FEWO Committee Report

The Government of Canada should demonstrate political will and leadership by carrying through on its international and national commitments to advance equality for women, including implementing gender mainstreaming and using gender-based analysis. It is important to bring greater focus to analysing the impact of policies, programs, actions and delivery of services in moving towards substantive equality for women. It is key to apply that focus from concept of an idea all the way through ongoing implementation. What is equally vital is to remember that gender-based analysis is a tool and the ultimate determinant of a program or policy must be its outcome in helping to achieve substantive equality for women in Canada.[236]

As the Committee’s study on gender responsive budgeting unfolded, the twin issues of leadership and oversight quickly came to dominate the discussion. The Committee recognizes that a framework conducive to achieving truly gender responsive budgets is required. As noted by Ms. Steinsky-Shwartz during her testimony, “gender budgeting is really part of an overall system, so one should not look at gender budgeting in isolation.”[237]

This chapter focuses on the oversight role that Parliament can play in ensuring the development of a gender responsive budget, and the accountability mechanisms needed to fulfil this role, such as the introduction of a legislative framework, the creation of a new officer of Parliament, and the support of the Office of the Auditor General. The Committee makes several recommendations to establish these mechanisms. However, the Committee recognizes that none of these mechanisms can achieve results on their own without a clear understanding of what gender responsive budgeting is meant to accomplish, and without the political leadership to ensure that this issue features prominently on the Government’s agenda.

A. Desired Outcome of Gender Responsive Budgeting

In its study, the Committee set out to explore what is the purpose of implementing a gender responsive budget and what can be achieved with it. While these topics have been discussed in previous chapters of this report, they are worth considering again in light of their central importance to the achievement of meaningful gender responsive budgeting. The desired outcome of the purpose of gender-based analysis and of gender responsive budgeting can be found by going to the source of their creation: the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. As stated by Ms. Peckford, the goal has always been to achieve equality for women:

Gender-based analysis … was introduced during the Beijing Platform for Action. It was the way for Canada to mobilize its equality commitments. It was rooted in the recognition that equality for all women in Canada had not been achieved, that discrimination still existed—if not explicit, implicit—and that it was important to identify not only the intention of policy but its impacts.[238]

Witnesses informed the Committee that, unfortunately, gender budgeting is too often perceived as an end unto itself, without any clear grasp of what it is meant to accomplish. Ms. Peckford was particularly critical of the performance of Finance Canada after looking at the GBAs of the last three budgets that were provided to the Committee, finding “a profound disconnect regarding why we do gender-based analysis and the origins for which GBA was initially introduced.”

From hearing the deputy minister's testimony and from listening to the gender champion's testimony some weeks ago, … It's not obvious to me that it actually understand the context for which GBA should be done.[239]

As Ms. Yalnizyan pointed out to the Committee, gender responsive budgets must address women’s equality;

The very first thing that all parliamentarians should ask themselves as they're preparing budgets is, what can a budget do to advance women's equality, and do the proposals we're putting in front of the government meet these objectives? It's a simple question: what can we do to advance women's equality through a budget, and does this budget do it?[240]

In its Final Report, the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality recommended that the overall desired high level outcome should be “substantive equality”, which they defined as women having “the conditions for realizing their full human rights and potential to contribute to national political, economic, social and cultural development, and to benefit from the results.”[241] Professor Louise Langevin from Laval University, who was a member of the Expert Panel, offered the following explanation to help understand the distinction between “formal equality” and “substantive equality”:

Formal equality is when people in identical situations are treated the same way. This formal equality approach has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1989. Equality does not mean treating everyone the same way. The aim must be substantive equality. Real equality, equality in practice means treating people differently to enable them to achieve genuine equality.

I will use the example of a race. We often have the impression that daily life is a race. Equality of opportunity is achieved when all the runners, citizens of both sexes, are at the starting line. In the race of life, some people run harder and faster because they are stronger. Other people run more slowly because they are disabled or have only one leg. Others are weighted down because they are looking after children, the elderly or the ill. So the people who are really fit and really young will win the race, whereas other people will never cross the finish line.

