Status of Women Committee on March 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Madam Mathyssen, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You'll have to forgive me, some of this still seems quite erudite, and I'm trying to come to grips with it.

Madam, you said that your role is to provide information to the ministers. But if they reject that advice, it ends there, doesn't it?

[Anita Biguzs]

Ultimately cabinet and the government are the decision-makers. As I say, our job is to put information in front of them and to make sure they have what they need to make decisions. They do that on the basis of a variety of considerations and issues they have to take into account in the broad policy process.

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

I'm very interested in the idea of the champion. I understand that the champion promotes GBA in the department and embeds it in policy. The Secretary of Treasury Board appoints the champion. I'm wondering what the criteria are for that appointment. How does one become a champion? Is it that an individual has a special interest in GBA, or a skill set? Can you enlighten me? I'm wondering how one gets that job.

[Joe Wild]

I don't want to put myself into the head of the secretary per se.

There's a host of different corporate champions for different types of matters that get asked for. There are employment equity champions, gender-based analysis champions. There's a whole host of different champions. Part of it may be that a particular assistant secretary has an interest in an area and asks. They put forward their name and say they would like to be considered a champion in this area.

Mainly, the role of a champion within TBS is a leadership role. It's to ensure that as a secretariat we understand and fulfill our responsibilities with respect to GBA. The champion is really coordinating and promoting the training sessions and trying to make sure that their colleagues, at least at the secretariat level, are sending their analysts to the required training. The champion also sits at the table with the status of women gender equality interdepartmental committee that's chaired by Status of Women Canada.

In terms of special skills or qualifications, I think it's a leadership capacity and ability to motivate the organization. It certainly helps if someone has a passion for an issue, I think. I suspect that those are the types of things the secretary is looking for.

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

I was listening intently, and I thought I heard you mention the figure 100 in connection with how many personnel at Treasury Board have been trained in GBA. Do directors and deputy ministers also have GBA training? Does the clerk have GBA training?

[Joe Wild]

I'm not aware of whether the Secretary of the Treasury Board himself has gone on GBA training. In terms of people at the director level, yes, there are people at the director level who have gone on GBA training. I can't speak for the Clerk of the Privy Council.

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

Would that be a good thing, if everyone had GBA training so there was this understanding, this sense of what it is that goes into the process?

[Joe Wild]

I certainly think it's important to encourage as many people as possible to take the training so that they are aware of the issue and they can understand how it plays out in terms of their own roles and responsibilities, whatever their position may be in an organization. Certainly at Treasury Board our focus is on making sure that the people who are actually performing that challenge function or developing policy have that training. That's our first priority, making sure that people who are actually doing the analysis on programs and policies have the training and are in a position to incorporate GBA as part of their tool kit in developing that. That's certainly our area of first focus.

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

Okay.

[Anita Biguzs]

May I just comment for PCO as well?

Our focus is on the policy officers who actually do work on the front line with departments in terms of developing policy. That would include directors of operations. I think the role of champion at PCO, as in the case of Treasury Board, is a senior-level public servant in the Privy Council Office. Again, it's a role that's embedded in terms of there being a number of policy secretariats that are responsible for policy initiatives coming forward to cabinet policy committees. That's where the nucleus of real support is.

So the assistant secretary of social development policy is very fitting. That's a very senior-level position. I think it clearly speaks to the importance and the prominence that's given to the issue. It's also the right position for the policy secretariat, because it makes sure that position ensures that the appropriate training is provided the policy officers so they can actually perform their policy challenge function and that they are sensitive to the issues and the kinds of considerations they should be asking at the table whenever an initiative is being developed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have about a minute.

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

Are PCO and Treasury Board looking at any of the best practices of GBA from other countries?

[Joe Wild]

Yes. I think Status of Women Canada certainly has a lead in looking at those things and helping to articulate within the system what are best practices. There is a working level committee that the secretariat sits on. It's an interdepartmental committee that is chaired by Status of Women Canada.

In the past we have collaborated with foreign delegations--Bangladesh in the past, and shortly, in the near future, South Africa--that are looking to obtain information about Canada's approach to GBA. In general terms, I do think we look at what Status of Women Canada is doing in terms of mapping what best practices are around the world. We have discussions with them through the interdepartmental committees around what the best practices are that we can integrate into our organizations. We work very closely with Status of Women Canada on developing our training, and I think we try to reflect those best practices within our training programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Do you have anything to add, Ms. Biguzs?

[Anita Biguzs]

No. I think Status of Women Canada is a leader, and I know you've had representatives from Status of Women appear before you in terms of the extent to which they do look at the international perspective. I think that certainly helps inform their approach. The training we receive at PCO is in fact coordinated and provided for us by Status of Women Canada. In that regard we feel we are getting and receiving from them very good expertise and advice that reflect the international perspectives out there.

