Status of Women Committee on March 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Order, please.

I know we are missing a few members. What I'd like to do is continue with Ms. Biguzs and Mr. Wild.

Thank you, Mr. Wild, for bringing the flow charts. I think we will wait until the Bloc members arrive for that flow chart explanation, because if you do explain now, you'll get some questions that might be repetitive. Do you have any more presentations today, or is it questions and answers only?

[Anita Biguzs, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet, Operations Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

We did our presentations on Tuesday, so I think we are quite happy to answer any further questions that you have following Tuesday's discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Before we ask questions you might as well go through the flow chart, and if we have to repeat, then we will repeat. Could you take us through the flow chart, and the decision-making processes, the memorandum to cabinet, and the Treasury Board submission processes? Thanks.

[Anita Biguzs]

Perhaps I can begin in terms of just the overview.

The committee was interested in knowing how all of the pieces fit together in terms of the roles of central agencies and departments in terms of the whole machinery of government around decision-making.

The blue and green flow chart that you have in front of you tries to give you some kind of framework in terms of the initial policy development stage, which is at the left-hand side of your paper. Then moving to the right, it goes into the implementation phase. Down the side of the left-hand column you'll see that we tried to identify PCO, Finance, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and line departments.

In terms of looking at the policy development stage, the role of PCO, as I had described on Tuesday in my comments, is to support the Prime Minister and cabinet. That is certainly the support we provide to the policy committees in terms of policy initiatives coming forward, helping to ensure there is a horizontal or coordinated perspective--since many issues, of course, cross over more than one department--and helping to ensure overall that the government's agenda in terms of the priorities that it has set through the Speech from the Throne are followed through.

Finance, on the other hand, will be meeting with you next week and they can certainly elaborate in greater detail on Finance's role. Certainly they of course help in setting the overall economic and fiscal context. They are the experts in terms of economic and fiscal implications and analysis. And of course, budget preparation is a key responsibility of the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance.

I'll let Joe speak to this when I'm finished, but Treasury Board is basically responsible for looking at and ensuring the integrity of the system in terms of overall oversight on financial and management issues, on assessing resource adequacy.

Line departments, in terms of the bottom column, are ultimately responsible for developing initiatives pursuant to the government's policy agenda and ensuring that any of their priority initiatives, or initiatives that they are working on, are consistent with the government's policy initiatives. They actually are responsible, as I mentioned the other day, for developing and preparing policy proposals that would come forward for consideration to cabinet.

The three central agencies on that policy development process work very much together. We have complementary roles, if I can put it that way, and we input in terms of policy initiatives that would be coming forward to cabinet. When I go into the next chart I'll actually show you how that all comes together.

That's the policy development side of things in terms of items before they are considered by cabinet.

For the implementation phase, clearly Finance has a role in terms of the passage of the Budget Implementation Act through Parliament, and tax and other statutory measures.

Treasury Board is responsible, of course, for the approval of program authorities for departments to implement programs, to approve spending plans, ensuring that programming is consistent with the Financial Administration Act and, of course, parliamentary management of the estimates process. That's the main estimates and the supplementary estimates process. They have also set the macro policies for the Government of Canada in terms of program evaluation and audit policies.

Departments, on the other hand, are responsible once an initiative has received policy approval and program approval by Treasury Board, and then are responsible for actually implementing an initiative, providing the appropriate management oversight in terms of program implementation, reporting to Parliament in terms of their DPRs, and also conducting program evaluations and risk-based audits of their programs.

I hope that is somewhat helpful in terms of trying to explain how the pieces fit together.

Before I turn to the memorandum to cabinet process, I maybe can turn to Joe.

Do you want to add anything on the role of the board?

[Joe Wild, Executive Director, Strategic Policy, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Sure.

I think the focus of the board really is twofold. It's ensuring that the spending planned in the budget is properly expressed within the estimates through, ultimately, the appropriation act, which then provides the actual legal spending authority for a department to spend funds in that particular area. The focus of the Treasury Board submission process is very much on getting the details of program design, the specific costs, the expected results and outcomes, and how program delivery and administration will occur.

It's basically a check, with a focus on implementation. So the policy part of it has happened, and it's very much looking to make sure everything is in place that's necessary for the department to actually be able to successfully implement that policy decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Are you going to the next one?

[Anita Biguzs]

The next page.

As for the next two charts, the first one tries to give you a sense of how the memorandum to cabinet process works.

