:
I'm going to call the meeting to order.
Welcome to everyone, and particularly to our special guests. We have quite a number of panel members today, including Nancy Cheng and Richard Domingue from the Auditor General's office. As well, from the Department of Employment and Social Development we have Gail Mitchell, who is the director. From the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development we have Nicole Kennedy.
I believe that later today we'll have a couple of witnesses from the Department of Industry and the Department of Natural Resources, and we'll introduce them at that time.
Now, because we have many participants today, we've asked each of them to stick to five minutes for their preliminary comments; then we'll begin our round of questioning.
Let's start with Gail Mitchell.
:
Thank you very much. I promise that I practised my speech and timed it, and it was just five minutes exactly. But one never knows what happens when you're live.
[Translation]
I would like to thank all the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear today.
[English]
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the implementation of gender-based analysis at Employment and Social Development Canada as well as the recent report of the Auditor General on government-wide implementation of gender-based analysis.
To set the stage, the GBA framework has been used by policy-makers at ESDC since 1995 to take into consideration gender issues, with the intention of ensuring that social, economic, and gender differences are identified and that these are addressed throughout the development and implementation of policies and programs.
ESDC is a department that delivers programs that touch Canadians directly throughout their lives. For us, gender-based analysis is an important tool in understanding the impact of our programs on people. It provides a structured approach to assess whether proposed policies and programs will further the overall commitment to achieve fairness and equity for all Canadians, particularly with respect to gender considerations. As a department that delivers programs that touch individuals, ESDC is very much focused on issues related to gender equity.
I would like to outline a little the way ESDC conducts our GBA, give you an example of policy design that specifically responded to gender issues, and indicate how the department will be moving forward on the broad continued implementation of the framework.
[Translation]
ESDC has put in place a gender-based analysis policy, has established a community of practice and a centre of expertise to support the inclusion of adequate GBA+ in the policy development process.
[English]
The centre provides tools to conduct the analysis, including a list of key questions and checklists. We provide a training manual on GBA+ and a guide to developing the analysis. The centre organizes GBA+ awareness activities throughout the department. GBA is also considered as part of regular program evaluation and in the research that the department conducts on such issues as the Canadian labour market, skills and training, labour force participation rates across varied populations, and service delivery, just to name a few of the areas of research.
[Translation]
Program and policy areas are accountable for ensuring that GBA+ considerations have been integrated into and are fully addressed within their mandates as part of the development and implementation of their initiatives.
[English]
I would like to give you an example of how GBA was used to advance policy development on a specific program.
In 2010 the department was developing an aboriginal skills and employment training strategy. We worked closely with federal colleagues at INAC as well as with the Native Women's Association of Canada in order to focus on ensuring that the strategy could address, among other things, the economic development challenges faced by aboriginal women.
As a result of these engagements, requirements to monitor outcomes for women were integrated into the plan, and specific gender reporting was put in place. This has allowed projects to tailor specific streams to address participation rates of aboriginal women in key fields such as oil and gas, shipbuilding, and mining, fields in which participation rates for aboriginal women are much higher than they are for the general population and stand at 27%.
I think that is a demonstration of how gender-based analysis has factored into policy development.
More recently, GBA+ was used to understand how gender affects the incidence of low income in senior populations. The analysis showed that low-income seniors are disproportionately female, single, and living in large urban areas. Recently, budget 2016 announced increases to the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors. That is aimed specifically at people in low income, obviously, many of whom are women who live alone. The analysis found that more than two-thirds of those who will benefit from this increase are women.
Some barriers to full implementation remain, as we have seen from the report of the Auditor General. In the case of ESDC, tight timelines are often an issue that we grapple with as we're developing and implementing initiatives. However, we remain committed to following the guidelines, and policy-makers in the department continue to learn and develop best practices to fully implement the policy in the context of our programs, our legislation, and our service delivery processes.
