Status of Women Committee on April 17th, 2008

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

No? You would have access as well?

[Heather Dryburgh]

We do, yes.

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

But the finance department could use this in its analysis, in the work that it would do. Am I right, in terms of access?

[Heather Dryburgh]

I don't know if they access tax data, but we have it at Statistics Canada.

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

You do. So you could share that, because you wouldn't be sharing personal information.

[Heather Dryburgh]

Yes.

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

The reason I'm saying this is that we got from the Department of Finance two analyses of the 2006-07 budgets on gender-based analysis, which we then had re-analyzed by a couple of experts we brought in. They told us that, apart from two or three items, everything was negative for women. This was quite the opposite of what we were told about the finance department's analysis. So there's a problem of disconnect here. The information is in our hands in this country. We seem to be going around the world telling everybody how wonderful we are with all our data, and I find it frustrating that....

I apologize. I'm not asking you a specific question, because to some degree we've gone full circle.

I want to go over to Ms. Cooper or Ms. Dwyer-Renaud. Actually, all of you can answer. Is the problem that there isn't political will—and I understand that you may not want to say that, some of you—or is the problem that we are going down the road with the wrong model, so that what is expected is misunderstood and what we're doing is not really in depth? I like the indicators, and I guess at some point that will change things. Can you help me with this?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud, Senior Advisor, Gender-based Analysis Support Services, Status of Women Canada]

Maybe I have a question for you. I'm not sure what is meant by “wrong model”. I think I need to understand a little bit better.

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

I guess what I'm saying has to do with the model we're using to do gender-based analysis, the model being used in the system, the depth of training and understanding. We asked the finance department if they had a unit. They don't; they just have a champion. Maybe it's too much for an individual person. The model we're using, is it maybe too perfunctory and not really dealing with all of this? Is that the problem? Or is it not just the training, but also the objectives that we set for ourselves, the actual methodology and all of that and what we want out of it? Are we doing check-off lists? Do you see what I'm saying?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

We're not doing check-off lists. There are some countries who go for the check-off list. We felt it was not efficient. A check-off list never tells you if you actually have reached people and if you've changed their behaviour.

I know that you've had discussions about training. Training is only one element. Internationally—and Canada follows this model also—it's a set of things. I suppose this is where you're going, with respect to model and processes. We're just starting to be able to work with departments, not just from an individual capacity. With individual capacity, you never know if you're going to have the result you want at the end of the day. You have a critical mass, and it could take forever to train everyone. We are moving towards organizational capacity.

This means you need things like political will, certain structures inside of a department, a governance structure. I think Sheila Regehr spoke of governance structures. These are things we are exploring with the departments. These techniques seem to work in other countries.

Right now, what's the best model? I don't know if I would call it wrong or right. I think we're calling it the best-fit model. What's good for an organization like the Department of Finance may not be good for another organization like Health Canada. That's what we're exploring right now.

I think there was an attempt in the past. I remember, for example, in 2005 the government thought it would be a good thing to have a GBA champion in every department. Is that a good model? Is that a best-fit model? Not sure. Some people will argue that it's much better—I think this is where we're leaning—to have an inherent understanding and a change of behaviour throughout a department, instead of keeping it in the hands of one person or in one unit.

These are things we are exploring. They are part of the accountability approach we're looking for. I think that's where we're at now. We're saying we can train till the cows come home, but we need to make sure that there's accountability with respect to the change in behaviour in a department.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

Sorry, your time is up.

We're moving to Madame Demers for seven minutes, please.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Thank you all for being here.

Ms. Regehr, you said there was no long-term vision. That's probably one of the consequences of the increasing disparities between men and women. Without engaging in partisanship, do you believe that the lack of progress toward equality could be due to the fact that there aren't enough elected women representatives and not enough women in government cabinets and governments, which leads to greater disparity?

You also said that most of your recommendations were shelved. To what do you attribute that?

As regards aboriginal women, have you made any recommendations concerning battered women's shelters in the aboriginal communities? Those women are even more vulnerable. As they live in an aboriginal community and are victims of violence, it is even harder to take care of these women in the communities. The shelters aren't adequately funded. Have you made any recommendations on that subject? If so, have they been heard?

[Sheila Regehr]

That's a really easy question.

It's very difficult. When I was speaking about recommendations, I was speaking more specifically about the National Council of Welfare's recommendations related to poverty. Obviously there is a large gender-equality dimension in that and in the work we do. The same is true of many recommendations, specifically on gender equality, that have been shelved.

It's hard to explain everything. What we find encouraging now on the poverty front is that, probably in the last two years, there's been a huge convergence in understanding that we have to tackle this issue. There's a significant amount of perhaps embarrassment when we start looking at other countries.

There was a very good presentation on poverty this morning by Alain Noël at the Breakfast on the Hill series. He talked about the situation in Europe. We all recognize that the Scandinavians are far ahead of us in many areas. He was talking about the traditional Anglo-grouping, which includes Britain, Ireland, and Canada, and it being on kind of a different path than the others. The United Kingdom, Ireland, and Scotland are now moving in a different direction, too. It is towards different governance models.

The things we've been talking about, as Ms. Minna said, are tools. To be able to use the tools, you need several things in place. This is what the National Council of Welfare tried to do when it analyzed what was going on around the country and around the world on poverty. It applies to any issue: You need a vision; you need some measurable objectives to aim for; you need the indicators so you know whether you're getting there; you need a comprehensive plan so you know that one program isn't going to give with one hand and another, either in the same jurisdiction or in another jurisdiction, is going to take it away. We do these things.

There's a convergence now. I think there's real hope and real learning from other countries and other examples that the solutions are there. He also said this morning that many people are saying that they see some things changing. I would hope this includes gender equality, as well.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Ms. Dryburgh, when your statistics show an increase in disparities between men and women in the area of poverty, do you inform the departments concerned of that fact?

[Heather Dryburgh]

Everything that comes out of Statistics Canada comes out through The Daily, so it's in the public domain.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

But you don't provide any more refined information, more specific to the departments concerned when there is an increase in disparities?

[Heather Dryburgh]

Definitely, we sometimes do that.

Where it's clear that there's an implication for a particular department, a letter from the deputy minister is sent. We do that. Often when we're doing analysis or publications there's a large consultation process. Often we're starting our analysis or a data-development project with questions and consultations coming from policy departments. Then we produce the data, and of course, they're fully aware of what's coming out. Yes, there is good communication.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Cooper, how is it that the Department of Finance, which should have a very important role in the development of indicators, isn't part of the project you established to develop indicators and assist in preparing gender budgets?

[Suzanne Cooper]

The working group is actually a sub-working group of our gender-based analysis interdepartmental committee, which the Department of Finance is a part of. We did solicit participation from everybody, and they could self-select into the group. So they're not in the actual working group, but are part of the GBA IDC. They have selected not to be there, I guess.

That's probably a question for them more than for me.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

So it wasn't you who selected the individuals or groups that should take part in this project. It's they who decided to take part in it.

[Suzanne Cooper]

Right, exactly.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have 30 seconds.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm giving my colleague 30 seconds. So next time she'll have five and a half minutes. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Ms. Regehr, did you wish to say something?

[Sheila Regehr]

In partial response to that and an earlier question, if I could have 20 seconds on that—