44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 4, 2023 02:00PM
- Oct/4/23 3:46:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a supplementary report to the report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
This supplementary report is the result of an unwillingness by the Liberal-NDP coalition to take firm action to rein in the outrageous spending by the Office of the Governor General, which demonstrates a callous disrespect for Canadian taxpayers through lavish spending on catering and clothing. It is timely given the news today that the Office of the Governor General has spent $117,000 in dry cleaning since 2018. This should not be allowed to continue, let alone softly approved by a lack of action to end it.
The trust of Canadians must be restored in the role of the Governor General. The best way to do that is to take strong measures to address this overspending at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. That is why Conservatives are recommending the following: reforming the Governor General's pension to match the pension of an MP, as former governors general receive a pension of roughly $150,000 per year regardless of the length of time in office; ending the clothing allowance; ending the expense account for former governors general; and legislating a requirement for the Office of the Governor General to publish on its website an annual report on its activities, including its financial statements, similar to that of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General of Australia.
The government must act to restore Canadians' trust in the institution of the Office of the Governor General.
259 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, nearly a hundred years ago, Canada's first public pension plan was established. It was 1927, and the Old Age Pensions Act was enacted. The simple goal was to ensure that men and women aged 70 and over would have a basic income. Years later, in 1952, the Old Age Security Act came into force and replaced the act of 1927.
This important change marked the birth of a pension financed by our government. Like the population of Canada, the program has grown and evolved over the years. Canadians have grown, and so has the old age security program. It goes without saying that the old age security program has adapted to the needs of Canada's elderly population and continues to do so today.
As we all know already, we increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older. This officially came into effect last year. It was the first permanent increase to the OAS pension since 1973. It is giving older seniors greater financial security now and into the future.
Most importantly, it will continue to be indexed to inflation, so that it maintains its value over time. This increase was the smart thing to do, because many seniors aged 75 and over are facing greater financial vulnerability than younger seniors are.
As they get older, many seniors must deal with health issues. Illness appears, and that entails more expenses. Many seniors are not working much or even not at all.
Not everyone benefits from a pension plan from their employer. Moreover, let us not forget the risk of finding oneself alone following the loss of one’s life partner. These are all situations that can deplete personal savings. The older we get, the more likely these situations are to happen.
For example, in 2018, among the population aged 65 to 74, more than three out of 10 Canadians had employment income. When we look at those aged 75 and older, it drops by more than half, for fewer than two out of 10 Canadians.
Now we have Bill C-319 before us. It is a great piece of legislation. However, it is clear to us that it is not in sync with the demographic information we have and that I have just given. OAS is a proven program, and so are the measures we have been taking to improve it.
Yes, the old age security program continues to evolve. This new system has been in preparation since at least 2021, even though we committed to it in our budget. It clearly became a priority in 2022, after almost two years of the pandemic, which made us acutely aware that it was high time to put in place a modernized platform for payment of benefits.
Here we are, in the middle of the modernization process. This is another reason that it is impossible for us to support Bill C-319, and I will explain.
It would not be possible to implement the bill within the specified time frame. Its implementation would require us to make complex modifications to the existing IT system. The entire essential deployment and stabilization of the old age security program on the modernized platform would then be compromised.
We cannot take such a risk. We cannot do anything that would jeopardize this modernization process.
As I said, this process is a priority. The OAS program keeps evolving, and we cannot jeopardize this evolution, this modernization. It is an integral part of the whole process we have undertaken since 2015 to improve Canadian seniors' financial security. Without a doubt, we have demonstrated how serious we are about supporting seniors.
We have an interesting debate today regarding old age security. It is a debate that allows us to see, once again, to what extent we are already taking the actions that must be taken to ensure the well-being of older Canadians.
Nearly a hundred years ago, Canada began laying the foundations of its retirement income system, and the old age security program was one of these foundations. Since then, the program has evolved to meet the needs of Canadians; today, we are ensuring that it continues to evolve in this way.
704 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second hour of the second reading debate on Bill C-319.
I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill. It continues to spark important conversations. That is because we are constantly looking at how best to support older persons in Canada. Not everyone needs the same kind of help. Seniors themselves would agree.
To demonstrate my point, I give an example from Manchester, United Kingdom. A communications campaign in 2020 called “Valuable, not vulnerable” highlighted contributions of older people in the pandemic response. It featured those who performed jobs in person on the front lines, those who volunteered in their communities and those who took on caregiver roles. The campaign successfully countered the idea that an entire group should not be labelled as frail or vulnerable, and the slogan was picked up around the world, including here in Canada.
I bring this up because I want to underline that our government chose to raise the OAS pension for seniors 75 and over, and it was a good choice. It was based on data. It helped avoid lumping all seniors into the same category. As we know, the evidence tells us that seniors 75 and over are more likely to be vulnerable in certain circumstances. They are more likely to need more support.
As the Minister of Employment said to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, this policy step was a very big step. The decision to increase the OAS pension for older seniors was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that are known to happen more often at age 75 and upward.
Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. We know financial needs increase in this age group, and in 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those 65 to 74. There are also more women in the 75 and over category than men. As well, there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian disability survey in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability, compared to 32% of those in the younger group. That is quite a jump.
That is why our government increased the OAS pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Budget 2021 provided a one-time payment of $500 to OAS pensioners who were 75 or over as of June 2022. We then increased OAS payments for pensioners aged 75 and over by 10% on an ongoing basis as of July 2022. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They will receive more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed, so it will continue to go up.
I want to turn to another matter that has been commented on in this House and that we need to consider with Bill C-319. That is the critical work that is under way to modernize the IT infrastructure that supports the OAS program. Canada's IT infrastructure has been aging faster than the pace of repairs or replacements. By investing the time and money to fix this infrastructure, our government is ensuring key programs like the old age security program and employment insurance will continue to be delivered in the timely way Canadians deserve.
These system changes were spurred on by the pandemic. We realize a modernized benefits delivery platform is crucial so that we are able to target support when Canadians need it the most. We hope to ensure all Canadians are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled.
The timelines for Bill C-319 do not take into account the ongoing work. If passed, the bill would require complex changes to the existing OAS legacy system that would in turn jeopardize the critical deployment and stabilization of OAS onto the new platform.
The benefits delivery modernization work has been under way since budget 2021 provided nearly $650 million for Employment and Social Development Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat to undertake it. In this year's supplementary estimates (C), our government is planning for nearly $1.3 billion in expenditures related to the workforce capacity for OAS and to modernize the IT infrastructure that hosts it.
As I mentioned, Bill C-319, if passed, would require various system changes to the legacy OAS system. The earliest recommended date to introduce policy changes that would require IT system changes is after September 2025, once the deployment of OAS onto the new system has been properly stabilized.
What is more, in October 2022, the then minister of families, children and social development confirmed that safely onboarding OAS is a number one priority. The Canadian population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing age group and we need to consider how best to support them, knowing that older Canadians are valuable and that some are vulnerable, just as we would find in any age group. Bill C-319 is not ideal. Our government already has a good plan to support older Canadians, and work is under way. In fact, we have been supporting seniors since 2015.
Most recently, in budget 2023, we introduced a one-time grocery rebate to help offset the rising cost of food for eligible seniors. In addition, budget 2023 provides funds to implement the Canadian dental care plan. This plan provides dental coverage for uninsured low- to medium-income Canadians, including seniors. This means that no Canadian will ever have to choose between taking care of their oral health and paying the bills at the end of the month. These measures are in addition to the steps already taken by our government, which include returning the age of eligibility for the OAS pension and the GIS to 65 from 67; enhancing the GIS for the lowest-income seniors, which benefited 900,000 seniors and contributed to lifting 45,000 seniors out of poverty; increasing the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 plus, based on good data; and, of course, indexing all our key benefits, so they keep pace with the cost of living and never decrease.
Supporting seniors has been and will always be a top priority for the government. Our seniors have built the country that we know and love today, and they are the backbone of Canadian society. We will always have our seniors' backs.
1083 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what can I say in five minutes to close out this second hour of debate at second reading of this important bill, Bill C‑319? The text of the bill amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled by 10%. It also amends the act to raise the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
I venture to call it “important” because that is what I have been hearing all summer. Yes, I admit that I set out on a mission this summer and travelled to all four corners of Quebec. I heard the discontent of some seniors and the despair of others, but above all, I heard people asking me to do everything in my power to ensure that the majority of MPs in the House vote in favour of Bill C‑319.
First of all, let us not forget that, for years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID‑19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic: isolation, anxiety, financial hardship, and so on.
I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. I repeat myself because I believe it: I want seniors to be treated with dignity, like the grey power they are. Right now, old age security benefits fall far short of offsetting the decline in purchasing power or the dramatic rise in housing and food costs.
With inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.
In May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan, the Department of Employment and Social Development published a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising initiatives”. After identifying the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors, the study proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce. Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Since life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past, let us make this happen.
We are also seeing the growing distress of small and medium-sized businesses that are desperately looking for workers, as well the closure of many businesses and the devitalization of certain communities and regions. We must take action.
I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, it has contented itself with half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the most difficult times of the pandemic. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect and very minimal effects of this hastily put together aid.
In budget 2021, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; they affect all recipients. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors. In 2021, there were nearly 2.8 million people 75 and over, compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice. This bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. The one-time $500 cheque for people 75 and over in August 2021 did not fix anything.
In closing, Bill C‑319 will improve the financial situation of seniors and eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists. Seniors who live on a fixed income are having trouble paying their bills because their daily expenses are going up faster than their pension benefits. Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged at $666.83 a month. Who can live on that?
The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in old age security for all seniors aged 65 and up, and has even pointed out that the government is discriminating against people aged 65 to 74.
I would like to say one last thing. The RQRA, Afeas, AREQ, AQRP and FADOQ, all of these Quebec organizations, and Quebeckers and Canadians are calling for this bill. Seniors are watching us and asking us not to make them pay the price of partisanship.
I invite my colleagues to take action for the dignity of seniors. I will see them on October 18 for the vote.
968 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
