Status of Women Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I would like to call the meeting to order. This is meeting eight of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

We're pleased to have with us today some additional officials to help us along with our study on the economic security of women.

We have with us Sheila Regehr, director of the National Council of Welfare; Cathy Oikawa, senior researcher and policy adviser; and John Anderson, senior researcher and policy adviser. As well, from the National Advisory Council on Aging, here today is Robert Dobie, interim chairperson, division of aging and seniors.

Welcome. We're pleased to have you with us this morning.

Ms. Regehr, I'll turn it over to you.

[Sheila Regehr, Director, National Council of Welfare]

Thank you very much.

As you've done the introductions--and as, I understand, we have limited time--I will launch right into the presentation. I would like to say, though, on behalf of the chair of the council, John Murphy, and the members, who met this past weekend in Quebec City, thank you very much for inviting the council to appear.

It's very timely for this committee to be looking at women's economic security issues in light of the recently released report of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The committee expressed its great concern about poverty among women, especially lone mothers, precarious workers, women trying to leave abusive relationships, and homeless girls.

Our presentation today, a copy of which you have in front of you, is in four parts: first, a brief word about poverty measures; then a portrait of women's economic security, or lack thereof; an overview of the policy context; and lastly, some possible ways forward. The three of us will then be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

The first couple of tables identify some ways to measure poverty. I won't go into detail, but they highlight three main points. One, as you likely know, is that there is no official poverty line in Canada, nor are there specific plans, targets, or benchmarks to direct efforts to reduce, prevent, or eliminate poverty.

The second point is that this is not for lack of statistical capacity. There are several good and useful measures. You'll see there the low-income cut-offs that have been used for many years. The low-income measure is used internationally, although in Canada it's calculated a bit differently, at 50% of median income, while in Europe it's set at 60%. Quebec uses that 60% measure as well.

The market basket measure is interesting. It's based on what it actually costs to buy a basket of goods. It was designed by governments, federal and provincial, in Canada largely in response to a sense that these earlier measures were set too high, and rather exaggerated poverty.

The third point, as you can see, is that there's not as much difference among these measures as expected. They can tell us different things, however. Canada's been involved.... Many people argue about the indicator that we should have. Most countries, including the United Kingdom, have concluded that we actually need a set of measures; they have three.

Another indicator of poverty is tracking social assistance rates. In Canada, only the National Council of Welfare publishes this information in its regular reports.

Section 2, the bulk of your presentation, shows a series of charts portraying women's economic security. Sadly, the picture is not a pretty one. Women are more vulnerable to poverty than men throughout their whole lifetime, and they face different types of risk, in particular a high price for raising children and caring for others, and a high economic price as survivors of gender-based violence and abuse.

We focused deliberately in the presentation on women on their own, or raising children alone, as this is where women's risk of poverty shows up most clearly.

We'll mention here how important women's incomes are to couples as well. Many more families would be in poverty if it were not for wives' earnings. Women are actually the primary breadwinners in over a quarter of Canadian husband-wife households. Often it's by default--if a husband loses a job, say, or develops a disability.

Chart 1 shows poverty rates over the last quarter of a century--it's the trends that are important--for the three populations we're focusing on.

Chart 2 provides the same information for women. Note that there's a clear trend in decreasing poverty rates for seniors and a very sizable difference between 1980 and 2004. So we're doing some things right.

For the unattached population under 65, the story is markedly different, with women and men both worse off in 2004 than they were in 1980. Clearly we have a growing problem there.

As for lone parents, the gender differences are large, and the trends for lone mothers are much more erratic than for other women. It's evident that we have a long-standing problem that we've not yet figured out.

Charts 3 and 4 present after-tax poverty rates.

Charts 5 and 6 show a narrowing of the gap between senior women and men as well, which is interesting. In chart 6 we see the effect of lone-parent poverty on their children.

In 2004, just to give you actual numbers from these charts, the after-tax poverty rate for unattached women under 65 was 38.4%. For female lone parents it was 35.6%. For senior women it was 17%.

