Status of Women Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Louise Langevin]

Yes, I do have a response.

You're talking about the budget. There was a statement on gender equality in the budget. I think one of your witnesses said it was 52 words out of 400 pages. So if there is political will, from my point of view, I'm trying to look very hard at where the political will is.

I could put on the table many examples that would show there is not a lot of political will to improve women's condition in Canada, but I'm not sure this is the place to start arguing on this. You just have to go outside Parliament and ask women's groups if they think this government has political will to achieve women's equality, and you will have the answer.

I think we all know that there has been a setback, and Canada is not what it used to be. Canada is using its international reputation, but we know from the inside that it's not what it used to be. And I think that—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you for that. I have a short time span. I don't mean to cut you off.

[Louise Langevin]

Yes, I'm sorry.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

And I appreciate that there is a mixture of opinions on this.

But in point of fact, we have been hearing that there has been progress made in making advances by our own department, Status of Women Canada, who point to some successes in continuing to enshrine this culture of analysis within the department.

It gets me to the final point, and I'd ask our other two witnesses to perhaps comment briefly on this, if they could. Is the sense that while we are engaging in our decision-making processes, the outcomes of those don't necessarily...? I mean, commentators are saying, well, we don't think that the outcomes of those decisions are the way we would like them to be, so therefore the gender-based analysis is not working.

So somehow we have to close this gap between the instruments, the infrastructure, being in place, but also the ability to measure that on the back side to point to the fact that they are in fact working. We have to somehow close this gap. How do we do that?

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

Mr. Stanton, there's no question that there has been progress made in introducing analysis. And I would also suggest that some of the work that Status of Women Canada has begun doing with respect to introducing gender equality indicators and trying to get an evidence base for what is happening to women in Canada has also been good progress.

I think you've made a very important distinction between the mechanics of getting there, where I think there has been significant progress, and the outcome to be achieved. I would personally say that it is up to each government to say what outcomes it believes are important for Canadians.

We, as a committee, looked at the evidence of the position of many women in Canada and concluded, for example, that notwithstanding much of the progress that has been made by many women, there are still significant issues affecting aboriginal women, who face higher rates of poverty; there is a much higher risk of women leading lone-parent families; there are specific issues faced by immigrant women, and I think there is an attempt to build an evidence base around that.

Whether a government in power chooses to address those issues or believe it's within its mandate is clearly very much up to that government. And I would differentiate very much between the mechanics of doing the analysis generating the indicators and then a government deciding what the issues are that those indicators are generating, and whether that government wishes to address them.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

And being mindful of the time, Madame Demers, trois minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Good morning.

I will ask my questions right away.

As experts, you seem to be in communication with Status of Women Canada. Have you been asked to evaluate the training tools developed by Status of Women Canada? Have you been called on to monitor the training given in order to evaluate it?

There are no longer any champions at Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office. Those two agencies have appeared before us and they told us that this was not really important, since it was being done anyway. At the Privy Council Office, the champion is transferred every three months. According to you, that person comes from within the department.

In order to be effective, where should the champions come from and how long should their turn be?

Madam Steinsky-Schwartz, is Imagine Canada actually a foundation?

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

It is a charitable organization.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

We know that in order to have an impact women should hold at least 30% of the seats in Parliament. Have you ever thought about setting up or helping to set up a foundation for women who want to get into politics, like the one that exists in the United States?

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

You have asked a number of questions. I will start, and my colleagues may have something to add as well.

We have not evaluated the tools, nor what is being done at this point. We have received some briefings, and our mandate ended with the submission of the report. We are counting on Status of Women Canada to continue the work.

You want to know if there is a foundation for women.

There is actually an organization--and you're probably familiar with it--that exists to promote and support women who wish to run for Parliament. There is also a group called the Canadian Women's Foundation, which is not focused on women running for office; it is more focused on funding grassroots organizations that are attempting to address significant social issues faced by women in their communities. Those are two organizations that Imagine Canada, as an umbrella organization, would have interaction with.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

What about the champions?

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

With respect to the champions,

my view is that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office both have an important role to play. The degree to which people are assigned to those positions and stay for a while obviously is a sign of the priority the issue is being given.

I really can't comment substantively, because I don't know what is happening today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Mathyssen, a very short question, please.

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

Recommendation two of your report says to let the Minister of Finance set the example. You recommended that Finance Canada apply gender-based analysis to new tax measures in the 2006 and 2007 budget. We have that, and I can tell you it is very disappointing.

Do you believe at this point in time that the Department of Finance has the capacity to perform a fully informed gender-based analysis of the budget, and have you had a look at budget 2008 in that regard?

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

I will speak for myself. I have not had a look at 2008 from that perspective.

