Status of Women Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Joe Wild]

The way it works within the Treasury Board Secretariat is that there is a GBA champion. The GBA champion has overall responsibility for championing GBA, ensuring that there is training, and that it is integrated into the policy and program analysts' functions.

My particular responsibility as executive director of strategic policy is to challenge policy centres within Treasury board Secretariat that are developing the management policies that apply to government institutions. Part of our challenge function and part of what my analysts challenge on is whether or not there has been a gender-based analysis done on those particular management policies as they're being brought forward for approval. That's something that is integrated into the work my analysts are doing.

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

Mr. Stanton asked a question, and basically it was framed like this: is GBA any worse now than five years ago? I guess my question would be, is GBA analysis any better, and would it be possible for Treasury Board to report annually to Parliament on the progress we're making towards gender-based analysis goals?

[Joe Wild]

Whether or not it's any better is a difficult question to answer, in some sense. I think that generally we're always getting better at doing policy analysis, whether it's gender-based analysis or official languages or sustainable development—whatever it may be. I think that as a public service we're constantly seeking to improve our skills and tool kit around how we do policy analysis.

I would certainly like to think we're better than we were five years ago, just as I hope we'll be better five years from now than we are today.

In terms of reporting, we don't specifically report on gender-based analysis. Our primary reports are the same as they are for most departments: it's the report on plans and priorities and the departmental performance report. We don't report on gender-based analysis specifically, just as we don't report on any of the policy lenses specifically that we bring to bear on the submissions or the policies we're responsible for within the secretariat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have half a minute.

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

In a previous committee meeting there was an indication that the interdepartmental committee on GBA meets about once a year. Is that still the case, or how often does the committee meet?

[Anita Biguzs]

There is no regular schedule, but it meets as necessary. The last meeting was in December 2007, so about two months ago. The role of the committee is to review how things are progressing and address any questions people have in terms of advancing issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to the second round, and we're coming back to our normal schedule.

Mr. Pearson, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's nice to see you both again. Thank you for coming.

Ms. Biguzs, at the PCO level, I know that when Status of Women Canada delivered their fairly comprehensive recommendations to the House in 2005, they suggested in that report that a committee of deputy ministers be brought together to respond to memoranda to cabinet, to look through it and other cabinet documents for gender-based analysis. This thing hasn't all just happened in the last couple of months, but we're trying to get our heads around it. Obviously the previous committee in another Parliament had been on this, and they had recommended that. Has that been done, to your knowledge, or has it been considered to be implemented?

[Anita Biguzs]

That has not been implemented.

On the process that's been established in terms of MCs, many items can come forward to cabinet committee, and deputies of course are engaged in many issues in terms of running their departments and ultimately in terms of initiatives that come forward from their department that a minister is sponsoring to cabinet. Clearly a deputy would have to be satisfied that the initiative coming forward has gone through appropriate due diligence, and so in that sense deputies are ultimately accountable or responsible in terms of ensuring that their work is effective in moving forward.

As I say, there has been no committee of deputies struck. Deputies meet as needed around issues. As I say, they have many issues to deal with. The view was certainly that in terms of the interdepartmental process that has been created around the policy initiatives coming forward, this tries to ensure that an interdepartmental perspective is brought to bear that includes Status of Women Canada, and any initiative going forward therefore has to be reported up the line, if I can put it that way. In that sense deputies have an opportunity if there are issues of direct bearing that they need to be engaged in and that they need to bring forward. I think it was felt that the mechanisms that have been put in place should ensure that in fact gender-based analysis is a part of the process, and we're trying to embed it throughout the various layers of the work that takes place in the policy process.

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

One of the witnesses last week, from the University of Victoria, had been in the PCO, and he said he feels what we're really lacking in the process are champions. He said that if a senior minister would take this as a champion, it would be good, but if deputy ministers themselves could come together and strengthen one another to drive these things through.... So I would encourage the system to look at that again. I think that was a good recommendation of the previous committee.