Substantive equality enables people who do not run as hard or as fast, for all sorts of reasons, to cross the finish line. The real definition of equality is substantive equality. It is the one that takes into account systemic discrimination, which people no longer even see.[242]

top

The Committee recognizes that achieving substantive equality for women is the desired outcome of gender-based analysis and gender responsive budgeting. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 21

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada, as part of its implementation of gender responsive budgeting, abide by Canada’s existing international commitments under the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and other international conventions, and commit to advancing substantive equality for women, defined as women having the conditions for realizing their full human rights and potential to contribute to national, political, economic, social and cultural development, and to benefit from the results.

B. Role of Parliamentary Committees

The discussion on parliamentary oversight during the study revolved around the role of parliamentary committees in the budgetary process. A recommendation was made for the Standing Committee on Finance and on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to conduct joint pre-budget consultations and to review the budget from a gender lens. One of the witnesses suggested to the Committee that gender-based analysis of the budget become part of the regular work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. [243] Professor Sharp for her part noted that a gender responsive budget has to be made sustainable by having Parliamentary structures in place.

One of the things your standing committee could do is find ways in which Parliament would oversee the process […] to get the politicians trained in this area and to make sure the questions are asked in Parliament, so that when it comes through to the budget stage, there's parliamentary involvement in putting gender on the table. […]

You can overcome some of the major constraints by thinking how you can use the structures that you have to give importance to this, to monitor it, to give it a push and make sure it keeps on happening. If questions aren't asked in Parliament, then it falls by the wayside. [244]

In terms of the role of the Finance Committee in this process, Dr. Good suggested that Finance Committee members need to also examine financial and budgetary issues “in terms of gender” and “to raise these issues in the pre-budget consultations and to raise them forcefully with the Minister of Finance and with others.” [245]

Having received two training sessions in gender-based analysis, one from Status of Women Canada and one from an external consultant, the Committee found that it has gained a practical understanding of the application of gender-based analysis to its work. The Committee believes that all parliamentary committees should play a greater role in integrating gender into their committee work and, as such, that they would all benefit from receiving GBA training. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 22

The Committee recommends that, in order to sensitize and inform Parliament on the importance of consistent application of the gender-based analysis from initial policy development to the designing and implementation of policy, that all members of all Standing Committees of the House of Commons receive gender-based analysis training at the start of each session of Parliament.

C. Reporting to Parliament

The Committee heard that a key approach to parliamentary oversight consists of federal departments reporting to Parliament on their GBA activities. Some witnesses have suggested to this Committee that the Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs) would be a good mechanism for such reporting:

[G]ender-responsive budgeting is always easier to do when countries are using some form of performance- or results-based budgeting. It's easier to do it with that than with line item budgeting, because the performance- or results-based budgeting looks at physical outputs and outcomes rather than treating budgeting as a book keeping exercise, which is what used to happen in the old days. That lesson says Canada is in an excellent position to do gender-responsive budget, because you have your management resources and results structure policy, your reports on plans and priorities, and your department performance reports. Those allow you to ask what you're giving money for and how you measure physically what that money has delivered, which for me is an important part of gender-responsive budgeting.[246]

As things currently stand, departments do not have to report on their GBA activities, either as part of the RPP/DPR process or through some other form of stand-alone report. However, according to Ms. Dwyer-Renaud, Status of Women Canada is currently working with departments to integrate GBA as part of the planning and reporting cycle.[247] It has been suggested by some witnesses that the introduction of a government-wide directive or policy that would require the departments to report on GBA activities might contribute to greater accountability with respect to GBA implementation.[248]

top

The notable exception to the absence of reporting on GBA is Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). CIC is unique among federal departments because its legislation, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act[249] (IRPA), requires it to table annually a report to Parliament on the operation of IRPA, which includes a clause requiring a gender-based analysis of the impact of this Act. According to Mr. Oberle, this requirement to report to Parliament has had a very beneficial impact on the Department:

The opportunity to report to Parliament that's built into legislation brings a heightened sense of relevance and commitment to the file. It helps us convey a sense of importance and priority to our colleagues and it challenges us, perhaps most importantly, to take the time to think through what it takes to report positive results. In short, the impact has been significant, and it's been positive.[250]

The Committee agrees that accountability would be enhanced if departments were required to report to Parliament on their GBA activities. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 23

The Committee recommends that the Treasury Board Secretariat develop a policy requiring departments to report on gender-based analysis through the Reports on Plans and Priorities and the Departmental Performance Reports; and, that this policy be in place by January 2009.

