Status of Women Committee on March 4th, 2008

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

Ms. Biguzs, did you have anything to add in regard to this?

[Anita Biguzs]

No, I think Mr. Wild has covered that off.

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

Okay.

It's interesting that you talk about unintended gender biases. I truly believe that the departments and the analysts are working very hard, but quite frankly, when I look at budget 2008, I have some profound concerns.

I also want to talk a bit about the tools. We heard from Professor John Bartle, who talked about the number of tools that could be used to analyze budgets through the gender lens. He talked about expenditure incidence analysis, gender-aware policy appraisal, gender-responsive budget statements, and beneficiary assessments, and time use studies.

I wonder what tools you use. Are the tools the same as those described by Professor Bartle, or what precisely do you use when you conduct GBA?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I just want to tell you, you have less than a minute left for a response.

[Anita Biguzs]

In terms of budgeting issues, I think you should actually direct your question to the finance department. I think you are meeting with finance department officials next week.

In terms of PCO, we have worked with Status of Women Canada, and certainly it's the tool that Status of Women Canada has provided us in terms of our training tool, which looks at the policy proposal from the beginning to the end. It includes a number of case studies to give officers an opportunity to work on some practical case examples to understand what kinds of questions they have to ask and to look at what the differential impacts would be in terms of women or men. So we look to Status of Women Canada in terms of the tool we use.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Do you have anything to add?

[Joe Wild]

Those are pretty much the same tools we use. I can think of one example, one particular policy that was being developed. The policy centre went out and actually contracted for a specific gender-based analysis to be done by an expert. It varies, but generally speaking it's what Madam Biguzs talked about.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We will go to Ms. Grewal, for five minutes, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

When the previous witnesses came here they expressed some concerns that gender-based analysis that is being done within the federal government is perceived just as another bureaucratic hurdle to overcome. Could you share with us how, in your experience, the GBA is perceived by departments and agencies? Also, in your view, what needs to be done to ensure that gender-based analysis becomes institutionalized in the central agencies and most specifically in government spending, revenues, and budgetary policies and processes?

[Anita Biguzs]

Certainly in the last two years there has been a lot of progress made in the fact that we have champions in the central agencies, in the fact that we have an interdepartmental committee that looks at this question in terms of how we can advance efforts across government, in the fact that you have in departments various approaches and various models for ensuring that gender-based analysis takes place. As I say, inherent in the policy process, the importance of ensuring--again I sound like I'm repeating myself--that we ask the challenging questions and the tough questions in terms of what the implications are for men and women is part of a very robust policy challenge function.

It is also the case that this is within government, but of course to make a process even stronger it means you need voices and advocates outside of government. I think the fact that you have organizations and groups outside government that look for these kinds of questions and that, as I say, challenge government really in terms of how these issues and these considerations are being taken into account leads to a very healthy process. It has to be internal, but it also has to be an external process that makes sure this is an issue that is advanced and that the necessary kinds of considerations are taken into account.

I think there is an onus both inside and outside. There have been a number of good steps taken to try to ensure this happens. I think we can only build on the progress we've made to embed it as part of the culture and the work of each organization. Certainly, as I say, you'll hear from our colleagues in the Department of Finance in terms of the work they're doing, in terms of the budget process. So I think it's really all part of an overall sort of approach, a coherent approach that has to look internally in government with all of the various players but also in terms of looking at the external organizations and think-tanks and others that can also certainly help to advance work in this area.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Most government spending, as you know, is not new. Over two-thirds of our government spending is statutory spending, authorized through previously approved legislation such as health transfers to the provinces, old age security, etc. So traditionally most programs are continued year after year. In your mind, is there any gender-based analysis done on previously approved funding, spending?

[Joe Wild]

Yes, in the sense that, as I mentioned before, we are now doing something called strategic reviews. It's a new process that was launched during this fiscal year. We did it for the first time and then put it into budget 2008. Strategic reviews require organizations—and basically we take a certain number each year—to review all of their spending, and in reviewing their spending they're looking to ensure that it reflects government priorities, that programs are performing well, that sort of thing.

What happens then is this. To the extent to which any of those programs have a gender-based issue that is integrated into the program design, that is certainly then part of the assessment of that program's performance. So we would assess whether or not that program was actually succeeding in whatever it is trying to do in terms of that gender outcome that it's looking to generate.

There is a means. That is the tool we currently have. There is a host of other issues, of course, that goes into the strategic review: official languages, legal and contractual obligations, the impact on HR, federal-territorial relations. There are all kinds of issues that go into a strategic review, but certainly if there are gender-based impacts, those are taken into account and are put into that mix as well.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

It is the committee's understanding that PCO primarily plays a gatekeeper role for what gets to cabinet. What do PCO analysts do to ensure that departments have done a gender-based analysis regarding their memorandum to cabinet and have also incorporated that GBA into the memorandum?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

If you could keep your answer to about 30 seconds, that would be great.