When we looked at this in 2005, one of our concerns, first of all, was the sense that training of existing analysts was needed. Secondly, our sense, also, was that if this was to be treated as a priority, there would need to be more resources put to it, not just in the Ministry of Finance but in other departments. The whole policy function has been significantly cut back in many government departments, and if gender-based analysis were to be done deeply, training would be required, but also additional resources would have to be devoted to it.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

I did ask a question as to whether additional resources had been committed for the budgeting exercise, and I gathered that there had not been. I take my hat off to them for trying to do something, but I would want to see much, much more, and much more in depth.

For instance, with the $5,000 tax credit for lower incomes, from the way it's presented I found it very difficult to see what indicators they would use to say this is going to benefit women. Yes, women have lower incomes than men, but do they have the funds to put into savings? Where do we get that information?

Our statement was that starting gender-based analysis is going to throw out more questions than answers. This is one question that maybe we have to follow in the next round to see what it has really meant. We made an assumption that it would benefit women. Has it really? Have we seen the savings in women's names being used? That's something you can keep your finger on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Steinsky-Schwartz, Madam Langevin, and Madam Rowan-Campbell, for your presentations. Your report has been exhaustive, and for the questions we asked, you have directed us to which pages you have responses on. We will take a critical look at it.

I know that the next round of witnesses is here, but I'd like to give you each a minute to wrap up if you have missed out on anything you needed to say.

Oui, Madame Langevin.

[Louise Langevin]

If we really had gender-based budgeting in Canada, we might have a high-quality, affordable national day care program, which is not the case right now. If efforts toward gender-based budgeting are being made, we are not yet seeing any results.

That is all I wanted to add. Thank you.

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

I would just like to urge the committee on two points. One is that gender budgeting is really part of an overall system, so one should not look at gender budgeting in isolation. In that context, I think the committee has a judgment to make on whether it wishes to move the oversight of these issues affecting gender and gender equality to Parliament or whether it wishes to leave it with the executive branch. That, I think, is where the issue of legislation comes in.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

I think there is one issue. When we did our report, there was also supposed to be some companion work done on the role and functions of Status of Women of Canada. Now, it's been in existence a long time. It's being asked to do...in the Caribbean, we say it's given a basket to carry water. As I said, it cannot be all things to all people.

I think now is a moment to have a very focused look at what its roles and functions are. It's doing a job at the moment providing technical backup to departments and to agencies. What else should it be doing? How should it be relating to all the women out there in Canada who have a wide and varying expectation of what it should do? I think it's a moment to redefine, to rethink, to clarify, and it's a wonderful opportunity to do that in this context. I hope you'll have time to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you so much.

We will just give a few minutes for the technical stuff to be managed and for the next round of witnesses to come in. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Committee members, could you please take your seats? We are commencing our meeting.

We have with us, from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Ms. Julie Fontaine, senior analyst on gender-based analysis; Madam Allison Little Fortin, director of corporate planning and reporting; Mr. Peter Oberle, director general of corporate affairs; and Mr. Jeff Daly, manager of program development and analysis.

I understand that you have a presentation. Do each of you have a presentation? It is one presentation.

Mr. Oberle, could you start the presentation? Then we will have questions and answers.

Thank you.

[Peter Oberle, Director General, Corporate Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada]

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members. I want to thank you, on behalf of my colleagues, for the opportunity to be here today.

In 2003, responsibility for gender-based analysis was centralized in the gender-based analysis unit within the Citizenship and Immigration strategic policy branch. In 2005, the gender-based analysis function was transferred to my branch, corporate affairs, which is now situated in the corporate services sector of Citizenship and Immigration. This provided an opportunity to strengthen and integrate gender-based analysis into departmental planning and reporting processes that my branch is also responsible for coordinating.

At Citizenship and Immigration, gender-based analysis is understood to take account of diversity and how the variables of age, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and culture, among others, intersect with gender. This approach broadens and deepens the analysis, the policy, and the program impacts.

Across Citizenship and Immigration, gender-based analysis is carried out, by and large, at the branch level, where most policy and program work occurs. To support the mainstreaming of gender-based analysis, my branch provides advisory services. We develop tools, deliver training, facilitate information sharing, develop guides, and assist branches in formulating their branch plans. We also coordinate input into the annual immigration report to Parliament.

Accordingly, Allison, Julie, and I are not the policy experts on immigration. Rather, we support the experts, experts like Jeff Daly, who represents policy on the refugee side.

We work to increase Citizenship and Immigration's capacity to integrate gender-based analysis into its work based on the following four principles of Citizenship and Immigration's five-year strategic framework. Principle one is that policy, legislation, programs, and services are consistent with gender-equality objectives. Principle two is that gender-based analysis is an integral aspect of policy and legislative analysis, program development, and service delivery. Principle three is that the quality of advice is enhanced when gender implications are considered. And the fourth principle is that progress requires innovation--innovation in training and innovation in data collection and analysis.

