Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

We'll go to the second round.

Mrs. Crombie, you have five minutes.

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

Welcome, Madam Fraser. It's always nice to see you.

And Madame d'Auray, welcome to our committee.

I want to thank the Auditor General for conducting this review. Obviously, it's very important subject matter for all women--all people, in fact. I have to say that I was also extremely disappointed with the findings. I especially realized how little is being done with gender-based analysis. To me it seemed like there was a real lack of commitment on the part of the government. We've seen some departments, like HRSDC and Justice, that were role models. Justice, in fact, pioneered the GBA. Both have now stopped performing them.

As I read the chapter I had difficulty believing that the government is committed to continuing to perform GBA. I think there is a lack of political will. Political will is missing. Despite the good intentions, we still have a really long way to go. And we know that, because there's lots of evidence that has been documented in the chapter, and today in our discussions. There's no government-wide policy requiring departments and agencies to perform GBA. Even in those departments that are doing it, there's little evidence suggesting it goes into the analysis, that it's being used to design public policy. We have some evidence to the contrary, which I'm going to table shortly. Of the 68 initiatives, only four showed the GBA was integrated into the policy development process. We can go on and on.

Mr. Bouwer said earlier that we incorporate GBA where appropriate. Where isn't it appropriate? And it's done informally and verbally.

I want to know if the government is committed to this process, and I'd like to hear from each of the agencies.

[Michelle d'Auray]

I can start, if I may.

Yes, the government is committed to the process. Yes, we have made some strides. We have, in some instances, been quite specific as to what we require departments to provide to us. From a Treasury Board Secretariat perspective, we have also spent quite a bit of time and effort training our folks to actually understand, because part of that is not just what other departments do, but also what we do as a central agency to train our own analysts, look at our own policies, and make sure that we have the right components in place so that we can assess and play that challenge function appropriately. As the Auditor General noted, over time some initiatives were taken in some departments and were incorporated in some of their ongoing activities.

We have started, again, to engage departments directly on this issue. We have started meeting with their management teams. There is a cyclical aspect to this.

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

Granted. You know, I'm afraid we're going to run out of time, so I'm going to try to get in a few more questions.

Ultimately, who's responsibility is it to ensure the implementation of gender-based analysis? What is the role of the minister? Is she committed, and ultimately, does she push it on cabinet to perform GBA on every other policy and legislative matter? Have we asked her why it isn't being done in certain circumstances across all departments?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In terms of the obligation, it rests with each institution, with each deputy head. The accountabilities rest with each of the departments and agencies to fulfill the obligation for gender-based analysis. So it really is with each organization to take that on and to fulfill those obligations.

The policy organizations--Status of Women, as well as the central agencies--each play a set of roles and responsibilities in relation to that. But ultimately it is up to each organization, each department and agency, to fulfill that obligation.

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

I need to get one more quick question in, because I know I'm out of time.

What if there are negative impacts? I know Mr. Saxton talked about positive impacts. What if a GBA has been done, or in many cases hasn't been done, and we find that there are negative impacts on women? I'd like to highlight the legislation that eliminated pay equity for women in the public service. What recourse is there when there are definitely negative impacts? Can the decision be amended?

[Michelle d'Auray]

With regard to the equitable compensation act, our analysis would show that by integrating discussions around equitable compensation within the collective bargaining sphere it actually integrates the gender-based analysis into the collective bargaining process, as opposed to leaving it entirely outside the process and having to play catch-up with it. We have also found that in a number of instances these issues were dealt with over a 15-year timeframe, as opposed to being dealt with where it should be dealt with, which is within the collective bargaining process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Crombie.

Mr. Kramp, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will actually agree with my colleague across the floor, Ms. Crombie, on part of her statement, when she mentioned that there really was a lack of political will. I arrived here in 2004. I believe it was in 1995 that the commitment was made for a federal plan for gender equality, and I can recall sitting in the public accounts committee in 2004 and literally nothing had been accomplished or created. That was shameful, so I think the record does deserve to be set straight there now.

I would also state that, of course, there has been some activity. Is it fast enough? Is it strong enough? Is it acceptable enough? That's what I think we all have to debate here. But I would note that, in 2005, the previous government finally moved and the Department of Finance tried to implement an analysis. In 2006, our government granted access for the first time to advice to cabinet documents to the Auditor General so we could start to bring some light on this. In 2007, Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines were changed to incorporate, finally, gender-based analysis. In 2008, our government took action to ensure that all this memoranda went to cabinet, including gender-based analysis.

My concern is that it's going there, but then what happens there? This is my question for Madame d'Auray.

