Status of Women Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Mitch Bloom]

Honestly, we don't receive tons of mail on it, and the reason is, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of earned income, people over 65 getting GIS are generally not working at all. So we don't see a lot of instances of that, and I think, as we also mentioned earlier, the plan already has built into it the $500 earnings exemption for GIS recipients.

So truth be told, it's not really been seen, and most people also understand the fact that GIS is an income-tested program, sources of income that otherwise are people's pension income, private savings and things like that. It is an income-tested benefit, and we income test it to make sure the most money gets in the hands of Canada's poorest seniors. So there really hasn't been a big push that I've ever seen in this regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have a minute and a half left, Mr. Stanton. Perhaps one of your colleagues has a question.

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I would like to know a little bit about disability pensions. I am aware of a female who has a disability. One of the challenges with her disability pension is that there are restrictions on contributing to any retirement savings, and also employment restrictions as far as ability to contribute to CPP. Is there anything available for a person like that, once they come to the age of retirement, to assist them in their retirement?

[Nancy Lawand, Director General, CPP Disability Policy, Department of Social Development]

If the individual is receiving a CPP disability benefit--I don't know if that's the pension your constituent--

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No, I mean prior to retirement.

[Nancy Lawand]

Yes, prior to retirement, up to the age of 65, if the person is receiving a CPP disability benefit, it's true that the individual's contributory period ends when they start receiving a disability benefit. When they reach the age of 65, that benefit will be automatically converted, through a formula that's in the legislation, to a CPP retirement pension. So if the person does stay on the benefit from whatever age they go on until 65, if that's what happens, they automatically get a converted retirement pension, which is normally a bit lower. However, then they're eligible for OAS and GIS if the combined income is low enough.

We have introduced a number of provisions over the past 10 years to encourage CPP disability beneficiaries to work to their full potential. Obviously they have severe and prolonged disabilities, but they can earn small amounts of money if all they can do is work periodically. For example, they can earn $4,200 in 2006 without having to report that to CPP.

At a certain point of regular employment they need to report to the administration, and we will work with them to see if they're ready to regain regular employment. If they do, they actually have a safety net so that they can return to the benefit very easily if their disability recurs once the benefit has ceased.

So there are more opportunities now for people who are receiving CPP disability to earn; as you say, through earning they can save more towards their retirement, if that's one of their issues.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Have I got time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No, I'm sorry.

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

The subject that we are addressing together this morning is so broad that I think we would need an entire day in order to really understand all the issues in each of your respective areas. I must tell you that I would really like to be able to take the time to look with each of you at what you do, and how you do it. I would like you to provide us with detailed explanations. We are getting an overview, and everything is basically being mixed together. But we will try to figure it all out .

The National Advisory Council on Aging tabled a report approximately six to eight months ago in which it seems to say that it does not quite agree with you. You are painting us a bit of a bright picture. Of course, the situation of seniors has improved. They themselves agree. This does not mean that, over the next few years, there will be a major improvement. Yes, young women are studying and working. However, will the Canada Pension Plan be able to meet the needs of non-contributors? This is where the picture gets gloomy. I only want to present a it to you like that.

Furthermore, you have read the report. It highlights a number of gaps with the Guaranteed Income Supplement. First, have these gaps been corrected, particularly with regard to finding seniors who are entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement? You and your predecessors had not contacted people who were entitled to the GIS. Are you doing this systematically now, as requested?

Second, with regard to women working for family businesses, the National Advisory Council on Aging said that job insecurity had a significant impact on retirement income. Naturally, that is obvious. This is true for self-employed workers and part-time workers. I want to point out that perhaps 40 per cent of women work for a family business. These women contribute to employment insurance, but they are not entitled to benefits. This is quite curious. So, if I am mistaken, I would like to know where.

Also, if they are not entitled, what do you intend to do? What can we do, we women, to ensure that women are entitled to EI when they work for their husband's company.

Third, the government's withdrawal from healthcare has meant that we have caregivers who currently are entitled to approximately six weeks of EI, if I understand correctly. However, what can you do with six weeks of EI? You cannot tell a cancer patient that they can only be sick for six weeks. Cancer patients may be sick for one year, for two years. So, what are we doing in those cases? Have you taken any steps to help people who are caught in this situation?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Mitch Bloom]

You asked a good question about whether we will be able to deal with the demand over the long term. Nothing pleases me more than to sit in front of a committee and say that the government has a chief actuary who, every three years, evaluates the sustainability of the Canada Pension Plan for 75 years, which is as far as he goes. He has recently again reconfirmed that the plan is fully sustainable indefinitely for all of the benefits I have mentioned for that entire period of time. It's wonderful news to be able to share.

