Status of Women Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You mentioned the Commonwealth and the UN. Therefore, this is a global vision. In terms of changing the lives of women, which factors will be most important? Financial, economic or social factors? Women in North America have different problems, whether in terms of level of poverty, or economic, financial or social concerns. How can we make these indicators universal?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I think that is the question on everyone's lips right now. The challenge is global in scale. I was reading a report on gender mainstreaming and world poverty. The report, which was written in English, notes the following:

“While a number of studies suggest that there is indeed a relationship between gender equality and economic growth”--

and that is our objective

--“there are conflicting findings as to whether the relationship is a synergy (greater equality translates into greater growth)”--you would think that--“or trade-off (greater inequality fuels higher levels of growth).”

Currently, all world governments are having this debate. This impacts gender mainstreaming, as well as the development of indicators. We see how this affects fundamental considerations. We wonder how this matter can truly be resolved on firm ground.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

We now go to Madam Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

During your last visit you referred briefly to the work Status of Women Canada is doing with Indian and Northern Affairs and Citizenship and Immigration. Could you please elaborate further on how these departments are doing things differently from each other?

[Michèle Bougie, Senior Policy and Program Analyst, Status of Women Canada]

You want to know how they each do their work differently?

This is something we do with departments when we work with them on GBA. It's very much based on the organizational culture of the department. Some departments won't move on anything unless they have a guideline or a memo from DMs. Other departments are much more flexible, and different directorates can go and do their own thing, if you will. Other departments are quite stringent in the sense that they're regulatory: they have either legislation or they have regulations they're mandated to enact on behalf of the people of Canada. Depending on what that department's specific culture is, the GBA work that's done has to fit into that culture; otherwise they're going against the current of the department.

In that context, INAC, for example, has a network. They're called GEARs, and they're representatives from each branch of INAC. They meet regularly and bring the GBA knowledge to their directorate, whichever directorate it might be. INAC also has a central core that is the gender focal unit, which are actual FTEs allocated to the specific pursuit of GBA.

The gender focal unit holds a double role. It has a challenge function vis-à-vis the rest of the directorates. It is also supposed to be looking at memoranda to cabinet originating from within INAC, not from other departments. It also has a capacity-building role.

Right now they're straddling both capacity building and transactional, so they tend to work on the different files based on which directorate the issue falls under, if you will. For example, right now we're working with them on their constructions of the program activity architecture. We were speaking last time about the whole reporting and accountability of Treasury Board.

Some departments are at the stage of writing their new PAAs, program activity architecture. What we're doing with something like INAC is actually working with it on articulating that PAA so that anything gender-related comes across in a very cogent and concrete way in all of the activities they're creating. That assists in being able to pick up the data we need for accountability, in terms of Treasury Board using its mechanisms and in terms of Status of Women using our role to help see how the process is working.

CIC is different as well. Right now CIC has a dedicated resource person, but it has integrated the responsibility of GBA into its five-year business plan whereby, again, each directorate or branch within CIC has to have GBA inserted into its business lines and work plans. Some of the directorates have tiny little intra working groups, which are just analysts from different files within that branch. So that's how they're working.

I think the other one was Health Canada. It has a similar system. It has a gender focal unit, which is the women's health bureau and gender-based analysis directorate. It's an oddball because it has the physicality of women in the health field, but it also has the GBA, how the differentials of the health sector impact women and men. Its little central focal unit has that dual world and it also has a bit of a network.

Some departments are really finding the network system works quite well and other departments are still sort of exploring what will work. I always bring it back to this question: what is the organizational culture and what is the approach more apt to be well accepted and cohesive within that department?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Chair, do I have some time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have about two minutes.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

You have also mentioned that Status of Women Canada assists central agencies and departments with applying a gender perspective to policy and program drafting. Where does the financing of GBA training and implementation come from? Is there financing available to departments for GBA training and implementation, or does this funding come from the departments' existing operating budgets? Please, could you tell me about that?

[Michèle Bougie]

Departments themselves pay. What Status of Women Canada provides free of charge is our support and all of the training materials: the participant manuals, case study development, what we call the shower sheets, which are highlight questions, a little checklist guide that can help departments. Departments pay for the trainer—they select one of our trainers—and they get all the materials from us for free. So that's basically the extent of the expense, and departments absorb it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Boucher.

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

Good day, ladies. You talked about the mindset of departments. However, I was wondering if it was possible to set a basic guideline, so that gender-specific budgeting becomes automatic for the country's decision-makers. Judging from your take on the situation, I get the impression that that would be complicated. Each department approaches the subject its own way.

How can we develop a universal, standard approach for everyone?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

My answer to you would be to put that question to the finance department.

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

I understand. The basic guideline should come from the Department of Finance. That is what you're saying.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

It should come from the department. The finance department is largely responsible for all of the budgets drawn up, notably the one that will be unveiled to Canadians today. In 2005, the department claimed to be ready to conduct comparative gender-based analyses. We are training people to ascertain whether departments have in fact implemented the comparative gender-based analysis approach. We are seeing that this hasn't happened. This is an area of shared responsibility and departments are expected to take on this responsibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Mathyssen, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to come back to Madame Dwyer-Renaud for clarification. You talked about a report and you quoted from the report, and I wanted to make sure I heard you right. The debate was whether greater equality stimulated or hampered economic growth. Is that correct?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

That's correct. These are not government departments, these are governments who are struggling, which creates acute challenges for all practitioners of gender-based analysis and gender mainstreaming in the world.

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

I understand that, but it seems rather odd. In this committee we heard from expert witnesses talking about the economic security of women. When things are in place, when government puts things in place, like an affordable housing program and child care and employment insurance that facilitates training, or even addresses violence against women, this has a profound and positive impact on the situation with women who are on maternity leave. And we know whenever women are helped in developing countries, their children are helped, the community is helped, and there is an exponential positive from that. So I was quite confused by that dichotomy and that quotation. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in terms of my understanding of what benefits community.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I agree with you, and if you like, I could send--it's not a report, it's a compendium of articles, and it is exactly on this kind of questioning in terms of microeconomic policy and the whole issue of gender mainstreaming.

There's a lot of questioning, which is good. It's a good sign that people are questioning rather than ignoring the whole notion of integrating gender into these kinds of policies and these frameworks. I can certainly forward that; it's a fascinating read.

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

Thank you. I would appreciate that.

With regard to the federal plan for gender equality, is this plan still being used and implemented? I believe it's 1995.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

There have been a series of trends. The one I remember is 1995 to 2000. Then there was another one from 2000 to 2005. There have not been succinct plans since 2005, because most countries now are realizing that what we really need is not to get another plan but to arrive at concrete results, so we know what the areas are. The practice of gender mainstreaming is still very new in most countries, including ours, and it still takes time for us to see results. We need to go to an evaluation of the practices and an evaluation of where the practice has made a difference in terms of results and changing the reality of women's lives. That has not been done yet in most countries.

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

So we still need an analysis of that evaluation. Is there any plan afoot? Obviously there's a recognition that the analysis needs to be done. Is there anything proposed?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

The indicators project is one part of that, and the comparative analysis is the other part. Once we bring that kind of information within our processes, we will then determine.... We'll look at some options in terms of the next steps in refinement of the practice of GBA.

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

We just passed a motion in this committee in regard to being proactive in terms of budget-making, to look at the pre-budget process in regard to whether GBA is being considered, and then to analyze it in the post-budget period. Is it possible for the committee to have GBA training? I know there are several levels. It would seem to me that I would feel far more comfortable if I had a sense of what this amorphous thing is--something more concrete.