Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Is it cynical for the government to say they have gender equality with the current set-up, when we see the Minister of Finance is a male and the minister of state positions, for the first time in the past five governments, are 100% female in the junior positions? Do you think it's a bit cynical to be claiming that, when—as you said—the big ministries are stacked with men and the tiny former ministers of state ministries are now women?

[Prof. Margot Young]

I would say it's dishonest.

We spend a lot of time in law thinking about what kinds of arrangements constitute equality in the world. A notion of substantive equality is juxtaposed with the idea of formal equality. Formal equality is a hollow shell of form, where you can cast an appearance of equality, but when you look at how things play out on the ground, who has resources, who has profile, who has power, and whose voice counts more, you don't have equality. Substantive equality, where you look at things in context, which in this case of cabinet formation would mean looking at what particular ministries. Who's in Finance? It matters. Who's in Justice? That's a great appointment from many aspects of—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It's a great disservice to claim that it's equal when it's clearly not. We can say the pay is equal, but the levers of power are not.

[Prof. Margot Young]

It's not the sense of gender equality that anybody who's an expert in the area would say—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think your word “dishonest” is a good way to sum it up.

[Prof. Margot Young]

The danger—and I keep coming back to this—is that if we shut off conversations by pointing to form and ignoring substance, we're not going to change the world. We're going to just cement it in its current unequal cast and foreclose the kind of conversation we need to have.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm out of time.

Thanks very much. I hope to get back to UVic one day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll now go to Mr. Blaikie, for seven minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much for agreeing to testify at committee, Dr. Young.

Thank you also for making what I think is a pretty clear distinction between efforts to establish gender equity within cabinet and government largely, and the kinds of administrative aspects that this bill deals with in terms of creating categories—a minister, etc.

I will remind some of my colleagues across the way that at the second reading debate of this bill, a theme of Liberal speeches was that this was a way to promote gender equality within cabinet. If that's not the case, fine, but that wasn't the impression one had in listening to government members speak to this bill at second reading. That is why it's part of the discussion now.

Certainly I think part of the way that this whole thing came up—even in terms of adjusting the administrative details of cabinet composition—was because there was a big story after the cabinet was originally announced, in November of 2015, noticing that all five junior minister portfolios were occupied by women, and they weren't necessarily being paid the same. That's what initiated the criticism of the cabinet appointments. It was to be a good news story, but ended up not being one. Subsequently this legislation came along in order to say, “Well actually, all ministers are equal.”

There does seem to be some equivocation between equal ministers in the sense of gender equality, versus equal ministers in the sense of status around the table. I'll defer debate on the administrative components, because a minister for whom a department is designated doesn't seem to be substantially different in status from a minister of state, except in name only.

I want to ask you, because the legislation is open and we are talking about.... I think most of us around this table, if not all, would affirm that gender equality in cabinet is an important goal that we're still working toward.

The legislation is open. Are there things we could do in terms of amending these acts that are touched by the bill in order to build in aspects of gender equality to the cabinet-making process? Are there amendments we could make that would speak to gender equality in this bill?

[Prof. Margot Young]

Yes.

There are always things you can do legislatively—in some sense as much as Parliament can bind itself—to express formal commitments to a particular kind of decision-making process and a kind of accountability in that decision-making process. The government could commit, in preambular words or in actual textual provisions, to gender equity. It could say something about the kind of ministerial positions it will seek to have women fill. It's not rocket science. That's actually one of the things that concrete measures call for in terms of increasing representation of under-represented groups.

People talk a lot about affirmative action. It's actually a continuum of things that you can do. The government could look across the continuum at efforts to get more women on the government side and the other parties sitting in the House, to begin with, from which cabinet members are selected. They could make some statements—as I said, either preambular or in the text of the bill itself—about a commitment to institutionalize a rule of 50% gender representation.

These are not things that are unthinkable. They're very easy to do. They're harder to do politically, of course, than simply saying something in a press release about a commitment to gender equality, or than simply saying “Because it's 2015.”

We need more leadership. We need more substantive education and commitments that have some toughness to them to really be able to claim that we're a feminist government.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

There are things at this table that we can recommend in terms of the legislation.

If it's your view that there are equity gaps in the current cabinet composition because of the assignment of particular ministries and the way they're distributed among men and women, notwithstanding any legislative changes, what could the Prime Minister do at the cabinet table tomorrow to correct some of those equity issues?