D. Audit of GBA Implementation

Determined to ensure greater accountability for GBA implementation, and thus the creation of a gender responsive budget, the Committee invited Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, to speak to the role that her Office could play in accomplishing this goal. As an Officer of Parliament, the Auditor General of Canada, whose powers and responsibilities are set forth in the Auditor General Act,[251] audits federal government departments and agencies, most Crown corporations, and other federal organizations. The Auditor General reports publicly to the House of Commons with independent information, advice, and assurance regarding the federal government's stewardship of public funds, all the while advocating for sound management.[252]

An important power of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is the discretion to choose which areas of government to examine through performance audits. What this means is that the Auditor General could choose, of her own accord or at the behest of this Committee, to conduct an audit of GBA implementation in the federal government. The only requirement is that there be a clear directive requiring departments to conduct GBA. As explained by Ms. Fraser:

If there is some policy in government, and it doesn't need to be in legislation, that says gender-based analysis should be done, or even quite honestly a commitment--and I read some of the testimony before this committee that would certainly seem to indicate that government officials are saying there is a commitment by government to do it--we could certainly say that government has committed to doing this.[253]

When asked about the contribution the OAG could make in the area of gender-based analysis, Ms. Fraser informed the Committee that it could instigate a performance audit of gender-based analysis, to determine if GBA is being done by the departments and how it is being done, without commenting on the policy itself. As explained by Ms. Fraser:

We could look at whether government is actually doing gender-based analysis, and I guess we could look at some of the quality around that analysis. If a policy decision is made that doesn't take that analysis into account, we obviously can't comment on the policy itself, but we could look at the departments: are they actually doing this analysis in their design of policies and programs?[254]

[…]

We can't do those analyses [GBA analysis]. That really is not our role. On the other hand, we can ascertain whether they have been done. I believe that Status of Women Canada has sent the Minister a code of best practices or procedures for determining whether they are using those tools and taking them into account in developing policies or programs. We could audit that aspect, but it would be impossible for us to do the analyses ourselves.[255]

While she did caution the Committee that such an audit could take anywhere from 12 to 18 months, and that she would have to give more thought as to how her Office could implement the audit, the Auditor General nonetheless expressed a clear willingness to assist the Committee in gaining a deeper understanding of the state of gender-based analysis in the federal government.[256] On May 14, 2008, Ms. Fraser sent a letter to the Chair of this Committee, communicating the decision of her Office to proceed with an audit of the implementation of gender-based analysis in the federal government, which she hoped to have completed in the spring of 2009.[257]

The Committee believes that an audit of GBA practices in the federal government would bring greater transparency to this issue and provide much needed information to the government for the implementation of gender responsive budgeting. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 24

The Committee recommends that the Auditor General of Canada regularly conduct audits to review Canada's implementation of gender-based analysis in the federal government; and, that such audits take into account all of the elements of Canada's framework for equality, including the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and other international conventions to which Canada is a signatory.

top

E. Commissioner for Gender Equality

The Committee heard from several witnesses that, in order for gender responsive budgeting to produce the desired outcome, accountability mechanisms need to be institutionalized. While there already exists a federal department responsible for gender issues, Status of Women Canada, there appears to be a perception that the influence of SWC within the federal government is fairly limited. This concern was expressed by Ms. Peckford:

My experience with Status of Women Canada is that it’s not seen to be part of the real politic of the federal government; it’s not seen to be the player it should be regarded as being. In the absence of other imperatives and of other oversight mechanisms, often the work of Status of Women Canada is given lip service. It’s given some attention, but at the end of the day, whether it can be translated into meaningful policy is, for you as much as it is for us, to be seen.[258]

In light of the limited influence of SWC, witnesses recommended the creation of a separate entity to oversee GBA activities in the federal government, including gender responsive budgeting, and to promote gender equality. Two alternative models were proposed by witnesses:

1. A commissioner located within the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), based on the model of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development;[259]

2. An officer of Parliament modelled on the Commissioner of Official Languages.[260]

1. First Model: Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

In the course of this study, the Committee learned that in 1995, the Auditor General Act was amended so as to strengthen the federal government’s performance in protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development, and the position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) was created. The Auditor General, as discussed above, is an officer of Parliament, while the CESD is appointed by the Auditor General, pursuant to the powers granted to her under the Act. In addition, amendments were made to the Act requiring a number of federal departments and agencies to table sustainable development strategies in the House of Commons, and to respond to environmental petitions submitted by Canadian residents.[261] During her appearance before the Committee, the Auditor General provided a brief description of the role of the CESD:

The Commissioner reports to the Auditor General and leads a group of 40 auditors. …On behalf of the Auditor General, the Commissioner reports to the House of Commons on any environmental and sustainable development matters that he considers should be brought to its attention. The Commissioner uses essentially the same process for his audits that we use for our performance audits. Again, the emphasis is on sound management of an environmental program as opposed to the merits of the policy.

