Status of Women Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Ruth Rose-Lizée]

When we start to look at plans in other countries, we see that each country has a completely different system, and we need to compare them. The Canada Pension Plan already includes an exclusion method: it's the contribution by individuals with no children compared to individuals with children. This does not concern women who have contributed the most to our national well-being through unpaid work. That is why we would like to see not only an exclusion but also an inclusion. Another way of proceeding would be to give through Old Age Security, for example, an additional $1,000 per child raised per woman. This would be funded from general funds, which would improve the income of older women who are the worse off, and who had less opportunity to contribute to RRSPs or employer pension plans.

We hope that you will include this in your recommendations.

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

Thank you very much.

I wanted to throw out another suggestion we heard. The CLC talked to us about a plan whereby we would be able to double the average earnings replaced by CPP from 25% to 50%, over a period of seven or so years, by asking workers to contribute up from the current 5.3% to a contribution of 7.7%. They said that would make a significant difference in terms of CPP.

They also suggested that GIS be increased by 15%. They also wanted the government to protect pension plans that were defunct.

The cost of this would be less than $700 million. It's interesting in light of what Monsieur Laporte said about $10 billion being available, which is now paid in fees. Is the CLC on to something positive here? Do you see this as another recommendation that we should include in our brief to government?

[Ruth Rose-Lizée]

When I spoke about improving the Canada Pension Plan, it was also with regard to increasing the income replacement rates. I think that it is a bad idea to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement, because this is creating coordination problems with other sources of income. I would rather see the Guaranteed Income Supplement clawback rate drop so that people are subject to a 35% or 40% rate instead of a 50% plus 30% tax rate.

In any case, actuarial analyses will need to be done, if we are to improve the Canada Pension Plan. This will ensure the immediate entry of funds, at a time when grandfathering is delayed, which could help resolve the problem of equity of access to the plan because of the demographic imbalance and baby boomers.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We will go to our final questioner of the day. Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly it will be a long time before I feel that I have expertise on or an understanding of this. It's a fairly complicated issue. To be honest, before I entered Parliament I had no idea that there even was something such as OAS or GIS. I had always heard the Canada Pension Plan was going to be broke so I had better not count on it.

So it has been actually quite pleasant to hear that not only do we have OAS and GIS for people who are really struggling, but also that the Canada Pension Plan isn't going to be broke. That was certainly good news and that is probably not out there. That really speaks to me. I consider myself to have some knowledge about a number of things, but it really talks to the idea of financial literacy. In this case, we've saved like mad, because I didn't think there was anything else there.

But I'd certainly like to talk a little about that particular issue and, really, how do we ensure people know and are thinking.... I'm not sure if I like the comment that we have to force people to save for retirement. I think people need to be making choices around those sorts of things.

So first of all, I'll open that up for some comments.

[Terence Yuen]

In terms of financial education in general, I think that is very important, not just for women but for all Canadians. The financial system is getting more complex, so we definitely need that.

I did a bit of research on this topic to compare the Canadian experience with other countries. One of the issues I found is that some other countries--for example, the U.K. and Australia--have mandatory financial education in their curriculum. I think we have something in Canada right now, but it isn't mandatory. We have some programs that are already developed, and it's up to the school boards or the teachers whether to incorporate that into the system.

I think we definitely need to get something into the curriculum so that everyone can get basic education about the choices. We have been talking about giving the general public more room to save, but at the same time, they have to make the right choices in their investments. I think that's also very important.

I think this is a very important issue, and I believe we have to increase the financial education level in the schools.

[Jean-Pierre Laporte]

If I could add something on financial literacy, I'm of a view that it's fine for people to know how to manage their finances, handle credit, to take care of obligations, but I don't believe Canadians should be experts at investing in the stock markets. MPs and senators belong to a very generous pension plan, and none of you has asked to be thinking about whether you go into bonds or foreign equities. You don't have to worry about it because someone else is taking care of it.

I don't see why small and medium-sized companies and other taxpayers in this country should not have the same privilege. I believe financial literacy is fine to a certain degree, but if we have a system that allows people to have a decent pension without having to turn them into financial experts, I think that's a better way to go.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I appreciate both those comments, and I think they're both very valid. I remember Terry Toller, who did consumer education in grade nine, teaching how to do your income tax returns and skills that we never forget.

I want to get one quick question in. The one thing I am a bit confused over are the changes under Bill C-51. As I understand, they are just actuarial adjustments. So come 50 and your decision to retire at 60, 65, or older, it's not that there are reductions; it's that there are adjustments in terms of the equity since it's paid out over a much longer time. Could someone straighten me out on that?

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You have about 30 seconds to straighten her out.

[Martine Sohier]

There is already an adjustment. As was mentioned earlier, it was 6%, but it was found that 6% is not enough to be equitable from the time you start a pension early versus later. There is a need to increase that to be more equitable between the time you start—if you start early—versus if you wait.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It sounds like a fair system.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I would like to--

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I need some information, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Go ahead.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I have heard about documents that were tabled with the Department of Finance by Ms. Rose-Lizée and by Ms. Sohier's group. Mr. Laporte did not table a document, but he talked about a project. I don't know whether he has any document supporting that. I would like to know whether we could get a copy of those documents.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Could we request that those documents be sent to the committee?

[Martine Sohier]

I want to point out that there are various consultations. Would you like to have the broad area of all consultations? We could send that.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

That would be great. Thank you.

Again, we want to thank all of the witnesses for the information you provided.

We will suspend for just a moment, and then we'll be coming back as a committee in camera.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We will begin. Thank you. We are not in camera.

We have notice of two motions. We will begin with Ms. McLeod. Did you want to move your motion at this time?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

No.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, thank you.

We will proceed to the next notice of motion from Ms. Neville. Do you wish to move your motion?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I do, thank you, but I don't have a copy of it in front of me.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay. We'll wait for everyone to get a copy.

The motion reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee holds a joint meeting with the Standing Committee of Human Resources and Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study the subject matter of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't want to belabour it or go on at length. I think it would be an important issue for this committee to meet with the HUMA committee, which is doing the primary study of the benefits to the self-employed. As you are undoubtedly aware, it was this committee that did a quite comprehensive but incomplete study--because there was an election called--on benefits to the self-employed, focusing largely on maternity and paternity benefits. Given the history of this committee, it would be most appropriate. And I'm sure that the blues or the report, whatever members want, could be sent out to those members of the committee who weren't there. It certainly affects a disproportionate number of women compared to men.

So that's my recommendation.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Is there any discussion on the motion? Does anybody wish to speak to the motion? No debate?

Mr. Van Kesteren.