Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on Aging
Issue 7 - Evidence, May 9, 2008 - Afternoon meeting
WELLAND, Ontario, Friday, May 9, 2008
The Special Senate Committee on Aging met this day at 1:01p.m. to examine and report upon the implications of an aging society in Canada.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: Honourable senators, members of the public, welcome back to the meeting of the Special Senate Committee on Aging. This committee is examining the implications of an aging society in Canada. We are here in Welland this afternoon to hear from interested parties on the impacts of an aging society and, more specifically, to hear their views on our second interim report tabled in the Senate on March 11. We look forward to this afternoon's testimony as it will no doubt help us in our deliberations for our final report.
I notice that some people in the audience have been with us all morning as well as this afternoon. I want to remind you that at four o'clock we will have some walk-ons, and if any of you would like to come to the microphone to tell your story, you are more than welcome to at then.
For our first panel, we have Ms. Thelma McGillivray, from the Older Women's Network, and Ms. Christine Mounsteven and Ms. Sylvia Hall, representing Canadian Pensioners Concerned Incorporated. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome you all.
Thelma McGillivray, Past Chair, Older Women's Network: Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to speak to your panel today on the concerns of older adults. We met Senator Mercer yesterday, so I am pleased to see him again.
I am wearing three hats here today, as the past chair of the Older Women's Network and a part of the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat Liaison Committee, as the president of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario and as the convenor of seniors' issues for the National Council of Women of Canada.
As background, the National Council of Women of Canada, NCWC, was formed in 1893 under Lady Ishbel Aberdeen, the wife of the first Governor General in Canada. At the present, our honorary patron is the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean. The Provincial Council of Women of Ontario was formed in 1923, and our honorary patron is the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, David Onley.
Lady Aberdeen, a member of the International Council of Women, began the National Council of Women of Canada to address the many urgent social concerns of the day: poverty, unclean water, child labour and the plight of incarcerated women and children, to name a few. Councils of women were founded across Canada, in provinces and in cities, and continue the social reform to this day.
The Provincial Council of Women, known as PCWO, was founded 85 years ago. NCWC and PCWO members in their local councils identify issues in their communities and, after lengthy study, write resolutions that, once ratified at our general meetings, become policy. An annual brief is presented to both levels of government containing our resolutions. We feel privileged to meet with the elected members of Parliament to dialogue with them about these issues. Many of our resolutions have been endorsed into legislation, for which we are very proud.
The Older Women's Network, OWN, was founded in 1988 and will celebrate its twentieth anniversary this year. Funded by the Women's Program of the Secretary of State in Ottawa, OWN presented a series of public forums. We were overwhelmed with the attendance of almost 500 women, attracted to the Women in Limbo session, referring to those between the ages of 55 and 65.
Other forums were held, and in 1997 the Needs Assessment of Older Women was completed. Based on 800 questionnaires, four major categories of needs emerged: economic security; health and caregiving; housing and community; and transportation and mobility.
At the same time, OWN was working on the Study of Shelter Needs of Abused Older Women, funded by the Ontario Women's Directorate. The study examined the priority needs and service gaps for abused older women and reviewed the existing shelter services. It found that the needs of older abused women are unique, particularly with regard to safety, accessibility and health issues. These findings made a dramatic change in the way services were offered to older women.
A special committee on housing also met for nine to ten years, and in 1997 the dream came true. The Older Women's Housing Co-operative officially opened on The Esplanade in Toronto, the last co-operative building to be built in Ontario. Of course, those were the days when senior governments were still in the business of providing social housing, and OWN worked closely with the Ministry of Housing.
OWN had to cope with many attempts to cancel the project. The greatest threat came from the Harris government, which halted all social housing projects as part of its reform on social programs. As OWN's project had already begun, with the City of Toronto paying for the removal of all contaminated soil on the site, which was another victory, the women were traumatized by the threat of losing their hope for affordable housing. A protest demonstration was organized at the site. Women walked with their walkers, pushed their wheelchairs and marched with banners and shouts and speeches and received much media coverage.
Never underestimate the power of older women! The project was allowed to proceed, the last social housing built in Toronto. The OWN building is now a model of multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-aged, non-sexist community, with an award winning roof garden, supportive housing services through Dixon Hall, and a lively social and supportive community life — a dream enlarged indeed in the doing.
In the fall of 1999, OWN undertook the Housing Factor project, funded by Status of Women Canada, which investigated the current availability of and need for affordable and accessible housing for mid-life and older women. The areas covered were Hamilton-Wentworth, Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, West Parry Sound District and the Municipality of Tweed. More than 1,200 women filled out questionnaires. An overwhelming majority of these women wanted the option to grow older in their own homes and communities. Financial concerns dominated all other factors regarding housing availability. Other major concerns were transportation and mobility. The respondents cited all three levels of government as the most serious obstacles to the provision of housing for mid-life and older women. The report, published in 2000, has been widely distributed to government ministries, community groups and housing advocates.
The Study of the Economic (In)Security of Mid-Life Women investigated the needs of women in Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, Peterborough and Sudbury. Phase I, as it is called, concluded that the quality of life for older women was directly related to the economic security of women in mid-life, ages 45 to 64. Mid-life is the last opportunity to prepare for the economic requirements of old age. The ability of mid-life women to rebound from shock and trauma due to illness, loss of a job, loss of a husband, or violence is as important as financial planning for a secure future.
Phase II, Community Capacity Building, focused on the creation of action plans to enhance stability in women's lives. It reviewed the recommendations and demystified the strategies required to advocate for change through community development in the four cities. The Kitchener-Waterloo group got women involved in elections. Peterborough expanded their core group with workshops and some housing. In Sudbury, the priorities are health care, income security, housing, transportation and elder abuse, the very same issues that have been at the core of OWN's mission. Health Canada funded this project, which resulted in a DVD that was presented to Minister Jean Augustine of Status of Women Canada.
A further study, Impacts of the Aging Process of Mid-Life Women, to determine emerging health issues of vulnerable mid-life women in Toronto, Peterborough and Sudbury was the last project OWN completed in 2003.
As well as providing valuable information, all these studies and projects helped raise the image of OWN throughout Canada. Requests for OWN's reports have come from all over the world. These projects fulfill a number of OWN mandates. They connect OWN to the wider communities of mid-life and older women, which raised our profile, increased our membership and helps to establish and solidify OWN's chapters in Hamilton, Toronto, Peterborough and a contact in Ottawa.
OWN receives no funding except for its membership and donations. OWN launched a women's reference library open to members and guests funded by a generous bequest of a founding OWN member. Of great concern, however, and I am sure it is not the first time you have heard this, after 20 years, women are growing older and less capable of carrying on the work of OWN without the energy and vigour of younger older women. This is the challenge for the future.
These studies and insights are guided by the principles of gender and diversity analysis. Gender analysis recognizes the systemic inequality between women and men in society. Diversity analysis recognizes that different populations, including immigrant women and refugee women, have particular social, cultural and economic experiences that may require particular policy responses from our governments.
Both gender and diversity analyses require gathering qualitative and quantitative data, questioning basic assumptions and developing an understanding of how socio-economic factors affect populations of women and men differently. When applied to the policy process, both gender and diversity analyses begin from the recognition of these different social and economic realities and factor this recognition into the assessment of proposed and existing policies, programs and legislation.
Further, the view is that health is determined by the interaction of a range of factors, including individual characteristics; physical environments; and social, economic and cultural factors.
Here are our issues and concerns. The Provincial Council of Women of Ontario has had policy on the needs of senior citizens since 1977, beginning with senior citizens' housing, to seniors aged 60 to 65 on social assistance. OWN's studies on economic security, Phase I and Phase II, clearly address that women as a select group are at a particular risk of poverty. This inequity is true for any indicator of age, income, family status or ethnicity. By the numbers, women are poorer than men — not to deny that there are poor men — and this bodes badly for the future generations as they also age.
This is due to a number of often repeated factors: women's lower earnings throughout their lifetime, child-rearing responsibilities and lack of a national child care program, coupled with traditional patterns of paid and unpaid work reflecting lower incomes in retirement. Recent statistics show pension benefits for new retirees were on average $335 for women compared to $527 monthly for men. The statistics are even bleaker for Aboriginal populations, for only 4 per cent of Aboriginals live to the age of 65 or older, yet Aboriginals have the highest fertility rates in Canada.
We do ask that persons aged 60 to 65 in need of financial assistance automatically qualify for adequate financial support until they are gainfully employed or reach age 65. We want to see legislation enacted to ensure that these persons are supported. The only work available for many people aged 60 to 65 is minimum wage work in service or manufacturing places that require long hours of standing or lifting, work requirements that this age group are often unable to perform due to some physical impairments that accompany the aging process.
It has been found that a high number of seniors are not accessing the Guaranteed Income Supplement, GIS, that they have a right to, due to many factors including language and literacy challenges, a complex application process and a general lack of information and awareness of benefits. Seniors who receive Old Age Security generally are able to double their income if they qualify for the GIS. What can be done to address this inequity?
In 1935, Senator David Croll proposed that every Canadian adult deserved a guaranteed annual income. During my undergraduate studies in social work at McMaster University through the years 1975 to 1979, this was spoken about to address the growing poverty of many people. It was suggested again in 1985 in the royal commission headed by Donald Macdonald, a Liberal, and endorsed by the Green Party.
In February 2008, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal suggested it again as a program to replace social programs like Employment Insurance and welfare. Currently, welfare systems remove medical and dental benefits once paid work is found, work that nowadays may not offer any benefits.
Critics say the guaranteed annual income is a disincentive to some people and label them as lazy. This is discrimination. We must recognize that caregiving is work, and such a plan still does not admit it. Caregiving of children, disabled and older adults is actual work and adds value to our economy. This is work that is in the nation's interest and should be added to the gross national product index, not belittled.
Older women who experienced divorce prior to the Family Law Act in Ontario in 1986 were not legally able to demand division of their marital assets on the dissolution of their marriage. As a matter of fact, if their name was not on the deed of their property as a joint owner, they could not share in the financial proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home. A common decision by the court at that time was to order both child support and alimony to the wife, but these support payments were added to her income and she was required to pay income tax on that amount.
In the 1990s, child support payments were no longer required to be part of the woman's taxable income; however, alimony payments continue to be. Many women have reported that this is a huge burden in their later years. They find that with rising living costs, the loss of this income, which was a settlement for their contribution to a marriage long- ended, is a terrible hardship. This is an area where the federal government has the power to offer relief and comfort to these low-income women in their final years.
Regarding prevention and women's health, of major concern to women's organizations is the lack of preventative screening programs for older women. In their 2006 brief, the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario asked the government to put in place policy for women's gynecological health screening programs for breast, cervical and ovarian examinations. The rationale for this is that the existing breast mammography screening programs stop notifying women for an appointment at age 74, unless women request this screening by referral from their doctors. There appears to be an assumption that older women are not at risk for breast cancer. Statistics show otherwise.
Many older women as well wrongly believe that they do not require pelvic examinations or Pap smears beyond their child-bearing years. Thus, cervical cancer and ovarian cancer often are diagnosed when they are too far advanced for treatment. The average age for women with ovarian cancer is 58 years. More significantly, the survival rate of women with ovarian cancer has not changed in 30 years.
These devastating and painful terminal illnesses could be prevented by early detection with annual screening. Many older women do not have a family physician, and many older women need reminders to look after their health by having annual examinations.
I will close with a comment on the Women's Program of Status of Women Canada. We ask that the Special Senate Committee on Aging support the reinstatement of the Women's Program with the previous terms and conditions that helped the women of Canada by addressing women's economic, social, political and legal situations. Further, we ask that the program be adequately funded to promote policies and programs that take into account all gender and diversity implications to enable women to have a better quality of life.
It is essential that the women of Canada, particularly aging women, have their current and future inequalities addressed. This calls for the reestablishment of an arm's length advisory council on the status of women, headed by an advocate that reports directly to Parliament, an advocate that has autonomy equal to the Auditor General to report to the public and, further, that the council remain in place and work with the provinces and territories to advance women's equality regardless of a change in government.
In conclusion, with the aging of Canada's population come both opportunities and challenges. It will be increasingly important to have a clear understanding of the needs, circumstances and experiences of older persons and to have appropriate and effective policy frameworks in place.
Christine Mounsteven, President, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Incorporated: Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation today. Sylvia Hall and I will both make the presentation.
Canadian Pensioners Concerned began in 1969 with a special concern about whether retirement income would allow for a good quality of life for seniors. We have expanded our interests over the years to include all age groups and those who are especially vulnerable by virtue of illness, impairment, economic need or age. We are committed to social values that determine fairness and social justice in our multicultural society.
