Status of Women Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

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

--and I think it's important that we do that.

Congratulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You've gone over time, Ms. Hoeppner. Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you very much, Minister.

Like Ms. Hoeppner, I'm very concerned about the voices of women being silenced. I think back to the National Association of Women and the Law, which lost its funding, and CRIAW, which lost its funding. Just yesterday we heard that Kairos, a group that has always been very helpful in terms of advocating for social justice, lost half of its funding, and they don't think they can continue to manage. In regard to those stilled voices who advocate for women, I think there is a vacuum.

I'd like to now ask a question in regard to the Auditor General, because fortunately her voice hasn't been silenced yet.

I saw her twice, once here and once at public accounts, and she summarized the gender-based analysis that was done by the federal departments as rather weak. She said that of the 68 cases assessed by the AG, only four had GBA incorporated in policy development, only 30 of the cases had some analysis done, 27 cases had not even considered GBA at all, there was no policy requiring departments to do GBA, and departments don't know when GBA should be performed. She was very clear in her criticism and came to the conclusion that the government hadn't done a good job, despite the fact that the UN convention, the CEDAW convention, recommended that GBA be mandatory for all government departments.

Do you think GBA should be mandatory, and how does Status of Women Canada respond to the Auditor General's criticism? When you saw that criticism, you must have had some concerns. What did your department do, then, in response to that very upsetting report?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

First, I need to highlight yet again that when we became the government in 2006, we did start gender-based analysis immediately on the tax measures, the process for the budget process. Also, under the Prime Minister's direction, as of 2007 Treasury Board submissions are required to provide evidence of gender-based analysis, and in 2008 we issued another directive that all cabinet submissions will have evidence of gender-based analysis.

I can tell you that when I'm at the table as the minister and I'm discussing policies, when it's appropriate, I always ask. I always have the conversation about gender-based analysis.

With respect to the Auditor General's report, I highlighted in my speech that I accept her recommendations. Status of Women Canada worked with PCO and Treasury Board to develop an action plan on gender-based analysis, and they're in the process of implementing that plan. It's on the website too, if you need to see that actual plan.

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

I'm glad that you mentioned Treasury Board Secretariat, because we had the analysts from Treasury Board here when we looked at GBA. The analysts said that 10 of the 21 Treasury Board submissions that were reviewed were challenged, but TBS couldn't provide any written evidence of that GBA challenge. When we questioned that, they said it's done orally.

The reality is that there has to be accountability and there has to be tracking. It would seem that an oral challenge isn't sufficient; there should be proper documentation with written information.

Do you think that's unreasonable? Would you agree that there should be written and understandable accountability around this issue?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Well, I would say to you first that I appreciate the great work the Auditor General has done. I think it's important to highlight that she cannot see certain cabinet documents. They're not something she can look at.

I do look at cabinet documents, and I can tell you that not only do I raise it verbally, but I do see a gender-based analysis very often when it is appropriate.

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

The AG rejected the argument that she couldn't see a great deal of the information, so I have some concerns about that.

In light of the criticism and in light of the fact that Status of Women takes the lead and that the Status of Women department is responsible for the training and the champion, what are you going to do in regard to the AG's assessment that only four of 68 cases that she looked into had actually incorporated GBA into policy analysis? What strategy could you develop in order to address that?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I'll highlight again for you that I'm the minister of state solely dedicated to status of women, and I take my responsibility very seriously, especially at the cabinet table. Again, I'll tell you that I do see it in writing where it's appropriate, and I do challenge, and I do have those conversations with my colleagues.

What I'd like to highlight for you right now is that when I came into this position, I was fully aware of gender-based analysis because I had sat around the table in opposition and we had put together some really good reports there, but I took the initiative to get a better understanding on gender-based analysis and the different types of policy analysis processes that exist. I did some significant research and even had the library do some great work for me and provide me with some further backup material.

What I discovered is that while Canada is praised for its gender-based analysis, we really needed to do a little bit more to update it and we were not as advanced in our gender-based analysis process as we thought we were. I took the initiative to speak with some experts, including one doctor from Simon Fraser who explained to me that while we have a small component of intersectionality in our gender-based analysis process, we could expand upon it and could do far better than we do.

I have given the direction for us to better our policy analysis process and to update our gender-based analysis process to include more intersectionality. I'm sure you agree that with our changing population, it is significantly important to do that. I know that your chair, Hedy Fry, is also very familiar with intersectionality and the importance of it in the gender-based analysis process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Irene. You've ended your time.

If we wish to have one round--and I do have a full slate for one round--may I ask the committee to facilitate our doing that by going to three minutes? Otherwise, we will go severely over time.

The minister's here for an hour, and that would give us the one hour. The minister will leave at the end of our hour if we do a three-minute round.

Do I have agreement on that?

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

How about four minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, it won't work. A three-minute round is stretching it a little bit. The minister has given us her time, and she has to leave at that time.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarac, for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think that Ms. Hoeppner should apologize for being so condescending toward Canadian women. I believe that even in 2009, it is an honourable thing for a woman to stay home and look after children and bake apple pies.

Ms. Guergis, I find it unfortunate that a minister would not set an example and that instead of uniting, she seeks to divide. This Committee very much needed a meeting of minds, today, and you did not do what you ought to have done. There is a difference. Like my fellow Committee members, you seem to confuse partisanship and fundamental values. There is a big difference. People can have different fundamental values and still work together without being partisan.

Since my time is limited, I will ask my question. You spoke earlier about $2.4 million that has not been spent. Yet you say you have 69% more initiatives than in past years. Why have you not spent that money?

[Cindy Paquette]

Public accounts had a lapse of $3.6 million. About $2.4 million was carried forward into future years to be used for projects. The actual was much less.

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

The amount was therefore spread over several years, and it was not a budget for this year. What was the budget amount for the year?

[Cindy Paquette]

In terms of the $2.4 million that was carried forward, $1.4 million is for this fiscal year and $1 million is for next year, for partnerships. Because we have multi-year partnerships, we need to put the money into the years in which the partnership agreements will need it.

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

Okay. So what was the total budget for this year?

[Cindy Paquette]

Right now, it's $31.4 million.

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

Okay. You said that you have 69% more initiatives. Do you have a bigger budget or are you carrying out more projects with the same amount of money?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

It means there's a 69% increase in the number of organizations that are receiving funds to deliver their projects in the communities. It means that 42% of that 69% are receiving funds for the very first time.

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

Do you have a bigger budget to do it?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

If I could just this highlight also, I know one of our colleagues around the table had suggested—

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

I'm sorry, we do not have a lot of time to answer questions.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Do you want an answer? Do you want one?

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

Yes, but I want an answer to my question, and my question is this: you have 69% more projects, but do you have the same amount of money?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

We have a 42% increase in the amount of money for Status of Women Canada under this government.