Status of Women Committee on April 8th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We're continuing with our study of gender budgeting. We have with us from Imagine Canada, Madam Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz, president and chief executive officer. We also have Ms. Dorienne Rowan-Campbell, who is an independent development consultant and a gender consultant. On video conference, from Laval University, we have Madame Louise Langevin, professor of law.

Madame Langevin, would you like to start first? It's a 10-minute presentation, and then we'll do questions and answers after all the panellists have finished.

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Imagine Canada]

Madam Chair, the three of us suggested that I would start since I am chair of the group, if you don't mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Sure, that's no problem.

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

Then my two colleagues will comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That's absolutely fine with us.

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

Good morning, honourable members. Thank you for inviting us to present to you.

I am here in the capacity of having been chair of an expert panel on accountability mechanisms for gender equality. We want to thank you. Ms. Dorienne Rowan-Campbell and Louise Langevin, who is on the screen, were members of the expert panel with me in the fall of 2005.

We've been reading with interest the proceedings on gender budgeting. I thought that before we answered your questions and had a discussion with you, it would be worthwhile to explain the work we did and put our work into the context of what you've been doing recently.

First of all, I'd like to make clear to the committee that I am not an expert on gender budgets. My colleague Dorienne has had more experience with them and can perhaps answer specific questions about gender budgets.

I was asked in 2005 by the minister then responsible for the status of women to chair an expert panel on accountability mechanisms for gender equality. Our mandate was to study accountability and provide advice on strengthening gender equality in Canada, taking into account the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, relevant jurisprudence in other countries, as well as the April 2005 report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, titled “Gender-based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”.

Here is our report, which I believe has been made available to this committee. There are a few points I'd like to make about the report that are relevant to your current discussions.

First, the subject of gender budgeting was not a focus of our study; rather, we saw gender budgeting as one form of accountability mechanism that was part of a broader system whereby a government in power could achieve its policy goals. We felt that the broader system was also extremely important and needed to put things like gender budgeting into context.

Gender budgeting, like other gender-based analyses, is only a tool and not the final outcome. The key assumption in our report was that any form of accountability mechanism can only be effective within an environment that starts with a political will to achieve certain substantive outcomes. And it's the party in power that decides what those substantive outcomes should be.

Second, we recommended that the overall desired high-level outcome should be substantive equality, which we defined on page 13 of our report as women having “the conditions for realizing their full human rights and potential to contribute to national political, economic, social and cultural development, and to benefit from the results”.

Third, we took a two-pronged approach to our recommendations. Looking at accountability mechanisms inside government in 2005, we felt that a good starting point would be to address existing government policy and administrative tools. We also saw legislation regarding gender-based analysis as a potential second step, but we recognized, as you well know, that legislation was a longer process and we felt that things needed to be done right away. However, we explored the nature of a legislative solution at a very high level and made some suggestions in our report.

In looking at policy and administrative measures, on which we urged immediate action, we gave examples of key instruments that could be used to signal the government's priorities and outcomes it wished to achieve. For example, we recognize that there are key instruments of government, such as the Speech from the Throne--part of an overall policy-setting system--that articulate how a government in power will specifically choose to tackle issues related to substantive equality.

Another significant instrument in any government policy-making process is the federal budget. It was for this reason that we recommended that the Department of Finance set an example by undertaking gender-based analysis on a least one part of the 2006 budget. Based on our conversations with Department of Finance officials at the time, we felt that introducing such analysis would require changes in attitudes inside the department, the learning of new competencies--analysts inside the department would have to be trained--and alterations to work methods. For those reasons we suggested a relatively go-slow approach, and that they start with only one part of the budget at the time.

We've since been told by the staff at the Status of Women office that in fact there has been an attempt to introduce gender-based analysis more broadly, and I'm sure you've heard from the Department of Finance.

Finally—and I'll ask my colleague Dorienne to comment more on this—we also emphasize not only the importance of work going on inside government, but the importance of reaching out to stakeholders so that citizens are engaged and participating in the solutions.

I'll invite Dorienne and Louise to make any opening comments they wish to make, and then we look forward to answering your questions.

Dorienne.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell, Independent Development Consultant and Gender Consultant, As an Individual]

Honourable members, thank you for your invitation. It's a real privilege to be here, as it was to be a member of the expert group.

With that privilege goes a lot of responsibility, so I felt very responsible to try to keep in touch with what has been going on. It has been very heartening to see that some of our recommendations are indeed being acted on. We can't say that we did it, but we hope we were contributors to the process, part of the partnership of change.

I thought that this morning I would concentrate a little more on gender budgets and reiterate some of what we said in our annex H of this report, and perhaps expand a little on it. When I expand a little on it, I'm expanding from my personal experience, not from the work that we did in the expert group.

I had been, many years ago, Canada's director for setting up the women in development program, now the gender program, at the Commonwealth Secretariat, and I took a lot of the initial steps that have led us to gender budgeting, particularly in Commonwealth countries, so I'll try to share a little bit of that. When I answer questions, it will be from that perspective. As well, as a consultant, I have worked in countries where we've been trying to do gender budgeting.