The committee has expressed an interest in other forms of diversity in addition to family type. In charts 8 and 9, we provide information on women who are immigrants, members of a visible minority, aboriginal, or who have a disability. It's important to note the effect of the intersection of minority and family status as well. In addition to what you see on the charts, for example, the poverty rate for aboriginal lone mothers in 1995—it goes back a bit, but that's the most recent information we have— was 73%, compared with 45% for non-aboriginal lone mothers.

Chart 9 looks specifically at the senior population. Of note here is the fact that unattached senior immigrants and members of a visible minority have higher poverty rates than their younger counterparts. Many may have had less ability than other women because of late arrival in Canada to contribute to CPP, to save, or to qualify for OAS/GIS.

What we have shown so far is sobering, but it's far from the full picture. The next few charts look more closely at what 's going on below the poverty line, where many women and their children live in situations of severe deprivation. Imagine yourself trying to live with $6,000 or $7,000 less than it costs to purchase the food, housing, clothing, and other basic necessities that most Canadians take for granted. As charts 10 and 11 show, many Canadians do face that situation.

Charts 12 and 13 tell the story another way, showing the distribution of women above, close to, and far below the poverty line. Note the extremes among unattached women under 65, where they tend to be in situations either well above the poverty line or in deepest poverty.

Charts 14 and 15 show that, contrary to popular misconception, many people receiving social assistance are also employed. It's not as simple as being on or off welfare, as it's often characterized.

Chart 16 is a very interesting one. I'm going to take a little bit more time here. This gives you an idea of how well Canada's income security concepts and systems are working. The first thing that jumps out —or that we hope jumps out—is how abysmally low average provincial welfare rates are.

To put a human face on this, the $6,000-and-change income you see there is what Mary, for example, an older woman worker, would receive if she lost her job and couldn't qualify for or ran out of EI. In most jurisdictions, she would first have to use up almost all of her savings, and in some jurisdictions she would even have to sell the old car she uses to get to work, which further limits her options, because you're not allowed to have assets

Let's imagine Mary then was 63. A couple of years later, after a couple of birthdays, she's 65. Despite the fact that the maximum OAS/GIS benefits she's entitled to are far below the poverty line, the amount is double what she had last year, but not likely enough to buy her car back.

If Mary had been able to get maximum CPP and OAS/GIS, she would be much better off, as you see in the $22,000 column. We have to point out, however, that women on average receive less than 60% of men's benefit rates. So it's not likely she would reach that level.

Let's now look at Mary's younger neighbour, Sophia. She's the one who's working for the average provincial wage. She, like most Canadians, always believed the best security was a job. She works full-time, full-year. As I said, she only makes minimum wage, but at least she is better off than Mary by $1,000--or is she? What about the EI and CPP premiums she has to pay; the bus ticket she needs to get to her job every day; the additional clothing, shoes, and other necessities she needs in her workplace? She actually ends up quite a bit worse off than this appears.

Now we come to employment insurance, the major income security program that Canadian employees pay for. At a replacement rate of 55%, an unemployed worker getting a full benefit is still managing but isn't much above the poverty line. Remember, women are less likely than men to get maximum benefits, if they qualify at all.

In 2004, only a little over 40% of unemployed Canadians received EI, a big drop from about 80% in 1990.

In the interests of time, I will cover the next points very quickly, but they are extremely important. They're in areas that I know this committee is aware of.

Research shows that women, especially lone parents and their children, stay in poverty longer than other Canadians. And income is not the only measure of poverty. “Time poverty” affects women raising children, women with disabilities, and women caring for others with disabilities. It's women's unpaid work that makes their risk of poverty higher in the first place. So if this is not factored into solutions, they will fail.

There's another dimension, which we might call “safety poverty”, and that's the lack of freedom from violence, especially from physically, psychologically, and economically abusive partners and ex-partners, that prevents many women from taking advantage of economic opportunities.

The last two or three pages focus more on the policy context. You've already seen some of this from chart 16, but I'll recap very quickly. EI coverage and replacement rates are low compared to the past in Canada and compared to other countries. EI, maternity, and parental benefits are least accessible to those mothers who need them the most, although EI evaluations show that there are wonderful benefits for workers and children if they qualify. Minimum wages are not enough to keep individuals out of poverty. There are child care gaps. There are just not enough quality affordable spaces to go around. Welfare regimes, in addition to low rates, strip people of the assets they need to build towards a better future, and they do not allow lone parents to get student loans for post-secondary education. The recipients can't keep much of anything from their earnings if they have paid work. So it's a vicious cycle.