The members of Canadian Pensioners Concerned appreciate having the opportunity to contribute to the deliberations of the Special Senate Committee on Aging. We have followed the sequence of the list of possible options and provide comments on many of them, but we wish to make a few general comments first.
The introduction to the report provides a thoughtful and comprehensive overview of the realities for present and future seniors in Canada. While we agree with and would recommend the adoption of many of the proposed options, we are concerned about the implications inherent in some of them. We prefer to use the words "good practices'' rather than "best practices'' throughout the report, as "best'' can rarely if ever be truly applicable to all situations and all conditions.
We also object to the frequent use of tax credits as a means of inducing and even supporting certain behaviours. We argue that tax credits or deductions help those with higher incomes and do nothing for the poor.
We like the committee's emphasis on healthy and active aging, on aging in the place of choice, on the respect for seniors' preferences, and on the recognition that ageism exists. We agree that social and intergenerational interaction is very important to the general well-being of seniors. Young people's respect for seniors grows when such opportunities are provided; the Dominion Institute's Veterans in the Schools project is one example.
Option 1 is to provide tax credits for volunteerism. We object on principle to tax credits because they benefit the wealthier members of the population. Implementing this could be burdensome for the volunteers, for small organizations and even for Revenue Canada.
Option 2 is to ensure multi-year funding for volunteer activities. We support this option and would like to see it applied to the full range of New Horizons programs. We would like to see the New Horizons programs go to three-year funding.
Option 4 is to initiate a skills matching program. We agree that the baby boomers are problematic volunteers, but we have high hopes for the commitment to the community shown by younger generations.
Option 5 is to promote and recognize volunteerism throughout the life cycle. We are concerned that encouragement of volunteerism could continue to be used to allow deterioration of public provision of these services. For example, we have seen the growth of food banks over the past 26 years and the provision of Out of the Cold services during these years, while publicly funded solutions to poverty have been curtailed.
We support options 7 and 8 and suggest that lifelong learning should be given the broadest possible interpretation to include skills development, the arts and crafts, literacy development and more.
Regarding option 9, New Horizons should be adapted for Aboriginal and other communities that are presently excluded or have low participation rates.
Option 10 is to reduce isolation through better urban planning. Urban planning for the well-being of residents rather than developers is a major issue and should be given high priority by provincial and municipal governments. The combination of indoor malls with recreation facilities and community activities and support services are just small examples of what could be achieved with imaginative planning.
With a New Horizons grant, we were able to do a project in Simcoe County called Holding on to Housing. We found that the need for adequate transportation was a tremendous burden within these communities, the smaller areas. It is as well at times in Toronto, where we hear that with Wheel-Trans, people have to wait five hours before they can return home.
Regarding option 11, we agree that educating Canadians about the benefits of physical activity is required, but it must be supported by the provision of accessible, affordable places for participation in physical activities. I think some people find it burdensome to have to join gym facilities at quite a high cost, and this is a way of eliminating many of the older adults.
Option 12 is to eliminate barriers that limit active living. We support this option but disagree with the provision of tax incentives, because, again, these benefit the wealthier participants.
We support option 13, which is to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices. Physical activity instructors should be trained to understand the special requirements of older adults. Gym membership fees should not be tax deductible, as again this privileges those who have money.
Option 14 is to launch a national strategy to combat ageist stigma and discrimination. Ageism can show itself in the choice of words and in the linking of ideas and arguments. We are concerned to find this as a subtext to the report, which shows how insidious it can be. For instance, there is an emphasis on lack of capacity and on mental incompetence; there is the frequent use of the phrase "mental health,'' which has negative connotations, rather than a neutral term such as "mental well-being.''
Option 15 is to promote the development of alternatives to chronological age as indicators of competency. Competency should be a test for all age groups when licensing or other public interests require it. Existing legal definitions of competency should not be ignored.
Referring to section 3.1, defined-benefit plans are being rapidly phased out in Canada, and employment patterns are changing. Therefore, we will see an increasing number of people with less secure employment and retirement benefits. There is particular concern right now for those unemployed between the ages of 50 and 65 years. There should not be a penalty for early uptake of CPP, the Canada Pension Plan.
We support options 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22.
With respect to option 23, to explore options for other forms of income stream, we feel that reverse mortgages should not be encouraged. A better approach that would reduce inequalities would be the guaranteed annual income plan suggested by Senator Hugh Segal.
On poverty, the fact that the post-retirement income for the lowest quintile of the population is higher than pre- retirements shows the paucity of their previous income. The combined OAS/GIS is less than the low-income cut-off rate, LICO. This means that all the conditions of the known determinants of health negatively affect their possibility of healthy aging.
Option 24 is to make OAS/GIS benefits non-taxable if they are the only source of income. We support this option but not the tax credit proposal, which only benefits wealthier seniors.
We strongly support options 25 and 26.
Regarding a replacement rate for CPP, option 27, the maximum should be changed to $60,000 and should be fully indexed. The percentage should remain at 25 per cent. High income earners, in our opinion, do have other means of ensuring a comfortable retirement.
We support options 29, 30, 31 and 32. We should ensure that retroactive payments do not restrict other services that individuals are receiving on the basis of income. The federal, provincial and territorial process is the instrument to facilitate such an accord.
Regarding option 33, we support reconsidering the design of CPP in light of increasing variations in the labour force participation. The committee's study should include the impact of increasing short-term and self-employment on contributions to, and the benefits of, CPP.
Option 34 is to establish a national comprehensive publicly insured or publicly and privately insured prescription plan. We support a publicly insured prescription plan. We do not support a publicly and privately insured plan.
In addition to the concerns noted on page 28 of the report, we would draw the committee's attention to the fact that clinical trials of drugs rarely include women, aboriginals or older adults. This can result in serious harm to patients. This means that older adults can be given medications that are not suitable for them and that can result in serious harm.
With respect to public information campaigns, option 35, there needs to be greater emphasis on problems of accessing affordable and healthy foods for poorer communities, not only those in the North. We have seen in the city of Toronto in particular that depending on which neighbourhoods you go to, within the same chain you will get greatly varying prices for the same foods.
We support options 37 to 40.
We strongly support option 41, which is to support capacity building projects for training in geriatrics and gerontology. Specialized education and training should be applied to all health-related professionals, in our opinion.
Under section 4.6, as a seniors' organization, we endorse the statement that "problems such as depression are too often viewed as an inevitable part of aging.'' This is a prime example of ageism in action.
We strongly support options 50 to 57. Housing is a continuing problem, especially for low-income seniors. It is also a basic determinant of health for all ages.
Option 60 is to introduce a national home care program. In Ontario, we know that of the money assigned to home care, the ratios for acute and chronic care have reversed. In the past, a larger percentage of money was spent on chronic care, and now more dollars are spent on acute care. This does not support aging at home, which is preferred by most seniors. The Canada Health Act has ensured basic access for all Canadians in the areas covered by the act. Many jurisdictions have gone well beyond that. The potential reduction of services in any one jurisdiction can only result from setting the standards too low. On the other hand, any excess pressure in those jurisdictions that have fewer resources should be taken care of by the federal-provincial equalization program.
Regarding uneven qualifications, option 61, we encourage the federal government to work with provincial and territorial ministers to establish common training standards and accreditation for home care workers. We also support the idea of the federal, provincial and territorial governments working together to create a human resource strategy targeted at home care workers.
Regarding option 62, we do not support a chronic care savings plan, which, once more, would benefit only those who have money for contributions. Chronic care can be, and should be, a public service for all Canadians, and, when combined with aging in place, it can be affordable. We would reference the Veterans Independence Program, VIP, and the work being done by the Canadian Research Network for Care in the Community.
We support options 63 to 67, including the convening of an expert panel as thorough study is required. Whatever method of financial assistance is provided should benefit all caregivers of all levels of income.
We strongly support option 70, the creation of a needs-based seniors independence program.
Sylvia Hall will give our closing remarks.
Sylvia Hall, Secretary/Treasurer, Ontario Division, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Incorporated: We were asked to identify the most pressing issues for today's seniors. To sum them up briefly, in our view, they are the lack of affordable and supportive housing; the fact that there are many medications or medical services needed by today's seniors that are not covered by the provincial formularies or, in Ontario, OHIP. Home care is another prime issue. Poverty, disappointingly, is still an issue for too many seniors in Ontario. Thus, the concerns we felt throughout our reading of the report and that we have expressed in our brief remarks are concerns for low-income seniors.
Canadian Pensioners Concerned is increasingly interested in the well-being of future seniors, and by that we do not mean the baby boomers, who seem to get all the attention, but the subsequent generations. Many of them do not, and possibly will not, have long-term jobs or jobs with pension benefits. They may experience frequent episodes of unemployment. Therefore, their ability to build retirement savings will be very limited.
The shocking levels of unemployment and underemployment amongst recent immigrants are also of concern. Unfortunately, your interim report does not really address this issue.
It is very important to us that the committee not assume that a high level of private retirement funds will be available to future generations. We also urge you to reconsider your frequent suggestions, or the suggestions that may have been made to you, on the use of tax credits. We are confident that you do not intend to discriminate against low- income taxpayers or those whose incomes are so low that they do not pay tax at all, for whom tax credits are meaningless.
We urge you to recognize that there is, as you so rightly say, "an opportunity to be seized'' but to look beyond the baby boomer generation to the generations that precede it, today's seniors, and those that will follow it. Thank you for your attention.
Senator Mercer: Thank you all for being here, particularly Ms. Mounsteven and Ms. McGillivray, whom I saw yesterday. I will ask questions today, whereas yesterday you asked me questions.
I want to go back to the issue of funding for the various women's groups. I want to make sure that I am in the right sequence. Provincially, the Harris government stopped some of this funding, and federally the funding stopped with the election of the current government. Am I in the right sequence, or did I miss something?
Ms. McGillivray: Not quite, senator. The provincial funding I referred to was for housing. Among the reforms of the Harris government was that there would be no more building of social housing. In fact, shortly after was the amalgamation of many cities and the downloading of housing and social programs and so forth. We are seeing the results of that now.
The lack of funding I was referring to I tried to express through sharing with you the studies that the Older Women's Network did in the past. We are very grateful for getting that kind of funding then, but that funding is no longer available to us. We do not receive any core funding. The Provincial Council of Women of Ontario gets no core funding, nor does the National Council of Women of Canada. We are all totally dependent upon raising our own funds.
However, I hope I made it clear that, as we are all growing into age, there are fewer volunteers and less work, so that even when we do get some project funding, such as the project I am working on now with New Horizons funding in the city of Hamilton, we have very few people to carry out the project. If you are spending all your time applying for grants — I see a few heads nodding — then you do not have the energy or the time to do what you are all about. Volunteers have other agendas and they move on to something that is a little more active.
Ms. Hall: I think that Ms. McGillivray was referring to the fact that there is no longer Status of Women funding from the federal government. That was the key.
Senator Mercer: I was trying to determine a timeline on that. You are right, you did talk about housing, and that was the big change. Housing is a provincial responsibility, but for many years the federal government played a key role in being a major funder and an initiator of housing. Now everybody is getting out of the business. We can download it to whomever we want, but if nobody is doing it, it does not really matter if nobody is accepting the responsibility.
I was trying to get the timeline on the other funding, besides the funding for housing.
Ms. McGillivray: Status of Women is a federal program. Two years ago, the federal government removed $5 million from the Status of Women program and closed 12 of the 16 offices across Canada. That put women out of work who were helping other women access resources in order to deal with the needs they heard from women they were working with.
I am asking that you, the Senate, in your wisdom suggest to whomever you will report to, and I assume it is the government of the day, that they need to take a serious second look at that, so that those issues that I talked about for women right across the board, whether immigrants, refugees or diverse communities, are addressed. It has to be recognized that women can make no progress at getting out of poverty without those kinds of resources, and those resources are not there.
Senator Mercer: I think you will find it simply around this table. Unfortunately, it is around the cabinet table that we need the influence to make the changes.
Senator Cordy: I am curious too, because we have asked this question a number of times in the Senate, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am trying not to be partisan, so I will just repeat what was said. She is also the Secretary of State for Seniors. The question has been asked about reduced funding for the Status of Women. I am from Nova Scotia, and the office in Halifax has been closed.
When we ask the question, she continues to say that there has been no reduction in the funding. What I have read is that there has been reduction of funding, and I know that the office in Halifax has been closed. You have told us that $5 million has been removed.
Ms. McGillivray: More than $5 million. I know it can be confusing if one does not look closely at the change in the parameters of the mandate. Are you speaking about Josée Verner, the minister?
Senator Cordy: No, Senator LeBreton.
Ms. McGillivray: I met Senator LeBreton, but I think she needs to have more conversation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women.
