Status of Women Committee on May 12th, 2014

[Clare Beckton]

I think the evidence we did in our benchmark study, which I have in front of you, showed there had been progress, but very slow. It was a study from 1987 to 2011.

I think when you look at the proportion of women in federal politics and in provincial politics, we're still well under-represented, both federally and in all of the provinces, some much greater under-representation than others. I think your own province of New Brunswick is one that women are very under-represented in the provincial legislatures for example.

So the progress is very uneven, and in the case of politics it's geography. Geography has affected it to a certain extent as well.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I know. I've been involved in the local area, and as you will see, you're not going to see too many women come out and get on the executive because they just feel they don't have anything to offer. That is something where I feel we have to strive.

[Clare Beckton]

This is a challenge that we face across many areas where women who are very competent—it's kind of a cultural norm in many ways—think they do not have anything to say, or they will say that somebody else is more qualified than they are. I think we do have to encourage women to look at their own strengths and their own qualifications and step forward and take these things on because women are very qualified to do these jobs.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

And once they get in there, they prove themselves time and time again. It's just a matter of getting them to take that step, to jump in there.

My next question is for Betsy Kennedy. What are some of the barriers that first nations women face when they are pursuing jobs or when they're going into higher education? They certainly face a lot of barriers, a lot of challenges. What are some of the challenges they face that first nations men don't face, and why?

[Chief Betsy Kennedy]

Well I guess it's hard for the women to find employment because they have children; they believe that men don't have children. So I guess that's one of the reasons they're not employed. For the women to work, it's very difficult because they also have to go home right away to look after the children. So it's really twice as hard for them, I'd say. I know that for me it was very hard.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

So the fact there are children involved and they feel committed to the child care is the main issue that causes them not to get involved.

[Chief Betsy Kennedy]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you.

Ms. Sellah, you have five minutes.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.

As you know, we are currently studying the economic leadership and prosperity of Canadian Women. Of course, we want to find concrete solutions to improve conditions for working women in Canada.

My question is for Ms. Lahey.

From the testimony given by a number of witnesses since the beginning of our study, we have learned that there is still a salary gap. We know that a woman earns 60 % of the salary paid to a man and that it would take 69 years to bridge that gap. It is not that women do not have access to upper management positions in the public and private sectors as well as in non-profit organizations. Rather, there is systemic discrimination because of all the factors that have been listed.

According to your chart, the current total cost to the federal government is $6.7 billion. You mentioned that with this money, a policy for the provision of day care services in a productive economy would have much more of an effect on the Canadian economy than simply receiving these services through tax credits.

Could you please explain your thoughts on this issue?

[Prof. Kathleen A. Lahey]

I'd be happy to.

Reinvesting the $6.7 billion that I reference in these notes would have a beneficial impact on the Canadian economy, because it would, first of all, provide resources for more women to meet their own economic needs and those of their families by entering into paid work with fewer constraints on the hours they could work, how far away from home they could work, and so on—all of the barriers that I know everyone in this room has become very familiar with. There's a second benefit to moving in the direction of providing greater structured, accessible childcare, and other caring resources as well, in the Canadian context. Canada, like other countries of its general demographic structure, has large care needs, and they will be growing in the future as demographics change. As that sector grows, it will be important for it to grow in an economically healthy way—that is, with full-time, permanent, well-paid work for people moving into paid care positions. If that were to happen, then the economy would grow not only because women would be entering into paid work in larger numbers but also because more jobs would be created. Jobs and money flows both add to economic growth.

A third benefit from restructuring the use of the $6.7 billion is that when there is more money flowing in the economy from more people working and more people in new jobs, then governments have access to larger revenue flows at the same time. So then governments gain a greater sustainable source of funding for their own social and economic development programs. Research has demonstrated that in countries that move in this direction by encouraging larger arrays of options for child care, economic growth actually increases. The precise extent to which it increases depends on the specific economy in question, but in no country has the economy ever shrunk as a result of moving into paid child care resources supported by the government. The evidence in the Quebec context makes it very clear that there's a large multiplier effect. That's what I'm describing. You basically get three dollars of increased economic growth and revenue for every dollar that's put into childcare resources.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

You have 17 seconds.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

All right.

Ms. Lahey, do you believe that violence against women is a factor that hurts their prosperity?

[Prof. Kathleen A. Lahey]

Absolutely.