Today I want to give you a quick update on some of the progress we've made at Citizenship and Immigration on strengthening our capacity and performance on gender-based analysis. In so doing, I'll do my best to also address the points I understand you wish to examine: the current legislative framework and the reporting structure for gender-based analysis at Citizenship and Immigration, the process that led to the adoption of a legislative model, and how this model impacts on the implementation of gender-based analysis at Citizenship and Immigration.

Back in 2005, the gender-based analysis unit worked with partners across Citizenship and Immigration to develop our 2005-2010 strategic framework. That framework lays out a path for filling the requirement to report to Parliament. The framework is about progressively building capacity in CIC to do gender-based analysis. It's also about facilitating the integration of gender-based analysis into CIC's work so that policies, programs, and legislation better reflect commitments on progress towards equality between men and women.

Broadly, we accomplish this in two ways. One is the GBA capacity-building initiative I'd spoken to earlier, which my branch is responsible for. Second is the branches themselves developing their plans based on the analysis of the issues.

Since publishing that framework, we've done a few things. We've developed and then improved a comprehensive and interactive two-day training programming. Other departments continue to come to us and express their interest in the program we've developed. This committee hasn't seen that program. We'd be happy to share it. It's worth taking a look at.

We've delivered that training to more than 200 employees. We've developed and then improved a template to facilitate branch planning, and we've taken the first steps to integrate planning around gender-based analysis into the broader corporate planning.

We have branch plans in place for integration, immigration, Metropolis branch, refugees, risk litigation, and strategic policy. In addition, we have a plan in place for our citizenship program that falls outside the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which I think is a testament to the commitment of the department to gender-based analysis.

We have an active departmental working group that shares lessons and best practices, that tackles common and horizontal issues, that tests new ideas with each other, and shares with each other some of the developments going on more broadly in government.

We've completed a survey of managers that tells us how to improve. For example, we've learned from the survey that we need a more a tailored workshop for more senior managers to better equip them to lead their teams in the implementation of gender-based analysis.

You've heard from other officials from CIC in previous appearances before the standing committee, and you've seen in our annual immigration report the kinds of tangible results we've achieved. This takes me to the questions you've posed about what impacts our legislation around GBA has had at CIC. As you know, we're the only federal department required by law to report to Parliament on the gender impacts of our policies and programs.

In my mind, there's no question that the progress CIC has made in strengthening its capacity and performance in gender-based analysis is attributable in large measure to the 2002 legislative requirement in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It was the impetus for the creation of our original gender-based analysis unit in the development of our five-year strategic framework. It brings sustainability to our work, because there's an annual ongoing requirement to report.

The opportunity to report to Parliament that's built into legislation brings a heightened sense of relevance and commitment to the file. It helps us convey a sense of importance and priority to our colleagues and it challenges us, perhaps most importantly, to take the time to think through what it takes to report positive results. In short, the impact has been significant, and it's been positive.

But in saying that, I would point out that the legislative requirement itself is quite simple. It simply states that the annual report on immigration shall include a description of the gender-based analysis impact of the act. That's the legislative requirement. So I wouldn't characterize that requirement as a framework.

I say that because we have a framework, and none of the activities that are laid out in our framework that I'd spoken to earlier, things like training and getting branch plans in place, are part of the legislation. So I would suggest, therefore, that while the legislative requirement was certainly an important foundation, a key driver, it alone wasn't sufficient to account for the progress that we've made at CIC.

Without the thought-through strategic framework my predecessors developed, without the support of the Status of Women, without the leadership and commitment and innovation I've seen at Citizenship and Immigration Canada in my short time there, I don't think we would have seen the same kind of progress. Without doubt, I would suggest that our progress is also attributable to the fact that gender considerations are naturally an integral part of the work of CIC.

We naturally think about gender, and it's a regular consideration when examining our specific policy proposals, from family reunification to preventing vulnerable foreign workers from being exploited or abused to live-in caregivers. Gender considerations are paramount and something we take very seriously.

Under the language instruction for newcomers to Canada program, for example, we provide child-minding services to ensure that language training is accessible to all eligible clients. Child-minding is aimed at removing the barriers often experienced by immigrant women and caregivers.

Finally, I want to suggest that while legislation certainly had a catalytic effect for us, I'm not sure it's the only means to have achieved that effect for Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps the same results could have been achieved through other means--a requirement, for example, to report in the main estimates, to report on plans and priorities in the departmental performance report. We do that anyway, but that could have been one approach.

A Treasury Board policy might have worked equally well for us. Something in the management accountability framework, where Treasury Board rates departments each year, might have worked equally well for us. We produce a corporate plan each year and we're required to do that. Perhaps a requirement to build gender-based analysis into our corporate plan would have worked equally well.

These are just some of the possibilities I believe this committee has considered. I saw many of those in the April 2005 report called “Building Blocks for Success”.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

We'll now start with the first round of questions.

Ms. Minna, for seven minutes.