According to the report, the money was reinstated but under different criteria that now incorporate profit. They can give money now to banks. I am sorry, but banks do not need our tax money. Before, it was only to non-profit groups that had issues, to move ahead the equality of the women of Canada.
The Chair: Is that not the crux of the issue? They have changed the definition of what Status of Women should be. It used to include the word "equality,'' but it does no longer.
Ms. McGillivray: Yes, madam. Thank you.
The thing is, I watched the House one day, which is a very trying experience, and I listened to the women's caucus trying to put "equality'' back into the mandate and heard from the government of the day that indeed it had been put back in.
There is a lot of confusion out in the land, and we know, because we are very close to the women's movement and the mandate, that it has not been put back in. You are absolutely right.
Senator Mercer: When you answered Senator Cordy you said that now they can give money to banks.
Ms. McGillivray: I used the term a little loosely.
Senator Mercer: If I do a follow-up next week, I want to make sure I tighten it up a little bit.
Ms. McGillivray: I do not have any idea, although I imagine it is public information, to whom Status of Women has given money. I would suggest that perhaps your committee should look at that.
Senator Mercer: Not a bad question, Senator Cordy.
I find all your arguments on tax credits interesting. The issue is to address our primary concern, the people at the lower end of the income scale — that is our motivation — but there is a need to address the issue of people in the middle income level as well.
Like you, I am not as concerned about the people at the upper end of the scale. They have always been able to take care of themselves, thank you very much, and they always will be. It is finding the incentive perhaps for the people in the middle that we are having difficulty with.
I was in Windsor last evening, and it was suggested by a speaker there that doubling the tax exemption level was one way of attacking the bottom end. However, as I keep reminding people, every time you do that, they still have to wait a full year's cycle before it really starts to kick in and you start to see some real results.
Also, it still does not address the group of people in the middle. When they start off in that group in the middle, many of those women are not single at that point. If we do not provide incentives in that category, and women live longer than men, as we know, then women end up with the residual of the good work they have done with their partner. That is what I am concerned about.
People keep saying that the people at the upper end will take care of themselves. I want to exclude a bunch of people from the process, so that the people at the bottom end of the scale have access to greater help, and I am having difficulty figuring out how to do that without giving them something, and maybe a tax credit is that something. With a tax credit, we do not actually give the money; they just do not give us money.
Ms. Hall: I have two comments. First, unfortunately, we have seen in recent budgets that tax credits are given to those who have taxes to pay, and that is it. Nothing is done for the lower income. It is a real concern that tax credits and tax incentives are used when we have done nothing.
The Chair: If I may interrupt, he is trying to address the problem.
I agree with you. We know that with a tax credit, the more income you earn, the more advantage you get from the credit. However, if you had a tax credit that benefited people with income levels upon which tax was payable up to a certain level, then perhaps you would catch those people in the $25,000 to $40,000 income level who could benefit from some tax credits, but you would certainly not benefit the wealthy.
Ms. Hall: That would be one way of not benefiting the wealthy, but there is still the concern that if the government is getting less money, it has two choices: either to raise taxes generally for those who are left paying where the tax credits have been given, or to cut back on public services, which is what we have been seeing for the past 15 to 20 years. Remember, seniors have long memories.
We are not asking you to recreate the golden age of capitalism, but we are asking you to keep the full gamut of people in the fore. I think this is your biggest challenge: to benefit the middle- and lower-income people yet not have a reduction in general services.
Senator Mercer: I think there is some sympathy, certainly in the Senate, for a guaranteed annual income. Senator Segal does not own this; he is just the fellow who got the ink. Senator Segal sits with me on the Standing Senate Committee on Agricultural and Forestry, where we have talked about rural poverty and about a guaranteed annual income.
The issue of guaranteed annual income is not a bad one, but we also have to make sure that the pot is growing as we share the pot, and that becomes the issue.
As you know, I have just come from Windsor, the heartland of the auto industry, which is in a terrible state of affairs at the present time. As goes the auto sector, so goes Ontario.
I am quite happy to redistribute the wealth using a guaranteed annual income, as an example of how that might happen, but I do not want to stop the pot from growing. I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water here. I want to make sure there is something left. That is why I am having this difficult time. We need to keep those people at the middle, upper-middle and the upper income levels generating tax dollars.
An article appeared in my hometown paper not too long ago that quoted Mr. Flanagan, an advisor to this current Prime Minister, saying that they are "tightening the screws on the federal government'' and "boxing in'' its ability to participate financially in the affairs of the country. I do not want that to happen, so I keep struggling with ideas to say that we want to do this but we also do not want to limit the government's ability and responsibility. In Ontario now, we potentially have a terrible situation; it is not terrible yet, but if the auto sector continues to go south on us, it will get much worse.
Ms. Mounsteven: As Canadian pensioners, as we are seeing tax benefits coming out, we feel that "income tax'' has become a bad word. Over the last number of years, income tax has come to be seen as bad. The government is telling us that it will put more money in our pocket with the tax credit, that it will give us our money back and that the money will somehow get trickled down because people will have more money to go out and buy. However, that does not happen.
There is a huge depletion in services. We would like to see a reinstatement of what we used to have in the Employment Insurance benefits. We are told that we cannot afford it. Well, I think we need to start looking at affording it, because too many people cannot access Employment Insurance at times when they need it. Also, EI has been reduced here in Ontario. My understanding is that we get less EI in Ontario than in the rest of the country, however the ratio is worked.
The point is how income tax is promoted by our government. If we were told that we would have opportunities for better health care, that we could have a good pharmacare program and that we could really look at the whole issue of housing, we might feel differently about income tax. That is where we are coming from when we talk about tax credits.
We are not solely a women's organization. We have men in our organization who also agree with us and also have concerns about what is happening.
Ms. McGillivray: I agree with what Ms. Mounsteven is saying. I just finished doing my income tax return. Many of us older adults give to different charities to help them out. What a shock when you look at the line for how much deduction you get. That is a disincentive. However, it could be an incentive that could be broadened. Why is it that if I give to a political party, I get quite a bit of it back?
I am not a rich woman. At one time, I was an unattached parent with children to support. I put myself through university. I know what all this is about.
I want to speak about Employment Insurance. I think that is under federal jurisdiction.
Senator Mercer: It is.
Ms. McGillivray: I have a son. I should not personalize things here at the table, but I will. My son is 38 years of age. He is 6 feet 2 inches tall. He works in the gypsum mines out at Hagersville, in a 4-foot squatted position. He has been there for nine years. He is married. He has two little children.
My son is not unionized. He has had a couple of bad accidents, which, thank goodness, have not crippled him in any way. The immediate thing for the employer is to bring him back to work and put him in a chair.
I have asked my son whether he has looked down the road and wants to be doing this work until he is age 65. He said, "Well, Mom, you know, I make good money.'' They have cut back the job to three 12-hour days a week.
I told him he has to think about different things. He does not have much time, working 12-hour shifts, and they have a little horse farm and he cuts wood. I called up Manpower and asked whether my son is eligible for anything under Unemployment Insurance or retraining. He is at a good age, 38. He is not the swiftest kid in the world. He could not carry on to higher education. It just could not happen.
In order for him to get retraining, he has to work less than 20 hours a week. He will not do that; he needs the money. The person at Manpower said, "I should not be telling you this, but the best thing is, if he got laid off, then he could apply for training.'' Do you know what training is? It is 12 or 14 weeks. That is not long enough to take welding training, or work on refrigeration, or learn a skill. That is not long enough.
I think we seriously need to look at that to level the playing field. That is one way of doing it.
My other children are doing very well. I understand when you say "What about the middle class?'' Of course. It is all about getting re-elected anyway. We all know about politics, although we are non-partisan at this table.
There are other ways of looking to broaden things. People want to hold on to their money. They are afraid of losing it. It is no secret we are sliding into a recession. Things are not going to get any better.
I graduated in 1980, and in 1982 we went into recession. I remember 1990, when I went into private business and we went into a recession. I know it is tough, and you want to have those breaks when you are filing income tax. There is a lot of room there that would be fair to everybody.
A new deal came out that you can put $5,000 in the bank and not be taxed on it. Who does that serve? You do not have people who can put any away for their old age, let alone put $5,000 in the bank.
What was the other deal for seniors? Income splitting. Let me tell you, 41 per cent of seniors are not even in that category. Many people do not have a spouse, for one reason or another. I do not need to tell you that; you have heard it from a lot of people.
Senator Chaput: Ms. McGillivray, you talked about the Older Women's Housing Co-operative, which was affordable housing. I believe you said it could be or it was a very good model for multi-ethnic, multi-social housing, but it is not being done anymore. Did I understand correctly?
Ms. McGillivray: Yes, you did.
Senator Chaput: Could you tell me more about that model, that co-operative?
Ms. McGillivray: It has been operating for 10 or 11 years now. There are 142 units in the building. Some are market rents and others are subsidized for low income. There is a certain percentage.
I am so glad you asked me that, because that is one of the things I wanted to say about housing. At the federal level, you do have some control over some of this, and that is to make it equitable for those who live in the building. There is a very long waiting list now, because people do not move out. It is not a seniors' building, it is multi-age, multi-ethnic, multi-income. The building is at 115 The Esplanade in downtown Toronto. If you ever get down there, do go in and ask for a tour. It is a wonderful model of a co-op building.
A co-op building, as you may know, is shared by all the tenants. They have their own board of directors, and they share in the work of the building. The Older Women's Network has our office on the main floor of that building. We pay rent. It is a gathering place for many people in the building as well as in the community. We are right across the street from PAL, which is the Performing Arts Lodges housing. A lot of interaction happens around the St. Lawrence Market downtown.
Co-ops are no longer built. I could be wrong, and Ms. Mounsteven can correct me, but I believe one co-op is being planned.
The beauty of this co-op building is that it offers a place to age in place. They have support services coming in. One of our colleagues and her husband just sold the house they lived in for 43 years and have moved into the co-op building. He is 92 years young, she is 89 and they are very active on our committees. It is wonderful, because the gentleman is brilliant. He was a professor at the university. He wanders a little bit now, but that is okay because there are services that come in the building. There is nothing wrong with his mind.
It is a wonderful model. It has a roof garden, which has taken awards. The new way of conserving energy is to put gardens up on the roof. It is just beautiful.
Did I answer your question?
Senator Chaput: Yes, you did. Thank you so much.
Senator Cordy: Thank you to all of you for being here. It is more like a friendly discussion around the table.
I do not know whether it was Ms. Hall or Ms. Mounsteven who talked about our having to be concerned about the well-being of future seniors. I am not sure that as a society we look upon aging as a continuum. We are actually aging from the time we are born. Yet, whenever one uses the word "aging,'' we think about people who are 65 years old or older.
How do we get the public to realize that if they are lucky, they will be seniors? The alternative is quite the contrary.
You mentioned the young people of today, not the baby boomers, but the young people. My daughters are ages 30 and 28. I look at them and their friends, and I see a lot of contract work today; many are not receiving benefits but are assigned a contract for six months or a year.
You also spoke about the underemployment of immigrants who are professionals who are not working in their field but rather are driving taxis, for example.
We have certainly moved to defined contributions and away from defined benefits, so your savings are at the mercy of however you have chosen to invest them.
All of those things are valid when you look at Ms. Hall's comment about the well-being of our future seniors. I am wondering, when we talk about aging and demographics, how we portray that to the public and to young people particularly, who are inclined, as we were when we were in our twenties, to think that it does not affect them. How do we get them engaged in the whole issue of aging well?
Ms. Hall: That is a big challenge for all of us. I was amused recently to hear on the radio about a professional financial advisor, obviously making money, who was going into the schools to encourage 11-year olds to start their RRSPs and to expound the wonderful benefits of compound interest. That is fine, but what about the 11-year olds who are perhaps pretending they are older to work or cutting the neighbours' lawn, doing something to help the family income, not to buy the latest gadget or to put something into an RRSP? We are not in the Dickens' time, but it does still happen.
Quite often when I am talking to people of your children's age group, they want to know what we are doing. People I know personally will ask, "Why are you putting effort into this? Why should you care? Why should you bother?'' I tell them "I am doing it for your generation,'' and that makes them stop and think, because they know me personally; they can relate to me and they understand that they will be getting old. I am having a fairly vigorous old age. They would like to have a vigorous old age. Should they be thinking about it now?
That personal interaction has an impact, but there is also the combination of countering ageism. I was talking to a First Nations elder this week who is chief of her reserve. We were talking about younger people. I said that many people, especially the boomer generation but perhaps those younger as well, do not want a word associated with growing older. Are they afraid of it? As you said, senator, the alternative might scare them more.
