Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to try to squeeze in two quick questions. I'll put them on the floor and await the response.

The first is in reference to page 7, paragraph 1.10, where it says, in reference to its 2002 report, “Following that response, CEDAW recommended that Canada consider making gender-based analysis mandatory at all government levels.” I wasn't clear on this. I heard that it's on a form, that it's part of the cabinet submission, but does that mean it's mandatory? Is it considered mandatory or not? And if it isn't, why not?

The answer should come, in my opinion, from Status of Women Canada, since they're the ones that are supposed to be making sure all these things happen. And if they are, then why do we have a problem with departments not including it?

My second question is with regard to the transportation department. On page 14 of the report, at paragraph 1.31, it says that Transport Canada “considered their work 'gender-neutral,' and that GBA was not relevant to the development of their programs and regulations”.

Again, having been a minister, and knowing the breadth of what's dealt with in a line ministry, I find it hard to believe that there is never an occasion, and therefore that department can just consider this a non-issue for them.

If someone would respond to that, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Chair.

[Neil Bouwer]

I'll take a stab at that just to explain first of all the requirements for memoranda to cabinet.

The Privy Council Office puts out a guide for memoranda to cabinet for departments and ministers. We ask departments to include where appropriate: adverse consequences of proceeding and not proceeding; legal risk assessments including charter and trade; horizontal policy impacts across the government's agenda; privacy impacts; official languages considerations; provincial-territorial-regional considerations and strategies, including federal spending power considerations; gender issues; private and voluntary sector implications; the different groups that are consulted and their views; sustainable development aspects; as well as international perspectives and comparative analyses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is it mandatory?

[Neil Bouwer]

This is a large group of analysis. What is mandatory is good public policy advice, but we don't dictate to departments exactly what aspects--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So it's not mandatory. So I'd want to hear from Status of Women Canada, why aren't they pursuing that? Why aren't they pushing it?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

That's why we have the action plan right now. This is really the road going forward, without making it a mandatory provision, but making sure that departments are doing good public policy by having the right tools, the right frameworks, the accountability cycle at the end--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But that's not happening; that's what we're hearing. So you're failing. I really think we should have had Status of Women Canada alone here holding the gun, because you've had the responsibility since 1995. It's 14 years later, and a lot of these failures, if not most of them, rest at your doorstep for not pushing this hard enough and making it known that this is not good enough.

Anyway, on transportation, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll let Ms. d'Auray finish, and then we'll go to Mr. Young.

[Michelle d'Auray]

I think we have to look at the results of the Government of Canada's policies and practices. I think that's really where the issues should be addressed. I'm not familiar with all of the components of Transport Canada, but are there some issues that are in their range of activity that are adversely affecting?

I think if you look at the result of policies and programs across a wide range of government activities.... As Mr. Bouwer pointed out, we do an analysis that looks at a wide range of these things, a wide range of components, of elements, criticality, and those are all weighed in a fairly complex assessment. Decisions that ministers will make will take all of those elements into consideration. There's not one that trumps another unless there are some specific legislative elements that are attached to them.

From a transport perspective, I cannot answer for that department, but what I can tell you is that if you look at the results of their policies and practices in the same way that you look at the results of the government's policies and practices, the evolution and the changes we have seen in government programs, policies, and practices--even in the regulatory framework that we've seen since 1995--has been quite extensive in the way in which we address and deal with women and women's issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Young, two to three minutes, and then we're going to ask for closing remarks.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

May I share my time with my colleagues?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There isn't much time, Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

A couple of short questions, Mr. Chair, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You're transferring your time, not sharing it.

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

Can I go to your recommendation, Ms. Fraser? On recommendation 1.57, just a clarification, please. You talk about the clarification expectations about when it is appropriate to perform gender-based analysis, and that it's agreed to by Status of Women Canada, and also agreed to by the partnering of the departments. I'd like some sort of clarification on that.

In recommendation 1.79, you talk about the progress in fulfilling the government's 1995.... They want to get a measure of fulfilling. I would ask, and this is going back to the fact that by the summer of 2010, Status of Women Canada will be looking at that progress. I would ask as part of this committee that you just consider starting with the program in 1995 and go back and just sort of give us a schedule of events that have happened to where we are today and how those came about with the recommendations to move forward.

Madam Fraser.

[Sheila Fraser]

Obviously in doing this work it seemed clear to us that departments did not understand when they should be doing this. I think testimony's been given today that there has been more work done on this and perhaps better guidelines will be given to them, so they can perhaps more easily identify when it clearly should not be done and when there clearly is an indication that it should be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

One quick question, Mr. Kramp, and then we'll go to Ms. Crombie for a question before we close.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

This is not a quick question, only a statement.

When I take a look at the witnesses here I see, of course, the gender, the quality, and the composition, and I say to myself “gender equality” and I think that before this committee you are very well represented. So thank you very kindly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp. You're very observant.

Ms. Crombie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addition, Mr. Kramp, it's the 80th anniversary of women becoming persons today, so it's very timely.

Quickly, to Treasury Board, I know that Ms. Faille had asked if you performed a gender-based analysis on the stimulus package and economic update because there's a theory that women didn't benefit directly. Obviously, the intent was to invest money in infrastructure and hence create construction jobs. That wouldn't directly benefit women, because if there had been an intention that we create jobs for women, we would invest in SMEs and the service sector.

Secondly, to go back to my original question, can you assure us that the government is committed and there is political will to implement GBA, the framework, across all departments? Is there a plan, is there a timeline, can you ensure it, and what are the next steps?

[Michelle d'Auray]

All in two seconds?

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

Of course.

[Michelle d'Auray]

On the first point, I think my colleague, Ms. Levonian, responded in terms of the GBA analysis for the budget.

With regard to the plan moving forward, we did table with the committee an action plan that does give timelines and does actually indicate the measure that we will be taking, how we're going to be engaging departments, and how departments will actually be reporting on the work they are doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Crombie.

Before we ask for closing remarks, I certainly want to thank the witnesses for their appearance and testimony here today. However, I have a housekeeping matter.

Madame d'Auray, I want to get a commitment from you. We wrote the minister, and copied the previous secretary, requesting some additional information on follow-up matters. That was back in May. We asked that the information be provided by the end of July and then that was extended to the end of August. The clerk has been following up since September and this is holding up the work of the committee. If you could provide us that information in the next week or two, Madame d'Auray, it would be appreciated. Can you give us that commitment?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I will commit to follow up. I don't know what the status of the material is at this moment, but I will make sure that our parliamentary affairs personnel communicates back to the clerk and gives a sense of the timelines.