I have a general question. It seems to me that before any of this stuff gets to you, the expenditures have already been decided at the Department of Finance. They have figured out how they're going to do things. Saying that, by the time you see it and you perform your GBA...and I really agree with what Mr. Wild said last week, and I appreciate his encouragement. I don't think it is a checklist; I think you're trying to do a thorough job. By the time it gets to you, how much influence do you actually feel you would have if many of these major decisions about expenditures have already been made?

Mr. Wild, you talked about flagging, that you send these things forward and you flag them. We've had so many witnesses who have come to us.... And they might be flagged, but for some reason it's not working, at least from what we're hearing from witnesses. So I would like it if you could address that. It seems to me that something needs to happen way before you folks start to flag it or even recommend it. The Department of Finance has to do a lot more in looking at this whole thing about GBA. I'd be interested in your comments.

[Anita Biguzs]

As a general comment, the budget process, which is the responsibility of Finance, is informed by a number of factors. It is also informed by a broad policy context. It's informed by the government's priorities, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, and platform commitments. So it's not necessarily the case that the budget just arrives and it hasn't gone through any policy work, because as I say, it is part of a broader policy process and you may actually have initiatives that have gone through a policy process that ultimately are reflected.

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

A GBA process, if they've gone through that.

[Anita Biguzs]

Well, policy initiative that's gone through a policy development process, as I outlined, because as I say, the budget is set in a broad context. Finance will be able to speak to you better next week, when you meet with them, in terms of the various processes and considerations that are taken into account in developing a budget. But it is in informed by the broader policy context, and that certainly may include initiatives that have been considered by a policy development process through cabinet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

We now go to Mrs. Davidson for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for coming back today. I think we're certainly learning a lot more as we go along. I appreciate the fact that you've brought this information we asked for on Tuesday. That does help a lot.

I would agree with Madame Demers, if we could follow a project from start to finish, it would be wonderful to be able to see that, but I also understand we have confidentiality rules and we can't do that. So we'll have to try to work around how we can make that clearer to ourselves as we go through it.

I think it's really encouraging to see everybody around this table agreeing that this is something that needs to be done. We know it's been an issue for a lot of years; people have been working on it for 13 years. As you said, it started through this process in 1995. I think it's strengthening. We heard from Dr. Good that we are making progress.

I think this committee wants to see how we can continue to make progress, strengthen the process, and assure ourselves it can be measurable, that we are doing what we need to be doing. I think that's what I'm having a hard time getting my head around. We've heard about the champions, the training. As the chair said, I think it's extremely important that we get rid of the silo mentality as much as we can and try to do some horizontal discussion and input. I think things get done in this world by people cooperating. So I think that's good.

But I'm still not clear on how we strengthen this issue. We also have the issue of past policy, policy that has been in place for years, as Mr. Murphy pointed out. I'm still not clear on that issue, how we can manage to make sure past policy is good policy and that GBA can apply properly to it.

I have one more question. Almost everything we've talked about to this point has dealt with a normal process and how things go through the system in a normal way, if we can call it that. Some people would question that. We're talking about proposals being put forward, policies and processes being outlined in throne speeches, and budgets then coming forward as projects and so on, and the GBA being applied to it.

What happens when private members' bills have an impact? We've heard a lot of criticism here about some of the tax measures and policies that have been put in place, and that GBA definitely, in some people's opinion, could not have been applied or they would never have been allowed to go through. So what happens with private members' business? Is GBA applied to that? If it isn't, how can we ensure that in the future that's something that does get looked at?

So these are just a few questions on how we can strengthen it as we go forward in different areas.

[Anita Biguzs]

In terms of strengthening the process, I think we've already put in place a number of measures. I think, as we've indicated in terms of having champions and ensuring that as part of initiatives coming forward, we can build on that. I think in the last two years we've moved the yardstick, so I think that's progress. Certainly I think to make that process more robust, embedding it in terms of not losing sight of it by having the champions' network and the interdepartmental committee is very important.

In terms of past policies, I'll let Mr. Wild speak to that, because it's trying to get at the issue of the A base. It shouldn't just be focused on incrementality, but I think the whole issue of doing strategic reviews is trying to look at effectiveness and impacts. I think the whole role of program evaluation in government is looking at the effectiveness of programs and what impacts programs are having. Are they having unintended consequences or negative consequences on men or women or employment equity groups or the disabled? That should certainly be a role, that program evaluation is a management tool to make our programs better and more responsive on some kind of evidence base.

