Bill C-319

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and 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.

[Hélène Cornellier, Political Affairs Advisor, Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify as part of your work on Bill C‑319.

The mission of the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, is to defend equality between women and men at all levels of society. Founded in 1966, it has 5,400 members, the vast majority of whom are aged 65 or over. Over the years, it has worked on many issues, such as women's financial security, including in retirement.

Between 2020 and 2021, Statistics Canada noted a 2.5% increase in the number of people aged 65 or over living below the poverty line. This is the largest increase for any age group in Canada.

There are three main factors that affect women more than men and put them at greater risk of financial precariousness: lower income, isolation and non-recognition of unpaid work.

A study on the situation of the elderly in Quebec shows that senior women rely more than men on public retirement programs. For women, such programs account for an average of 47% of their income, compared to just 31% for men. This gap is due to lower wages earned by women, who are mostly confined to undervalued jobs; lack of pay equity and more frequent absences from the workforce due to family obligations also play a role.

In addition, other studies show that women, elderly caregivers, people on low incomes, indigenous seniors, immigrants, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and people living in rural or remote areas are more likely to experience isolation. The consequences of this isolation are not negligible, both for these people and for communities and governments in terms of services and costs.

Moreover, many older people offer help within the family, such as babysitting during school vacations or strikes, or looking after frail loved ones so that they receive the best care and can ideally remain in their own homes. This essential help for relatives is not without additional expense for the elderly, whose low incomes are, for many of them, already stretched to the limit.

For AFEAS, Bill C‑319 is a first step in reversing the discrimination towards some seniors created by the 2021 budget measure that increased pensions by 10% for those aged 75 or over, but forgot about those aged 65 to 74. This bill also aims to help seniors who are still working out of precariousness and poverty by raising to $6,500 the work income eligible under the guaranteed income supplement program.

In addition to supporting Bill C‑319, given the less favourable situation of older women, AFEAS makes the following recommendations to the Government of Canada. Firstly, it should undertake any changes to retirement programs based on a comparative analysis of their impact on both sexes. It should also base the calculation of retirement programs on personal income, not family income, to preserve women's autonomy. AFEAS also recommends that the federal government pay a supplement to the basic old-age pension to women who have taken care of children or relatives who are losing their autonomy. In addition, the federal government should index old age pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and all other retirement-related income replacement measures to the cost of living. Finally, it should ensure that public pension plans pay all retired people minimum retirement benefits equivalent to the after-tax low-income cut-off.

In closing, AFEAS would like the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to recommend the adoption of Bill C‑319, and do everything in their power to ensure that the House of Commons and the Senate do the same, and as quickly as possible. We ask for this on behalf of Canadian seniors.

I thank you all for listening.

Please note that we will submit a brief today at the end of the day.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to the amount of a full pension.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually.

I would like to take a few moments to review a couple of points before we hear from the witnesses. You have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. For interpretation in the room, you can use the interpretation services with the headset. For those appearing virtually, if you click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, you will be able to choose the official language of your choice.

If there is a disruption in interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand, or virtually use the “raise hand” icon, and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. As well, I would like to remind members, especially those in the room, to please keep their earpiece away from the mic as it can cause popping on the sound system, which can cause injury to the interpreters. As much as possible, speak as slowly as possible for the benefit of the interpreters.

With us today in the room we have Mr. Ben Catenaccio, as an individual. From the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale, we have Hélène Cornellier, political affairs adviser. From the Quebec Association of Retirees from the Public and Parapublic Sectors, we have Paul-René Roy, the provincial president.

We will begin with Mr. Catenaccio for five minutes.

Mr. Catenaccio, you can choose to make an opening statement, but if you don't, it's fine.

Do you wish to make an opening statement, Mr. Catenaccio?

[Isobel Mackenzie, Seniors Advocate, Office of the Seniors Advocate of British Columbia]

Thank you very much, and thank you to the committee for inviting my testimony.

I am the seniors advocate for the Province of British Columbia. This is a statutory office of the provincial government with a legislated mandate to monitor services to seniors, undertake systemic reviews and make recommendations to government on how to improve supports and services for B.C. seniors. In addition to health care, housing and transportation, income support is also included within my mandate.

Currently, for the most part, it is the federal government that has assumed the role of providing an income for retired Canadians through the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan.

I'm just going to give some quantification or numbers to some of the stories that previous speakers, like Laura, and speakers in previous sessions spoke to.