On a go-forward basis, as part of our efforts to strengthen our function, last August we presented a plan to our corporate management committee to promote a deeper awareness of the policy, to ensure that roles and responsibilities were clear, to require mandatory GBA+ training for analysts, to update guides and manuals, and to establish a network across the department.
[Translation]
Since that time, we have made progress. The GBA+ network was established and, between October 2015 and March 2016, 23 employees completed the GBA+ training on the SWC website.
[English]
To sum up, I think the report of the Auditor General offers us an opportunity to consider how we can strengthen our processes, and it has also given us an opportunity to reconfirm areas in which we're strong in the use of the policy. We look forward to working with Status of Women Canada, the PCO, and Treasury Board to broaden the use of GBA and deepen our understanding of its impact on our programs and policies.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
Merci.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On behalf of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, thank you for the invitation to speak today and to support the committee's study on gender-based analysis.
I am delighted to give you an overview of INAC's current policy, gender-based analysis practices, and results related to the 2015 Auditor General's report.
Before this overview, I would like to say that INAC has made a commitment, as part of a government-wide approach, to make significant and measurable progress on the implementation of gender-based analysis in all federal departments.
[English]
In 1999 INAC introduced its gender-based analysis policy framework. We took a very centralized approach to it initially in developing the policy, working with such other government departments as Justice Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Status of Women Canada, and Global Affairs.
We also, given the mandate of our department, liaised extensively with the Assembly of First Nations women's secretariat, and the Native Women's Association of Canada as we developed our initial policy.
Our policy framework at INAC actually requires that gender-based analysis be integrated into all of the department's work, which includes the development and implementation of policies, programs, communication plans, regulations, legislation, memoranda to cabinet, and Treasury Board submissions. It goes beyond, though, and extends into consultations and negotiations, including those for self-government, land claims, and treaty land entitlement. Also, it extends into our research, dispute resolution, and litigation work.
In terms of practice, the department has developed tools to support a sustainable gender-based analysis capacity, which includes online training available to all staff, which we actually developed with Status of Women several years back. We have very departmental-specific guides and tools that are available on our Internet sites. We also have a very well-established network of gender-based analysis sector representatives. At this point in time we have 37 gender-based analysis representatives, GBARs, across the department.
Within INAC, every initiative that goes forward to cabinet must have a gender-based analysis completed. The gender-based analysis assessment is approved at the assistant deputy minister level. The deputy minister has full accountability to ensure that gender-based analysis is completed on all initiatives, and it doesn't actually proceed to our departmental policy committee before the GBA is completed to the satisfaction of the deputy minister.
Since 1999 we've built up a lot of capacity and expertise, and we've repositioned our approach somewhat, moving away from a purely centralized model to one that is much more mainstream. We've actually driven accountability for GBA down into the sectors and programs to make sure that it's happening at the very beginning of policy development. This is really to ensure that gender-based analysis is part of everything we do in the department.
In terms of the Auditor General's report, the gender-based analysis policy and implementation practices have been assessed recently at INAC. We were one of the four departments, as you know. We are also one of the few departments to have actually evaluated our GBA policy, in 2002 and again in 2008.
We wanted to share with you some of the insights from GBA, in particular on the family violence prevention program, which was highlighted in the report of the Auditor General. As a result of a gender-based analysis, we actually shifted the program focus to a certain extent, recognizing that we were not hearing enough about the issues that men and boys face as victims and perpetrators of violence. We ensured that some funding was directed to ensuring that they had a voice.
Even more recently, as we've set out to do a pre-engagement on the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, we have made sure, through our GBA analysis again, that there is a way for the voices of men and boys to be heard as well, because it's very important in terms of GBA not to over-focus but to make sure that you're being equitable in your approach.
As Gail Mitchell noted, there are some challenges, which were highlighted in the Auditor General's report, concerning implementing GBA in departments. One of them, as most of us know, is the very fast timelines and fast pace we're under, trying to get things through. That said, there is significant attention given to GBA at INAC. It actually is mandatory: an MC doesn't go forward unless a GBA is completed.
