Status of Women Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Anita Biguzs]

Most initiatives are developed in departments' strategic policy shops. So you already have individuals who have policy expertise and policy capacity working on particular initiatives. Our objective is, hopefully, to always try to work as far back as we can with the departments, so that you have enough time built in to ensure that you can actually have the necessary due diligence done on an initiative. It's a dynamic process and there can be many meetings, many consultations with the department, to actually help provide constructive feedback to departments in actually developing the MC.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So it's really kind of collaborative.

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes, it is, and as I say, a lot of it is working closely with all the central agencies and also with a broader interdepartmental community, to make sure any implications for other departments are also taken into account.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Wild, in your presentation you covered off some of the work that's been under way with regard to the MRRS. You talked about being part-way through a five-step process. The first step was getting an inventory in place. The second step, which I think you indicated you were in the midst of right now, is developing these performance measurement frameworks. Step three appears to be some kind of databasing of all that data. What are steps four and five?

[Joe Wild]

Step four is the database. So after we get through building the actual frameworks, getting the database in place, we then have to start understanding and using the information out of that database. So step four is starting to actually assess the usefulness of that information and then starting to build it into decision-making processes.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

When did this evolution in MRRS begin?

[Joe Wild]

I can't peg it exactly.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

A couple of years ago?

[Joe Wild]

I think we're really talking about the last year or year and a half, in earnest.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. It's massive. You're talking about 3,000 programs of the Government of Canada, each of which have to be compiled in this data. Any ideas how long it's going to be before we really have some usable measurement in place for this?

[Joe Wild]

It's difficult to put a specific year on it right now. We don't have a specific year on it. We know it's going to take us some years. This is not going to be next year or the year after that. It's going to be a little while before we're in a position to actually start using the information from the database. What we've been trying to do, and it's really been a focus for the last three or four years, is to rationalize the program structure within government. It's a very complicated organization. We're just trying to get everything rationalized so that we can actually see and understand what the programs are that are actually out there. I think we're making good progress on that, but it does take a significant amount of time given that we're talking about an organization that spends over $200 billion a year and has more than 450,000 people working in it.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Well done. I commend you on that.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

We'll move to Madame Demers, please, for five minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Wild, Ms. Biguzs, thank you for being here today.

I must admit that your statements have confused me somewhat. On the one hand, you underscore the importance of champions in the various departments, and on the other hand, you state that the people who play this key role in your office, Mr. Wild, and in yours, Ms. Biguzs, have left their position over the past few days or months. I find it rather curious that no one has considered drawing up a short list of people qualified to play this role so that there is no gap when these champions are assigned to other positions. If their role is so important, why did no one think to ensure, when the budget was tabled, that the two people most affected by the measures set out therein were replaced when they left their position?

Ms. Biguzs, I realize that you are in this position on an interim basis, but you must also carry out your usual duties. I'm sure that despite all your good will, you cannot play the role of champion, unless you are assigned to that position permanently. I find that rather curious and even ironic.

Mr. Wild, you stated that over the past year, a number of programs have been reviewed, and that this review will take five years in total. To date, it has been shown that programs that have a social impact on women have suffered the most cuts. Why is that the case, given that these programs are supposed to undergo gender-specific analysis?

Ms. Biguzs, can you name a specific program for which you forecast a negative impact for women? Unfortunately, the minister responsible was notified of this and yet still applied the measure proposed. It went through several stages before reaching you and going back to the minister. The various departments and advisors conducted studies, which then went to you. You have given your impression, and yet, these measures are still adopted even though you have determined that there would be a negative impact.

I would like to hear your answers to these questions.

[Joe Wild]

I'll start perhaps with the first part of the question about the champion and the champion moving on.

There are two models that one can adopt for how to embed GBA in an organization. One is to basically make it part of the day-to-day work of everyone in their daily function. Another is to have a specific unit with a head who does that function throughout the organization. At Treasury Board Secretariat the process or the method that we've chosen is to embed it throughout the organization. So every analyst, whether they are creating policy or whether they are challenging submissions coming in from departments, has a role to play on GBA.

The role of the champion is one of leadership, as I mentioned before. They're not the ones performing the analysis. They're not necessarily integral to our capacity to perform the analysis and to perform our challenge function. Every member of the senior management team is aware of GBA. Their staff are briefing them on any GBA implications that they have seen in the submission. They're answering the questions from Treasury Board ministers when the submission is being presented. It's embedded throughout the organization.

