Status of Women Committee on April 17th, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much for your questions.

We're now moving on to round two.

Please go ahead, Mr. Pearson. You have five minutes.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Cha.

Welcome, everybody.

Just for our analyst's sake, we were talking earlier about the fact that Statistics Canada produces a major report every five years. The last one was in 2005 and the next is in 2010. Has that consultation process already begun for 2010?

[Heather Dryburgh]

That's a good question. As far as I know, the preliminary work hasn't really started yet. The analyst responsible for that publication is actually retiring, and Louise is heading up the section that will be responsible for the production of that report.

[Louise Marmen]

Someone will definitely replace that person. In that section, which is called the Social Research section, we want a person to focus first on all the statistics and to coordinate gender-based statistics at Statistics Canada. That person should also be involved in this project, which we consider very important.

For the moment, I don't have a date to give you for the consultation process, but, since we would like the consultation to begin before the other person retires, it should happen shortly.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you. I think we'd appreciate knowing when that does begin.

Do you do it in consultation with HRSDC?

[Heather Dryburgh]

There are very many players in the consultation process.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Good.

I have just one other quick question. You mentioned that Statistics Canada doesn't have a specifically based gender unit. Can I ask you why that is, given the way things are going in other countries and to some degree here? Has there been talk about it?

[Heather Dryburgh]

There used to be one person dedicated to it who coordinated the agency's activities to an extent. At the moment, this is part of the new initiative Louise mentioned. We're in the process of setting that unit up again, because after that person left, there wasn't an immediate replacement. There's now a chief responsible for gender, so that's a good step.

How we've been functioning is we've had a gender focal point for the organization, which has been me, and that's why I was invited today. I represent Statistics Canada on the international statistical groups on gender. I present to delegations and I coordinate some activities, but I actually have another full-time job, so this is a very positive step, I think, in trying to coordinate the efforts.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have another two minutes.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

For Status of Women Canada, you have probably sensed our frustration around the table over the last few months in light of the fact that we're trying to get to a certain place but we keep hearing two different things from witnesses.

We just heard from StatsCan this morning that they do all of the statistics on women around employment, income, education, health, crime, ethnicity, immigration, and age. On the other hand, over the last couple of months we've had witnesses come forward, including some from Status of Women Canada, who feel that there's not enough data out there to be able to make the proper projections if necessary. Judging from what I heard from StatsCan this morning, there seems to be a ton of it. We've also heard from other witnesses that there's more than we actually require.

So I'm just wondering--and perhaps you can answer, Ms. Cooper--what else you require. It seems to me that you have what's necessary. I'd be interested in your answer.

[Suzanne Cooper]

I think the disconnect comes from—and StatsCan certainly does tremendous work on gender-disaggregated data—the misperception that we collect disaggregated data across all levels of gender diversity, such as age, aboriginal status, and language. Those really are key components of this project, but in many cases there are gaps. So it's not just about presenting statistics on women versus men. It's all the groups and the converging factors that can exacerbate inequality. So that's what we're really starting to look at, to bring all these into one central point.

The other part of this project is that we do have a wealth of statistics, but they're kind of all over the place, so there's no one set spot where someone, even a member of the public or a policy-maker, can come and say, “This is how I can gauge the state of gender equality in Canada.” We're pulling all that data from different departments to do that kind of thing. So to say that we have all the data, I don't think we're quite there yet. I think we've done a lot of it. I think, though, what we're leaving out is particularly vulnerable groups that really tell us the story about gender equality.

I hope that answers your question.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pearson.

Just before we move on to Statistics Canada, regarding this document that Mr. Pearson was asking you about, is it possible that you could report back to this committee in September about what the status is of that consultation, just so we don't lose track of that?

[Louise Marmen]

With pleasure.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Madame Boucher for five minutes, please.

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

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming today.

It's very interesting to see how this is becoming a little clearer and, at the same time, a little more complicated. We've heard from a number of witnesses and received a lot of information, but there's been hardly any talk of education. Some educating must be done in the departments and with politicians.

As women, we had to fight for our place, but that's already established for the women of the generation following us. They don't have to work hard because they think they're equal, even if they aren't. That's a matter of education and has never really been said.

