Status of Women Committee on April 15th, 2008

[Louise Levonian]

We're just finalizing it, and we'll have it up soon.

[Robert Wright]

So we will make this available to you, and it will be on our website for everyone to see.

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

The reason I'm asking for the data, Mr. Wright, is that we've been told at this committee, certainly by representatives of Finance as well as Status of Women, that there is not enough data to do proper disaggregated analysis, that disaggregated data is not available. So I just wondered if we could see the actual data work-up that you use.

[Robert Wright]

Who told you data wasn't available?

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

We've had different witnesses from the Status of Women, and Finance as well.

[Robert Wright]

I think within government as a whole it really depends on the initiative and the processes going through. Some of the analysis has to be qualitative and some of it can be quantitative.

One of the reasons our centre of expertise is in our tax policy branch is because you can actually measure many of the initiatives there. There is a lot of quantitative data we can use, so it's a lot easier. We'd be happy to show you that case study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We'll now go to Madame Deschamps for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning, ladies. It's a pleasure to have you here this morning.

Our study of gender-based analysis is a massive undertaking. Deputy Minister, the document you submitted to us which refers to your actions, states: “I think we have made a lot of progress over the past two years when it comes to GBA.” I want to refer to something that a witness already told us: even in this day and age, 40% of women in Canada have such a low income that they pay no income tax.

When you do a GBA, do you ask, for example, whether the budget will help low-income women increase their income? Will the budget increase women's financial independence? Are these questions asked? There is no such evidence in the 2008 budget.

In my opinion, not much has been done to ensure equality between men and women. Most women are still financially disadvantaged. They earn less, so they can save less. I feel like there's still a huge imbalance between the income earned by men and that earned by women. I get the impression that the measures set out in the 2008 budget still benefit men more.

[Robert Wright]

I want to thank you for your question because it's very important.

You would be interested in the working income tax benefit (WITB). During our analysis, we did a case study, and WITB had an impact on individuals experiencing employment transition.

The government committed us to do an analysis of initiatives going into the budget, where possible. We've done that very comprehensively, because that's how we do things. It lets us do a comprehensive analysis of the budget process.

But it's important to look beyond the individual initiatives at the economic outcomes. I think the macroeconomic impacts of what we're working on deal with the economic health of the country as a whole and all citizens. Right now is a period of considerable uncertainty, and we're trying to safeguard the overall economic health for everybody.

I provided some data following my meeting here last year, and I'd be happy to supplement it. There has been tremendous progress in employment growth. It has been stronger for women than men over the last five years. Since 2001 there have been six years of tremendous growth. The share of women working has increased faster. The unemployment rate for women has gone down. The gap is closing for average earnings and wages for women, although there's still a very sizeable gap.

There's an overall approach to the well-being of all Canadians--but women within it--where there's very substantial progress. You don't measure that on an individual initiative, but it's our number one priority. It's to make sure the overall economy is dynamic enough to create growth, to help all Canadians, and to protect the most vulnerable in a period of economic uncertainty.

Currently, there is a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the world economy. We have the opportunity to protect the progress we've made for all Canadians, particularly in terms of their margin of vulnerability.

So I think that Budget 2008 and the economic statement in 2007 had very strong economic policies to protect the progress we're making and to make sure we can sustain the progress we've made over the last several years. I think you have to consider that broad economic approach as well as the individual criteria.

Louise, would you like to comment a little more?

[Louise Levonian]

Just in a manner more specific to the question, the budget included measures on affordable housing, post-secondary education, and helping the vulnerable specifically; there were also elements included in the budget. But I think the overall answer is the economic story: ensuring that the economy is working well to ensure that the standard of living of all Canadians is maintained and increased over time, which helps everybody, including women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Deschamps, you have two minutes remaining.

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

Could you remind me to which affordable housing budget measure you were referring?

[Louise Levonian]

Pardon me, I don't understand.

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

You said that, in the 2008 budget, there was a measure on affordable housing.

[Louise Levonian]

Oui, there is. The budget provided $110 million to the Mental Health Commission to support five demonstration projects focused on mental health and homelessness.

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

Deputy Minister, which indicator are you using to determine the priority of measures such as that one? I have a different opinion about the current financial situation of women in Quebec and Canada.

[Robert Wright]

It's important to step back and think about what the department's role is.

We have an important role, but our role is to support the government. We don't go away and think of what the perfect budget is and send up a bunch of material to government saying, “Here's the budget for the day.” The government of the day sets its priorities in its Speech from the Throne. The minister is responsible for establishing the government's priorities on the way forward. The government meets with....

I don't want to eat too much into your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Your time is over, but you can finish your answer.

[Robert Wright]

It's an important point.

The minister, for example, meets with all of his colleagues in cabinet on budget process; he meets with his caucus colleagues; he meets with the opposition leaders; he listens to committees like this one and like the overall finance committee, which has broad-based consultations; and he meets with a lot of Canadians. We have a website to get ideas. So there's a very broad outreach: what are the ideas; what do people want him to do on budget? There's always far more than we can do.

