Status of Women Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

As it's 3:30, I will call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

This afternoon's meeting is going to be special.

Today the Auditor General's representatives have come to speak to us about a GBA report, and in a short time I'll introduce them. That will be followed by a bit of committee business and then some discussion about estimates.

Without further ado, I would like to present to you Richard Domingue and Nancy Cheng.

Go ahead.

[Nancy Cheng, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss our 2015 fall report on gender-based analysis. Joining me at the table it is Richard Domingue, principal, who was responsible for the audit.

Gender-based analysis is an analytical tool for assessing the gender-specific impacts of policies, legislation, and programs on women and men. This tool is intended to help policy-makers consider gender issues, and support decision making. Implementing gender-based analysis can help integrate social, economic, and gender differences into policy development.

At a United Nations conference in 1995, the Government of Canada committed to analyzing gender-specific policy impacts on women and men before making decisions. Our audit focused on the implementation of GBA, an area we examined in 2009. The audit included Status of Women Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Privy Council Office, and four departments. At the time, they were known as Employment and Social Development Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada. In our audit we selected and examined a total of 16 recent policy initiatives from the four departments.

In our 2015 audit, we observed that gender-based analysis was still not fully deployed across the federal government, although 20 years had passed since the government had committed to applying this type of analysis to its policy decisions. In other words, gender considerations, including obstacles to the full participation of diverse groups of women and men, are not always considered in government decisions. This finding is similar to what we found in our 2009 audit.

We also found in our 2015 audit that a gender-based analysis framework was not implemented in 6 of the 25 departments and agencies that had committed to implementing the 2009 government-wide departmental action plan on GBA.

We found that the analyses conducted by our sampled departments were not always complete, nor of consistent quality. A complete GBA was performed by the four departments for half the 16 sampled initiatives. Examining the family violence prevention program at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we found evidence that the completion of GBA contributed to program development.

We found that Status of Women Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and the Privy Council Office made progress in promoting and supporting the application of gender-based analysis in the federal government. For example, Status of Women Canada developed guidance documents, tools, and online training materials for departments and agencies. It also drafted a new GBA strategic plan. The secretariat and Privy Council Office clarified their expectations about what information on gender issues needed to be included in cabinet documents.

Despite all these efforts, departments and agencies face barriers to including gender-based analysis in policy development. These barriers can include the absence of mandatory requirements to conduct GBA, tight deadlines for developing policy initiatives, and limited review by senior management of the completeness of GBA.

The central agencies and Status of Women Canada have agreed with our recommendations and agreed to take actions to implement them.

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's excellent. Thank you again for being with us today.

We'll start the questions, beginning with the Liberals.

You'll have seven minutes. Ms. Damoff, do you want to coordinate this, or are there speakers identified?

Oh, we have Mr. Fraser to begin.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First of all, thank you very much for coming here. I think this is an area of the committee's work that I'm excited to learn more about, and it seems from the Auditor General's report that it's an area in which there could be significant growth.

One thing I've noticed through your opening remarks and in reading some briefing documents as well is that the focus seems to be on gender-based analysis. Status of Women Canada recommends the implementation of a GBA+ methodology that considers potential other intersecting grounds of discrimination—race, geography, a number of different factors.

Was any attention given to a GBA+ analysis during the Auditor General's exercise?

[Nancy Cheng]

Thank you for the question.

The audit focused on reviewing progress in implementing GBA broadly across government as well as on looking at a sample of four departments. When we looked at broad-based implementation, we were looking to see whether the GBA or GBA+ methodology that you referred to was implemented. We did not actually look at the details to say whether they paid particular attention to some of the elements you referred to, be it age or ethnicity of the women's group within that department.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

To take it one step further, are there plans in the works to do further work through the Auditor General's office whereby there would be potential to implement an analysis that considers the GBA+ framework?

[Nancy Cheng]

At present we do not have specific plans to do further work in the GBA area. We did an audit in 2009. This is a follow-up effort to see whether progress has been made and whether there has been some development and whether there might be issues we would continue to have to draw attention to so that improvements can be made. Rather than conduct further work in this area at the moment, it might be considered a number of years from now to see what movement may have been made.

At the present moment there are no specific plans to do further work.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

With the work that has been done, I notice that the central agencies and Status of Women Canada indicated there has been progress. Can you describe in a little greater detail what the nature of that progress has been and what the groups are doing that's working?

