Status of Women Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

As I explained, I wasn't involved in the talks because I was on staff. It's a bit difficult to request that kind of thing. I don't know. I don't really have an answer. It's as much a mystery for me as it is for you. I can only assume, because I don't know.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Isn't it disturbing that Status of Women Canada doesn't apply its own measures, whereas it asks others to do so? Personally, I find that disturbing. It's very peculiar. How can we ensure that the departments are doing it if we don't do it? What credibility do we have?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

That doesn't seem to have bothered the departments. They cooperate very well with us. I can add nothing more.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you.

That's all, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

Madam Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There was some discussion about the indicator project. I wonder whether you could explain that.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

For many years now, Status of Women Canada, along with Statistics Canada, has come out with a report called “Women in Canada”. It provides a lot of data in terms of different resources, but it never really pointed to a set of indicators.

It's a product that exists in many countries. For example, in Sweden they have a whole product that gives you a set of indicators. Indicators are also used internationally. The UNDP, for example, uses indicators in terms of education and well-being and those kinds of thing. Canada never really had its own set of indicators from a gender perspective.

So the idea was what we could do to start to have this set of indicators. Could we play a role in creating that? The group is made up of people from key departments that have major data collection exercises, so you can think of HRSDC, Health Canada, and CIC. I don't have all of the people there, but these are the people right now who are working with Status of Women Canada to bring forward the idea of what these indicators would look like.

I am not a statistician so I cannot give you expert advice on that. My understanding is that it's not an easy thing to create, but at least you start from what you have. We are collecting a series of data that we know exists already in government. From that, how can we build these indicators? And from that, are there other sources of information we need to get?

My understanding is that once this happens, there will be an opportunity for some consultation. I believe the offer was made that the standing committee could look at the indicators at one point and engage in a discussion on that. That's quite feasible. I believe a letter had been sent to do just that.

For those of you who may remember, there were some consultations across Canada with groups in 2005, and the indicators project was something the groups were asking for as well, in terms of understanding the progress being made in Canada.

We have difficulty really showing the progress being made in Canada, so it's a bit difficult to select priorities and to then work on those priorities, because it should be a feedback cycle that we do. We have difficulty doing that right now without the indicators.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Do you have a quick question?

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

How would you say we stack up against the European countries? You referenced them. How are we doing when you look at that comparison?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I don't know. I'm looking forward to those results.

In the past, I'd have to say that I think Canada has been seen as a leader in terms of what the Europeans would call gender mainstreaming. We now have accountability frameworks and we have our central agencies, and that is a point to which a lot of countries have not yet gone.

Interestingly enough, it is, however, at the request of a lot of the organizations such as the World Bank or the IMF. When they go into a country, they do require this type of accountability. In a sense, Canada is doing a very good job at showing we are practising this type of process, if you like, in terms of GPA.

We receive invitations from many countries to provide training. We send our trainers around the world. They're not only in Canada or in the federal government. Our trainers go around the world. Our material has been translated into Spanish, into Russian, into Korean. Michèle was in South Africa a couple of years ago. I was in Korea. We are asked because Canada is seen as a leader in this area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

There was a question that Ms. Mathyssen asked and you responded that you had sent us an invite to look at the project indicators.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I think so. It was a while ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I just checked with the clerk. We haven't received anything and therefore a question was posed here. Could we please have some information, in writing, if you could, as to the resources allocated to these project indicators, who the individuals are and which department, and what data is being gathered?

Thank you.

Madame Boucher, trois minutes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

A number of questions come to mind, including the following. Is the training that you give within the departments spread out over a number of days, a number of weeks? Is it very complex training?

[Michèle Bougie]

That depends on the version.

I'm teasing you a little, but we have roughly seven different versions. The training was created so that we would have a tool that could be adapted to the needs and mandates of the participants receiving the training. We look at all the stages, from policy development to delivery, including program and service development, up to evaluation. So we look at the entire cycle. Afterwards, with the departments, we conduct a needs analysis. What is the mandate? What are the problems? What are the issues? What experience do the analysts have? Are the individuals taking the training researchers, evaluators, and so on?

So we adapt precisely to the needs, which includes the time. To do 10 steps, the training can last one full week, two days, one day, three days, a half day or an hour and a half. As I said, there are now a number of versions. All that's designed to meet the needs of the analysts in their day-to-day work. Obviously, we take a look at the theory and concepts in order to provide the overall social context, but that's really done in order to be able to apply GBA rigorously in the field where the people work.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

We previously gave a training session to the parliamentary committees, a number of years ago, and we can do it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We'll go to Ms. Minna.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You answered my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

What I'm suggesting is that once we have finished this, we can have a little debriefing ourselves and see if we need to have them come again. I know, from what they have responded, that we have more questions to ask. That's probably a discussion we can have.

Ms. Minna, you have two minutes, and then I'll end with Ms. Demers.

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

You said three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I'll be very quick.

First, Madame Bougie, earlier in your response to Mr. Rajotte, with respect to the sports tax credit, you said it had been looked at from the family perspective, and I guess boys and girls and families are not.... The problem with that, of course, and this is really the core of GBA, is that lone-parent families are primarily women. And they don't have money, in the first place, to buy the stuff, and therefore they can't claim it and therefore their children aren't.... This is really the core of GBA, when policy isn't looked at properly. It shouldn't have been looked at as a family; it should have been looked at from a gender perspective.

I have three quick questions. I just want to read them, because that way it's easier for everybody.

Does the training in GBA require a formal agreement, known as an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, between Status of Women Canada and the agencies you're working with or training?

Do you maintain any statistics on how many departments have dedicated GBA units or analysts? If so, could you provide that for us? That would be helpful.

What needs to be done to ensure that disaggregated data is available for GBA? Again, that's an issue that has come up over and over again.

How do we ensure that GBA is being appropriately done in the central agencies, and what are the accountability measures there? I think that's important too.

Those are kind of rapid questions. I have lots more, but maybe we can get it together....

To finish off, the importance of understanding how we do GBA, and the broader perspective.... You see, on the one policy, the assumption is that it's family, but it's not. It's also GBA. When you go that route and we get the results, they're skewed, and they're missing a whole population of women. That is a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have a minute to answer.

[Michèle Bougie]

I'll let Finance explain in more detail, but when I say family household, it depends on the composition. “Family” is the all-inclusive grab-all. It's two-parent families, lone-mother families, and lone-father families, just to clarify that. So they did look, and they do make the assumptions. If you're a lone mother, chances are, based on what we know of income levels.... I just wanted to clarify that.

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

That means the policy is--