[…]

The commissioner is also responsible for monitoring, auditing, and reporting publicly on the environmental petitions process and departmental sustainable development strategies. The petitions process is unique, in that Canadians can get timely answers from federal ministers on specific environmental and sustainable development issues that involve federal jurisdiction.[262]

2. Second Model: Commissioner of Official Languages

In 1969, Parliament adopted legislation on official languages, and in 1970, appointed the first Commissioner of Official Languages. The Act declares that English and French enjoy equal status, rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. The Commissioner is appointed, after approval by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons, for a seven-year, renewable term, and reports directly to Parliament.[263] The Commissioner has a mandate to promote the Official Languages Act[264] and to oversee its full implementation, to protect the language rights of Canadians and to promote linguistic duality and bilingualism in Canada.[265]

In his appearance before the Committee, Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, stated that his mission was to “take every measure necessary to achieve the objectives of the Act”, and that in so doing, his efforts were focused in three defined areas: protection, promotion and prevention:

Under the protection component, I conduct audits and monitor the advancement of English and French. I receive complaints, and as needed, conduct investigations and intervene before the courts.

Under promotion, I inform Canadians of their language rights, and I conduct research and publish studies. I make the public aware of the benefits of linguistic duality, and I work with federal, provincial, and territorial governments. I work closely with official language minority communities, and I ensure that government takes appropriate measures in support of their development.

Under prevention, I develop strategic approaches to finding sustainable solutions.[266]

3. Preferred Model for the Creation of a Commissioner for Gender Equality

In trying to assess whether it would be preferable to locate such a Commissioner for Gender Equality within the OAG or to create a separate officer of Parliament, the Committee sought clarifications from the Auditor General on the distinction between the CESD and the Commissioner of Official Languages. One point that the Auditor General emphasized is that her Office, which would include the CESD, cannot promote any agenda, they cannot advocate for a particular policy, and they cannot comment on legislation. As such, the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is broader than that of the CESD. When asked on the best approach for a Commissioner on Gender Equality, the Auditor General had this to say:

It depends on whether you want someone at the beginning of the process who's going to give them more the policy advice, the evaluation, or if you want someone who is going to assess how policy is being implemented and how government is doing. It doesn't mean that there's necessarily one or the other. The audit office can still look at implementation and you can still have the advocate, but if you become an advocate for policy, I think you lose your independence and your objectivity, obviously, in all of this, so you have to be very careful about how you frame the role of that commissioner.[267]

If the goal is to have an advocate to do promotion and bring forward best practices, that cannot be done in an audit office. […] It would apply to evaluation as well. That clearly has to be a commissioner, as distinct from an audit office.[268]

top

When asked by a member of this Committee to comment on the preferred model for a Commissioner for Gender Equality, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommended that the Committee consider the amount of power and independence it wishes this Commissioner to have, and the resulting responsibilities.

I would say that as you consider the issue, there is a range, if you like, that goes from power to independence. The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is not one of power. I don't have the authority to fund organizations. I'm in the influence business.[269]

[…]

My own view is that independence carries responsibilities, that the more independent we are from the financial institutions of government that we are also monitoring, the greater our responsibility is to be transparent and responsible in our handling of taxpayers' dollars.[270]

Mr. Fraser also spoke of the importance of his relationship “not only with Parliament as an abstraction, but with parliamentarians and parliamentary committees.”[271]

On the issue of independence, an important distinction must be made between the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is an officer of Parliament, and the CESD, who is appointed to his position by the Auditor General, in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act[272]. Officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute and report to one or both of the Senate and House of Commons; they carry out the work for Parliament and are responsible to Parliament. More importantly, they are independent from the government of the day.[273] As stated by Mr. Fraser, in his opening statement to the Committee:

