Status of Women Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Joe Wild]

On the first question about bills, any government bill that is going to be introduced in Parliament goes through the MC process. As part of that process, interdepartmental committee meetings are held on it. Status of Women would have the opportunity to participate in those interdepartmental meetings, as Madame Biguzs explained, at the outset of this session.

Through that means, the minister responsible for the status of women can be briefed and advised by her officials as to whether or not there's a specific issue around a government bill that should be raised as it goes through the cabinet process, before its drafting is finalized or the bill is introduced in Parliament.

On the second question, I don't really feel it's necessarily my place to suggest to the committee what it should do on recommendations. I think we have the tools necessary to do GBA. We provide robust policy advice to ministers. I think ministers listen to that advice and take decisions accordingly.

[Anita Biguzs]

Just to comment on the first question, in terms of the role of the Status of Women, I think the system the way it has been designed in terms of the interdepartmental process is intended to get at that very issue. The fact that you have departments around the table to challenge, effectively, and ask questions and understand an initiative that is coming forward is a very important process. We're all better informed as a result of it. Every department doesn't have the capital, the intellectual or program capital, in any one area. So I think the objective is to try to make for better policy as a result of that.

I think the fact of having Status of Women as the experts in gender-based analysis at the table is an important role. Their role also includes briefing their minister so that their minister is aware of issues, and if there are particular concerns in the context of cabinet, of course, the minister is always able to communicate with her cabinet colleagues or someone who's sponsoring an initiative. Certainly if there are issues that he or she wants to ensure are taken into account, I think the minister, in the system, has every opportunity to do that. It's incumbent on her officials to make sure the minister is briefed and aware of that, and then the minister can avail herself of opportunities to make those views known to her colleagues on any concerns there may be on gender-based analysis with respect to a particular initiative. So I think the system has tried to build in that kind of opportunity to ensure that's reflected.

On your second point, I guess I'd have to echo Mr. Wild's view that, to come to your own assessment of all the various presentations that you're having, at the end of the day it all hinges on the issue of accountability, ultimately, in terms of the various players and the pieces in the system. So I think public policy ultimately falls to Parliament as well, that you have every opportunity to ensure that parliamentarians are able to ensure that the accountability is there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers, you can continue, because Ms. Mathyssen has left the room, and then I'll go to Ms. Grewal.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What particularly concerns me, Mr. Wild and Ms. Biguzs, is that over the last few years, several measures have been adopted that have really hurt women, children and the heads of single-parent families. Given that these measures have been adopted, we have the necessary tools to cushion the impact for these people.

It is true that this is an issue of government responsibility, but it has to be more than that at the committee level. The committee has to play a broader role in order to ensure that such measures are not adopted before having considered all of the repercussions that may result from them. You may well have done your work in each one of the departments most competently, but there are no results. Even though you have the tools, you have asked the questions and shared your considerations, the measures went forward in any case.

I always come back to the issue of leadership, as you mentioned in your previous presentations. You said that very strong leadership was required, but where to find it? Who should demonstrate this leadership? This person must be given the tools and the courage needed to face the music, if necessary.

The measures that have been implemented have proven very negative for a large part of the population, and we don't know how to react to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

May I make a suggestion? I know we're all getting frustrated, but the thing is, would legislation help, if we were to say to legislate gender-based analysis? I think we've heard so many witnesses, international and national, and we feel perhaps, as a new committee, that this process has been going on for 13 years and we probably don't see the type of advancement that you see. So would legislation help? Perhaps you can think about that.

I'll go to Ms. Grewal for five minutes, or seven minutes. You can share—

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

Maybe I can share my time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Has anything other than training been done to advance gender-based analysis at the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board Secretariat? Can you provide the committee with any overview of other GBA initiatives that have been put in place at your organizations?

[Anita Biguzs]

Certainly. At the Privy Council Office we have a designated champion at a very senior level, a senior official who was appointed two years ago with the position. GBA has been incorporated. There's an annual training session provided with the expertise of Status of Women Canada to help PCO officers understand gender-based analysis and how it should play in the policy process.

From the point of view of PCO's role, as I think I outlined on Tuesday, PCO doesn't develop the policy or make the policy or develop the documents. Our role is to ensure that in our advice and in the material that comes to cabinet to inform decision-making, due diligence has been done and that it has been incorporated.

