Status of Women Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Smith, you have only 12 seconds left.

[Sheila Regehr]

There probably is a general lack of knowledge amongst the Canadian population about our income security programs, about financial information generally, particularly among women--and particularly among older women. It has been suggested that there is a role for the federal government to at least provide the information that people need, not to interfere with what's happening in the school system but to put the information out.

The other major source that other people with more money have access to are financial advisers and lawyers and all of those people that low-income earners can't afford. The banks have no interest in providing information to low-income earners.

So it's hard to get the information you need, and I think lots of people can have some roles to play in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Any other quick comments on that to Ms. Smith?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes.

You said that information was provided to schools--

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just quickly, please.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have to--

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I know, but I was asking if our presenters had any further comments to your questions. We'll try to see if we can get back around again. It's just that our time is getting short.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes.

You were saying that information has been sent to schools. How do you get it into the schools? What avenue do you use to get it in there?

[Sheila Regehr]

We have a regular distribution list of people who seek our publications, but that's more at the university level.

I was going to comment just anecdotally that I learned about Canada's income security programs in graduate school. So I agree with you, it's a bit late. It's either then or through experience; when you run up against the problems with a program, then you start understanding it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Madam Bourgeois.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

This is very interesting and I am very happy you are here. Your two presentations complement each other, even if there are some minor differences between the two and even though you work at different levels. I nevertheless think you are very bold and very courageous to dare speak the truth.

My first question is directed to the two presenters. If I correctly read your presentations, your organizations are both advisory councils . To whom do you usually speak?

[Robert Dobie]

We are the advisory for seniors and the big boss is the minister of Health.

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

Have you recently spoken to him?

[Robert Dobie]

I will meet him in 15 minutes.

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

When did you speak to him last?

[Robert Dobie]

We met him in February, a few days after his appointment. We were in Ottawa for a meeting. It was an opportunity to see him and we will see him again this morning.

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

Excellent,Mrs. Regehr.

[Sheila Regehr]

For us, it is the minister of Human Ressources and Social Development.

It was a little bit prior to my time. I was with the council before, and I've just come back. At the March meeting of the council members in Ottawa, they met with the minister. And we expect that we will meet with her again in October.

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

I agree.

I have been trying to improve the situation of women for a number of years. There is nothing new in what you just told us this morning. We have been hearing for years about that, to the point that the government of Quebec decided to do things on his own because in Canada, nobody listened to the people who talked about the situation of women.

Our researchers have just handed out a very nice report, written by Monica Townson, a colleague of Ruth Rose. I don't know if her name is familiar to you. In Quebec, we have been using since 1993 the studies of Ruth Rose to adopt various policies aimed at developping the autonomy of women.

It is easy to understand that there are direct costs related to poverty. Have your organizations measured the direct costs associated with women's poverty? We talk about poverty, and you also talked about mental health and costs for lone women. Have you done any studies on the inherent costs of poverty?

[Robert Dobie]

Not as far as I know. I must tell you I have been only three months in this position. But I can ask around.

It is difficult to know the direct costs related to women's poverty, because that population changes rapidly. The number of seniors will increase considerably in a few years. I should mention that 24 or 25% of Canada's population will be 60 and older.

But about thoses costs, I have to admit I don't have thoses figures. I can try to get them for you.

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

Thank you.

Madame Regehr.

[Sheila Regehr]

I agree that it's hard to get at the direct costs of poverty, but what this document, which we've copies of in English and French, has done is put together a compilation of different studies in Canada and the United States that show very clearly what the costs of poverty are, but also that there are remedies that involve significant investments up front, but that end up paying off tremendously afterwards. They virtually pay for themselves, and more.

A lot of the examples in here, if I recall correctly, are related to women. I mean, child care is one of the areas that really has been costed out quite well. There are examples in here around lone parents. There are other health care examples.

So a lot of them relate very directly to women's lives.

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

Madam Chair, I will finish with a comment.

In Canada, there is no family policy. I think that as members of the Standing Committee on the Status of women, we should make an exhaustive study of the employment insurance system effect on women's living conditions.

All the material we have read up to now show beyond any doubt that the employment insurance program is inadequate as far as women are concerned. We should recall that 48 billion dollars have disappeared from the employment insurance coffers.

Last year, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had a surplus of 2 billion dollars. We could simply have shared that money and offered social housing adapted to people with a disability, to immigrants and seniors.

Whether they speak of equalization or about tax disparity, the provinces ask for a fairer distribution of wealth.

Poverty among women is a multifaceted problem, and if we want to study each of those facets this morning, I can tell you it will take some time. If the committee want to do a good job, he will have to adress each element of this problem and ask the government to do something about it.

I have been working on the status of women for 13 years and we have been talking about it for 13 years.Groups like yours should flash a red light and demand that something be done.

I thank you for having been so frank this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Bourgeois. We will keep that in mind as this study moves forward. I think one of the things that's concurrent when you're a member consistently is frustration in terms of seeing things move forward. We will certainly take that into consideration.

The report that Ms. Regehr has referred to is being distributed to your offices now. I understand we were asked not to distribute it until after the meeting.

Ms. Mathyssen, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions. My first one is with regard to the cap that's currently on the limits that lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual community members can claim in terms of CPP/QPP survivor benefits. It's been backdated to January 1998. Those involved in challenging that believe it should be backdated to 1978.

I know it's before the Supreme Court right now, and we don't have a decision yet, but I wonder, has there been any work done or any anticipation of a favourable court decision in terms of allowing it to go back the extra 20 years?