First of all, this is just a reminder that even though you've been talking to many groups that talk about women's budgets, what we recommended was not a women's budget that was separate from a men's budget, but a budget that was analyzed in a way that allowed people to identify the potential impact of any measure on both men and women and the equality of men and women. If we remember that gender is not really a shielded way of saying women and men, it's a comparative analytic tool. It's relational. What we want to look at is what happens to men, what happens to women, and within that, what happens to old men and young men and old women and young women and little girls and little boys. It's a tool for identifying what happens to people and where you might be able to introduce change. So when you speak to the groups that talk about women's budgeting, I think in Canada we're doing something a little different.

Also, as Georgina has said, we felt that the Speech from the Throne and the budget exercise annually were two of the most important central policy planks in the way we govern ourselves, in the way we allocate resources, so we wanted to make certain the tracking of those resources was adequate. What we're seeing now is that gender-based budgeting is really being used as a tool to lift the blinkers from people's eyes so they can understand that tracking, so that the gender-based analysis is a tool for gender budgeting. We don't have to introduce a whole new system. The system's already there; it's just a case of anchoring it very specifically.

So I think we've actually made quite a few very good steps, and I congratulate you on the work you've been doing to keep the flame alive, and also on the very hard work that Status of Women is doing with gender-based budgeting and serving the departments in that way.

The second point I wanted to make relates to gender-based analysis. We have made a comment saying that technical knowledge is so important. I was very interested to see Treasury Board come to you and say, “Well, we now have a Treasury Board boot camp where we put people through this”, and this is exactly what we were talking about.

Gender analysis, gender-based analysis, is not something that comes from the moon. It's not rocket science, but it does need to be grounded in some technical competence. It looks as though there is, anchored within our government systems, at least an attempt to try to gain that technical competence.

One of the things we talked about, which you will have seen emerging from your discussions with a variety of players on gender budgeting around the world, is that, for instance, the Scottish women's group and the groups in San Francisco and in a number of other areas are non-governmental organizations. We had made a very strong recommendation about supporting the voluntary sector and about the need for creating a partnership with civil society, because it's vital for monitoring and it's vital for accountability. In the end, the accountability of any government is to the people, and civil society is the people.

It's very important that this partnership be enhanced and that organizations be enabled to make the kind of insightful--critical sometimes, but usually helpful--comments about the direction. The end-user of services and goods and anything else you want to deliver in the budget should be able to feed back whether or not it's actually reaching.... Have we done a good job? Have we not done a good job? I think that would be very important.

If you're going to do that, research is very important. I noticed when I looked at the Status of Women budget that a lot of their research capacity has been cut. There seems to have been a decrease in the amount of research funds that are available--and I think probably not just from Status of Women--to bring civil society evidence-based data back to the table, back to you so that you can reflect on it. That gap may give problems in terms of ultimate accountability. I think it's something that needs to be looked at.

I know that Status of Women had been doing some research on gender equality indicators, and I would urge that this is very important. You need those indicators to set up a ranking system so that you know what you're doing. You may know where you want to go, but it gives you an idea of where the potential impact needs to be. Those indicators will also help you identify whether you're there. I would urge a lot of support for the creation, with various departments, of the relevant gender equality indicators, depending on what end policy requires those to be.

Although we can see that the central agencies--Treasury Board, Finance, and the Privy Council--have begun to take on board some of the concerns and recommendations we made, there is one area that's still very important, and globally it's still the central issue, and that is political will. In terms of accountability, somewhere in the PMO there needs to be a responsive mechanism, something that we feel comes out saying, “This is what's important, and we want to make sure all of you recognize that this is important.” We notice that we haven't seen anything in the Speech from the Throne that says gender equality is important.

Political support, although it's there within the bureaucracy and it's there systemically, I think also needs to be signalled from the highest levels, and I really haven't seen that yet. It's one of the issues that are being discussed globally. The world is asking how we entrap political will. It's all very well for us to effect the systems to bring about change, but that has to be partnered at the top.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Campbell, could you wrap up, because we have other witnesses coming at 10 o'clock?

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

Yes, that's it. I'm finished right now. Those were the key areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You're done? Okay.

Ms. Langevin, you have 10 minutes.

[Professor Louise Langevin, Professor of Law, Laval University]

I'll make my presentation in French. I think it will be easier for me and faster.

I wish to thank members of your committee for this opportunity to testify before you today. I wish to say that your work is very important for the status of women in Canada. Canada is a role model on the subject of the status of women in the world.

I have read part of the testimony you heard recently on gender-based budgets. It appears to me that little has changed since November 2005, when I, along with two of my colleagues, spoke to you about GBAs, gender-based analyses. Status of Women Canada, since last July, has expressed openness to the issue of GBAs. I am delighted about this. I am not an expert on gender-based budgets, although I understand what purpose they serve and how we establish them.