In closing, I just want to say that we look forward to further collaboration with all the partners on GBA, and we're certainly here to share our experiences and to learn from others as we advance on this important file.
Merci.
:
Well, there are other measures. There's the guaranteed income supplement, as well, that is targeted specifically to low-income seniors. I'm not sure if your parents are already seniors and already collecting or if they're anticipating that in the future, but there are measures.
There are also complementary programs at the provincial level to support seniors who are in a low-income category. There's work under way. The Department of Finance is taking a hard look at the Canada Pension Plan, so that's another venue for people to raise issues, so there are interventions.
In Canada we kind of look at retirement income. There's the private piece of it that individuals provide for in the context of employment and then there's government. What's the right balance across all of those? We kind of expect that there's an evenness across those three key pillars when it comes to retirement security, but we definitely target some interventions to support low-income seniors.
As I mentioned, the top-up to the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors is really an acknowledgement that single women, in particular, face fiscal challenges for the reasons that you've elaborated in terms of workforce.
:
I call our meeting back to order.
I have a couple of comments, just as a preface. I wanted to remind people that the Office of the Auditor General had previously provided their comments, so those are entered into the record for your reference.
I am very pleased as well that we have lots of gender parity happening on our committee today, so that is joyous.
I want to introduce our next panel participants. We have Mitch Davies, who is an assistant deputy minister for the Department of Industry. We also have Neil Bouwer, who is an assistant deputy minister for the Department of Natural Resources. Welcome, gentlemen.
Each of you will have five minutes to bring introductory comments, and then we will start our round of questioning.
Who will go first? Neil, it's over to you for five minutes.
:
Thank you all for the opportunity to discuss Natural Resources Canada's efforts to implement gender-based analysis.
I am NRCan's GBA+ champion. As such, I believe GBA+ is a useful analytical tool for assessing the gender-specific impacts of initiatives on women and men, and it is integral to good policy-making.
As part of the Government of Canada's phased-in approach, NRCan committed to implementing gender-based analysis in informing policy and programs in 2012-13. Our early work focused on the development of a governance structure, a departmental statement of intent, and capacity-building.
[Translation]
Since 2014, we have formally included GBA+ in NRCan's strategic processes. At present, the department must conduct GBA+ for all proposals related to the federal budget and for all memos to cabinet and Treasury Board submissions.
[English]
We use a detailed assessment template, copies of which I have provided to the clerk, which asks policy authors questions such as: who are the target clients for the proposal; are all target clients able to participate equally in the proposed initiative, or are there barriers; would the proposal result in differential impacts based on gender or diversity; and if differential access or impacts have been identified, how can these be mitigated?
We undertake this assessment at the earliest possible point and carry it forward throughout the policy process. For example, if the GBA+ is undertaken for a budget proposal, and the parameters do not change, the analysis is carried forward through any subsequent memorandum to cabinet or Treasury Board submission. If there are changes in parameters, the templates are updated and re-approved.
Since April 1, 2015, NRCan has conducted GBA+ assessments on 42 proposals. Over one quarter of these proposals, that's 12, were considered exempt from further analysis, typically because they were routine, or because there had been previous GBAs completed. Almost one quarter of the proposals, that's 10, were identified likely differential gender-based or diversity-based access or impacts that required additional analysis and consideration of changes to the proposal's parameters and mitigation measures. For example, we seek to ensure the proposals do not reinforce historical gender disparities in the natural resources sector. The analysis of the remaining proposals, that's 20, found that differential gender-based or diversity-based access or impacts were not likely to occur.
[Translation]
NRCan has a responsibility centre with staff assigned to GBA+, about one full-time equivalent. This responsibility centre provides general support to the department and tracks progress on GBA+.