The Canada child tax benefit is a really interesting and very positive program. It's intended to help families stay attached to the paid workforce. However, it's based on the number of children, not the number of workers in the household, which makes it of much more limited value to lone parents. As a comparison, the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, which you're familiar with, provides different rates for singles and couples. Some formula like that might actually make the Canada child tax benefit more accessible for lone parents.

There is no recognition within employment insurance, social assistance, the Canada child tax benefit, or other income supports that women dealing with violence have barriers to employment. With the Canada and Quebec pension plans, much of their impact in reducing poverty for older couples and individuals is based on women's employment. That's important, because if women's employment falls off, poverty levels for seniors will increase.

OAS/GIS benefits, as we've shown, are below the poverty line, and they don't take into account the actual cost of living, such as the exorbitantly high rents in Toronto.

Poverty is costing society and all Canadians a great deal. We brought with us--you'll have it later--a copy of a document called The Cost of Poverty, which outlines that it's not people living in poverty who pay all the costs, it's all of us. Examples of costs include increased health care costs, social disintegration and associated crime and justice, untapped potential, and lower labour market productivity.

In the last slide, to conclude on a more positive note in moving forward, it's important to highlight that there's no shortage of concrete, realistic, and cost-effective recommendations that have been made, including, most recently, by a consortium that includes the Toronto-Dominion Bank. So even corporate Canada is starting to think we might have a problem.

There is no shortage of examples from different parts of Canada, from other countries, of initiatives that have worked. There are also a lot of good intentions. But something is missing, and it's in the neighbourhood of political will, I think. What really is needed, according to the council, is an anti-poverty plan with clear goals to reduce the risk of poverty, to increase the living standards of those living in deepest and most persistent poverty, and to restore dignity to the way in which people are treated. The plan needs targets, indicators to measure results, the assignment of responsibility, and the resources to make it work.

Gender analysis is, of course, an integral part of the way forward in addressing poverty, and addressing poverty is integral to achieving gender equality. Gender analysis means looking at the diverse and dynamic realities of women over the course of their lives.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Regehr.

Mr. Dobie.

[Robert Dobie, Interim Chairperson, Division of Aging and Seniors, National Advisory Council on Aging]

Good morning, and thank you very much for inviting us.

The mandate of the National Advisory Council on Aging is to advise the Minister of Health on all matters related to the aging of the Canadian population and the quality of life of seniors.

For more than 25 years, NACA has endeavoured to bring the issue of population aging to the attention of the federal government and the people of Canada. In developing its recommendations, the council takes into account the most recent research, but it also makes a point of consulting with seniors.

Over the years, the council has developed expertise with regard to the economic condition of seniors. In 2005 NACA published a report entitled Aging in Poverty in Canada. This report looked at issues that affect the economic vulnerability of seniors and made policy recommendations to improve seniors' economic situations. In addition, our report cards, one of which will be published within the next few weeks, raise concerns related to seniors' economic status.

In terms of the issues, there have been clear improvements in the economic situation of Canadian seniors since the 1980s, both in absolute terms and relative to younger population groups. But this catching-up period is over. A substantial number of seniors, often women, continue to live under very difficult economic conditions. While Canada's combined public-private retirement income system is often considered a success story, poverty among senior women is not a rare occurrence. For a good number of senior women, the prospect of a golden retirement simply does not exist.

Compared with senior men, senior women are more likely to live below the low-income cut-offs. In 2004, 3.5% of senior men and 7.3% of senior women were below the low-income cut-offs. Almost 20% of unattached senior women were below these cut-offs.

Statistics Canada estimates that 219,000 seniors were living below the low-income cut-offs in 2004. More than 60% of these were unattached senior women.

Senior women are far more likely to depend on old age security and GIS as important sources of revenue. Close to one-half of women over the age of 80 depend on the GIS.

The OAS and GIS are not enough. Unfortunately, sometimes the OAS and GIS are insufficient to allow seniors, especially those who are unattached, to live above the low-income cut-off. In 2003 an unattached person who received only OAS and the GIS had an average annual income of $12,031, an amount much less than the low-income cut-off for urban areas, where the cost of living is high.

