:
Yes, sorry, it's five meetings before the House breaks.
Let's come up with something that's win-win such that we know what we have done, where we are moving.
In order to do that, this afternoon, thanks to the efforts of the clerk and the analyst, we have been able to get Ms. Beckton, the coordinator, Status of Women Canada; Ms. Dawn Nicholson; and Ms. Cindy Paquette. They are going to be here at 4:30. So we have one hour in which to discuss our work plan and the court challenges program.
What the analysts have done is this. Because we wanted some information sessions on the gender budgets, we had to be prepared to contact the witnesses and ensure that they were there for Wednesday. Otherwise we would have a very free Wednesday.
Simultaneously, we've been talking to the minister's office.
Madame Boucher, perhaps you could give me some idea of Minister Verner's timing. As soon as we finish this, if you could take an opportunity to update us, we would appreciate it.
If anybody has any connections to the justice minister—I tried to speak to him, but he was busy with the other justice bills—please, we'd like to have the three ministers: heritage, justice, and immigration. So we're looking at the government side to help us out.
Now, the next meeting that's going to take place is the meeting for Wednesday, November 28. We have Dr. Kathleen Lahey and Dr. Lisa Philipps. These are Canadian experts.
We would like to do video conferencing. We have the budget for video conferencing—we had already submitted the budget—so the clerk booked them. We had discussed that the analyst would give us the experts—these are Canadian experts, and we have international experts as well—so we could start the meeting rolling.
Once we understand from them what it is that gender budgeting really is all about, both from a Canadian perspective and an international perspective, then the last meeting, which is on Wednesday, December 12, we can sit down and put our heads together and say, “So what are the parameters around which this gender budgeting is going to take place? What form is this study going to take?”
I think it's important for all of us to be focused, because we really don't want to be all over the map. It'll take us three years, otherwise, to study, and we don't want to do that.
So that was the last meeting. We are hoping by that time that we would have enough witnesses to come and give us an idea.
Once we develop the parameters, then we start getting the names of witnesses from everyone saying, “So if this is the parameter, then this is who we want as witnesses”.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Does anyone have any questions on the work plan?
Yes, Ms. Minna.
:
Ms. Ratansi asked me to look over what was done in the three committees.
The Standing Committee on Official Languages did submit a report and submitted a recommendation. In accordance with its mandate under the Standing Orders, it recommended that the government continue funding the court challenges program at the level set in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to ensure the continuation of this program.
They had several witnesses in. I don't know if you want more details about who the witnesses were, but there weren't any specific women's groups represented. Generally, there were some groups represented such as the Quebec Community Groups Network, the Canadian Constitution Foundation,
[Translation]
the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick.
[English]
These kinds of groups were represented at official languages.
The report they presented in May 2007, “Communities Speak Out: Hear Our Voice”, had a section, section 4.5.1, on the court challenges program. In it they recommended that the government reinstate the court challenges program or create another program in order to meet objectives in the same way. That was another subsegment.
The Canadian heritage committee had also studied the program, and they had several communities in as well. They did have the National Association of Women and the Law, and they had REAL Women in, so they had two women's groups represented, but they didn't specifically address women's perspective. It was more the general impact on various groups. They just issued a report, with a recommendation stating that the government should continue funding the court challenges program at the fiscal 2005-06 level.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights also studied the court challenges program, but they also did not have a specific women's perspective. They had such organizations as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, but again it wasn't focused as consistently as perhaps the status of women's committee might in addressing the issue pertaining to women specifically.
That's what I had looked over for the committee.
So can I leave it to the clerk to determine how they will fit it in? They'll probably ask you questions as to your availability. Accordingly, they will get that going.
Is that fair enough?
Now, the second motion we have is from . She told me that she's going to be late, so she asked if I could please hold the motion until she comes to speak to it, because she has to speak to it.
Ladies, are you from Status of Women Canada? Okay.
Is Madam Beckton here?
A voice: She's not here quite yet, but it's only 4:10.
The Chair: I know. It's just that if they were here, we could start, that's all. I am a person who believes in time management, so if somebody's here, I'll take them.