To support this work, NRCan has created a cadre of nine special advisors who provide directives to policy authors on how to conduct GBA+. Our sectors are responsible for conducting GBA+. The director general responsible for these matters is required to review and approve the final GBA+ evaluation templates.
[English]
We believe it is critical to raise awareness on GBA+ to build capacity in the department and to conduct GBA+ by offering tools and resources. We maintain considerable resources on our internal website for staff to access, such as case studies, information, and links to other federal resources.
My sector also maintains key facts and figures to support gender-based analysis at NRCan, specifically natural resources gender-desegregated data. We also connect our staff to data about the science community in Canada.
We support broader access to relevant data and information. Through the federal geospatial platform, Natural Resources Canada provides gender-desegregated socio-economic datasets to assist federal decision-making. This platform is available to all federal departments.
[Translation]
NRCan also contributed to funding for the production of “Women in Canada”, a report directed by Status of Women Canada and Statistics Canada. This report is an essential resource for gender-based statistics.
[English]
With respect to training, staff are encouraged to take the Status of Women Canada's online GBA+ training. We conduct focused training within the department for our special advisers, and this is an important departmental resource for policy authors. We also offer targeted training for analysts who prepare budget proposals and more general training and awareness activities to employees. NRCan has also collaborated in the development and delivery of targeted training for science and economic-based staff.
In particular, in April 2014, NRCan piloted a full-day training session on GBA+ for science-based departments. It was developed in co-operation with Status of Women Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.
Earlier this year, NRCan worked with Status of Women Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; the Centre for Intercultural Learning; and other departments on the development and implementation of targeted training for economic and science-based departments.
[Translation]
NRCan recently reviewed the findings of the Auditor General's office regarding the implementation of GBA.
[English]
The report indicated GBA was incomplete in certain initiatives. In NRCan's case, the OAG assessed four NRCan initiatives and concluded that only two had completed GBAs. For the first initiative, a GBA+ process had not yet been established at NRCan. NRCan committed to implementing GBA+ in 2012. When this proposal was still being developed, NRCan was still in the process of developing guidance. For the second initiative, one element of the initiative was not fully assessed, and we don't get partial marks from the Auditor General.
We continue to face some challenges, Madam Chair, and I'm happy to discuss those with the committee today, such as making GBA relevant for a science-based department like NRCan and considering GBA at the earliest phase of policy development.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to address the committee.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to present to the committee today.
[Translation]
Gender-based analysis is important to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Departmental staff work actively to support the application of GBA to policies and programs throughout the departmental portfolio.
[English]
I want to take the opportunity today to inform you of some of the activities we've undertaken in the department over the last 18 months to build employee awareness and training on GBA+ requirements that apply across the government and to strengthen our performance in the department. I'll also speak to some considerations for our future work on GBA.
Guided by the 2011 action plan on GBA+ developed by Status of Women Canada, the Privy Council Office, and the Treasury Board Secretariat, the deputy minister appointed a GBA champion for the department in October 2014 who's responsible for leading on the many GBA activities that I'm going to tell you about today. Our champion is also active in the GBA champions' community to share best practices and set common goals.
In order to support officials conducting effective GBA reviews in the department, our deputy minister approved the launch of a renewed GBA+ policy and GBA+ guidance tool in February of 2015. The deputy also approved the strengthening of the department's management accountability system to ensure that GBAs are completed for all memoranda to cabinet and Treasury Board submissions sent to our ministers for approval.
Since women-led businesses are important to the growth and vitality of Canada's economy, the department provided $50,000 to Status of Women Canada to help organize the women's entrepreneurship forum in March of 2015. The Ottawa-based forum was a great success, bringing over 350 women entrepreneurs from many sectors of our economy to the city. In addition, one of our portfolio partners, the Business Development Bank of Canada, announced that the forum had earmarked $700 million over three years to finance women-owned businesses in Canada.
As I mentioned earlier, building employee awareness and training on GBA requirements are important to strengthening our performance. With this in mind, our GBA champion has worked with the department's communications branch to promote the value of integrating GBA+ into program and policy design, including at senior management committees.
