Status of Women Committee on March 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

There's nothing stupid here.

[Joe Wild]

I have to unpack that question a little bit, but there is a process that was launched this year, and which Treasury Board Secretariat has been leading, called strategic reviews. This was our first year of doing strategic reviews to determine or look at, on a four-year cycle, all existing spending within departments. The purpose of strategic reviews is to look at existing spending from the perspective of efficiency, effectiveness, and whether or not the spending is properly aligned with the priorities of the government. Are the programs actually achieving the purposes for which they were intended? The idea is to identify low-priority programs, or programs that are simply not particularly effective, as potential areas from which spending could then be reallocated to, or reinvested in, high-priority and high-performing programs.

In carrying out those strategic reviews, if the program has gender-based issues integrated into its program design, you would then be picking it up in that sense. So if you had a program, hypothetically, where Health Canada was doing awareness of breast cancer, you would have a measure associated with that program to understand whether or not it's actually working. So you would have a results-based framework, which you would then be assessing and asking, am I actually achieving the results this program is intended to achieve? As part of the strategic review, when Health Canada's turn comes up, they would have to look at all of their existing spending, including that program and whether or not it was actually achieving the desired results. Is it an effective program or not? In that way, it gets picked up.

If, for example, the program was not working particularly well, if the measures were indicating that it wasn't getting the information to the people who needed it, that there was no impact on women's awareness of breast cancer issues, then perhaps the program would be looked at to see if there's a problem in its design or in the fact that it's just not an effective program, and that we need to find more effective means to do it.

So as part of that strategic review, you look at that spending and decide if you want to reinvest the money into a program that's potentially going to be more effective.

The other thing, obviously, is that departments have been doing GBA analysis on their proposals since 1995. So for the better part of about 13 years now, GBA has been part of any development of a program. So to the extent any existing spending has actually commenced within the last 13 years, there would have been GBA performed on it by the department bringing forward the proposal.

I'm not sure if that gets to exactly what you're asking, but that's the way in which it's addressed currently.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

If I could use your word in reverse and “pack” your answer horizontally, notwithstanding what you're saying, the GBA analysis applies mostly to new programs, or programs like those in Health Canada where there are screening issues that are patently gender based.

I guess my general question was about programs like EI that don't respond to gender issues at all—and these programs have been established for eons.

The answer I seem to be getting, Mr. Wild, is that there really is no GBA analysis in those programs, except for the strategic reviews that might catch it by happenstance.

[Anita Biguzs]

Before Joe comments, could I just add that there is a component of program evaluation, and programs like EI, for example, have to do annual monitoring and assessment reports to Parliament.

Looking at issues of effectiveness and implications and impacts, as I say, these would be looked at—in addition to within the strategic reviews—in the context of the evaluations of existing programs. As I said, EI has statutorily built-in monitoring assessments.

I'll turn to Joe.

[Joe Wild]

I think that's very much along the point that I was going to make. There is an expectation that departments will do so on a regular basis, and the way we've set the cycle on strategic reviews, for example, is once every four years. We intend to have full coverage of the discretionary spend over a four-year cycle.

The idea around evaluation of the effectiveness of programs, which is something that continues to develop, is that basically departments are expected to have results-based structures in place for all their programs. Results-based structure is about measuring its performance, and it would seem to me that part of that process of assessing the effectiveness of the program does mean discerning whether or not there are unintended consequences.

I think the point I would make is that I don't think that's solely a GBA lens. I think that's a full-spectrum lens. In other words, unintended consequences could be on official languages, employment equity, gender impacts that are unintended, sustainable development, all kinds of things, but that, again, fulsome policy analysis is done to determine whether or not the program is working as intended, whether it's generating the results that were expected, and how effective it actually is at achieving the outcome for which it was actually designed. Part of that equation takes into account whether there are unintended consequences, and looking at unintended consequences is not a narrow band, it's a fulsome spectrum that we have to look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

We'll now go to Madame Demers.

Vous avez sept minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We apologize for being late.

Thank you for being here with us this morning. In the documents that you sent to us, Mr. Wild, there's often mention of training for the analysts. In fact there were sessions on January 8 and 9, from what I can see in your document. Within the framework of these meetings, is there also training on gender-based analysis?

I would also like to know why, on question 4.5.5 of your guide for policy development, it says that if the policy has an effect on gender, impact assessments are required. Should they not be automatically required?