The initial policy proposal in terms of what comes forward is determined by the government's agenda. Clearly that's set through things like the platform the government articulates, then subsequently in the Speech from the Throne or mandate letters or the budget. So the priorities are in accordance with the priorities that have been identified by the government and that should be moving through the system. The department would ensure they identify a priority that's consistent with the agenda through the Speech from the Throne or, as I say, through the budget or through mandate letters, and they would start to do the policy work internally. Traditionally on a policy initiative, that would be developed by a strategic policy branch located in a department. They would start to put together the necessary analysis in terms of developing a memorandum to cabinet.

I think, as I mentioned the other day, in terms of the template for the memorandum to cabinet process, it is on the PCO website, and it gives you a sense of what the structure of a memorandum to cabinet should be in terms of identifying a proposal, a recommendation. It identifies the problem, why this is coming forward, the analysis of the issues, and the possible options. We look for credible options that give ministers some choice in terms of what they can move forward with, and it also gives them a sense of the risks and the benefits of moving forward.

The department starts to initiate that work and starts to develop a detailed policy proposal they would like to bring forward to cabinet. That's the first stage. That would move out.

Before it even comes to central agencies, there would be an interdepartmental working group. As you know, issues are now much more complex than they might have been many years ago and cross over other departments many times, or you may need to work in coordination with other departments. Sometimes proposals are sponsored by more than one minister and may come forward from a number of ministers.

So it's very important for departments to identify and recognize implications if they need other program departments to help them in the delivery of a particular initiative they want to go forward with. The interdepartmental working group is the basis for a department to pull together other policy experts in other departments so they can further develop the proposal they would like to bring forward to cabinet to ensure it reflects a broader context and takes into account potential implications or participation by other departments. That helps to start refining the document, the memorandum to cabinet, that would be coming forward to a cabinet policy committee.

Once that work has been completed and you start to have a draft of a document that would come forward, there would be consultations with central agencies. And it's very important. We always encourage departments to engage with the Privy Council Office early in the process. Treasury Board and Finance are very much a part of that, so it isn't just one central agency. Each central agency brings a somewhat different but complementary perspective. PCO would focus on the overall policy intent and the work that's required to advance that; Finance, of course, brings its economic perspective and its lens in terms of an initiative; and of course, Treasury Board already thinks through at that point and provides comments and assistance from the point of view of what it would take to deliver this program, to already start thinking through at the initial policy stage whether this is a credible initiative that can be implemented and if there are challenges in terms of program implementation. They will also help to try to focus on the results expected to be achieved, because that's important at the opening policy stage to help identify the results, so subsequently, when you're doing program implementation, it's clear at the outset what your overall objectives are.

Central agencies would meet with the department, and that might take several meetings. This is a dynamic process, so central agencies would meet and would review with the department their proposal and any documents they would submit. They would provide comments back to the department in terms of how to make a proposal more robust and whether there are any gaps that central agency officers feel haven't really been addressed in a memorandum to cabinet.

That can be a very dynamic process and might take a certain amount of time in terms of just working through, back and forth, a dialogue between officials.

After that has taken place, then there's an interdepartmental meeting, and I had mentioned that to you on Tuesday. The interdepartmental meeting is very important, and that's required on any initiative that comes forward to a cabinet policy committee and the broader community, not just affected or impacted departments or implicated departments or partnering departments in an initiative. It's really an opportunity for the broader interdepartmental community to come together and to review a proposal. And the draft is basically circulated and shared with that community.

It's usually one meeting. It may be more meetings. It depends on the nature of issues that may be identified in that interdepartmental meeting in terms of whether there are concerns raised by a particular department, which it thinks the memorandum to cabinet hasn't addressed, or whether there are certain risks or implications that a department may not have factored in or may not have taken into consideration. It could be something it hadn't been aware of.

The interdepartmental process is a dynamic process. It's meant to provide constructive feedback. Central agencies also participate in that forum, and Status of Women does as well. So it's an important opportunity for Status of Women, certainly, to view proposals coming forward and to provide its input and its views in terms of the proposal.

What usually has to happen at that stage is that a document has to be revised. It has to reflect the perspectives and the issues that have been raised through an interdepartmental process. And once that has satisfactorily come to ground, you effectively have what constitutes a final draft document that's ready to be presented to ministers.

And then the document itself must be submitted and must be signed by the minister. A minister is ultimately accountable, or ministers who are presenting a proposal are accountable. So ministers, of course, play a major role in terms of ensuring that they're satisfied with the proposal coming forward, because they ultimately have to present it to their cabinet colleagues.

If a minister is satisfied and signs off on that document, then the document is referred to a cabinet committee, the relevant policy committee, whether that is social affairs, economic, or environment, depending on which committee it would go to. The cabinet committee of the policy committee would have the opportunity to deliberate. It would see the proposal. It's an opportunity to ask questions and to debate.

