Conservative Budget Ignores Women
February 17, 2009
Updates from Libby
One of the biggest problems with the Conservative Budget was its failure to even mention women. In the entire document, the words “woman” and “women” are not mentioned at all. The government had promised to look at budgeting and spending with gender in mind – clearly they have abandoned that promise.
In hard times, women are often affected disproportionately. Historically, women have had to increase their care-giving and other types of non-paid work, and that will certainly be the case during the current economic crisis. Because of this budget, women will be doing this without support from the federal government.
This budget heavily favoured tax cuts over spending. 40% of women have incomes so low they pay no income tax – tax cuts don’t help them at all. What would help is spending on “social infrastructure” – programs like affordable child care, EI and social housing.
Homelessness and inadequate housing impact women particularly. In Vancouver East, we know of the urgent need for all types of housing – including affordable and social housing, as well as temporary shelter for the homeless. While there is some money in the budget to renovate and build new affordable housing, I am concerned that the Conservatives’ decision to tie this funding to matching funding from other levels of government could slow down or impede entirely the actual flow of money to projects. Traditionally, these types of funding agreements have been very slow to produce any results – and we need to stimulate the economy immediately.
Many workers are facing layoffs, and people are relying on Employment Insurance to help them and their families stay afloat. But 65% of working women are ineligible for EI – even though they pay into it! The NDP called on the Conservative Government to significantly reform EI – so that the program is there when people need it, and so that access is fair for everyone, including part-time and seasonal workers, many of whom are women. Instead, the government chose simply to extend EI benefits for five weeks – which does nothing for the majority of women who can’t collect benefits in the first place.
Another complicating factor for women in the workplace is the complete lack of child care in the budget – no investments in child care are planned. A recent study ranked Canada as last among the developed countries in terms of child care spaces. In addition, Canadians pay among the highest child care fees in the world. Now, more than ever, accessible, affordable child care is essential for Canadians.
We also need to recognize that existing chil care centres need support – for decent wages and upgraded facilities. In East Van we have excellent child care facilities – but they need federal support too.
While I was disappointed in the amount of infrastructure spending in the budget (compared to the $60B in tax cuts), I was doubly disappointed that the spending will benefit mainly men. The job creation programs that will result from infrastructure spending are in industries where a minority (in some industries, less than 10%) of workers are women.
52% of Canadians are women – and we were totally ignored in this budget. That is unacceptable. I will be fighting hard to make sure the Conservative Government knows they can’t ignore women in Canada.
“Women, and particularly vulnerable groups of women, are hardest hit during times of economic crisis and also have the greatest potential to contribute to the economy.”
- FAFIA report on the federal budget
Comments
huh?
Excuse me are you for real? SHUT UP! we have women/woman EVERYTHING now a days. Being a female these days is the best gender to be by far. There are women studies that you can take in school. Woman have higher chance of being selected for a lot of higher profile jobs now. Woman athletes have WAY more opportunity to get further in sports then men. This could go on and on. Don't bring up the whole woman issue. Worry about the real problems like how the rich are getting richer and the poor and homeless more poor and more homeless. Why don't you stop worry about the woman who have MORE rights then men these days and start worrying about the people that really need our help. The old, the widows, and the homeless and poor. By the way I'm 18 and I have a better head on my shoulders then you do it seems. Kind regards.
Head on shoulders perhaps, but facts all wrong!
Thank you for your thoughts. I am very happy to see that a younger member of the society is interested in such matters and pays attention to local and political events. Nonetheless, you seem very eager and apparently have a good head on your shoulders, but unfortunately, you don't have all the facts. Studying social policy and researching national data and programmes has given me access to more accurate data than the general stereotypes mentioned.
I recognize that you have highlighted some very interesting (and perhaps even valid) points, but what you fail to see is the problems for everyday women - not the rich, attractive, athletes or superstars - who I have to inform you do not make up the bulk of the population. Interestingly, the key issue which you failed to recognize is that women are contextually a part of the exact vulnerable groups you have mentioned - the old, widowed, homeless and poor. The inequalities inherit in social/political/economical institutions must be wholly addressed as a societal issue, rather than considered “someone else’s problem”. As these structures are all interconnected, regressive policy in one area will undoubtedly have negative consequences in other sectors as well.
These are the facts: for equal level of training and skills, women are still paid less than men. As a result of this and attempts to juggle both career and family, women occupy the majority of temporary, part-time, and low-paid jobs. In times of financial difficulty (such as the current recession), these groups of jobs are the most vulnerable for job loss.
As well, statistics show that women are generally more educated than men (i.e. spend more time in higher education). Why is it then that men, as a whole, still occupy the bulk of high-paying, powerful, decision-making jobs? What systemic barriers still exist?
Furthermore, the majority of single parents are women and the most poor group of families are single-parent families. Although women have entered the labour market with full force over the past 30 years, women are still the primary caregivers for both the young and the elderly - creating a double and sometimes triple burden of responsibility for them. Therefore, women work full time hours (as most men do), but still adopt the bulk of the management and administration of domestic work and caring responsibilities of children and the elderly.
Unlike many European countries, Canada has very few adequate government childcare programmes available for working families. Pensions are dependent on the commodification of labour, but what about the women who have very little experience of working in the formal labour market, but have taken care of the home and raised children for the past 20 years? What type of poverty will they experience during retirement? What options do they have?
Thus, I am really pleased that youth are taking an active interest in developing our local and national governments. However, before we get ahead of ourselves, I believe that we (as participants in civil society) should aim to actively seek out the truth and understand that social structures (labour market, employment policies, pension policies, health care, etc) may affect different groups in different ways. As such, as Libby Davies highlighted, some groups require policies and programmes to be generated in perhaps different ways in order to ensure that no groups are discriminated against. Remember, equal opportunities does not necessarily mean equality. Many thanks for your comments!