From our point of view, having a champion to ensure that the training actually happens and to ensure that PCO officers understand their role in terms of the policy challenge function--which includes raising questions around gender-based analysis--and understand their role in ensuring that an interdepartmental process takes place that includes the expertise of Status of Women leads us to feel we've actually put in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure that gender-based analysis is an issue and a factor that we understand in our day-to-day work in performing our job.

[Joe Wild]

I would add that in addition to having a champion at the assistant deputy minister level, as does PCO, we at TBS have also worked with Status of Women Canada to develop tools. I circulated one of them today, the questions to assist analysts in reviewing submissions so that they understand the types of questions they should ask around GBA.

As well, we've integrated it into our policy process. For us policies mean the actual management policies that we issue to set the standards for how departments are supposed to manage certain areas--for example, how they handle security, information management, information technology, HR, and all the administrative areas that departments need to manage, including procurement and that sort of thing. We've integrated it into our own policy development process. We've also integrated it into our challenge function on Treasury Board submissions.

Those are the major things we've done, beyond just the training.

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

Madam Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have about two minutes.

So go ahead, Mrs. Davidson.

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

I think I'm hearing that although this has been an issue for a long time, we are making progress, and maybe it needs to have more time so that we can measure that progress. I'm not really sure.

I hear you saying that we've got a lot of measures in place, and there aren't a lot of other suggestions coming from either of your two departments regarding further suggestions, such as to continue what we're doing and maybe strengthen some of the recommendations going to the individual departments so that they'll bring back more conclusive evidence that it's happening.

Is this going to take time? Are we being too impatient? Has it not had the opportunity to show the results that we, all around this table, think we need to be seeing? I'm sure you've heard our frustration at not being able to put our hands on what actually has happened and what progress has been made.

Maybe part of it is the fact of confidentiality, as we've discussed before. I think it's the frustration level. I know we haven't spoken with Finance yet, and I'm quite sure some of our questions will be answered once we have that opportunity next week, but maybe you could comment on the timeframe that might be involved in our having a better understanding and seeing this more concretely. I think everybody so far has said it's not something you can just legislate and say it has to be done; it's something that has to become....

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

An integrated mindset.

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

It has to be integrated right into the policy and the thought process of every department and every committee.

Could you comment?

[Joe Wild]

I think there are a few points here.

First, it's the way the system operates at the end of the day. It's difficult to measure whether the policy advice being provided to ministers is adequate. In essence, that's our role. Our role in this system is to provide ministers with the best possible non-partisan advice.

This is an area that continues to evolve. We get better at it every year. Our tool kit for doing it gets better every year. I don't think there's ever going to be a time when we declare perfection. I don't think there's such a thing. It's continuous improvement—we strive to get better and better in our understanding of how to provide advice to ministers that helps them make decisions.

The disconnection is that while the advice we provide to ministers is fulsome advice, and while GBA is one component of a host of other policy lenses, ministers layer on an additional set of political factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the advice we're giving. That's appropriate because they are the elected representatives. They're the ones who are held accountable by Parliament through committees such as this for the decisions they're making.

The difficulty is that you can't use the decision made by a minister as a proxy to discern the quality of the policy advice that's been brought forward. I don't think we ever want to be in a situation where the policy advice coming from officials has to be taken as the definitive perspective on exactly what a minister should do. Absolutely not. We do not want to be in a situation where public servants become the decision-makers. That's not the purpose of the system. The elected officials are supposed to be the decision-makers.

I think the challenge for this committee, as well as any other committee trying to discern whether policy lenses are being applied appropriately, lies in figuring out how to hold ministers accountable if you have issues with the way they're making decisions at the end of the day. That may be an area one wishes to probe.

It's difficult for us to be in a situation to talk about the advice we're giving to ministers. It's very much an issue of confidentiality, and I would argue that this is exactly as it should be. Again, it's the basis of our Westminster system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

[Anita Biguzs]

I'd like to add something on the policy process.

As Mr. Wild was saying, our role is to ensure that we have a robust policy process and that the information provided to ministers is as complete as possible, based on whatever information or data we may have, in respect of an initiative going forward for a decision by ministers. This means working closely with departments and being in possession of evidence sufficient to inform a decision. Our role is to try to ensure that the information is there, and it is our advice that ultimately goes forward.