To my friend, "elder'' is an honourable word, and she had no problem with "senior.'' She felt there was something sadly lacking in the way these young people had been brought up.
I think it is incumbent on all of us who are concerned with what happens to other people and not just ourselves, as obviously you all are, being in public life. Perhaps your report will be the beginning of that process.
Senator Cordy: I would like to turn now to the guaranteed annual income, which we have already spoken about today. I am also on a committee that is studying poverty related to cities, chaired by Senator Eggleton from Ontario.
The idea of a guaranteed income has come up at several of our meetings. Yesterday, we had a number of people from the Toronto area who were affiliated with anti-poverty groups. The issue was raised with them about guaranteed income. One gentleman commented that at face value it sounds very good, but he and most of the panel members were afraid that it would affect other social programs. They specifically mentioned Employment Insurance. I know one of you stated that if we had a guaranteed income, we would do away with Employment Insurance. His concern in fact was the opposite, that if we had a guaranteed annual income, that would happen, we would get rid of Employment Insurance.
If you look at Employment Insurance not specifically related to seniors, would the parental leave plan be thrown out the window if we had a guaranteed annual income? If the woman is out of the workplace and the man is in the workplace, then the family income might be such that they would not qualify for parental leave benefits, which could cause financial hardship to the family. What would happen to other types of Employment Insurance benefits, like the caregiver leave for palliative care?
Ms. McGillivray: Just to clarify, we know from reading in the newspaper that it was Senator Segal who said he supported a guaranteed annual income, but throw out Employment Insurance and welfare benefits. No one will endorse that in a million years. We need all the programs.
When I was in social work, the question was always who will you throw out of the boat. I do not happen to believe there is a scarcity of resources in this country. I think this is a very rich country. I think there is misuse of our resources.
A guaranteed annual income is not a difficult thing when one looks at the income tax and at the ways in which the allowances are made for certain incomes. It is just a matter of topping up incomes, which they do anyway in other ways. However, I do not think we want that at the sacrifice of losing social programs.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. I was hoping you would say that.
Yesterday, one of our witnesses was presenting from India, which is quite amazing when you think what technology can do today. He had done a UN report in Canada on poverty in Canada, and he basically asked why a country as rich as Canada is has so many poor people. There was a government response, which I have never seen, but our committee will be looking for that response, and I will be interested to read what they said.
I am also interested in your comments, Ms. McGillivray, about women's shelters and senior women. I have tended to think of women's shelters as being for younger women and their children. You are absolutely right. We have not been looking at how we meet the needs of senior women when we look at housing and shelters. If I were 65 or 70 years old, I am not sure that I would want to be put in the same housing with a lot of two- and three-year olds.
Is there a movement to look specifically at meeting the needs of senior women?
Ms. McGillivray: You are perfectly right. That was what our study found.
To begin with, the study was developed to address issues around the abuse of older women. They were coming in droves. We look at abuse generally. I sort of endorse the theory that it starts with child abuse, then adult abuse, and it continues into old age. There is a continuum. Naturally, as our demographics have moved along, we have a larger population, which is mainly women, although some men also fall into that category and suffer from abuse.
I do not need to tell this committee that older people have a certain amount of reserve and privacy. They do not want to share their personal stories. There is a great reluctance to have to admit to anyone that you are in an abusive situation. In fact, I worked in the field, and there were many situations where women said, "Well, we are getting on in age now. I will just put up with it. He will die pretty soon.'' Some of the results are pretty sad.
The Older Women's Network got some funding to explore the needs of older women and identified something you just said, that shelters are not geared to older adults who would like to have a little quiet time, a little privacy.
Larger than that was the fact that shelters did not take any statistics on age, or education, or a lot of other things. They considered all that private and confidential. I suppose from their perspective it was, but from another perspective, if you do not have the information then you cannot develop the programs that are needed to address that population.
That shelter study changed the way that family services dealt with older people who were complaining about abuse. I would like to replicate that study now, 20 years later, to find out whether there has been any change.
Ms. Mounsteven: When we did our study on holding on to housing in the rural areas, we heard people not understanding about the number of people who were homeless. We saw the numbers of older women who were at risk of losing their home. Many times, we found that they were being sheltered for a short period of time with family members. They would stay there only for a little while, then they would have to move on. It came as a great surprise to the smaller rural areas how many people actually were in that category.
We also found in this study that when we look at age, we are talking about a senior at age 65. However, when people are at risk or are homeless, the aging process is very much tied to the age of 45. People who are at that type of risk, who are living on the street or in shelters are of course concerned about where they will live, how much food they will put in their bodies, and what health risks they face.
I was part of a founding group that started a drop-in program for women in the late 1970s. It was surprising to us who walked through our door. It was mainly women who were over age 50. We saw younger women, but they are more resilient compared to the population of older women, and when you look at men as well.
In the city of Toronto we have done away with detox centres. The detox centres, which had mostly men coming to them, were wonderful, because we found that we were able to really give care, both physical care, to look at the health of feet and to begin perhaps to get some food into their bellies, and care such as beginning to look at what was possible in terms of finding housing. Detox centres have now disappeared. I know they are doing satellite centres and it is different, but there are a variety of ways of looking at who is housed and under-housed.
I live in a housing co-op, part of a federal co-op. There are two kinds of co-ops. There are the federal co-ops, and there is what used to be called the provincial co-ops, which were downloaded to the municipalities. We had to fight very hard for the federal co-ops not to be downloaded to the province, which would then have downloaded them to the municipalities.
The co-op housing movement is a large movement across Canada. In Toronto, in one area around The Esplanade there are some 20 housing co-ops.
At present, the difficulty with co-ops is that because of the way they are funded, particularly the federal co-ops, as we pay off our mortgage, there is less money available for us to give subsidy. This year, we have lost $1,000 a month subsidy money for people who are living in our co-op. That means that as I pay my market rent, a portion goes to subsidize someone else in my house.
The other part is that for 10 years we have not been able to bring anyone else into our co-op who needs a subsidy. I would ask you to look at what is happening. We used to have what we thought was an arrangement with Canada Mortgage and Housing, but CMHC has determined that they will no longer be giving — even if we looked at what the original agreement was based on, when at that time many of the co-ops were being funded on a 17 per cent interest rate on mortgage, and now we have a 4 per cent or 5 per cent interest rate on mortgage. Therefore, the amount of money now available is less because of that mortgage interest. There was no interest in our getting an arrangement to do more of the subsidizing.
The Chair: I will have to call this panel to an end.
Due to the power of the Internet and someone who is an expert at it, I can now tell you about the 2006 changes to the guidelines for funding with Status of Women. The word "equality'' was dropped; operating budgets were cut by $5 million over two years; and organizations engaged in advocacy or government lobbying were no longer eligible for funding, nor was there funding for research projects. The previous objectives, such as helping women's organizations participate in the public policy process and increasing public understanding of women's equality issues, have been eliminated from government literature.
The new objective is "to facilitate women's participation in Canadian society by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations.''
Senator Mercer: What does that mean?
The Chair: I am not sure.
The program also favours small projects providing direct services to individual women. For-profit and religious organizations are also eligible.
In April 2007, to be fair, the grant funding was in increased to $15.3 million, in two components: the Women's Community Fund, which will support projects at the local, regional and national level, although nobody seems to know what the projects are; and the Women's Partnership Fund, which is inherent to current government programs and will facilitate the engagement of eligible organizations and public institutions through projects addressing issues pertaining to women.
The money has been returned and some of it has been added, but the whole purpose, the advocacy, the government lobbying and the research initiatives have all been changed in that direction.
Ms. McGillivray: We are an advocacy group. We also could not get a charitable number because we are an advocacy group, and we only deal with one gender. So we are nowhere.
The Chair: I want to thank you all very much for your presentations this afternoon.
Senators, now appearing before us we have, on behalf of the City of Welland Accessibility Advisory Committee, Mr. Russ Findlay; on behalf of the Rose City Seniors Activity Centre, our host this afternoon, for which we are extremely grateful, Mr. John Rose; on behalf of the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee to the City of Welland, Mr. Doug Rapelje; on behalf of the Francophone Community Health Centre Hamilton/Niagara, Mr. Marcel Castonguay; and on behalf of Foyer Richelieu, Mr. André Tremblay.
Russ Findlay, Chair, Welland Accessibility Advisory Committee: Two years ago, I had the thrill of being a presenter before the provincial legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy when it was in its public input phase for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This is equally thrilling for me.
In my submission to you, I tried to provide you with only new information, and that information from the perspective of a person with a disability.
In recent months, I have been preaching the same message to anyone who will listen. The message is that as a society we have readily come to accept the fact that as seniors age, they often develop disabilities, but too often overlooked is the fact that people with disabilities do become seniors. As such, planning for support, services, programs, facilities — like the one we are sitting in — is often overlooked for that segment of society, 5 million of us, according to the most recent Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, PALS. That is the Statistics Canada survey that identifies a disability as one that limits a person's participation in the activities of daily living.
However you view my remarks and submissions, there is one overlying problem, and I am sure you will see it all across Canada, and it is a problem of equality.
If you draw a line in Ontario through York Region, north of Toronto, the have-nots are north and the haves are south. I say that in the context of services and supports for persons with disabilities. Many people migrate to the south because of the availability of services and supports, but not all people do. Those people who choose to live north of this line are forced to live, as they age, without the supports and services that we, in the south, have come to expect and that are readily available.
I believe that Human Resources and Social Development Canada has a role to play in equalizing these disparities across the province. I am sure you will see the disparities all across Canada.
It is not realistic to expect that, in an attempt to equalize supports and services, every municipality would have a centre such as this. However, I think it is realistic to expect a regional model for service and support delivery, one that may be a traveling road show that goes out to municipalities for a number of days, perhaps a week, and offers the much needed services to seniors with disabilities in those municipalities.
That ends my few minutes of opening remarks, senators. I hope you have some questions on my submission.
John Rose, Vice-Chair, Rose City Seniors Activity Centre: The Rose City Seniors Activity Centre, I have to say, is definitely the activities centre. We keep everybody moving. People have come here wanting to rent a room overnight, and some have thought this was a bed and breakfast, and we have had to explain to them that is a seniors' activity centre. I must say that Rose City Seniors Activity Centre is not named after me.
It is a privilege to have this committee come to Welland and start your campaign here. I understand you are going right across the country, to B.C. and all over the place. It is a privilege to have you people here.
I hope you had the opportunity to tour our centre. We are very proud of this centre. It is noted all over Ontario. We have been to Guelph to look at theirs, and they have a beautiful one there, but we do not take a back seat to them or anybody else.
Most of our people are volunteers, even our kitchen. I think you enjoyed your meal. That was made by our staff who help here in our kitchen, cook and everything. They cook their own meals and bake their own pies.
We have so many members that we are now of expanding the centre. We hope the shovel goes in the ground this fall or early next year.
We charge only $21 a year for a member to belong here — $21 a year for everything that goes on here. We are not in the process of making money; we are in the process of keeping people active. You will notice there are no television sets in this building. We do not want them to come here and sit and watch television. They are active.
I will mention a few of the activities we do here. We have five-pin bowling in a bowling alley we rent, 500 cards, billiards, book club, bingo, bridge, carpet bowling, jacks, computer club, and country and western bands. We have three bands that practise here all the time. In fact, there is a dance tonight. We also have cribbage, darts, dances. The 50-plus variety drama club has two shows a year, and this place is packed. We have Euchre, Rummoli, Scrabble, a sewing circle, quilting, shuffleboard, Tai Chi, Velvetones, woodworking, woodcarving.
As you can see, we do not stand still. We are doing something. We want to keep the senior citizens active, and that is what we do.
The book that we were sent to look through to see what we thought or could add to it took me about three hours to read through. The advisory board of the Rose City Seniors Activity Centre had a meeting on that, and we came up with the following suggestions.
We are concerned about the lack of an adequate inter-city transportation system. The City of Welland no longer has a full complement of specialists in all health fields. With the centralization of specialists in various locations throughout the Niagara Region, there is no inter-city transportation system in place that would allow seniors who are no longer able to drive to keep out-of-town appointments. Many have different specialists in Port Colborne, St. Catharines or Niagara Falls, and they have to get to those appointments. With the advent of a new central health care facility in St. Catharines, it is even more important that this problem be addressed.
We feel that there should be compensation for people who are willing to become caregivers for love ones in their own homes. If, with permission from their doctor, people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice, it relieves strain on the health care system by freeing up beds and personnel at the hospitals. There should be some kind of compensation for people who make such a commitment.
We feel more thought should be given to helping seniors remain in their own homes. The rising cost of living, coupled with the fixed incomes of pensioners, is becoming a growing problem. Either there should be an added tax incentive for these seniors or the government needs to provide more subsidized housing for seniors.