Finally, at point number 2 of your guide to preparing Treasury Board submissions, it says that appropriate consideration is given to gender-based analysis issues. It is quite broad. What do you mean by “appropriate consideration”? Is it appropriate to approve gender-based analysis, or appropriate to the will of the government?

[Joe Wild]

In terms of the training, gender-based analysis training is incorporated into the orientation for new employees. There is more fulsome training available for analysts, and we do run special training sessions on occasion to give a more fulsome training around how to do GBA analysis, but it is a component of the orientation for all new analysts who are coming into the organization.

In terms of the other questions you're raising, I'd simply make the point that GBA is only one of many considerations that are incorporated by cabinet in making decisions. It's certainly not the only one. There are a host of perspectives and what I'd call public interests, stakeholder interests, whatever you want to call them, that are taken into account and that then ultimately generate the decision made by ministers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

In your guide, it says that normally gender-based analysis should be systematically applied. Therefore, what we're saying is not true. It is not systematically applied, but is applied as a result of various considerations, if they are present. That is not quite the same thing. You should perhaps change the text.

You cannot have memorized this entire document, Mr. Wild. It is on page 6 of the French version. It is at point 9.7.3 entitled “Gender-Based Analysis”.

[Joe Wild]

I'm not sure I fully understand the point that's being made. What the guide says is that departments are expected to include these considerations when they're performing their initial policy analysis, usually at the MC stage. We also expect them, when they're preparing their Treasury Board submission, to reflect on whether or not there are GBA considerations in the implementation of that policy decision that has been taken by cabinet.

So I'm not sure I'm clearly understanding the point.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

In your document, you say that gender-based analysis is done at the outset. Then you say that if it was not done appropriately, you must make corrections before presenting it again to the people concerned. That is exactly what the document I have in my hand says:

However, when preparing Treasury Board submissions [...] federal organizations should proceed with a last check to ensure their proposal is GBA compliant, and report their findings in the TB Submission.

You absolutely must ensure that this is being done at Treasury Board. But it seems to me that you do not need to ensure that it is being done; it is only done under certain conditions, if necessary. I have trouble understanding why it would be stated that something must be done systematically and then not follow up on it afterwards.

[Joe Wild]

Perhaps this will help to clarify. We have a set of questions that have been provided to analysts to use in order to help them review the Treasury Board submission when it comes in. Along the line of those questions, there's a specific set of them that deals with GBA.

So there's a set of questions around outcomes, goals, and objectives, questions such as these: Does the policy or program support the full participation and equality for women and men? Does it create barriers? Does the policy or program service discriminate against women or men in outcomes? Would this policy or program service alter the situation of women or men negatively or positively?

We also have a set of questions that they ask, and I can do this part in French.

As far as the analysis of possible outcomes and recommendations, the following questions are asked:

What are some possible unintended outcomes under the recommended option and, as the case may be, the other proposed options?

What are the underlying assumptions and values about gender roles implicit in the option being recommended?

Which gender aspects provide a solid rationale for the recommended option?

There are other questions as well on the program/service design and delivery:

Does the activity clearly define outputs/results related to the advancement of gender equality?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Wild.

In order to help me understand, could you send us a non-partisan example of a policy that would have been subject to these questions? How did you answer those questions and what were the results? You have said several things, but we have no way of ensuring that the process works. If we could have a typical example of a program or proposal for which gender-based analysis had been done, we could see exactly how that changed the proposal or how it made it compliant with GBA analysis.

[Joe Wild]

I can't give a specific case because then we're into cabinet confidences, we're into the specifics around a submission and the discussions around the submission, which pull me into cabinet confidences.

What I can do, though--and perhaps this will assist, because this is the part we never really got to discuss--is explain how this fits together and where we play in the process. That may help. I can also leave with the committee copies in English and French of the tool that lays out all those questions that I was just mentioning before, which will give you then a sense of the guide we've given to our analysts on how to assess submissions.

The process basically is this.

We start with the government priorities that are set through the Speech from the Throne and the budget. There's an MC process then, where departments and agencies are going forward for their policy approval from cabinet. As Madam Biguzs has explained, gender-based analysis is occurring through that stage. Basically there's a whole process in place to ensure that various views and perspectives are brought to bear as that policy initiative is being developed, including all of the departments in government that may have an interest having an opportunity to speak to that submission, including Status of Women.

