Status of Women Committee on April 15th, 2008

[Robert Wright]

Again, we don't have a separate--

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[Robert Wright]

It's an important question. We don't have a segmented effort, an analysis unit, on it, but as I mentioned, there is a very broad outreach for the minister on behalf of the government to reach out to all Canadians for ideas. To the extent that those ideas are on a list of issues for consideration, we will work with the departments involved, and we will use them as the primary analysis source on gender balance. We will inform them of our approach and our needs, and in that sense, to the extent a department is seeking funding or policy authority from within the budget, we'll try to bring them in to our approach to doing business, which I think is helpful, and we will continue to do that.

We only have about 500 analysts in the Department of Finance to cover the entire Government of Canada, so we work best when we're able to work in collaboration with departments. We would really expect some accountability to them for the analysis.

We will continue to broaden the base of interest in this analysis, and we require that, so I think it helps in terms of our own analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Being mindful of your time, I just want to follow up on what Ms. Davidson has asked. I think she expressed the frustration of this committee in trying to grapple with this gender budgeting issue. We will request that your department give us one comprehensive analysis of the benefits to women, and I think Madame Deschamps asked the same thing. For example, a tax-free savings account and how women who don't earn enough to pay taxes...or the low-income benefit...because we spend $200 billion as a government and we just want to know which segment benefits: the poor, the rich, the ultra-rich? Who benefits? If we could have it as part of your comprehensive analysis later, I'll continue on with Ms. Mathyssen.

Would you be able to do that for us?

[Robert Wright]

We've committed to put out our analysis of WITB. I will look at the tax-free savings account as well, if you wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for being here.

I'm wondering, Mr. Wright, have you had GBA training? Have you, yourself, had gender-based analysis training?

[Robert Wright]

No.

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

Ahhhh.

[Robert Wright]

Oh, that sparked--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

We in the committee are actually looking forward to having some, so we can have a sense of how this all works.

[Robert Wright]

Thank you. I needed that. I was feeling really awful until I knew you weren't trained as well.

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

I'm looking forward to it very much, because I think it will give us a much better sense of this process.

Ms. Levonian, you said there were elements of the 2008 budget that had helped the lives of women. You referenced affordable housing and the pilot project for the mentally ill, but in terms of that and the reality in my riding, there are discrepancies. For example, there are 4,000 families in my riding who don't have homes. That includes 635 children. So I can't see how this budget is having this macro-positive effect that has been discussed here.

Mr. Wright, you talked about accountability with other departments. Is there going to be a follow-up to the budget on the affordable housing piece to see if it's working and has done what it's supposed to do? We know there are 200,000 people in this country who are without homes, and very clearly the lack of real affordable housing has had a profound impact on people.

[Robert Wright]

That is a very important question, and I would say that spending has increased quite substantially over the last several years in the federal government. Spending was up over 6% last year. The government has put an important priority on fiscal balance and ensuring we have restored, expanded, and enhanced transfers to the provinces where we have shared priorities, such as social housing. Some very important and substantial increases to the transfers in the 2007 budget were maintained in the 2008 budget. Transfers to the provinces for shared priorities, which are key to the funding you've identified, now represent over 20% of the federal government spending.

So I think that's an important start to your question. I'll let Louise expand on it in a moment. I'll just make one other point.

I think it's really vital to see the fall economic statement and this budget in the context of the current global economic and financial market uncertainty. We're trying to structure the right circumstance to maintain the overall health of the Canadian economy. We had 15 years of uninterrupted growth and some huge progress. I think there are some important questions about the relative gains from that, but there have been really important gains for all members of society. It's especially important for those who would be most vulnerable in a downturn that we remain vigilant to that broader message.

So it's not just the individual budget initiatives we have to maintain. What we are preoccupied with now--and we have been for the last year--is how to maintain the progress we've made to protect all Canadians, and particularly the most vulnerable, from a downturn in our economic circumstance. That is an important overlay to what we're about. The transfers to the provinces for maintaining and expanding these vital programs are another important part. These were really complements to it.

I'll ask my colleague, Louise Levonian, to expand on that program.

[Louise Levonian]

The government has made progress on the affordable housing issue. I don't think it's a big issue. It will take time to chip away at that problem, but the government has taken steps. I can outline certain things they have done.

There has been a $1.4 billion transfer to the provinces to help address short-term pressures with respect to affordable housing. They put $270 million in new funding over two years to support the homelessness partnership strategy. They put $256 million toward a two-year extension of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's suite of renovation programs for low-income Canadians, including aboriginal peoples. I mentioned the $110 million in the 2008 budget for the Mental Health Commission.