I wish to remind members of the committee of what everyone already knows. Since 1982, Canada has been a signatory of the CEDAW, convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. This country has signed other documents to protect fundamental rights. Canada entrenched the Charter of Rights in its Constitution. Among protected fundamental rights are equality rights, and equality between men and women. It is certainly a fundamental value within Canadian society. The Canadian government, therefore, has made legal commitments with respect to equality for all Canadians.

By systematically refusing to undertake gender-based analysis and adopting gender-based budgets, the Canadian government is breaking its own commitments. Since 1978, Canada has been trying to incorporate GBAs, which is a form of management. Since the 1995 World Conference on Women held in Beijing, Canada has made firm commitments. However, after 13 years, results are late in coming. This is why in our 2005 report, we recommended legislation obliging departments and agencies to adopt GBAs, and set specific targets.

In closing, I wish to mention that Laval University will host the international women of the Francophonie conference next September. The theme is funding women's equality within francophone countries. It is rather paradoxical that women from the countries of the Francophonie will be meeting in Quebec City in September to talk about GBAs, gender-based budgets, and funding mechanisms involving the status of women in Canada; our country is seen as a model, and yet we are moving backwards. It is troubling to see that Canada is regressing in this area. That is exactly why your work is so important at this point in time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci, Madame.

In view of the time, I'd like to ask the committee members if we could do two rounds of five minutes, if you are agreeable. Otherwise we'll do one round of seven minutes.

Is there agreement on two rounds of five minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. Ms. Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

I have a lot of questions, but I want to focus in on a couple of things, because my understanding to some degree is that when Madam Frulla set up the task force it was partly to look also at the issue of legislation, if I'm not mistaken--or maybe I misunderstood. I want to go to the heart of it only because I have a whole lot of questions here.

On legislation as an oversight, we have discussed this here. We've had some witnesses, but we really haven't had a proper discussion. My personal feeling has been for some time that government needs to move toward legislation to ensure that all of the pieces that everybody is talking about and the things that are happening actually happen, and there was an actual oversight of some kind that continued. This committee can try to do that, but it really wouldn't be consistent. And it would also give this committee some mandate.

Could Madam Rowan-Campbell and Madam Langevin--maybe Madam Langevin first, as she mentioned it--tell me exactly what this piece of legislation would look like and whether or not it is in fact needed, given the state we are in at the moment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Minna, would you like to finish all your questions; otherwise you won't have time.

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

I'm sorry. Let's deal with this one; it's an important one.

[Louise Langevin]

Do you want an answer right away?

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

Yes, please.

[Louise Langevin]

Thank you for your question.

GBA has been in the picture at the federal level for many, many years. We've been talking a lot about it, but there's no political will. From my point of view, and I think it was also the point of view of our committee, of our group of experts, there has to be a law that forces the federal government to systematically do GBA. Just like in other laws, there is an obligation to report annually from, let's say, an environmental point of view or the law on multiculturalism. There are some laws where there is an obligation to report annually on what has been done and what has not been done.

What we're talking about here is forcing the government to apply GBA and to do annual reports and show the progress, if there is any. I think it's the only way to do it, because it won't be done and there won't be enough financial resources put.... I think right now only the immigration department is forced to do it in its law. So I think there should be a law that forces all federal agencies and departments to apply GBA.

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

Perhaps I could add to the comment Louise was making.

We did, Ms. Minna, in our report give some ideas about what that legislation might look like, on page 30 following. I think the key about legislation is that it shifts the oversight from the executive branch, which is looking after itself, to Parliament. In our annexes we indicated the other areas where there is parliamentary oversight, for example--official languages or multiculturalism. I think it's up to members of Parliament, though, to decide how effective that oversight is.

For the system, it adds another level of oversight, but the advantage of it, of course, is that it survives all governments once there's a law in place. I think this committee has to consider whether it wants that extra level of oversight, which perhaps might then become part of its role--and that was really the frame that we were looking at it in. We also felt, because we know that legislation takes time and it has to be drafted, that it is important not to wait. Sometimes we're going to pass a law and it can become an excuse for not doing anything, so we thought it has to be a two-pronged approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

A 30-second question for a 30-second answer.

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

Maybe I'll let Madam Rowan-Campbell answer, since she wanted to.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

Well, I noticed that in the responses you had from witnesses, one of the things you asked--I think it was the Treasury Board, or it might have been the Privy Council--was this. Treasury Board said they were challenging departments when they didn't do their submissions with agenda perspectives, when they didn't use GBA, but you didn't know which departments. In our system the cloak of cabinet confidentiality can be thrown very wide, so sometimes there is no transparency in terms of what is happening with which department and whether people really are adhering to the rules. That's another reason that another level of oversight can be very, very valuable.

At the moment the role for Status of Women is a bit grey. You can't be a petitioner, the judge, the jury, and the executioner, and in many ways we're asking Status of Women to do all that. Again, a legislative framework would really help to clarify a lot of the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much to all of you.

We now go to Madame Deschamps.

Vous disposez de cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.