Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Christopherson, for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all for your attendance today.

I'm pleased to be joined by my colleague, Irene Mathyssen, who is our critic for women's issues. She will lead our second round of questioning, so welcome to my colleague.

I want to focus in on the strong language contained in the auditor's opening statements. I've been on this committee for quite some time, and I can tell you it's very rare that the auditor uses language that is this severe and unambiguous, deliberately, to state, as she has in paragraph 12: “I have serious concerns with the lack of appropriate documentation...”. The next paragraph begins with “This is not acceptable.” If it's not acceptable to the Auditor General of Canada, it ought not to be acceptable to this committee.

I'd like to hear a response. I don't think I've heard a direct response from Madame d'Auray to the serious issues the auditor has raised and the way she has raised them, so I want you to revisit that for me, because we can't let this go. We're not going to let this go, so let's have at it.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you.

The central agencies did respond to the recommendation made by the Auditor General in her report. And we still remain of the view that it is the responsibility of sponsoring departments to conduct appropriate gender-based analysis and that the challenge function that lies at the core of the mandate of central agencies is not something we would document. It is something that is done on a day-to-day basis of verbal interaction, informal meetings, and informal discussions. We do it on a wide range of issues. And we do not document.

Where we do find the documentation is in the result, and the result is the advice that we provide to ministers. That advice is not documentation that is made available to the Auditor General.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Fraser, what are your thoughts on what you just heard?

[Sheila Fraser]

I must admit we haven't gone in to audit all of how this happens. But I find it quite astonishing that everything is done verbally. Even when we submit submissions to the Treasury Board, there are reams of e-mails that come into the office. So that there are no e-mails that can be made available to us to show that anybody's question of gender-based analysis has even been considered I find astonishing, actually.

As the audit office, we should be able to see documentary evidence that this challenge has occurred. We are not asking to see cabinet confidences of this type. But if it's the only place it exists, which is what we were told, then why can't government extract it and give us the indication that it is happening? Right now we have absolutely no indication, written documentation, that any of these things are being challenged or being reviewed. And as we say in this report, we believe this is a really critical function that is being played by these central agencies to ensure consistency with commitments and policies that are being made, not only on gender-based analysis but also more generally across government.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Madame d'Auray, notwithstanding that we haven't resolved entirely what's happened to date, but on a go-forward basis, are you offering to change this so that there are records in the future, so that another audit down the road could be done properly? Are you acknowledging that verbal is not sufficient because it does raise these questions? And will you be changing this so that from here on in there will be a record?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In terms of the challenge function, we are not proposing to change the way we operate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But how is anybody supposed to check whether it's done or not, Madame?

[Michelle d'Auray]

What we are proposing to do is work with departments and agencies to strengthen their capacity and to strengthen the documentation they put into their own analysis to demonstrate they have taken those issues into account.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be abrupt or rude, but we're short on time.

You can appreciate this doesn't allow anyone to check whether it is being done. We are a committee of accountability. Everything is supposed to be accountable. If this is serious to the government, then it would seem to me, even if you want to avoid a difference of opinion on what's happened up until now, that moving forward, there ought to be a commitment. I'm just shocked.

I'd like to know what Status of Women Canada thinks about this being continued on a verbal basis with no ability to check whether it's really being done. I want Status of Women to respond, please. How do you feel about this? You're supposed to be the advocates on this file.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud, Director, Gender-Based Analysis Support Services, Status of Women Canada]

I need to think. It's obvious that right now, with the support we are having from the central agencies, things are moving in the right direction, as we've never had it before. The challenge function is obviously something that could be added in the realm of accountability, and it would be very useful. But I think we are, as you say, going forward with new ways and means.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fine. Thank you.

I'm hearing from the lead agency that they think it would be a good idea. But I'm back to you, Madame d'Auray.

The Auditor General thinks something needs to be done. I think you'll find that the majority of us, if we don't get partisan, would agree this needs to be done. The Status of Women, the advocate agency, thinks so. You seem to be the only one who doesn't think this is important. I just don't understand why, if a challenge process is important, there isn't at least some kind of record. There's nothing. It's all verbal. And isn't it easy when it's verbal to say yes, we did it? How can that be checked?

[Michelle d'Auray]

If I may, there are two aspects to this. One of them is in fact that departments and agencies should demonstrate that they have taken these issues into account. And we do take the point, as the Auditor General has indicated, that we have to do more and better work on that front.

Ultimately, it is the policies and the programs that are developed by the departments and agencies. It's not the central agencies that do that. It really is the departments and agencies--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You had the responsibility to perform the challenge duty.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes, but the documentation around whether or not departments have taken that into account should actually be coming from the department--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Absolutely, but that's step one. Step two is the challenge process, and you won't commit to doing it in writing.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Step two, if you'll allow me, is in fact--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If you'll answer my question, I'll let you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Please let the witness answer the question.

Your time is up, David, so we'll let the witness answer the question.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Step two is in terms of the advice that we give to ministers, and that is included. It is documented, but it is not, as the Auditor General has indicated, provided to the Auditor General.

That said, we also see the results in the policies and programs themselves, and I think that ultimately, at the end of the day, that is really where we should be looking to see whether the policies and programs are creating the opportunities and addressing the issues as they should.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Go ahead, Mr. Saxton, for seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to welcome the Auditor General back to the committee, and I'd like to welcome everybody else to the committee, with a special welcome to Madame d'Auray on the occasion of her first time before the committee in her new position.

My first question is for the Auditor General. A previous government committed to GBA back in 1995, but not much of anything was done until 2005. That is almost a full ten years. Can you explain why nothing happened during those ten years?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, our audit did not go back to look at a retrospective of the progress over ten years. We mention, in the cases of some departments, that some work had been done after the commitment of 1995, and then it seemed to taper off. I would note, though, for the committee that one major event that occurred was the creation of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2004, which has obviously given a lot of impetus to some of these issues.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

My next question is for the secretary. When did gender-based analysis become a compulsory component of Treasury Board submissions and memos to cabinet?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In terms of the Treasury Board Secretariat, I believe that the first time we put it into our guide to submissions was in 2007. In fact, it has been quite clearly prescribed as a component of Treasury Board submissions that departments have to fulfill.

With regard to the Privy Council Office, I would turn to my colleague, Mr. Bouwer, to respond to that.