A Canadian retiree who is wholly dependent on their public pensions—meaning they're getting the average amount of CPP and getting a little bit of GIS and OAS—will have an annual income of $24,000 if they're 75 and under, or a little bit more than $25,000 if they're over 75.

If a senior has very little or no CPP, they'll receive the maximum GIS, and their total income will be $22,500 if they're under 75, or $23,400 if they're 75 and older.

I want to point out that in all cases, the income they will receive is well below the income of a person who's working at minimum wage in any territory or province in this country.

Most Canadian retirees do provide some private pension, either from their RRSP or their workplace pension, but the additional amount is very limited, as the overall median income—so 50% of seniors in this country—is very low.

In British Columbia, which mirrors Canada for the most part, the median income of a senior is $33,000. In our province, that is still below minimum wage, the rate at which 6% of the labour force is employed. Most stunningly, it is 65% lower than the median income of the working-age population aged 35 to 55.

Many have referred to the market-based measure of poverty, and Aiman did that as well. I would challenge that it is not the best tool to look at. Laura has spoken to some of the reasons why, but there's another reason, which is that it is a threshold where, if you're a dollar above it, you're off. When you look at seniors, they are very clustered around that poverty line. Therefore, it's counterintuitive that 7% of seniors live in poverty as defined by the market-based measure, but almost half of seniors are living on an income below minimum wage. I think that is something that is underestimated by a lot of policy-makers.

Using median incomes—not average, because they reflect a small group of higher income-earning seniors—is arguably a better measure of the actual poverty within our seniors population.

Those who have testified before me have spoken of the challenges that seniors are facing with the rising costs and with incomes that are not able to keep pace with inflation. Laura has told you the story of the senior in Ottawa, and the speakers in the session before me were also talking a lot about that.

My office does hear increasingly from seniors around affordability issues, most particularly food. For those who rent, it's the cost of rental housing, which is not surprising, given that B.C. is home to the most expensive housing market in the country.

We also do hear from a large number of seniors on dental care costs, which is why I'm so very pleased with the new federal dental plan, and I expect that this will address many of the concerns we've been hearing.

The stories we hear of seniors living with very limited incomes are, of course, very distressing. The numbers would indicate that these experiences are not only very real but being felt by a larger number of seniors than we might anticipate, particularly those two out of 10 seniors who are renters, not homeowners.

Obviously, I wholly support the provisions of Bill C-319 to raise the OAS for those aged 65 to 75 by 10%, for all of the reasons the previous speaker has spoken of, and I don't need to repeat those.

What I would do is further challenge the committee members to use their influence to look at including CPP in the earnings exemption.

In the previous session, one of your members spoke to providing an incentive for people over 65 who are able to work to continue to work. That's why we have the earnings exemption for GIS. That's true, and that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that we're penalizing those who can't work.

To put this in perspective, if I am 66 years of age, and if I defer my CPP and I earn $6,500 a year from employment, my total income will be $27,400. That's my OAS, my top GIS and my $6,500 in employment income.

If I am 72 years of age—

[Alessandro Casbarro, Co-Founder, Bridges of Love York Region]

Thank you.

My name is Alessandro Casbarro and I am honoured to represent Bridges of Love of York Region, a seniors non-profit organization committed to enhancing the lives of seniors in our community. Our organization operates on the fundamental belief that every senior deserves to age in place with dignity, independence and respect.

Bridges of Love of York Region provides snow removal and lawn maintenance services to seniors in need, allowing them to remain in their homes and age in place comfortably. Our team works tirelessly to ensure seniors have the support they need to navigate the challenges of aging while maintaining their autonomy and quality of life. Through our programs and services, we strive to create a supportive community where seniors feel valued, engaged and empowered.

In our work, we have had the privilege of engaging with countless seniors in our community and listening to their stories, concerns and aspirations. As we all know, Canada's senior population is growing rapidly. With that, the challenges they face are becoming increasingly complex. Expenses for basic necessities such as housing, utilities, groceries and health care continue to rise, often outpacing the income of our seniors, especially those reliant on fixed incomes like old age security pensions.

In recent years, we have witnessed a disturbing trend where many seniors are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to make difficult decisions between paying for essential needs and compromising their quality of life. This is particularly concerning as it directly impacts their ability to age in place with dignity and independence, which is a fundamental principle we strive to uphold.

