Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

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

Why did it take so long for us to realize? It's because of the audit of the Auditor General obviously that we realized GBA wasn't being performed uniformly across all departments and agencies. You've given agencies the tools, provided them boot camps, told them to select champions, and yet so few were actually performing the analysis. Are you concerned that so few have champions?

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I'll start with the champion question.

This is not necessarily a question of the right or wrong model. It's really the best fit, what fits within an organization's culture. In some departments, a champion works. In other departments, a champion would not necessarily bring the results that are anticipated and it's better to have a whole unit be the responsible centre within a department. That's the way we've been trying to do it. You will see that in the response, in the action plan, we still require that as one of the elements for a framework. However, we really leave it up to the departments to determine what the responsibility centre will be and if it's a champion or not.

I forgot the first question.

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

It had to do with why it has taken us so long to realize that it wasn't being performed uniformly across all departments, and also, if you had a plan to do it, what the timeline was and all of that.

[Hélène Dwyer-Renaud]

I think the timing issue is an interesting one, because we have, through our own experience, noticed that it takes about 18 months for a department to actually start picking up on what it requires to do the analysis and what kinds of organizational elements it needs. It is a bit of a long-term type of process, especially, as it was noted here, since there is no obligation for departments to do this.

It has really been dependent on the goodwill of certain key leadership departments, such as Indian and Northern Affairs and Citizenship and Immigration, to be able to move forward in some of these areas and to see some of the evidence. We are greatly appreciative that for many years now we also have had the partnership of the central agencies to indeed start looking at the results at the end of the day. It's a full circle that we're now trying to put forward, along with the reporting of results by departments.

We now should be able to get things in motion better than we have in past years, but a lot of time was also spent in developing the tools and the knowledge and in having all the key players understand the role they play in this process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Crombie.

Mr. Young, you have five minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Fraser, there are a couple of things I'd like to ask you about in a detailed question.

I think there's a misunderstanding on the committee. When Mrs. Crombie talked about stopping the performing of GBA, I think she perhaps was talking about the detailed written evidence that you were looking for in every case. In your report, I don't see any evidence where you've said that the government is not doing gender-based analysis, but you want to see written evidence of it.

Could I continue? Then perhaps you can answer two questions at once.

Mr. Saxton pointed out that the previous government did really next to nothing for 10 years after announcing a plan for gender equality. I can assume that it came from the 1993 red book, perhaps, along with other plans like a child care program that also didn't appear even ten years later.

But we've seen this before. For example, in the Kyoto commitment, there were years of doing nothing while greenhouse gases went up 30%. There is a pattern of behaviour.

But we're the government that is making it happen now. It's easy to announce a plan, but it's the implementing of the plan that is the challenge. That's the challenge we have, with your help, Madam Fraser.

We need to know how to implement progress and how to provide a reasonable amount of detailed information or evidence that it's being implemented. Considering the fact that the files.... I mean, there are hundreds of policies, they're complex policies, and civil servants very often have to work in very, very short timeframes, so with those considerations in mind, what is a reasonable amount of evidence that you would be satisfied with?

I do want to point out as well that you had.... I think it's important to read from this document, the Treasury Board Secretariat guide for submissions, which was updated in 2007. Point 9.7.3 says:

Federal organizations are ultimately responsible for developing policies and programs that are compliant with overall government policies, including GBA. They are expected to include these considerations while performing their initial analysis, likely early in the process, at the MC stage for example. This should ensure that GBA concerns, along with other horizontal policy considerations, are integrated into the initial design of a program or initiative.

It also talks later about “a last check to ensure their proposal is GBA compliant” and says they should “report their findings” in the Treasury Board submission.

There's a very clear requirement to report on compliance, so there seems to be a disagreement on how much detail is reasonable for each policy. Perhaps you could comment on what would be a reasonable amount of detail.

[Sheila Fraser]

Let me just clarify the question of documentation.

First of all, you indicated that our report did not indicate that departments were not doing GBA. What we looked at in this audit was whether the GBA framework was in place in seven departments.

We saw elements of it. There was only one department that had all of the elements. We saw elements of it in four more. There were two where there was absolutely nothing, absolutely none of the elements of--

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Excuse me, Madam Fraser, but it's gender-based analysis, the detailed documentation you want, or is it the fact that it's going on verbally and in every consideration that every policy goes through Treasury Board...?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. If we see that an analysis has been done, it is documented. The issue--

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

But could it be done without the detailed analysis?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. I don't know how you can do an analysis without documentation.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Well, verbally. I mean, there's direction. There's a clear direction here from the government.

[Sheila Fraser]

Sir, the issue we talked about being done verbally is the challenge function that is done by the central agencies. So, for example, departments.... Say the Department of Health submits to Treasury Board a submission in which they are supposed to make some indication of GBA. We found there was no mention of GBA in one-third of the submissions to Treasury Board. In one-half of the memoranda to cabinet, no mention--there may not have been a need to do an analysis, it may have been irrelevant or it may have been a subject that would have not been appropriate, but there was no indication as to why it was not there.