Parliament appoints officers of Parliament to work that is crucial to ensuring the integrity of our democratic system. The Canadian parliamentary agencies led by these officers are the guardians of the fundamental values of our society.[274]

The Commissioner of Official Languages also informed the Committee that as an officer of Parliament, he can only be removed by a vote of the House and the Senate.[275] He also outlined for the Committee four elements that must be included in order to create a truly independent commissioner: 1) the capacity to fulfil his mandate without government interference, 2) the availability of the necessary financial resources to fulfil this mandate, 3) the ability to report directly to Parliament, and 4) the direct access to the courts.[276]

Finally, the Committee notes that the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality, in its Final Report, recommended the appointment of “an independent agent of Parliament”, whose powers could be comparable to that of the Commissioner of Official Languages.[277]

The Committee is convinced that the appointment of a strong advocate is needed for the achievement of equality for all women. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 25

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada create the Office of the Commissioner for Gender Equality and appoint a Commissioner for Gender Equality by December 2009; that this Commissioner be appointed as an officer of Parliament, based on the model of the Commissioner of Official Languages; and, that the Commissioner be provided with all necessary resources to fulfil his or her mandate.[278]

F. Legislative Framework

The Committee learned that certain countries have enshrined a legislative requirement to take steps towards achieving gender equality. Sweden, for example, has made “gender mainstreaming” a requirement through equality legislation.[279] The United Kingdom introduced in 2007 new gender equality legislation, known as the “gender equality duty”. The new law now requires all public bodies to actively promote gender equality, which in practice translates in a requirement to publish periodically gender equality schemes setting priority gender equality objectives, and to carry out gender impact assessments of policies.[280] Janet Veitch of the UK Women’s Budget Group described the potential impact of the legislation as follows:

We believe this could be a key lever to introduce better gender budgeting, and certainly better gender mainstreaming generally. That will be a key lever for the equality human rights commission to use to determine whether government is meeting its quality objectives or not.[281]

1. Legislation in the Canadian Context

The topic of legislation was addressed in the Standing Committee’s report Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success. One of its recommendations urged that the Government initiate consultations aimed at the development of legislation. This legislation would ensure the systematic application of gender-based analysis to all federal policy and program activities. Following the release in 2005 of the Committee’s report, the Minister for Status of Women Canada created the Expet Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality to provide advice on strengthening gender equality in Canada. In December 2005, they released their Final Report, Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion, which recommended short-term administrative and policy actions and the introduction of legislation. Ms. Steinsky-Shwartz, former Chair of the Expert Panel, also noted during her appearance before the Committee, that such legislation should be introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in her role as Minister responsible for Status of Women Canada.[282]

top

It is also worth re-stating that, at present, there is one department that is required by legislation to report to Parliament on its GBA activities. Interestingly, the Committee learned that the inclusion of such a requirement in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, came as a result of a motion by the Citizenship and Immigration Committee studying the proposed legislation.[283] Mr. Oberle, speaking to the impact of this legislative requirement on the implementation of gender-based analysis at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, insisted on the positive impact of this requirement on the progress made:

In my mind, there's no question that the progress CIC has made in strengthening its capacity and performance in gender-based analysis is attributable in large measure to the 2002 legislative requirement in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It was the impetus for the creation of our original gender-based analysis unit in the development of our five-year strategic framework. It brings sustainability to our work, because there's an annual ongoing requirement to report.[284]

When the legislation was set, it brought an increased focus to gender-based analysis for CIC. Fundamentally, it got us to develop a framework for the department, the kind of framework that said we need to build capacity to do gender-based analysis across the department, so we're going to need to build our knowledge, build our training. Secondly, it said we need to turn that capacity into action, so we're going to need branch plans and a template and process to manage and get those branch plans done, signed off by directors general. It brought that focus, that structure, to CIC. I think that was the fundamental impact.[285]

Speaking of CIC’s legislative requirement to report on GBA and of the comprehensive, although non-legislative approach to gender-based analysis in effect at the Canadian International Development Agency, the members of the Expert Panel noted the following in their Final Report:

The Panel notes the irony that while Canada’s immigration and foreign aid policies derive strength from a gender-based analysis, there is no comparative action across the domestic policies of the Government of Canada.[286]

2. Rationale for Introducing a Legislative Framework

The Final Report of the Expert Panel concluded that a legislative framework is needed to ensure the sustainability of gender equality commitments, rather than relying solely on administrative mechanisms, as is currently the case.