Our first recommendation is that the amount of the guaranteed income supplement should be increased so that the sum of the GIS and OAS is equal to or greater than the low-income cut-off, as determined by Statistics Canada.

The income gap between genders is still very evident. In 2004 the average income of women over 65 was 67% that of men. The income difference between men and women in 2004 was $10,800, virtually unchanged from 2000.

Older women tend to have lower incomes than men because they participated less in the labour force, and their wages were less, on average, if they were employed. In 2004 about one in five senior women had never worked outside the home. In addition, because women live longer, they are at a greater risk of running out of savings over their lifetimes.

Women who are divorced or separated have much lower retirement incomes than do single women and widows, as most divorced women do not claim a portion of their former spouse's pension, despite being entitled to it. Single women have likely invested in their careers and therefore have higher retirement incomes. Many widows have inherited assets from their husbands and are entitled to a survivors benefit.

Our second recommendation is that a more systematic sharing of the pension of their former spouse would improve senior women's economic security. NACA considers it important to increase the income of divorced and separated women, and reiterates the recommendation it made in 1993, that governments ensure automatic and compulsory sharing of pension rights under the CPP, employer pension funds, and retirement savings plans following divorce or legal separation.

Housing is another issue. Despite an average increase in income of 20% for seniors between 1980 and 2000, housing affordability problems decreased by only 1% between 1981 and 2001 among seniors. In 2001 almost 50% of all senior women renters living alone had core housing needs, the highest level of any household type. We recommend that provincial governments should reinstate rent control policies to benefit senior renters and fund new affordable housing units, including supportive housing.

The concerns outlined today are not likely restricted to today's retirees. Fully one-third of Canadian women between the ages of 45 and 59 believe they are not financially prepared for retirement. Moreover, it is expected that economic inequalities among seniors will increase as the CPP and OAS retirement benefits system matures, and as seniors' additional sources of retirement benefits vary in accordance with respective private retirement pension plans and RRSPs. These latter forms of savings are more prevalent among workers with higher earnings.

The percentage of women contributing to private pension plans is now catching up to the percentage of men. The difference was just 0.7% in 2002, whereas it was over 8% in 1991. Still, women receive smaller pension incomes because of the wage difference between men and women, and because these plans do not compensate for absences to raise children or to look after sick relatives, absences that are generally taken by women.

Job insecurity, which is more often the lot of women, has a considerable impact on retirement income. Self-employed workers, part-time workers, and workers who experience extended periods of unemployment have a harder time saving for their retirement. Part-time workers contribute to the CPP, but the benefits replace a relatively low percentage of contributors' incomes when they retire. Also, most part-time workers do not contribute to employer pension plans.

Finally, I'd like to thank the standing committee for inviting NACA's views on senior women and poverty. The council urges the federal government to take immediate action to address the concerns mentioned so that senior women's poverty does not persist into the future.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks to all of you. That was a lot of information. I think we're going to need to have you back to talk about these issues a lot more, considering the brief time we have this morning.

Our first speaker is Ms. Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to thank both of you. You couldn't have given us a more concise, superb presentation on the issues--very direct and very clear.

As a former member of the welfare council some years back, I can say that at the time we were looking at the myths and realities of the welfare state system, with a whole host of other things.

Ms. Regehr, you mentioned to us that basically it doesn't matter what we look at--the senior woman, the single mother, the person on welfare, the family making minimum wage--because poverty goes right across. It has many different reasons; welfare is low, wages, taking time out to look after family. I'm not going to go over all the reasons you've said, but obviously there are many different reasons. So the solutions have to be multi-approach, multi-target.

One of the things that has been discussed--I just throw this out--in addition to the child tax credit, which we have tried, is a guaranteed income, I guess, for all...and I'm not just talking about for seniors, but for all wage people, a working tax credit. That would only apply to working people, which wouldn't actually work for....

Can you give me an idea on this? If we were to get all of our programs into one pot and try to create in this country a form of guaranteed income, would that go a long way toward helping or not? Have there been studies by the council on those things?

[Sheila Regehr]

Thank you.

