Ms. Hyde, I'll go back to the question of funding. I understand you've explored a lot of sources. The Minister responsible for Status of Women has repeatedly said in the House that the funding for women would not be cut and would simply go more to programs on the ground, programs such as the one you're talking about, from the sound of it.
I would think it would be very useful either to speak to your MP or to write directly to the minister responsible and raise the issue, because those programs, according to the minister's own words--and it's been repeated often enough--would not be cut and would go on the ground to women and children who need them. That would be my recommendation.
I'd like to go back to Ms. Westlund. I've heard it said that women earn, on average, 71% of what men earn, so it seems logical that when they come to retirement age, they suffer more hardship and are in greater poverty. I think Statistics Canada demonstrates that. Perhaps we should start paying 71% of our taxes and 71% of our rent and 71% of our medical.
What I wanted to ask you goes back to Monsieur St-Cyr's question. Instead of dealing with the whole issue of RRSPs...I understand what you're saying; I think the system is unfairly tilted to the wealthier, especially with the fractionnement, the income splitting, that is happening. However, we've long advocated that the whole safety net for seniors has to be reviewed on a yearly basis, projecting ten years ahead so that we're not in the situation Canada's now in with the GIS--it's not keeping up, and it's not even retroactive more than eleven months. Even the CPP that some people have paid in doesn't have the retroactivity it should have.
I'm wondering if you support that need to review our system and to have a seniors ombudsman who would really respond to Parliament and make recommendations to really ensure that seniors are not living in poverty in Canada.