The reason why I raise this is not specific to this issue, but I hate the new report structure. I really would wish the Auditor General would survey and ask members of Parliament. Maybe that's something that should be done because I really found these reports, the way they're structured, to be much more difficult to get information out.
That being said, I'd like to move on to PCO and Treasury Board Secretariat. I do share a lot of what Mr. Christopherson said, in terms of Groundhog Day, revisiting some of the same issues. There's legitimate criticism in that and there are no easy outs on many of these things. As I think you said, it's complex stuff.
However, there is some talk about capacity building at PCO, some capacity building for Treasury Board Secretariat staff to more firmly challenge departments as they do their MCs, as they do their Treasury Board submissions. That's correct, is that right?
My understanding is that, ultimately, parliamentarians can hold a minister to account. I was a little surprised at the government's response, considering that there was so much around gender parity in the cabinet because it's 2015/2016, that there were no requirements based on the Auditor General's reports to make it mandatory for government ministers to understand and take mandatory training on GBA. Whether through their capacity as the head of the agency or head of the department, they could challenge their deputies and staff to ensure that gender-based analysis is being done because they hold their departments accountable.
The second part is that, as many ministers serve on Treasury Board Secretariat, there is a huge challenge function there as well because they check both the work of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the individual departments.
Has there been any discussion on making training mandatory for ministers when it comes to gender-based analysis+?