Status of Women Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have five seconds left.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, thank you for your generosity. I would also like to thank the witnesses. I'll have more questions later.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We will move on to Madam Boucher, please.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning everyone.Thank you for coming here to meet with us.

It is always very interesting to speak on behalf of women. As you know, women are still very rare in the political sphere. Leadership is required and I believe that we have seen some. A number of measures have been taken. Our minister of state will be implementing the action plan for women, the first initiative of its kind, I believe. We lead the way in the field of GBA and we want to promote the full participation of women in the social, cultural and economic life of Canada. We started from a long way back and although there is still much to be done, there is no denying that we have made some progress. We can focus on the negatives, but it is very important to remember that there have also been many very positive developments over the years.

It is also important to note that Status of Women Canada has worked very hard to ensure training is available and to support the efforts of various federal departments in the field of GBA. Ms. Fraser, you just said that the government must take on a greater role in implementing GBA. Status of Women Canada, TBS and PCO have all agreed to do so.

My question is for Ms. Beckton. I'm familiar with the work you do. We speak fairly often. Can you tell the committee what you have done thus far to promote GBA across government? What steps have you taken?

[Clare Beckton]

Thank you for that question.

I'll explain what we have done. As you have said, Madam Boucher, Status of Women has been instrumental in ensuring that training is available to all the government departments. We have trained a number of trainers in addition to our own staff who have assisted departments. We have trained this committee, as you will recall from the last session. We have also provided training to the budget office, and as well to the clerks of the various committees.

We have also been working with various departments to help them build their capacity to be able to develop frameworks for gender-based analysis and in essence serving as a centre of expertise. Status of Women has evolved the tools on how to do gender-based analysis. We're continually working on those tools and guides to better support the departments.

My central agency colleagues can talk more about this, but we have done extensive work with the Privy Council, Treasury Board, and with the Department of Finance. Certainly we work with central agencies on looking at the accountability mechanisms, the important role they play, and how we work together. With the Department of Finance, we have furnished training to Finance officials on the gender-based analysis, which is obviously being reflected in the work they're doing in terms of their budget.

In terms of gender-based analysis, we have also been working with specific departments around the issue of culture, which has been raised here this morning. We have held some sessions with some of the aboriginal groups, including the Inuit, Métis, and first nations, around the development of cultural frameworks, being very much aware, with our colleagues at Indian and Northern Affairs, that you do have to look at the cultural aspects through the gender lens as well.

There has been considerable work done by Status of Women over the years and, as we say, with our central agencies. Perhaps they would like to talk a little more about some of the specific elements they've been looking at in terms of accountability.

Neil.

[Neil Bouwer]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I should say first of all that central agencies, as Ms. Beckton has said, have increased the visibility and signaled the importance of gender-based analysis generally. At the Privy Council Office, we now ensure that all our officers receive gender-based analysis training and also receive training as part of the orientation to the Privy Council Office. As well, we are tailoring the tools from Status of Women Canada for use in the challenge function. We are also doing outreach with departments. So where we think appropriate, we will talk to sponsoring departments that ultimately have the responsibility for undertaking gender-based analysis. That's part of the challenge and support function we play. We've also been working with central agencies and Status of Women to try to coordinate our efforts better.

In terms of the challenge function, the officers are accountable to their directors and to me. This is an organic and informal process. We ensure that, on the proposals coming forward, we are satisfied that gender analyses have taken place and decide whether or not we deal with the department and put the onus back on the sponsoring ministry.

[Catrina Tapley]

Thank you.

It's a pleasure to be able to comment on what we've done at Treasury Board Secretariat over the last year and over the last couple of years. I've left with the clerk of the committee a copy of a binder of the training materials we've used for the past years, the sessions we've held, and a new pamphlet we've produced at Treasury Board Secretariat for analysts to help pose better and more significant questions.

Similar to what PCO has done, we've highlighted training. We have built gender-based analysis training into our training sessions for new analysts and new employees at Treasury Board. We call it boot camp. We've also embarked on a number of larger sessions where seasoned analysts have an opportunity to talk about the concerns around this lens and other lenses and how to pose those questions.

This year we were fortunate enough to bring in Dr. Olena Hankivsky from Simon Fraser University, who is an expert in the field of gender mainstreaming, to do a workshop at Treasury Board and help us produce some of those materials that we've built in conjunction with the Status of Women.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but the time is up. If there are other issues perhaps you will be able to answer them in a further question.

