Evidence of meeting #9 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gba.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Like filling the gap, outlining what exactly, because again there's the complex stuff you referenced earlier.
10:20 a.m.
Head of Agency, Status of Women Canada
No, we haven't talked to them about a study, but we can certainly explore that idea.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
We'll now move to Mr. Christopherson for five minutes.
10:20 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It seems to me that the Auditor General's representative pretty much summed up where we are, acknowledging that the mandatory is only part and that the training is in there and then the proper analysis. I think the back two pieces are already in the action plan.
It seems to me that of the things the Auditor General's office is saying will make a difference the one that's still missing is the mandatory, and that's clearly what this is going to come down to. I can only hope that the committee will ultimately make that recommendation, which is step one. Step two is that the government listens and brings in that change. If not, politics will take over from there, and we'll deal with it in the public arena.
I really don't have a whole lot more to say. I've said my bit, and I'm satisfied that the action plan deals with most of the issues that need to be looked at. I think it's a good action plan. I'm satisfied with it. The timelines seem to work. I was listening to Mr. Lefebvre ask about the time frames, and I think that looks fairly solid.
It just seems to me that the piece that's missing is the mandatory. The bureaucrats representing the staff can't make that recommendation. Also, the Auditor General's made it clear that he can only go so far. It only takes just a smattering of common sense to get to the part where it looks like the key thing we need to do is the mandatory piece, especially since we've already got it in at least one, if not two, pieces of the existing legislation and nobody's lighting their hair on fire, saying this is causing the world to collapse around us.
I'm going to end on that note, that it seems to me that our job now, in my opinion, is to convince ourselves collectively that we can get a unanimous report that would speak to moving to a mandatory reporting system. Then from there it's up to the government to respond. If we can't get that in the report, then I can assure you, Mr. Chair, that this matter will not die. It shall find its way into other public arenas. Of that I can guarantee you, sir.
With that, I thank you, and I thank all our participants. This has been a good session. Now it's time for us to do our job.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.
We're taking special note that he actually left two minutes on the table. I know he could back off on that, too.
Ms. Mendès.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I absolutely concur with what Mr. Christopherson just said. Yes, it is our job now to pursue it as a committee. But I would also take on many of the comments Mr. Albas made. Surprisingly, I actually agree with a lot of them.
Since 1995, we're at two audits, if I'm not mistaken. This is the second audit in a very short period, six years. Why was there never an audit done before?
10:20 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Do you mean from our office, as opposed to an internal audit from Status of Women?
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
10:20 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Because we, as an office, decided that time was required for the 2009 action plan to mature.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
No, I'm talking about the commitment in 1995, because from 1995 to 2009 14 years went by after Canada made the commitment to engage in active gender-based analysis, and we've never had an audit before. The first one was in 2009.
10:25 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It was at the request, Mr. Chair, of Sheila Fraser, who at the time was the Auditor General. I was attending, I think, a hearing of the status of women committee, and the GBA file was discussed then. It was when she left that meeting that she tasked the office to perform a GBA audit. That would have been 2009.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
For that way of measuring what had been done from 1995 to 2007, we have nothing that—
10:25 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. The 2009 report, Mr. Chair, is a snapshot of the situation as of that year. We don't see how the file evolved over those 14 years.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Would you, in any of the departments, know what had been implemented, attempted, or tried?
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think—and I'm not certain of the timeline here—that perhaps even the formation of the Status of Women department might have been in response to the 1995.... Is that right or wrong?
10:25 a.m.
A voice
No.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
I'm curious to know why we suddenly had this first audit when the policy had been in place since 1995. This had been a commitment by Canada. We only had the first audit in 2009, but what happened meanwhile? Were any of the departments already conducting gender-based analysis in their policy-making? Were they by then, when you went in the first time in 2009?
Mr. Bouwer.
10:25 a.m.
Neil Bouwer Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Policy Integration, Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, I know that at Natural Resources Canada we did not do gender-based analysis, certainly not systemically. It's only been since the third phase of the action plan that Natural Resources Canada has done that. Today, for all of its Treasury Board submissions, all of its memoranda to cabinet, and all of its budget submissions to the Department of Finance, NRCan conducts a gender-based analysis, and that's new. I don't have the history to go back—
10:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Policy Integration, Department of Natural Resources
It's new for Natural Resources Canada.
10:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Policy Integration, Department of Natural Resources
In 2014, it became de facto comprehensive. We made the commitment in 2013.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
10:25 a.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I just wanted to point out that for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, the GBA policy was adopted as a mandatory requirement in 1999. At that time we established a fairly deep capacity-building exercise.
At this point in time, we have GBA representatives throughout our department and all the programs who advise on program renewal, policy development, and research. We are actually in the process of drafting negotiation guidelines for GBA for self-government and comprehensive land claims. We've made a fairly deep commitment and it's quite long-standing in our department.