CHRIS IN THE COMMONS: Protecting pensions and income security for seniors

Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be participating in this evening’s debate on motion M-300 which calls on the government to enhance access to, and the level of, GIS benefits for Canada’s poorest seniors.

Let me say at the outset that I fully support this motion.

In many ways, it mirrors the provisions of the NDP’s Seniors Charter, which I had the privilege of introducing on behalf of our Caucus in the last Parliament. That Charter guaranteed for seniors the right to an adequate income so that they could live their retirement with the dignity and respect they deserve. That motion passed with the overwhelming support of a majority of Members in this House. Ironically, the Conservatives supported my motion, while the Bloc unanimously voted against. Yet, here we are, with the Bloc underlining the importance of my motion by echoing its intent with a motion of its own, while the Conservatives are suddenly opposed. It’s enough to make anyone’s head spin.

But the bottom line is this. We have spent a lot of time in this chamber talking about the current economic downturn. We have talked a lot about the need to protect and create jobs. We have talked a lot about the need to support communities through infrastructure funding. And we have talked a lot about the need to improve employment insurance. What we haven’t spent nearly enough time talking about is the impact that this economic crisis is having on seniors, the truly innocent victims of this recession.

Even prior to the market collapse of last October, seniors were increasingly finding it difficult to make ends meet. They’ve worked hard all their lives, they’ve played by the rules, but everywhere they turn, every bill they open, they are paying more and getting less.

And now those financial difficulties are being compounded by the global recession, and this government’s inaction to protect Canadian seniors from its most devastating impacts. None of the three pillars of our retirement income support system are strong enough to withstand the impact of the economic storm without government assistance.

The first pillar, of course, is workplace pensions. Defined benefit pensions were already faltering in Canada, long before the current crisis hit the markets. But they weren’t faltering because of “excessive costs”, as most employers would want us to believe. Rather, they faltered because there was a lack of planning on the part of employers to pay for them.

Without a doubt, defined benefit plans cost money, but few safeguards were in place to put aside pension investment windfalls in good times. Instead, during times when markets were booming and returns from investments were rolling in hand over fist, employers opted for contribution holidays instead of saving the windfalls for the inevitable rainy days ahead.

Today, it’s not just raining, but the monsoon season has arrived. As company after company closes its doors, or seeks CCAA protection, workers are living in fear that their workplace pension will not be there for them in their retirement.

That’s why I introduced the Workers First Bill as my very first piece of legislation after being elected. That Bill would ensure that workers’ wages, pensions and benefits would receive super-priority in cases of commercial bankruptcy. If we really want to ensure that workers can retire with dignity and respect, then we must ensure that they have an adequate retirement income. My bill, as well as a federal, employer-funded system of pension insurance, are essential to achieving that goal.

But while the sustainability of workplace pensions is crucial, it is important to note that only about ½ of Canada’s senior population receives some income from such workplace pensions. And those incomes account for only about 30% of all retirement income received.

So despite the important contribution that workplace pensions have made to the well-being of older Canadians, we must focus as well on the other two-pillars of Canada’s retirement income system, which are private and public pensions.

Private pensions are individual retirement savings vehicles such as RRSPs. Seniors were devastated when they saw their life savings and dreams disappear in the stock market crash of October. For those who had workplace pensions, their sustainability was suddenly thrown into question. For those who had RRSPs, the value of their retirement nest egg plummeted. And for those who were already on RRIFs, they were doubly disadvantaged because the minimum withdrawal requirements meant that they would be eating deeply into their capital.

The Prime Minister’s response was that Canadians just need to hang in there and ride out the storm. But seniors, by definition, don’t have a lifetime to wait. They don’t have earnings with which to replenish their savings. Nor do they have the years required for their investment losses to be made up by market gains. They need their government’s help now.

And the best place for the government to intervene is in the third pillar of Canada’s retirement system, and that is public pensions. Public pensions, of course, include the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The only one of the three that is universal, is the OAS. That is why I have a motion on the order paper that calls on the government to increase the OAS immediately by 15%, retroactive to January 1st of this year, and to index it thereafter.

Moreover, a second motion of mine calls on the government to link both CPP and OAS to standard of living levels to ensure that no senior has to live in poverty.