One of the most distressing consequences of this financial strain is the prospect of seniors having to sell their homes, which they have worked so hard to obtain and maintain over the years. For many seniors, their homes represent a place of comfort, stability and cherished moments. It is where they have raised families, celebrated milestones and built their lives. The thought of having to part with their homes due to financial constraints is deeply distressing for seniors, as it not only disrupts their sense of security and stability but also severs the ties to their community and support networks. Selling one's home is often seen as a last resort for seniors—a decision made out of necessity rather than choice, one that can have profound emotional and psychological impacts.

At Bridges of Love of York Region, we firmly believe that seniors should not have to face the prospect of selling their homes simply to afford basic necessities or cover rising expenses. Our homes are more than just bricks and mortar. They are symbols of our hard work, perseverance and the memories we hold dear.

By increasing the amount of the full pension provided to seniors under the Old Age Security Act, as proposed in Bill C-319, we can help alleviate some of the financial burdens faced by seniors and ensure they can afford to remain in their homes with dignity and independence. This is not just about financial assistance. It is about honouring the contributions and sacrifices made by our seniors and affirming their right to age in place.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the profound impact that the rising cost of living has had on the well-being of our seniors and to support measures that enhance their financial security and independence. By prioritizing the needs of our aging population, we can build a more inclusive and compassionate society for all Canadians.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will continue its study on Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually by Zoom.

I want to take a moment to review procedure.

Those attending in the room and by Zoom have the option of speaking in the official language of their choice. Use interpretation services with the headphones in the room. Those appearing virtually can use the globe icon on the bottom of their screen and select the official language of their choice. If there's an issue with interpretation, please get my attention by raising your hand or using the “raise hand” icon on your screen. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

Please address all questions through the chair. To get my attention, simply raise your hand or use the “raise hand” icon.

I also want to advise members in the room to keep their earpiece away from the mic when they're not using it and to keep their phone away from their microphone, because this can cause issues with the interpreters' hearing. We do not want any of them to have any issues.

I know one can get passionate from time to time, but if you can remember to speak slowly for the benefit of the translators, that would be good, as well.

With that, I would now like to introduce our witnesses for the first panel.

We welcome Mr. Pierre-Claude Poulin, of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées.

Welcome.

As well, from Bridges of Love of York Region, we have Mr. Casbarro here in the room. Welcome.

As you know, each of you has five minutes to give an opening statement.

Go ahead, Mr. Poulin.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the opposition parties for allowing Bill C‑319 to pass through the House. We now have an opportunity to look at some fundamental issues that I hear less about in the discussions between the two parties.

Mr. Poirier-Monette, what is the impact of the fact that a fixed income such as the old age security pension has not been increased for seniors aged 65 to 74?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as we study Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Perhaps I can start with you, Mr. Janeiro.

Can I call you James? Okay. It's great to see you again.

I think what we're hearing here today is that obviously seniors are in dire straits. Basically, there are so many people in dire straits. Our seniors seem to be more on the vulnerable end of that position. Your testimony today was about primarily caregivers. I think a lot of us here who have aging parents—and those who are watching—know, and it hit home. I saw a lot of nods as you were giving your testimony.

This bill is saying to increase old age from $5,000 to $6,500 a year, which seems so minimal, I'll be honest with you, in a cost of living crisis, which you touched on. When have you ever seen inflation or a cost of living crisis be this bad in your time of working in this industry?

[Philippe Poirier-Monette]

Yes, many things can be proposed.

As Ms. Tassé-Goodman said in her remarks, provisions could be added to Bill C‑319 on the method of indexing old age security, among other things. That pension is indexed to the consumer price index, or CPI, while wage growth is about an additional percentage point above that index.

Simply put, the old age security pension currently replaces about 15% of the average wage. However, because of the method of indexing this pension, the replacement rate decreases over time. Therefore, in 10, 15, 20 years, the amount of the old age security pension would represent a smaller percentage of the average salary.

This is problematic because old age security is the first pillar of retirement. It represents the universal plan, which is supplemented by the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan and personal savings. Since that is the foundation, it has to be solid.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses who have come today.

I really appreciate the gender lens that's been put on some of this in the discussion today. We know that women are punished for caring for family earlier on in their careers and there's also the wage gap. I really appreciate the light that's been shone on that.

There's also the fact that seniors are still working in paid and unpaid work, and certainly in care. There is a lot of unpaid care that's done by seniors.

This is an opportunity, as this comes to committee, to talk about amendments that could potentially come into this bill.

I will ask Mr. Janeiro first.

If there was an opportunity to amend this bill to include something else that is important at this time, is there anything that you would propose?

