In terms—
Evidence of meeting #9 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gba.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #9 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gba.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Give me a good reason why we aren't going straight to mandatory, please.
9:35 a.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Operations, Privy Council Office
In terms of making GBA mandatory, I think that as my colleague from Status of Women was saying, as we look at developing this suite of tools to respond to the Auditor General's report, there are a number of opportunities we have to engage with departments to ensure they're actually doing GBA. I think the Auditor General would say that there were probably some challenges with the audit in terms of actually documenting the work that departments do—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sorry, Chair, I don't mean to be rude. You know we have limited time.
I asked a very simple question, sir. Give me a good rationale and public policy reason why we don't go to mandatory. You're dancing around it, sir, with respect. Give me the argument. Why aren't you doing mandatory?
9:35 a.m.
Head of Agency, Status of Women Canada
What I would say is that it is mandatory for departments to tell PCO and tell the government in the MC process. In the Treasury Board submissions, they have to say if they've done a GBA, what the analysis is to back that up, and what was the impact. They have to explain. As my colleague—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
9:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The Auditor General's department just said that one of the things that would clear this up is mandatory. You're not going there. I'm asking you to give me an explanation why, and I am still not hearing it.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Go ahead, Ms. Ballantyne.
Remember, all comments through the chair, please.
9:35 a.m.
Head of Agency, Status of Women Canada
What I'm saying is that it is mandatory for all departments in the MC development process to say that they have done a GBA. It's going to be much more intensive now. They'll have to explain that they've done it and what is the impact or what changed. They'll have to show the data. It's the checklist that my colleague was talking about.
It is mandatory in that sense. They won't be able to go past the gate without giving that.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, let's ask the fellow right beside you.
It sounds like they're saying, “Hey, we're already doing it.” Maybe I'll give you a chance to correct the record, because clearly you misspoke yourself.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I don't think that's what she was saying. I think she's saying that they don't—
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
There is no policy that requires GBA to be performed.
That being said, it is true that when the departments prepare an MC or a TB submission, there is in the template a section that they have to fill out showing that they did perform a GBA. What we saw in the report, however, is that some of those sections are not based on what we consider a complete GBA. We saw evidence that no gender impact was identified, but there was no gender analysis to support that conclusion.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you very much for your testimony.
I was struck by the comments about where in the process this could be placed. Policy programs and legislation are long, complex processes that can take years, and the later it is in the process, probably the more complicated it would be to do an analysis. But at the front end, it can actually drive the design of the plan and the program. I noticed that the PCO representative, Mr. Linklater, did mention that.
Could you talk about the process currently? What is the process and where in that cycle currently does the GBA tend to happen? What do you think would happen if this were to be inserted earlier in the process? Also, if there is a chance, maybe I could have a quick comment from one of the departments if they've experienced doing it earlier and what that led to.
9:35 a.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Operations, Privy Council Office
I am happy to respond.
Depending on the initiative and the department, I think you will find a variety of approaches in terms of the application of GBA. Some departments have the tools and the capacity to understand, from the outset, what the data collection needs are, and what the evaluation framework would be to enable them to capture the gender implications of their policy or program development.
Those departments tend to do it up front, which leads to better outcomes. The Auditor General may have views in terms of quality. I wouldn't want to speak for his office.
In other cases, as the Auditor General said, when we do get the draft of a memorandum to cabinet, there may be a line saying, “No gender considerations were assessed as part of this proposal.”
One of the challenges we have is for our analysts to be able to know when to go back to the department to engage with them and to make sure they are asking the appropriate challenge function questions, which is why, as part of our action plan at PCO, we are now making GBA+ training mandatory for our analysts, so that it becomes part of their policy development and challenge function process. It's automatic: “What are the gender considerations around this proposal”?
My sense is that, as we work together on the action plan, if we can move departments along with us to begin to take those considerations into account from the outset, that is going to lead to better outcomes, both in terms of departmental capacity and reporting to Canadians.
9:40 a.m.
Mitch Davies Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
I would just add to what my colleague said by explaining that we have decided to make investments in improving the data, the evidence base, which would apply to a whole host of policy decisions. It is getting to the point about when you need to do this. You need to have some investment in the disaggregated data that you need to drive good policy development.
Part of this is making it happen, but also having the information and the evidence you need to do a good job at it. For example, last fiscal year our department funded Status of Women Canada to develop a specific chapter in its “Women in Canada” report on women, education, and technology, which will be published in June. There are a lot of issues with respect to the participation of women in STEM fields, technical fields—the kind of fields that are going to drive the industrial revolution we are undertaking—and ensuring that all Canadians participate in that kind of future.
We really need better data. We need to have much more information analysis done. We have funded that sort of thing because it speaks to the point of being able to do this early so that, when you are actually conceiving of having a dialogue about policy, you have the information you need. At the point in time when you need to do the analysis, you have the evidence at hand to make good decisions and design the programs properly.
April 19th, 2016 / 9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
My question would be for the Auditor General's Office.
Given that there was no obligation for departments to implement gender-based analysis into their policy and decision-making, were you able to identify any common elements that characterize those departments that you elected to take part in that process?
Also, do you have any sense of any factors that led some departments to adopt these practices and some not to?