It's very interesting that you raise that question. As I mentioned, we just finished a four-day council meeting in Quebec City, and that was one of the things that was talked about in those discussions, the idea of having some sort of guaranteed annual income or guaranteed living income; I've heard it described in different ways. There are people looking more and more at that kind of concept.

For a while it was an issue that one couldn't talk about at all, and now it's back on the table. As I said, with the Toronto-Dominion Bank and some of the other corporate players interested in looking at how to resolve these issues, their particular focus was working-age adults. That's where a large part of the problem is, and I think both presentations have highlighted that. You have to address poverty where it starts, and continues, for women.

One of the interesting things that might do, just based on a few other things that I know about.... There was a really interesting study, briefly referred to in The Cost of Poverty, by a woman at McMaster University. It was a big consortium project, but they were looking at lone parents and they were looking at different things, at what helps. One of the things they found that surprised them--and maybe shouldn't have--was that there were hugely high rates of depression among lone parents. In our system, the way things work now, because of the way things are paid and the way our income security system works and because we have such a good universal health care system, logically those people would then be sent to psychologists and psychiatrists to deal with the depression.

What worked? Two hours' worth of recreation for their kids every week. They were depressed for a reason; they couldn't get a break.

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

They needed a break, yes.

[Sheila Regehr]

One of the things a kind of guaranteed living income would do is remove a whole portion of pathology from people, those for whom it really is income poverty that matters--people who are competent, and capable, who know how to manage their money, whose lives are in order, but who just don't have enough money.

It would remove that huge problem from other parts of the system, and it would free up a lot of other money. It would then also allow you to really focus on particular areas that need more specific attention, such as people with disabilities, addictions, and those sorts of things where different types of resources really are important.

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

That kind of program would also take a tremendous load off our health care system, I would think, because of the fact that people who are constantly struggling financially are constantly struggling for nutrition for their children and a host of other things that they can't attend to early on in their lives, and that's a problem.

Before my time is up--I have a lot more questions for both of you, actually--I want to talk about how immigrant women and visible minority women have a different challenge, if you like, as senior women; they may not have accumulated much of a pension, or came here maybe in mid-life at some point, or are working for low wages.

I apologize, because I missed part of your presentation, and I think you might have made some mention of this, but did you find that there was even an additional burden with respect to immigrant and visible minority women in terms of their ability to access incomes and to build savings?

[Robert Dobie]

In our particular case, our studies have indicated that immigrant women, when they do retire, have very little income to count on. Most rely on just the pension and the supplement, and that's really insufficient. Obviously the single, unattached older woman is very vulnerable.

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

Maybe you could lump into that aspect the other women you had mentioned.

[Sheila Regehr]

Charts 8 and 9 show that. The top chart looks at poverty rates for women 15 and over, so this is basically all adult women. If you look, for example, particularly at the bars belonging to a visible minority group, look at the very high red bar for unattached individuals--this is all women--and go directly below that to look at those unattached members of a visible minority, you see that it jumps from 55% to 69%. Those women, when they reach 65, are that much more vulnerable.

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

I'll have to come back to that.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, Ms. Minna, your time is up.

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Good morning. Thank you for your presentations.

I want to ask you essentially three questions, one of which is a follow-up to what Mrs. Minna asked.

Last week, we met senior officials from Human Ressources and Social Development. They told us that our Canada Pension Plan was the best in the world.

First, I would like to hear your views on that subject. Second, how do you explain the difference that exists with poverty among immigrant women? Is it because they mostly stay at home and do not have the opportunity to contribute to a private pension fund?

Finally, you talked about an antipoverty action plan. Can you fill us in on that subject? How would this action plan apply in practice? Do you have any idea on this subject?

[Sheila Regehr]

Thank you very much.

Very briefly, according to my experience, the departmental officials are right, in a way; Canada really is looked at as a model for the CPP and the way it works. One of the reasons it works really well is that it does have those particular features in it that address a lot of women's needs, like the child-rearing dropout. As Robert mentioned, it doesn't work perfectly, but like credit-splitting, there are ways that it could be improved. Because it has those kinds of features, it really does offer some advantages that a lot of other government pension plans don't in other parts of the world, and advantages, certainly, that most private pension plans don't.