[Nancy Cheng]

There is a description within the chapter that talks to the progress that has been made. Much of it is actually within the central agencies' areas. In the case of Status of Women, there has been development of the framework itself, for example, the GBA+ framework. They also provide training and tools.

We can get the reference for you. The section that talks about central agencies as well as Status of Women helping to promote and support gender-based analysis is on page 13. You'll see that in paragraph 1.42 we highlight the overall finding, and then starting from paragraph 1.46 we describe some of the work they've done.

More specifically for Status of Women, on page 14 at the end of paragraph 1.48 we highlighted a few bullets of activities. In this section we talk about developing, promoting, and giving awareness sessions, and providing tailored training for GBA analysis to help people understand and launch the GBA+ framework that we talked about, and also about maintaining some web-based training so that departments and agencies can have access to it.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay, thank you very much. Being cognizant that I'm not the only one at the table, I'd be happy to share the rest of my seven minutes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

When I read your report, I have to say I was somewhat saddened by the fact that this has been talked about for so long and that it seems to be so slow being implemented within departments.

Being cognizant of “government speak”, I'm wondering whether you think it would be helpful.... I didn't know what GBA was. I think it's a term that's difficult to put your head around. Someone described it to me as the military having a tool kit that fits on a belt and the belt doesn't fit the woman, so they need to look at perhaps doing something differently.

Do you think part of the issue is that people don't understand what it is and the importance of doing it? You've highlighted some really great success stories, but there are certainly more failures than there are successes, it seems. Do you think part of it is not understanding what it is and the benefit of doing it?

[Nancy Cheng]

We're talking to the progress being made by the Status of Women, and they have to continue to do more. They're the body that can help. It's the centre of excellence and they can help people be sensitized to better understand what it means. What does it mean when we say we need to do a GBA analysis when we look at a new policy or a policy renewal? In essence, they ask some fundamental questions. Stepping back, does the program you're proposing affect men and women differently? If so, in what way? Have you got the input? Are there things you have to do with your policy instruments to accommodate?

They have to be able to help people understand that. From Status of Women's perspective, it is really providing the tool kit, the sensitization, and the training to help people and support them to do that.

Having said that, other central agencies like the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office look at Treasury Board submissions and they also look at cabinet submissions and memos to cabinet. They're the ones who have to call them on it and ask, “Have you looked at that? Does the submission contain enough information to show that you have sufficiently considered the issues?”

Collectively they have a base to help departments and agencies consider the gender aspect when they consider policy changes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

There seems to be some hesitancy to get it into the common knowledge so that everyone is thinking about it. I think there seems to be a bit of a disconnect there. We're not getting everyone thinking about it. It's only in certain areas.

[Nancy Cheng]

It certainly can be one of the elements that should be identified that needs to be overcome. We were struggling with the same result statement as well for part of the audit, Madam Chair. We did an audit in 2009, and when you look at the UN commitment that was made way back, there's been a lot of talk about gender equality. How are we translating an international commitment into action? We were taken aback as well in terms of the limited progress that has been made in this day and age, even from those who said they would sign up to implement the framework. A good number of them, six—that's working out to almost one in four—didn't have the framework in place. Then those that did haven't always done the analysis for the initiative properly.

What are some of the problems associated with it? We tried to lay down a few points for the government to consider. They should sit back and ask how come it's taking so long. Maybe they can look at some of the elements that the member referred to, maybe some of the suggestions we have highlighted in our report, and ask, if these are the impediments, what would be a meaningful way to overcome them? What's doable and what's not doable? Have a conversation and then move forward on this file.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

We'll move over to our Conservative colleague, Ms. Vecchio.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you.

In the report, it stated that six out of 25 departments that committed to implement GBA did not implement a framework at all. Of the 19 remaining departments, how did the Auditor General choose the four that were examined in the report, and what will be done concerning the 15 departments that remain unexamined?

[Nancy Cheng]

We selected four departments. They would be listed under the focus of the audit and that would be on page 2. We indicated that the first two departments were selected because they were originally looked at when we did our 2009 report, so it's a revisit to see whether things have changed. The other two were selected because they signed on after our audit.