If the committee is satisfied, it doesn't have the final decision-making authority on that. It's basically a recommendation that is issued out of a policy committee, which would be referred to the priorities and planning committee of cabinet, the committee of cabinet responsible for ratifying cabinet decisions. The priorities and planning committee has the opportunity to challenge. It's sort of a check-and-balance system. It's an opportunity to challenge, as well, recommendations that are coming forward from policy committees of cabinet.

Ultimately, if priorities and planning is satisfied and is all right with a proposal, then a final decision would be issued. At that stage we've completed the policy stage.

Then it moves out to the implementation stage, which may or may not—depending on the issues—but usually does require the next stage, which is Treasury Board approval.

I'll turn to Joe to explain the Treasury Board role, which is to provide that opportunity to start providing the details of how a policy initiative will be rolled out: how it will be implemented, what resources are required to deliver it, who the delivery body will be, and what accountability mechanisms are in place. That's when we move on to the implementation stage.

Before I turn to Joe, do you want to take a moment there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, I do.

When I look at this memorandum to cabinet, I just want to know this. For example, economic security for women, which is something we have studied, would involve three ministers. For economic security it would be the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. So if we were to speak to those three ministers, in your understanding, are the silos still there or do they talk to each other? That's my first question.

And when deliberations take place on a gender issue—and you talked about a formal interdepartmental meeting and then priorities and planning committee—is there cabinet confidentiality, or can we access documents here?

[Anita Biguzs]

The documents that go to cabinet would of course be covered by cabinet confidence, in the sense that they're recommendations to ministers. That would be covered by cabinet confidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

But if they came to priorities and planning and somebody is doing the decision-making and they challenge and do a checklist, and one of the issues is to check to see whether gender has been addressed, would that type of discussion or approval or checking be accessible, or is that also covered by cabinet confidentiality?

[Anita Biguzs]

The document that would go into cabinet and on which decisions are based is a cabinet document, so that would be covered by cabinet confidentiality. As I say, under the Access to Information Act certain analytical parts of a memorandum to cabinet may be accessible, but normally the decision-making documents for cabinet are cabinet confidences.

There wouldn't be additional information. Normally the document should be a comprehensive document, and working backwards to the beginning of the process, it should reflect issues that are raised and the extent to which there are gender issues that have been identified through the interdepartmental work and by Status of Women. Normally every memorandum to cabinet includes sections on implications, risks and benefits, and strategies, so it should be actually incorporated or reflected in that piece that goes to ministers for decision-making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

And my first question--

[Anita Biguzs]

You mean your question on the silos.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes. Do silos exist, and does it take one minister to champion a cause? For example, which minister would take responsibility for gender equality or gender budgeting? Would it be finance? Would it be status of women? Would it be human resources and development? What would be more effective?

[Anita Biguzs]

I think it's a combination of factors. A challenge always in government is working horizontally. It's an issue we've tried to address over many years. Accountabilities, of course, are very much vertical in terms of departmental ministerial accountabilities to Parliament, so the challenge is trying to work across the system in terms of coming up with accountability structures that ensure you have synergy and coordination happening.

The reason we actually do have.... It's certainly a requirement for PCO. It's required that we do interdepartmental consultations before something comes forward. It's very important that the connections be made. Certainly one of the key issues we ask for is interdepartmental work before an initiative comes forward, just to ensure that very thing—that an integrated perspective is actually taken into account and that there's every opportunity to identify issues.

It may not be a perfect system, but I think the mechanisms are certainly in place to try to ensure that those kinds of issues are raised at the officials level; then of course, it's incumbent on officials to brief their ministers who sit on policy committees of cabinet and on cabinet. Officials brief their ministers, so if there are continuing issues, that's also an opportunity to ensure that their ministers are aware. Ministers have every opportunity in cabinet committees, of course, to deliberate. That is their role: to debate, to discuss, to ask questions, and to ensure they are satisfied with the proposal coming forward.

A number of mechanisms have been put in place to try to ensure that happens. I think that to an extent it is a responsibility for everyone. The budget preparation process, as I mentioned, is the responsibility of Finance. This committee has already made recommendations, which I think Finance is certainly acting on; I think you'll have every opportunity next week to hear from them in terms of the extent of the work they're doing on gender-based analysis, but I know they also are working with Status of Women.

I think having a champion is very helpful, but I think it is a system issue as well, in the sense that it's incumbent on—and I think we've tried to build them in—various steps along the way to make sure there is every opportunity to reflect on key issues.

[Joe Wild]

May I just add to that, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Sure.

[Joe Wild]

I just wanted to add to that.

