Status of Women Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I see.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

Madame Demers, for seven minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Dwyer-Renaud, you said in your statement that you were trying to establish partnerships. Is there any resistance to that? If so, what is it?

I'd like to know whether you suggested changes to HRSDC to enable more women to access employment insurance. If so, did they consider them?

You said environmental scanning should be conducted to determine trends and deficiencies. Have you detected any deficiencies? If so, which ones?

I would also like to know whether it is possible to get a guide for the preparation of Treasury Board submissions.

Lastly, what measures has the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs taken to enable Aboriginal women to take charge of their lives more easily and to have more resources to do so?

Thank you.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

There was perhaps more resistance to partnerships in the past. The fact that we now have the support of the central agencies acts as a lever in terms of demands and expectations. The departments cooperate to a much greater degree. We tell them that, if they go before the Treasury Board and are questioned about the funding they're going to receive, it would perhaps be beneficial for them to work with us from the outset to develop their submission. I've been working in the field for a long time, and I can tell you that resistance has declined considerably.

As for human resources, once again, that's not necessarily the role of analysts. We want to give people the tools so that they can better analyze the various programs. It's when you impose an option on the departments that there's a real outcry, but if you tell them that we want to help them carry out a given program by re-examining the data and possible impacts, things go better.

We're not necessarily an active voice with regard to key policies. Instead we want to provide officials with tools. We hope that outside researchers and women's pressure groups can make various suggestions because that's not really our work any more.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

If I understand correctly, you don't have a lot of influence on the changes that may be made in the various departments. You're trying to show these people how to conduct GBA, but it's limited to that.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

Yes and no. If, for example, the employment insurance people submit a Cabinet memo to the Privy Council Office and the latter sees that the memo doesn't contain a gender-based analysis, the people who prepare that memo will be questioned. If they meet the Privy Council's requirements, then knock on the Treasury Board's door to request funding, but the Treasury Board finds that the potential impact on women is not clearly visible in the memo, the Board will ask those people to go and redo their homework. That's the beauty of the present system.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It's hard to calculate, since only 30% of women have access to employment insurance.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I wasn't talking about that system, but about the gender-based analysis system.

I'm going to address the question of deficiencies through the indicators project. That project is based on research on indicators and fields in which it was determined that there really were deficiencies. I can tell you some of those fields. It was determined that additional information was needed in the personal security field. The idea here is to get data in order to be able to develop better policy. Women's security and economic prosperity is another field. An entire set of indicators is related to those themes. These are the two main areas. Under the theme of personal security, we're talking about health and welfare, violence and housing. Under economic security and prosperity, we're talking about income and earnings, labour market participation, segregation, unpaid work and social and political involvement.

That will guide the kind of environmental scanning that we'll be doing based on those indicators. As regards the guide, I don't know whether that's a public document. I'll have to ask and we'll pass on the answer to you. That moreover is a question that you could put to the Treasury Board as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Dwyer-Renaud, could we have that information sent to us?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay, perfect; thank you.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

What is the situation regarding the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

We work a lot with the people from that department. As for reviewing Cabinet memos, they have a very good internal system. They also handle key subjects in issues concerning Aboriginal women, including what's called matrimonial real property. We're working together with them in the education and housing sectors.

Sisters in Spirit is a project spread over five years and is currently in its third year. Over the next two years, we'll try, in cooperation with the departments, to address subjects that the Native Women's Association has identified as causes of poverty and violence against Aboriginal women. These individuals have recommended—and we support the recommendation—that we work with the departments on issues such as housing, education, employment and access to justice. Two of those topics are the responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs. So we'll be working together with the people from that department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank you for coming this morning and helping to clarify what to me is a confusing issue.

As I listen to your presentation this morning, what I'm taking from it is that a lot is already being done. That is an impression I didn't have up until this meeting this morning. As a matter of fact, at the last meeting--although I may have misunderstood--I thought the statement was made that the GBA champions in the three agencies were no longer doing the GBA championship role, that they were either not there any more or they had been reassigned, but I think I hear you saying that is not correct.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

That is not correct. People change, of course, so we've had a turnover in the champions, but the functions are very much present in the three central agencies.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Does Status of Women Canada take the lead role on GBA? Does SWC define what GBA is?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

Yes, we do.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Are all three agencies using the same definition?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

Yes, they are.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

How are the departments held accountable? Who analyzes the information to see whether or not the GBA has done what you feel is proper? Does your department do that, and how is success and/or compliance measured? What are the controls?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

It's a good question. Because of the role we've now undertaken, we are going to have to develop. We have a project right now comparing how we do things in GBA in the Canadian government compared to the European Union. So we're going to use that to be able to see how we can do a better job at monitoring the practice.

Status of Women does that. Our responsibility is vis-à-vis the practice within the departments: how that is happening, what kinds of infrastructures are being created within the departments.

The results vis-à-vis the policies developed with GBA are being monitored by the central agencies, by PCO and Treasury Board. When we talk about MRRS, which is the management of results, resources, and structure, that structure is the responsibility of Treasury Board. We are encouraging and trying to get Treasury Board to collect data from the departments from a gender perspective. When an initiative goes through cabinet, goes through Treasury Board, and then gets reported by the department, we should see the notion of gender woven right through that, and at the end of that, the result it has for women.

That kind of accountability is now being fostered inside the central agencies, and we must say they're very willing to do this. I'm looking forward to your meeting with them because I think they're quite excited to let you know what they've been doing, but it's a real breakthrough for us to have central agencies work with us that way.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

In your presentation you indicated that something was first launched in September, but I'm not sure what that was.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

That's the Treasury Board submission Madame Demers was asking for. It is, if you like, the requirement. The departments have to follow a template, and you can certainly grill Treasury Board on this. I'm just giving you an overview. All departments have to follow a template when they go for a Treasury Board submission, when they ask for money, when they have received the policy authority from cabinet, and you also have to consider the things in there. For a long time, until last July, you never had to consider the impact on gender and now you do.

You have to show Treasury Board that you've taken into consideration how this program or this policy you're requesting funding for will have an impact on women versus men.

I don't know if you want to add a note or two to that, Michèle.

[Michèle Bougie]

It's interesting, because the tool, the MRRS, is able to discern, through the evidence presented--and I'm sorry it's bureaucratic--in RPPs and DPRs, the allocation of resources to the strategic outcomes identified by the department. They can see the resources allocated to the activities that are being driven to reach those key outcomes. The trick with the tool is to be able to discern where gender has been woven through activities to achieve the key strategic objectives of the department. It gets quite technical at that point because you're not necessarily looking at quality outcomes but outcomes in other policy areas that have an impact on gender or gender-related outcomes.

That's why we're working with departments at the front end and Treasury Board at the back end, so that departments make visible what they're doing in terms of GBA and gender equality work of any sort. This will enable Treasury Board to pick it up with the tool, because the tool is only as good as the input. So you have to look at a whole loop. It's really bureaucratic; you roll up your sleeves and get into the machinery.