I also want to know your thoughts on this: The NDP has been asking for some grace period. A lot of times, seniors don't get their income tax filed on time. They can lose their entitlements because they didn't get their income tax in.

I think this might be an opportunity, as we open Bill C-319, to make sure that we also give seniors some grace period. If they become sick or they are caring for a loved one, the income tax falls to the wayside and they lose their entitlements. It seems unfair.

Mr. Janeiro, would you mind giving your thoughts on that?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here to discuss this important bill. I would like to disagree with a number of the comments I've just heard, but that's not the basis of my intervention.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fair treatment for all seniors. Old age security in Canada is a universal program, subject to a few conditions. However, in my opinion, the decision was made for the first time to create a gap in the program by distinguishing people aged 65 to 74 from people aged 75 and over, without taking into account the reality of seniors. The bill corrects this unfair treatment based on age, which is a form of discrimination because it does not at all take into account the needs of people aged 65 to 74.

Ms. Tassé-Goodman, you supported Bill C‑319 long before the Liberal government decided to increase old age security, which it had promised to do, but only for seniors aged 75 and over. Not a day goes by without your members asking you when there will be fair treatment for people aged 65 to 74.

What are people telling you and what motivations lead you to support this bill?

[Professor Arthur Sweetman, Professor, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

As background, I’d like to start by considering low income in Canada.

Using the market basket measure, in 2019, 10.3% of persons in Canada fell below the low-income threshold. Those under the age of18, at 9.4%, were somewhat less likely to be low income than the average. Those between the ages of 18 and 64 had an above average low-income rate of 11.8%. Of relevance today, those aged 65 and over, at 5.7%, had the lowest likelihood of being in low income among these three age groups.

While there are individuals over age 65 who have low incomes, Canadian programs have been very successful in reducing low-income rates for this age group to below that of society as a whole.

Turning to Bill C-319, as I understand it, two changes are proposed. I will focus on them in turn.

The first will increase what I call the earnings disregards for the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. Since 2020, the two disregards have been $5,000 each. Current GIS recipients face a three-stage regime. In stage one, the first $5,000 in annual earnings have no effect on their GIS benefit; in stage two, the next $10,000 in earnings are taxed at a maximum of 50%, and second, there's $5,000 disregard. In stage three, earnings beyond $15,000 are taxed at 100% to the full amount of the GIS.

The bill proposes to increase both the stage one and stage two disregards to $6,500 while retaining the stage two tax rate of 50%. This implies that GIS recipients would be able to earn up to $6,500 per year without their GIS amount being affected and that they would then face a 50% tax rate on earnings between $6,500 and $19,500. Beyond $19,500, they would face 100% tax rate. Of course, the eligibility threshold for GIS is not much above $19,500 for a single individual.

I see two obvious motivations for this proposed change. The first would be to provide additional income to low-income seniors who are already earning more than $5,000 per year. The second would be to incentivize low-income seniors to increase their labour supply. However, among low-income seniors, those with the lowest pre-retirement incomes are least likely to work post age 65, so those with more disadvantaged backgrounds are least likely to benefit from this change.

Also, previous changes to the GIS appear to have had modest impacts on changing labour supply among GIS recipients. I suspect that this proposal would similarly have a positive but very modest impact on earnings.

Overall, while the potential policy change will probably not have much impact on extreme poverty, it will benefit those who are low income and who already earn more than $5,000 per year. I therefore see this as worthwhile since it will help some low-income working seniors. It rewards work and hopefully incentivizes it.

Turning to the second part of the bill, it proposes to increase OAS payments to those aged between 65 and 74 by 10%. Over 95% of individuals in this age category receive at least some OAS income, so this part of the policy change is not exclusively targeted at low-income seniors.

Compared to the first part of the bill, this is a much more expensive proposal for taxpayers. My best guess, derived from calculations based on an Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ report, is that this policy change would cost between 0.15% and 0.2% of GDP. This is a very rough guess, and it's also a very big number.

Further, in terms of labour market incentives, although any effect is likely to be small, I expect it to decrease rather than increase labour supply and earnings. A greater concern is that it’s not obvious that the federal government currently has sufficient fiscal capacity to undertake an expenditure such as this while simultaneously building, for example, a robust pharmacare program. I think the opportunity cost of the funds for this second policy change need to be considered very carefully. Undoubtedly Canadians’ views will differ, but I think that many, including many seniors, would find greater dignity in and prefer alternatives such as spending money on improved health care rather this non-targeted increase to OAS payments.

