Status of Women Committee on Dec. 10th, 2007

[Debbie Budlender]

On the review of the Commonwealth thing, I think what Ms. Beckton added was very helpful and was what in fact I suspected. To be honest, the report from Canada, as were the reports from many of the other countries, sounded a little too rosy to me. I've learned to be a cynic over 10 or more years of doing this work.

So as to the possible relevance for me, I asked what they thought was possible or relevant. The fact that Ms. Beckton is saying that the reports from which they did this analysis aren't available is very worrying. I think what the committee has to do is say that it wants to see evidence of what your analysis showed. Where was it possible, and where did you think it wasn't possible but could have been relevant? I can't answer those questions. I think you need to ask those questions to the Department of Finance and the other departments.

It's also been worrying me a bit that there's a lot about GBA, gender-based analysis. But gender-based analysis doesn't necessarily include the budget element. So my emphasis would be on whether, when they did that GBA, they asked the money-related questions.

On being simple and not burdensome, most civil servants I've come across feel that they're working really hard, and they don't want anything extra that they need to do. So rather than having a long separate report, how do you find a way of reporting on the gender relevance of budgets that fits in with the way they are reporting anyway, adding value with limited extra effort? I also think that if you somehow build this into the existing report, it's more likely to be read by other people who are not particularly interested in gender, and maybe it gets across more.

What we've done in South Africa, with the Western Cape, is that there will be a chapter in one of the two main budget books, which is called the budget review, that will have these summary statements from every one of the departments. They say what impact their biggest subprogram, their biggest allocation, is going to have in terms of youth and gender and how it will be measured. Then they say which two or three other subprograms are contributing significantly. It is a very simple format. There is a little paragraph on the situation analysis, which gets back to why they are bothering to do this activity. What is the situation of the women and men and youth in the country that needs to be addressed? There is a little paragraph on the activities the government is going to do, how much money is being allocated, what three indicators they are going to report next year to tell us what they did with it, and any particular challenges they have been facing that could be an excuse when they don't perform next year.

It's simple and it's short, which makes it easier for the reader. It's really the basic information that would allow a committee or a civil society person to say that there is something interesting here that he or she wants to know more about.

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

Thank you.

When you were working with the Commonwealth finance ministers on the report, were there other countries that you felt were more responsive than Canada?

[Debbie Budlender]

The report is actually available on the Commonwealth website. I could also send it through tomorrow morning so that everybody can have it.

I think Uganda was one of the most impressive countries. India is interesting, but they are doing this in a situation where they have very old-fashioned line item budgeting. Uganda is interesting in that they have performance budgeting. They take the pre-budget consultations seriously, and they have made a real effort. It is a developing country, and yet it has done very well.

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

Was Australia's finance minister part of this report?

[Debbie Budlender]

Yes, but Australia was not as impressive as Uganda. Let me leave it at that.

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

Do I still have some time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have half a minute, if you have something very quick, or would you like to pass?

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

I'll pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Ms. Mathyssen, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like it if we could follow Ms. Budlender's suggestion that we request these reports, since there does seem to be some confusion about the availability. Ms. Peckford indicated that she had some trouble getting these reports, and if this committee has the ability, I would indeed like to see them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

The Commonwealth report is available. It's on the website, but it is in English only.

I'm not sure what you were asking for, Ms. Mathyssen. I've just stopped your time so that I can get some clarification.

[Nancy Peckford]

I think Ms. Mathyssen is referring to the gender-based analyses that have been done on previous budgets, including 2007, which are not publicly available, or in fact even internally available, in many cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We'll look into it. Thank you.

Continue, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I appreciate that, because there has been some confusion about what is available and what is not, and I would like to see those.

I'd like to go back to a question that Madame Deschamps began in regard to the pre-budget analysis and the fact that last year it was the Native Women's Association and REAL Women. And we've certainly had the pleasure of hearing from the Native Women's Association in the past and, just last week, the experience of hearing from REAL Women.

Do you know who is providing information this year to the finance committee? You're not. Do you have any idea who is?

[Nancy Peckford]

I'll make a distinction between the pre-budget consultations that are done through the finance committee and the ministerial round tables that are led by the Minister of Finance in the pre-budget lead-up.

Our information suggests that more groups, about four to six, appeared before the finance committee in terms of its pre-budget consultations. That's helpful. In my view, it's still not enough.

