Status of Women Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Did you have anything you want to say?

[Prof. Claire Young]

I would just add that I agree with the comment about Statistics Canada. The data are there for me as a tax expert. I can tell you exactly how many women contribute to an RRSP; I can tell you how much benefit they get from that. The raw figures are all there. It's a question of the use of the data, as I don't think the data are being used.

There are two forms of data that I particularly use. One is the tax expenditure accounts, which detail the cost of every single tax measure. I actually think Canadians would be stunned to know that the single largest personal tax expenditure is for retirement savings, generally. We spend more on that than anything else. They'd also be stunned to know that probably the largest tax expenditure in Canada is in respect of what's called the capital cost allowance, a business tax break, and so on.

So people aren't actually using the data; nobody is poring over the tax statistics, saying, wow, isn't it interesting that men are using up all their RRSP room, but women aren't, and then asking, well, why aren't they and what should be done about it, and how would that affect how we devise our tax policy?

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I had another question.

[Dr. David Good]

If I could make one further comment on the same topic, I think it would be very useful to include in every budget.... We already include the direct expenditures in every budget; you can look in the fiscal plan and background papers, and on page 495, or wherever, and see several pages indicating where the money goes. What we don't do in any budget is to lay out where the tax expenditures go and what they are. You need to go into the Department of Finance website and find where that money goes.

We've been putting out tax expenditure accounts, or tax expenditure budgets, quietly—not parts of budgets—since 1979, when John Crosbie first began to do this. What we should do is require that in every budget there be a tax expenditure budget or account every year. People would see it and become much more informed, as Dr. Young has said, in recognizing the large amounts of money that flow through tax expenditures for various public purposes. This would be a very important thing to let Canadians know. In fact, we spend as much, or almost as much, through the back door in tax expenditures as we do through the front door in direct expenditures, when you add them all up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

What I'd like to do, Mr. Pearson, is to put your question out and then they can respond to it later on, because I don't want to take anybody else's time. So you can put your question out, let it go to them, and they can answer it later.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I had another question for Professor Young.

You were saying there were certain things that could be done on this. I was going to ask you to expand on that. So consider that for later.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Davidson, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to both Dr. Young and Dr. Good for their presentations here this morning. Certainly, as others have said, you've given us a bit of a different perspective on some of the issues we've been hearing about from some of our other presenters.

Dr. Good, I have a couple of questions.

You said it has been seven years since you worked in the civil service here in Ottawa. Do you notice any changes in gender budgeting or gender analysis in that time, since you were here? Have we made any progress over that time? I think we started all of this about 10 years ago. What progress, if any, have we made?

[Dr. David Good]

That's a very good question, and I think in fairness there has been some measured progress. Ten years ago when I was at HRDC and we began gender-based analysis, the general view was to set up a unit and get it done.

I think more and more now we're saying let's integrate that unit into our strategic policy analysis and have it undertaken, and integrate it into the decision-making process of the department and ensure that in all our policy analysis on questions of EI--employment insurance--and questions on OAS and GIS, all of which affect women fundamentally, and questions on labour questions in the department, we examine the gender-based implications.

The tendency of course, as was mentioned earlier, is to focus on the incremental and new decisions and not to go back into the base of expenditures.

The second thing that's happened is that we now generally require that this be examined and included within a memorandum to cabinet as going forward. While I haven't had the opportunity—and I certainly wouldn't want to tell tales out of school—to sit through cabinet meetings in the last number of years, I did have the opportunity previously. I think one of the key things there is to ensure that ministers are now demanding this. If the demand is there, the supply can be produced.

The third thing that I think is important is that we now have included this in Treasury Board submissions. When a Treasury Board submission comes forward for new authority for a program, or for new funding—and granted they do not focus on the tax side, they focus on the direct expenditure side—there is a requirement for gender-based analysis. I think that's important.

Ten years ago I don't think these gender-based analyses would have been prepared in the Department of Finance, perhaps in the same way as they have happened. Certainly over that past 10 years we have seen at least one Minister of Finance say that to the best of his ability he would ensure that there was gender-based analysis undertaken in the context of his budget. So I think we are making progress. Ten years ago you didn't have a parliamentary committee on the status of women examining these important issues and bringing people to appear before the committee.

So I think there is measured progress being made. Is there more to be done? Absolutely. And it lies in the interaction between the decision-makers and the players. That becomes the important thing, to ensure that better-informed, more thorough, and comprehensive analysis gets into the decision-making process.

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

Thank you.

I want to go back for a minute to one of my colleagues' questions about whether it's equality of outcomes or equality of access and opportunity. I believe you indicated that the role and the final decision should be equality of outcomes, and I think what we're all working towards is equality of outcomes. Then you went on and talked a bit about analysis of the political parties, to analyze the policies before they're set. Will that help get to an equality of outcomes more quickly, if the political parties are analyzing their policies before they become party policy?

[Dr. David Good]

I think it will.