Evidently, as well, there are areas in there to work on. If some things are working really well, you look at those as models and see how you can make them work better.

In terms of poverty among immigrant women, I'm sure there are others who could talk to this better; there are so many issues. A lot of it has to do, for example, with foreign credentials, the ability of immigrant women coming into Canada to be able to get employment in the fields that will get them a decent income.

If I understand correctly, there also seems to be quite a gap amongst immigrant women. Some come in very highly skilled and do really well; others don't. Another trend I've heard people talk about is that for a lot of immigrant women, even though it shows that their economic situation looks not bad in terms of income, it's often because they're working two, three, and four jobs. So there's a lot going on there to look at, and I think you need to look at a lot of statistics underneath the major trends.

In terms of the plan of action, this was, again, a major subject of discussion at the council meeting, and the beginnings of something that we're really hoping to launch, to develop in more detail, to consult with some other organizations and other Canadians on. I think a lot of the inspiration we got in Quebec City was from listening to what the collectif described to us. We invited them to meetings and they described the efforts of a whole coalition of groups in Quebec for a poverty-free Quebec, and the law they have in place, the plans they have in place to develop a set of indicators, some very specific goals. Our council has been in existence since 1965, and, to my knowledge, theirs is the only other council that's been created in Canada. There's also some really interesting work going on in Newfoundland, and we hope to look more closely at that. Some of the work that John and I and Cathy did, going into the council meeting, was looking at what's happening in other countries. The United Kingdom and a lot of the European countries are developing that.

It's pretty basic; if you want to get something done, you figure out what needs to get done and who's going to do it, and you assign the resources. But there has to be some more accountability for that to happen.

[John Anderson, Senior Researcher and Policy Advisor, National Council of Welfare]

Perhaps I could add to that.

I think it's very significant that in Canada two provinces have now adopted laws or anti-poverty strategies. One is Quebec, where it's been adopted by all parties. It was a unanimous decision of the National Assembly. It is being implemented by a Liberal government right now. In Newfoundland, which has just recently adopted an anti-poverty strategy, it's a Conservative government that is moving ahead with this anti-poverty strategy.

That's very significant, because work around these issues should not be linked to partisan issues. Eliminating poverty is really an issue that all parties should see they have an interest in moving forward on.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I would like to specify something for Mr. Anderson. In Quebec, the antipoverty law was tabled by the Parti québécois.

[John Anderson]

But it was adopted unanimously by all parties; all parties voted for it.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

It is true but it is nevertheless important to take note of the differences in Quebec.

I hope your report will take into account the differences that exist between the provinces. Since some provinces already have adopted a law, it would be important to take those differences into account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have one minute left.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

You say there is always room for improvement in the pension plan of Canada. Could you briefly mention two or three improvements that could concretely benefit women?

[Sheila Regehr]

There are some things that are not necessarily directed to women, but recommendations have been made generally on increasing the replacement rate. CPP provides only 25% of income.

That's a generalized thing, but for women specifically, one of the recommendations I've heard put forward, by Monica Townson and others, is to build on the child-rearing dropout formula for allowing the system to kind of compensate for time that was spent outside the labour force, or with very low earnings, raising children, and to look at expanding that for other kinds of care-giving. If you have, say, a disabled relative that you need to care for over a period of time, some of that could be dropped out as well. Or if you have a child with a disability, even when they reach school age they require more care, and that sort of thing.

So that's one idea.

[John Anderson]

Another idea that's been talked about and that I think would be very helpful to women would be to allow all working Canadians to contribute to the maximum contributions of CPP. Right now if you're a low-income worker, as many women are, then you only can contribute a certain amount. Therefore that affects the pension you receive later on.

If you could contribute the full amount, and maybe get your employer also to contribute an extra amount, or contribute both the employee and employer amount yourself, this would be much more useful than actually purchasing an RRSP with the same amount of money. You would be doing yourself a much greater service to assure yourself that when you retired you had the full CPP. It would be allowing all Canadians, those who wanted to, to up their contributions to get the maximum.

That would be a very easy change. I've heard the actuaries from both QPP and CPP say how this would be possible to do. The plan is set up. A very easy thing would be a voluntary program, which would allow people to actually assure themselves that they could get a full pension.