At the same time, I think what has more significance are the ministerial round tables, where you have the capacity to have some dialogue directly with the minister and his senior officials. That's a separate process from the parliamentary pre-budget consultations. In that instance, there were two groups, as reported by finance. In my view, that isn't enough. I actually believe the finance department and the finance minister would benefit from a specific consultation with women's equality-seeking organizations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I think it's a perfectly good question on the part of Madame Mathyssen. I just wonder, though, at the appropriateness of putting a question like that to a witness who is really not in a position to answer as to what witnesses might have been called before the finance committee.

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

I'm sorry, that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Minna, it's okay.

If you look at the thrust of the question, I think Ms. Mathyssen is within her purview of rights asking what sort of consultation. I'm sure none of us knew there were two sets of consultations. It's good to know that there's the Department of Finance consultation and ministerial consultation, and it's a clarification. But if it doesn't go beyond the clarification....

I think she can continue on.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

I have another question. We've heard from witnesses that the taxation side of the budget is just as important as looking at expenditures, and I believe you indicated that. One of the topics that keep coming up in terms of the taxation side is income splitting. Last year we had pension splitting, and the issue around income splitting came up a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if you'd comment on the gender implications of income splitting.

[Nancy Peckford]

Sure. Certainly I think other witnesses have elaborated upon income splitting.

In our view, income splitting has a number of problems attached to it. Filing a joint tax claim or, more to the point, transferring some of a higher-income earner's income symbolically for tax purposes to a low-income earner or a non-income earner is problematic in that it's a very expensive initiative. The research suggests that in fact the most significant benefits accrue to the highest income tax bracket. If you have two income earners earning about the same income, say you have one at $35,000 and the other earning about $50,000, the savings in terms of your tax return are somewhat negligible. It really is in the highest income tax bracket--we're looking at $80,000 plus--where you have one income earner earning a lot of money and another income earner earning almost nothing, where the most benefits accrue. So we think it's not a cost-effective measure in terms of who it actually reaches.

But more to the point, if you believe that women should have economic autonomy, then it's very counterintuitive to allow for income splitting, in part because you're shifting tax liability but you're not shifting resources. The research demonstrates in other countries where forms of income splitting take place that it's often women who get into a situation where they're found to be owing money on income they did not earn and income that was never transferred to them.

That, in our view, is incredibly problematic. In the event of marriage dissolution, marriage breakdown, separation, if you have an instance in which someone has filed a tax claim on behalf of both individuals through an income splitting arrangement, after marriage separation one person can be left with a very hefty tax bill.

Part of our concern is that it actually compromises women's economic autonomy; it doesn't enhance it. And if you're not shifting the resources, if you're not actually shifting the income into the pocket of the woman, who tends to be the lower-income earner, you are in fact creating vulnerabilities that I think only exacerbate women's economic insecurity.

Aside from that, in our view it is a very expensive measure. The parliamentary research bureau has estimated that it would cost about $5 billion a year. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has said that it might even cost more because it could actually change behaviour. As a consequence, we think that forfeited revenue could be better spent on measures that all women could benefit from.

Maybe another point to make here is that it benefits two-parent families. If you are a single parent, you will get no benefit from income splitting, and if you're two low-income earners or even middle-income earners in Canada, the amount of money you would save in terms of income splitting is very, very modest. It really is a tax measure by which the greatest benefit accrues to the highest income bracket, where you have one very high-income earner and one no-income earner or low-income earner. In our view it's not an equitable tax policy.

We recognize that it was done for pension income splitting last year. I think all of the committee has had the benefit of the analysis around the problems associated with pension income splitting. We understand it's a policy that can resonate with a lot of Canadians, but I think that when you look at the numbers and when you look at what you value in terms of women's economic autonomy, it doesn't make sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We will now go to the second round for five minutes. We have Ms. Minna for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to go back to Madam Budlender.

Thank you again for staying up for us.

I want to ask you a question. You said at the very outset of your remarks that in South Africa every single department has to do a gender analysis to its programs, but also on the subprogram because that's where the bulk of the money is.

My question to you is this. Would you recommend that at this point in time, as a way to establish a foundation, we would be able to do a gender-budgeting analysis on the existing social programs at the minimum, or was that done in your case or not?

[Debbie Budlender]

Yes. First, when I said that we looked at every single program, that was the analysis we did from outside, more or less, as Parliament and the NGOs. And we did everything, and that was on existing programs.

The approach I'm talking about now, which is done in the Western Cape and the Gauteng Province, is done by the civil servants themselves, and it is again every single department having to choose certain programs. And that certainly is on existing subprograms; it's not on planned. If they have a new program they could do that, but it is what we are spending our money on in an ongoing way.

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

Okay, that's actually good. It will give you a clear picture of what's succeeding, what's not, and how to shift the--