Public Accounts Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Richard Domingue]

Mr. Chair, in regard to the barriers that explain the reason why GBA was not always performed.... Actually, I think I will answer your two questions in one answer. I think it is easier for some departments to do GBA than it is for others. It is easier if it has a social component, if it touches human beings directly. Then the gender impact is easier to quantify; the data probably exists.

When you are looking at, for example, the automotive innovation fund, the impact on gender is less direct. There is an impact on gender, but the data might not exist.

Some departments have a better reflex than others to do GBA. This could explain why some departments did better than others.

Also, in paragraph 1.58, another potential barrier we mention is the tight deadlines. Some departments find out, through the budget process, that they are responsible for a new initiative, and then they have to prepare an MC at the last minute, or sometimes even after the budget. Deadlines are tight, and pressure is on the system to produce and deliver rapidly that new initiative. Sometimes it happens that GBA will not take place at that moment.

This doesn't prevent the department from doing GBA at a later stage, when the program is renewed. There is a lot of variation in when to do GBA and what the reflexes are in the departments.

Again, going back to the issue of no mandatory requirements to perform GBA, even though there are no mandatary requirements, some do it very well. Maybe the answer is that there is no need for a mandatory requirement, but maybe you need a mandatory requirement for those for whom GBA is more challenging.

I am not sure if I answered both of your questions in my single answer here, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Albas, for five minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you to all the people who are here to present. I appreciate your service to our country.

I'd like to start first with the Auditor General. Has report structure, the way the report is written, changed in this previous report, year over year?

[Richard Domingue]

We've introduced a new reporting format, I believe, the cycle before this one. The May 2015 report would have adopted that new reporting format.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

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+?

[Les Linklater]

I would start with the Minister of Status of Women's mandate letter where it's been made very clear by the Prime Minister that he expects all ministers to engage in this. He provides a particular charge to the Minister of Status of Women to work with her colleagues to improve the GBA process.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I agree that would be a helpful step, but I don't necessarily—

[Les Linklater]

In terms of specific training for ministers, I'm not aware of any particular formal program in this regard.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Even providing a two-day program or even a two-hour program, so that they can ask the questions of their deputies when these things are coming forward.... If you look at what the Auditor General said with regard to barriers: “limited senior management review of the completeness of gender-based analysis, and limited capacity in departments and agencies for conducting gender-based analysis”.

If a minister were to ask the question before an MC was formed or before something was going to Treasury Board, he or she would be able to say to the deputy, “Have you made sure this is part of the MC?” To me, that is just a natural step.

I'm going to move to capacity building and the challenge function. I've always considered Status of Women to have a little bit of both. It seems to be that the role of Status of Women seems to be more effective on capacity building. I don't know if it's because you're an outside agency, unless it's in someone's mandate letter, or they've been told that they have to co-operate, it doesn't seem to be very effective as far as a challenge function because you're not a natural player the same way that PCO or Treasury Board would be.

As far as capacity building, and Mr. Davies actually mentioned this, has there been any discussion about having a Status of Women go-to source at Statistics Canada where you can actually start to pull some of the data and then disperse it to different agencies?

I would hate to see every department go through that process. Having someone at Statistics Canada who's aware of those issues and makes that information available would be helpful.

[Meena Ballantyne]

We actually work with Stats Canada on these Women in Canada chapters. There are 14 chapters and we work with various departments. Everybody pools the money together and we decide collectively in terms of the data that we need, which is aggregated statistics. That's something that we've been working on and we intend to work on it in the future, in prioritized ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll now move to Ms. Mendès and Monsieur Lefebvre.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Surprisingly, or not, I am going to take over where Mr. Christopherson left off and continue in the same vein.

Thank you to all of you for being here with us today.

I think the biggest problem we have is indeed the absence of mandatory requirements regarding GBA in the various departments. They are not obliged to submit policies and programs to the GBA process.

Making it a mandatory part of the process would be important.

You tell us that this already exists and that it is included in part of the questionnaire. It is already part of the process. What penalty is imposed on a department if that part of the questionnaire is not completed?

That is the issue. There are no consequences. Have I understood this correctly?

[Les Linklater]

To answer that question, I would say there are no penalties as such, unless this is reported to the public and to Parliament.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

“Comply and show” is the term you used.

However, that does not seem sufficient to oblige the departments to conduct the necessary analyses.

Do you agree with that, Mr. Domingue, that this has not placed an obligation on departments to consider GBA when they prepare submissions?

[Richard Domingue]

The Office of the Auditor General cannot and does not make recommendations regarding specific policies like these. We have noted that the lack of mandatory requirements could be a barrier.

In her opening statement Ms. Ballantyne explained that the agency was going to survey the departments and agencies in order to find out what barriers they face. Perhaps the analysis will show that the GBA reflex is not always there. It is possible that given this situation the government or central agencies may decide that it is necessary to make gender-based analysis obligatory. That said, it is not up to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to promote that idea.

At this time, you are correct, there are specific sections in memorandums to cabinet and submissions to Treasury Board where departments and agencies are supposed to report that information. Central agencies like the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat are supposed to challenge the departments if they feel that the gender-based analysis that is supposed to inform this section of cabinet documents is weak. So there is a theoretical exchange. It is theoretical because the Office of the Auditor General cannot observe it because cabinet deliberations are secret.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

There are no penalties imposed on departments if this is not done. Is that correct?

[Richard Domingue]

At this time, indeed, there are no penalties if the gender-based analysis is poor. There may be penalties later, if we see that GBA was not considered in developing policies. At that point, there could be poorly designed policies. That said, it comes after the fact. It is only over time that we will be able to determine the impact on men and women.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have about two minutes left.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In 2009, no one was responsible for GBA. This responsibility was still shared by different bodies. Moreover, it was not mandatory. In 2016, the situation is the same. The responsibility is shared and implementation is not mandatory. We expect to obtain a different result, brought about by people acting in a good faith. That is all well and good, but there is still cause for concern.

If cabinet makes this mandatory, what would change, Mr. Linklater?

[Les Linklater]

I thank the member for this question.

I think that with the tools that are being developed, we will have the opportunity to improve our capacity to help the departments conduct gender-based analysis.

At this time it is very difficult for us to check or to provide data to the Office of the Auditor General given the nature of the policy development process. Sometimes we have verbal exchanges or meetings. We don't ask for much written proof.

But tools have now been developed. We want documents to be tabled to show that the process is being followed and that the departments have provided information on GBA.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Do I have time for one last question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I am trying to understand what you are saying.

People have mentioned that this is not mandatory and that concerns me. If GBA became mandatory, what would change? If we ask cabinet to make this mandatory, what would change?

[Les Linklater]

If it becomes mandatory, the quality of the programs and policies would improve, since we would have data. As Mr. Davies mentioned earlier, we would have the opportunity of developing assessment frameworks in order to ensure, when a policy is developed, that the incremental impacts are taken into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move back to Mr. Godin for five minutes.