Status of Women Committee on Nov. 28th, 2007

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay.

Madam Lahey.

[Prof. Kathleen Lahey]

I would approach it a little bit differently. The concept of gender budgeting came out of the very same document that the concept of gender-based analysis came out of—namely, the “Platform for Action” that was adopted in Beijing in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women, held by the United Nations.

Much of the “Platform for Action” shows policy analysts and researchers how to do gender-based analysis of literally every aspect of private and public functioning of a society and to identify the many, many complicated sources of inequity that permeate the fabric of every society on this globe. But when gender-based analysis was turned to fiscal instruments, it was realized that the capstone of any government's action is the budget, and it's the budget consultation process and the budget documents that hold it up and give it meaning.

So I would say that gender-based analysis cannot be completed until a gender budget is also devised and gender-based analysis is used in relation to every single spending and tax item, to identify both its physical and its behavioural impacts on women as compared to men. But until a gender budget is put on the table right along with the rest of the budget documents, the process is not complete.

To just comment on what this document might look like, it could look like the tax expenditure budget, which is a separate, bound budget document published by the government every year and reporting on how much the government is spending for the various items that could be seen as tax concessions in the various tax instruments that Canada uses.

A gender budget could be a separate bound volume that would contain exactly the same report on every spending and tax measure that Canada utilizes, and along with that could be analytic memoranda, a typical budget document that is also tabled with the budget, so that the gender budget becomes part of the most serious workings of government.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So in essence—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In other words, if a government were to say we've looked at this budget through a gender lens and we've refined it in accordance with that, the only part missing then is the documentation supporting that assertion. Is that more or less what you're saying?

[Prof. Kathleen Lahey]

What's also missing is the transparency that you get even in the tax expenditure budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

As the chair, I'll take advantage of one thing, and I think it comes from what Mr. Stanton said. We had the Department of Finance before us and we asked them how it was that if they've done gender analysis, or were looking through a gender lens, a person earning $21,000 is too poor for the working income tax benefit and too rich for the child tax credit—and we didn't get an answer.

We'll proceed to Ms. Mathyssen, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Professor Philipps and Professor Lahey. Your expertise is absolutely invaluable.

I have so many questions. The first, Professor Philipps, is that you said the tax system was not adequate in dealing with issues of low-income people. If not the tax system, would national programs be more effective: a national housing program, a real national child care program, effective employment insurance, and a child tax credit that wasn't clawed back?

[Prof. Lisa Philipps]

I think it's true that many problems of equality require direct spending by government to address; not everything can be done through the tax system to address women's inequality or the problems of low-income people.

This is one of the reasons we need to examine the budget from a gender lens, because there has been such a heavy shift towards tax cuts as the instrument for addressing problems, and we need to scrutinize those to see if they're working equally well for men and women, for low-income and higher-income people.

There is an overlap, however, between taxation and spending, which takes the form of this beast I called refundable credits, which is really a transfer payment delivered through the tax system. So the working income tax benefit your chair just mentioned is a new refundable credit; the child tax benefit is another one. It may be possible to build on those in a way that could address more of the issues of low-income people. The tax system could be used in a way that is more friendly to low-income women and men.

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

Thank you.

Does gender inequality have an economic cost, and if so, is it possible that gender budgeting could actually save government money and provide some quite significant benefits?

[Prof. Lisa Philipps]

I believe it could, and I'm sorry I can't put a figure on it for you.

But I strongly believe that making tax policy in a gender-blind way means it's going to be poor tax policy, in terms of achieving the government's own stated objectives, whatever those objectives are, because the government is not using complete information in formulating its policy. And such tax policy will not actually predict how taxpayers are going to respond, because they will respond differently, depending on whether they are men or women. This needs to be taken into account to get the results the government in power wants to get, whatever the government.

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

Does Canada need more tools to perform effective gender budgeting? Do we have enough data? Is it properly disaggregated? What do we need to do, if not?