And the third piece of the puzzle is the motion that is before us today, which deals specifically with improvements to the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

First, it would no longer require seniors to apply for the GIS. This is an absolutely essential piece.
By the government’s own admission, there are currently 135,000 seniors in Canada who are eligible for, but not receiving, the GIS. It is incumbent upon us to help seniors access the benefits to which they are legitimately entitled. And it’s easily done. The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development, which administers the GIS, is allowed to exchange information with the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA collects the tax returns of seniors, and therefore the government already has the information it needs to determine whether a senior is eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

The government suggests that the application process is nonetheless necessary, because there may be seniors who do not wish to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I can not imagine that any such person exists in Canada. The Guaranteed Income Supplement is a means-tested program that goes only to the neediest seniors. It was brought in as a measure to attempt to deal with poverty in the older adult population. Does the government really believe that seniors would turn down such desperately needed financial assistance? Nonsense!

The second issue that M-300 addresses is the fact that the GIS can only be received retroactively for a period of 11 months. A system designed like that is clearly not a system designed to lift seniors out of poverty. You know that if seniors owed the government money, the Canada Revenue Agency sure wouldn’t limit itself to 11 months of retroactivity. They would hound seniors until they had every last cent owing to them.

Well, so it should be for seniors. And the motion before us today would achieve that laudable goal. It would allow for full retroactivity for unpaid pension amounts.

Yet even those seniors who are collecting the GIS, still aren’t receiving an income that’s high enough to lift them up to the poverty line. That is hardly a retirement with dignity and respect. That’s why the third component of M-300 seeks to raise the GIS by $110 per month.

The Conservatives say that such and increase, combined with full retroactivity, would simply cost too much. They put the figure in the billions of dollars. But let me get this straight. This government can find $2 billion to continue subsidizing the big banks and big polluters, but it can’t find the money for the neediest seniors in our country? This isn’t about a program costing too much. This is all about a government that cares more about its wealthy friends, than it cares about the people who built our country. Conservative MPs should be ashamed of themselves.

If they got their heads out of the tar sands long enough to actually notice what’s happening in communities across our country, they would realize that by denying seniors an adequate standard of living, they are also denying them hope.

Let me just quote from the National Council of Welfare: “poverty is not just a lack of income; it can also be a synonym for social exclusion. When people cannot meet their basic needs, they cannot afford even simple activities, such as inviting family or friends to dinner occasionally or buying gifts for a child or grandchild. Poverty leads to isolation and social exclusion, which in turn lead to other problems, such as poor health, depression and dysfunction. Poverty can quickly deprive individuals of their dignity, confidence and hope.”

So what message are we sending to seniors, when we are refusing to lift them up to the poverty line?

This isn’t good public policy. It’s not even good fiscal management. It’s simply mean-spirited.

The government’s objection to the final part of M-300 makes that abundantly clear. It proposes that a surviving spouse be entitled to receive his or her deceased spouses’ pension payment for six months. It hardly seems unreasonable to allow people time to mourn their loved ones. Yes, many will have to make decisions about whether they can continue to live in their homes, continue to keep up with their bills, but to give them a little bit of time for those decisions after the devastating loss of a spouse, is simply a compassionate thing to do. The 6 months extension of the deceased spouse’s GIS simply shows a bit of humanity to seniors.

But this government isn’t often accused of being compassionate. Instead of accepting the proposals of M-300, and taking pride in having done right by seniors, their approach to dealing with the GIS is telling seniors to get a job.

The one big budgetary reform aimed at seniors was the Conservatives announcement that seniors could now work and earn up to $3500 before their GIS would be clawed back. Nothing defines the differences between the Conservatives and the NDP more clearly.

The Conservatives want seniors to retire in the uniform of a Wal-Mart greeter. New Democrats want seniors to retire in dignity and respect.

I can’t wait for the votes to be counted on this motion. For every member of the House the question will become “which side are you on”?

I know NDP Members will be voting in favour of the motion. I know the BQ Members will be, too. But this is a Private Members’ motion, where all of us can cast our votes free of party discipline. Conservative MPs will be able to vote their conscience.

I can’t wait to see whose side they’re on!