Status of Women Committee on Nov. 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have the right ministers and that's fine. We're in agreement that those are the ministers we want, whenever they are available.

In the meantime, let us look at the list that has been given to us by the analyst. I also looked at all the motions that were given in, and I think we tend to have a very strong commitment to the economic security of women. With all your motions, if I read through the wording, and although we have done a study on the economic security of women, there is this issue around gender budgeting, the integration of migrant workers, the decision making, the small and medium-sized enterprises, and how we can look at the policies of other countries that have made progress on gender and equality issues. The real concern of our committee seems to be around economic security via gender-based budgeting. Am I misreading the committee? No?

Yes, Ms. Minna.

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

Madam Chair, I think that from both the list you are reading from and some of the motions that were presented by Ms. Mathyssen and also by Madame Demers, there are some similarities.

Madame Demers has “That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women examine the policies of other countries that have made progress on gender and equality issues”. So gender-based analysis is part of that.

And then we also had, in our list, gender budgeting, which has also come up as a motion from Madam Mathyssen.

We've already done a study on women's economic security. Now, the gender analysis and budgeting are really the core of how government then prepares all that. So it would seem to me that we take the gender budgeting from our list, and take number two from Madame Demers--Madam Mathyssen's motion is pretty much the same, so make that a priority area of first study. And let's word it in--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

But Ms. Minna, if you go to D and E, it would be gender-based analysis in government departments and--

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

I'm taking D and E and saying let's do it, and that would include both motions automatically--number two from Madam Mathyssen and number two, actually, from Madame Demers. It pretty much encompasses both those two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Is the committee in agreement with taking gender-based analysis and gender-based budgeting...?

Ms. Boucher, would you like to speak?

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

Point C, titled “Gender and Trade” seems important to me. That might be a good subject. Budgeting is mentioned, along with several other issues, including promoting gender trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Boucher, if we want to do gender-based analysis and gender-based budgeting and look at Canada, if you do gender and international trade, gender and trade could also overlap onto human trafficking, so you could open up too many issues.

If we start with at least gender-based analysis in government departments, we could call every department that is involved in gender-based analysis and it could be international trade or industry. It could be anything. So let's see what we want to do and do a detailed discussion.

Ms. Minna, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Davidson, and Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I was just going to say, Madam Chair, that C, the trade part, while I understand it's certainly an area to look at, I think it's very broad and very vague because it would have to be looking at trade negotiations, agreements, the WTO, and all kinds of other stuff that impact women and trade and entrepreneurs. It's not just encouraging women in Canada to be entrepreneurs. It's a much broader look at how trade negotiations and trade deals and trade agreements have an impact on women in the country. So that's a study unto itself, I would suggest.

I agree that we would take D, just a gender-based analysis of government departments and gender budgeting, and number two from Madame Demers, which is pretty much the same thing--she's talking about gender analysis--and make that the first study we deal with. Take those three and put them together.

Given the time that we have, given that Christmas is practically here, it's going to be a big enough chunk to bite off, to get it done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't really have too much concern in terms of the gender budgeting issue, because as Ms. Mathyssen has informed us in the past.... I forget where the conference was, but she brought us some interesting information from it.

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

Uganda.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Uganda, right.

I have only one question with regard to item D, the gender-based analysis. We did a couple of meetings on that in the last session, and I know that in the 38th Parliament this committee studied the issue at some length. I'm not saying it's not important, but I just wonder whether, in the overall scheme of things, it has the ability to really bring any immediacy or urgency to some of the issues in front of us. In other words, to go back again and hear how the departments are dealing with....

I have to tell you that as a somewhat informed observer, I got the impression, the very distinct impression, from the departments that the notions around accommodating gender considerations in decision-making were very much becoming part of the culture in terms of how programs roll out. That doesn't mean there still isn't some room for improvement, but how are we to weigh the time that we take at committee against how we can actually get specific results?

I know that this is a topic that can consume an awful lot of our time. Would it behoove us maybe to set that aside momentarily? Are there some other topics that we might want to look at pushing more to the front burner? There are some fine topics, and I think time is a consideration. We have Christmas coming up, and then we're into the new year. We likely only have the ability to get a comprehensive report on any one topic between now and, say, the end of March, given that we have other supplementaries and ministers reports.

So if we have one topic and can make one good impact here in terms of what we can do between now and March, let's pick a topic that can actually make a difference for women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Davidson.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have just a couple of questions.