If, additionally, we are worried about seniors living with dignity and avoiding low income—or, more broadly than low income, avoiding poverty—then a targeted proposal would be preferable to this broad-brush approach.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, President, Provincial Secretariat, Réseau FADOQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, my name is Gisèle Tassé-Goodman. I am the president of the Réseau FADOQ.

With me is Philippe Poirier-Monette, special advisor on government relations.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to comment on Bill C‑319.

The Réseau FADOQ is a group of people aged 50 and over with more than 550,000 members. In each of our interventions at the political level, we want to contribute to improving seniors' quality of life. At the outset, I must emphasize that Bill C-319 deals with a subject that is of great concern to seniors. Not a day goes by that our members do not ask us about the old age security pension or the guaranteed income supplement. So we are bringing their voices here today, in this committee.

In July 2022, old age security was increased by 10% on a permanent basis for those aged 75 and over. Enhancing this benefit was and continues to be necessary. However, people aged 65 to 74 do not understand why they are excluded from this increase. Currently, a person under the age of 75 receiving only the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement has an annual income of $21,345. A senior in this situation has an income that puts them below the official poverty line in Canada, which is based on the market basket measure. Let's remember that this index establishes the cost of a bare subsistence basket. It excludes things like dental care, eye care, as well as the purchase of medication, which are vital expenses for seniors.

Bill C-319 proposes to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% for those aged 65 to 74. The Réseau FADOQ supports this proposal, since financial distress has no age. This amendment will enable all persons aged 65 and over to access the same full pension amount, without age-based discrimination.

The other measure proposed by Bill C-319 is an increase in the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption for recipients. Currently, it is possible for these individuals to earn up to $5,000 in employment income while collecting all of the guaranteed income supplement benefits. For earnings between $5,000 and $15,000, a partial exemption applies. Over the past few years, the Government of Canada has increased the earnings exemption a few times, and every time, the Réseau FADOQ applauded that decision. This is a measure that reduces the effects of a tax trap that discourages guaranteed income supplement recipients from remaining in the labour market. In addition, in the context of a labour shortage, this measure would be well received.

Let's not forget that, during the last election campaign, the Government of Canada promised to introduce a tax credit for experienced workers. Since that tax credit has still not been implemented, increasing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption would be a step in the right direction.

In closing, we feel obliged to address two aspects that are not affected by Bill C-319.

During the 2021 election campaign, the federal government made a commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement. Three years later, seniors are still waiting. The Réseau FADOQ encourages the Government of Canada to keep its commitment.

Finally, we must also address the shortcomings in the way old age security is indexed. This program is indexed based on the consumer price index, while wages change about a percentage point faster. As a result, federal benefits will play an increasingly smaller role in the retirement income replacement rate in the future. Our organization is asking the government to revise the indexing method for the old age security program in order to take wage growth into account.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for listening to us. We look forward to your questions. Mr. Poirier-Monette will answer questions, and I will reserve the privilege of getting involved.

Thank you.

[James Janeiro, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the invitation and the opportunity to speak this morning as part of your study on this very important bill.

I am James Janeiro and I'm with the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence. We are a pan-Canadian organization focused on caregivers, which is to say parents, siblings, friends, neighbours and the like, as well as care providers such as personal support workers and direct support professionals who support people with disabilities all across our country. Our goal is to make Canada the best place in the world to give and receive care.

The intent of Bill C-319 is to raise the pension incomes of retired Canadians. This is both timely and urgently necessary, in our opinion. The National Institute on Ageing recently released their 2023 “Aging in Canada” survey results. This survey of Canadians 50 and over has helped illuminate what caregivers across the country already know: Seniors are feeling the financial pinch resulting from the ongoing cost of living crisis. An overwhelming 70% of survey respondents reported that they are concerned with the rising cost of living, and nearly 50% worry about running out of money. Sadly, over one-third reported worrying about a reduction in pension or other government benefits.

This problem of pinched household budgets due to the cost of living crisis becomes even more urgent when the low-income senior is also a caregiver. One in four Canadians are caregivers today and half of us will be a caregiver at some point in our lives. Today, in 2024, women in Canada are just as likely as not to be a caregiver already. For many of these caregivers, financial distress is at the top of their very long list of struggles. Mercilessly increasing grocery and other bills has made an already difficult situation much worse. Recent data shows that nearly two-thirds of caregivers reported financial hardship last year due to their care responsibilities.