There are pragmatic limitations to reliance solely upon administrative actions and day-to-day policy decisions. Administrative decisions are subject to change. Policies wax and wane with successor governments or new Ministers. Today's program priorities lose out to tomorrow's pressing needs or legislative imperatives.

More importantly, as indicated throughout this document, while the situation for many women in Canada has improved since the 1970 Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, much remains to be accomplished in a field of such exceptional economic, political, cultural and social importance as equality for women. Legislation could raise the visibility and promote sustainability of this fundamental undertaking of Canada and Canadians.[287]

Professor Langevin, in her testimony, sought to frame the need for legislation in terms of Canada’s existing legal commitments, both with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to international conventions to which Canada is a signatory.

Since 1982, Canada has been a signatory of the CEDAW, convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. This country has signed other documents to protect fundamental rights. Canada entrenched the Charter of Rights in its Constitution. Among protected fundamental rights are equality rights, and equality between men and women. It is certainly a fundamental value within Canadian society. The Canadian government, therefore, has made legal commitments with respect to equality for all Canadians.

By systematically refusing to undertake gender-based analysis and adopting gender-based budgets, the Canadian government is breaking its own commitments.[288]

In her testimony before the Committee, Ms. Steinsky-Shwartz also spoke to the need to shift the “oversight from the executive branch, which is looking after itself, to Parliament.” Moreover, the rationale for such legislation is that it ensures that the issue “survives all governments.”[289]

3. Content of Future Legislation

In terms of what should be included in this legislation, the Expert Panel provided detailed recommendations in their Final Report, as well as an analysis of the existing legislation aimed at encouraging social change, such as the Official Languages Act discussed above, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act[290], the Employment Equity Act[291], and the Canadian Human Rights Act[292]. In her testimony, Professor Langevin summarized for the Committee the main points that were made by the Expert Panel in their report as to what should be included in the legislation. She insisted on the need for control mechanisms, action plans with progress reports, the creation of a complaint system and a commissioner or ombudsman to oversee the process.

First of all, legislation with no control mechanism cannot work. It has to include obligations for the departments. There will be an action plan for all departments and agencies, which will have to define their own measures and results with a view to achieving equality for women.

Under the action plan, departments will be required to prepare annual progress reports, which will be submitted to the House of Commons by the respective ministers. The legislation would require all departments to adopt an action plan and then achieve their objectives.

Our report also states that there should be a complaint mechanism, since there would be sanctions. A commissioner or ombudsman could oversee implementation of the act, supported by the annual reports, of course, similar to what is done for other legislation. …

 The same thing would apply with the legislation we are talking about: it would impose an obligation on all departments and agencies to carry out a gender-based analysis for all their programs, set annual objectives and measure results. The analysis would require the commitment of resources. [293]

top

The Committee was also informed that the introduction of legislation would provide a good opportunity to clearly define the role of Status of Women Canada, which currently lacks a legislated mandate. As noted by Ms. Rowan-Campbell:

At the moment the role for Status of Women is a bit grey. You can't be a petitioner, the judge, the jury, and the executioner, and in many ways we're asking Status of Women to do all that. Again, a legislative framework would really help to clarify a lot of the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.[294]

Ms. Veitch, for her part, delivered a warning to the Committee, based on past experience in the United Kingdom, noting that in creating such legislation, it is important not to focus excessively on process, but rather to emphasize the goals or outputs that you seek to achieve:

What we've tried to do with this current gender equality duty is to make it output focused rather than input and process focused. That would be the key lesson, I would say, that you should try to learn from that. Don't make it so that people have to just tick boxes, but to think about outcomes and closing specific equality gaps. I think that's the key thing that makes our law useful.[295]

The Expert Panel also recognized the importance of clearly defined outcomes for the success of such an initiative, and insisted on the need for accountability in order to measure those results:

It was obvious to the Panel that the more clearly intended outcomes are defined in the legislation, the more successful are the actual results. It was evident that appropriate methods of auditing and evaluation have to be incorporated in the legislation. Effective follow-up and examination of the real-life impacts of the legislation, whether through a complaints procedure, third party research or both, are also needed.[296]

