Status of Women Committee on Nov. 19th, 2007

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

Just a very quick question, thank you, Madam Chair, to, if I might, Madam Minna. Would it be your intent, then, that the committee would prioritize the different areas that we'd look at?

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

I think what we would do is take an overall look at an issue and what it means, first of all, and get some input. Then we might decide to do an analysis on a few areas and see if gender budgeting were applied, how the area of expenses might actually have come out had it been done properly.

I give the example of housing or the other example of tax expenditures, which are a huge chunk of the government's budget. I suspect that when we look very closely and apply the gender budgeting analysis to tax expenditures, that they're not having the impact that I think government and members of Parliament intended them to have on women and children.

I just think that we should be able to do some of that work. It's not being done anywhere, and it needs to be done, at least so that we can use it and highlight the importance.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair do we have at least three years for this study? I agree that it is very important. In fact, it's essential.

Just this weekend, there was a report indicating that Canadian women were less likely than men to be treated at hospital emergency rooms. That is one more sign of poor budgeting, where funds are invested in men rather than in women.

These are very important issues. But if we do this study, we will have to put a real emphasis on all aspects, including education, health and social housing. We are embarking on a very wide-ranging study, Madam Chair, but I'm happy we are doing it. If we decide to go ahead, we will put everything else aside, tackle this issue and achieve something. But we will need to have the tools and the resources to do the job properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I agree with you, and I heard Ms. Minna say that we'll have to be specific.

All governments spend money on social programs. We talk about the return on investment. When you put money in, is it having the impact it is supposed to have? If it is not having the impact.... In Canada we have poverty, child poverty. We can understand working-income poverty, but there is children poverty, and families are living in poverty. How does that happen in a rich country like ours where we have a surplus of $13.5 billion?

So I think it is important that we look at gender budgeting—male-female—and specific areas of the social justice agenda, because that's where we have invested our money. We look at social justice and say, “this is what we have invested”. Ms. Minna gave an example of $25 billion in tax credits. As a government, as responsible MPs, how do we ensure that all the investment we make, either now or in the future, is to the maximum benefit of those we are trying to advance? Other countries have been very good at gender-based budgeting--I think Sweden is one of them--and they have had good success in trying to alleviate poverty.

We all think we need to find an answer to why we are putting money into this black hole and it's not doing anything. We could look at it but restrict the study. We can't be everything to everyone because that will not work. So if you agree, choose three priorities--call it your social justice agenda and gender budgeting--and see where we can go. Then we can ask the analysts to come up with some suggestions.

Are we in agreement with doing gender budgeting in the first round? It does affect the economic security of women and the areas where trafficking can be applied. But we have to be careful. We can say we are trying to alleviate poverty and illiteracy. As a federal government we have invested so much money through our social transfer payments, and it doesn't seem to be having an impact.

I need consensus here.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Clerk]

So that will be our priority. The researchers are going to draft something. Then we'll discuss it and you'll send me witnesses based on what you decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

The analyst says she has a nearly completed study on gender budgeting. We could take a look at it and perhaps choose which specific area we want to study. If the government's budget is $200 billion, a quarter of that is going toward social transfer programs, and we are not having the impact we want, there is something wrong.

Perhaps we can be the trailblazers for any government that wants to do budgeting and have the right impact.

So what else would you like?

Yes, Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would add to the point you were going to make. On this gender budgeting issue, I would be interested to have some idea, to Madame Demers's point, as to how big, what the scope of it is going to be. I would have some concerns that we could get it done within a reasonable time limit, considering, as we've said, we're under some time constraints here. We don't know how long this session is going to go, obviously, but it might behoove us to look at areas of study that can be done in smaller sections, perhaps.

I was going to suggest that in looking at some of the other issues that might be able to be done in a smaller timeframe is the work I think Madame Demers put on her list, I don't know that it was specifically on ours, but it certainly did show up in the group of topics we discussed last June, and that was item G, the Sisters in Spirit program. It crossed into two areas of study we had last year, but it mostly flowed out of our discussions around the changes at Status of Women Canada. Sisters in Spirit is part of that women's program, or it's part of that funding envelope the women's program has. We certainly learned in our studies on the economic security of women that certain segments of women in Canadian society were more adversely affected. Certainly, aboriginal women were part of that. So it would be like drilling down a little further to say what the experience is there. Is that program meeting their needs? We're coming up to a budgetary cycle. There's a specific area we can hone down and get a little bit more in-depth discussion around that specific group with the aim, I hope, of making a difference there.

That was a suggestion, in the course of looking at these priorities, I would certainly support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Committee members, that would be the second suggestion we would have.

Here is how we can assist the analyst in moving forward. We have said we would choose E, which is very, very specific, and the analyst is going to send us her report so that we can then.... It's a short study, and then we can figure out where we want to focus. We can also simultaneously take a look at the Sisters in Spirit program.

Yes, Ms. Neville.

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

Just to comment on the Sisters in Spirit program, it's an important program, but it's not by any means a small study. There are all kinds of ramifications in Sisters in Spirit, whether it's social issues, enforcement issues, protection issues. It's a significant, complex study--I don't want to say huge--and I don't think we should delude ourselves that it's quick and dirty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Fair enough. We have taken two mammoth tasks. I would suggest that if we could submit to the clerks a list of witnesses we would like--

[The Clerk]

Even before you've decided on your focus, or the gender--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

No, I'm just talking about the Sisters in Spirit. Then we would be able to figure out.... What I'm trying to suggest is, if we could have a list of witnesses that could potentially be called, for item G, Sisters in Spirit--there is a reason I'm making this suggestion--so we can know how wide the scope is, because if we're looking at gender budgeting we will know the scope once we receive the study from the analyst. We can juggle two balls at the same time and see where we want to go.

No? You're not in agreement? Fair enough. No problem.

Yes, Madame Boucher.

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

Everyone seems to agree on gender budgeting. In fact, like Ms. Minna said, we will have to do a lot of research.

However, like Mr. Stanton said, we might be able to do something less intensive in the meantime, so that we have all the tools we need to do the research.

Some committee members have tabled motions. We might look at them to see if there are less comprehensive issues we could work on before the holiday period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

What's less exhaustive? Has anybody come up with a list that is less exhaustive?

Yes, Ms. Neville.

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

I don't understand what you mean by less exhaustive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

In terms of the time constraints we have.

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

Why are we being governed by time constraints? Why don't we choose the topic we want to do and then develop a plan of action for the topic, rather than trying to fit in a little something? Prioritize, develop a plan of action. If it's five weeks, ten weeks, whatever, you know what you're dealing with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Fair enough.

Ms. Mathyssen, you had your hand up.

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

I would concur with my colleague. I think that's wise.

[The Clerk]

Once we get closer to the end, then we choose another one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

So if I've heard right, consensus was around gender budgeting. Is there a second topic we would like to at least put in our plan?

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

Not at this point.