I had the experience of home care. My mother-in-law was in the hospital and my wife went up three times a day, morning, noon and night. She did that for about five weeks. Finally, she asked the doctor if she could take care of her mother at home. He said, "Why not?'' and signed the papers, and we took her home. She felt relieved being at home with her daughter. We had her for a year and a half before she passed away.
I cannot see why more of that cannot be done to relieve beds in the hospital. It also saves your family from going back and forth to the hospital so often. That is just my experience. That is all I have to say. Thank you for listening.
Doug Rapelje, Representative, Senior Citizens Advisory Committee to the City of Welland: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to make this presentation.
I would like to give you a little of my background, because many of the comments that I want to make are related to the experiences I have had.
I have spent my career in Niagara working with and for seniors for more than 40 years. I am a former director of the Social Services and Senior Citizens Department of the Regional Municipality of Niagara. I had the privilege of chairing the Ontario Advisory Council on Seniors Citizens and served for six years on the National Advisory Council on Aging.
Presently, I am a member of Veterans Affairs Canada's Gerontological Advisory Council, which for me has been a most rewarding experience. I am a board member of the Institute of Aging, one of the 13 institutes that make up the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I am a member of the mayor's new Senior Citizens Advisory Committee. For the past 12 years I have served with the Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region, and presently I chair the Alzheimer Society Niagara Foundation. Besides that, I am retired.
My presentation will be a bit of a smorgasbord. In the time allowed, I would like to highlight ways to improve the quality of life for Canadian seniors.
The first time I had the chance to speak to a Senate committee was in front of Senator Croll. What a wonderful advocate for seniors that man was. I commend the federal government for appointing the Special Senate Committee on Aging. Your report identifies many of the issues but, because I have lived as long as I have, I know that some of the issues have been around for a very long time.
As we look at the demographics and the arrival of the baby boomers, I question whether our health, social services, and housing will be ready to meet their needs. I say this as we seem to be struggling to provide the adequate and needed services today.
There will be more of an impact on Niagara, because there is a debate as to whether Victoria or Niagara has the highest percentage of older people. For Niagara it becomes even a greater problem.
I agree with your report that healthy aging does not start at age 65. We need to promote healthy aging and support centres like this one that will encourage seniors to remain active and involved and will prevent or delay the need for expensive care, allowing seniors to enjoy a better quality of life.
This centre is a role model for seniors. I have visited centres all across this country, including the Kerby Centre in Calgary, and I want to tell you that this city is very proud of Mr. Rose and all the people here who do such a wonderful job promoting healthy aging.
Health promotion and health prevention have to be a high priority on the federal government's agenda, especially as again we look at the demographics.
The Institute of Aging has as one of its top priorities research in the area of mobility, which Mr. Findlay will be interested in, so we better understand how to remain independent longer. I think that will be exciting research.
Serving on the board of the Institute of Aging, we are producing important research funded by the federal government, but we need to make better use of it to better serve senior Canadians. The federal government could help promote health research knowledge transfer. This is one of the priorities of the council. I was a little leery of joining this board because I am not a researcher; I worked in the trenches all my life, but I guess they invited me because they wanted a couple of people from the real world.
I see we have a researcher up here. I am so impressed with the research that is being done, but as a layman I am very concerned about our inability to transfer that important information to the right people so that it brings about change.
I suggest to this committee that we look for ways to insist that researchers write summaries that laypersons understand. Research is a language of its own. It is not Canadian. I think that is an important area, because there is wonderful information that never gets used, never gets to the right people.
The Institute of Aging held regional senior workshops on research that identified many issues presented by seniors and professionals. You may have that, but if not, I left a copy for you.
I have been impressed with the positive impact that the Veterans Independence Program has had in supporting veterans and spouses in their homes, doing housekeeping, home maintenance, transportation, home care, and so on. Of all the programs I have seen over my long involvement with seniors, this to me has been one of the most impressive, and I commend Veterans Affairs Canada and the federal government for supporting that program.
A study of three communities saw waiting lists for veterans waiting to go into long-term care drop by 90 per cent because of the VIP program. As Mr. Rose was just saying, I do not think there is any question that these programs work if they are available, and they do allow people to stay in their own homes and in their community longer. This program would greatly assist all seniors across Canada and should be implemented by the federal government. The evidence is there.
I have been impressed with the World Health Organization's Global Age - Friendly Cities Project. I know you heard about that earlier this morning. It has been initiated in four cities in Canada, Welland being the largest, and, as you know, some 30 countries. I am hoping that we will see this promoted in Canada. I suggest the federal government promote it in all communities across the country, because the concept would improve our communities for seniors. As the program guide states, "An age-friendly city encourages active ageing by optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age.''
I believe we must emphasize positive aging. It is so easy to dwell on the negative aspects of aging. We need to start talking about the positive sides of aging.
As I said, I worked for over 40 years in long-term care and community care. I commend our efforts to shift more of our resources to community care, but at the same time, more will be need in long-term care. To give you an example, I started working in this city as an administrator at 22 or 23 years of age at a home for the aged. When I started in 1954, the average age was 72, and when I retired, it was 86. That is positive, because along the way, we brought in supportive housing, community programs and preventative care, and our health care improved. I think we have the evidence that community care works, and works well.
In Ontario, we just completed building 20,000 new long-term care beds, and I understand that already we have nearly that many on waiting lists in Ontario.
The standards and the quality of care continue to be an issue. Studies have shown major differences in standards and funding from one province to another, and I am sure you saw the study three or four years ago that compared not only our provinces but also some of the American states. Unfortunately, Ontario was 10 out of 10.
To answer your question, yes, we do need national standards for home care and long-term care. Canadians are Canadians, and seniors living in different provinces should be assured of the same quality of care across this country. The federal government could play an important role in helping to develop uniform standards and funding, resulting in a system that assures all seniors quality and standard care across the country.
On the important task of dealing effectively with senior abuse, we need to be clear on what we mean by "abuse'' and recognize that it exists in the community and in care facilities. Your report that states that long-term care facilities face new challenges and that care is more complex. I agree with that, and I believe abuse is often the outcome of frustration on the part of caregivers.
There is a need to enhance end-of-life care. In Niagara, palliative care programs are being promoted. Two hospice facilities opened recently. I spoke at a meeting a couple of months ago where we were talking about end of life. Someone in the audience asked me if I am afraid of dying. I said that I am not afraid of dying, but I am afraid of how I will die. Palliative care can really help that part of our life.
We need to look for ways to help seniors who live below the poverty line, because those on fixed incomes and those trying to make ends meet are struggling as costs increase. Gas, food, taxes — the increases in the last month or two alone are hard to fathom. You have to wonder whether more people are falling below the poverty line. When I served on the National Advisory Council on Aging, poverty among the elderly was one of our major concerns.
We need to protect retirement funds so that seniors are assured that pension plans they pay into are safe and there for them after a lifetime of work. We have had some devastating situations in this region of people who retired thinking they had a pension and all of a sudden they were told that it would be decreased by 30 per cent, or when they go to collect their pension, it is not there.
I am pleased your report identified caregiver leave, and I am sure that Marge Dempsey talked about it this morning. Many people have little choice but to be caregivers. They are unpaid and often face job loss because of their caregiving role. This has been an important issue with the Alzheimer Society, and I think it is an issue across the country.
Injury prevention is important, and Veterans Affairs Canada developed an effective falls prevention program. With better-designed facilities, proper access and accident prevention programs, we can reduce injuries.
We need to enhance manpower training for individuals who work with the elderly and those who need special care, such as caring for people with Alzheimer's or the physically frail. Some feel we have reached a crisis in Ontario. As you have probably already heard, in this community we are understaffed by about 70 physicians. We have a shortage of nurses and other staff. I think all levels of government have to pay a lot of attention to this point.
With the demographics showing an increase in older people in Canada and with the challenges we face, we should have a federal ministry of seniors, a question you asked in your brief.
I would like to say something about volunteers. We have 6.5 million volunteers, 1.1 billion hours, and approximately 578,000 jobs. Non-profit organizations could not survive without volunteers. Government could not pay the value of volunteers. Therefore, I hope that we can look for ways to recognize volunteers, and I hope we can have a bit of discussion.
Unless I misinterpreted something from this morning, I have some real concern about paying volunteers in dollars. I think if you can help them with their gas costs and their expenses that is good.
We volunteer. My wife just received a pin for 50 years of volunteer work. She has never received a cent and never expected it. I think many volunteers would be offended if we thought they were doing it to be paid. They are doing it because they are caring people who want to make our communities better.
Finally, I want to commend the Mayor of Welland for setting up a Senior Citizens Advisory Committee to serve, in an advisory capacity, the city council and staff. That model maybe should be promoted across the country. We heard about a regional council this morning as well.
Niagara Region has initiated many innovative programs for seniors, which I am sure you heard about today, and this is a caring community. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rapelje. Before I go to our next two presenters, I must say that you tweaked a number of memories for me.
My father, who was also a senator and who was from Nova Scotia, actually sat on Senator David Croll's committee on poverty. It was during that committee's cross-country meetings that my father had his first stroke, which left him totally paralyzed on one side of his body. Watching my father go through that, I got to understand something about living with disabilities. It also led to my interest in palliative care and then to my asking the Senate to give me this reference. Thus, it was not the federal government that initiated this study, it was the Senate of Canada that initiated this study.
Senator Cordy: With Senator Carstairs.
[Traduction]
Marcel Castonguay, Director General, Community Health Centre Hamilton/Niagara: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Marcel Castonguay and I am the Director General of the Community Health Centre Hamilton/Niagara. With me is my colleague André Tremblay, who is the Director General of the Foyer Richelieu here in Welland.
I would like to start by giving you a brief explanation of what the Health Centre and the Foyer Richelieu are.
The Health Centre is an agency that offers primary care, a medical clinic, perinatal services, programs for managing and preventing chronic illnesses, nutrition programs, mental health services for adults and young people, settlement and integration services for newcomers and, more recently, home support services for seniors.
With our 60 health workers and professionals, we serve the francophone communities in the Hamilton and Niagara region. We have about 3,000 patients for our medical services, and last year our centre offered over 20,000 direct services to our clients and had over 21,000 participants at our community workshops on managing chronic illness, nutrition and other subjects.
Our centre belongs to a provincial network of about 55 health centres, only seven of which in the province are francophone: Hamilton/Niagara, where I am the Director General, Sudbury, Sudbury East, Témiscamingue, Kapuskasing, Toronto and Cornwall. Each of those centres covers an area much larger than the city where it is located, however. An example is Cornwall, which has five satellites of its own outside Cornwall.
Seventy-five percent of the medical clients of the Health Centre in Welland belong to our aging population. That figure is much lower for the Hamilton service point, and in May our Centre will open an access point in St. Catharines and another in Fort Erie.
Since 1993, when the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care was reorganized, the mission of the Foyer Richelieu has been to provide accommodation and long-term care, with 60 long-term care beds and two respite beds. The residence also offers a room that has been specially set up for palliative care, to meet the needs of residents who are already in the residence at the end of their lives, along with a family room for their family members.
In June 1996, the Foyer Richelieu Welland was officially designated by the province of Ontario as an official provider of services in French.
The Foyer Richelieu provides continues care, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which is delivered by health care professionals. Staff at the Foyer Richelieu consist of over 75 health care employees and professionals, who deliver care to residents. The health care professionals form a multidisciplinary team that works with the medical director and pharmacist to develop care plans to meet each resident's needs.
In 2001, francophones 65 and over represented 5.3 per cent of the general Ontario population aged 65 and over, and 13.8 per cent of the total francophone population of the province. And I am talking about 2001. The figures are still about the same. We have not had a chance to get all the data from Statistics Canada.
Francophones 65 and over live mainly in eastern Ontario, 38.5 per cent, in northeastern Ontario, 27.5 per cent, and central Ontario, 23.9 per cent.
Women comprise 57.4 per cent of the 65 and over population. Nearly one third, 30.5 per cent, of francophones 65 and over are widowed, and so are living alone, and 82.8 per cent are women.
A majority of francophones 65 and over have a total income of about $12,000 to $24,999 per year, and 55.1 per cent of the people in that category are women.
These figures reflect what was said by the witnesses who spoke before us.
Other statistics are that 42.4 per cent of francophones 65 and over have less than a grade nine education. For Ontario as a whole, 33 per cent of francophones 65 and over are between 65 and 69 years old; 28.2 per cent are between 70 and 74; 21.3 per cent are between 75 and 79; 11.2 per cent are between 80 and 84; and 5.9 per cent are 85 or over.
Francophone women comprise 62.5 per cent of those 75 and over; 67.3 per cent of those 80 and over; and 70 per cent of those 85 and over. This is an aging population.
