Status of Women Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

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

No, you still get the survivor benefits, in my view. All I'm saying is that while the couple is alive and living together, generally the wives, because of time spent raising family and what have you, have lower pensions and therefore less money in their hands. They should get 50% of the household income of those pensions that are subsidized by government. Of course, when one or the other spouse dies, then the inheritance portion would apply automatically as well. That wouldn't be lost, in my view.

[Alice West]

That was just a little concern of mine. The devil is in the details.

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

I understand your concern, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Stanton, for five minutes.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to our panel. I'm sorry we are unable to give the fullest of time here for your presentations this afternoon, but I appreciate your being here.

I'm going to present two ideas, and then I'll ask you both to respond. I'll put both ideas in play, and then I'll ask you both to talk. We'll use up our five minutes that way.

At our last meeting of this committee when we were discussing this topic, we were presented with some information that suggested that on issues like educational attainment, on the earnings rate—this isn't the total earnings, which we see at 70%—we heard from departments that the gap in the rate of earnings, the rate per day, the rate per hour, women versus men, is in fact closing. It's sitting at about 86% right now. There has been some movement there, and workforce participation of women is growing steadily.

In total—and I'll just go back to that educational attainment issue, for example—women are seeing, more and more, an increasing representation in post-secondary education. That, for example, is growing. It's higher, and it's getting close to 60% now in terms of women with degrees, post-graduate degrees, and those sorts of things. Those are some very positive trends. I would ask for your comments on that, given that some of those trends, some of the circumstances that you outlined today, are in fact improving.

The second point is that you both talked about expanding GIS and expanding social benefits. How would you like to see the government raise money to pay for those extra social benefits: with higher taxes or by cutting expenses?

I'll let you go ahead.

[Joanne Blake]

I'd like to take the part about highly educated women and that they're being educated more and more. What we're looking at in the year 2031 is the retirement of the final group of the baby boomers. These are people who are already in the job market, and some of them are already exiting and becoming retirees. In the long term, you're going to have a great big block of retirees whom we call the baby boomers in 2031. That will consist of 25% of the Canadian population.

Even if women become more successful in the workforce in the next ten or fifteen years, as a government you're still going to have to deal with this great big block of baby boomers, who are beginning to retire right now and will finish their retirement in 2031. They will not be part of that group of women who—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

How do we pay for the social benefits?

[Joanne Blake]

How do we pay for social benefits?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, for increased GIS, more benefits—

[Joanne Blake]

Ms. Calhoun has mentioned some of them, such as raising the level of contribution to the CPP up to $60,000 and some, as opposed to $40,000.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That was an interesting idea.

With CPP, you basically draw out what you contributed.

[Sue Calhoun]

That's right.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So even if you raise the total amount, it will raise more money for that individual, but it wouldn't necessarily contribute to higher benefits for other individuals, because in CPP you only draw out what you contribute.

[Sue Calhoun]

What I said earlier was that raising it to $60,000 would mean that higher-income earners contribute more to the fund. Right now, CPP is structured to replace 25% of your income, and we're recommending that it be increased to 50% for low-income workers.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So that would require a higher contribution rate, higher payroll taxes, on the front end that people would contribute.

[Joanne Blake]

It's not a payroll tax.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, it is.

[Joanne Blake]

No, it's not. It's an insurance that's paid by the employee and the employer.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Correct. That's what makes it a payroll tax.

[Sue Calhoun]

It's not really a payroll tax.

We're not economists. We're not here to tell you to cut this budget and move it over there—that kind of thing.

One example, and one thing that I think the committee should think of, is that there is a lot of research on the connection between poverty and health. Senior women living alone in poverty use the health care system, which is already overburdened, much more than people who are not poor.

I'm not making that up. There is information and research, and if you want me to send you some, I will.

If we raise the GIS, because we want to give those people—and it's not just women, but the bulk are—living only on OAS and GIS more money to improve their health, to make them less poor, hopefully they will be less dependent on the health care system. That's one approach to take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Do that as a closing remark.

Ms. Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I'd like to welcome you. It's a great pleasure for me to hear your evidence. Ms. West and Ms. Blake, I consider you pioneers. You have experience, you've fought and argued, and you've been committed to the cause of women. Part of me would like to thank you for everything you've done for the cause of women, and you, Ms. Calhoun.

However, I'm very disappointed to hear that the poverty rate among older women in Canada is nearly twice that of men, and that the vast majority of people living in poverty are women. It can even be said that poverty is specific to women.

The road to poverty is also a major stressor for women who have to make life choices. Even if they want a place in the labour market, at some point, they have to make a family choice that may perhaps unconsciously lead them to a state of poverty.

Ms. Calhoun, is it possible to develop a strategy that would help the women of today and tomorrow have an occupational and personal life that suits them, a strategy that could ultimately remove them from this economic insecurity?

[Sue Calhoun]

Do you mean for all women, or just older women?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Statistics and studies show that older women are currently the poorest. Based on that observation, what can we do for today's women and those of tomorrow?

[Sue Calhoun]

We can do a number of things, but I don't know whether we have enough time to discuss them today. Earlier I said that 40 percent of women over the age of 65 who lived alone were living in poverty. The only group representing a larger percentage is that of mothers who are the heads of single-parent families, more than half of whom live in poverty with their children.

I like the idea that you address the issue of women's insecurity in a comprehensive manner. We have to talk about the status of older women living in poverty today, but we also have to address that of women who live in poverty with their children and that of women who are in the labour market. I mentioned, among other things, the lack of child care services, which at times forces a woman to work part time or to accept a low-paying job because she's responsible for the custody of the children. The same is true of women entrepreneurs who don't have access to those services and who have to stay at home when they have a baby.