The Committee, being mindful of the need to increase accountability for advancing gender equality, and of Canada’s international obligations in that regard, agrees that legislation is needed to promote gender equality in Canada. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 26

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada, building on the work of the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality, introduce legislation to promote gender equality by April 2009; that this legislation set out the GBA and gender budgeting obligations of federal departments and agencies; that this legislation create the Office of the Commissioner for Gender Equality, based on the model of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages; that this legislation clearly set out the powers and responsibilities of the Office of the Commissioner for Gender Equality; and, that this legislation define the roles and responsibilities of Status of Women Canada.[297]

G. Political Will and Leadership

In the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the Final Report by the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality, the following statement was made:

The Panel wishes to underscore in the most forceful way possible the role to be played by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Privy Council Office in setting the direction for achieving equality for women. Major advances will only occur with strong leadership from the top.[298]

A key element that came out of the testimony of the central agencies, as discussed above, was that the Public Service is responsible for providing the best possible advice to the ministers, but in the end, it is up to Cabinet to decide which policies will take priority and what considerations to give to the results of the GBA. Professor Good described the situation as one of supply and demand—the public service with its GBA expertise on the supply side, and the political leadership which sets the agenda and decides on the policies going forward on the demand side:

When you take forward a policy to cabinet or you go to the Treasury Board or you’re presenting something to the Department of Finance, if someone in a senior position says, “Tell me the gender impact of this policy. What are the consequences of that?”, that’s on the demand side.

As these questions are increasingly being asked, I think the supply is going to be there. Getting that right becomes important. That requires a government that is interested in public policy, a government that is interested in the substance of public policy and the capacity to ask these fundamental questions and to do it at all levels within government, both at the political and at the bureaucratic level.[299]

Witnesses argued that, regardless of how well the Public Service analyses policy from a gender lens, there can be no true progress without political will and leadership. As Dr. Good clearly stated, “leadership is absolutely critical if one wants to integrate this kind of analysis, work, and sensitivity within the policy and decision-making processes of government.”[300]

The Committee learned from international experts the importance that political will and leadership has played in any progress being made in other countries. Professor Bartle informed the Committee that the real test in terms of the sustainability of gender budget is whether it can survive a change of administration and noted that, in the end, it is “more a matter of commitment than it is anything else.”[301] Professor Rubin credited political leadership, including the commitment of the mayor of San Francisco, for any progress made on gender budgets in that city.[302] Professor Sharp perhaps summed it up best for the Committee when she stated:

I'm probably not saying anything new to a group such as yours that at the heart of the budget process is a political process and it requires contestation. Commitment at very high levels is required as well if things are going to change in the area of gender equality.[303]

top

The Committee also notes that it is generally acknowledged that an increase in the participation of women in political life will have a beneficial effect in terms of promoting gender equality. Ms. Veitch, speaking to the UK experience, stated clearly that gender budgeting gained prominence on the political agenda with the rise in the number of women ministers.[304]

The importance of leadership and political will was also emphasized by all the former members of the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality. A suggestion was also made that the Government articulate in the Speech from the Throne its vision for promoting gender equality. Ms. Rowan-Campbell provided a clear summary of the situation, and of what is missing in terms of leadership in order for progress to be made towards gender equality:

Although we can see that the central agencies--Treasury Board, Finance, and the Privy Council--have begun to take on board some of the concerns and recommendations we made, there is one area that's still very important, and globally it's still the central issue, and that is political will. In terms of accountability, somewhere in the PMO there needs to be a responsive mechanism, something that we feel comes out saying, “This is what's important, and we want to make sure all of you recognize that this is important.” We notice that we haven't seen anything in the Speech from the Throne that says gender equality is important.

Political support, although it's there within the bureaucracy and it's there systemically, I think also needs to be signalled from the highest levels, and I really haven't seen that yet. It's one of the issues that are being discussed globally. The world is asking how we entrap political will. It's all very well for us to effect the systems to bring about change, but that has to be partnered at the top.[305]

The Committee recognizes that strong political leadership is required in order to attain equality for all women and that the Government must commit unequivocally to achieving this objective. Therefore:

RECOMMENDATION 27

The Committee encourages the Prime Minister of Canada to demonstrate leadership by ensuring the training of all members of Cabinet in gender-based analysis and by clearly articulating the Government of Canada’s commitment to gender equality in the next Speech from the Throne.