In October 2015, the department announced a new mandatory training requirement related to GBA. By March 31, 2016, all employees were required to complete the Status of Women Canada's online GBA+ training course. I'm pleased to report that close to 90% of all our employees including our executives, over 3,800 people, have taken the course and received their certificates in GBA+ training. We're working on the last 10%. In addition, we've made it mandatory for all new employees to complete the GBA training within six months of their arrival into the department.
Also, with regard to strengthening employee awareness of the value of integrating GBA considerations into program and policy development, we commissioned a GBA case study on clean technology and hosted the full GBA+ training course for economic, science, and research-based departments in February 2016. Our partners on this training were Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but the event would not have happened without the active support and involvement of Status of Women Canada. The training was a major success with more than 70 officials participating from nine departments and agencies.
Finally, since gender-disaggregated data is essential to conducting effective GBAs, the department provided $20,000 last fiscal year to support the development of a new chapter on women, education, and technology in the seventh edition of Stats Canada's seminal publication entitled, Women in Canada. This chapter is expected to be published this June. Our regional development partners have also provided funding for the Women in Canada publication.
[Translation]
I hope that gives you an idea of the work done in recent months to implement strategies and systems designed to enhance performance on GBA+ within the department.
[English]
Currently, we are completing an annual GBA+ self-assessment survey on our own performance and will use the assessment to identify possible opportunities for further action this year. Some of the areas we're considering exploring include deepening our expertise in conducting GBAs across the department by establishing a network of GBA focal points in the individual program sectors who help support the early policy and program consideration of gender diversity analysis in their groups.
We also hope to continue to improve access to gender-disaggregated data relating to key sectors of our economy such as clean technology, automotive, aerospace, information and communication technologies, pharmaceuticals, and tourism.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address the committee today.
[English]
I would like to reaffirm that the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development recognizes the value that gender-based analysis provides in ensuring that we develop and implement effective policies and programs that meet the needs of diverse groups of men and women according to their socio-economic and demographic considerations
Thank you.
:
I found it really enlightening. Really what it told me, bringing it down to brass tacks, is that it's about doing your job properly. It's a simple matter of doing rigorous work to move beyond the superficial and to get the data you need to undertake an analysis about how programs affect individual Canadians in all walks of life in different parts of society.
Really, I think it's about doing your homework. Number one, having all of our employees do this and take this course is a major step forward. Second is getting them into the practice. I think that's where our next work plan will take us, to actually have the experts who are in my team closer to the people doing the day-to-day work on policies and programs. We're a big organization. We have to embed this in the groups that are actually doing it. It can't be done after; it has to be done while they do program and policy development.
The last step, and I also suggested this, is that there is still a need to get better information. We're trying to do that by supplementing the work that Stats Canada can do on their publication. We designed what we asked them to do for a very specific reason: women, education, and technology. We're trying to get at....
I won't answer directly the question that wasn't asked, but what about the pipeline? What about people's choices? What about women taking the path into STEM fields? When is it they're leaving that path? What are the issues involved in that? We have actually commissioned a lot of work over time on that, because these are what I would call intractable issues.
Getting more and more information, and more and more awareness and profile on those sorts of issues, is really key, I think, in terms of improving our performance.
:
I will take the opportunity to plug some good work that I think is part of the answer in getting better information and data, and it gets to the point of what resources the department uses to draw on.
The Council of Canadian Academies, if you are familiar with it, is a foundation that does impeccable work to collect evidence on questions of which the government, and in fact our department, has been a heavy user. We are also the host for the funding arrangement with them. In 2012, we commissioned a report called “Strengthening Canada's Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension”. This arose as a consequence of recommendations that we commissioned in terms of enhancing the profile and the ultimate success of women in higher research.
