Evidence of meeting #42 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was older.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Okay, we're connected right now, so let's go with this.
Madam Kaegi, I'm sorry that we keep starting again from scratch.
3:40 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
That's all right.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
You will be given 10 minutes to present.
What's going on here? We've never had this problem before.
3:40 p.m.
A voice
No, it's gremlins.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Are we connected again now?
Remember, anything we say in the room will be in the transcript. So we need to be able to decide whether I want to pause the meeting or not.
All right? Good. Thank you.
Ms. Kaegi?
There we are, finally.
3:45 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
Yes, here's hoping.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
As I said before, you have 10 minutes for presentation, and then there will be rounds of questions and answers. We will deal with the rounds when they begin.
Will you begin your presentation now, Ms. Kaegi, please?
3:45 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I preface my remarks by saying the context of what I am saying is based on the fact that women live longer than men. Please keep that in mind.
Here are our comments on the OAS/GIS/CPP/QPP. Yes, we agree the depth of poverty has been reduced. However, if you have to live on OAS and GIS, you are in the depths of poverty. You are below the low-income cut-off, and then of course the determinants of health negatively affect your healthy aging. Statistics Canada has noted that inflation increases for seniors are different from that of the general population, and of course the increases to OAS and GIS are based on the broad consumer price index. So seniors, and particularly older women, will fall behind.
We are really concerned at the endemic poverty of older persons. Single, unattached older persons, and particularly women, have quite high poverty rates. Their rate is 38% as opposed to 25% for men, and yet governments claim that the poverty of older people has been resolved. We're concerned about recent older immigrants, especially those who have been brought by their children to help with child care. They're at risk of being poor because of the years of residency required to be eligible for OAS and GIS. The aboriginal communities--first nations, Métis, and Inuit--are at the greatest risk of poverty and deprivation, and we hope your committee is giving particular attention to women from these populations as to how changes in pensions can improve their lives.
The changing labour market is critical, because as you know--you've had presentations on it--defined benefit pension plans are steadily disappearing and being replaced by defined contribution pension plans where the risks are very high. Again, the fact is, women outlive men, so the risk to women proportionately becomes higher. Among the oldest old, more people are living into their nineties. Most of them are women. The RRIF requirements that funds must be wound up by age 90, when the fastest-growing cohort of older persons is 80-plus years, particularly harms older women.
The longevity of women, as I've been pointing out, is a crucial factor around pensions, and clearly one cannot live that much more cheaply than two, because if one dies, accommodation and food and so on still have to be paid for.
We draw attention to women's paid labour. Women are paid significantly less than men, and they are still clustered in the lower wage sector of the labour market, the service sector in particular. Low-wage workers live from day to day and cannot put money into tax free savings accounts or RRSPs. The data I saw on your website that you received from Stats Canada is incorrect. I may have got the context wrong, but in June of this year, Statistics Canada showed the average women's earnings to be 65.7% of the wages of men in 2007. That concerned me.
Female single parents--you know the issues, and their opportunity for saving and putting aside money for their old age is increasingly limited. The self-employed segment is rising. Women make up a major number of the self-employed. They're there out of necessity, not by choice. To have access to CPP/QPP they have to make payments as employer and employee, and that can be really hard.
Now to the issue of women and caregiving. Women still carry the major responsibility for caregiving, which has led to interrupted participation in the labour force or a move to part-time work. This in turn leads to lower pensions, and the CPP/QPP drop-out provisions that are there for child care should be replicated for other forms of family care. The requirement for the caregiver credit must not be based on the expected imminent death of the person being cared for, but should recognize the broader range of care needs that families face.
There was an attempt in the past to limit or cut the cost of living increases in these national pension and income programs. We plead that this never be attempted again, despite our budget deficits. The impact of government services is huge on lower-income people. So any move in this time of economic trouble for government service cuts will have a huge impact on lower-income people.
We looked at recent immigrants and poverty, especially those who have come to Canada over the past twenty or fewer years. They face high levels of unemployment and underemployment. Again, they are going to become the new older poor.
Given that women live longer than men, the risk of poverty and lack of personal pensions is very high. Racialized women, especially among the more recent immigrants to Canada, have low pay levels and high levels of underemployment and unemployment. They comprise the marginal workforce and are the overwhelming majority of workers in nursing homes, personal support workers, and paid caregivers. They lack access to pension plans and they will depend on OAS and GIS.
The rising number of workers without access to any pension plan and people in minimum wage jobs will be at increasing risk of poverty. We're concerned about the issue of current younger workers. Statistics Canada reports for 2007 that the assets of the 44-year-old are only at $47,000. That's not going to be enough for their old age.
We haven't touched on the threats to pensions through corporate bankruptcies. Ontario has a program that protects pensions up to $1,000 per month. Yet this program is at risk in the current economic collapse. No other province carries it.
So we came up with nine strategies for change.
The maximum replacement rate for CPP should be changed to $60,000 and be fully indexed. It would be nice if the indexing reflected the older person index. We request the design of CPP in light of increasing variations in labour force participation.
We would like the committee to include the impact of increasing short-term and self-employment on contributions to and the benefits of CPP/QPP.
