Status of Women Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

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

Given your expertise, do you believe that making this mandatory would fix that? Or do you believe that we must continue to encourage and engage the departments to move into 2016 and understand that GBA is necessary?

[Nancy Cheng]

From our perspective, it's just one of many elements that need to be considered. Part of it might be that departments and agencies want to do the right thing, but they just don't know how to broach it as well.

Just basically laying down a law to say you have to do it would not totally resolve the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We'll now turn to my NDP colleague, Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That was a perfect set-up by my Conservative friend.

In section 1.58 and section 1.65, the report specifically identifies the absence of mandatory directives as a barrier, but in the recommendations there's no reference at all.

Can you say again why you didn't actually make recommendations that the government or the departments even consider making this mandatory?

[Nancy Cheng]

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to better explain that yet again.

The office does not propose a policy for the government to adopt. That's the government's prerogative, not the auditors'. The auditors talk about the consequences of policy. It would then be up to the government machinery and to Parliament to decide whether requirements or laws should be changed, and in what fashion.

If you look at paragraph 1.61, our recommendation actually speaks to the fact that these organizations “should take concrete actions to identify and address barriers that prevent the systematic conduct of rigorous” GBA. It's saying that you need to look at all sources of barriers. The whole mandatory requirement may be one of them, but it needs to have a more thorough evaluation of what is actually stopping us from moving forward, and then, for each individual element, deciding what would be the best thing to do to move forward.

That's what we expect out of this management action plan that I spoke to earlier. They wrote a response. They said they agreed. Well, they need to take it back now and try to come back at some juncture and say, “Here are the barriers we've analyzed. Some of them may be the same as the ones the Auditor General's office has identified. But we may come up with other ones, or have a different view.”

Whatever it is, management has to conduct due diligence and then act accordingly to improve GPA implementation.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Yes. It's fascinating, and I really appreciate the work your office has done. For us to have these very strong findings, both 2009 and 2015, I think is a real call to action.

We have the three recommendations that the department made. The three agencies that replied all said they agree with the recommendation, but then the language is depressingly soft. It makes it look like we're going to be on this hamster wheel forever. I mean, saying that they will continue to require that agencies consider the application “as appropriate” doesn't sound very solid to me. They will consider developing a “checklist”, and do more “training”. Many of the responses say they will “continue”. It sounds like business as usual.

We heard from the Minister of Status of Women on Tuesday that Immigration has mandated gender-based analysis within their operations. They have a great record as a result of having mandated it 10 years ago, at least, and that's helpful.

I guess I wish, if you were writing the report, you'd have said, “For example, please consider mandatory measures.” It might have moved us a little further along. But I guess that will be up to this committee and I do hope we take that on as an active consideration.

Do I have more time, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Oh, yes. You have four minutes.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Okay.

I'm curious to know whether you found anything about the application of gender-based analysis to private member's legislation and government legislation. I know that on the NDP caucus side, we have a gender lens with which we make all of our recommendations on how we'll vote on legislation that comes to caucus. There's a gender section. I'm just checking with our team to make sure it actually looks like GBA as opposed to something more soft.

Have you seen any practices around how private members' bills are screened, or government legislation, beyond just the piece that would go through each government department?

[Nancy Cheng]

Madam Chair, I'll ask Richard to help me answer that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

By the way, you've been doing a marvellous job answering questions. Thank you.

[Richard Domingue, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

We did not look at private members' bills specifically. In the sample of 16 initiatives that we selected, there was at least one revision to an act. As well, one regulation was introduced. This was in terms of looking for GBA evidence.

But in our sample, no, there were no private members' proposals.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That's also work for us to take up, maybe, because it's a lot of the work that is moving through government.

[Nancy Cheng]

If I may, I would really encourage the committee to not be restricted to the wording in our recommendations. When you look at the various findings, you will have your own report, and have your own view. Your recommendations can go further or they can go less far. They do not have to dovetail with our recommendations at all. You can be more specific in terms of asking for a government response.

Our role is to bring observations to the table, to Parliament, so that parliamentarians can be aware of what the consequences are. Then you consider what you need to do. We cannot compel departments and agencies to do things. You are in a different position.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Beyond the absence of mandatory requirements, did you identify other big-picture barriers, which if we were to highlight in our political side might also mean that we get a different result the next time the AG looks at this policy?

[Nancy Cheng]

We highlighted that in paragraph 1.58, where we have identified a few issues.

I think the area about awareness and training cannot be overstated. People have to understand it, rather than just feel that it is yet another thing they need to do when their window to prepare these Treasury Board submissions and the memorandums to cabinet can be so tight. People are trying to do the right thing and we need to help support them so that they can indeed be able to do that.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That might also go to Vice-Chair Damoff's point around raising the level of awareness by the policy-makers so that this becomes as important as a budget filter, say, for decisions that are coming forward.