In Welland, the francophone population 65 and over is about 20.2 per cent of the total francophone population, while it is 13 per cent for the francophone population of the province as a whole.
These statistical data become crucially important when we are talking about aging and health care.
Some research done on health and aging among francophones in minority communities has identified three major barriers to access to services: cultural barriers, language barriers and socio-demographic barriers. I think we have to add a fourth, however: geographic barriers.
Because 66 per cent of the francophone population 65 and over lives in northeastern and eastern Ontario, where there is a shortage of health care services in some communities, and 23.9 per cent live in central Ontario, where there is a shortage of health care services in French, it is readily apparent that the aging francophone population does not have tremendous access to health care services in French.
To expand access to these services for the francophone population, we need to know more about the barriers facing francophones in planning services. We also need to have greater access to information about the health of the francophone population so we can have better planning of these services.
In our view, these two factors or components are missing from the health care system at present. This may be a message for the researcher with the Senate committee. A lot of research has been done into aging and health, but little research has been done into the health of francophones in Ontario or in Canada.
This is a glaring flaw. When initiatives by the federal and provincial governments are brought forward, some basis in research is called for to justify spending money or demonstrate the problems that the initiatives are trying to address, and the research is really just not there. So the initiatives are often very difficult to justify.
Knowing that a majority of the population 65 and over lives in rural areas and a majority of the population under 65 lives in urban areas, we are led to conclude that the natural caregivers, who are needed if people are to be able to live where they choose as they age, are not available. So we have to ask: does a francophone senior have the same freedom to choose to live in familiar surroundings as he or she ages?
These natural caregivers, along with a receptive system that is capable of meeting their needs, are particularly important when we consider that in some cases chronic illness is the reason why people lose the ability to live where they choose.
It is important to examine the cultural tradition of the health care system more closely if we want to give people this option. We have to stop looking at the traditional institutions as the only alternatives that allow for the aging process to occur in safe surroundings.
Public policy has to start looking more closely at community-based alternatives in order to determine how communities can transform the system of health care currently available for an aging population.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments have to play a leadership role and they will have to jointly facilitate the development of community programs by which the role of the professional institutions, which the traditional institutions previously played, can be performed. For example, communities could put more programs in place to provide assisted housing or create home support programs, and find innovative solutions to meet chronic needs for transportation and recreation among our aging populations. To do that, governments will have to not only encourage, but also reward innovation in this area. Community organizations that want to develop innovative solutions are faced with a chronic lack of funding. It would be good to see federal programs like New Horizons generating funding sources that could be used to put new initiatives in place.
The existing system focuses too much on chronic programs and largely deals only with those people who are able to access the system. At present, very little is done in terms of prevention and education. While that is true for the population as a whole at present, the problem is even more acute for francophones. There are very few good programs in French for prevention or for management of chronic illness, and few good patient education material in French. There is also very little data on the health of francophones, but decisions are often made based on projections. Institutions like hospitals have a role to play in the communities, but they are not the only solutions for all of the challenges.
The paradigm has to change if we are to establish a system based on targeted populations, a system that coordinates the work of various interconnected partners that agree to take responsibility for health care as a whole, and in which the patient is seen as a partner rather than a mere user. In other words, we have to have a real paradigm shift.
We know that 66 per cent of the general population has a chronic illness, that 55 per cent have more than two different chronic conditions, that 80 per cent of primary care visits relate to a chronic condition, and that 67 per cent of hospital admissions in Ontario relate to chronic conditions. We believe it is possible to reduce those numbers.
But those services must be available in French, to meet the needs of francophone communities.
We have a few recommendations and a bit of wishful thinking. I will begin by saying that the decision makers have to start by becoming more knowledgeable about the barriers and challenges facing francophones and incorporating those realities into the process when planning services.
There has to be greater access to information about the health of the francophone population so that we can have better planning for those services.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments have to work together to change the health care paradigm.
Governments have to encourage innovation and lay out funds to allow for innovation in the delivery of services by community health organizations.
And the federal government absolutely has to take into account the fact that minority francophone communities have pressing needs and have had to catch up when it comes to prevention services, support for seniors and end of life care. The federal government has to create a national fund to meet these needs.
[Français]
The Chair: I would like to begin with some questions for Mr. Findlay.
Mr. Findlay, you make the powerful statement that we should always use the word "inclusion'' rather than the word "participation.'' Would you elaborate on that a little bit for the whole committee.
Mr. Findlay: As I mentioned in my comments, I am free to participate in many things in society, but unless there are policies and procedures in place that remove the barriers to allow me to participate, then "participating'' is only a word. "Inclusion'' defines a higher standard of obligation on the part of those who would develop policies and procedures. Coming at you from that point of view, there is much more weight attached to the use of the word "inclusion.''
The Chair: Can you give the committee specific examples of barriers to your inclusion?
Mr. Findlay: You are looking at one right now. Too often, people come at barrier-free environments without even thinking about the environment, because they have not been a part of the segment of society that has to deal with barriers on a day-to-day basis. For example, this arrangement where one cannot get close enough to a table in order to be comfortable making a presentation is a barrier, not a significant barrier, but it is one.
There are some significant barriers that persons with disabilities encounter daily, and I am not just thinking about people in wheelchairs. We are sort of the poster people for people with disabilities. Too often overlooked are people with hidden disabilities, such as learning disabilities, or people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
If I wanted to go to the Civic Centre here in Welland and transact some business but I were hard of hearing, what is in place to assist me with my disability? In Welland, we are just now moving to a system of FM transmitters to assist people with hearing disabilities. It is actually an FM broadcast signal that would pick up a signal from a microphone such as this, broadcast it through an FM radio, and a person with a hearing disability who might be wearing a hearing aid or carrying a Walkman-type receiver could tune that device into the frequency of this transmitter and receive an amplified signal.
We are also talking about people with vision disabilities and the barriers that they face. For example, also in this city and across the region, we are starting to implement accessible pedestrian signals. I am sure most of you have seen them. They are the signals that chirp like a bird when it is safe to cross and also give some sort of directionality to allow people who are cane users the ability to go in the direction they want to instead of in the wrong direction.
Some types of disabilities are faced not only by persons in wheelchairs but also by people with other disabilities. Regardless of our disability, we are all faced from time to time with a lack of accessible transit. No doubt, if you cannot get out of your house, you will not go anywhere and you will not be a benefit to anyone. Your talents will be underutilized, you will be underemployed, you will be neglected by society; in fact, you will be that part of society that is out of sight, out of mind.
Things are slowly changing, but in the past years I have had comments come back to me when I entered a retail establishment for example that was particularly hard to get into because of the physical barrier. I questioned the salesperson, "Gee, I do not see many people with disabilities in your establishment. Maybe you should try to get rid of that barrier,'' and the answer was, "Well, you know, we never see any people with disabilities.'' No wonder.
Regarding the lack of accessible transit, I think if you were to name a paramount barrier, that would be the one that would help to bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society.
The Chair: I am increasingly concerned with the demographic changes that are taking place with people who may end up with more than one disability. I remember my father being in a hospital in Calgary. This was a man who was now paralyzed on one side. He had been a premier, a senator, a cabinet minister, clearly a rather alert human being. The nurse decided that his stroke had left him with some severe mental incapacity. When I asked, "Why do you think that?'' the reaction was, "He does not respond to what I am saying. I said, "Well, perhaps you should give him his hearing aids.''
We will end up with more of that. There may be the obvious disability, but then as you have identified there might be the less obvious disability, and it will be equally a barrier, if not more of a barrier, to their sense of inclusion.
Mr. Findlay: One disability in fact compounds the other, so that we have a cumulative effect that is greater than two, perhaps three times larger.
You must realize that just because a person has one disability does not mean that subsequent disabilities will indeed develop. I am thinking of persons with diabetes, a progressive condition that so often over time results in a neuropathy that might result in an amputation. Persons with diabetes are more prone to heart disease and to blindness.
Certainly, senator, your remarks are well taken that we have to guard against and provide information about healthy living that will mitigate some of these disabilities that may develop as we age.
Senator Cordy: I have a couple of questions. The first one is on transportation. Mr. Rose, you brought it up and Mr. Findlay just referred to it. This is an issue that we have heard over and over again.
We have transportation within urban areas, and we have talked about bus passes and there currently being a credit if you buy a pass, which is fine if you have a bus system in your region.
Mr. Rose, you made reference to the fact that you might have a bus system, and you could take the bus into the nearest urban area or the nearest hospital or whatever for an appointment, and then you wait for eight hours or until the next day before you can get the return bus to your home. This must be extremely difficult, I was going to say doubly but it is even worse, for those who have a disability. How do you get from point A to point B for an appointment or for anything? It does not have to be only a medical reason, it could be that you want to go shopping or somewhere else.
What should we recommend in terms of transportation? In rural areas in my province, a bus will not pass by every 20 minutes. That is just not realistic. In fact, you might not even need a bus; you might just need a van or a car.
Further, in my province, in the smaller areas, transportation, instead of being enhanced, is in fact being reduced even further. With the cost of gas, I think that transportation will be made even more challenging for smaller areas.
Do you have any solutions? Are there recommendations this committee should make regarding transportation?
Mr. Rose: Niagara Falls has a bus system. Welland has a bus system. St. Catharines has a bus system. The problem is trying to get the three going together, because there are also Fonthill, Fort Erie and Port Colborne. We are all in the Niagara district. Twelve municipalities make up the region. We are trying to get together.
Say you have an appointment with a specialist in Port Colborne. How do you get there? There are some small buses that I think are trying to help people out, but it is just like guesswork. However, sometimes you do not need guesswork; you need the bus right there, if you have to go the eye specialist in St. Catharines where my wife goes, or the eye specialist in Fort Erie or Port Colborne.
Maybe I should not say this, but I remember when we had the railroad system here — the Toonerville Trolley, I called it. We went all over the place, Port Dalhousie, Thorold, Niagara Falls, and it was just out of this world. It was all run by electricity. For some reason or other, somebody took it away. They even tore down the bridge over the river. There are still some bridges still there, though, and the base is still there, but I imagine it would be way overboard to try to get that system back.
It was a perfect system for the Golden Horseshoe, the Niagara Peninsula. We could go any place. We could go right to Port Dalhousie. There used to be picnics there, where I worked, then they transferred their picnic to Crystal Beach. That would be the ideal, cheapest thing to have, if we could get it going again. It was suggested a few times, but that is as far as it got. That would combine all the Niagara Peninsula and Golden Horseshoe together.
Mr. Findlay: Transportation is a problem. We should start to scale things back a little bit and temper our expectations as far as transit is concerned. Most municipalities in Canada, I suspect, could not support a transit system that looks like buses, but I suspect every municipality except for the very small would have a taxi system. We should encourage taxi operators to invest in accessible vehicles.
The cost of those vehicles has come down drastically in the last number of years. The first vehicle I purchased 10 years ago cost $62,000; now they are down to about $40,000. The reason for that is economy of scale, and as the environment becomes friendlier for persons with disabilities they are making those purchases, which forces the price down further.
There is an opportunity to subsidize taxi operators in municipalities to purchase a minivan that has a ramp in it instead of purchasing a sedan.
Senator Cordy: In Halifax we have the Access-A-Bus, and you phone and make an appointment for the Access-A- Bus to pick you up. I say bus, but it is a smaller vehicle.
Mr. Rapelje: We are talking about the public side of transit. I think we need to be aware that many agencies have buses, very expensive buses. The agency that I directed at one time had 14 buses, and a couple of them would carry 11 or 12 wheelchairs at a time. That really allowed us to get residents from long-term care out in the community.
Fourteen of those buses often sat idle hour after hour because of insurance complications. In Port Colborne we were next to a daycare centre. The staff there asked if they could use our bus to take the kids out for a picnic. I think we need to look for ways to better share equipment that agencies can afford to buy but need only for limited times. Otherwise the equipment sits there idle for hours.
[Traduction]
Mr. Castonguay: I would also like to make a comment. When we talk about this, we tend to think that it should be an urban transit system, or a system organized by municipalities or governments, but as my colleague said, there are in fact a number of agencies.
Take the case of my wife, who has just undergone a year of chemotherapy for cancer, and she had to go back and forth from St. Catharines to Hamilton, with the help of the Canadian Cancer Association. They regularly transported four patients to go for one treatment or another.
I would say, however, that the problem we have, for supporting these programs, is that the agencies that are trying to organize the programs do not receive any support and have to undertake all kinds of fundraising activities. So they are burning themselves out doing fundraising and have not even had a chance yet to organize the services that are missing in order to assist the public.
