Beginning in the late 1960s, a series of
government reports were released, all of which stressed that poverty was
still a serious problem in Canada. Among these reports was a federal White
Paper called Income Security for Canadians (1970), which argued that
Canada's public pension system did not go far enough to eliminate poverty.
This was because the universal nature and modest amounts of Old Age
Security, combined with the fact that the Guaranteed Income Supplement was
only a temporary measure at the time, prevented a redistribution of wealth
- or the provision of substantially larger benefits to people with lower
incomes - through existing public pension programs.
In response, the federal government attempted to make Canada's public
pensions more fair by retaining universal Old Age Security benefits for
all Canadian seniors, introducing the Spouse's Allowance and then raising
Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits in order to help those with the
greatest need. In 1971 the Guaranteed Income Supplement was made
permanent.
In the Throne Speech of January 1973, the Government of Canada
responded to further demands that had come out of the 1971 Constitutional
Conference. It stated that the federal and provincial governments should
jointly review the nation's social security system - its policies and
programs - and should develop reforms together. These reforms would
provide individual Canadians with more effective programs, and find new
ways to harmonize and integrate the federal and provincial elements of the
system. All this was to be done within the existing constitutional
framework.
The social security review was launched in April 1973 with the federal
government's Working Paper on Social Security in Canada which
contained propositions designed to outline the broad directions of policy
that could lead to an improved, better-integrated system of social
security. Some of the proposals were to increase the amount of Old Age
Security and provide full indexation of both Old Age Security and the
Guaranteed Income Supplement. These proposals were accepted.
By the later 1970s, the federal government's approach to public
pensions began to change as the severe inflation and recession sparked by
the Oil Crisis of 1973 put a strain on government revenues.
This economic decline was accompanied by the re-emergence of an
economic philosophy called monetarism. Monetarists placed great emphasis
on cutting government spending in order to reduce debt, and on reducing
the amount of government involvement in the economy by cutting funding to
public programs such as pensions.
The growth of monetarist thought contributed to a move away from
increasing spending on public pension programs in the late 1980s. By that
time, policy makers continued to focus on achieving the principle of
redistribution but also sought to reduce the overall scope of Canada's
public pension programs.
The reluctance of the federal government to increase spending on public
pensions began in the early 1980s, at which time inflation and interest
rates peaked.
It is important to note that, originally, the Canada Pension Plan
surplus was meant to grow substantially in order to provide loans to
provincial governments. This was accomplished very quickly after its
introduction. In contrast, since 1972, when the special Old Age Security
Tax stopped being collected, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income
Supplement have been funded annually out of the general tax revenues
raised each year.
Equally important is the fact that, unlike the Old Age Security
program, any changes made to the Canada Pension Plan require the consent
of two-thirds of the provinces representing at least two-thirds of
Canada's population. This means that the provinces play an important role
in overseeing the Canada Pension Plan. Consequently, it is more difficult
to make significant changes to it since so many different governments must
agree to them.
The potential legislative "vulnerability" of the Old Age Security
program and the Guaranteed Income Supplement in comparison to the Canada
Pension Plan became clear in 1983 and 1985. In 1983, Old Age Security was
made subject to indexation limits of six and five per cent introduced by
the government to control inflation. The Canada Pension Plan was not
subjected to this provision. In May of 1985 the newly elected federal
government announced that Old Age Security benefits would no longer be
increased in accordance with inflation. In the end, however, this change
was not put into effect because of strong resistance on the part of senior
citizens' organizations and other groups supporting them.
Throughout the 1980s the federal government increasingly sought to
reduce its expenditures. In 1989, Old Age Security benefits for senior
citizens with annual incomes higher than $50,000 were reduced through
taxation. Thus some seniors received little or no Old Age Security, and
the universal nature of the program essentially disappeared.
It was in the late 1970s and early 1980s that concern began to be
voiced publicly about the sustainability of the Canada Pension Plan. The
economic decline of the 1980s, the growing realization that Canadian
society was aging rapidly as the huge baby boom generation advanced in
years, and the declining national birth rate led many people to question
whether the Canada Pension Plan could survive into the 21st
century.
Research at this time showed that 7.8 per cent of Canada's population
was aged 65 or over in 1951, a figure that rose to 8.1 per cent in 1971.
It was expected to peak at 19.6 per cent in 2031. This demographic shift
added to the concern about the financial security of the Canadian public
pension system. (National Council of Welfare, Sixty-Five and
Older (Ottawa, 1984) p.4.)
Plainly, the period between the late 1960s and the late 1980s included
years of great change in Canadian public pension policy. The ability to
expand and improve each program declined in the late 1980s when the
federal government began to cut its expenditures because of the faltering
economy and the need to reduce the debt. As the 1980s ended, the future of
Canada's public pensions appeared uncertain to many.