After you have your policy authority for your program, and you have your source of funds identified, whether through the budget or through the estimates, you then come--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

We understood that part. I'm not blaming anyone, neither your organization nor Ms. Biguzs', but I can see that no one is playing a strong enough leadership role to ensure that your recommendations are truly incorporated into bills or programs that are tabled. No one is playing a strong enough leadership role to ensure, once the GBA analysis and considerations have been pointed out, that they are communicated. There is no one strong enough to ensure that they are accepted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Joe Wild]

If I may, the job of Treasury Board analyst is to provide ministers with fulsome advice on proposals coming forward to the board. As part of that, if the analyst believes there is an issue with the gender-based analysis done by the department, they would flag that in the advice that they give to ministers.

Ultimately, ministers then have to take into account a whole host of factors, a whole host of interests, and weigh those interests and make a decision. The decision they ultimately come to is like any policy decision: you're having to choose between winners and losers. It's a complicated set of factors that ministers are considering.

We're not the decision-makers. It's not our job to make the decisions. We're not elected representatives and there's no accountability mechanism for us to be held accountable by the public. The whole purpose of the system is that we are providing non-partisan advice on what we think are the factors and the policy issues that ministers need to be aware of and what they need to take into account and consider when they're making their decision.

Ministers ultimately weigh all of those things. They bring to the table additional context--this is the political context--that we are not able to provide advice on, and then they make a decision. Ultimately ministers are held accountable by Parliament and the institutions within Parliament, ultimately by the electorate. That's the system.

From my perspective, I think it's a very good system of government. Does it always work perfectly? Absolutely not. No system does. Is there room for improvement? Sure. There always is. I think we're always struggling to be better at our part of that equation, which is providing the most robust policy advice we can to make sure that all of the information ministers need is on the table.

Certainly GBA and the work that was started in 1995 was putting forward an emphasis for us, that as part of our policy consideration we need to make sure we are looking at and performing GBA so that we are providing a view to ministers on whether or not there are GBA impacts. Ultimately ministers will decide what they're prepared to accept or not accept as far as that goes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you. And you will provide us with the list of questions that your analysts use in terms of assessing and challenging and whatever.

[Joe Wild]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Mathyssen, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for being here. It sounds in many ways like you're facing the music and someone else is doing the dance.

I'm wondering how many Treasury Board submissions have been altered or returned to departments because they were not adequate in terms of GBA. Do you track this? Is there any way of keeping a list, I guess, or a sense of this kind of information so that we know where there are weaknesses or whether there's a weak link in a specific department?

[Joe Wild]

We don't keep a specific list. The Treasury Board process is one whereby the department develops the submission. It's very much ultimately that minister's submission.

It comes in to the Treasury Board program analysts, who review the submission. They have conversations with the officials in the department who are responsible for the submission concerning any deficiencies or issues that are viewed in the submission. It's a conversation, it's a dialogue. Sometimes it results in the department making changes to the submission and sometimes it doesn't.

Ultimately, the analyst provides an independent view to ministers on the risks or issues associated with that submission. That independent view is not shared with the department. That's the specific advice that the analysts give to ministers, which is then incorporated into the decision-making process by the ministers.

The difficulty is that I can't talk about specific cases, because it's all wrapped up in cabinet confidences. I'm certainly aware of cases where there have been conversations specifically on whether or not the gender-based analysis was adequate and certainly aware that there have been situations where departments have decided to pull back a submission in order to adjust and incorporate the suggestions that were provided by the analysts.

As to quantum or magnitude, I'm not in a position to be able to give that. We don't track those things on that basis. Because, as I mentioned, it's a regular, continuous, ongoing dialogue as they're actually preparing the submission, it's just not something we can track. But I'm aware that there are examples of cases in which there have been issues and they've ultimately been sorted out one way or another.

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

I understand the politics of it and the ministerial oversight, but it must be very difficult for departments when a minister makes the decision but doesn't share any of the reasons with the department. It must seem very difficult to understand why it happened. I must say, I don't envy those who go through this.

Is there anyone at PCO or in the Treasury Board who has the sole responsibility for ensuring that GBA is included in the policies and directives? I refer to the recommendation from “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”, the 2005 report. Basically, that report recommended that the Treasury Board Secretariat designate a senior official to take responsibility for ensuring that GBA is included in policies.

Is there someone so identified?