Status of Women Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Neil Bouwer]

Perhaps, Madam Chair, I'll start and then turn it over to Catrina afterwards.

One of the interesting things about gender-based analysis is that it spans the entire policy development process, all the way from policy research to the development of options, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation. There are lot of partnerships that have to work in order for that to work well. Part of our role in the system is to try to raise awareness and work with all those many partners.

But of course, good gender-based analysis starts with good data and good numbers and has analytical capacity at its root. It also goes to the partnerships around policy-making: we have to make sure that policy shops have the capacity and the attentiveness to follow up in those areas.

Sometimes gender-based analysis does not take a lot of capacity. In other areas, it is not straightforward, and frankly it takes some analytical depth, so we require that in order to be successful. As champions in the decision-making process, I think we have the support we need from central agencies, most departments, and certainly Status of Women Canada. I think those partnerships are working.

I'm satisfied that we are making progress and will continue to do so.

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

It's a very human process, though, isn't it? You mentioned attentiveness, and that is where I suppose there are potential problems or gaps in how focused any individual or group is on the importance of what it is they're proposing or doing or following through with.

[Neil Bouwer]

Indeed, Madam Chair, I would say that the professionalism and the networks around policy-making are what matter. That's one of the reasons why I think that documentation is good, as far it goes. In fact, you will not find a stronger champion for the results of audits and bringing forward the improving of the ways government does business than central agencies, who rely on this on a daily basis. However, in this case, I would say that what we really need is to have a strong culture of policy development that includes gender-based issues and gender-based analysis. That's what we're working towards.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'm sorry, Ms. Mathyssen, but your time is up.

We'll now move to Ms. McLeod for five minutes, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the comment regarding the culture. I think we all recognize how difficult organizational learning is, and doing shifts in organizations, and embedding things into our practices.

I have two questions that I'd like to focus on. The first would be to Ms. Sheila Fraser.

This has been a commitment from government for a long time, and we recognize that you were looking at 2006-2008, at projects that were very recent. This may be impossible for you to speculate on, but I would be very curious to know whether you think that chart would have looked very different, if you had done some trending over time that actually went back to 2000.

It's perhaps a difficult speculation, but was there evidence that a lot of this practice was actually newly embedded?

[Sheila Fraser]

The member is correct that it is difficult for us to comment on trends, because we did not go further back than 2006. One of the reasons we didn't was that we had even more limited access to cabinet documents prior to 2006. A new order in council came out and clarified our access in 2006, so we were able to see many more documents. If we had tried to go back further, I think we would not have gotten the kind of information we would need in order to be in a position to conclude.

We note, however, for certain departments, the progress or evolution over time. I think of the Department of Justice, for example. The report indicates that there was a lot of activity going on at one point. They disbanded many of the committees, with the idea that their work would be integrated into all of their activities. That does not appear to have worked.

It varies very much by department. Finance, for example, has made a lot of progress fairly recently. It's hard to make a conclusion overall on government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

The next area I would like to focus on is this. We have a process and a framework, but until you evaluate your activities, you really don't know whether you're making a difference. We have INAC, which has gone that final step in evaluating their process.

I would appreciate some further comment in terms of that piece. Were they finding that actually doing the evaluation process made a difference in what they were doing and where they were going?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'll begin with a response and then let Mr. Domingue give you more specific information.

Evaluation is really important in this; the member is correct. It is important to assess whether the processes and practices in place are actually having an impact or whether things need to be modified slightly.

That's why we recommend that Status of Women Canada does an evaluation more broadly about how this is working and whether there need to be changes made to current practices, guidelines, or whatever to improve going forward.

But specifically on Indian and Northern Affairs, perhaps Mr. Domingue can respond.

[Richard Domingue]

In paragraph 1.74, we relate some of the findings INAC made when they reviewed their practices. We basically say at the end of that paragraph that it's a challenging task for INAC and note that they claim those challenges should be addressed across government; they're not unique to INAC.

Clearly the issue of evaluating GBA is part of the framework promoted by Status of Women Canada. That's why we're making a recommendation, and TBS and PCO have agreed to act on it, as well as Status of Women, saying that they would assess the implementation of GBA across the government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

If I have any seconds left, I would appreciate hearing from you, Ms. Beckton, on where you're going with that evaluation piece. Then perhaps I'd go back to my colleague's point: is there a need to be broader in terms of intersectoral and so on?

In whatever time I have left, I'd appreciate hearing a response.

[Clare Beckton]

We are looking across the spectrum of women at Status of Women. We know that women are at different places at different stages of their lives, so we look across a broad spectrum. If you look at some of the work we've done over the past two years, you'll see that very well reflected in it.

I know there was a previous question on this; when you're doing gender-based analysis, if it's done well it will also reflect whether there are different groups of women who are more adversely affected, whether there is a differential impact. For example, whether it was upon aboriginal women or immigrant women, it would be reflected as a result of your gender-based analysis.

Status of Women has committed to doing an evaluation, to looking more to evaluating. Through the kinds of processes that will be implemented, we will be able to have a better understanding of how it is working in the coming years and months.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

That finishes our second round.

We will now go into our third round, starting with Ms. Mendes, please, for five minutes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome everyone.

I have a reasonably quick question.

Once departments make decisions to look at gender-based analysis, do the central agencies, either Treasury Board or even Status of Women, have a process of monitoring it, or do they have to wait for the Auditor General to look into the subject to find out that these initiatives have become rather defunct? Is there any way to follow through?

[Neil Bouwer]

I would say, Madam Chair, that we monitor on an ongoing basis. There is no formal documented monitoring system. I realize this is perhaps at the heart of some people's frustration in this area, that it's not amenable to that kind of documentation. I would only say, as I did earlier, that we will look at individual files. Where we think there ought to be a GBA and there is not one, we will raise that as a challenge question, putting the onus on the sponsoring department to come forward with that kind of analysis.

We will also brief on gender impacts more generally, and where we think there's an angle to a particular policy issue that needs to be raised, we will do it.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Would you care to comment on that?

[Catrina Tapley]

I would, thank you.

Madam Chair, I would add from Treasury Board Secretariat's perspective that we also use something called the management accountability framework. The management accountability framework is an annual exercise that departments and most agencies go through. As part of one of the 21 lines of evidence—it's on the quality of Treasury Board submissions—we include a component on gender-based analysis, as part of our analysis of how departments are performing in that area.

The other issue would be the MRRS, the management of reporting and resources system. What it does is it allows us to look at individual departments' program activity architectures and their performance measures around them. Where departments have indicated that there is a gender component to the activity, we're able to look horizontally across the system.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have one further question, if I have the time. Do I have the time?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Yes, you have lots of time.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Will these activities be reported and integrated into the reports on plans and priorities and into the departmental performance reports? Will these be integrated as a normal procedure, so that we can track the progress of implementation?

[Catrina Tapley]

Certainly the goal with MRRS is to enable you to do that, and we continue to encourage departments to include it as part of their performance measurement structure. That is the goal of the program, indeed.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Bouwer, would you comment?

[Neil Bouwer]

At the Privy Council Office we don't play as close a challenge function in terms of reporting for results in the accountability framework. It's more Treasury Board Secretariat's purview, so we don't report on the challenge function in that formal a way.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You still have a minute and a half.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I will share with Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I'm going to go back to Status of Women Canada and back to the response that we have to the Auditor General and to the implementation plan.

I've always thought that this plan was there, but clearly there is need for a lot more. When do you expect to have a plan in place? What kind of timeline do you need? Do you need additional resources? What is required for Status of Women Canada to fully implement GBA across government?