[Anita Biguzs]

I think again it's part of the challenge function of PCO officers. PCO officers are the primary contact with departments who are the lead on policy development initiatives coming to cabinet. PCO officers ask the questions. They ask for gender-based analysis. It's also incumbent on PCO to ensure that an interdepartmental process take place on an initiative coming forward to cabinet. The interdepartmental process includes representatives from other government departments, including Status of Women Canada. As I say, it's a very important tool and an important opportunity to ensure that questions are asked and that the sponsoring department can basically provide any information that's requested in terms of questions around gender-based analysis and implications or differential implications for men and women. That's PCO's role, to make sure before something comes to cabinet that those processes have indeed taken place.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

Mr. Pearson, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not so much looking for answers as just for a bit of assurance.

I'd like to give a bit of an example. I was a professional firefighter for almost 30 years in Ontario. For 20 years a number of us on a committee advocated to bring women on to the fire department. It was a struggle. It went through the advocative stage. It finally passed, and our city council recognized that it had to be done. So it went through that recognition stage.

Then it went to the bureaucratic stage, and they brought in trainers and a number of other people. At that point the whole thing fell on its face. It was because they had developed kind of a checklist program. They came to the officers like me and others and said, “Here's your manual. Here's the stuff you check off if it's being done.” At the assessment after the end of two years, we began to realize that what began as a really good idea got lost in these good intentions, because people were so busy checking little boxes off that they weren't actually implementing it.

I guess what I'm saying here--and I'm sure you'll disagree--is that it feels to me today a bit more like a checklist thing. I'm trying to find out from you--I guess I need some assurance--that it's not. But also I'd really like to find a way in which this whole GBA thing would become a natural approach within all departments rather than the kind of thing for which we say we did this and this and this. I'm just throwing it open for your comments to that.

[Joe Wild]

I certainly agree, and I think that's actually the direction we're going in. As I mentioned, I call it a reflex. But again the idea is that when you're sitting there as a policy analyst and you're deciding what advice you're going to provide and how you're going to frame that advice up the line ultimately to ministers, you need to understand, and you need to be able to articulate how this particular program or initiative is going to impact on a whole host of stakeholders and public interests.

Quite frankly, I thibk it's a question of the integrity of the public service in providing its advice, that it is taking into account whether or not there will be gender impacts, just as I think it's part of the integrity of the public service to take into account whether there are employment equity impacts, official language impacts, or federal-provincial impacts. There are a whole host of things that we have to take into account in providing that advice to ministers. Our job is to provide the information to ministers so that they can make a decision. They can weigh out all of those public interests and decide from a political perspective what they want to do. Our job is then to loyally implement that after it's been made.

But we don't do our job if we're not giving them the information they need to understand if there is any gender impact on a given issue. I take seriously that it is part of our job to do that. I think that by and large we are doing it. I think it's one of those things for which you don't want to rest on your laurels. You need to continue to work. It's a constant effort to embed these things into the culture of the organization. I think that's what we're doing, and that's the approach we're trying to take.

I think it's far more than a checklist. I think we'll be judged ultimately by outcomes on whether or not we're succeeding. The difficulty there of course is that we're not the decision-makers. Ultimately there's a whole host of things that come in to make decisions. Our job is just to make sure they've got the best advice possible that reflects as many different perspectives on whatever that particular issue may be, and I think that is in fact what we're doing.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Anita Biguzs]

Can I just add to that?

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Sure, go ahead.

[Anita Biguzs]

Checklists can be important. I agree with you, they shouldn't be an end unto themselves. Sometimes they can be very helpful in terms of making sure you go through all the issues.

Our job is doing good policy analysis and making sure good policy analysis takes place. That means looking at things like risks, benefits, and consequences. It means looking at who the winners are and who the losers are. It looks at the mitigating factors.

As officials, the last thing we want to have is a surprise in terms of any kind of an initiative that moves forward, that somehow government was not aware there would be some kind of an impact, or a dramatic negative impact, on a group of stakeholders that we had not brought to their attention.

We try to do the best work we can in terms of doing the policy due diligence in PCO, in terms of trying to facilitate that work happening with departments to try to advance good policy and good programs at the end of the day that benefit society at large and that don't have differential impacts. That's what we try to do. We may not always succeed, but that's certainly the effort we try to make. It's in that process, to put all of that together.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Ms. Minna had....

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thirty seconds, not even. We are going to try to get another round in.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'll go into the next round.