The department also has some ideas on things that make sense in the current economic circumstance, but really it's a much broader outreach. When those ideas are rolled up and the minister is trying to decide what he can make progress on, what we do is provide our assessment of all of those. It's not as if we go away looking for ideas that meet a particular need on this and that, other than looking at the overall economic circumstance and at how we feel we must manage the macro-approach. The minister reaches out to his colleagues, but in this assessment process that we have in play, we make sure that the judgment he makes and that the government makes on their budget is an informed judgment about impacts on the gender-based analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Davidson.

Before I let you have the floor, I think you have all received the analysis of Budget 2008. Behind it is the consultation the Department of Finance undertook with women's groups. If you don't have this document, please let the clerk know. You should have had it electronically.

Go ahead, Ms. Davidson.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Deputy Minister, for appearing before us again today. Thank you to the other staff members as well.

We certainly appreciate your presence here. Hopefully we can answer some of the myriad questions before this committee.

I'm quite sure you've read the blues and have been following this issue. You are probably very well aware that in earlier meetings, witnesses before this committee have indicated that the finance committee is a key actor and contributor to the success of the implementation of gender budgeting. That's the first point I want to make.

However, several of these witnesses have also been critical about the work being done in the finance department, whether in fact it's not understood or whether in fact it's maybe not being done. Those are the types of issues that are extremely important for me to have cleared up this morning.

Witnesses have also said that the report from the finance committee certainly constitutes an important first step. I think everybody who has appeared before us has recognized that this has been a longstanding issue. Governments of all stripes have been working on this for years; we are making some progress, but I think the feeling is that there are issues that are not going far enough.

In your comment you stated that you feel we've come a long way over the last two years and that you look forward to continuing progress. First, how do you think you've gone over and beyond what the government required? That's my first question. Second, how will you accomplish further progress in this avenue?

[Robert Wright]

Thank you very much for the question.

I know there's more work we can do and I know it's important to be listening to people who identify new ways of getting it and working harder. I know that some colleagues behind me would like to say there are new approaches we should consider.

What this committee recommended in 2005 and the previous government committed to do in 2005 and the current government committed to do in 2006 was that in cases in which data exist, individual branches--and they named three branches within the Department of Finance--may include gender-based analysis in the policy when data are available.

It was a pretty soft start to the process in terms of what was committed on behalf of an important report from this committee. I think it was for all government departments to do gender-based analysis as well. I would say we have a comprehensive approach to it that is not done in every department. Part of it reflects the way we do business around the budget and part of it reflects the leadership from one of our branches that is able to jump into this analysis, so it fits into our budget process well.

We've done a comprehensive approach, Ms. Davidson. It was not called for and was not asked for by the government. That's how, in fact, we do business in terms of the budget analysis. We're not there yet, in terms of some of the branches and some of the initiatives. I think the chair had a question about some of these analyses having to be done on a qualitative basis, but I say that if you look objectively at what the government committed all departments to do in response to the work of this committee, we have gone well beyond that. I think it's still a work in progress, but we've shared with the committee, and will continue to share, benchmarks of that progress to inform your deliberations.

I know that my and Louise's contacts with Status of Women would say we are making some very important progress. We're also reaching out to other departments to let them know how we approach it and we're ready to continue to do that. It's one of the things we do.

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

Do you think the other departments are in a position to start doing a comprehensive approach to it in the same way you are? Are we that far yet? If we're not, what do we have to do to get that far?

My understanding is that it needs to be done in every single department. It needs to be a way of life, if you will, so that whenever a topic is approached, this needs to be done as an analysis on it. I understand that your comprehensive approach does it in Finance. What do we need to do to make sure it's done in every department? Do we need more training? Do we need legislation? What is it that's going to move this forward?

[Robert Wright]

First of all, we're really challenged in Finance by many things, but we also have an opportunity in our processes. The budget is a process--it's a machine between September and late February to get things done--so we approach things very comprehensively. I think by connecting this commitment to that process, it has helped us make a lot of progress. Other departments don't always approach things that way.

I know you had other witnesses from government who do have broad approaches, like the Privy Council Office, which is responsible for the machinery of government and the cabinet processes, and the Treasury Board Secretariat, which is responsible for the Treasury Board approval processes. They are looking at all departments when they come through the process to seek either policy approval in cabinet committees or financial and spending authority from the Treasury Board. It's a way for them to bring other departments along, because if you don't have the analysis done properly, wherever possible, it's harder to get the policy authority or the financial authority. I don't think you need to legislate that. I think you've given them the same inspiration you've given us. It's just a question of benchmarking progress towards that end.

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

Can you just tell me a little bit about the consultation process that your department went through with regard to gender budgeting?