A bus costs $100,000 to $150,000. I would say that charitable organizations in this region are given no funding to organize transportation systems.
We have to go back and look at what is happening in the communities and see how we can help those communities to build capacity, instead of parachuting models in.
[Français]
Senator Cordy: My last question is for Mr. Rapelje. I will take this advantage, since you are on the board of Veterans Affairs Canada, to talk about the Veterans Independence Program, which is quite an amazing program. I often look at how it started, and it was because the hospitals were filled; there was no room, so they decided as an interim measure to have people come into the homes. Then when there was room, the veterans said, "No thanks, we much prefer to be in our homes.''
We have heard from several people that this should be a model not just for veterans but for all seniors in Canada. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Rapelje: Yes. That is exactly what I was attempting to say.
I have been on that council since its inception, and nothing has impressed me more than what that has done. I commend the government for extending the program to spouses for the rest of their lives. We felt strongly about that. I think it will make a big difference, because often they are the ones who are caregivers for years, and then they were just cut off from a service at a time in their life when they probably most needed it. I think that is a very progressive step.
I cannot think of any other program at the moment that I think would be more beneficial and would complement our overall approach to community care, to allowing people to stay in their homes.
Veterans Affairs Canada did a study in Ottawa, Halifax and Vancouver. When they went back after people who thought they needed long-term care had the option of the VIP program, they were astounded to find that the waiting list had gone down 90 per cent. You can get that study from John Walker at Veterans Affairs.
The evidence is clear that that program has been extremely effective. We can never do enough for our veterans, and I think it has allowed many of them to enjoy a good quality of life and independence for a much longer period of time.
Senator Cordy: I remember when the bill was extended to spouses. Senator Carstairs was Leader of the Government in the Senate at that time and asked me to sponsor that bill. It was a fun bill to sponsor because everybody, regardless of political party, was going to vote in favour of that.
I appreciate your comments about having a summary that laypersons can understand. Perhaps we will take your advice when we give our final report, because not only is it good for the average person but it is also good when the media has a shortened version. You are then more likely to get some attention in the media.
Mr. Rapelje: You are talking about research?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Mr. Rapelje: I am not a researcher, but I was amazed. I would not want to guess how much good research never gets off the shelf or near the people who could benefit. I think we have to change that. There is no sense spending millions of dollars on research if it does not make a change, if it does not help improve the quality of life for seniors or for the physically challenged or mentally challenged, whatever the research is. I would hope your committee would really see a way to change that.
The Institute of Aging realizes that that is one of their main goals now. About all I could bring to that council, as far as I was concerned, is to say that I worked my whole career and I do not ever remember referring to research, because I would not have known how to find it. I would not know where to go. However, I think we can change this if there is the initiative to do it.
[Traduction]
Senator Chaput: My questions are for Mr. Castonguay and Mr. Tremblay.
First, I would like to say that we are all aware that people who are aging face a lot of challenges, but those challenges are heightened when there is a language barrier. I think everyone agrees on that.
Mr. Castonguay, you talked about annual income of $12,000, if I understood correctly. Is that income for senior women only?
Mr. Castonguay: That's for seniors in general.
Senator Chaput: In Ontario?
Mr. Castonguay: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Francophone seniors in general?
Mr. Castonguay: That is right, between $12,000 and $24,999.
Senator Chaput: Of those seniors, what percentage is women?
Mr. Castonguay: The percentage who are women is 55.1 per cent.
Senator Chaput: What do they do to make ends meet?
Mr. Castonguay: Well, they do not. They live below the poverty line. This is even more frightening if we look at those figures and the geographic barriers, and we know that these people are living in northern and eastern Ontario, in little rural communities where there are real transportation problems. For example, a woman living in Hearst who has to go to Sudbury to get health care, there is no certainty that she is going to get there if she is single and has an income between $12,000 and $24,999.
Another example of this situation is a francophone who lives in northern Ontario and has to go to southern Ontario for health care, the costs of the patient's care are paid for, for the trip, the costs for the natural caregiver who travels with the patient are not. And it's the reverse in southern Ontario: a person living in southern Ontario who goes to northern Ontario, say to Sudbury, for health care, the costs for both the patient and the natural caregiver who accompanies the patient are paid.
Senator Chaput: Why?
Mr. Castonguay: It is an anomaly in the Ontario health care system that means that people who live in southern Ontario have to be poorer than people in northern Ontario. It's an anomaly that has never been corrected.
Senator Chaput: You spoke about the New Horizons program, which you consider to be a valuable program that should allow for new initiatives. Would you have any examples of what you mean by "new initiatives''?
Mr. Castonguay: Certainly, when we talk about a transportation system, that is one example. I am looking at initiatives like New Horizons and the total funding granted is about $25,000.
In communities like in the Niagara region, where francophones are spread out from Hamilton to Fort Erie, pretty much everywhere, organizing activities like day centres for seniors can't be done for $25,000. There are all sorts of possibilities and examples of activities that could be done, but they cannot be done with $25,000, and that's the problem.
Mr. Tremblay and I speak regularly, and we are starting to talk about virtual long-term care homes where residents who are still living at home can be connected to the medical services at a health care centre, but that are attached to a long-term care centre.
We have to try to find innovative models, and federal programs that can help us develop them.
Senator Chaput: And at present there are no federal programs that would be interested in this kind of initiative.
Mr. Castonguay: That is right, they are nonexistent.
André Tremblay, Director General, Foyer Richelieu: I can add that in our facility, we have a residence for francophone seniors that is nearby. We applied to be able to provide them with programs and support, and our application was turned down. These are people with limited autonomy. These people are like everyone else, they are aging and they often have to use community resources because we can't give them that service in-house, when there is a passage connecting the two facilities.
I think there might be a way to find solutions. These people could stay much longer, because they are already in a protected setting, if you like. They are already in a seniors' residence.
Senator Chaput: Do you have access to home health care in French for your seniors?
Mr. Castonguay: In fact, the Health Centre is in the process of examining the possibility of implementing that kind of care. We have just hired three nurses at the centre to identify the most vulnerable populations in the community, so we can do follow-up between their doctor appointments at our facility.
Mr. Tremblay: I would like to add something concerning the language problem. When we transfer residents to hospital, the families ask us when their mother or father will be able to come back to the residence. You have to understand that these are often people whose health is deteriorating and who often have to be sent to palliative care.
The best thing we can offer them is, if they want, to come back to die at our facility or to go home to die in their own home and their own language. I think this has become a major problem in our region, particularly for our clientele. Of these people, 95 per cent of our clients, some have French as a first language. Over the years, they have learned English, and now, as they lose their memory, they revert back to their mother tongue. When they get to the hospital and they need care, we have to remember that there are fewer staff and they are busier, so they do not take the time to pay attention and really understand what the person wants. So care and services are limited.
We are seeing more and more families whose members or carers are less available. At that point, when those people have to go to hospital, they are in a bad situation because there is no one around them who can help them. We encounter these situations regularly. The facility has to try to find solutions for people who need care in hospital.
Senator Chaput: I assume that the pool of volunteers who are able to speak French and have the time to do volunteer work is getting smaller and smaller. Is that the same thing where you are?
Mr. Castonguay: It is getting smaller and smaller, because it is used up. Given that there are no institutions that are capable of offering services in French, we have to depend on volunteers a lot. So then we have to find a specialized volunteer. When you are offering home care, you can't take on just anyone.
At this point, the traditional institutions, with the resources they have, can't meet the needs of minority communities. That's why the community aspect becomes so important. We need support so we can train our volunteers, and recruit and retain them.
Mr. Tremblay: One thing I might add on the question of volunteers is that we have to realize that our volunteers are aging, and now we are admitting them as residents!
Senator Chaput: What I understand is that you are prepared to try all kinds of innovative things, virtual connections, to meet the needs of your francophone clientele.
You said there are good prevention programs. Obviously there are a lot in English, not necessarily in French.
Could you give us examples of what there is in English, which is working well, and that you don't have access to in French?
Mr. Castonguay: In fact, what happens is that there is a lot of research into managing chronic illness. It is in English. For example, how to treat diabetes is no different in French and English. But when we look at the explosion of type II diabetes among seniors, we have to know how to educate people and raise awareness in French, particularly when we are starting to look at socio-demographic studies that show that seniors have less than a grade nine education. We can't expect to be able to inform people using materials that are written for university graduates.
Our Health Centre has started working on management of chronic illnesses. I think we are creating some amazing tools. We have started to use videoconferencing, where we can give a workshop in Welland with an audience in Hamilton and have an interactive discussion. We are trying to see how we could connect up with other communities where we could have province-wide discussions with a nurse. There again, health care professionals are still very scarce and difficult to recruit, and are not necessarily where the patients are. So we are developing models and teaching materials. Our workshops are growing in popularity.
[Français]
Senator Chaput: I would like to thank the other witnesses. I just thought it would be nice for me to be able to speak French.
Senator Mercer: Thank you to all the presenters.
I want to talk about the VIP program a little more. My father was a veteran and accessed the Veterans Independence Program, and now my mother continues to benefit from it now that my father is gone.
I like the idea of transferring the program over to the general public, because it is such a good program. However, every time we talk about creating something new or moving something and broadening it, I see a building going up in Ottawa and filling up with bureaucrats who will administer the program. We will put $20 million or $50 million dollars in the program, and $18 million of it will go to pay the people in the building as opposed to being given to the people.
Do you have a hint for us as to how we can transfer this program? It is an extremely good program and very simple, from the point of view of the users. You fill out a form and send it in, and they send you back a cheque to cover your expenses, whether for home care or maintenance of your lawn or whatever it might be.
Is there a way that we can simplify this transfer? As I say, every time government gets involved, it gets so complicated that we lose the benefit of the program.
Mr. Rapelje: We probably have a couple of empty buildings in Welland that we could provide for the program. Seriously, I appreciate your concern. It seems to me that we have reached a point in government that when we talk about people below the poverty line we have to ask how much more we can expect people to pay.
I would hope if it was implemented effectively, it would be cost-effective, and that would sell it for me. There were veterans who thought they needed to be in a long-term care facility at $140 or something a day, and they found that the VIP program met their needs and allowed them to stay independent, and I think that starts to rationalize the cost. It seems to me, from my experience of Veterans Affairs, that the process, the standards and the procedures are in place. The work, from that point of view, is done.
I appreciate your concern, because there is no question it would add cost. You would have to analyze it from the point of view that hopefully if we offered the VIP program to all Canadians, the cost of that would be more than offset by the benefits.
Senator Mercer: That is an excellent point.
Mr. Castonguay, you and several others have talked about transit. We have heard about social agencies having transit, about charities having transit and about the Cancer Society. Obviously, there is also public transit.
What I see developing here is a concept where we integrate all this. Mr. Rapelje told us that he operated a number of buses next to the school, and he could not let them use his buses because of insurance issues. Should we be looking not only at public transit but also at social transit, so that we could integrate them, and buses that are just sitting there vacant at one agency could be used by another agency for good things that need to be done in the community? That would help everyone.
[Traduction]
Mr. Castonguay: One of the problems when we start to look at this kind of solution and we are talking about mass transit or urban transit is not necessarily that it is the resources that are barriers or impediments, it is the rules in place that make it difficult to coordinate the systems. My own opinion is that when the rules are breaking the people, it's time we started breaking the rules. At some point, those rules have to be adjusted. There are rules that are truly ridiculous and that prevent us from sharing. I think we all agree on one thing: there is only one taxpayer.
What happens is that we pay for all these institutions. But rules or systems are made at different levels that mean that we are unable to coordinate them and adapt them so they are better able to meet the needs of our populations.
Essentially, what we need is not always new resources, it is to change the rules. It is what I call a paradigm shift; instead of working in vertical tiers, we have to work horizontally and we have to fit all the pieces together.
[Français]
Senator Mercer: Mr. Castonguay, you also talked about the issue of diabetes educators. This is a problem in Ontario. I used to volunteer for the Canadian Diabetes Association, so I understand.
This morning, we heard an interesting idea from Mr. Peirce, who was here from the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Community Care Access Centre. He talked about telemedicine. I think this helps us, because if we do not have francophones in the community who have the training or there are not enough francophone nurses or diabetes educators, if they are not here, bring them here by telephone.
[Traduction]
Mr. Castonguay: That is what I was just telling Senator Chaput. Our Community Health Centre was the first in Ontario to implement a videoconferencing system to connect to service points. Programs for managing chronic illnesses, like diabetes and hypertension, and nutrition, are given by videoconference with a nurse, a nutritionist in the studio, and an audience in Welland.
I am currently in touch with my colleagues across the province to see how we can bring Cornwall, Sudbury and Kapuskasing together. As I said, there is a shortage of nurse practitioners. Francophone doctors are not lining up to come and practise in Ontario. We hope that the medical school in Sudbury will help us, but the first graduates have not come out yet. So we have to find innovative methods.