At the moment, as I see it, we're in agreement with the work plan. We're in agreement on having extra meetings if we have to, in order to accommodate the court challenges program. We have also approved the budget.
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Stanton.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. It is indeed a pleasure to be here today to discuss the supplementary estimates for the organization.
I've had the opportunity over the past several months to review the work of the committee. It has been varied, comprehensive, and impressive, so I'm delighted to be here today.
Over the last year, Status of Women Canada has certainly been in the news. Today I will outline the future direction of Status of Women Canada.
This year has been a time of change, transition, and renewal for the agency, including a governance review and efficiency restraint exercise. As well, in budget 2007, $10 million a year in funding to Status of Women Canada was announced. However, Status of Women Canada's legal mandate to coordinate policy with respect to the status of women and administer related programs remains the same as when the organization was created in 1976.
In addition, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the United Nations Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action reinforced the legal foundation for the work of Status of Women Canada.
[Translation]
Although there are many instruments available to achieve equality, there are systemic barriers that prevent women from participating fully in Canadian society: stereotypes and barriers to career development, to representation on decision-making bodies, to participation in business partnerships, to participation in politics and to access to funding. The list goes on. For women who belong to a visible minority, immigrants, seniors or aboriginal women, those barriers are often higher.
Measures must be taken to remove these existing systemic barriers, not only by government, but also in partnership with the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society.
Status of Women Canada is in a good position to knock down these barriers, because it has two essential instruments for taking action: its functions in relation to strategic policy and partnerships and its funding mechanisms under the Women's Program. Those two instruments cannot operate in a vacuum. They are in fact interdependent and each informs the other.
In addition, our work is supported by the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Forum of Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women and international forums such as the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Organization of American States, and by bilateral relations with other governments at the international level.
As well, Canada is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW. Canada must report periodically on the measures it has taken to comply with the convention. Canada recently submitted its seventh report to CEDAW and will appear before the CEDAW committee in 2008.
[English]
Status of Women Canada addresses the broader systemic barriers facing women by working in several policy areas that are aligned to two key priorities—women's economic security and violence against women.
I would like to just take a few minutes to share with you some of our current work. I won't read everything that's in here because it will go beyond 10 minutes and I'm very mindful of the committee's time.
As you know through your own study and from the discussion I heard as we were coming in, trafficking in persons remains a serious and growing concern for women and girls, both in Canada and beyond our borders. The committee knows that well.
Budget 2007 allocated $6 million to combat child exploitation and trafficking. With the Vancouver 2010 Olympics on the horizon, there is a heightened recognition that international sporting events may create opportunities for trafficking, particularly in the sex trade. As a result, the government is examining measures to avert traffickers from the Vancouver event.
Currently the RCMP is leading partners in developing and piloting training to law enforcement and other front-line officials to teach investigative tools and enhance knowledge of laws surrounding trafficking and the services that victims require. With other departments as well, Status of Women Canada is actively participating in this work around the issue of trafficking.
The Government of Canada continues its partnership with the Native Women's Association of Canada to improve the lives of aboriginal women. Over the five-year period 2005 to 2010, the federal government is providing $5 million to the Native Women's Association for the Sisters in Spirit campaign to address racialized and sexualized violence against aboriginal women. This project is a living example of creating direct benefits for women while simultaneously using the results to inform policy changes.
In June, the first National Aboriginal Women's Summit was held in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was remarkable consensus on the need for action on issues facing aboriginal women, including poverty, human rights, and violence. We are following up and will be working towards the next summit in Yellowknife in 2008.
This kind of work requires an understanding of the differential impacts of policies and programs on various groups of women, as well as cross-country coordination and partnership. This is our role at Status of Women.
Status of Women remains committed to the ongoing effort of working with federal, provincial, and territorial status of women ministers and officials. In fact, we have a meeting with officials going on as we speak today. In July, the ministers concluded with an agreement to promote women's economic self-sufficiency, safety, and security, and to work towards improving the situation of aboriginal women in Canada.
As you know, gender-based analysis is an important tool for us in fulfilling our work, because it's used to apply a gender lens to public policy, programs, and legislation. GBA allows us to understand and assess the impact of these programs and policies on women. It is one of the means we use to achieve our goal, because in the final analysis it is the outcomes that matter, and by using GBA we're able to put women into the equation and achieve effective outcomes.