We had the Canada Excellence Research Chairs inaugural competition, and those who were selected, those who were given awards—and these are big awards, $10-million awards over seven years—were all men. I am sure they were all meritorious. These were fantastic researchers around the world. However, we immediately turned to an ad hoc group to ask them to look at recommendations about where we could improve the performance. One of the things we commissioned was this report, and I can report that the next round of Canada Excellence Research Chairs had women among the awardees.
:
I will answer the second question you posed, which is about what we will be doing next. I don't think this is something we can declare “work complete”. That was where I was talking about the two measures we are studying right now. Getting people like this fine lady here who is pointing out the questionnaire through my notes, people who are trained to her level of skill about this in the sectors, in the work areas, spreading the focal points.... I think my colleague from NRCan also mentioned that.
I can quote to you some of the questions: “What sources of information or evidence did you review in your assessment of possible gender considerations?”—and then you have to check gender-disaggregated data, academic sources, government reports, or non-academic work. Another question is, “Does the initiative improve the situation for all, or does it impact diverse groups of men or women differently, positively or negatively?” Yes or no, and if so, explain.
It is with this sort of diving into the question that this questionnaire makes you do the homework. Coming back and saying, “Well, we didn't do it” is now not an option. It has be shown that we have done that homework in the department on all the measures that come forward.
:
I'll cite a couple of examples. Take a look at the Canada research chairs, which is a program offered by the granting council and part of our portfolio. In terms of trend, and you're looking for where we were and where we are now, I can share with you that the CRCs in 2001, 14% were women, and in 2012, it was 26%. That's a trend, and it's in the right direction.
I can still say we're starting from a low base, so I'll switch data sources. The Science, Technology, and Innovation Council in 2015 put out their report, “State of the Nation on Science”, which is an excellent report, and they talked about women's share of Canada's science and engineering Ph.D. graduates at 32% being significantly lower than other countries. The United Kingdom is 49%, and the United States is 46%.
What's happening though is the share of female Ph.D.s in the fields grew between 2006 and 2012. The trend is right, but we're starting from a lower point. We have some catch-up to do, and I would reference in terms of programming that NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, has chairs for women in a science and engineering program they launched in 1996, which has a goal of directing chairs across the country on a regional basis as women who can then be examples of those in the field. We had also funded—and it was something we did as a consequence of gender-based analysis—our science technology innovation strategy refresh in 2014. We went on to create a priority on attracting young women and diverse groups into STEM fields, which led to funding of Let's Talk Science, which is a non-profit that promotes science to youth in Canada with a specific purpose to get at those under-represented groups. We provided $12.5 million to them for that purpose.
We're trying to get at it, use the data, and then follow on with the funding and programming to move the needles.
:
I would reference an example, and it was one that the Auditor General's work highlighted for us. It was related to the computers for schools program. We operate it with sort of two programs. One provides the actual technology, and the other provides work experience for youth in the computer refurbishing centres.
While there could be a technicality about where the GBA had to be done, when, and so on, let's leave it aside. There's definitely an opportunity, particularly in terms of the recruitment of those centres of the youth they bring in, to play close attention to the gender balance in the workforce.
The Auditor General brought this to our attention in terms of the work we had done, and we've taken subsequent steps to do a study with the non-profits that run these centres. I wouldn't say we've completely got the trend arrested, but we've gone from 17% to 19% over two years, and we're trying to get it going in the right direction to bring more women in to do those youth work experiences in those technology centres, because, again, that's another opportunity that could be missed if we don't use it. We have to work even through third parties to sort of bring these policy objectives to them, too, because they're being funded by us, and they can pursue what they're doing and also advance gender equity.
:
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
First of all, we're talking about the Government of Canada as a whole. At this point in time, the adoption rate is not 100%, and I think I signalled that.
There is one area we didn't talk about too much, and it's not specific to one department or another. There's very little information, external reporting, on how we're doing in this whole area of looking at the gender aspect of it before policy decisions are taken.
