Status of Women Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

No, I don't know the exact figures, but I also know of another really fine piece of research done by Chapel as well, comparing the cost of putting someone in an institution and keeping them in the community. Up until a certain threshold, it's way cheaper to keep someone in the community than to put them in an institution. When you start to require oxygen, when your chronic illnesses reach, like, five, which is a very serious, complex level, that's when people do require going into an institution, because it costs more to deliver that at home. But there's a huge window where we could keep way more people in the community.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Would the idea be to transfer money, that is to say to invest less in institutions for seniors and to promote home care to a greater degree?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I see that as a really important possibility. One of the problems with our health care system is it is geared to acute care. Most illness in this country today is chronic care. We need to change our health care system to focus on the chronic care, and those are the people who live in community. Eighty per cent of older people have some chronic condition, but they could remain in the community, and nobody is putting money into that.

That's not true. Ontario did because they have an Aging in Place program. Yes, money could be removed from there.

I will point out to you that the proportion of people in institutions in this country has not changed over 20 years; it's 7%. It has never changed, and I don't think it will change. If you look at who's in them now, they're the very sick. It's not hard to get beds in many provinces, although in some it is difficult.

So I do think the money could used more effectively. It would help reduce... We have people in institutions who shouldn't be there and we have people in the community who should be in an institution. It has not been a perfect system.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

You talked about women who were totally unaware of certain things. We recently learned on the committee that some women, once they were widowed, were not even entitled to their husbands' pensions because they had been bequeathed to someone else. I quite agree with you on that.

Some witnesses also told us that Canadians were in general not economists and that it was hard to plan for a long-term pension. I know there can be a number of answers to that question, but I would like to know who you think is responsible for these matters when people come to the end of their lives?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

Who is responsible for it?

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

We aren't economists. I've taken a retirement preparation course. I can tell you that all the participants were somewhat surprised at the incomes they would have. No one had planned for their retirement. I don't think this problem only affects women.

Do you think we should sensitize or educate people on the subject?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I think the workplace has some responsibility because they have set up different programs. I know lots of retirement planners... The programs in the past haven't been that helpful. I think we need to look at a more holistic approach. It's not just about, you're going to get $6, you're going to have all this time, you're going to have all kinds of other things... You have legal issues here that you haven't even thought about.

I do think that most companies do set up these programs and they do pay for them. I just think they need to do a more thorough type of training program and I think they need to start way sooner. Just say, you've got to do it. Every two weeks the University of Toronto wants me to retire--here's what your income is...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Dr. McDonald.

I'm going to ask you a question, and I don't know if it's fair to ask you this because I think Mr. Baldwin would probably be better suited, but--

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I can't do pensions. I'm not a pension expert.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

My question is probably social as well.

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I like the social part.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

It's social justice.

We've been skirting around the fact that government has a responsibility. I think first and foremost we must focus on women and children, the most vulnerable in society, especially those who are older, and younger children. We need to make sure that we take care of those who are marginalized. We all agree with that.

But what we don't agree on is who should pay for this and how we should pay for this. I'm going to bring up what I think is another inequity in society that has developed in just the last little bit. We talk about the fact that men have better pension plans, and that's true; we discuss those issues and the reasons. What about the fact that the majority of pensions accumulating today come from the public purse? Do we need to start examining that if we talk about equity? I'm talking about MPs' pensions as well. The money that comes from the public purse that provides for a better living--and God bless them, we all want those things--is going to provide for a better livelihood for those fortunate enough to work in the public system. Does that become fair game? Do we start looking at that too when the well runs a little bit dry?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I would. Absolutely.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Is that something we had better start talking about?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I think you need to talk about it. Maybe you need to talk about how it's a perfect example of how good it could be, or maybe it's a little fat. We have no resources, supposedly, and I'm starting to think that maybe we really have to target more to people who really need it. Universalism is fabulous, but the truth of the matter is that when we get down to brass tacks about who needs to be protected in our society, it's the people who are poor, and there are lots of them.

We can pretend how wonderful our pension is. It's still not wonderful. There are still problems.

