La Sécurité de la vieillesse (SV) et le Supplément de revenu garanti (SRG) sont les seuls revenus pour beaucoup de femmes où elles sont garanties de recevoir le même montant que les hommes, quelle que soit leur histoire en tant que main-d'œuvre. La proportion du revenu remplacé par le SV et le SRG est beaucoup plus élevée pour les femmes et les personnes âgées à faible revenu, environ 70 pour cent pour ceux dont le revenu individuel est de moins de 15,000 $. Pour les femmes entre les âges de 65 et 69 ans, la SV et le SRG viennent réduire la pauvreté de 21 points du pourcentage. Pour les hommes du même âge, c'est 15 points du pourcentage. Donc, il est clair que repousser l'âge de la SV et du SRG n'est pas de genre neutre.
A message from the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC): we are all affected by the changes to Old Age Security (OAS). For more information: http://psac-ncr.com/
Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) are the only income for many women where they are guaranteed to receive the same amount as men, regardless of their labour force history. The proportion of income replaced by the OAS and the GIS is much higher for women and seniors with low incomes, about 70 per cent for those with individual incomes of less than $15,000. For women between the ages of 65 and 69, OAS and GIS reduce poverty by 21 percentage points. For men of the same age, it's 15 percentage points. So, it is clear that rolling back the age of OAS and GIS is NOT gender neutral.
No wonder those Quebec student protesters have been spooking the English Canadian establishment. If they get their way, the same ideas could catch on here, leaving the best-laid plans for austerity in tatters.
What seems to particularly gall some English Canadian commentators is the fact that the Quebec students -- who reached a tentative deal with the province on the weekend after a three-month strike -- have been protesting tuition hikes that would still leave them with the lowest tuition in the country. Why can't these spoiled brats be grateful, and go back to watching video games and keeping up with the Kardashians like normal, well-adjusted North American youth?
Announcing a bad policy 10 years in advance doesn't make it a good policy.
So the fact that the Harper government is giving people at least 10 years to prepare for two years of life without an important source of income, hardly makes it OK -- as so many media commentators have tritely implied. In fact, in this case it makes the policy even more unfair.