Status of Women Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

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

There is another thing I struggle with. With respect to EI and the self-employed, we are talking about double-sided benefits they would have to contribute. Realistically, it might be in a compensation package for the employed, but at the end of the day this is the full compensation package. If it was an employee-employer contribution, then perhaps there would be other benefits added for the employee on an EI plan. For a self-employed person, it seems like a dramatic amount of money. But if you look at how it affects an employee, it's probably not much different. It just looks that way when you're going from an unknown to more than 9%.

[Gerda Kaegi]

The self-employed are often low-income people. They're often there not by choice but by necessity. If you have a low income and you make some payment into the CPP, it is a significant amount of money. You're right: if the employer and employee are both contributing, it's deferred wages for the employee. But for the low-income self-employed, it is a tough thing to do. So we're recommending that you look at it. Maybe a strategy could be developed that would make it possible for at least some contribution to be made. Maybe it would be at a lower level, but at least it would be something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Kaegi.

Cathy, I'm sorry, your time has expired.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair and Mrs. Kaegi. You've brought a great deal of quite pertinent information, I think. I was quite intrigued by a number of the things you said.

We've heard from a variety of witnesses, and a couple or three weeks ago the Canadian Labour Congress was here. They have quite an interesting proposal, and I wanted to ask you about it. They're suggesting that over the next seven to ten years, CPP contributions should be increased from 5.33% to 7.7% to double the CPP, and make sure that money is increased to the level where CPP could be more beneficial. Also, GIS should be increased by 15%, or about $110 per month, for seniors.

Does this suggestion strike you as a good beginning? Is this something we should recommend?

[Gerda Kaegi]

I think it is a very good beginning. The contributions to the CPP were revised. I pointed out that you're clearly in poverty if you're eligible for GIS. So anything that would increase that I would fully support.

Please remember that there are people who don't pay into the CPP and get no benefit from that. That's where we have a great deal of concern, because many of those people are women.

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

I appreciate that very much.

There's been an estimation that to lift all seniors above the poverty level in Canada would cost us in the neighbourhood of $700 million a year. As of January 1, the extra tax cut to profitable corporations will be $1.5 billion. I think your point with regard to tax cuts not having the same level of benefit as services to Canadians is quite a valid one.

I also wanted to ask you about your comment with regard to aboriginal communities. You said they're at the greatest risk, and government needs to act decisively. What recommendations would you have? What should we include in our report with regard to aboriginal women?

[Gerda Kaegi]

Would you please look at the issue of aboriginal families, their poverty levels, the social issues they are dealing with? It seems to us that aboriginal women, who do live longer than aboriginal men, even though both have a shorter lifespan, have a huge burden, because many of them are taking care of grandchildren from children who have gotten into trouble or who have died. Don't put the aboriginal community to one side; they tend so often to be left off the table. Look at the larger community.

So whatever can be done in terms of their guaranteed income, some way of reducing the appalling poverty that our first nations, Inuit, and Métis people face, to us, is absolutely essential.

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

Thank you.

You also referenced the reality women face in terms of a need for pay equity, a need for decent, affordable housing, for a national child care program--the things that help women particularly at the lower-income level to manage and perhaps look ahead to retirement. If we don't pursue these things, are we looking at poverty for future generations of women?

[Gerda Kaegi]

I think we are. We think we are. We think they are at great risk given the difficulties that people are increasingly facing in the labour market. We are getting a higher percentage of marginal workers than we've had before. We've got contract work, low-income work, part-time work; that's the area that's growing. So we are deeply concerned that the younger generation are the people who are really going to be facing a much higher level of poverty over time.

I hope that answers your question.

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

That was very good. Thank you.

Do I have any more time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have about a minute and a half.

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

Okay. I'll try to be succinct then.

You talked about defined benefit plans. It reminded me that these plans very often have a retirement component that includes drug coverage, eye glasses, and dentistry. That's what has made these plans so much more valuable or preferable. It caused me to think about what you said in terms of an enriched CPP, an enriched pension plan that was public and made sure that pensioners, seniors, were well taken care of.

Would your vision of a proper pension include pharmacare, eye glasses, and dentistry? Is that something you envision?

[Gerda Kaegi]

For years we have called for a pharmacare program. Seniors are lucky because they have the benefit of drug protection when they are older, although it doesn't cover all the drugs they need. We say pharmacare is essential. The more benefits people can receive by paying into the plan, the better off they're going to be.

But we have found that many defined benefit plans are negotiating out some of those benefits that were there originally. They are losing drug benefits and eye glass benefits. So we are concerned what is going to happen to these people facing the costs of needs that are there among our community as these negotiations reduce access to the benefits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You've just gone over seven minutes, so that's fine, Irene.

The next round, Ms. Kaegi, is a five-minute round. The person will ask you questions and you will answer them well within the five minutes. This is our second round of questions. Boy, are you on the hot seat today.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you. You may be on the hot seat, but you're providing us with some very good information.

I think you stunned us all when you referenced the fact that many women are not designated as the survivor to their husband's benefits. I was going to ask you about survivor benefits before you dropped that little bombshell.

Do you have any idea of the numbers and how widespread that is, or are you expressing it as anecdotal evidence? What recommendations would you make overall on survivor benefits?

[Gerda Kaegi]

That's a huge question. Let me address the issue. It surprised us when we started to hear that men were not necessarily designating their wives as the beneficiaries. Information should be provided, like the blitz the federal government did educating people about applying for the benefits of old age security, CPP, and so on. Do the same thing on this issue. The federal government has reached out on elder abuse, so do it on this. I think that kind of public education campaign would reach women who've never thought to ask.

I think you also asked whether we have survivor benefits evidence. I'm sorry, I forgot that part of the question.

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

I asked whether you have any hard numbers--what percentage that's true of. But I also asked whether you have any overall recommendations on survivor benefits. It's been suggested that it should be a higher percentage. I don't know.

[Gerda Kaegi]

Yes, we do think it should be, because depending on the level of the CPP.... You're referring to the CPP, I assume.

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

I am.

[Gerda Kaegi]

One person doesn't live that much more cheaply than two. You have to pay for accommodation, and rents and costs are high. So if survivor benefits were higher, you would move people out of a low level of income, out of the risk of poverty. But of course many people living in poverty have no CPP. That's what we have to keep in mind. So I agree you should increase survivor benefits if you can.

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

Thank you.

Can I go back to the question Ms. Mathyssen asked you, which relates to aboriginal women. You spoke about the improved living conditions. I'm assuming you're referring to on reserve, although it could equally well apply in many urban settings as well. Aboriginal women often live under a different regime. Do you have any specific recommendations that we might put forward as it relates to pensions, pension benefits, opportunities for aboriginal women?

[Gerda Kaegi]

When we referred to aboriginal people, we were thinking of both on reserve and off reserve. I have lived in Winnipeg, I have lived in Montreal, and I've lived in Toronto. Many aboriginal people are in desperate straits in the urban centres, as they are in the remote reserves. On some of the reserves that are near the urban centres, the women and the families there are better off.

What we have to do is look at some means of ensuring that the poverty levels for women and the families they care for are eliminated.

Whatever strategy weight we do, it has to be achieved.... Under the Constitution, of course, the primary responsibility for our first nations community is federal. That's why I feel your committee, hopefully, can look at strategies of how to get a guaranteed annual income, or whatever means it is, into the hands of our aboriginal communities.

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

Thank you.

[Gerda Kaegi]

I'm sorry, I'm not too specific.

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

No, that's fine. You've raised the issue in itself, which is important. Thank you.