Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 7th, 2023

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Okay.

Let's go back to the main issue, which is disaggregated data. We know that a number of departments have not implemented practical solutions.

First, what practical solutions could the departments have implemented? Second, how long should it have taken? Finally, why didn't they do it?

Can you give us a quick answer to those questions?

[Andrew Hayes]

I think it has to do with action plans. WAGE plays a supporting role with departments by conducting these analyses.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

So the Department for Women and Gender Equality is there to support the other departments.

Should I infer from that that the department has not done enough to support the others?

[Andrew Hayes]

I would say that it is also a question of skills within the departments. That's one of the reasons we raised the need for training.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

What do you mean by “skills”?

[Andrew Hayes]

As the deputy minister said, there are a few experts within the departments, but possibly not enough. We need other qualified people to work on GBA+.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Can the Department for Women and Gender Equality not train people from the other departments and make sure that the other departments have the necessary skills to implement the GBA+ framework?

[Andrew Hayes]

I think that question is one for the deputy minister.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

So what do you think, Ms. McRae?

[Frances McRae]

Thank you for the question.

We talked earlier about the training we provide. In that regard, we work very closely with the Canada School of Public Service. As you know, some departments are very large and have offices across the country. At the Department for Women and Gender Equality, we play a role in building their capacity.

I will ask Ms. Leïla Boussaïd to give you specific data on training.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm sorry, but Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné allocated time does not allow for another answer. However, it is quite likely that we will be asking you to provide us with those details in a few minutes.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for six minutes, please

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I understand how difficult this work is.

It's not every day at this committee that we have the opportunity to talk about very broad applicable policies. From Canada's own perspective, this is really important, considering our own history, the state that Canada is in, and the fact that we're still trying to create a democracy that includes everyone, that creates systems that include everyone and that has policies that include everyone.

It's an immensely difficult and challenging job. It's one that I want to thank you for, given the fact that we're in the circumstances of auditing this work. Of course, we're talking a lot about the deficiencies of that work today, but there are leaps and bounds that have been made for Canadians, for generations, towards this better understanding. You are following in the footsteps of that work, so thank you for that. Thank you for your service in making sure today's audit and today's findings are possible.

It's a really important question when we ask ourselves about GBA+. For many Canadians, when they are faced with this question, there's sometimes a response that is echoed, why is it important? It's important, because we have to find ways to demonstrate to Canadians that it's a matter of inclusivity. It's a matter of how one spends taxpayers' dollars, who's included in those expenditures, and who is ultimately included in the benefit that a program, particularly a national public service program, ought to entitle people.

It's an incredibly important question, particularly to members of Parliament who are sitting around the room, as well. I'm sitting across from many parties, including the House of Commons and legislatures across the country, because it also means that if people don't feel included in the expenditures on policy, why would they want to vote? This is a tangible issue directly related to apathy in our country, democracy in our country and whether or not these folks will ever feel included.

I'll share a personal story for a quick moment. My mom was born at a time when indigenous people could not vote. She was born not seeing anyone vote in her lifetime. Her grandparents weren't allowed to vote. The Gradual Enfranchisement Act in Canada had not yet passed. Indigenous people were the last people in our country who got the right to vote. That was in 1960.

It's unquestionable to think that a democracy would do something like that, to exclude such a voice, the founding voice of our country, for so many years. However, those are the consequences of not ensuring GBA+ analysis in our policies. It's a devastating outcome that still has impacts related to apathy and trust. It still has impacts related to people's ability to see Canada as a good, welcoming and diverse place for many people.

I want to ground my questions on that real-life experience, because it's something that we're still feeling, and something that community members across the country, right across the GBA+ analysis, are still continuing to deal with. It breaks those people's hearts, and my heart, as well, to know that this audit has demonstrated, in many ways, that continued pattern of what I would perceive as, perhaps, the neglect of some of these issues.

It could be because of capacity. It could be for various kinds of reasons. That's what I'm here to find out. Why is it that, for example, the three organizations here that responded to the Office of the Auditor General's recommendations responded to the recommendations by “continuing to” undertake the actions recommended? It implies that in the prior audit, you were continuing to do those actions at that time. However, they don't necessarily seem to have been proven in this audit.

I suppose my question is direct. I'd like to know—and a response from all three departments would be helpful—do you not fully agree with the Office of the Auditor General's findings?

[Frances McRae]

We do, in fact, agree with the Auditor General's findings.

I would talk a bit about the evolution of GBA+. It is not something that is static. We need to continue to evolve our approaches to GBA+. I think what you would have seen—and certainly we could table with the committee the report of the Auditor General—is a timeline there that demonstrates concerted actions over a 30-year period.

I want to comment on the question of Canada's leadership here, though. I was looking back at the OECD report that Canada asked to have prepared on our work with GBA. I would like to refer to the news release that the OECD issued at the end of the report that was completed in 2018.

The first line states:

Canada has made significant progress on gender equality in the last few years, developing institutions, policies, tools and accountability structures that position it as a leader in an area increasingly seen as a cornerstone of inclusive growth, according to a new OECD Review.

I really do believe we are continuing to improve. It is becoming better. You are seeing the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act, which required quite a lot of rigour.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt because of timing.

I appreciate your comments, but I want to be able to give time for the other witnesses to respond to the question of whether or not they agree with the OAG's findings.

I want to preface my question, not with the fact that you're not doing good work—to the previous speaker, I understand that—but today's meeting is to ensure that the MPs understand the deficiencies—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I'm going to cut you off so we can hear from the other witnesses briefly. The time has expired.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I think it was an important point.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I want to hear the answers from Treasury as well as PCO.

Go ahead, please.

[Graham Flack]

I'll give a specific example to show how we agree and how that's consistent with continuing to...and it's around disaggregated data.

At the time of the first report, there was some disaggregated data, but major investments had not been made in many areas. They are needed to do additional linking of data, for example, to StatsCan databases on individual programs. Progress has been made on that.

When we say “continue to”, as Frances indicated, Statistics Canada has made some major investments to upgrade the capability of departments to interact with their site. We are not yet at a point where 100% of programs all have disaggregated data. There are reasons for why it's going to be challenging to get there. They include privacy concerns—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to cut you off there. I'm sure someone will come back to that.

I'll go to the PCO, please, if you would like to respond to Mr. Desjarlais briefly. Thank you.

[Kaili Levesque]

In short, yes, I agree, but also, the work continues specifically on the application of rigour—the development. When I say “continue to”, it is about continuing the rigorous evolution, and it is also about the reflection, as Frances said, of the changing population of Canada.

I'll leave it there for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We're beginning our second round now.

We're going to go to Ms. Vecchio.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

I would like to give my time to Kelly.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's wonderful. Thanks.

Thanks, everyone.

Mr. Hayes, do you feel the government has been successful in this process, considering that we look at 2015 and the other reports and here it is eight years later?

[Andrew Hayes]

I would say that the government has made some steps since our 2016 report. I can point to the fact that gender-based analysis plus is a requirement for MCs and TBS subs, but I would say—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm going to interrupt you.

You said it's a requirement, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement that the government is following. That's why I want to ask whether you believe it's successful. If we have a requirement, are these requirements being followed?