We've talked a lot about poverty, social policy and governments that succeed each other and miss the bus. What can we do to establish something sustainable? Someone around the table spoke the words “long-term”. If we have a long-term vision, it won't work. In what other area can we find information? We have the machinery of government, and we've heard from women from certain groups. However, to strike a certain balance, where should the government look? What can we do as a committee to establish a permanent framework—regardless of the government in power—and to say that this is how it will now work for women? Is that possible, in your opinion?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I'm going to take that and venture a little further.

I don't consider the situation from the standpoint of poverty versus health. In my mind, the world is divided into two groups: people who make decisions and those who implement them and do the basic analysis. I must admit that, at some point, there appears to be a minor obstruction when you get to the top.

The lower levels seem to be receptive to training, but senior management doesn't seem to understand why its people make these kinds of recommendations to it. As we've mentioned for some time now, one of the ways of proceeding is simply to make all the paperwork mandatory. For example, in the context of the orientation of public servants taking up their duties, we could tell them that they have to know how to conduct this analysis. That should also be part of senior management responsibilities. The panel on accountability mechanisms moreover talked about that.

This responsibility could even be linked to their pay, to their bonuses. They have to know that this is going on in their department. It's being done a little. We're currently working with the Treasury Board on the Management Accountability Framework. Under that framework, deputy ministers are asked to ensure that the quality of the analysis they ask their employees to perform takes all the various aspects into account. They are asked to do the same with gender-based analysis and that's part of the accountability mechanisms. This analysis is more voluntary, but perhaps it should be mandatory.

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

It should be mandatory. All right.

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

Thank you.

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

I have another one.

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

No, I think your time is up. Thank you.

Madame Deschamps is next, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, mesdames. Thank you for being here and for helping us improve our understanding.

Ms. Regehr, I was very sensitive to your testimony this morning. It spoke to me personally. You talked about long-term vision. You mentioned that if there is no long-term vision or accompanying resources, we don't have the means to emerge from poverty or to achieve gender equality.

You also talked about models. You referred to the Scandinavian model and to the model which Canada is increasingly trying to use: the English model. The latter is more conservative and traditional than the Scandinavian model, which is more progressive and based on social development.

Can you talk more about convergence? What determines that choice, for example? Will the action plan suggested by the government, which appears in the 2008 budget, make it possible to develop policies that will have a direct impact on the most vulnerable groups, women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal women, single mothers?

[Sheila Regehr]

Shall I answer the question?

Just thinking about models and the way Canada is doing things generally, compared to some other countries, and to answer the first part about vision, I think at the federal level we really don't see this, but it is happening in other parts of Canada. Obviously, on the poverty front, it's in Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador. And now we have Ontario and Nova Scotia all going in the same direction. All of this reflects a model of governance that's more similar to what the European Union is doing, and there are several elements that I think are important. They have been outlined in documents that we've produced. One is called Solving Poverty. But it's not about poverty, it's about everything. It's about a social and economic plan for the country. It's about gender equality. It's about poverty and exclusion. It's all of those things, so you're not doing piecemeal efforts.

There were common objectives. They have indicators they've agreed on that they're all going to measure. So they all know what the goalpost is. They all know where they're going. They all know they have to develop a plan. They all have to report regularly. They all have to consult. There's a transparency and a coordination.

However, interestingly, as this presenter at the Hill this morning indicated, England and Ireland actually moved faster than some of those measures that were put into place in the Lisbon accord because they recognized how severely poverty, in particular, was limiting their economic development.

Now, all of those poverty plans that are working have gender equality embedded right in them. They're all the same thing. It's not we do one thing here and one thing there. It's a common governance model, basically, and there is this open method of coordination. It's interesting, too, because you have an intergovernmental structure. In Europe it's different nations. In Canada we have different jurisdictions. For example, they would have their common base set of indicators that everybody agrees on, and then each country in its own context would fill in detail. But they're all working towards the same thing, and they're all sharing information so they can build on each other.

I think more and more people are looking to that sort of model. We know that Newfoundland and Labrador have built their structure, in which gender equality is central, based very much on the Irish model. I know that directly. Their method of coordination is brilliant. So this idea of having a plan, of having sort of broad government commitment, some common elements, those are the things that seem to be working, no matter what the issue. Those are models that seem to be working.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Can you wrap up, please?