Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In your opinion, are the measures that you are proposing more effective and fairer? Will they directly impact women?

[Louise Levonian]

We have a responsibility to advise the minister who ultimately decides on the measures that will be implemented.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I understand, but if the minister is replaced by someone else, could we possibly see some backsliding and an end to GBA?

[Louise Levonian]

No. The Department of Finance has a duty to carry out gender-based analyses. Our role is to ensure that it fulfils that obligation and that the information is conveyed to our minister.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In its response to the government, Status of Women Canada said it was prepared to play a more prominent role in ensuring the successful implementation of GBA. However, it said it would require additional resources to take on the job.

What commitment has it received to date and when was the formal request for additional resources first made?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I am not aware, unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, of any formal request. Perhaps Status of Women Canada officials can answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madam Waugh, do you have an answer to that question?

[Nanci-Jean Waugh, Director General, Communications and Strategic Planning Directorate, Status of Women Canada]

Yes. With the approach that has been taken with the action plan, we want to see and assess where we're going with the resources we currently have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, thank you very much.

We're going to now move to Mr. Shipley, five minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, Madam Auditor General and other witnesses.

I have a quick question, if I might, to the Auditor General.

Can you help me understand a bit where you're at now with this review? What access did you have prior to 2006? Did you have any access to information, particularly prior to 2006?

[Sheila Fraser]

Let me clarify: there are many documents that are classified as cabinet confidence, and we have always had access to certain documents that were categorized as cabinet confidence. There was an order in council--I can't remember the exact time, probably back in the 1970s or 1980s--that clarified our right of access after a case that went to the Supreme Court.

Anyway, the issue arose again in 2006 when we were auditing certain IT systems being managed at the Treasury Board Secretariat. We were told at that point that practically all documentation at the secretariat was considered a cabinet confidence, which had never been the approach of government in the past. We had a bit of discussion back and forth, and then a revised order in council came out to clarify our access to documents, in particular at the Treasury Board Secretariat.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

So that hadn't been there before.

[Sheila Fraser]

Well, there was an order in council from 1985; it was the application of the order in council that had changed over time.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I want to go back. When we were talking earlier, Mr. Lee and Ms. Crombie mentioned the issues about compliance. I mean, this thing only goes back to 1995. Unfortunately, there had not been any movement that had taken place in terms of gender-based analysis until about 2006.

So now we have started a process--and I'm glad that Ms. Renaud is here, and I'm glad for her frankness--and there's a lot that has been happening. Something has been started, some of it has been completed, and obviously we have a lot of catch-up to do.

I'm hearing, and I heard that strongly from David, and obviously from the Auditor General, and from my colleague Daryl also, that the verbal transactions don't cut it. There has to be a change in terms of how the documentation is kept. It's the only way we can have accountability. There hasn't been much, from what I can understand.

I'm pleased that some of the departments have taken that initiative and through the verbal context have actually moved ahead, as we've heard from witnesses. I think that is the impetus of what we're talking about. It was brought about in 1995.

I want to ask Ms. d'Auray about training. One of the things about this whole gender-based analysis is training people. I don't really understand it enough, but it has to be an important part of any government operations.

I don't know who I should refer to, the Department of Finance or one of the organizations, but how is that training done? How does that help us understand and then get that analysis out so we then have a fair written analysis of some type to compare?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I have two quick points before I turn to my colleague about the training.

We agree there needs to be better documentation and it should be in the departments and agencies. They're best placed to tell us whether they have done the analysis, how they have done it, and where it is linked to their own policy and development. So I don't want to leave the impression that we're against the documentation. We would welcome the documentation as well, and that's why we would like to see it done in departments and agencies. That would make our challenge function a lot easier.

[Catrina Tapley]

On training, I'm happy to report what we've done over the past couple of years. We do it in three different ways. We have something called boot camp for new Treasury Board Secretariat employees, and gender-based analysis is part of that training.

In addition to that, we have specific sessions on gender-based analysis--what to look for and what questions to pose for departments. This training is for analysts and we do it on an annual cycle.

The third thing we've done this year is bring in a world expert on gender-based analysis, Dr. Olena Hankivsky. She did a full workshop with Treasury Board analysts and was able to provide an informed, common-sense approach to gender-based analysis.

These are things--outside of Dr. Hankivsky's workshop--that we do on an annual cycle.

[Louise Levonian]

The Department of Finance has also embraced training, in conjunction with our colleagues at the Status of Women. They are the centre of excellence and expertise. They provide the training for us and we model it to fit within our organization.

We have offered training every year for the past couple of years. We just offered four sessions and they were very well attended. The feedback was extremely good, in that they were helpful and gave people the tools to be able to do good gender-based analysis.

We also have an orientation session for new employees. They're made aware right off the bat that they have to conduct gender-based analysis. It's also part of our course curriculum for new employees

We've had quite a number of people take the training, so we're proud of the fact that we're giving the tools to our analysts and senior managers to take training.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shipley.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here. I truly appreciate the work that's being done. As you know, the status of women committee did indeed take a look at GBA, and we're grateful for your report.

We've heard a great deal from the departments about conducting GBA and passing that analysis along to various ministers. Then of course it's up to the ministers to respond to the analysis.

Is it possible that despite the 1995 federal plan for gender equality, government ministers are disregarding the advice? There seems to be a great gap between what we're hearing about the efforts of departments and the reality of outcome in your report, Madam Auditor General.

[Sheila Fraser]

I believe it's always the prerogative of the minister to not take the advice or recommendations made to them. As we note in the report, we saw only four cases out of 68 initiatives where GBA was performed and we could see evidence it was integrated into the policy process. That doesn't necessarily mean all 68 GBA would have been appropriate, but we would have expected at least an indication that it wasn't appropriate and the reasons for that. So there is obviously still a lot of work to do.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

It seems that the departments genuinely want to do good GBA, but they are very much at the mercy of their political masters.

Reference has been made here to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. It's interesting, because we heard very clearly in the committee on the status of women that unions--the women who are actually governed by that--were very much in opposition to having pay equity or equitable compensation as part of the collective bargaining process with the market forces process that was in place, because collective bargaining is about wages and benefits, and pay equity falls off the table.

It feels very much like the government is trying to avoid GBA as much as they were trying to avoid anything real in pay equity. The reasons are numerous on GBA--policy environment, departmental leadership, the degree of understanding of GBA, the extent to which GBA framework is in place, the availability of analytical tools, practices, and even the impact of reorganizations in departments and agencies. Are any of these legitimate excuses?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In reference to the question on the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, a number of the issues were not addressed through the collective bargaining process. Because they ended up being addressed outside the collective bargaining process, it ended up being fairly lengthy, and sometimes costly, for both the proponents and the government. Equitable compensation within the collective bargaining framework actually ended up costing women quite a bit. The purpose of bringing it into collective bargaining is not to sidetrack. Now it's integrated. That's the reason for the change in legislation.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Women feel quite differently—they were clear that pay equity gets lost in the shuffle. One of the reasons it was protracted was that the government kept appealing the decisions.

I want to move on to the Department of Finance. Does the Department of Finance have a special gender unit?

[Louise Levonian]

No, we do not.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Why not?