Status of Women Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Further to that, Madam Chair, who is going to determine whether it was done correctly and clearly? Are these documents being presented to the analysts, for the analysts to come back with a report on the Auditor General's report? Are they being deposited with the clerk for her comments?

Just because some documents are presented to the committee doesn't mean we can determine if something was done correctly and clearly. And I'm not really sure that anybody sitting in this room right at the moment is capable of making that determination anyway, because some of the documents the Auditor General used will never come to this committee because of confidentiality reasons.

I fail to see what we're doing here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Monsieur Desnoyers.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The Auditor General was quite clear. She maintained that she was not given access to all of the documents and that the committee could ask to see them if it wanted. The committee can ask to see these documents, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), to find out how each department dealt with gender-based analysis. We're told that some departments did very sound gender-based analyses, while others made only a partial attempt, or did nothing at all. It's a matter of getting a clear picture of the situation in order to make the appropriate recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Monsieur Desnoyers, my understanding of what Madam Davidson asked is that once those documents are tabled, who will they be tabled with, the committee or the analysts? Who will then analyze them to ensure that in fact the gender-based analysis, l’analyse comparative entre les sexes, was actually done? I think that's what Madam Davidson asked.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Who will then analyze the documents that we get?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We can examine the relevant documents ourselves. If we must have competent people review specific analyses, then that is what we will do. We need to have these documents in order to make the appropriate recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Madame Boucher.

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

Mr. Desnoyers, you would like the committee members to have access to these documents in order to determine if the Auditor General has done her job properly.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

No, that is not it. The Auditor General claims that she wasn't able to do her job fully because she did not have access to all of the documents.

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

She did, however, have access to certain documents.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

She said she had some verbal exchanges. The committee could take a look at these documents and thus be in a position to make some appropriate recommendations.

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

I don't know where this is going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Hoeppner.

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

My concern is that because we cannot have access to all of the documents.... To really be able to see the full picture of this, we would need to have access to all the documents she had, as well as the documents you're referring to, and I don't think we can do that. We would not have the full picture of whatever it is we're looking for.

We have to be very careful that we are not sending a message to the Auditor General that we don't think she did her job. So we have to look at what she did. We can't do it. We don't have all of the information and we won't have access to all of the information. Some of those documents are under cabinet confidentiality and we will not have access to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Zarac.

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

Actually, I have a question I would like to ask Monsieur Desnoyers.

Is the motion intended to show that the Auditor General failed to do her job, or to send a message to the department concerned that it must conform to this process?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That is indeed the intent. I want some assurances that officials will perform gender-based analyses, that they won't ignore people like the Auditor General who want to check compliance. She was unable to get all of the information to verify what departments had done. At the same time, it would give us an idea of what departments on doing on this front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

So it's my understanding--

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

She claims not to have had access to all of the documents. As MPs, we are entitled to see all of the documents. Standing Order 108(1) is clear: members of Parliament are entitled to have access to all documents, even confidential ones. We could always ask a lawyer to come and explain to us which documents members we are entitled to see in order to make sound decisions. A lawyer, or even the parliamentary counsel, would likely give us some fairly specific answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madam Hoeppner, before we go into any further arguments, I would like to say to you what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that Mr. Desnoyers would like full disclosure of documents that are disclosable. We're not talking about cabinet documents, which aren't disclosable; he would like all documents that are disclosable, because he understood from the Auditor General that they were not all disclosed to her, and he would like full disclosure.

Now a committee is able, under Standing Order 108(1)(a), to ask for full disclosure. Whatever it does with the disclosure is not necessarily that it needs to follow up; it just needs to have full disclosure. That's my understanding of what Mr. Desnoyers is asking. He is asking about using Standing Order 108(1)(a) to get full disclosure of the things that he understood from the Auditor General were not fully disclosed but that were disclosable. That's why he changed the piece that says “all documents and analyses that are accessible by standing committees”. We're not even talking about cabinet documents. I think he changed that.

The reason, if you recall, I voted against this motion last time was it that it just said “all”, and it was my understanding that it was not an implementable motion. Therefore, I voted against it. I think he has changed it now to suggest that it is appropriate for a standing committee to ask, under certain standing orders, for full disclosure of whatever is disclosable to standing committees. That's simply what he's asking for. I don't think he wants to second-guess the Auditor General's report; I think he just wants disclosure.

All right. We'll go ahead. We have Madame Boucher and Ms. Hoeppner.

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

I have a bit of a problem with this motion, for the simple reason that the Auditor General was given access to documents. She was even asked if an analysis had been done previously. This was the first time that she had been given access to documents. That had never happened before. If we're talking about Cabinet documents, that is another matter, but I fail to see why we need to see all of these documents. There is much work for us to do to advance the cause of women.

The Auditor General has done her job. She reported that some departments had not met their obligations. Everyone is in agreement on that score. However, there is much to do for women. The committee has many more issues to examine. We've already looked at gender-based analysis. I think we should move on to something else and leave it to the other committees to look into this matter.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Desnoyers, you may answer. Go ahead.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Nevertheless, this is an important issue for women. When we look at what is happening, we realize that many departments have not met their obligations with respect to GBA. Ms. Fraser clearly stated in her response that she was informed verbally of action taken, but apparently she did not receive the relevant documents to ascertain what had been, or had not been done by these departments.

I agree with Ms. Zarac. I think we need to see these documents. It would send a clear message to these departments that they must meet their obligations, so that we don't find ourselves grappling with the same problems a few years down the road, or facing a situation where only two departments have met their obligations as far as this important women's issue is concerned.