Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I would like at this time to call the meeting to order and welcome everyone on behalf of the committee, especially the witnesses here today.

This meeting has been called according to the Standing Orders, and we're here to talk about chapter 1, “Gender-Based Analysis”, of the spring 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

The committee has before it today a number of witnesses. This is larger than usual. Representing the Office of the Auditor General we have the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. She is accompanied by Richard Domingue, principal.

From the Treasury Board Secretariat we are very pleased to have Madame Michelle d'Auray, the Secretary of the Treasury Board. And I should point out, colleagues, that I believe this is Ms. d'Auray's first appearance before the public accounts committee. She was recently appointed Secretary of the Treasury Board.

The Treasury Board, on behalf of the executive, and the public accounts committee, on behalf of the legislative branch of government, have very similar--if not the same--objectives, and that is the promotion of good administration and the exposure of bad administration. And certainly on behalf of the committee I want to wish Madame d'Auray all the best in her new role. We look forward to a good working relationship.

Madame d'Auray is accompanied by Catrina Tapley, executive director and gender-based analysis champion.

From the Privy Council Office we're pleased to have Neil Bouwer, assistant secretary to the cabinet, social development policy.

From the Department of Finance, we have Louise Levonian, assistant deputy minister.

Finally, from Status of Women Canada we have Nanci-Jean Waugh, director general, communications and strategic planning directorate, and Hélène Dwyer-Renaud, director, gender-based analysis support services.

Again, welcome to everyone.

I understand we have two opening remarks. I will ask the Auditor General to deliver her remarks right now.

Thank you very much.

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for this opportunity to meet with the committee today to discuss the chapter on gender-based analysis from our May 2009 report.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied today by Richard Domingue, principal, who is responsible for this audit.

This audit was performed following a request made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women in April of 2008. It recommended that our office examine the implementation of gender-based analysis in the federal government. The audit objective was to determine whether selected departments were conducting these analyses. It also focused on whether the central agencies were reviewing gender impacts in cabinet documents on policy and program spending initiatives.

The federal government made a commitment in 1995 to implement gender-based analysis, or GBA, throughout its departments and agencies. GBA is an analytical tool that can be used to assess how spending initiatives and policy proposals might differ in their impact on men and on women.

Despite recent efforts to improve GBA practices in some departments and in the central agencies, we found the selected departments had not met the 1995 commitment to analyze gender impacts.

We looked at seven departments whose responsibilities can have an impact on men and women differently. The extent to which they implemented a GBA framework varied greatly. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is clearly a leader—it is the only department we examined that had fully implemented the elements of a sound GBA framework.

The Department of Finance Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and, to a certain extent, Health Canada had implemented many of the key elements of an appropriate GBA framework. We noted that Transport Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada had no GBA framework.

We found that few departments that are performing gender analyses were able to demonstrate that these analyses were used in designing public policy. We considered an analysis to be a GBA if there was evidence of two key factors, namely: if we found documented research on gender impacts, and if we determined that the impacts had been considered in developing policy options.

We reviewed 68 initiatives to verify if GBA had been performed. In only 4 of these initiatives was there evidence that GBA had been integrated in the policy development process. In 30 of them, gender impacts were analyzed, but there was no evidence provided that the analysis was considered in developing public policy options. In 26 initiatives, we could not find any evidence that gender impacts had been considered at all.

We also found that the selected departments provided limited information to cabinet and Treasury Board on the gender impact of proposals and spending initiatives. In more than half of the memoranda to cabinet and over one third of the submissions to Treasury Board, we found no reference to gender impacts. There was no indication why this information was not reported.

There is no government-wide obligation to undertake GBA, and the government's commitment to implement GBA has not been clearly communicated to departments and agencies. These are key factors that could explain why GBA practices vary greatly among the departments we reviewed, GBA is not regularly performed, and little information on gender impact is reported to cabinet and Treasury Board.

Some officials expressed concerns over the leadership of the central agencies in promoting GBA. We believe that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office should provide support to Status of Women Canada to help the government meet its 1995 commitments.

In response to a recent report tabled by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the government stated that it was ready to act on our findings and recommendations.

While conducting this audit, we encountered an issue regarding documentation by central agencies. When reviewing policy and budget documents, all three central agencies play a critical challenge role--that is, they ensure that departments and agencies take into account all relevant factors. However, the central agencies could not provide written evidence that they had reviewed and challenged gender impacts of policy proposals or spending initiatives submitted by departments for approval.

In its response to this audit, the government disagreed with our recommendation that central agencies document the challenge function they exercise when reviewing policy proposals or spending initiatives.