One of the things I have observed over the last 20 years is that parties, at their peril, do not live up to their campaign commitments. Years ago it was quite possible not to live up to campaign commitments. Increasingly now, because of the accountability that the electorate is putting onto parties and onto new governments, they very much have to meet almost all of their campaign commitments. In fact, it was interesting to see that this recent budget, with regard to the tax-free account, includes capital gains. Of course we all know that the commitment of this Prime Minister and this government to deal with capital gains--not that I support that particular proposal--has not been lived up to, I think at their peril. Politicians recognize that.

So I think there's a need to ensure that you can get analysis undertaken before these campaign commitments are made—and they're increasingly detailed by political parties—because that will very much set the agenda and set the direction for things, so we can elevate the level of debate, hopefully in the election campaign and hopefully in and around the formation of new governments as they take office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson. The minutes go very quickly, don't they?

Madame Deschamps, vous avez cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank both witnesses who are here today—Mr. Good, who is here by teleconference, and Ms. Young, who is physically present.

During a previous meeting, the committee focused on women's economic security. A number of groups, associations and researchers testified. On the whole, the groups indicated the major inequalities between men and women. The comments they made depicted a situation comparable to the one Ms. Young described: older women are generally poorer, most women are heads of families and fewer of them can pay into the system because on the whole they earn less than men.

Mr. Good, at the beginning of your presentation, you said that the budget was both an analytical process and a political process. How can we ensure that, regardless of the government in power, the measures taken are in fact steps in the right direction and make it possible to attain established goals? Who provides leadership? You talked about leadership and political will. Who has the ability to provide that leadership?

[Dr. David Good]

Well, if that's directed to me, that's a tough question to answer.

Quite clearly, in our form of government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are absolutely fundamental. Increasingly the interactions on budget matters between the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are very important in not only setting broad directions but also, obviously, looking at the individual initiatives that will form part of the budget.

The question then becomes, if people generally don't like a particular budget of a particular government, whether the electorate in a democratic society will then go the polls the next time to vote them out and someone else in. And that's the way it ought to be. I guess what I'm looking at is the demand side. What we need to do is ensure that in formulating budget policies and budget priorities--not just the policies and the programs but actually in the budget priorities--we are examining the ramifications this has with respect to gender and the ramifications this has with respect to other issues.

To the extent to which, as I said earlier, political parties will become more specific, more directive, and clearer in what their priorities and initiatives are, then I think it's incumbent upon them to ensure that they also have done the gender-based analysis and the gender-based work and other kinds of analysis so that their policies are well thought out, are well developed, can be debated by the electorate, and--when and if they become the government of the day--worked on, developed, and improved so that they can be delivered effectively and on time, and achieve real outcomes in light of the intended policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have one minute.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I would like to hear your views, Ms. Young. This is my personal opinion on this week's budget: I find no effort is being made to close the gap between men and women. I do not feel the budget contains any measures to support poor women, or women who find themselves in financial difficulties after the age of 65. I don't see the government making much effort in that direction.

[Prof. Claire Young]

When I look at the tax measures--and that's what I focus on in my work--I agree with you, this has been the lightest budget in years. By that I mean there's very little in it on the tax side of things. That's my area, so I really don't get to comment much on the other side of it. But as I told my students the other day, there's nothing in there that you really need to study, because there's not much in there from a tax perspective. Certainly there is nothing intended or designed to redress some of the issues you raise.

We talk about women's inequality and programs that are hopefully designed to redress some of those inequalities. My point is that those programs in the tax system are currently flawed.

The second point is that it's not just the tax system that one uses to redress the various issues. Direct subsidies, direct spending, and so on are integral to it as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Mathyssen for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One witness, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, has recommended a commissioner for women's equality--someone like the environment commissioner. If the government is to pursue further budget initiatives, does there need to be a person or a section put in charge of implementing this kind of initiative? If so, how would you recommend it be done?

[Prof. Claire Young]

I want to go back to Dr. Good's point, which is more about integration. Certainly a commissioner for women's equality would be terrific. I'm all for any measure that would draw the focus more and more to these issues.

But an individual alone is not going to accomplish something. You need to make sure that the individual or the office actually has a big role to play and that Finance doesn't just say, “Okay, here are the proposals for the next budget”, and hand them over two hours before the budget. If you are going to have a particular individual, that person would need to have some powers and abilities to commit them to work with agencies such as Finance, and so on.

[Dr. David Good]

I don't think we need more single-purpose watchdogs in the system. We have a lot of watchdogs in the system that have been created, particularly more recently. As Professor Young has said, what we need are interaction and championship. In order to make things happen, it's important that the Status of Women be given status, and that generally requires a strong minister.

I don't mean this to in any way reflect upon current incumbents, but we have seen this happen over the years. If we go back 40 years, there were some very strong ministers of the status of women, and important things were done during that period of time. This becomes very important in the way we structure our system. Ministers matter. They can influence things and have great impact, particularly on the demand side, for better analysis, work, and championing of these things.

That's where I think, in the Canadian way in which we do things, it becomes very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

This is your last quick question, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

So we need to continue to battle this culture of inequality, this sort of pervasiveness that quite clearly exists. If it didn't, we wouldn't continue to have tax policies that don't serve women.

[Prof. Claire Young]

The battle is nowhere near won. Obviously there's a tremendous amount of work still to be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Is that your final answer?