Status of Women Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Louise Nesterenko]

At ACC, we allow flex time. For example, if you need to take care of an aging parent or you have to go, we allow everyone, not just women, to work four ten-hour days, and then they can take the Friday off. But they are empowered to determine what hours they need to work, all 65 employees. It doesn't matter if they're in manufacturing or whatever, they are empowered to pick their own time. They dictate what their hours are. Some of them have chosen to work part-time.

I'm sorry, I'm talking a lot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It's an exciting topic. I said 4:15, but there's some also very critical information that we have to take in camera, an issue that has come up. So I have only one last question, and then Louise and Carole, you can wrap up. When you wrap up, before I forget, you've talked about the CPP fund. We're very visual people, so if you could give us something on that CPP fund as to how you think it would work, the mechanism, it would be beneficial to us all. That's the way you have come up with, and if you could just give us some diagrammatic form, that helps us. Thank you.

Ms. Neville, for five minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for coming here today and for your enthusiasm.

Ms. Nesterenko, you talked about unleashing this CPP fund, which works well for married couples or partnered. Do you have any suggestions for single women, women who have never been married or who are divorced? Many of our meetings have indicated that they are the most disadvantaged in later years.

[Louise Nesterenko]

I have thought about it. I think the rules should be the same, whether they were married or not, based on income. In my opinion, I think we should allow women who were never married to have access to some portion of, or the same portion, equality for all. So, yes, when I talk about death benefits, I was actually talking to people who were suffering. But if a person was never married and they don't have access right now, they should be entitled to the same benefits as someone who was married. I guess you could argue that.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

How do you work that?

[Louise Nesterenko]

I need more time to think about it, if I could. I'm willing to get back to you on that, because you have opened up another problem.

You have to remember, we were the cause of it. CPP was not formed until 1966. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, women did not work. If they worked, they were supplementing their husband's income. So what happened is there was that 20-year gap where women weren't working. So whether they were married or not, they did not have access to CPP. I'm sorry, it's not available to them because they didn't work at that particular time.

So I feel we are the root cause, because it wasn't done. So if you would allow me to come back to you, I will give you or let Carole give you something. I will do it, but I'll ask Carole to present it. I'm willing to give you something that would work for single women too.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Do I have time for one more?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, you have.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

My understanding, and it's come about through a number of situations that have come into my office, is that when a senior is employed in the workplace, whatever the job, they pay their EI benefits, but they can't draw on their EI once they are over 65. Any comments, any thoughts?

[Louise Nesterenko]

Again, that goes back to how I say we should be revamping the EI program, which is they should have the right to opt out, just the same as if it was employer relative, and not be charged that fee because they can't collect it anyway.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you. That's fine, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Minna, you said you wanted to ask one quick question.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

No, actually I think Ms. Neville asked it for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I have two minutes to spare. Shall I give it to one of you guys?

Go ahead, Miss Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you. I have one and then I am going to give it to Mrs. Grewal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have two minutes. Be quick.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

We talked about EI benefits and about “mandatory” versus “opting in”. What is your opinion on whether or not a young entrepreneur in the early 20s would be thinking about economic security to be a caregiver, or having to opt out for some of these things? When you think about that, is mandatory better than just the option of opting in?

[Carole Presseault]

In the discussions we've had in preparation for this, we've debated both sides. I think we're coming down on the side that opting in would be the best. Again, I think we need flexibility in the system. Opting in would be the best.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you. Are Canadians doing enough to save for their retirements, and if they are not, what could this mean for seniors?

[Carole Presseault]

I'm not qualified to answer that question, but as we mentioned earlier, we get bombarded that we're not saving enough for our retirement and then we get bombarded that we're richer than we think, to use the slogan. So I don't know what the answer to that is, but it's an area of study that, if it hasn't been done, the Status of Women Secretariat should look at: whether or not the economic security in that sense—What is the real prosperity gap? What are those numbers?

But I'm sorry; I can't even attempt to look at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Would you have an idea what the poverty level should be, what the cutoff is for poverty? I think we are all grasping at straws, asking what poverty is, what income level poverty occurs at.

[Louise Nesterenko]

Right now, isn't the government saying it's $14,000? I read somewhere that it said $14,000, because I was—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I think where you read it was in the budget plan, if you have it before you. If you go to “Working Income Tax Benefit”, it says $14,400 for a family and $9,500 for a single person. That is really not poverty, because it wouldn't cover—But I guess that's what we are going to grapple with when we talk about the economic security of women: what is poverty; at what level do we call it poverty?

[Carole Presseault]

It would be interesting to look at an analysis of what different scenarios are out there—what people are saying about what poverty is, and what poverty levels are—to come up with some kind of scale. I don't think you could hit it on the head; you'd have to take a snapshot. But there would be a scale, and I'm sure there is an organization that specializes in this kind of thing. We're not one of those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you. You have a minute each to give your closing—

We had said 4:15. I'm sorry about that; we need to get into two important issues. So Louise, would you take a minute, if you'd like, to wrap up?