Status of Women doesn't always have all the information. Whatever information they have, they haven't quite made it public. If we can pursue that avenue more—what gets measured gets done, what gets reported gets scrutinized—you would be in a better position to ask, “Where are we now, and are we progressing in the right direction?” The witnesses to my left seem to be saying that we're seeing a positive trend line and that's positive. We want to encourage that.
The other thing I seem to be hearing a little bit has to do with the time frame. We heard from a couple of witnesses that the time frame, the tight turnaround, was a real challenge. I guess we haven't heard too much about how we can address that. I don't know if the witnesses with us now actually have some suggestions in terms of looking at that, as well.
Those are some thoughts that we need to look at.
Other than that, when you start to look at individual departments and agencies, it's a matter of looking at the GBA+ framework, which underscores a lot of the activities. We're hearing that departmental witnesses are now saying, “Instill that culture”. This is really important and not something to be taken for granted.
Having the ways and means, so that people know how to do it, what to do, having somebody to go to, having a support structure, and then needing to identify the kind of data they need, access to that data, taking the time and the due diligence to analyze that data to say how it affects my programming in inviting participation by equal gender, these are all things that need to be looked at a little closer.
We looked at whether they implemented a framework. We also looked at a number of initiatives. There were some variations in terms of the quality of that.
:
Thank you very much. It's good to be here.
I'm new to the committee, but I am on pay equity and we've had a great discussion. I recognize a lot of my friends around this table who are also on that very important committee.
The other day we did have a discussion about GBA. We had the minister in along with some other ministers. It was a great discussion on how important it is and some of the steps that are currently under way that need to continue and be accelerated, such as gender parity in this government for cabinet ministers, and to be exported and encouraged at other board tables, banks, government, etc. That becomes so important in the essence of thinking and promoting that culture we've talking been about around this table to continue and to encourage not only pay equity but other very important things dealing with the gender issues.
My background is in business and economic development, and I've dealt a lot with entrepreneurship and and I worked in the trades area, as well. There was some discussion from my friends across the way about trades and entrepreneurship.
One of the things we have in one of the trades deals with ICT, information and communications technology. I saw that the Auditor General's report—and I highlighted it here—found that the ISED computers for schools program did not undergo a complete GBA. The report indicated two problems. The GBA was out of date. From the 2014 initiative, the department used the GBA that it performed in 2013 when it reviewed the terms and conditions for the program.
The second part was that the GBA was incomplete and conclusions were not supported by evidence. The 2013 analysis led the department to conclude that there were no important gender quality implications of the program. The 2015 Auditor General's report stated that:
We reviewed data sources relevant to the program, such as academic research papers, stakeholders’ publications, and data on youth interns employed through TWEP. We found that these sources pointed to gender considerations, such as a shortage of women in ICT fields and a low proportion (less than 20 percent) of female interns working at the refurbishment centres.
Just reading that out—and I think it's important to get it out on record, as well—what in terms of the ISED is the senior management, in reviewing the quality and completeness for GBA...? You touched on it a little bit, but I think it bears further explanation and delving into what it is you're doing going forward and perhaps why that happened. Was it just an oversight or inconsideration?
Not only that, but what steps are being taken now to improve the outcomes of ICT? It's important not only for apprenticeship but because a lot of entrepreneurs are getting in. I met yesterday with a start-up group, and there are a lot of female entrepreneurs in this field. I think that's an important area for us to really focus on.
:
In quickly coming back, I think the audit—as audits do—looks back. I would say that what it identified in terms of the quality of the work that was done around the computers for schools was an opportunity missed. I think I said that before, and I'm perfectly comfortable to describe it as such.
This is prior to us having very significantly revamped how we're doing this in the department in the 18 months I described in my opening statement. This is prior to anyone having to be trained on what this is. This is prior to us implementing the mandatory policy that it be done, the check at my focal point to make sure it's done with high quality.
