How It Could Work

This week I observed an interesting example of how this parliament could work if we just actually got around to the business of cooperating in the national interest - or in this case, the interest of women.Upon first being elected over a year ago, I requested to get on the all-parliamentary committee on the Status of Women and it's a decision I've never regretted.  We've covered interests as wide ranging as aboriginal poverty, female trafficking, domestic violence and the sad plight of many senior women.  The aspect that has captured my imagination the most, however, has been what's called "Gender Budgeting." Sounds boring but it isn't.Gender Budgeting Analysis, or GBA, is all about how governments have frequently announced finance legislation, often in annual budgets, and how that legislation has frequently failed women. Repeatedly throughout this past year we have learned from independent economists of how initiatives such as pension splitting, Old Age Security, and tax savings programs have ultimately benefitted men over women.  It's too detailed to get into here, but let's just say that case is compelling.Yesterday, the entire committee received training on how to do a gender budget analysis and it was empowering. Two particular financial initiatives were selected from the 2007 federal budget and examined for their impacts on women.  Our committee - 12 members from all parties - was broken into two groups to facilitate the analysis. For the first time, instead of sitting on opposite sides of the room, party members worked together, under trained facilitators, to dig into legislation and examine its impact on Canadian women. It was a fascinating spectacle and it captivated me.In both cases, the groups were able to see for themselves how broad budget measures can actually have a debilitating impact on women on a large scale.  The wage gap is now widening again between men and women for instance, especially among post-graduate women.  How do you explain that? The only way is for committee members like ours to examine the outcomes of financial legislation, tracing it back to where mistakes or oversights were made.What was even better was the manner in which all committee members came to a quiet consensus that, at least in the cases of these two initiatives, we had failed to take into account the lack of benefit to women. And we all agreed!  The Conservatives could have fought against it because they're the government at the moment. Or the other members could have slammed the Liberals for not doing more when they were in government. But instead there was this general awakening that we had all failed and that remedies would have to be found.This is exactly a model of how this parliament could get its act together if we put workable solutions ahead of partisan advantage. Is it likely to happen? Probably not, but the Status of Women committee showed the possibilities and I'm deeply appreciative to all members of that committee because of how they stepped back from the politics of things and viewed policy through the lens of its impact on the daily lives of Canadians. Why can't parliament be like that?