The hope and hype of a 'gender-based' budget - Macleans.ca
 

The hope and hype of a ‘gender-based’ budget

Budget 2017 highlighted inequities Canada’s self-styled ‘feminist’ prime minister has yet to change


 

On Wednesday, Finance Minister Bill Morneau delivered Canada’s first federal budget prepared with much-hyped “gender-based analysis,” a tool employed by many countries to examine how policy, legislation and program decisions impact women and men differently. And no, the country did not suddenly catapult into the feminist Nirvana many outsiders think it is. There was no mention of universal childcare or equitable job creation measures to bridge the wage gap or measures to address poverty among older women. Teaching girls to code was a theme. But the approach did bring us a  Gender Statement, a document that provided an illuminating, if sobering glimpse into gender inequities in Canada. It also provided a helpful blueprint for measuring where budget dollars were directed toward a real target, and where it came up short.

Gender-based analysis (GBA) isn’t new. Canada committed to implementing it in 1995, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. More than two decades later, we’re still not there; a 2016 government audit found GBA employed spottily at the federal level, if at all. A Status of Women committee called for mandatory adoption of GBA across all government departments and agencies by June of this year. The tally of what that will cost has not been provided.

The usefulness of GBA was in fact highlighted even earlier: in the 2016 budget, the first tabled by a government lead by a self-declared feminist Canadian prime minister. Kate McInturff, a senior researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, conducted her own GBA in a withering appraisal: in one instance, she drilled into the $11.6 billion in job creation measures the government expected to add some 143,000 jobs, concluding that women comprised only 36 percent of beneficiaries.

Budget 2017 brings us a new twist: “GBA+,” with the “+”  referring to “the intersecting identity factors that must be considered in public policy along with, and in relation to, gender (e.g. ethnicity, age, income, sexual orientation).” The section on gender-based violence highlights the need. While Indigenous women, children and youth, and LGBTQ2 and gender non-conforming people are at higher risk of violence, it noted, women who live with physical and cognitive impairments are at even higher risk. Senior women, it adds, are the most frequent targets of “family violence”—at a rate 24 per cent higher than that of senior men. (Lest anyone think that GBA is intended only to assist women, the Gender Statement also notes inequities experienced by men, pointing to evidence that the suicide rate for men is three times higher than the rate for women, yet women attempt suicide three to four times more often than men).

READ MORE: What Budget 2017 offers families

Many of the statistics presented in the Gender Statement have been well-publicized. Women make up 47 percent of the paid workforce in Canada, and are more likely to have post-secondary training, yet earn, on average, some 30 percent less than men. That wage gap has been declining over the past decades, yet the country “continues to have one of the highest wage gaps among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries,” the report noted.  Women are disproportionately represented in lower-paying occupations across the retail, health and social-service sectors. They’re twice as likely as men to work part-time, more likely than men to cite caring for children as the reason they are in part-time work, and perform more hours of unpaid work in the home. The repercussions can be cascade-like, in keeping women from getting jobs, qualifying for Employment Insurance and falling below the poverty line.

Given the known pivotal role access to childcare has in enabling women’s access to the workforce, eyes were on the government’s childcare initiatives. Morneau delievered a big number: $7 billion toward early learning and childcare to increase the number of “high-quality child care spaces available across the country” (the minister also spoke of creating up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces over the next three years working with the provinces and territories; it’s also a big number but it doesn’t begin to fill the need). Here, there was no deviation from the government’s much-publicized Canada Child Benefit. More significantly, these monies are backloaded over the next decade—to 2028—thus designed as an incentive to vote Liberal at least twice more.

READ MORE: Why the federal budget should focus on gender equality

Parental leave after a baby’s arrival has also been extended to 18 months, at a cost of $152 million over the first five years and $27.5 a year thereafter. This appears to be good news for women, who make up 92 per cent of those taking leave. A closer look, however, shows it’s just extending the current 12-month leave for another six months with no additional funds given.

The budget’s big, headline-making news was a $101-million commitment over five years—just over $20 million a year—to support a “National Strategy to Address Gender-Based Violence” like those seen in Australia and Ireland. Yet given the economic cost of violence against women, the commitment seems miniscule. Justice Canada estimates spousal abuse and violence against women costs the economy an estimated $12.2 billion per year.

The budget did, however, appear to honour “caring labour,” as economist Nancy Folbre terms it. There’s a proposal to consolidate the existing caregiver credit into into a new “Canada Caregiver Credit” that would allow caregivers to claim tax credits up to $6,883 on expenses arising from caring for a relative with “infirmities”, including those with disabilities. There’s also a new “caregiver leave,” which permits people caring for a critically ill relative to  take employment insurance for 15 weeks. More women than men are caregivers, according to Statistics Canada (some 54 per cent in 2012). Yet a higher proportion of men claim caregiver tax credits (55 per cent of all individuals claiming the Caregiver Credit and 59 per cent of those claiming the Infirm Dependant Credit).

Inequities at the upper employment echelons were also noted by Morneau, a former Bay Street executive. In 2016, women comprised only 26 per cent of senior management jobs in the private sector and occupied only 19.5 percent of seats on boards of Financial Post 500 companies. Morneau’s stated solution was to rely on advice from the high-profile squad of businesswomen who accompanied Prime Minister Trudeau on his first meeting and photo-op with Donald Trump at the White House: “We’ve asked the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders to quickly advise us on how we can better empower women entrepreneurs, and remove barriers for women in business,” Morneau said.  Given that the group’s second meeting has yet to be announced, just how quickly, or even if, that advice will be delivered remains a major question mark.

On a day of “gender-based analysis” one would be remiss not to notice that the new approach was delivered by a constant in Canadian political life: a male finance minister. The much-celebrated new shoes purchased for the occasion, (this year’s are symbolically “NAFTA-correct”) have always been brogues or oxfords. Even in Trudeau’s much-vaunted gender equal cabinet, the money man remains a man.

Today, however, Canada’s male finance minister appeared willing to break one gender stereotype, with his government, in asking for new  directions, even if he didn’t always follow them. The Gender Statement ended with the admission that there’s more to learn. There are “current gaps in data and understanding” it conceded, adding there’s “still much work to be done.” On that point, it’s impossible to disagree.

 


 

The hope and hype of a ‘gender-based’ budget

  1. When we have a PM who says publically that he’s a feminist and works to make things equal, it seems pointless to vilify him because he didn’t miraculously solve ALL of it overnight.

  2. Yes, more social indoctrination about the wage gap myth. Must have more special privileges, hiring quotas and free money for school because patriarchy, victimhood, oppression, manspreading, etc.

    Of course you didn’t mention that these ‘barriers’ to women appearing in arbitrarily equal numbers in all areas of business and academia are simply due to the fact that women on average choose less lucrative fields of study such a sociology and gender studies, rather than engineering and business management, and many choose to stay at home and raise kids and let their husband earn most of the money.

    And you didn’t mention that a lot more women have been graduating from college than men for decades, and a woman with a STEM degree is twice as likely to get a job in her field than an equally qualified man, due to hiring quotas. Of course you’re not going to let a little thing like women’s right to choose interfere with your political crusade for even more intolerance of dissenting opinions.

    It’s also pretty funny that this wacky Marxist indoctrination magazine which does nothing but virtue signal, and believes that actual genders are oppressive and gender exists on some sort of spectrum, only has two choices under ‘gender’ on the commenter profile page: male and female. How cis-het-binary-(insert more mindless buzzwords here), is that?

    Shouldn’t you be starting a violent protest and smashing storefront windows over this hate crime on your website? I mean, you must be Literally Hitler to have such a non-progressive profile page.