Thank you, Madam Chair.
We thank you for this opportunity to meet with the committee today to discuss our chapter on gender-based analysis from our spring 2009 report. With me today are Doug Timmins, assistant auditor general, and Richard Domingue, principal, who are responsible for the GBA audit.
As many of you will recall, this audit was performed following a recommendation made by the committee last year that our office examine the implementation of GBA in the federal government. The audit objective was to determine whether selected departments were conducting GBA and whether the central agencies were reviewing gender impacts in cabinet documents on policy and program spending initiatives.
The federal government made a commitment in 1995 to implement GBA throughout its departments and agencies. As you are well aware, GBA is an analytical tool that can be used to assess how initiatives and policy proposals have an impact on men and women. Despite recent efforts to improve GBA practices in some departments and in the central agencies, we found that the government has not met its 1995 commitment to ensure that the analysis of gender impacts is carried out.
We looked at seven departments whose responsibilities can have an impact on men and women differently. The implementation of a GBA framework varied greatly in the departments examined. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is clearly a leader. It is the only department we examined that had fully implemented the elements of a sound GBA framework. The Department of Finance Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and, to a certain extent, Health Canada had implemented many of the key elements of an appropriate GBA framework. We note that Transport Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada have no GBA framework.
We reviewed 68 recent initiatives to verify if GBA had been performed. We considered an analysis to be GBA if we found documented research on gender impacts and we determined that the impacts had been considered in developing policy options--two key factors in performing GBA.
We found that few departments that are performing gender analyses were able to demonstrate that these analyses were used in designing public policy. Only in 4 of the 68 initiatives we reviewed was there evidence that GBA had been integrated in the policy development process. In 30 of the initiatives reviewed, gender impacts were analyzed but there was no evidence provided that the analysis was considered in developing public policy options. In 26 initiatives, we could not find any evidence that gender impacts had been considered at all.
We also found that the selected departments provided limited information to Cabinet and Treasury Board on the gender impact of proposals and spending initiatives. In more than half of the memoranda to Cabinet and over one third of submissions to Treasury Board, we found no reference to gender impacts. There was no indication why this information was not reported.
All three central agencies are responsible for reviewing a number of considerations in policy and budget documents, including the gender impacts reported by federal departments and agencies. The central agencies have a critical challenge role in ensuring departments take into account all relevant factors. The central agencies could not provide written evidence that they reviewed and challenged gender impacts of policy proposals or spending initiatives submitted by departments for approvals.
In its response to this audit, the government disagreed with our recommendation that central agencies document the challenge function they exercise when reviewing policy proposals or spending initiatives. I have serious concerns with the lack of appropriate documentation when I am told that evidence of challenges to gender-based analysis exists only in a cabinet confidence to which I do not have access. I am of the view that it is crucial for departments to maintain documentary evidence of key responsibilities such as their challenge of proposals and initiatives going forward to cabinet and Treasury Board.
There is no government-wide obligation to undertake GBA and the government's commitment to implement GBA has not been clearly communicated to departments and agencies. These are key factors that could explain why GBA practices vary greatly among the departments we reviewed, why GBA is not regularly performed, and why little information on gender impact is reported to Cabinet and Treasury Board.
Some officials expressed concerns over the leadership of the central agencies in promoting GBA. I believe TBS and PCO should provide support to Status of Women Canada in order to help the government meet its 1995 commitments.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.
Thank you.