Status of Women Committee on April 8th, 2008

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Firstly I wish to thank you for all of your testimony this morning, you were highly informative. I do not have your expertise. I am simply a member of Parliament who is trying to advance the cause and status of women.

I quickly reviewed the report you produced and tabled in 2005. It is rather fortunate, but even now in 2008, the recommendations contained in your report have not been heeded. That is my impression.

Ms. Rowan-Campbell, you say that departments should support the volunteer sector. Perhaps I was not paying enough attention, but this is the first time a witness emphasized this point. How can this support enhance what departments are doing in terms of gender-based analysis?

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

I think the voluntary sector, the civil society sector, has a great deal to offer and perhaps is not being used as it might be. We have a number of civil society institutions that do research but are underfunded. We have a number of women's organizations that used to do certain amounts of research but now, under the funding requirements, find it difficult to access funds to do that type of research.

When I was at the Commonwealth Secretariat, I could not undertake policy initiatives until I commissioned research that would give me some evidence-based data to say that was what we needed to do, and therefore to say to all the Commonwealth governments that those were some of the critical issues and these were the ways of approaching them.

I think there's a gap right now in Canada where we don't have enough of that partnership. It's not that their research is necessarily going to agree. It may be diametrically opposed to what we think is happening, but it's still valuable.

Statistics Canada does very good research. But we also need, outside of government, numbers of organizations doing research in areas they are particularly concerned about. When you start to do GBA, you realize some grey areas are thrown up that may lead the government to say they need a policy in this area.

I'll give you one example in an area where I do some voluntary work, the area of housing--affordable, adequate housing. Women are the ones who suffer the most. Women are the ones who are most negatively hit by homelessness. Those figures emerge mostly from the organizations that collect the data about who's sleeping rough on the streets and how many times they've been in a shelter.

That type of information collected and research done well is useful in order for a government to ask if this something we need to look at. Do we need a national policy on housing and to begin a debate? They may say no, we don't need a national policy on housing, but we may need to do this, this, and this. So that partnership is very important. It keeps the tension between government and the governed alive, and that's what makes our system wonderful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have one minute remaining.

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

All right.

Often, these organizations are closest to the poorest and underprivileged. They are in a position to collect data that will help government amend legislation and improve the status of women.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

I think one of the problems is that there isn't a track to feed the information into and to have a dialogue. I'm not talking necessarily about confrontation; I'm saying a consultative process perhaps.

A long time ago the National Council of Women met with the Prime Minister every single year, which was what gave them their power throughout the 1900s, because they brought the voice of women to the highest level. We need some mechanisms like that—the bridge between interest groups, the information they collect, and the policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Boucher, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much for coming here today. I have listened carefully to your comments.

You are saying that is has been a bit of a long road, which is clear to everyone around this table. Even though each government has its own way of seeing things, this issue is moving ahead. We did state that the budget had to take into account equality between men and women.

I am the first person to have been appointed parliamentary secretary for the Status of Women, and I take my role seriously. I find it marvellous that everyone around the table is trying to advance the cause of women. We all represent a political party, but we are trying to reach agreement because this issue a great importance to all of us.

You have talked about the need for legislation, which is a suggestion that we have often heard. Ms. Minna has also talked about this. I am not against the idea. However, I would like you to tell me which department should take the initiative for the legislation, since things get complicated when the issue is addressed to everyone. What should the scope of the legislation be? What can we do to ensure that the legislation encourages the government of the day, regardless of the party in power, to systematically prepare a gender-based budget?

As has been pointed out, this is a long road. I know that studies were done and it all seemed to be a burden some at some point, so the idea was dropped.

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

I think that Ms. Langevin might have comments, but I would like to add something first.

I think, Madame Boucher, if you look at page 55 of our report, you'll see we have given some suggestions on what that legislation might look like. It's in the English, but I think it's the same thing in the French. Really, what we patterned the idea on is that there are a number of laws in place now that are trying to address very specific issues: the Employment Equity Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Multiculturalism Act. Our sense was that it would be similar in terms of trying to promote substantive gender equality. As I mentioned earlier, what a law would do is shift the oversight to Parliament versus the executive branch, where it is today. Today, as was being discussed, a lot of the oversight is really being exercised through the Treasury Board Secretariat, to some extent assisted by Status of Women Canada.