[Nancy Cheng]

If I may, I would add another point. One of the things we observed when we looked at the 19 that did implement the GBA+ framework, which another member highlighted earlier, was that the weak area is the sixth element. There are six elements to the GBA framework in terms of practices that Status of Women has suggested. The one weak spot is reporting.

Reporting helps with transparency and accountability. If there is not a lot of information there, people don't know about it and don't ask questions about it. In terms of external reporting at the departmental level, there was virtually none. People don't know if things were done or not done, or if something was done and there were no gender impacts, or if there were some but they didn't care to mention it.

Status of Women can also step up to give you more of an overall state of play, which isn't happening. What they have done is highlight some activities that have been going on, which is useful, but if they can tell you.... You don't have to wait for an Auditor General's report to tell you that 19 out of 25 were implemented, right? On an annual basis, Status of Women has a formal reporting instrument. Through that, they can say that so many have committed, so many have been implemented, and that this is what they see. That gives this committee more information in order to understand if there has been progress, if the progress is good, and if it is up to your expectations. If not, you can ask questions.

I think reporting is another way to help with transparency and accountability. That might help to move the file forward as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Over to you, Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for this extensive report and for appearing before us today.

I want to pick up on this notion of the mandatory requirement, because it seems to me that we had an audit in 2009, and now here we are, six or seven years later, and another audit shows very little progress, if any. Obviously, something needs to be done differently.

I know that in a number of jurisdictions the language has moved from GBA to gender-responsive budgeting. That includes, in many cases, mandatory requirements and deadlines, but it also includes a broader input by civil society, by Parliament, and by other stakeholders. I'm wondering if that may be something that we might want to look at. I know that you don't do policy, but in your opinion would that be something that would improve things?

I also want to follow up on your comment about non-compliance, because I'm struggling with that difference. If you have a report and you're saying there has been no progress and there's limited application, what kind of teeth...? What would non-compliance do that currently we can't do if there isn't an actual requirement? I'd be interested in hearing about that and also about whether or not you think the changes need to be legislative. Could they be policy-based? For instance, in Citizenship and Immigration, it's clearly in the legislation. It's in the act. But does it have to be legislated? Is it possible that we could accomplish this through other means?

[Nancy Cheng]

Madam Chair, I hope I remember all the different elements of the questions. If I miss one, please do remind me.

First and foremost in terms of looking at other elements, there is always room for that, and I think Status of Women should really keep the broad outlook in terms of seeing what the best practices might be. They are the centre of excellence, so they can look at all sorts of options and then come back to recommend one that is more pragmatic for the Government of Canada. In terms of the basic research, certainly we would encourage them to go broadly.

In terms of the question of non-compliance, actually we need to complete that question—non-compliance against what? If it's non-compliance against the law, well, we are a law-abiding society. We have to set examples, so why should the government not abide by its own law? That's not good to actually be setting an example for the citizenry. When there is a non-compliance with the law you'll see that the tone of the audit report goes a lot more harshly, so we would have a much harder tone in terms of saying that department X did not comply with this law, and then we may go on to say that this would result in something not being done. The law is there for a reason.

If it's policy and directives, they're generally encouraging the best behaviour, good behaviour, or acceptable behaviour. They are sanctioned by the government so they have a right unto themselves, so that's still reasonably serious. Those kinds of issues tend to be picked up by the management board, maybe. The Treasury Board Secretariat may then take a stronger view on those. They're not quite like a non-compliance with the law, but it still has consequences, and we would still most times be somewhat harsh on that. We also have to go to the policy intent to ask, why does it matter? There are policies and policies, and there are some that are more far-reaching in terms of consequence than others, so we'll have to adjust our tone accordingly.

Did I miss another element? There was something else.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Well, just on the legislative—

[Nancy Cheng]

On the last point of whether it requires a legislative fix, it's not necessarily through legislation. If you have a government directive or a policy requirement out of the Treasury Board Secretariat, it serves the same purpose in terms of actually having a mandate—people need to do this. Right now that's not out there and that's what we were referring to.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I am sharing my time today with Ms. Sahota.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Right, so now we're going to turn it over to Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Hello, and thank you for being here today.

As you can see from the line of questioning, everyone is very interested in figuring out how we can better implement your recommendations, going into the future.

Are there other areas? You review all types of government activity and audit that. Are there other areas that you would think would be similar to GBA, where they've done something that has been very effective, whether it was mandatory or whether it was a reporting requirement as you were discussing? I'm quite interested in that.

Are there any comparisons or some lines you can draw for us?