Status of Women Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Neville for five minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you to both of you for being here. I have many questions, probably more than five minutes' worth, and many comments.

I've been around this dance several times. I'm looking at the recommendations from the 2005 report, and quite clearly, the recommendation that the central agencies be involved was a pivotal one.

I'm also aware of the interdepartmental committee, and I was interested in your response that it meets once a year. In my mind, that's not nearly enough.

I'm also aware that one can put these structures in place. It's a wonderful graph on paper and it looks marvellous, but unless there's a real commitment to make it happen, not much is going to move forward. I look at the four departments that you've highlighted here, and you talked about how Citizenship and Immigration, which is mandated through legislation to do GBA, did a report. But we know that they've dismantled their GBA secretariat. If you look at Health Canada, their focus seems to be only on women's health.

You raised the issue of Indian and Northern Affairs. I have some concerns about that in terms of the consultation processes that are going on and the whole incorporation of the collective and individual rights of aboriginal women there--how you're dealing with GBA there.

I guess my point is, the structures are there, but unless they're really meaningful and effective and used appropriately, I throw up my hands.

You've restructured in terms of your training. You don't do the training any more; it's contracted out to the departments after you certify the trainers. Is that correct?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

We've never done the training.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

We've created the training.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

You've created the training and certified the trainers, and the department retains them and pays for them and does the training.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

That's right.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay.

I guess my real concern is with the substance of the structure and whether in fact it's really working.

The researcher has prepared a number of really good questions, and one that I want to focus on is this. Have you funded research relevant to gender budgets, government expenditure, and government revenues? If so, can you describe what this research involved? Do you in fact conduct your own research on gender budgets? Have you funded analysis of the budget under a gender lens, and if so, I'd like to know who, how, where, when, and do you think this research is important?

I recognize that you're not involved in policy decisions, but many of the policy decisions have a profound impact--in my mind, negatively, at the moment--on women. What's your role in that process?

I have lots of questions and probably a minute and a half left.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

As far as I know, we've never done any research on gender budgets. We have internal documents where we have done...it's not seminal research on gender budgets, but environmental scanning of gender budget exercises around the world, so we can better understand what we could embark on at the Canadian level.

I think the last time I was here on gender budgeting, in December, the coordinator expressed the fact that if departments do a good job at gender-based analysis, one will find that initiatives will reflect the impacts and will direct their analysis that way. We don't see this as an entity unto itself.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

But that's a big “if”.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

It is a big “if”, but I think it would be worth asking the finance department what they think about that.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We've tried.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Neville, do you have one last short question?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

My question is this. We have all these structures. Is it making a difference? My understanding of the past and with the knowledge I have now is that it's not really. The charts are great; the reality isn't much different.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

First of all, I need to correct: CIC has reactivated its position. I think CIC is a good example of where the question is whether you need a lot of infrastructure or you need commitment and accountability within a system that does the work it should do. That's the $64 million question--I keep repeating.

We are now doing an analysis of this compared with the European situation, to guide us better in the coming years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You talked about the European situation. Could you tell us what the European situation is? You could provide a response later, when you're giving us your closing remark.

I think the question that has been consistently coming back to haunt us all is this. You train the trainers and you certify them. Finance, the central agency, does what it claims is a gender-based analysis. Who looks at the analysis? Do you look at it, or does somebody else look at it? Does an economist on your staff look at it to tell us the impact on women?

If you could, just give us that answer at the end, so that I can continue with Mr. Rajotte.

It's Valentine's Day, go ahead.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Happy Valentine's Day.

Thank you very much for being with us here this morning. I'm looking at the recommendations and the report that was done, the response from the government. It seems to me the discussion is quite focused on structure and process and putting in place a system that will ensure GBA.

Perhaps I can go beyond that to get some more information for myself on how it actually works. On page 7 of your presentation you talk about GBA applied to policy measures, particularly to tax policy, where data permitted, on tax proposals presented to the Minister of Finance for budgets 2006 and 2007.

Could you describe for me how that worked and perhaps what the results were?

[Michèle Bougie]

Basically, the finance department did what we always do with GBA. You take an issue and break it down into its components in terms of comparative results, comparative situations. It always depends on data, and that's not just for Finance; it's for any department in any country where the data is available.

In some cases, they could look at the exact percentages and ratios. Where dollar amounts might show up higher for women and lower for men, in terms of the relationship to income, the ratio would all of a sudden reverse the situation such that maybe women were actually better off than men, or benefiting more, etc. It was just applying that tool.

But as I said earlier, it became more interesting for Finance to ask, and I hesitate to use the word “philosophically” in economic and fiscal things, but almost with that approach: if there is a discrepancy here, where does it lie, and is it significant? What can we do with it or about it, or do we know enough about it to really distinguish that there should be changes made?

I guess it's a work in progress. If you compare the 2006 to the 2007 analysis, there's a degree of sophistication that has evolved from the first year to the second. They are enlarging; they're not stuck on the numbers as much. They're actually looking at the impact: if someone makes a choice to do this, is it the responsibility of the taxation system to work with that, or support it, or whatever? It's that kind of process that they did for the two past budgets and will be doing for the upcoming one.

They are also extending it beyond the taxation branch. The training is now available for the whole department, so they're looking at all of the different areas and asking, does it actually make sense?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

One of the measures put in place, which a lot of parents say to me they appreciate, was the tax credit for sports. How do you analyze that? People say to me that this is anecdotal.

[Michèle Bougie]

They actually did do an analysis of that. They looked at it from the perspective that it is a family expenditure, in the sense that it's household oriented. Is it disproportionately impacting women or men? Well, they can't really tell, because it's a household expenditure and it's focused on children. Then they looked at whether there is a differential impact in terms of beneficiaries, i.e. the children. Boys tend to play hockey more than girls, and hockey has more expensive equipment than perhaps basketball. They did actually go to that degree. But again, it always depends on what kind of data you have, and if you don't have data what kind of assumptions you can legitimately make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Rajotte, are you done?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Actually, you're running out of time. But you asked a question that raised a gender issue. Classes for girls do not get a tax credit and sports for boys get a tax credit. You can answer that later on.

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Dwyer-Renaud, you told us that you hadn't been asked to evaluate the changes to the Women's Program from a GBA standpoint. Don't you find it a bit disturbing that the body that is supposed to implement GBA in the departments doesn't practise those measures in its own programs? Isn't that a bit paradoxical? Isn't that like the shoemaker with worn out shoes?