[Prof. Lisa Philipps]

We've made a start on that.

The Canada Revenue Agency does publish some gender disaggregated data; however, it is limited, and we would need to enrich it significantly to do a thorough gender analysis. There may be new kinds of data that would need to be produced about, for instance, the distribution of resources within households. So I believe that doing more data collection would need to be part of the exercise.

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

In looking through the document outlining the various jurisdictions that utilize gender budgeting, I noted that in all cases government allied itself with NGOs and civil society for research and advocacy. Of course, we no longer have research and advocacy in Canada; it's not possible any more. Does that limit our ability to do effective gender budgeting?

[Prof. Lisa Philipps]

I think it does. However, I guess I would say there are some organizations who are working on this, despite having limited resources. There are academics who are working on these topics. So there are people in organizations out there in civil society who government agencies could definitely work with. I do agree it is essential to do that.

There was a gender budget exercise in Australia for a few years that was led by a very strong women's agency within the government. However, it ultimately faltered because there wasn't sufficient external pressure, review, critique, and discussion to sustain it. It needed to have outside support as well.

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

We do hear rumours from time to time that governments are considering income splitting, and you've been very clear about it having a negative effect. Would your advice be, to any government, to absolutely abandon any idea of income splitting?

[Prof. Lisa Philipps]

Certainly in the form it has taken with the pension splitting rules, I think it would be quite disastrous for us to extend those. They are very poorly designed, especially from a gender equality perspective. It is a real shame those came into being without undergoing a proper gender analysis, and I would be very sorry to see them be enlarged.

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

Do I have time for one last question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, you do, for one last question.

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

The Department of Finance doesn't have a separate unit to perform GBA. Individual branches are responsible for conducting GBA in their respective areas. In your opinion, is this adequate, or should a separate unit exist within the Department of Finance? How important is it?

[Prof. Lisa Philipps]

I'm not sure I can comment on departmental structure. However, what I do believe is that the Department of Finance needs to acquire some expertise in this field, and that probably means new personnel who are trained in gender-based analysis. There is a disconnect between the finance department and gender experts elsewhere in government. Those somehow have to be brought together so that the Department of Finance has the expertise it needs, not only in conventional tax policy but in gender-based analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

We now go to the five-minute round.

We'll start with Ms. Minna, followed by Mr. Stanton.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In a document from you, Professor Lahey, which I read, you stated—and of course, I think Professor Philipps mentioned the same thing—that women essentially occupy an economic sphere separate from that of men in our society. I quite understand your description of why that would be. Professor Lahey--or maybe both of you--could you expand for us a little bit, just so we understand the underpinnings of all this and how we have to, in my view, deconstruct not only how taxation is structured and imposed, but also how we will have a field battle in dealing with some very inherently ingrained attitudes and behaviours that I think our society was structured on? I think it's going to be a difficult thing to do, but it should not be something that we don't do, obviously.

Professor Lahey--or probably both of you--could you just expand a little bit for us, because this is very important, the kind of work we're going to have to do? Regarding the culture you're talking about, Professor Lahey--the tax system having been structured along the lines of the nuclear family, with certain assumptions built in, the role a female would play, and the stereotypes that are deeply ingrained in that structure--could you, or both of you, expand on that and maybe give us some suggestions as to how we might begin to deconstruct that--because it's a major job--and where we might start with chunks of it?

I'll close by saying that you may want to comment on this final piece, which is on the taxation reversal that happened in 1987 when Mulroney was in power. It went from 6% to 17%, and that 17% was then on the lowest-income earners, most of whom were women. So we actually put the tax burden on the backs of most of the lowest-income Canadians. That might well have.... I'll just leave that to you. It's a bit of a mouthful, I know.

[Prof. Kathleen Lahey]

Could I actually answer the last point first? I think it's very illuminating.

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

That's why I put the two together, because I think they're tied. Yes, go ahead.