I have serious concerns with the lack of appropriate documentation when I am told that evidence of challenges to gender-based analyses exists only in a Cabinet confidence to which I do not have access. This is not acceptable. I believe that it is crucial for central agencies to maintain documentary evidence of key responsibilities, such as their challenge of proposals and initiatives going forward to Cabinet and Treasury Board.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

Madame d'Auray.

[Michelle d'Auray, Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for welcoming me and for pointing out that this is my very first appearance before the committee in my new capacity of Secretary of the Treasury Board.

It is a pleasure for me to be here along with my colleagues whom you have already named. Therefore, I will spare you any further introductions. I simply want to say that they are individuals who are responsible for developing policy or who represent departments and agencies with such responsibilities, specifically, Status of Women Canada and three central agencies involved in the challenge function.

As Ms. Fraser noted, the federal government first embraced gender-based analysis in 1995 and expressed its commitment to this type of analysis in the publication Setting the Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality. In this document, the government committed to the implementation of gender-based analysis throughout federal departments and agencies. To this end, Status of Women Canada, departments and agencies and the three central agencies each have a role to play. Status of Women Canada works with departments and agencies to help them take into account gender impacts when developing policies and programs. It serves as a Centre of Excellence for GBA, building capacity for such analysis in departments and agencies.

For example, this involves collaborating on pilot projects, as well as developing and delivering training and tools, case studies and other educational materials. Furthermore, in its role as chair of the related interdepartmental committee, Status of Women follows the progress made in implementing commitments on GBA.

Departments and agencies have the most important role to play in setting the stage for gender equality, as they are ultimately responsible for the application of gender-based analysis and for the inclusion of gender considerations in their policies and programs. It is the responsibility of each department and agency to determine whether a gender-based analysis is necessary and to ensure that a complete and thorough assessment is carried out.

Each of the three central agencies also has a distinct role to play. The Privy Council Office is responsible for ensuring that policy proposals are consistent with the government's priorities. It plays an important challenge function in the government's policy approval process by ensuring that departments and agencies have considered all relevant factors, including gender issues, before proposals are brought forward to cabinet.

Finance Canada develops policies and provides advice to the government with the goal of creating a healthy economy for all Canadians. The department has a twofold role. First, as a central agency, the finance department also performs a challenge role, requiring departments and agencies to consider all relevant factors when developing a policy or program for consideration by cabinet, including gender issues where appropriate. Second, like all other departments, when the Department of Finance develops policies—for example, tax measures—it performs gender-based analysis where appropriate and where data are available.

Our role at TBS is to ensure that the government is well managed, as you mentioned, and accountable, and that resources are allocated to achieve results for Canadians. Once programs are approved by Cabinet, we perform a challenge function on the implementation of these programs.

TBS carries out three roles vis-à-vis GBA: with the challenge function, the development of policy and the analysis of departmental management capacity. With respect to our challenge function, our program analysts help departments develop proposals for consideration by Treasury Board Ministers. In doing so, they perform an important challenge function against a number of criteria. Part of that challenge is to ensure that the department has undertaken GBA in the development of its Treasury Board submission and that the proposal has no unintended gender bias.

Gender-based analysis is included in the Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions. The relevant section of the guide includes clear reminders to departments and agencies to ensure their program proposal is GBA compliant, and to report their findings in the TB submission.

With respect to TBS's policy role, it is similar to that of all other departments. TB officials must carry out a GBA before submitting any policies related to our functions to the minister.

As for our third role, we have a responsibility to work with departments to ensure that the tools we use to assess performance and capacity take into account GBA capabilities. We have many tools that we use to carry out this role.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the government is committed to ensuring that gender-based analysis is used through all departments and agencies. As the Auditor General stated in her report, ultimately the responsibility for performing GBA rightly rests with the departments and agencies.

We would be happy, the champions around the table and the responsible representatives from Status of Women Canada, to answer any questions your committee may have at this time concerning the audit report and with regard to the action plan, which we also tabled with the committee last week.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Madame d'Auray.

We'll now start the first round of seven minutes. Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

I'll go to the Auditor General first, Mr. Chairman.

Gender-based analysis is the main subject matter, but given that we have the Auditor General and the Treasury Board here, I couldn't help but be a little distracted today. And I want to ask the Auditor General, in her role as Auditor General, if she would be in a position to do an audit for compliance with the Treasury Board's federal identity program with respect to these hundreds of political glamour cheques circulating with Conservative Party logos on them. Is that the kind of thing where you could do an audit of compliance with the Treasury Board's guidelines?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Hold it there, Mr. Lee. I think I know where you're coming from....

