Jean Crowder

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in a couple of points that the member made, particularly concerning first nation people being able to vote. I think we are all well aware of the fact that on many reserves the voter turnout is low and partly that has been a lack of responsiveness around appropriate polling stations for example.

I know in the advance poll in one of the reserves in my riding that there was a lack of understanding that people actually lived on an island and that they would have to travel from their island to a voting station that was actually on another island. There are a great many difficulties in having first nations turn out for voting.

One of the things that the member talked about was the fact that the status card would be one option, of presenting a status card and that would be acceptable identification. However, it needed a supplementary piece of identification or a letter from the band.

In my riding, using an example like telephone bills is a bit of a problem because many people actually do not have telephones. I wonder if the member could make some suggestions around what other kinds of things, particularly in these impoverished communities, might be acceptable. It is a real struggle to have voters turn out and it is an important democratic right that we would like to encourage.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned yesterday I said that New Democrats would support Bill C-36 going to committee but that we strongly felt that a number of issues in the bill needed to be addressed.

Many seniors in my riding are facing dire circumstances and, in terms of livability and affordability, this would have been an opportunity to look at some other measures within the bill. It was a chance to actually fix some of the problems that are occurring with CPP and OAS.

I also want to talk about housing. I have heard some heartbreaking stories from seniors in Lake Cowichan in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan who have told me that when it comes time for a couple to go into assisted living or long term care the couple is often separated. One member of the couple needs to move to Duncan where the person can get the care that he or she needs. We now have a senior travelling from Lake Cowichan to Duncan on a daily basis to look after his or her loved one. That is just one of the many issues facing our seniors and we need to look at where we are investing our energy.

A group of women in British Columbia called Women Elders in Action, WE*ACT, has put together a very good document about pensions in Canada, “Policy Reform Because Women Matter”. One of the things it talks about is that a quarter of a million seniors are living under the low income cut-off. Many may ask what low income cut-off means.

The low income cut-off is the most consistently used measure of poverty in Canada. Several years ago Statistics Canada found that average Canadian families were spending about 50% of their total income on food, shelter and clothing. It arbitrarily estimated that families spending 70% or more of their income, 20 percentage points more than the average on the basic necessities, would be in dire circumstances.

Let us think about the fact that 70% of our income would go to what most of us would consider the basic necessities. We have a significant number of women in Canada who are living under the low income cut-off. In Canada I would suggest that it is probably something that most of us would find unacceptable.

Canadian men and women work hard all their lives and when they reach the age of 60 or 65 they fully expect to retire with some dignity and to have access to a pension that ensures their quality of life, which means that they do not have to struggle to have their basic needs met, like food, security and shelter.

According to WE*ACT, from 1990 to 2000 about 65% of people receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement were women compared to 35% of men who tend to rely more heavily on occupational pension plans and RRSPs for income.

I need to re-emphasize that figure of 65%. We have a significant number of women in this country who, once they reach the age of 65, are living in desperate poverty. Many of these women have spent much of their working life in low wage jobs or in non-standard employment which is a lovely word to describe the fact that women are often in part time, seasonal or contract employment. This means that they have never had the opportunity to contribute to a private pension plan and therefore are totally reliant on Canada pension, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. As well, many of these women have had employment gaps and do not have the full years of entitlement.

Some drop-out provisions have been made but many of these women have also been looking after aging parents or have had the primary responsibility for child-rearing. The fact that they have been in non-standard employment, low wage employment or part time employment significantly affects the quality of their retirement years. In addition, women traditionally outlive their spouses so they often end up single and relying again on substantially reduced pension plans.

Why would this matter? I acknowledge the fact that many men who retire are also poor but a substantial amount of research talks about where women go so does the rest of the community. In the WE*ACT report, according to Esping-Andersen there is a strong case for a woman-friendly social contract because improving the welfare of women means improving the collective welfare of our society.

With this opportunity to look at CPP and OAS, it would seem critical that we actually look at the people who are living in these dire circumstances in our society.

This report from 2004 made about 23 recommendations and a number of these recommendations were never acted upon. The report included a recommendation for reforming the public pension system to ensure people had adequate living conditions. Some of the recommendations talked about private occupational pensions, some taxation considerations and the need for indexing, and then some overall recommendations around policy changes to support these other changes.

A number of things are really important, and I will not read the full details, but they talk about providing education on all aspects of pensions that is accessible and understandable to women of all ages. They talk about providing problem solving counsellors for people who have questions or concerns and a 1-800 number that is easily accessible and, I might add, staffed because we know Canadians are struggling to access the 1-800 numbers provided by the government services. People often have lengthy delays in accessing information. They also talk about providing seniors with a list of government programs for which they might qualify upon making application to receive the pension and ensuring they are informed of all future changes to pension policy in Canada, including analysis of the differential impact on men and women.

We also need to look at affordable child care, adequately paid maternity leave, parental leave and so on, but we also need to look at pay equity so that by the time women reach the age of receiving CPP and old age security they have been in jobs that recognize the value of women's work. It would be timely to revisit the important pay equity report that came out a couple of years ago but which has never been implemented.

Although New Democrats will be supporting this going to committee, we see that there needs to be some substantial changes to this legislation to ensure that fairness and affordability are there for all Canadians when they retire.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

Before I get into some specifics around Bill C-36, much has been talked about in terms of the Canada pension plan and how its investment in the stock market has been such a good thing. Yet when members raise issues around health care, how do they address the fact that the Canada pension plan has money invested in tobacco companies? We know there are links between various kinds of cancers and the impact they have on our health care system. On one hand, we are putting money into CPP. On the other hand, we are paying it in health care costs. One would wonder about the wisdom of that kind of situation.

