulled and replaced with dentures.

Human Resources committee  In 1927, when elected representatives created old age security in Canada, they had good intentions. When they reformed it all in 1966, along with the pension plan, they again had good intentions. However, economic sustainability, mindfulness and foresight with a view to enhancing old age security were not on the agenda.

Human Resources committee  Generally speaking, the members we represent need the GIS because they are not receiving a pension from their employer. Nevertheless, it can't be denied that the government introduced this measure to support retirees, and based it on an economic indicator. Is it the right one? I believe that it's at least a first step.