Evidence of meeting #50 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
All right. So we're looking at a broader caregiver program, but a national one.
4:05 p.m.
Co-Executive Director, Women's Network Prince Edward Island
Yes. Being a caregiver goes from the beginning of life, with maternity and parental benefits, to taking care of an elderly parent. A caregiver strategy would address that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I agree with you, because first you start out looking after children and then you're looking after others, and by the time you're in and out of the labour force and are finished—I've always said that today's caregivers are tomorrow's poor seniors, because we just don't have the ability to build up a proper pension—that is, for women. So I agree with you.
I want to go to Ms. Smith for a minute. Could you expand for me very briefly on the Italian structure? I have a few questions for you, but take that one. You say in your recommendation on pension benefits for caregivers, “as in Italy”. Can you tell me what that means, how it works exactly? We haven't looked at other models, and we should do that. But since you're here—
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I wish I could give you a better answer. I don't know. I'm in touch with UNICA, in Rome, and they lobbied—Italian women are very feisty—and they had parades, and they got pension benefits. The government has been slow to follow through, but at least they got the theory going. I don't know how it's going to work. They've been frustrated with their government, but they're working on it.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'll call my friends there, then. Since I come from there, I go back quite frequently, so I'll try to follow up. Maybe our researchers could do some of that too.
Number six is interesting for me. This is something I've been very strong about for some time. You're talking about increasing the child tax benefit from $4,000 to $5,000.
Would you put the $1,200, which is called a universal child care benefit, but which you and I know is not a universal child care program—the $1,200 that was allocated in the budget a year ago, which is taxed in the hands of the lower-income earner, which means they do not receive $100 but are actually receiving less, and there are no child care spaces.... Do you know which one I'm talking about? Okay.
Would you put the $1,200 to the base, against the child tax benefit, which would actually increase the child tax benefit? Right now it's taxable; it's not non-taxable income.
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I think Michelle and I were talking globally. If we had a caregiving ministry—I don't want to speak for you, but we were talking about it—that focuses on it, we could actually revolutionize a bunch of stuff.
And this is me talking, not her. I don't want to speak for her.
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Thanks. Here we go.
Let's roll together a lot of these piecemeal caregiving benefits. We have the $1,200, which is very small; the child tax benefit, which is, unfortunately, not universal and is dependent on household income; and the day care amount, which is $10,000 per child per year. Let's put that all together, see how much is in the bucket, and then give everybody a universal benefit.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
So you're recommending that the child tax benefit go up to $5,000, at least?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I agree with you on the amount. I have no quibble with that. I was merely referring to the $1,200 that resulted a year ago—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Put it in there as well. Okay. That is what I thought you were saying, but I just wanted to clear that up.
Could I go to income splitting for a minute? Help me understand how it would be equitable, especially for singles. I'm looking at the pension splitting that was done in the most recent budget. There, the people who benefit from the splitting the most—The higher the pensions, the more the benefit, because it's a couple splitting only. Singles cannot split, and there's no provision for widowers or single seniors, for instance. We're talking about seniors now. So it's private pensions or pensionable income that is split.
If your pensionable income is high, the higher it is, the more of a tax break you get. The lower it is, the less you get, and for the modest couples who actually have little to no pension income, they get nothing to split, really.
So tell me how it would work for singles in your scenario.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
In France they have a nice formula where you count children as people you share with, and the single-income family could use that.
In the United States they have head of household. You can be a single parent and you can share with your children. So a single parent can benefit from that.
The other thing I think, if we talk about the current system, is that it's very imbalanced. The wealthy end up wealthy. Basically, if we're talking about adjusting it, it may be that the adjustment will be unequal in order to get an equality. I don't think we should look at the inequality of the adjustment as a problem.
I mean, if low-income people get anything, it's better than what they have. Income splitting would help day care workers who are low paid.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you.
Ms. Smith, do you have any models that are analytical models that you can provide to us so we can visually see what you're talking about?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
We had a conference in this building in January, and we had some great speakers on that, and there was also a pension-splitting conference in October. Jack Mintz was speaking there, and David Murrell, from the University of New Brunswick. They're economists. I'm not an economist. They have the models. They're out there. They're fantastic. They've done great analysis of how this could work. Yes.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
April 24th, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I'd like to thank you for being here today. Thanks as well for your presentations, which will no doubt further enlighten us .
I'd like to go back to the question of the employment insurance system. In my opinion, in its current state, it is a discriminatory system, particularly against women. Furthermore, the system is funded only by employees and employers, and the government doesn't pay a cent into it.
During this Parliament, I had the opportunity to introduce a bill designed to improve the employment insurance system. It is at the third reading stage, and it would be very desirable if it could receive the approval of all members in the House so that this system is improved and better suited to the needs and situation of workers today.
The whole thing depends on what the government wants. I'm from a region north of Montreal where a lot of women are at the mercy of seasonal work. It's often not by choice, or, if it is, there's only that kind of work that they can do.
I'm going to tell you about the amendments currently provided for in Bill C-269, because, among other things, they are further to the recommendations appearing in your brief, Ms. Harris.
For example, we recommend that the qualifying period be reduced to 360 hours of work; that the benefit period, which is generally 45 weeks long, be increased to 50 weeks; that the weekly benefit rate be raised to 60%, which is one of your recommendations; that the two-week waiting period be repealed; that the distinction between individuals who are entering the labour force for the first time and those who are returning be eliminated; that maximum annual insurable earnings be increased; that the benefit be calculated on the basis of the average of the 12 highest paid weeks worked during the year; and, lastly, that self-employed workers be able to access the employment insurance system on a voluntary basis.
I'd like to hear what you have to say on the importance of passing this bill during this Parliament. In my opinion, that would be consistent with the expectations and situations of women, youths and also men.
4:10 p.m.
Co-Executive Director, Women's Network Prince Edward Island
As far as you were saying, it speaks specifically to a lot of the things we're putting forward, especially the option for self-employed women and men to pay into the system. That would be of great benefit to many families. The elimination of the two-week waiting period would financially help so many Canadians. What was it...the 45 weeks? Could you explain that one to me?
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The benefit period is generally 45 weeks. In the bill, we're asking that the period increase from 45 to 50 weeks. So that's an addition of five weeks for all claimants.
4:15 p.m.
Co-Executive Director, Women's Network Prince Edward Island
Yes, that would be definitely—
I'm from Prince Edward Island, where there is also a high unemployment rate. Seasonal workers are definitely implicated as far as being able to qualify for EI. It's much more difficult. As you were saying, it's not always a choice. Where you live dictates the choice of employment that you actually have. As far as a mother who is working at a fish plant and finds that she becomes pregnant at a time where maybe it doesn't work best for her financially.... Seasonal work has huge implications on the caregiving capacity and the ability for parents to take maternity and parental leave.
We also have the recommendation as far as the reach-back over the three- to five-year period is concerned that I think would definitely help for a lot of people in seasonal work, as well as a lower amount of time, like reducing the hours.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
In the brief you presented to us, you made certain recommendations that appear at the end of the document. One of those recommendations, among others, calls for continued funding of efforts that support equality struggles for women. You say that it is very important, and I quote:
[...] that all women's rights are fought for, that inclusiveness and equality are watchwords not just between men and women but between women themselves.
We know that Status of Women Canada has undergone major funding cuts.
Can you make a comment on that subject? Could the fact that the Women's Program, the WP, was modified have a negative impact on the actions or means—