During the period of 2009-13, 25 departments formally committed and said they would implement GBA. This is further to a departmental action plan that the government has published. The government said they would do something about GBA, and individual departments signed up and said they would now do this as part of their policy development process.

So 25 signed up and we selected two that were originally looked at and two that were recently signed up. Industry Canada signed up in 2010-11, and Natural Resources Canada signed up more recently in 2012-13.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's fantastic. Out of this study, what can the status of women committee do to ensure that all government departments are applying the GBA to inform government decisions?

[Nancy Cheng]

We suggest that the committee consider some of our recommendations. We often encourage departments to provide a management action plan resulting from our recommendations. In other words, the auditors saw that certain things might be an issue and identified a way forward through a recommendation. What is the department doing about that? They provide a response to say they agree or disagree, but then they also have to flesh it out to say that if they agree, what they are going to do about it.

It may be helpful to ask for that management action plan, and through that the committee could write a report to government and ask the government to state its position as to whether it's going to do certain things formally.

If you look at the report, there have been hearings on the 2009 audit, both by the status of women committee as well as the public accounts committee. Both have supported the recommendations in the Auditor General's report. Hence we saw the 2009 departmental action plan, which is a response by the government of the day saying they would do something, and that's what paved the way for the GBA+ framework and some of the progress at the central agencies. Actual implementation on the ground has been spotty.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Okay, could the Auditor General suggest a timeline or a specific means, in co-operation, to ensure that there's proper implementation of the GBA?

[Nancy Cheng]

It really depends on the urgency of the issue as seen by the committee and the government of the day.

Should this be done? Well, it's been 20 years, so arguably it should be done fairly soon. That being said, would it be the top priority of the country? That's not for the auditors to call. That's for the government to have a view on.

If you feel this is really an urgent issue, I think the government should be taken to task to do something now. If you feel it is important but you want to give it a reasonable time frame, that's again for you to consider and recommend or ask the government to undertake.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Do you see any barriers to departments implementing GBA? Do you see any barriers that would make you say this might not work because of this? Are their stumbling blocks we can work our way across?

[Nancy Cheng]

We highlighted a few potential barriers in paragraph 1.58, on page 16. There we indicated that it is a commitment, but it is just a commitment. There is no government directive or policy that requires it to be done. In other words, when we go to a department and do an audit, if they didn't do it, then they didn't honour a commitment, and that's the extent of it.

If there was non-compliance with the law, that would be very serious, whereas if there was non-compliance with a government directive or policy, they would get a “non-compliant” kind of observation from us. This is not a non-compliance kind of thing, because there is no real requirement to do so. There's no mandatory need to actually have that done, so that might be one of the elements.

The other thing we observed is that sometimes they are working under very tight timelines. The public servants often work under very extreme timelines in terms of being able to move forward with a policy consideration.

When you look at what they have to do, there's also some sort of analysis that they have to get done. This is just one thing. They may not actually have time to do so, and in fact in one of the cases, we noticed that they completed the GBA analysis after they had made all the policy decisions. They just made sure they had completed the due diligence required and did not really have time to consider it and fully integrate it into the policy decisions themselves.

Finally, it speaks to the point that another member raised earlier, which was the capacity within the departments themselves and whether they fully understand what the analysis entails. It's not just checking a box. It's about them asking what they are trying to do and what they are hoping to accomplish. Do they understand the data source they have to gather? Who do they have to consult and how do they analyze the results of that? If there is an issue, what are they supposed to do about that?

For all those aspects, they need to be supported by Status of Women, which is the centre of expertise to help them.

The staff has to do the right thing. Then there needs to be a review by senior management. If senior management doesn't ask as much of it or doesn't challenge it as much, then it becomes a weaker part of the submission and the analysis.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

You probably can't make suggestions to us, but in a perfect world, would your suggestions be that if we're looking at having GBA, to make it mandatory for our committee then to put through a policy for the government to make this a mandatory thing for all departments? Then we could move forward with GBA across all departments to make sure it is implemented and to have timelines and time frames for that.

[Nancy Cheng]

It is good to clarify what we do and what we don't do.

Auditors bring observations to the table. We do not propose government policy or negate government policy. It is very important that we keep that independence and objectivity from the government machinery.

However, that being said, if you are going to require people to do it a mandatory way, it will help the cause. If you look strictly at the cause and the result, if there were a requirement, it would definitely not hold things back but rather would move things forward.