I think you're received representatives from HRSD; in terms of HRSD, departments as well are looking internationally in terms of the experience out there in incorporating into their analysis on particular policy proposals how best to incorporate gender-based analysis on individual initiatives. Much of it depends on the kind of data and information that you can get. Data is always critical in terms of how you incorporate it into your policy choices and options. I think departments are actually continuing to learn and to look internationally at best practices.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to the second round.

Go ahead, Ms. Neville, for five minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of you for coming.

I'm listening to you with interest. I have to say it was somewhat difficult following your presentations as you went through all of the steps of government. As I listened, I was struck by the fact that the processes are in place, but somehow there's a niggling concern of mine that while the processes are in place, gender-based analysis is still peripheral to all of what you're doing.

We heard the comment that it has a profile. We know that there's a memorandum to cabinet on gender-based analysis being done when appropriate. There have been a number of references to Status of Women; we know Status of Women is challenged in terms of their staffing complement and the demands on them. I just have a sense that gender-based analysis is becoming topical because you have a committee looking at it and a community demanding it, but that it's not real, or that it's just very much skimming the surface.

I'm waiting for finance to come to talk about some of the tax credits. We heard references to the interdepartmental committee; you've referred to it. We've also heard that they hardly ever meet. I'd be interested to know what your understanding is on the role of the committee.

Memoranda to cabinet suggested that gender issues be considered when appropriate. Who decides what's appropriate? Is it appropriate to have it in a defence memorandum to cabinet as well as in a social services memorandum to cabinet?

We've heard that programs are aligned with government priorities. Are government priorities articulated for Treasury Board staff and for Privy Council staff so that...? Is gender-based analysis done independently of government priorities, or is it geared to government priorities? How are those priorities articulated?

I'll let you answer that, and then I've got more questions.

[Anita Biguzs]

If I can just speak from the policy point of view, our role is to ensure that implications are assessed for any initiative coming forward, and that includes gender-based analysis. That includes asking the questions about the implications. If there is a differential impact, what is the impact? That's really our bread and butter at PCO in terms of asking those kinds of questions.

The interdepartmental meeting process for a policy initiative is very important. Concerning the issue of who decides what's appropriate, the department is ultimately the lead for doing the policy legwork. And it's incumbent on the central agencies--and that's PCO and I would include Status of Women Canada there--at an interdepartmental meeting process on a policy proposal to ask the tough questions, to ask what the implications are for women, what the implications are for men, and whether there is equality of outcomes in terms of what comes forward.

That's incumbent in our role as policy officers, as policy analysts, to ensure that the questions are asked and that they get asked and that the information is provided and is conveyed in the documents that are submitted to ministers.

At the end of the day, again, we are not the decision-makers, but our role is to ensure that ministers have the kind of information they need, that they understand the risks, that they understand the consequences, and that they understand the benefits. And at the end of the day, they have to make a decision based on their best judgment, looking at a number of factors.

In terms of the priorities, as I mentioned in my comments, the government's priorities are very much informed on the basis conveyed through the Speech from the Throne, of course, and through things like mandate letters to ministers. But through all of it, a gender-based lens--as it comes through a policy development process--would actually include questions around the gender-based analysis and the implications for men and for women.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

So if a memorandum to cabinet does not have an adequate gender-based analysis, then what's the process ?

[Anita Biguzs]

On the memorandum to cabinet, our role is to ensure that we and the department provide the kind of analysis and the information it needs. It's noted to ministers if in fact there are information gaps or data gaps in terms of what's coming forward.

And sometimes you deal with incomplete information just in terms of the data that may be available and it's not always perfect in terms of what we and departments are able to provide to ministers in terms of the implications on issues. And that would be noted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Neville.

We now go to Mr. Stanton for five minutes.

And Ms. Davidson, would you take the chair?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for your presentations this morning.

First, to Ms. Biguzs, in the course of your opening remarks you talked about the preparation of the memoranda and the notion that there are several considerations through which these are vetted, one of which is GBA. Could you give us some examples of some of the other considerations that would be part of that initial look at the proposals that come from the departments?

[Anita Biguzs]

I outlined some of the considerations in my opening comments. I think it goes to the heart of the policy-making process in terms of trying to analyze an issue that comes forward, trying to define the problem clearly. Are the goals and objectives clear? Are the results clear in terms of what the initiative is intended to accomplish and how that might be measured? I think we're trying to build more of that into the front-end process of policy development rather than just leaving it for the Treasury Board process. Looking at what programs are currently out there we ask whether it builds on existing programs. Are there gaps? What are the gaps? How do we determine what those gaps are? Have there been evaluations done to assess what the implications of a program are? Have we looked at horizontal implications and considerations?

We look at things like environmental implications. Has a strategic environmental assessment been done? It's trying to look at the societal benefits of an initiative, asking what the risks of an initiative are, and looking at what the credible options are. So there is a whole of range of considerations.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So it's very thorough. I appreciate that.

In terms of PCO's working with the staff at departments, what kinds of processes are in place to help the departments take all these considerations into account, more or less, before they get to you in terms of training and development work? Would you say that these are people who are professionals in the public service and understand and integrate those considerations at the outset?