In my opinion--and this is my personal opinion--if this were to happen, it would probably have to be the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in her responsibilities for Status of Women Canada, who would have to introduce that legislation. Obviously this committee has a role, and if it felt it was important to have that, it could recommend it happen. It would then be up to the heritage minister, because she has the legislative responsibility for Status of Women Canada.

I know that Ms. Langevin has a strong interest in the legislative aspect.

Louise, do you have any comments?

[Louise Langevin]

Thank you, Georgina.

First of all, legislation with no control mechanism cannot work. It has to include obligations for the departments. There will be an action plan for all departments and agencies, which will have to define their own measures and results with a view to achieving equality for women.

Under the action plan, departments will be required to prepare annual progress reports, which will be submitted to the House of Commons by the respective ministers. The legislation would require all departments to adopt an action plan and then achieve their objectives.

Our report also states that there should be a complaint mechanism, since there would be sanctions. A commissioner or ombudsman could oversee implementation of the act, supported by the annual reports, of course, similar to what is done for other legislation. The Official Languages Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are examples that come to mind. It is very clear that the Canadian government cannot put up a building without first doing an environmental assessment.

The same thing would apply with the legislation we are talking about: it would impose an obligation on all departments and agencies to carry out a gender-based analysis for all their programs, set annual objectives and measure results. The analysis would require the commitment of resources. Officials would be required to do what they are already doing under the official languages and environmental legislation, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. Mathyssen for five minutes.

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

You've touched on so many important things. I thank you for being here. It provides great clarity to our study.

I want to pick up on what Dr. Langevin was talking about in regard to the need for a commissioner. We've heard that from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and from FAFIA, which have recommended the appointment of such a commissioner. It does make sense. As you've pointed out, if we engage in construction or something, we look to the Commissioner of the Environment.

Would you place the commissioner under the auspices of the Auditor General? Is this a good idea?

[Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz]

Personally, I wouldn't. I think the Auditor General has a very different role. I would use the model of....

Ms. Boucher, it is on page 61 of the French version.

I would use the model of the law we're recommending in French. It is on page 61.

My view is that a commissioner is most effective in the context of the legislative framework. I'll use the analogy, again, of the Official Languages Act. There is a Commissioner of Official Languages, and that is within a law that says that this is the role of the commissioner, this is how he or she should be proceeding, and this is the objective of what Parliament is trying to achieve with this law. I would suggest that this is a more appropriate framework than just taking a person and putting him or her in an existing agency that is perhaps out of context.

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

Thank you.

In the panel's report, the terms “formal” and “substantive” equality are used. For the record of the committee, could you please expand on what these terms mean, so we have that clarity on the record?

[Louise Langevin]

Maybe I could intervene on that question.

I will explain the difference between formal equality and substantive equality. Formal equality is when people in identical situations are treated the same way. This formal equality approach has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1989. Equality does not mean treating everyone the same way. The aim must be substantive equality. Real equality, equality in practice means treating people differently to enable them to achieve genuine equality.

II will use the example of a race. We often have the impression that daily life is a race. Equality of opportunity is achieved when all the runners, citizens of both sexes, are at the starting line. In the race of life, some people run harder and faster because they are stronger. Other people run more slowly because they are disabled or have only one leg. Others are weighted down because they are looking after children, the elderly or the ill. So the people who are really fit and really young will win the race, whereas other people will never cross the finish line.

Substantive equality enables people who do not run as hard or as fast, for all sorts of reasons, to cross the finish line. The real definition of equality is substantive equality. It is the one that takes into account systemic discrimination, which people no longer even see.

I hope that that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Barnes is next.

