Status of Women Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for coming here today to answer our questions. This issue is very important to the committee.

[The Member speaks in Serbian.]

The Auditor General's report is very important to me. I find it disconcerting that of the 68 initiatives reviewed, only in 4 cases was there evidence that GBA had been integrated into the policy development process. Some of the issues reviewed were EI eligibility criteria for women and pay equity. Information of this nature is critically important to the process of making highly structured policy decisions.

We note on page 18 of Chapter 1 of the Auditor General's report that the federal Department of Finance conducted two gender-based analyses. That concerns me a little. I have to wonder if these analyses were done further to changes to EI or to the pay equity system. In the case of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, no analysis was done. So then, this is not something that was likely examined.

[Sheila Fraser]

Madam Chair, I hope the committee will understand that I cannot disclose the specific initiatives that we reviewed.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I understand that, but since nothing has been done at Human Resources, I would assume that...Perhaps I'm wrong.

I was going to direct my question to Mr. Bouwer, since Ms. Beckton referred to him as a champion, but I see that he is responsible only for training.

I'd like to point out that in 1995, the government made a commitment to implement GBA, not merely to provide training. Implement means just that. Who then is responsible for the implementation process? Is that left to the departments that want to implement the practice of gender-based analysis? Who is responsible for ensuring that studies are carried out and that proper decisions are made?

[Neil Bouwer]

The responsibility for undertaking gender-based analysis—and for high-quality policy proposals in general—rests with departments and ultimately with their ministers. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of departments to ensure that gender-based analyses are undertaken. There are a number of factors that they need to consider in doing so. As central agencies, we would play a supporting role and provide a challenge function.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

What incentive is there for departments to conduct these studies and how can we be sure that they follow through with them?

According to paragraph 1.27 on page 13 of the Auditor General's report, the federal Department of Justice did set up a GBA service to ensure that analyses are carried out. However, the committee has been dismantled. It no longer exists. Would it not be a step in the right direction to set up committees to ensure that the practice of gender-based analysis is implemented?

[Neil Bouwer]

These observations, Madam Chair, would be a concern to us and we would raise those with departments when we see them occurring. So either on an individual policy proposal or more globally, we would play a challenge and support function.

Status of Women Canada, of course, would support departments if they felt there was low capacity. They would come in with training and supports and advice on how to bolster the capacity.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

You said we “would”; could I hear we “will”?

[Neil Bouwer]

We do and we will.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Okay.

My question is for Ms. Fraser.

Your report clearly shows that there is still much work to be done. What recommendations do you think the committee should make to ensure that proper decisions are made in the future?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think one important thing is to clarify expectations, to make it clear to departments and agencies that they are expected to implement gender-based analysis within a certain timeframe. I could go into greater detail, but let me just say that some documentation is required.

Certain documents and memoranda to Cabinet need to be clarified, but first, we need to clarify what is expected of departments.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you. That is sound advice.

Can the committee put forward your recommendations? I also find it disappointing that for reasons...Ultimately, there is no obligation whatsoever to...We understand that some information must remain confidential.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Ms. Zarac, could you wrap up, please?

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Can we recommend that you have access to all of the information?

[Sheila Fraser]

Departments provide very specific answers in many respects. Perhaps the committee could follow up with the departments and with Status of Women Canada to assess progress and obtain status reports to ensure that things get done and the practice is implemented.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Hoeppner, for five minutes, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to say thank you, as well, to our witnesses. It's good to have you here and to be able to count on your expertise on this matter.

I wonder, Ms. Fraser, if you could comment on the challenges you may have faced in determining if gender-based analysis occurred, given that women really are made up of much more than just our gender, and our interests are made up of much more than our gender.

I understand that many policy-makers and academics around the world are recommending moving toward more of an intersectional analysis of how policy affects women. And it's interesting, because we have faced that challenge right here at this committee, where we're mandated to look at how policy affects women. We recently studied EI and the effects that has on women, and yet we really failed, I believe, to address small business owners, and that area of growth is happening with women. If someone were to look at the work we did, in one sense we were looking at women and how EI affects women, but it was quite a narrow look at it.

I wonder if that was a challenge for you--for example, if the government was providing infrastructure spending, and that was benefiting women, directly and maybe indirectly, by their occupation or where they lived or their culture. It's very hard to determine how gender-based analysis occurred, I would think, even given the committee work we have done. Did you find that to be a challenge?

And then I also wonder if Ms. Beckton can comment on that and what kind of progress we can make in representing all women and their interests when we do these analyses.

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did not question the guidance and recommendations that are in place by Status of Women Canada. They are the experts, if you will, in this area; we are not.

We looked to see if departments were putting in place the frameworks, doing the analysis that Status of Women Canada has recommended be done. We used their framework or their guidance as what we call the “criteria”, so we accepted that. We then asked if departments were doing that. We did not go into an evaluation.

That's one of the things we recommend, actually, that there should be an evaluation of this across government. That could bring in issues as to whether the current guidance and framework are still relevant today. But we started, as a starting point, from the guidance that is in place.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

In layman's terms, for example, you would go in and look specifically at whether the question was asked: how will this policy affect women? I'm just wondering, kind of in layman's terms, how that looked when you went in and did that kind of analysis.

[Sheila Fraser]

There's a schedule on page 11 of the English version of the various elements that we would have expected to find in a department. The first thing we did was look to see if there was a policy or a commitment in place in the department to do this.

Were there roles and responsibilities defined around gender-based analysis? For example, was there a champion? Did they have tools and methodologies available to people who were developing policy or looking at it? Was training given and had it been given recently? Was there a champion? Had they evaluated this?

We looked to see if there was evidence of that framework. Then we picked a certain number of initiatives, asked if GBA was performed, and looked to see if it had been considered--not necessarily adopted. I mean, we were not there to say “You have to do this”, but was it considered in the policy or program considerations?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

So you were looking to see if the framework was there and the systems were set up. Then you went into 68 specific programs. In those, is that how you determined it? Was the question asked on how this affected women or was it a broader approach?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. The question was, “Was gender-based analysis performed?”

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

How did you determine if it was?

[Sheila Fraser]

Well, we would expect to see some kind of written analysis, documented analysis. You'll see in the table that for several of them we were told it was done, but it wasn't documented in policy. But we would expect to see an analysis. This is fairly complex--

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes.

[Sheila Fraser]

--so we would expect to see some written documentation, some proof that it had been performed.