I think your question really goes to the heart of what the Westminster system is about, and the purpose of a cabinet. For those who are fans of the Westminster system anyway, the real magic of the system is the idea that you do have robust discussion amongst the entirety of the cabinet--amongst the different ministers, who all have different perspectives, different experiences, different backgrounds. It's all being brought to bear on an issue to arrive at the best decision possible. All members of the cabinet ultimately stand behind that decision.

In a sense, yes, there's a minister who is going to be the minister accountable to Parliament for the decision that has been taken, and that will be whoever that lead minister is, but ultimately all ministers of cabinet stand behind the decisions that are taken at that table, and basically they're all champions for whatever the decision is that has come out of cabinet.

That's the magic--to me anyway--of the Westminster system. It does provide for a very unified approach to bringing all perspectives in, having the robust debate, and then coming out of that with a decision that everyone supports and backs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

In your experience, have the silos generally come down? Is there synergy taking place?

Over the years we used to hear that this hand doesn't talk to that hand, and there is always this turf protection. In your opinion, have the silos come down? If we want to do gender budgeting, or even look at it, we need cooperation throughout. It's not something that is going to happen by one department. It is multidisciplinary.

In your opinion, has it gotten better over the years, or is that still where we are at?

[Anita Biguzs]

I think a number of measures have been put in place in terms of trying to ensure there is a coordinated approach on issues. As I said, part of it is this memorandum to cabinet process that we have. I think in some cases as well it is reflected in the cabinet committee structure in terms of making sure you have committees that bring together an integrated perspective, so that you don't have silos in the same way. And I think the accountability structures, as well....

I know the work the board has been doing in terms of requirements for accountability frameworks actually looks at things like horizontal structures and frameworks that are not just for one department. It basically is trying to lay out the array of how all of the various departments come together on a particular initiative in terms of their roles and responsibilities and accountability. It's trying to ensure also that the front end and the back end have put together structures that allow interdepartmental initiatives to come forward, and that there's subsequent follow-up in terms of accountability.

I think your reporting is very much moving to that world of integrated reporting.

[Joe Wild]

I certainly agree in that I don't look at this as an end state. I look at this as a kind of marathon journey that actually has no finish line. We are continuously seeking ways to improve our ability to operate horizontally, to coordinate between departments to find ways to ensure that the synergies you can achieve through bringing together different departments with different policy levers and different policy expertise are brought to bear on a given problem. I think there's no question that if you went back and started at Confederation and then went forward, you would see that continuously through time.

We are becoming more and more sophisticated in our understanding not only of science but of how certain policy initiatives may impact on other things. Our capacity to measure the results of programs has been making leaps and bounds over the last decade compared to where we used to be. Our sophistication around understanding policy levers, understanding the results they generate, the consequences that they sometimes generate, has been improving. As all of those things improve, our job is to continuously try to find ways to work better together to ensure that we arrive at the best possible solution for Canadians.

It's not something where there's ever going to be an end state, where we're going to say, okay, we're done, and we've now achieved perfect horizontality. I don't think that exists. I think it's a continuous journey, and I think it's one in which we're probably--I would say, arguably, compared to some other governments around the world--fairly well advanced, particularly given that we're talking about a federal system of government, which complicates things. There are three levels of government that we have to consider and think about when we're making policy decisions, as well as the international level. It's a far more global world than it once was.

I do think we are making progress, and I think it's a continuous kind of thing. There is certainly always room for improvement. We have a lot of things, as Ms. Biguzs mentioned, that are entrained that I think will help us to better understand horizontal impacts.

[Anita Biguzs]

Can I add to that? I may not have been as clear or as explicit.

In terms of an initiative coming forward to cabinet, you may actually have initiatives that will be sponsored by more than one minister. It's not unusual that you would have an initiative that requires two, sometimes three, sometimes four, sometimes five ministers to be participating ministers on an initiative. That, I think, reflects the integrated nature. You have to take into account that a number of departments have a role to play and are participants. Ministers then have to sign and sponsor together a proposal coming to cabinet.

That's another role we try to play. We try to be vigilant in making sure the right departments and the right ministers are included, because again, we don't want to leave anyone behind who is implicated, ultimately, in an initiative.

As I say, you will see items coming forward--and not unusually--sponsored by multiple ministers, ensuring that integration and that horizontality of several departments working together to advance an initiative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Since I started the round of questions, I think it would be fair to get the committee's approval as to whether we should have Mr. Wild finish. Or shall we start the questions and as questions arise—and your flowchart helps in our understanding—we'll move on to that. Is that agreeable?

Yes. Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Pearson.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me start by thanking you both for coming.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

On a point of order, how does one party get two rounds back to back? You just said you started the rounds.