[Prof. Margot Young]

That's really the key observation here. The decision moment at which gender equity is struck or not is the selection of the cabinet itself, and that's a prime ministerial power and competency, and that's where commitment to gender equity tells, who you put into finance and so on.

I've never been prime minister, but I'm assuming it's a tough decision to pick your cabinet colleagues, and there are many factors that go into it. Importantly, I think gender and also other kinds of representational issues should be prominent, but they're not the only ones. I think it's important how we talk about this, and I also think it's important that we don't pretend we've up-ended tradition when we actually haven't, because that is a huge impediment to change and to truly moving away from a sexist tradition.

It's not as simple as saying, “Okay, Prime Minister, tomorrow change the cabinet and make sure the minister of finance is a woman”, but it is to say that that's where the power and the decision-making reality lies. It is not to displace it into other sites and say we've dealt with it now.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Since November 2015, there have been a few small cabinet shuffles.

[Prof. Margot Young]

Yes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Do you think those were missed opportunities, given that there was a large public discussion about whether the Prime Minister had succeeded in achieving gender equity in his initial cabinet appointments? He's made a few shuffles since. Were those missed opportunities to address what had come up in the kind of civil discourse as failings of the Prime Minister's initial choice?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

A short answer, if you could please, Professor.

[Prof. Margot Young]

I think there were some opportunities taken, and some obviously missed. We haven't ended up after those cabinet shuffles with a cabinet that, in terms of power profile, is gender equal, so you could say they didn't address that.

The real point is also how we talk about what we're doing and how we follow through that talk with what we actually do. I'm just going to keep circling back to a point I continually flag, which is don't describe something that is clearly not about gender equality as speaking to gender equality. That's disingenuous, and it also risks completely short-ending what has to be a more substantively effective conversation in Canadian society, at all these leadership points and elsewhere, about how we actually change in more than merely form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to our last seven-minute intervention, our prime minister-in-waiting, Madam Shanahan.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

You're too nice, Mr. Chair.

Does the witness have access to simultaneous interpretation?

[Prof. Margot Young]

No, I don't. I am sorry to say that, and I don't speak French well enough to try.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'll tell you why I wanted to address you in French, because I am old school. I call myself an old-school feminist from Quebec. In the 70s, we were marching on the street, solidarité, take back the night. The struggles were huge, they were real, and I'm very proud of having taken part in those early years of the feminist struggle in Quebec. As an old-time feminist, an old-school feminist, as I like to call myself, I did learn early on that Rome is not built in a day and it's incremental steps that get us to where we are going. I look forward every day. 2015 was a big year for gender equity in the cabinet, and I look forward to coming years 2017, 2018, 2019 and so forth.

Let me simply say, Professor Young, I am so thrilled to be sitting here today and to hear my male colleagues speaking so enthusiastically and passionately about gender equality, because I think you know and I know, maybe we're not quite the same generation, it was not always the case.

On that note—

[Prof. Margot Young]

I was in the same 70s as you were.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

That's fantastic. This is the kind of thing I'd love to have more time to talk about.

I want to follow up on this idea of power profiles in the different ministries. Justice, Global Affairs, Labour, Public Services and Procurement—all these ministries are headed by women. There are also the emerging power ministries like Environment, and Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which is now so powerful it has two women ministers. This is going to be a powerhouse in years to come. My favourite is Diane Lebouthillier, Minister of National Revenue, because we share a common financial education and a common purpose of making a fair tax code.

I was looking at the ministries affected by this bill—Science, Small Business and Tourism, Sport and Persons with Disabilities, Employment and Social Development, Status of Women, La Francophonie—and I want your thoughts on this. These ministries deal with emerging and evolving social issues such as developing human potential, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in our wonderful Canadian society, and achieving personal and financial well-being. Are these really junior ministries, or are they emerging ministries?

[Prof. Margot Young]

There are a number of points I'm going to take up with what you said. You began by talking about change being incremental, and I think that's right, but I think we get incremental change because we push for more. It's never enough to say that we've done a little and we'll rest on those laurels. I don't think we should misdescribe incremental change as major change. It's important that we recognize incremental as incremental. I know how change comes in the world, practically, but I also know that we spur even incremental change by having a good critique.