A recent survey conducted by us at the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence found that over two-thirds of people receiving care in Canada are themselves seniors. In addition, approximately 20% of caregivers are also seniors. Of those senior caregivers, 80% care for other seniors, such as wives, adult children, husbands or even their parents. For these seniors, struggling through the already threadbare social safety net designed to help them is part of their daily reality.

Statistically, senior caregivers are mostly women and they have likely had to take time off work at some point in their lives to have children or to care for somebody else. This means they lost out on years of CPP contributions, which continues to punish them for caring for others through lower CPP payments well into their senior years. Imagine worrying about how to pay the rent or feed your ailing wife while also bathing her and coping with cognitive decline. Unfortunately, this is the daily reality of nearly a third of caregivers in their older years, who reported some kind of economic strain due to their care responsibilities.

Seniors are crying out for solutions. We spent the last year advocating for the Canada caregiver credit to be converted into a refundable tax credit. While out of the scope of this study, it would certainly help, as would the provisions in this bill, which would go a long way towards solving the cost of living crisis for seniors.

We strongly endorse this bill. Seniors helped build Canada and are often called upon to look after others during what should be their years of rest and relaxation. The least we can do is adjust our very successful national programs like the CPP to meet the challenges of the current crisis and make sure seniors' lives are a little easier.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee is back in session.

I would like to welcome the following witnesses for the study of Bill C-319.

From the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence, we have James Janeiro, director, policy and government relations. From Réseau FADOQ, we have Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, president, provincial secretariat, and Philippe Poirier-Monette, special adviser, government relations. As an individual appearing virtually, we have Arthur Sweetman, professor, McMaster University.

We'll begin with a five-minute opening statement from Mr. Janeiro.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, I'm giving my opening remarks now, but I'll answer questions later.

Good morning, everyone.

Dear committee members, thank you for having me this morning so we can look at Bill C‑319 together. It's a relatively simple but vital piece of legislation aimed at improving the financial situation of seniors during really tough economic times.

At the heart of the bill is a two-pronged approach to addressing seniors' needs. First, the bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists in our system. This bill would increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and older are entitled to by 10%. This will correct a glaring injustice, as, since 2022, only seniors aged 75 and over have been receiving the 10% increase, leaving a large portion of all pensioners in a precarious financial situation.

Second, the bill would raise the exemption for a person's earnings taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. This means that each recipient aged 65 and older will have an extra $1,500 in their pocket each year. That's significant financial support in an environment where prices are rising exponentially.

Recognizing that this is an urgent issue is crucial. More than 7.25 million Canadian seniors and 1.8 million Quebec seniors benefit from the old age security program. Given that more than 3.7 million Canadians are between the ages of 65 and 74, enhancing the old age security program is imperative. Support meant only for people aged 75 and over helps only 2.8 million people. It is missing the mark by helping a minority of seniors and abandoning the majority of them. We need to take action to support seniors, who have made an important contribution to our society.

The facts speak for themselves. We see seniors spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and food, expenses that have gone up significantly. In addition, an alarming number of seniors find themselves in situations where housing absorbs too much of their income, making their daily lives even more difficult.

It's also important to note that poverty among seniors is a worrisome reality. In 2020, 13% of seniors were living in poverty, a rate higher than that of all other age groups. It's our responsibility to ensure that seniors can live with dignity after dedicating their lives to the well-being of our society.

Finally, we must consider the financial cost of this bill. The proposed increase in benefits represents a significant investment, estimated at $16 billion over several years, but we must consider it an investment in our society and in the dignity of seniors.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I will say that Bill C‑319 is a crucial opportunity to correct injustices and support seniors in tough economic times. We can't turn our backs on those who have given so much to our society. Approving this bill signals that we value seniors and are committed to ensuring their well-being in the years to come.

This debate and this battle have been going on for a long time. Long before I entered politics, I knew seniors were in distress. Between 2007 and 2011, I worked as a staffer, and even then I noticed that many of the people in financial distress who came to the office were seniors. After that, I worked in community groups. We talked about abuse and poverty. The message I'm sending now with this bill is that we want to help the seniors who are struggling the most and will not give in to gloomy pessimism.

Seniors who are willing and able can also help address another problem we're facing: the labour shortage. As some of them reminded us, they want to contribute to society and stay in the labour market, but, under the current system, they're penalized if they do so.

My bill would really do two essential things. One, it would allow seniors who are willing and able to keep working, since there are lots of benefits to that, and, two, it would give seniors a little extra help from their old age security pension.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.