So we would have expected to see even just a line to say why it was not present, and we questioned why the challenge function did not pick that up. And in asking questions about the challenge function we were told that all the challenge function is done verbally and we would have expected as a minimum that there be e-mails, that there be a list of questions, that there be some documentary evidence that people had asked why there was nothing about GBA in this submission.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Madame d'Auray, did you want to answer that, please?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I think I indicated earlier where we would like the documentation to rest and I think this is where I do believe the Auditor General and we agree, that it should be documented in departments and agencies. I think that would make our challenge function interactive and informal and oral. It would resolve the issue of documentation. And to respond perhaps to a number of comments that have been made, that is really where our action plan is also focused, working with departments and agencies to make sure they do undertake the analysis they should undertake where appropriate for them to do so and to make the linkages to the policies and programs.

The challenge function is in essence a last part of the process, because if it's not built in at the front, we're not the ones who will do it for the departments and agencies. They're the ones that have the responsibility.

So that is where our action plan is focused: working with the departments and agencies and preparing materials for them to be able to self-assess, asking them if they have all the right components of the framework in place in their organization to meet the GBA analysis commitment. We're not going to replicate it at the central agency level. It really has to be done at the departmental and agency level. And that's the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

Ms. d'Auray, I just want to clarify the issue of the whole of government responsibility. I look at this report--68 reports were analysed by the Auditor General. Only four said the GBA was performed and integrated, and in 26 reports there was no evidence of any consideration of GBA. Then we go back to another table, and where certain departments have certain components covered, a couple have it done fairly well. Two departments have no policy, no definition of roles and responsibility, no tools, no methodology, no training, and no evaluation of GBA practices.

You say Treasury Board is responsible for the challenge function, but who was responsible to ensure that all departments have the necessary policies in place, the tools, a broad-based governmental commitment in all departments rather than waiting for a challenge function if and when a cabinet submission does come to Treasury Board?

[Michelle d'Auray]

It really is incumbent on the deputy head of the organization to take on that responsibility. We have taken the comments of the Auditor General quite seriously in terms of the capacity in departments and agencies, which is why, when we tabled our action plan, that is a key component of going to meet with the departments and agencies. We had a first meeting with Veterans Affairs, I believe, in September. This is one of the departments that is identified here as not having the components of the framework in the Auditor General's report. And we are starting to put the mechanisms in place and we're working with departments so they do meet the components of the framework that are most suitable to them. So we are starting and our commitment is to continue to work. And I think that Status of Women Canada has also indicated there will be specific measures and a request to each department and agency throughout the year to report on an annual basis on what they have put in place. So we are putting in the mechanisms to undertake the due diligence, if I can put it that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We have a few minutes left, not a lot. We can entertain a couple of quick snappers of perhaps two minutes each.

Madame Faille, then Mr. Christopherson, and then Mr. Young.

You can have two to three minutes, Madame Faille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You broached a subject of particular interest to me, further to a question from Ms. Mathyssen who asked if the will of the government was in the hands of the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women and wondered about her ability to convey the importance of this file to her colleagues.

That is the question to which Ms. Mathyssen was seeking an answer. She did not get one, because time ran out. Is it possible now to have that question answered?

[Michelle d'Auray]

As I said, I believe deputy ministers and agency heads are responsible for ensuring that GBA mechanisms and approaches are put in place. Furthermore, as we saw from the Auditor General's report, the process can be rather uneven and we acknowledge that to be true. Our work involves getting back to the departments to discuss...

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

We encountered this very same problem in 1985, 1986 and 1989. I remember it well. I was a public servant in 1989 and the same issues arose with respect to the Employment Equity Act. There were no mechanisms in place or agency mandated to review activities.

In this particular instance, I don't think that Status of Women Canada is sufficiently autonomous to do the analyses, and the responsibilities appear to be shared by the Department of Finance, the Treasury Board...

[Michelle d'Auray]

As we indicated in our action plan and in the government's response to Ms. Fraser's report, we do acknowledge that we must support and work with Status of Women Canada. Consequently, this agency will not review departmental policies on its own, but rather will work with...

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

If you were granted more authority, would we get more results and would the GBA process be more transparent?

[Michelle d'Auray]

As I see it, GBA is a collaborative process and if we do not work with the central agencies and with Status of Women Canada, we will only get partial answers. That is why we work with and support the efforts of Status of Women Canada.

Status of Women Canada serves as the centre of excellence for GBA. We are not a substitute for this agency because it has the necessary skills and expertise. However, we do have the ability to put mechanisms in place to ensure that departments meet their obligations and to help us assess their performance. This is part of our job as a central agency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, you have two and a half minutes.