Go ahead, Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I would like to interject with a point of order.

This is not the topic of discussion before us today. Perhaps there is a different location and a different time for the honourable member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Lee, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Saxton. I think we have enough work to keep us going for two hours on this report.

There's always a little leeway, Mr. Lee, but I'd like you to try as best as possible to stick to the report, within reason.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Saxton may make a good point here. It was the subject of discussion in the House earlier, but here we have our own agenda.

I'm actually going to seek unanimous consent in the committee to allow each party today three minutes each to ask questions on this very subject of compliance with Treasury Board guidelines and the federal identity program. That's three minutes for each party.

I'm going to move that right now.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

It's time-sensitive. It's a critical issue.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes. This is something the House spent a fair bit of time on today.

I'll seek unanimous consent to move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Does Mr. Lee have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There's not unanimous consent, Mr. Lee.

I'd ask you to go back to chapter 1, “Gender-Based Analysis”, from the spring 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

Let's get back to this other important issue, then. I was struck by the low take-up, almost insipid take-up, among government departments, at least as revealed by the audit. Four out of 68 is a very weak take-up. It's almost as rare as the redside dace fish, an endangered species, in the Rouge River back home.

Do you have any sense, Madam Auditor General, of the factors lying behind the weak take-up, the low evidence of subscription, to gender-based analysis across the public service?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you.

As was mentioned, for the 68 initiatives we looked at, in only four cases did we see evidence that the analysis had been integrated into the policy development process. There were, though, about 30, a little less than half, where the analysis had actually been conducted, but we weren't able to see any evidence that the analysis had been put into the policy development process.

There can be, I think, a number of factors for that. One could be simply documentation; we were not able to see it through to a policy development stage. That's a possibility.

As well, as we mentioned, there is no actual policy requiring departments to do gender-based analysis.

We believe as well, as we have recommended, that the guidance to departments should be strengthened and help them to improve this process.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You must have come across some examples where gender-based analysis was not needed. I mean, it's possible in some cases that it's just obvious to everyone that you don't need to do a gender analysis.

How often would that pop up? I don't need you to put a statistic on it, but conceptually, would you agree that perhaps in most public policy issues, gender-based analysis is appropriate, but there would be some component of policy-making where it needn't occur?

[Sheila Fraser]

In the analysis we did of the 68 initiatives, we saw eight cases where there was a rationale provided as to why it had not been done. I would expect, you're right, that there would probably be more than eight cases. But in 26 cases, there was no evidence that it had been considered at all, even to exclude it as being not relevant.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In the government reply to your report, the government said it was too difficult--I'm paraphrasing--to document the challenge function. My reaction to this is that it might be difficult, but in the absence of documentation, how will we ever get a record of how we're doing?

Would you agree with the way I put that question?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, I would.

Chair, we were told that the evidence of the challenge function was only in advice to ministers, or cabinet confidences, which we do not see, nor do we request to see. We certainly would have expected to have seen some evidence, even e-mails, of a challenge function going back: Have you thought about this? Have you done this? Why haven't you done that?

I find it very surprising that there was nothing in writing. We are being told that because of time pressures, this was all done orally. I must admit that I'm finding that surprising. I would have thought that there would have been at least, as a minimum, a notation to a file somewhere that this had been conducted. If it was never recorded anywhere, then how would supervisors know if those questions had ever been asked?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. Yes, if it's important enough for the government to make a formal commitment to embrace GBA, it surely must be important enough to record the components of the process, particularly inside the cabinet policy-making and the Treasury Board policy-advising function.

Do you have any suggestions? Maybe this is more of a Treasury Board...no, this is for the Auditor General. Well, okay, it can go to Treasury Board, but if I wanted to put a little WD-40 into this--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Lee, your time is up, so I'm just going to ask you to come to your question and then we'll move on.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

If I wanted to spike this process, where would I put my money? Where would I spend my administrative dollars to make sure that GBA took hold, that we gave birth to a real living thing?

[Sheila Fraser]

Well, as we mention in our recommendations, we obviously think that more can be done to give guidance and to clarify expectations of departments. That has largely been the role of Status of Women Canada until now, but we are saying it's also very important that they get the support of the central agencies to make sure that the departments are doing this.

Even when we mentioned the submissions to Treasury Board or to cabinet, half of the ones to cabinet had no mention of this, and yet they're supposed to be doing it. There perhaps needs to be a little more challenge, more clarification to departments on what should be done. When we see certain departments--we mentioned Transport and Veterans Affairs--which have very few or none of the components of the system that we would expect, there obviously has to be more monitoring of those departments as well.