Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Godin asked about where we were. The answer was, we're not in the top 10, which is not very good at all given that we're a G7 country. Belgium is an example where their gender mainstreaming act, which is another term for this, not only has the legal basis for compulsory identification of the analysis, they also do a follow-up and evaluation of the actions afterward. There's a real commitment, not the wishy-washy stuff we're talking about here.
I wanted to mention our friend from the Privy Council. Here's what he said this morning: “Strong and effective GBA practices have guided government over the years to ensure greater equality between women and men in all areas of government programming. We will both continue and strengthen our efforts to ensure that policy and program proposals are meeting the needs of all Canadians.”
You'd almost think he hadn't read the Auditor General's report to come out and say something that cheery. The Auditor General said 20 years had passed since the government committed to applying this type of analysis. 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. That's the world we're in, not that kind of fluffy nonsense.
There was a reference to one piece of federal legislation that has this as mandatory. I'm aware that another one is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which has Canadian legislation that has a legislative requirement to provide GBA in terms of the impact, and they have to report on that impact. It's mandatory, and it's a piece of federal legislation that exists right now. My question is very specific. Has this been a problem because it's mandatory? We now have an example in the government where it's mandatory. Has that been a complete disaster? Is there a problem with this? Would you back away from the mandatory aspect in this act if you could?