First, do we envision in the timeframe hopefully getting one study done between now and Christmas? Was that your intent, Madam Chair? Because it's not very much time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We don't really have the time. We have things to do. But if, for example, supplementary estimates demands that we have ministers, the response from the government demands ministers, while we are working...because the clerk will be working crazily. If we have three weeks left, we probably will be in the middle of a study when the House breaks. Then we'll come back and continue.

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

So you envision us finishing it when we come back, after the break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

By March, yes.

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

Okay. That was the first part of my question. I have just a couple of other things.

It was good to get this document. It refreshed my memory on what we had talked about. I know that migrant workers were at the top of the list when we talked last time. They were very front and foremost in the area that we talked about that we should be studying in trying to do something. It was an area that would or could make a difference in women's lives.

The area of gender and trade is an interesting one, but I agree with Ms. Minna that definitely it is a big area. I don't think you really want to combine it too much with something else. I think it would deserve a tremendous amount of research on its own.

Gender-based analysis in government departments is extremely important, but I think we have done some of it. I don't know that we've done all of it, but we certainly have talked with some. I'm wondering how much more we're going to hear that is new.

It seems to me that when we talked about it in the last session, every department we talked to was already incorporating that. They were not, I would say, at the level that they were going to be finished at, but they were incorporating and continuing on. But I'm not sure; maybe it's the expectation of the committee to see how far they have gone and what their top level would be. I can't remember when we put this down.

Gender budgeting, same thing.

I thought the Sisters in Spirit program was another interesting one. I know that we spent a fair amount of time talking about that.

There are a lot of things in here, including a Status of Women Canada review and those types of things. I think those are very interesting ones as well.

I just can't see us spending too lengthy a time on the gender-based analysis or gender budgeting, because I think we do have a lot of that information already there. I think we'd be hearing the same people over and over again. We'd be hearing the same testimony, the same presentation. If we were going to look at it from the point of trying to focus on what the end result should be and could be, then that might be a little bit different take on what we've done with it before.

So I'd need some clarification, I think, before I could support that as the main thrust of where we're going for this session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Mathyssen, did you have your hand up?

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

Yes, I did. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say that I think that gender budgeting is key in terms of making substantive gains for women. We've heard bits of this, around the periphery, but I don't have a clear sense of what it entails, how it works, and I know that that was a key discussion among Commonwealth countries. I also know that the Government of Manitoba has begun that process.

I want to know more about how it works and its impact, because I think that it's long overdue. It would also provide us with an opportunity to bring in groups that could give us a sense from their external point of view, an assessment of not just gender budgeting but also an assessment of how GBA is working. I think there is a great deal of information out there that would shed light that we need to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Minna, then Ms. Neville.

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

I was just going to say that I understand that we did have some discussions with some of the ministers or some of the representatives here on gender-based analysis, but gender budgeting is much more profound than that. I think it's critical that we not only understand better how it's being done but also try to look to see what kind of outcomes we want. For instance, we did an income security for women report, which showed all kinds of gaps.

If you look at that whole report, really a lot of it is impacted by how government spends its money, how it decides to spend money, how it allocates the money. For instance, I'll give you the example of tax credits versus refundable tax credits or versus direct investments in programs. The impact each has on women and on programs is huge. I want to have some sort of in-depth discussion. Affordable housing--what does that mean? What about the whole area of housing, the whole area of, even to some degree, divorce laws and how they impact children?

What I'm saying is that gender budgeting is very complex and very big. We could maybe take two or three or four areas that we want to study in depth to see just how, when it is applied properly--and if we understand it and study it and from other countries and others--it impacts decisions or outcomes, so that we can make some real specific recommendations to governments on how these things need to be done.

Let me tell you, tax expenditures, which are usually the tax credit part, are worth in this country today.... Actually the last time I looked at them and was in 1994-1995, and they were about $25 billion. We've since added a lot of other tax credits, which are called tax expenditures, and they are rarely ever analyzed in this country. They're never evaluated to see whether in fact we get the bang for the buck that we intended, the value, the delivery, the impact, the social impact that were intended, and yet we're spending well over $25 billion on tax expenditures without having....

I'll wager that if you were to study just that alone, we'd find that women are disadvantaged in that system in which the government is spending huge money, thinking it's providing social services while it's really not impacting the way it thinks it is.

It's big. I would like to take a look at that. I think that if we don't do that, then we're actually missing the boat on the whole economic security side of it. One is a bookend of the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madam Neville, then Ms. Davidson.

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

What I was going to say has been said. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Davidson.