With regard to Bill C-36, the New Democratic Party will support having this bill go to second reading, but we have some concerns about the things that were omitted from the legislation. We hear a lot from seniors in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. My riding happens to be a destination of choice for people to retire. Although rising numbers of seniors are moving to the riding, we also have rising housing costs, reduced access to rental accommodation, increased concerns about health care in terms of access, long wait lists and lack of access to things like resident home support and to long term care beds.

Many issues are facing seniors. We also hear from them about things like transportation, for example, and that is certainly an environmental issue. It is also very much an issue for seniors. They want the ability to maintain their independence, yet in many of our communities there is lack of access to adequate public transportation, which really limits their ability to maintain that independence.

We also have heard from seniors about livability and affordability in their communities, and that leads me directly to income.

I see that my time is up for the day.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments. We serve together on the parliamentary committee on the status of women. I want to put a question to the member.

Bill C-36, like many other pieces of legislation that have come before the House, lacks a gender-based analysis. We know that women are disproportionately impacted by decisions that governments of any political stripe make.

Could the member specifically comment on the fact that women are poorer and that women are disproportionately in receipt of old age security because they do not have the kind of income that would mean they would have private pensions? Could she comment on what a gender-based analysis would mean to a bill like Bill C-36?

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, seniors from coast to coast to coast and certainly in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan are very concerned about housing and health care.

I want to ask a question about women. A December 2004 report by Women Elders in Action talked about the fact that women live significantly longer, that women are the most numerous recipients of publicly funded pensions and that they are also the ones with the greatest need over an extended period of time.

This legislation does not deal with the long-standing issues around income security for women who rely, to a large extent, on OAS and CPP for their sole pension. I wonder if the member could comment on that issue.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question concerning aboriginal people. In “Pensions In Canada: Policy Reform Because Women Matter” produced by Women Elders in Action in Vancouver in December 2004, it talks about the fact that first nations women who have lived a traditional rural life were especially vulnerable to economic hardship. The average annual income of an aboriginal woman is $13,300 compared to $19,350 for a non-aboriginal woman. As well, discrimination, childhood poverty and lower educational achievement exacerbate their already poor economic status into old age.

I know that in part this bill deals with housekeeping, but again, first nations, Métis and Inuit women are largely absent from the discussion in terms of how they would access Canada pension, old age security and any kind of livable income. I wonder if the member could speak specifically to that.

[December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but it is well within the minister's purview to take immediate action. Some short term solutions were recommended in the Northwestern Health Unit's report that are within both the minister's and the department's area of responsibility. These include things like decades old technology used across the north to deliver safe treated water to homes by trucks that can happen immediately. Community and climate appropriate, in-home or modern external portable toilet sewage disposal could be provided immediately.

I agree that some longer term issues need to be dealt with but the department, with direction from the minister, could take immediate action. It is this kind of immediate action that we are asking the minister to undertake. There are other examples of communities where there has been the political will to take these issues on.

I wonder when the minister will act on these short term immediate issues that have been--

[December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question on November 6, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said:

I am certainly prepared to meet with the chief or any other chief, at any time.

He subsequently said:

The Pikangikum community is one of close to 200 communities which the government inherited where the drinking water system is at high risk or worse.

Further on in his answer he said:

Certainly I am prepared to meet at any time to discuss the way forward.

My question is the same now as it was at the beginning of November. When will the minister meet with the leadership in Pikangikum to help them deal with this public health crisis?

I want to quote the Northwestern Health Unit's observations and final recommendations in its inspection report on the Pikangikum water and sewage systems. The report states:

The most basic of twentieth century (ie last century) health-supporting water/sewage infrastructures are not available to Pikangikum First Nation residents. This includes (but is not limited to) housing, air/water/soil contamination control and regulation, drinking/water provision and sewage disposal. In multiple conversations with federal and provincial representatives, the longstanding neglect is explained, in various rhetorical guises, through a citing of resource constraints and "big picture" considerations.

Further on in the report, it states:

Northwestern Health Unit Recommendation: It is recommended that, in the presence of, and led by, Pikangikum Elders, Chief and Council, and consultants of the community's choosing, an immediate (in 2006) meeting of the federal and provincial Ministries of Health, INAC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, be held in Pikangikum regarding the urgent and longstanding need for adequate water provision, housing, and sewage disposal in the community. Tangible outcomes from this meeting are required. Anything less than this constitutes a tacit approval of the present illness-producing situation, and a continued liability regarding such health hazards as outbreaks of water/sewage-related illness.

Those are direct quotes from the Northwestern Health Unit. It sent a team in to look at the situation and, at the request of the community, presented a report with a number of observations and recommendations. These include both short term recommendations that could be immediately implemented, as well as some longer term plans.

The last quote was the overall recommendation. What has the minister done to date to meet that recommendation?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of federal commitment means that less than 45% of Inuit have the jobs that were promised in the settlement agreement. This costs Canada $65 million a year to import southern workers into Nunavut and yet Nunavut has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. It does not include the addiction, suicide and health costs associated with unemployment, nor the lost wages to Inuit of $123 million a year.

Will the minister explain how this situation makes any economic sense?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Inuit of Nunavut filed a $1 billion lawsuit against the federal government this week. The Conservatives want to spend billions of dollars to support Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic in the face of global warming.

Will the minister confirm that he will invest at least a part of that $1 billion on the people of Nunavut on whose survival and prosperity Canada has depended for its claim of sovereignty?