We're going to the second round for five minutes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

There are countries, in the Commonwealth especially, who have already introduced gender budgeting. What systemic testing do you have--both in the legislative process and in the parliamentary process--to ensure that gender budgeting is not just a check mark, but is actually real and substantive? What are the processes and the checks and balances? Perhaps you could just choose a Commonwealth country.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

Well, it's interesting that there are three Commonwealth countries--Nigeria, Uganda, and I think Ghana--that have a women's group, an NGO, that monitors everything and tries to push the idea. They're still working from the outside, trying to get in, even though their governments are signatory. You may remember that in the last status meeting in February-March, one of the things was about accountability and gender budgets.

But not a lot is happening. It's those outside agencies that are doing the analysis, rather than a lot of the internal mechanisms. There are some, but not a lot. So it's from the outside pushing in.

You had Debbie Budlender here, so you have the South African example. I guess she gave you a lot of detail.

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

Yes, she did.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

One of the questions that were asked was about where the impetus needs to come from. It was interesting that you had the U.K. here as well. Did they talk about legislation?

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

Yes, they did.

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

They did? And they said it really emanated from the top, and then went back down to the minister responsible to push it through the system. The decision was made cabinet level, and then it went back down. So it may have come up at some point, but the push was really from the top to have legislation and to have a requirement right through the British civil service, which was quite an amazing turnaround, because Canada had been so far ahead of Britain--in fact, so far ahead of everybody. We really have lost ground.

In Bangladesh, they're trying to do gender budgeting, and it's been with CIDA and DFID British aid assistance. We have a project there on policy leadership and advocacy for gender equality. We've made a lot of strides in being able to get the idea across. They've been very keen, because they've been able to track. They have a lot of women-focused spending, so they feel very good about being able to do that. Now the technical backup is being given to try to get them to understand that you have to disaggregate the whole budget, and you have to disaggregate your policies and allocations to the various activities.

So a lot of people are doing a lot of work, but I don't think it's really come as far as it should. It's all dependent on the quality of your gender-based analysis. If you don't have that, you can't make that leap into doing any analysis of the budget, and you can't compel the technical understanding or involvement of your bureaucrats. That's your first step.

I think we've come quite far now on that, really trying to push that.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Are all of the countries that are now doing or attempting to do gender budgeting using independent research, peer-reviewed research on equality issues to assist them? Has any country that has moved forward cut out the gender-based, equality-based research? Is there anyone who's been successful in advancing gender budgeting who has also cut out research on equality issues?

[Dorienne Rowan-Campbell]

No, I haven't seen that. Australia, which was really the lead country in 1980 in looking at gender budgeting, did a women's budget, and it's gone downhill in terms of being more a PR exercise, but at least it gets people's minds thinking about how anything you do affects men and women differently. Sometimes it may be hard to see.

In Indonesia, which is not Commonwealth, they use their system very well. Their primary system is not the budget but the plan, because they still do 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and 20-year plans. Those are the blueprints for everything, and everybody in the government knows that if it's in the plan, you do it.

So the challenge there was to get the gender issues and get the disaggregation and get the analysis into the plan. Once it's in the plan, the budget will flow automatically. There's no debate at the budget level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Stanton for minutes.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, witnesses. I must say it's a great honour to have the three of you here today. I thought your report was extremely thorough, coming on the heels of what I would consider to be some very comprehensive work on the part of this committee and including the government response of the day.

One of the things I'd like to deal with first, Madam Langevin, is in regard to your comments suggesting that at this point there is in fact no political will on the part of this government to deal with gender-based issues. That was a rather categorical statement. I point to some of the initiatives--and I appreciate, by the way, that observers may look at that question and have varying degrees, and accept the fact that some would like to see more political will, but to suggest that there is none is, I think, a little bit harsh.

We point to, for example, budget 2008, in which we've committed to an action plan on equality. Changes in the recent mandate of the Status of Women Canada, particularly to the women's program, point to this evolution.

We've heard testimony here before the committee that though some would agree that we are not yet where we ultimately need to be on the work of ingraining gender-based analysis into the culture of planning and decision-making and budget-setting, we're making some progress on it.

Do you have any response to that?