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

Is GBA built into the program evaluation now?

[Anita Biguzs]

I'll let Mr. Wild talk to you in terms of the policy. There is the overall policy on evaluation, and it's up to departments, of course. Departments are responsible for undertaking program evaluations, but as I said, it's a matter of looking at program effectiveness and impacts and whether programs are having a negative impact. That's how you build new policies, come in with new proposals to modify programs with a new policy initiative, and inform that process through robust program evaluations.

On the issue of private member's bills, they are initiated by members of Parliament in the House, so I can't tell you whether members of Parliament, in their development of private member's bills, have actually undertaken a gender-based analysis themselves for initiatives coming forward.

Regarding the timing of these things, if something is moving forward and if it becomes policy, then it becomes after-the-fact if something is approved in terms of assessing the implications. I guess the extent to which officials are in a position to do some kind of assessment of what the impacts would be from a gender point of view, after the fact.... You would have to turn that question to members of Parliament, on the extent to which they do gender-based analysis on their proposals.

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

When it gets referred to committee, that would be an opportunity for committee to ask that question, would it?

[Anita Biguzs]

In terms of parliamentary processes, yes.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Wild, would you like to respond to Ms. Davidson?

[Joe Wild]

On the question of program performance measurement, the management results of structure policy that we're putting in place, again we don't highlight a single policy lens through which we expect departments to measure and determine program effectiveness. It's expected that the department will do that on a full spectrum of policy lenses, so we don't go in and say “You need to look at just this”, nor do we give them a specific, defined checklist of the lenses they should apply. We tell them that their responsibility is to have appropriate performance measures in place, that they should have their program properly aligned to what we call their program activity architecture, which basically means they have set the outcome and results that they are striving to in their mandate, as departments, they have programs that are aligned under that mandate. Each program has a desired outcome identified with it, and they identify the specific results they are going to attempt to measure, the actual measurable things they are going to use to determine whether or not that program is actually meeting that outcome, if it's actually generating it.

As part of that policy analysis, certainly in my view, an appropriate methodology would mean that you're also looking at whether or not there are unintended consequences. In unintended consequences across the board, it would seem to me that unintended gender impacts would be part of that mix. But we haven't gone in to say specifically that it needs to be this, that, and the other. We expect they are doing a complete job of looking at those program results.

Ultimately it is the minister for that department who is responsible for whatever the outcomes are that those programs are generating. It's that minister's responsibility to be held to account for whether or not there are unintended consequences associated with the program or outcome. It's that minister who has to answer for whether or not he or she believes that program should then be redesigned or whatever in order to address any of those unintended outcomes or consequences.

The last point I would add is that Status of Women Canada is certainly there to help. It is there to help departments with these things. It is there to help departments understand. It plays a very important role in helping departments ensure they have the proper capacity to carry out GBA. It is providing a very good service in giving advice and helping departments understand how they can build GBA throughout their policy spectrum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Madame Demers, for five minutes.

I'm letting the clock run sometimes, because when people are responding, I don't cut them off.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

That is right, Madam Chair. In any case, this is a briefing and it is to the benefit of each and every one of us.

Mr. Wild, I come back to you. You stated that when you have finished your study or your analysis, you don't report to anyone externally, except I presume the minister involved in the program or policy concerned. You have found that the bill for which you were making recommendations is causing problems. Should the Minister for the Status of Women be informed of the bill and the recommendations made by your secretariat in order to ensure that they comply with the GBA analysis? That would allow her, afterwards, to pressure the other members of cabinet in order to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

My second question is for Ms. Biguzs and Mr. Wild. We are going to report on everything that we have learned and heard. Do you have any specific suggestions that would allow you to produce more concrete results, once your work is done? You could ensure that you get an agreement once the analysis has been done and that you have pointed out the disparities between the GBA analysis and the program, and do all of this to ensure that it has in fact been taken into consideration. Is there anything that we could do or that we could put into our report so that this is indeed implemented afterwards?