While certainly the role of the champion is to help ensure that there continues to be an emphasis put on building that capacity throughout the organization, going without a champion for a week or two or three I don't think puts at risk our capacity to play our role in challenging departments on whether or not they're actually undertaking this analysis as part of the submission process.

In terms of strategic reviews, just to clarify, this is a new process that was done for the first time this fiscal year inputting into budget 2008. So this is actually our first year doing it and we'll continue to see where it goes.

I would just note that in terms of at least budget 2007 and budget 2008, I can't speak to specific decisions, again, that are being taken by ministers. Our job is, in a non-partisan way, to provide the best possible policy advice that we can that takes into account all perspectives and interests and gives our best view of what we feel is the best course of action. But ultimately ministers have to take all of that into account plus political considerations and they make decisions. Then we loyally implement those decisions, and that's in essence the process.

So it's difficult for me to speak to the specific decisions that are being taken by government in a budget or a speech from the throne. Those are obviously the decisions of ministers. We do provide our advice. Our advice has a GBA lens on it, and certainly from a minister's perspective, that may not necessarily be the only lens or the determinative lens. I think that's part of their job as an elected official and then they're held accountable for the decisions they've taken.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Can Ms. Biguzs answer me after Ms. Davidson?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Do you have a comment to make on it?

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes. I'll try to be brief.

I can assure you in terms of the role of the champion that it doesn't just reside with one person. It should, in fact, live beyond one person or live beyond the champion. I think it's the role of policy advice, and I would say the same thing as Mr. Wild, that essentially you want to embed it in your organization so that it becomes part of a very robust dynamic challenge function that PCO should be playing and asking tough questions, along with Status of Women Canada.

The role of champion is just to make sure that officers have the tools they need. We have actually incorporated this as part of our training program, our learning plans for PCO policy officers working on policy proposals coming forward. In that sense, it has become embedded as part of the regular training for new PCO officers. It's in our materials that we provide to them on how you perform a challenge function, the kinds of questions you have to ask of a department in terms of who's leading on the policy process.

So, as I say, it has to live beyond the champion. The champion is just there to make sure the tools are there, and that can actually provide the leadership.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Can we have a copy of the tools that you provide them with in order to do the analysis?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Madame Demers, we have to move on.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, can we request a copy of the tools that are given to the people who conduct the analysis?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Yes.

I believe you're coming back on Thursday. Perhaps you can bring that with you.

We'll move now to Ms. Mathyssen, for five minutes, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Wild, in your presentation you said that your directorate is responsible for challenging whether those developing policies have considered potential gender impacts. Do you have a concrete example? What would be a good success story in terms of GBA?

[Joe Wild]

In terms of my specific directorate, what we're challenging on are actually the management policies that the Treasury Board issues to set the standard across departments around how we expect the department to manage in a particular subject matter, whether that's HR, information technology, information management and security, that sort of thing. That's the type of policy I'm talking about. It's actually that old-school management handbook you're handed that tells you how to make things work in your organization.

In terms of a success story, the best success I can point to would be that the overall suite, as it's being renewed, is coming out as a fairly gender-neutral policy suite. We're not running into major issues around unintended gender consequences.

So I don't have a specific thing that I can point to, to say, “Wow, there was some really big, interesting thing.” What I can point to is a bit more mundane. It's that, as part of our process, the analysts who work for me in that particular area have gender-based analysis training and they are challenging the policy centres within the secretariat as part of their regular job. So, for me, that's the success, the fact that it's part of their tool kit, it's part of their reflex, and they're doing it. And we're not coming up with major problem issues, which speaks to me, then, that the people who are actually crafting the policy are paying attention to this. They are taking it into account. So I think that, in and of itself, is kind of the symbol of success, in a sense.

It is one of the difficulties when you do it the way we're doing it, which is that when you embed something throughout an organization and you do it at all levels in development and implementation, it's harder to point to something to show a specific result, because the reality is that the issues are being addressed as they arise. The fact that we're not seeing major issues having come to the attention of senior management around these things is, to me, a factor of success.

The problem, I realize, is that it probably leaves some skepticism around whether or not the analysis is real. I think it is, and I think the ultimate judgment of that is the fact that we don't have large criticism being laid at our feet from Status of Women Canada or others who are watching whether or not our management policies are actually avoiding any unintended gender consequences.