Women who face all forms of violence, whether in the workplace or in their homes, have greater economic needs than women who do not face violence.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lahey.

Mr. Young, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, madam Chair.

Professor Lahey, welcome. It's nice to see you again. It's been, I think, 39 years since we last met at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I wanted to ask you about the tax policies that you mentioned—the universal child care benefit, dependent spouse tax credits, and pension income splitting. I'm a member of the government, and I just wanted to explain that those are designed to accommodate women and men, who may or may not be parents, with regard to choices in how they live together in a long-term relationship or marriage. My concern is that changing or eliminating these policies could remove that choice as to whether or not to work outside the home. In fact, instead of trying to accommodate the way people often want to live, it would be engineering by tax law how they live.

Is the choice of whether or not to work outside the home not a legitimate one? Secondary to that, does the Income Tax Act treat men and women equally or unequally?

[Prof. Kathleen A. Lahey]

Thank you for that short question.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Take as much time as you want. I have five minutes. I probably took one already.

[Prof. Kathleen A. Lahey]

The first point I would make is that, first of all, it is fine to say that the purpose of these policies is to create choices, but the reality is that the notion of choice, when circumstances constrain the number of options available to people, are false choices.

For example, the universal child care benefit, which provides a little bit over $100 per month for every young child under the age of 6, is not enough money for someone to get out the door to earn enough money to do anything. It creates the illusion that someone can choose to stay at home with an allowance of a little bit over $1,200 per year per child, but no one can live on $1,200 per year, and it creates the illusion that a person can choose instead to spend that $1,200 per year on child care. And that is also an illusion. So yes, there is a choice, but it's not a real choice.

One of the other policies you may describe as also being engineered by tax policy is income splitting. Income splitting is carefully designed and historically has always been carefully designed to keep more economic power in the hands of higher-income individuals. It arose from the English common law concept of coverture, which treated women as being part of their husband's beings, and therefore all incomes earned by the women as belonging to the men. Therefore, the concept that joint taxation or income splitting is not some sort of social engineering by tax policy ignores the long history that says that, in fact, it was deliberately designed as a way to keep economic control in the hands of men. Because Canada is a country that respects the principle of sex equality, that is not a policy that is considered to be constitutionally acceptable in democratic Canada.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Your chart on employment insurance payments is interesting. Is the gap in that chart a direct result of the jobs that women hold, the occupations they hold, and the hours they work? And if so, what solutions do you suggest?

[Prof. Kathleen A. Lahey]

Yes, this set of figures is a direct reflection of the fact that women have less full-time, full-year employment, and therefore have less eligibility for employment insurance. It also reflects the simultaneous fact of existing discrepancies in income and pay levels. Therefore, women who do qualify for employment insurance benefits will always get smaller benefits, and often these will be so small that the women cannot even support themselves with them. it. It would be better for them to go to even less well-paid work in order to simply get by, which is what happened during the depths of the recession.

The alternatives would be to eliminate the distinctions between full-time and part-time work, to insist that all work be paid at a living wage, and that it be calibrated at the real cost of human survival and not on the basis of some arbitrary measurement. It would also make sense to come up with more universalized support systems, so that people who do find that they are ineligible for employment insurance may, nonetheless, be able to access social assistance supports of various kinds that would secure their ability to keep functioning as healthy human beings.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Young.

Ms. Crockatt, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

This has been a really phenomenally interesting study and I want to thank every one of you for your contributions. There are lots of nuggets that every one of you have contributed.

I would like to comment briefly on Mr. Young's point that some people have characterized income splitting as an answer to women doing unpaid work. I'm wondering, Dr. Lahey, if you in some way, in some corner of your mind, see that as the way some people see it, as a way of paying women who are choosing to stay home.

[Prof. Kathleen A. Lahey]

Yes, this has been suggested, but if that were truly the purpose, then why is it that women who live in households where the couple's total income is $32,000 a year and less only get $14 per year?

Similarly, for people who live in households where the incomes are in the middle range--$68,000 to $83,000 per year--why would the unpaid work being supported by that be worth only $546? And why would it make sense then, where there's a single income earner with income of $190,000 a year or more, that the woman's unpaid work in that household is suddenly worth $12,000 a year?

If that were the purpose, someone got the numbers very badly wrong.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you for that answer.

I'd like to go to...I don't know if it's Dr. or Mrs. or Ms. Beckton. How do you like to be referred to?