You also asked a question about the guaranteed income supplement. As we explained to the committee this morning, much has happened in the last four years that has really changed our ability to reach potential recipients of the benefit. The best one is the automation that we now have with provincial governments and the Canada Revenue Agency. If you fill out a tax return, you're never lost, and we will find you every time.

As I said already, for those who aren't filling out tax returns and for some reason are not picked up by provincial governments, we have mass mailings that go out. We deal with third parties who help get the word out to people on the street. We even work in the homeless sector to try to make sure we've reached everybody.

[Susan Scotti]

I think the only question you raised that Mitch has not addressed is on the NACA report and the recommendations that applied to improvements in the level of income for the guaranteed income supplement. Did I understand your question?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

No. My question concerned women working for family businesses, who pay EI but who are not entitled to benefits.

[Susan Scotti]

Unfortunately, we do not have anyone from the employment insurance program here this morning, and I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I'll undertake to get you the answers to those questions you have raised.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Please. I asked this question to Ms. Ivers of Status of Women Canada, and I have yet to get an answer. Now I am asking you. I want details on these women who work for a family business. Women of other nationalities work hard. I am thinking of Chinese women who work for their husband's company, Filipino women and women of all other nationalities, many of whom work for their husband's company and who will soon retire and who are not entitled to EI, although they paid contributions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It is a very important area, one for which we need to make sure we get some answers. Possibly we could have someone attend at either our next meeting or the following one, to follow up on that important area.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The recommendations on aging and poverty in Canada mention the fact that shelter is a major expense for seniors; 56% of unattached senior women are paying 30% or more for their housing. That is debilitating them in a very serious way.

Has your department done any research in terms of their recommendation that the federal government and other levels of government get back into the social housing business, back into those affordable programs that would alleviate the kind of stress seniors are feeling?

[Susan Scotti]

Again, this is a question that needs to be addressed by our colleagues in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, because housing is not our particular area of expertise. I can undertake to get the answer to that for you.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'd appreciate that.

One of the other recommendations had to do with the fact that a lot of seniors are late in applying for old age security or the Canada Pension Plan, and that if they are late, they can only go back 11 months in terms of getting compensated, whereas in Quebec they can go back five years.

The recommendation is that the federal government allow full retroactive benefits. Is that a possibility? Is there any work going on in that regard?

[Mitch Bloom]

The question of retroactivity, as you can appreciate, is very complex. We require people to apply for these benefits because there are many conditions of application, so that's really important for us to have.

We try to put all our efforts into making sure people are aware of the benefits and are receiving those benefits on a timely basis. Generally speaking, in terms of the notion that people are delayed, the 11 months plus the month of application provide enough of a window for people to be able to get in there.

The issue is more of people who aren't aware of the benefits, and that's the answer we've been trying to explain this morning--all these efforts we go to in trying to get awareness up, even reaching out, as I said just a few moments ago, to the homeless and to people who speak neither English or French, those communities being the toughest for us to reach. The only way to resolve that is to actually reach them.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

But there is no retroactivity in the foreseeable future.

[Mitch Bloom]

Essentially, across this country it has been accepted that social benefits have an 11-month period of retroactivity. You have cited the case of the Quebec Pension Plan, which provides five years of retroactivity; that's really the exception to the rule. Even in Quebec, for example, many social benefits have no retroactivity at all. I mean, social assistance means that you get it and you get nothing retroactively.

That's pretty much the way things are done across the country and in fact around the world--that notion of about one year's worth of retroactive payments.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I don't know if I can get this one in.

There is some concern that CPP, in terms of gay and lesbian couples, has not been equitable in the kinds of benefits that other couples receive. There is a cap that limits lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual community claims on CPP survivor benefits. It only goes back to 1988. There has been a call by a group called WE*ACT to eliminate this discriminatory policy.

Has there been any discussion about that, now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land? Has there been any thought about going back further--back to 1978?

[Mitch Bloom]

In fact, I really won't be able to comment on this. This matter has been put in front of the Supreme Court. It was recently heard--a few weeks ago. So the court will have to pronounce on the extent to which they wish to go back further.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay, but has the government decided whether or not to challenge the lower court? I know it's before the Supreme Court, but I'm wondering what--

[Mitch Bloom]

In fact, both the class action members and the government challenged the matter for different reasons, and both took the matter to the Supreme Court.