[Français]
Mr. Rapelje: I would like to make one comment on transportation. When I started, I said that one of the issues when I was before the Croll Senate committee was transportation, and it still is today. We have talked about it forever but never seem to be able to find a solution.
I wonder when I see the buses going through this town with one, two or three people on them. Are there are hundreds of people who would use the bus, seniors or others, if they could afford it? I do not know whether we can answer that question or whether we should at least try to find out whether there is a connection between cost and the number of users. There have to be more people who could benefit from the bus system. We are always saying we do not have a transit system. We have one, but not for all needs.
Is there a reason that we have not figured out yet why more people do not use public transit?
The Chair: I think we may be solving that problem with the high cost of driving automobiles.
I want to thank all of you very much for your presentations this afternoon.
I will end on this note. We were talking about the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the issue of trying to get the research into the hands of individual Canadians, because of course it is often written in a language.
I should tell you about my meeting with all of the scientific directors of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, when I was trying to promote their engagement in the issue of palliative care. The scientific director for cardiology said, "It is very nice to have you here, senator, but I do not know why I am here. You are talking about the care of the dying. We have the Institute of Aging, which should be engaged in that issue.'' I turned to him and said, "Doctor, does nobody die in your area?'' He said, "Of course they die,'' and I said, "That is why you are here.''
That is why you are all here today, because you all have a great deal of knowledge and expertise that we are trying to acquire so that we can produce a report. I hope you find your ideas reflected in our final report, which we will table on September 30.
Mr. Rose: I am glad you asked me to speak before Doug Rapelje. He is a hard guy to follow.
The Chair: He is indeed. He has a lot of expertise. Thank you.
Mr. Rapelje: May I have the last word? I have watched your efforts on behalf of seniors for a long time, and I think Canada is very fortunate to have someone like you who is a real advocate for seniors. I want to say thank you to all the committee, but your voice particularly is a strong one at that level.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will move now into the last phase of our presentations this afternoon. We would like to hear from individuals who are sitting in the audience and who have been sitting there for a long time, some of them. We will ask them to come to the table. They will get only five minutes, and I am very tough on this. I will cut you off at five minutes. There will be no question and answer presentation from senators in this particular session. This will give presenters the opportunity to tell us what they think might make a contribution to our report.
I will begin with Mr. Gary Atamanyk, who says he is in private business in Ontario, although he is a former teacher and now a trustee. We would ask Mr. Roland Méthot of le Centre polyvalent des aînés francophones de Port Colborne to join us at the table, and also Marlene Slepkov, who is with the VON. I have to say I may have a slight bias here, because I am on the advisory council to the Victorian Order of Nurses, so obviously I will be impressed with anything she has to say.
Gary Atamanyk, as an individual: Thank you very much, honourable senators, for allowing me to address you here today. I am honoured.
About 10 years ago, the United Nations declared the International Year of Older Persons. It was celebrated throughout the world. They advanced a number of principles concerning seniors that they wanted promoted throughout the world.
One principle was to promote seniors' ability to have independence by providing the support required to have fulfilling individual lives, like living at home. Another principle was participation, by providing opportunities for decision making and communication within the family, community and society as a whole. The next principle was care, providing accessibility to health care, social, legal and other services that enhance personal security and a safe, humane and caring environment. Next is self-fulfillment, providing access to educational, cultural, spiritual and recreational resources. The final principle was dignity, providing respect for a client's dignity, beliefs, privacy and security.
I took that to heart when I retired from teaching back in 1998, and I made it the mission statement of a private company that I started.
This company has not been able to operate for eight years now, when I tried to begin it. We have run into roadblocks that private business can run into. Briefly, this is a companion service that has a network of independent contractors and can serve all 12 municipalities in Niagara Region 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The service is very low cost. The transportation is provided absolutely free, time and distance. It is available by appointment from one's home. The clients are transported to where they need the companion service. They pay for the time during which they require the companion service, and then they are given absolutely free transportation home again.
This business addresses the cultural problems, transportation problems and accessibility problems that have all been brought up here today, and many others. In fact, a person would no longer be isolated if this service were allowed to operate.
I have provided a package with some of the details and circumstances that can make it clear what can happen. Private businesses use no charity money and cost no taxpayer dollars. In fact, part of the business pays taxes.
Unfortunately, the business is being hindered in Ontario from providing the services that seniors, partially disabled, low-income earners and other vulnerable groups require. Therefore, I make the following recommendations, which I feel will solve the problem:
First, reinstate the federal program of financial support for worthy legal challenges by small businesses when they seek justice for seniors. Small private businesses cannot afford the cost of legal challenges required to defend seniors' human rights. This federal program for legal financial support has been terminated, but it did exist.
Second, allow the RCMP in Ontario to investigate instances of possible irregularities in municipalities that might adversely affect seniors. The RCMP can do this in other provinces, I have been told by top RCMP officials in Ontario. It is not included in their mandate in Ontario, however; for some reason or other they are limited.
I thank you very much for your time. I am always available. You will get my literature, and I look forward to hearing from you.
[Traduction]
Roland Méthot, Chair, Centre polyvalent des aînés francophones de Port Colborne: Madam Chair, my name is Roland Méthot, and I am the chair of the board of directors of the Centre polyvalent des aînés francophones de Port Colborne.
I would say at this point that the Centre polyvalent des aînés francophones is managed and operated by volunteers, as it has been since it opened in 1990. So I would like to give you a very brief description of the Centre des aînés de Port Colborne.
The centre was created in 1975 to meet what had become a very pressing need for francophone seniors in Port Colborne and the surrounding area, who wanted to have a centre for recreational, educational and social activities. In 1988, the members had been meeting up to then in a classroom at the école St-Joseph, and they purchased a building at 184 Mitchell Street in Port Colborne. In 1990, the centre was incorporated as a non-profit organization, and in 2004, it was given charitable status.
The centre's mission is to provide a better quality of life for francophone seniors, in terms of physical, psychological and social health, and education. In the beginning, the Centre had about 10 people. Today, it has more than 200 members, about 30 of whom are 80 years of age or older.
The Centre operates five days and four evenings a week, and offers programs to promote the physical, psychological, and social health and meet the educational needs of francophone seniors as they age, which include exercise, bridge, crafts, line dancing, two intergenerational programs, one for students from école St-Joseph to cook and another that teaches crafts to the same group of students from école St-Joseph, broom games, billiards, monthly dinners, health workshops and a monthly newsletter, to name just a few examples.
Our centre spares no effort to bring its members any new information and anything else that might contribute to their well-being and vitality.
We still have major challenges. Although the Centre des aînés francophones de Port Colborne is unique in the region, unlike the other centres it unfortunately does not have receive financial support from the municipality or the ministries that could enable it to cover its basic operating expenses.
Madam Chair, I sincerely hope that today's meeting will be followed by concrete action that will produce positive results in terms of funding for centres like ours.
To conclude, the polyvalent day centre is, I would repeat, managed and administered by volunteers, and the programs are open to the entire community, not just to members.
[Français]
[Français]
Marlene Slepkov, Interim Branch Manager, VON Canada: Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the Special Senate Committee on Aging. Today I am representing VON, the Victorian Order of Nurses. I have been employed all of my nursing life, 34 years.
We are a national, not-for-profit, charitable organization offering a wide range of community health solutions that meet the needs of Canadians from coast to coast. Although we are a national organization, the great strength of VON is that it also addresses the unique local needs in provinces across Canada. VON is able to provide a variety of programs, both paid and charitable, including Meals on Wheels and adult day programs. These and other community programs are invaluable for the most vulnerable in society and allow them to access the support they need to remain independent in their communities.
In December of last year, VON Canada forwarded a formal submission to the Committee that provided a global perspective on a number of topics affecting seniors, such as home and community care, chronic disease prevention and management and family and friend caregivers. It also included technology in the home.
However, today I would like to provide the local perspective and highlight a few programs in Niagara that contribute to the health and well-being of seniors. In Niagara, we have one of the highest populations of seniors in Canada, and VON Niagara offers a number of programs to respond to their needs, including home support, offering respite to caregivers and personal support to clients, such as helping with housekeeping. We offer foot care services; we have over 30 clinics a month in Niagara, plus we do in-home foot care visits. The VON Living with Parkinson's Program offers educational sessions, caregiver support and exercise programs to those suffering from Parkinson's in order to maintain mobility. The nurse practitioner clinic in Ridgway provides much needed primary health care to those underserved or orphaned patients, many of whom are seniors. Lastly, the cardiovascular health awareness action plan in Thorold aims to help seniors with modified risk factors for cardiac disease and stroke to take steps to improve their health.
These programs are supported through several provincial community founders, and we are very appreciative of their support. However, the reality is that the needs far outreach the supply. We are constantly challenged to ensure seniors are able to access services in a timely manner because of the lack of financial and health human resources. This needs to change.
Seniors require ready access to programs and services that support aging in the home, with the focus on wellness rather than on illness. However, our current approach to health is reactive rather than proactive. With the majority of resources allocated to institutions, such as hospitals, this acute care focus approach does little to help seniors stay healthy and well in their homes. Resources must be reallocated to fix this imbalance.
The federal government needs to demonstrate leadership on this file and work with provinces and territories to help provide comprehensive support to seniors across Canada. We know it can be done. For example, the Veterans Independence Program provided by the federal government is a prime example of a comprehensive approach to healthy living. All seniors deserve similar treatment and would benefit from such an approach. I was glad to hear that from the previous speaker.
Services like the ones I mentioned previously are important support for seniors and their families. With adequate resources, we could help all Canadians age successfully in their homes and communities. This is a need our staff and volunteers witness every day. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on behalf of VON Niagara.
The Chair: We have one other person who has joined our table, Mr. Ron Walker, a retired steelworker.
Ron Walker, as an individual: I am a retired steelworker, but I have actually worked in the auto parts industry. At one point, the steelworkers and metalworkers merged into the same unit.
I appreciate being able to address the Senate committee here today. I just became aware, through the media, that you were coming.
I would appreciate it if more of our municipal politicians were here today as well, but they have a Smart Niagara activity going on simultaneously, which I did not go to because it costs $100 a day. I took the easy, direct route.
Earlier on, one of the presenters made a reference to elected officials. My understanding is that you are not elected officials. Unfortunately, the power rides with elected officials, who are the ones who can decide what to do or not to do with your recommendations. However, I appreciate that you are doing serious work on this.
I do not really think the Prime Minister was serious when he threatened to abolish the Senate. I think it was just a threat at the time because he was not getting his way.
Some of the questions that came up during the presentations show me that there is still some concern about recognizing what wealth is and then what distribution of wealth is, and what are cost and, lastly, adequate resources. I, too, believe there is no shortage of resources in Canada, but a lot of confusion is created as to what is wealth and how that wealth should be distributed.
The unions have been speaking for a long time in Ontario about the manufacturing crisis, because it is our belief that what is not created cannot be distributed. Therefore whatever policies we work out for dealing with the aging population in Canada, they cannot be developed apart from the overall development of the economy in Canada and the social economy in Canada.
That is really all I wanted to point out to the committee, that there are many questions that have to be addressed in Canada, and one of them is ensuring the continued production of wealth in this country and not letting the financial resources, which are very powerful and very flexible globally and so on, dictate everything, because they are not the producers of wealth; they are just involved in distribution. Distribution is not necessarily favourable to the actual citizens and population of Canada.
At the Smart Growth event, they are talking about things like the energy crisis and global warming and the cost of getting food to the people, and yet they are letting a cannery close. It may work out alright in the short term — you may get your can of peaches cheaper — but 10 or 15 years from now, when it is prohibitive to bring in pears and peaches from China, we will regret the short-sightedness of letting that kind of thing happen.
I really appreciate the presentations today. Many people had good ideas. I briefly read through the options at the back and I appreciate the suggestions people made as to where those options could be tweaked a little bit, but I am sure you are still working on the final report. Thank you for letting me speak.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Your contribution and those of all who presented to us this afternoon have extreme value.
Before we adjourn, I want to thank very much the Rose City Seniors Activity Centre and particularly John Rose, who made all of this possible. We had a wonderful day. We had a wonderful lunch. I want the recipe for the soup.
Mr. Walker: I am sorry. I missed just one point.
We are losing our defined pension plans, and that will have an extremely negative impact on women. Under the contracts that are negotiated, there are legal sureties for the widows and for the spouses if a marriage breaks down, but under non-defined pension plans, there is no security that women will actually be able to access any of those pension plans.
The Chair: You are absolutely right, and we have had that presented to us. Thank you.
The committee adjourned.