We have been working on the questions of accountability with Finance, Treasury Board, and PCO, the three central agencies. I know this committee was very interested in this aspect.
[Translation]
If we are to achieve concrete results in our sphere of activities we must have the capacity to monitor, oversee and measure the progress made, based on the goals and objectives of government policies and programs designed to increase both accountability and measurable results.
Status of Women Canada therefore works closely with the central agencies and key departments.
[English]
With regard to integrating gender reporting into government accountability mechanisms and creating a set of indicators on trends in the situation of women over time, the Status of Women's work, as you know, is highly regarded in this internationally. We are called upon to assist, most recently to work with other national governments such as South Africa, Haiti, Korea, and Russia.
I'd like to spend a couple of minutes on gender budgeting. I know that's an issue the committee is interested in. We will, or course, be making a more detailed presentation later for the committee.
A nation's budget is one of the ultimate policy documents reflecting the highest level of political commitment and the policies of the government. A gender-responsive budgeting process provides a key step in building equality for women. The outcome of gender-responsive budget initiatives tends to focus on resetting priorities to produce better results rather than relying on necessarily increased expenditures. Approximately 60 countries around the world engage in gender-responsive budget exercises, many of them, of course, in different ways. There doesn't seem to be any one particular way of doing it.
The Department of Finance, we understand, conducted a gender-based analysis on policy measures, particularly on tax policy where data permitted, and on tax proposals presented to the Minister of Finance in budget 2006-07. In partnership with Status of Women Canada, the Department of Finance is now exploring various models of gender budgets. In fact, applying a gender-based analysis is one of the first steps towards a gender-responsive budget.
Status of Women Canada has compiled an analytical package of gender budget-related information, which we would be pleased to share when we come again with committee members.
I'd like to finish by just spending a couple of minutes on the women's program. I know that's of great interest to the committee. Over the past year the women's program has seen a lot of change. The terms and conditions of the women's program were changed in 2006 to encourage community-based initiatives having a direct impact on women and girls. The terms and conditions are flexible and they can be tailored to meet desired outcomes on specific issues for all women, or for targeted populations. Modifications can be made on an annual basis through various calls for proposals.
As you know, there has been much debate and some misunderstanding over the elimination of funding of lobbying activities. I heard this as I travelled across the country. We tried to make it clear that organizations that lobby are still eligible for funding if they submit proposals that meet the current women's program criteria. In fact, we do fund some groups.
As of April 1, the women's program now has two components—the Women's Community Fund and the Women's Partnership Fund. Presently $12.3 million is in the Women's Community Fund, which supports projects at the local, regional, and national levels that aim to enable the full participation of women in all aspects of Canadian life. Then we have the partnership fund, which is broader. I have a few examples, which I'm sure you will be able to read with pleasure.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for coming to the meeting today.
We've been fairly concerned, many of us, as members, about the cuts to the regional offices. I am part of a steering committee that works with Canada's food banks. There's been a lot of malnutrition in the northern regions, so we're trying to find ways of working with food companies to get food to all these various areas. We've had our 10 major food banks--the one I'm in, in London, is part of it--trying to get food up there. We've been at this for a year and a half, and we've found that we're actually going to need maybe 20 or 30 food banks to do it.
Once we realized that we couldn't do it, we tried an Internet model. People could use the web to do it, but the vast majority of people didn't have the Internet. We tried to use the telephone, but the vast majority of people didn't have phones, so we tried to set up satellite phone links, and this was quite expensive.
I'm looking at this map, and as I think about what our food banks are trying to do, I look at what the Status of Women has here with three offices down in this part of the country and one in Alberta, in Edmonton. And there's all this.... I'm just trying to figure out how it can be efficient to do that. I'm wondering how you send people out to all these remote communities to determine the viability of the programs and what they're applying for.
It seems to me that with the cuts it's logistically impossible to carry out the mandate. As food banks, we're finding the same thing, and it's very frustrating to us.
I wonder if you could speak to that, because it doesn't seem to me that we can efficiently do it.