Status of Women Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Sheila Fraser]

I will answer, and Ms. Beckton may want to add something.

We audited the fulfilment of a commitment made by the federal government in 1995. Eleven or twelve years after that commitment was made, we were expecting the departments to at least have some basic elements in place. As you mentioned, our sample had at least two elements that had absolutely nothing to do with the framework put forward by Status of Women Canada. It is not a matter of the questions being the same, but a matter of the departments having a policy. Did they identify the roles and responsibilities? Do they have a champion? Do they have tools? Do they provide regular training? We were expecting these things to be in place, given how long ago the commitment was made. The commitment is ongoing; it extends beyond 1995.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Ms. Demers, for three minutes, please.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Beckton, until we asked the Auditor General to audit all departments on the GBA, everything was fine. You met with us and solicited our participation so that we would understand. Everything was going fine. But since the audit, things are no longer fine. As my colleague said earlier, we are pretty much where we were in 1997, perhaps a bit further ahead.

What happened, between when we asked Ms. Fraser to do the audit and now, to make everything come apart at the seams? Why is it that you have to do all that work over again—what happened?

[Clare Beckton]

I wouldn't say that Status of Women would have said in the past that everything was working wonderfully. We recognized that there was still a great deal of work to be done. We were very pleased with the work that was being done with central agencies, because we recognized the significance of having the accountability measures in place.

We had been working with different departments, and recognizing that work needed to be done with some departments that still did not have--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

We understand that some assessment tools are not available once they go to cabinet, but would you be able to prepare some for the committee so that we could compare the measures taken with the measures proposed?

[Clare Beckton]

The answer is yes, my colleague tells me; she's the expert here on gender-based analysis.

Of course, we do have the self-assessment tool as well that various departments can use to do a self-assessment on how well they are doing. We will be working with them as well in looking at how they can better evaluate the results they're getting from the usage of gender-based analysis.

I don't think any of us would ever say we're there, but I think there has been considerable progress. We recognize that there's still a lot of work to do. I think one of the areas we've identified is this clarification of expectations, and the understanding, with some departments who work in areas that they may not traditionally have thought would have gender impacts, that we need to work with them on identifying that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Did you have a chance to review the 2009-2010 budget to see if there were places where a GBA had been done and implemented or places where it should have been done?

[Clare Beckton]

I think you will have to, again, ask the Department of Finance with respect to what evidence they have with respect to gender-based analysis.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Ms. Mathyssen for the last three minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I still continue to have this feeling that we have this remarkable resource, remarkable set of tools, expectations, and accountability within departments, and yet, when it comes right down to the end of the road, things fall apart. We get policies and instruments that just don't live up to the expectations we had.

I want to follow up a little bit on what Madam Demers was asking. Certainly PCO and TBS agreed with the Auditor General's recommendations to measure progress to fulfill GBA and our commitments. I'm curious about the timeline.

When could we see the completion of this in terms of the departmental assessments? Will there be best practices used to measure the quality of these practices? How will you review the memoranda to cabinet and TB submissions? What criteria will be used to determine how well, or if, GBA was considered? And how will you document this? Will it become public?

I know it's a lot in three minutes.

[Neil Bouwer]

Madam Chair, I'll answer what I can and invite my colleagues to follow.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have about a minute and a half amongst you to answer that question.

[Neil Bouwer]

Okay.

I'll just say that I take some exception to the idea that things fall apart at the end. I think that—

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

I mean with the politicians. When it gets right down to the decision and the policy that goes forward, it's the politicians. It's not the departments. It's the minister, and it's the politicians. I take full responsibility.

[Neil Bouwer]

But I will comment, if you like, in terms of the documentation. I would just reiterate that I think it is impractical to expect that the informal go-between between analysts and departments should be documented. The suggestion of doing so after the fact is also impractical. If one understands the dynamic nature of the challenge function, that's something that is just part of the process.

I do welcome the report of the Auditor General, and if you read the report in its entirety you will see that central agencies and departments are, indeed, working to improve the process where improvements can be made.

I would leave it at that.

[Sheila Fraser]

Could we just make a comment, Madam Chair, on the challenge function?

Mr. Timmins.

[Douglas Timmins, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With regard to the comment about not documenting the challenge function if it was working so well, I would just point out that there is a table in the chapter that identifies that 13 out of 28 cabinet submissions did include gender-based analysis. Of the 15 that did not, for 10 of those we found evidence that gender-based analysis was done. If it was done and the challenge function was functioning properly, it should have been one of the ones that would have caught that and put it into the cabinet submission.

I think there is some opportunity for improvement in the process. If it's not documentation, it has to be something else that would work in that regard.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our Auditor General and her group, as well as Ms. Beckton from Status of Women, and our central agencies for coming out today and spending a couple of hours with us. There have certainly been some good presentations and some excellent questions. Hopefully we can move forward on this issue, and we'll see some progress.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

They've been here for two hours.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Yes, as Ms. Neville has said, thank you so much for giving us the full two hours.

I would ask any committee members who can to stay and meet with the Serbian delegation for 15 minutes.

The meeting is adjourned.