I think we need to look at the programs for civil servants. It's a joke that lots of people make fun of. They say, I need a government job; that's all I want, because I'm going to get a good pension.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Wealth is generated through the private sector, and if the private sector can't afford those things, then--

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

They often use the government to pay for their unemployment. They shut down for a month, and the government pays.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I have another question, and it's a curious question.

You stated that it seems that in different areas of society there's more hardship. I'm going to give you an example.

My mother passed away two years ago, and she was 87 years old. She lived in her own home. She's a prime example. She raised 10 kids and she never entered the workforce. My father was self-employed and didn't have a public pension. He received CPP, etc., so she was one of these we would call marginalized. Mind you, she had lots of kids who made sure that she was always looked after, but I can tell you today that she lived pretty well on what the government gave her. She was a very independent woman.

Now, why is that? Why is it that in some segments of society it's ample and in others we see poverty? Is there an explanation?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I can only talk to these two latest research projects that we've done. What we found is very fascinating.

It's wonderful that you came from a family with 10 people, because those 10 kids helped out. Kids help out in various ways. One of the ways they help us is with money, or purchasing, or driving, or shopping. They do all kinds of stuff. I know that's a fact, but some families have children, adult children, who absolutely do not care for their older parents and don't care what happens to them. We have seen that in this particular study over and over. We're quite stumped. We need to do a random, stratified sample to make sure this isn't just a one-off. We are finding that there are really helpful families and that there are really horrible families that don't care about their mothers. We've interviewed about 300 people, and we're finding more on the negative side.

Your family is special. Your family made do. It was a family event, whereas in some places women are just dumped, and we're going to find... Fewer children are being born now. Your family is a very rare event; 1.2 children is what we're looking at now.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I believe it's 1.7.

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

Well, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Dr. McDonald.

I'm going to move now to Mr. Desnoyers.

I will just say that we have made note that one of the recommendations that's going to come out of this committee is that we should encourage families to have at least 10 children.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. McDonald, I think a bit the way you do. We have come to a turning point where a major societal choice is necessary. In our lives as parliamentarians, we have often made important societal choices. I'm thinking of Quebec, among others, when the decision was made to put child care centres and parental leave in place. There were indeed costs associated with that, but those issues were important for society. Steps had to be taken in that direction.

Today, a number of stakeholders have come to tell us a lot of things that you've said about women. It's not necessarily what we wanted to hear, but that's part of our reality. That's what life is today. It's much more individual than collective. My grandmother had 21 children. The house was always full. One brought a ham, another a roast. That's no longer the case today. When you have a family of two and both die, the mother often winds up with major financial problems. She is ultimately alone in society. That's also a fact.

The committee is looking for a way to solve the problems women are currently facing. This is not a new issue; these problems have accumulated over the years. However, the situation has changed. Women now occupy a significant place in society. But we must nevertheless attack all existing inequalities.

Women definitely depend on public pension plans. That's obvious. A number of stakeholders have told us that we must make substantial amendments to existing plans. In Quebec, talks have been started with the QPP. In Canada, it's the CPP. A number of people are even suggesting doubling the replacement rate. It's currently 25%. They're proposing to double it to 50%. Many are even suggesting putting a public fixed-benefit plan in place.

I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject, on the idea that the government should take a significant position on this point.

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I can't answer that. I'm not a pension expert; I'm a retirement expert.

The defined pension plans are far better than defined contribution plans, so that may be one way to go. I have read all the transcripts and all the suggestions that have been made, and I realize that was one of them. I don't think companies will entertain the CPP/QPP doubling of what you call the payroll tax. You might be able to raise it a little bit.

I'm all for the OAS and the GIS being greatly expanded, especially the GIS, because that still helps target more to the really poor people. I keep going on about the allowance. The allowance could be used in a number of different ways, if you had the will, I think.

That's the best I can say. As I said, I'm not a detailed pension expert. It's probably good that I'm almost the last person here, because this is about the moral economy for women. I think you have all the facts; it is a question of the moral issue and the political will. There's a great book called Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth. What are women worth to our Canadian society? The argument is that we are contributing to the economy in a big way and that it will get bigger.

You people are the experts on that issue.