The federal and provincial governments need to bring in a contributory pension plan that would enable low-paid workers and those without a plan to participate. They should increase opportunities for contributory pension plans, professionally managed, that would be open to all workers, especially those in small businesses or who are self-employed.
We're really concerned about people between 60 and 65 and the penalties they face for early uptake of CPP. Yet it's almost impossible for them to find work.
If we could ensure that employment and pay equity programs were in place, women would be better off and the lower wages for women compared with men would be ended.
We need to have a special focus on racialized women who are employed in the personal service and health and social services systems. Their working conditions and level of pay doom them to poverty.
Some of the most serious threats to the health and well-being of older women would be alleviated if we had an adequate supply of affordable and supportive housing where rent is geared to income. Of course, this would help all low-income seniors.
Ideally, the creation of a guaranteed annual income would ensure a basic income for all Canadians, whatever the age. Of course, that would alleviate the penalties faced by people who are solely dependent on government programs.
Finally, I guess, given the economic times, we note that the benefits citizens receive through public services far outweigh any tax cuts.
The possible reduction in government services because of the huge increase in the national and provincial debts would have the greatest impact on low-income to moderate-income people. Again, we note that the use of tax credits benefits only those with higher middle and high incomes and does nothing for those whose incomes are at or below the low-income cut-off.
Thank you very much for the time. I appreciate your patience in the difficulty making the connection.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Ms. Kaegi. Now we will move to questions and answers.
The first round will be a seven-minute session for each person, but those seven minutes include questions and answers.
We will begin with Ms. Zarac.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Ms. Kaegi. Thank you for being here today.
When your corporation was founded in 1969, your focus was primarily on seniors. Then you expanded that focus to include a number of other groups. In your opinion, which group is the most vulnerable?
3:55 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
That's a difficult question. Clearly, single, unattached older persons have very high poverty rates. For single-parent female heads of families, it's a huge problem for them. I'm sorry, I'm giving you a number of people, but again, for our aboriginal communities it's a very high issue, and the new group--new to us--is, we believe, the immigrant population, especially those from the racialized communities. They are facing job discrimination. Many of them are in the marginal labour force.
So we see quite a cluster of people, and it's hard to put one solely ahead of all the others.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
I know that there are many people in need, but the first group you mentioned is surely one of the most important, women with children. What changes do you think are necessary in order to give this group of women the opportunity to receive a better retirement income?
3:55 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
Well, if you go back to the fact of their intermittent access to labour, to the labour market, what if we had an additional plan that targets people at the very low end of the scale?
The other thing that would help all people facing poverty in their old age is a significant increase to old age security and to the guaranteed income plan. That would make a heck of a difference for all of them.
I hope that has answered your question.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Bill 51 seeks a 2% reduction, to 9%, in the retirement benefit of women who want to retire before the age of 65. What impact will that have on these women, in your opinion?
3:55 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
I'm sorry, but I didn't get the first part of the question.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
I will repeat it. A provision in Bill C-51 seeks to reduce the retirement benefit by 2%, to 9%, for women who want to retire before the age of 65. Right now, the penalty is 0.5%.
4 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
The trouble is the fact that they're living longer. That penalty is going to be significant the older you are, because that's going to last for the rest of your life. Therefore, our concern is that people who become unemployed at 60 are not going to be employed in the labour market. There's huge discrimination. By having that penalty, they will live with an even lower income than what we talked about initially, the $1,169 per month that is the current OAS and GIS, with a marginal CPP.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
If I understand correctly, you think it discriminates against women. So what would you suggest?
4 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
Well, I hate to be biased, but the trouble is, given women's low income across the board in Canada--the average low income for women--it would be important to see that maybe there could be special recognition for the difficulties women face at the age of 60, though, on the other hand, there's growing unemployment for men, and they too are going to be paying a penalty.
So maybe, given the current economic times, what we should do--and this could change later--is perhaps look at that penalty not being applied for a period of time, and then you could go back and look at the implications.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
So, according to what you are saying, it is pretty hard to solve during a recession.
4 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
On the other hand, the CPP is in good shape. It has done well. The change in how it's invested has brought a great deal of resources to the CPP. I think if we regularly review, as we did not that many years ago, we could look at the cost now for the CPP and then go back and see what the implication is, how much would have to change once the unemployment level has dropped and the conditions of older people have improved.
So I would see this as a temporary move, reflecting the difficulties that our people are facing now, and it will carry over into the end of their life.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you. We are talking about improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, but it is also said that people should save for their retirement. Since the majority of women—you mentioned 65.7%—earn less than men, do you think it is possible for them to save for retirement? If not, what incentives do you think the government could provide?
4 p.m.
Member of the Executive, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.
We responded to the Harry Arthur pension commission in Ontario. They had a very interesting suggestion of an alternative plan that could focus on workers who are at minimum wage, who work for small employers where there are no options for pension plans. There can be a way of looking at that large group of workers and maybe developing another form of pension plan that would at least give them something. Yes, workers should be investing for the future. We know they are not, and Statistics Canada has pointed that out. But many workers can't afford to invest because they are low-wage workers; they are marginal in the labour force. We suggest looking at some other form of contributory plan that could be targeted to the specific population.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much. Time is up on this one.
The next person is Monsieur Desnoyers.