As Mr. Wild was explaining, it's then the prerogative of ministers in cabinet to decide the course of action, the path and direction, taking into account all relevant factors. There are many considerations to be weighed before an initiative goes forward. As I said, the role of elected officials is to weigh those various considerations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

If we could perhaps do gender auditing, would that help to achieve our goals?

It is a complex situation. You give your analysis to the ministers, and they have to factor in political considerations. We are all aware of that and understand it. That's the reason I suggested legislation. Perhaps you are not in a position to answer. We would require a discussion on what the legislation would look like. However, if we were to do gender audits, would that help the process?

You can reflect on that while I give Mr. Pearson three minutes. Then I'll go to Madame Demers.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to take another go at this.

Mr. Wild, you didn't get a chance to respond to my earlier question. Let me just try to put it into the context again of what we're trying to get at.

I think you've done a very credible job of showing us that you are working hard to flag these issues, get them done properly, research them well, and put them through to the pertinent departments and people who need to be there. I accept that.

On the other hand, we get witnesses coming to us all the time who are saying there are major flaws in these programs about things like pension splitting, RRSPs, CPP, and employment insurance. It seems as if, as you have said, this disconnect is there. I could go ahead and ask you all these questions again--why is this so, why we are hearing from all these witnesses that it's not being done--when you folks are actually doing a pretty credible job of putting it forward. I think your answer to me is going to be, look, we're doing what we can; it's up to the political sector. I don't want to go there, because I know that will be your answer.

I would like to ask what we can do as a committee to help. Are there more resources that you need to flag these things better? When we put forward something like the deputy ministers coming together for a committee, we want that to be taken seriously. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, but it wasn't done. It's a practical question. It's a non-partisan question, because we work pretty well here in that capacity. What can we do as a committee? I don't think some of the bells are ringing in some of these places, and we would like to be able to help you to provide even better stuff.

Could you both please comment? Is there anything the committee can do to help try to get you resources or other things that you need?

[Joe Wild]

I certainly don't come to the committee thinking that we need to ask for resources. I don't think there's any issue there. I think that certainly within Treasury Board Secretariat we have the analysts that we need to do the job they're doing. They have the training that they need to do the job they're doing. I think with experience we get better at it. Again, I think we're doing the best job we can to put forward the best possible policy advice that we can. I think we're doing the best we can to put forward fulsome policy advice that includes as many different perspectives as possible. We do our best to try to identify if we think there are going to be any unintended impacts on anyone out there.

The difficulty really is that it's even more nuanced than the way you were putting it. I certainly don't want to portray it as though it's us versus them. It's not. It's a system that's designed to allow us, as career public servants with experience and expertise in public policy development, to provide ministers with robust policy advice, but we do it in a non-partisan way. We do not take into account political considerations. Those political considerations are absolutely legitimate and need to be taken into account by ministers. With respect to the balancing act that they then have to go through for the decision that they arrive at, again there always ends up being this discussion of winners and losers. They may feel there are certain constituencies that their decisions are supporting, while others may not feel that way.

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

Mr. Wild, I only have a minute. I understand that. You've said that before, and I agree, I understand. We're not trying to make it into winners and losers. We're listening to all of these witnesses who are telling us these various things. My question to you was whether there is anything we as a committee can do to help to give you resources or other things that you need. Your answer was no.

Can I ask you, Madam Biguzs?

[Anita Biguzs]

I think we do have mechanisms and tools in place. I think we're building on them. I think the interdepartmental committee is at a very senior level--it's ADMs--and I don't know whether going to a deputy level would actually accomplish or achieve much more than that. As I say, I think we can always try to make the policy process as strong as it can be. I think that's what we endeavour to do based on solid evidence and information. I believe that we have the tools in place.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Demers, you have three minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Wild and Ms. Biguzs, I can understand what you were saying earlier—that confidentiality really was required when a policy or a bill was not yet in place. Did it ever happen that a measure with the necessary conditions for gender-based analysis was referred to your organization, and that after studying it, you found that all the steps in the process had been carried out, that it met the criteria for gender-based analysis and that the measure was subsequently implemented? If so, could we have a copy of that so that we can see how the process works? You would not be violating a confidentiality requirement, and this would be not be partisan in nature.

[Joe Wild]

I can't talk about a specific case that's real.

What we have tried to do in the materials we've provided this morning was show how the process lines up. We have taken a hypothetical case and walked through how that process works and how the different steps work. But I cannot provide the material associated with a specific case, because they are cabinet confidences.