You stated earlier that the responsibility for this rests with departments and agencies. But where in the political process are we involved? Either with either parliamentary committees or with ministers or deputy ministers, where's the ball now?

[Michelle d'Auray]

It rests first and foremost with the deputy head, the deputy minister. The deputy minister is accountable for ensuring that analysis, for ensuring that policy development incorporates program development, incorporates a range of factors, including gender-based analysis. Therefore, the secondary impact is that when a new development or a new proposal is brought forward, it is then brought to the Privy Council Office and that analysis is done.

Perhaps I could turn to my colleague Mr. Bouwer to explain how that then gets incorporated within the cabinet and the ministerial component.

[Neil Bouwer]

I would just add that the Privy Council Office, as the secretariat to cabinet, looks at proposals when they are still in development—that is, at the policy research stage—making sure that data is brought forward and the analysis is being done. We ask challenge questions.

As is being discussed, this is a very informal process, and I understand the questions that are being asked about why that isn't formalized. I understand the questions that are coming from the Auditor General, although I should say that you're shining a light here on a very informal, small part of the process.

In the main, good policy advice comes out of departments. That's where the accountability lies and that's where the good ideas come from. It is ministers, ultimately, that bring forward proposals to cabinet for discussion in cabinet committee and by full cabinet, and for decision. So they manifest themselves at all stages of that process: at the cabinet table, in the lead-up to that and the challenge function, but also in the development and documentation proposals. That would hold true for the Treasury Board as well as for cabinet committees and full cabinet.

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

Thank you.

If I might just comment briefly on that, in concert with the thoughts of the chair and certainly Mr. Christopherson, I think we are a committee of accountability. Verbalization of literally anything really makes it very, very difficult to have a trail of accountability. As such, I would certainly hope that as we move forward the various respective authorities understand that reality and adjust their thinking to that reality. I have no idea, of course, what the will of this committee will be with regard to recommendations, but at some particular point I would hope that this would be factored into a solution so that we can be confident and assured that what we see is what we get all the way through and there's no slipping of facts or motives either one way or the other, for the government or against the government, on this. We need the facts. That's what we need all the way through.

Madame d'Auray, thank you so kindly for helping clear this up. If we have a grey area, that's what we have to have established so that we have a work process, something we can plan on now.

Do I have time for one more quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You're out of time, Mr. Kramp.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

Madame Faille, five minutes.

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

Thank you.

What bothers me a great deal at this point in time is that departments and agencies are being asked to perform gender analyses, although this remains a voluntary function. All of this leads me to ask a question about another matter considered by this committee, namely the computer systems profitability studies that are a requirement of Cabinet submissions. If these profitability studies are not carried out, how can we expect departments to do gender analyses on a voluntary basis?

How can we expect that to happen if there is no way of verifying information, if there is no information system in place and if there is no formal tool for documenting results?

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are two parts to your question. Firstly, as to whether departments document their own achievements in this area and can prove that they have done their own analyses, we agree—and we have discussed this with the Auditor General—that we must step up our efforts to work with the departments to ensure that gender analyses are performed.

As for the transparency of the discussions resulting in a notice or advice to the minister, there is a tie in here with a comment made earlier by Mr. Kramp. There are limits to what transparency can provide. Our advice to the minister is ultimately reflected in the decision he makes. The question of confidence remains and the result is the policy, program or initiative that flows from this process. The results will ultimately dictate whether or not the decision was the right one. But ultimately, the decision rests with the ministers.

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

So then, given your approach, what benchmark do you use to gauge the effectiveness of policies and programs?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The effectiveness of programs and policies is measured against the objectives initially stated and the results achieved. Objectives and outcomes are identified in the accountability framework associated with each program, policy or initiative.

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

The various departmental components will each experience a different kind of pressure. The results will be uneven.

[Michelle d'Auray]

The aim of each separate program or activity is very different. What matters is to ensure that GBA is taken into account in the policy formulation process.

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

In your presentation you alluded to the year 2005. We were in this very room when Finance department officials refused to carry out gender-based analyses. I am happy to hear you say that the department is now on board with GBA. However, I want to know how the outcomes are made public.

[Louise Levonian]

GBA results are not made public. Ultimately, we provide advice to the minister. The results cannot be made public. Measures implemented ultimately become public knowledge.

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

I once worked for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. GBA has been mandatory for the department since 2002. Prior to then, studies were carried out on a voluntary basis.

How would you rate the efforts of the Department of Finance?

[Louise Levonian]

What exactly do you mean? Are you asking if the department does gender-based analyses?