We'll now move to Ms. Mathyssen, for seven minutes, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for being here, Auditor General. I must say, we've looked forward to this report for quite some time, and we're most grateful for it.

I'm also very glad to see others here today from Status of Women, Treasury Board, and...the champions, of course. It's very clear to me that there is a significant process in place in regard to what we hope to achieve, specifically that policies and programs be gender-sensitive. It would seem, however, that there may be political will missing. I would have very much liked to see some of the political masters here answering some of these questions, because despite binders of training material, and promises and pledges that go back to 1995, we still seem to have a long way to go.

Having said that, my first question is in regard to the new 2008 guide on drafting memoranda to cabinet. According to the Auditor General's report, there is no clarification with regard to how and when gender impacts are to be considered and reported to cabinet in terms of policy proposals. I'm wondering why not.

Isn't this a serious oversight? Isn't this a significant problem?

[Neil Bouwer]

Madam Chair, just to address the question of the memoranda to cabinet template, I should say that drafting memoranda to cabinet is a very involved process. We deal with a number of different policy issues, be they domestic or international. Therefore, the Privy Council Office is not in the habit of setting down too many rules or guidelines or directives to departments in order to ensure flexibility.

The lines that are in the MC drafting template with respect to gender-based analysis and gender issues have as much air time as issues like fiscal due diligence, or partnerships, or considerations around the federation, all of which are very important considerations, but we don't script departments in that way. It is, as I've said, more of an informal and organic process. I would say it would be impractical to provide the kind of documentation that has been suggested.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Fraser, in your report you indicate that there's no government-wide obligation to undertake GBA. I'm wondering if you could discuss the reasons behind no government-wide obligation to undertake gender-based analysis and what factors may contribute to the low number of government initiatives subjected to GBA.

[Sheila Fraser]

The decision to have a government-wide policy on this is, of course, an issue of policy. I don't know why no policy was adopted on that, but certainly, the fact that there is no policy could be one of the elements that would explain why some departments are doing it and some are not doing it. There is actually no requirement now.

We see in the response that there will be several elements. They've indicated that certain elements will be made mandatory. When we have a department, for example Veterans Affairs Canada, where there were no elements of the framework that one would expect, there has to be, not necessarily a policy, but a process in place to ensure that departments are actually considering this.

That is why we go back again to saying the central agencies have to do more than simply train their own people. They have to ensure some process by which they know what is going on within other departments and agencies, whether they are actually putting in place the framework, whether they are doing the analysis one would expect, or if they're not, that there is some rationale behind it, that people understand why it's not being done.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

You mentioned Veterans Affairs. It would seem to me, no matter what, that there is a gender element to their policies when you consider the impact of female service workers, the wives of veterans, the families. It seems to be rather too easy, the assumption that they deal only with the male perspective in terms of veterans.

[Sheila Fraser]

I would certainly have expected Veterans Affairs would have had a framework in place. Given that, I would say probably a significant part of their clientele is female, but also, with an increasing number of women going into the armed forces and becoming veterans, you would expect them to at least do the analysis to see if there are any additional factors that need to be considered because of that.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

So they have work to do.

[Sheila Fraser]

It might be something that the committee would want to follow up with them.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

What a good suggestion.

Now, in your remarks, you said that some officials expressed concerns over the leadership of the central agencies in promoting GBA, and that you believe Treasury Board and the Privy Council should provide support to Status of Women Canada to help the government meet its 1995 commitment.

What was the nature of those concerns? What kind of support would be helpful?

[Sheila Fraser]

Madam Chair, I'll ask Mr. Domingue to respond to that question.

[Richard Domingue, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

What we heard through the departments was that they were looking for a clear signal from the centre that GBA was the rule of the land and that it was expected. That could explain why there's a large variation between departments. They complained that there was no leadership exercised at the centre to clarify expectations in regard to GBA.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

By the centre, you mean the....

[Richard Domingue]

TBS and PCO, the two of them.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Auditor General, you also said that you found that selected departments provided limited information to cabinet and Treasury Board on gender impact proposals and spending initiatives. Shouldn't that have raised red flags in Treasury Board and Privy Council?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's one of the reasons we would have liked to have seen the analysis and challenge function that was carried on. Did they question that? Of course, we did not see any documented challenge function.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We will now move to our second round.

Ms. Zarac, please, for five minutes.