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

It seems a bit disparate. I would like to have seen something more holistic.

I want to get back to some of the things we heard from the economist. Professor Kathleen Lahey noted the term “proportionately larger reductions” in her critique of the Department of Finance gender analysis of tax measures in Budget 2007. It's used frequently in the GBA. But the concern is that this concept hides the fact that tax benefits in real dollars amount to substantially less for women than for men when you start to talk about real dollars. When it gets to trying to manage and be economically viable, it's the real dollars that count.

Could you explain why the term was used and the rationale for it?

[Robert Wright]

I think both things count. Real dollars count, but in terms of benefiting Canadians, the relative impact of an initiative is really perhaps even more important than the absolute amount.

In fact, we've published in our latest budget—which we will make available to the committee—a chart on page 91 that compares the overall impact of tax relief. Again, the reality is that for people who don't pay taxes, tax relief is not going to help them directly. For example, the decision to maintain the GST credit at its current level was a very important discrete initiative. Instead of reducing it proportional to the reduction in the GST from 7% to 5%, that provides an extra $1.1 billion a year, which is a very large initiative in our current circumstance, for people who don't pay taxes. There are some other programming changes and credits that apply regardless of tax.

But in terms of the tax relief, the lowest bracket of taxpayers pay 11% of the total tax take in Canada, and they have received 29% of the tax relief. So it's a very substantial tilt towards that lowest bracket. The second-lowest bracket pays 36% of the taxes collected by the government, and they have received cumulatively, to date, from the government, 47% of the overall tax reduction.

The highest two brackets have received substantially less than their contribution to it. So that's a relative measure, and what it says is that although there has been $200 billion in tax relief, about $140 billion of that for individual tax relief, the tax regime overall is more progressive than it was before. That's a very important policy outcome, and I think it's something we should keep tracking.

There's still a strong interest in some competitive means to ensure we have a broad-based set of tax relief, but the overall impact of tax relief is quite substantially to enhance the progressivity of the taxes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Deputy.

Ms. Neville, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much for being here, and thank you very much for answering the questions.

I have a number of questions, but I'm a little troubled by your last comment, Mr. Wright, and I'm wondering if you have the materials to substantiate your comments. I would be very interested in seeing those figures, that analysis, and I'm sure my colleagues would as well. It would be very helpful.

So many questions. In your opening remarks, and I apologize for being late—the buses were slow this morning—you said it's not always easy to calculate how policies affect women. Yet you have access, we've been told, to tax returns, and certainly Statistics Canada information. So I wonder about that.

Then, in the analysis you did here on cutting the GST to 5%, you said that lower-income people consume a greater proportion of their income than those with higher incomes. Reducing the GST by 1% will provide a higher benefit to women than to men in relation to income. Again, I'd like to see the information that is based on, because we know that low-income women, often supporting families, spend a disproportionate amount of their income on food and shelter. So I'm not quite sure how the GST cut benefits low-income women, and I would appreciate getting some information.

The other comment we've heard from those who have come before us is that we have to do away with the traditional gender stereotyping with which we approach a number of policy issues, whatever they are. In your review of policy issues, are you in fact trying to be conscious of the traditional gender stereotyping when you are making assumptions, and ultimately conclusions, on policy initiatives?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

You're not leaving time for answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

This will have to be your last question.

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

Okay.

I understand that yours is a support role to government, but when you provide the analysis on how something impacts women, is your advice taken?

I have a lot more questions.

[Robert Wright]

Thank you. That is a lot of questions.

First of all, I'm sorry if I've troubled you with my response, but we will give you the analysis. There is a very thorough analysis that looks at the relative impact of the tax cuts on the personal side, which does show this. And not to be troubled, I think it's a good story.

Turning to the second question you had, as to whether it is hard to study, when I was making that reference I was perhaps responding to what efforts in the government as a whole are looking at the analysis. We do the analysis, and I think in some departments perhaps their structures are a little different and the types of issues they have coming are a little harder.

But you're absolutely right: on the tax side, we have the data; on the tax side we have an outstanding assessment, and it's very clear every time. Broadening it is an issue, but we're working on that. So I think again it's a good story.

You had a couple of other questions concerning our influence on things. If it were that influential, I'd be asking the questions. I have an opportunity to give advice, but really the government and the minister have an agenda that goes broader than just the department. We're there to support the government. This analysis does support the government, so I feel good about that, and I think the minister appreciates the progress we're making as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Because we are cognizant of your time, we will submit to you written questions for written responses, just in case we do not get to them.

Mr. Stanton, you have five minutes.