I would even say, on that program, that we went and actually commissioned a specific study on the opportunities to enhance women's participation in those refurbishment centres and the youth opportunities. We're trying to work on the trend line now to get more of them participating in the local level in that work through that program.
I completely acknowledge that this is an area where we need to do better. As an economy we need to recognize and acknowledge this.
Secondly, we have instruments. We have programming where we can actually give it a nudge. We should be doing all that.
I would say we're embarked on the right path and the audit identified where we could do a better job. While the audit was going on we were getting on with improving our practices in the department, which is all the things I described in my opening statement in terms of the policy statement, the mandatory training, and just raising our game across the board on this. For me that's what we need to do.
:
I would point out here, on the ground, that a really significant tool is the regional development agencies. In the case of northern Ontario it's FedNor, which has been a part of our department, but they operate like a regional development agency. They have a funding budget.
They've provided funding over the years to many projects. I know there is the Paro women's centre in northern Ontario that works with women entrepreneurs. They have had long-standing funding support through FedNor.
We provide funding support for skills and trade development. We provided funding through the aboriginal CFDC in northern Ontario to prepare people for trades in mining work and to get them ready for that. We've also provided funding to an organization in Kenora on food and beverages, working in the service sector, working in culinary and so on. They're very important industries in the Kenora region where a lot of tourists come in over the summer.
There is a lot. I'd be happy to table more information on the funding and the kinds of projects that we've done, for example, in northern Ontario, that are specifically targeted on aboriginal...and on women, and their participation; and in fact, on newcomers, new Canadians, and integrating them into the local economy. Because they need people, and they need people who want to come to work in those regions, there are local organizations that are funded by us to support doing that.
:
The reference was to the Canada Excellence Research Chairs program of the tri-councils. It was its inaugural round of selection—all men.
There was an ad hoc group commissioned by the minister to look at the situation and develop recommendations essentially for the universities, because they would do the recruitment, they're the ones going out and doing the head- hunting. It asked them what we could do to change the way the program functions, not to change the bar of excellence, but to change the way we actually do the intake in terms of just how long you have to be up in the process before you know whether you're going to actually be taken forward. The uncertainty about that, from a family and planning and obligation point of view, is something that not everybody is equally prepared to accept. So what we were trying to do was redesign the process to give more certainty in the front end to applicants that their application would be pursued further at a later stage.
I don't do the adjudication. This was still done by peer review. This is still done by an international panel of the best experts. We were choosing the best to come to Canada.
But it's really an excuse to say, “Well, the people we chose to meet a certain bar all end up being men”, and then be indifferent. The question is, what could you do to encourage and facilitate, in different circumstances, diverse groups of people to be able to come forward and to participate in the process? When you take those measures, you intentionally take steps to do that, lo and behold the outcome changes, not the quality of the people, but the outcome, which I think is really what we were getting at.
:
The point that we're trying to make is that, if there's extra pressure being put to bear on the requirement to do GBA, that might be positive movement. It's not necessarily to say that we absolutely have to have the law changed and have some legislative requirements. We never really pushed to have it at that limit and we were careful of how we couched the recommendation in terms of saying that is an issue that needs to be looked at. We left it to management to decide the best way forward.
You could do it internally. You could do it at the level of government policy, having an explicit policy of the Government of Canada asking for that, or you could elevate it further. Ultimately, there is that internal challenge, which is probably the better place to have it.
Then you still have the opportunity of the central agencies' challenge, whether it's through Treasury Board Secretariat or PCO looking at the MCs as well as the TB submissions, to have that rigour there as well so you do indeed have the iterative process to make sure that the issue is sufficiently explored before we say it doesn't apply or that it comes to fruition, and you actually change your programming as a result of that.
There isn't a magic formula in terms of saying that it absolutely needs to be that way, and if we truly had that stronger view, we would probably have used stronger language in the report as well. But we identified it, saying it's necessary to see why things aren't moving as quickly, because we are looking at 20 years after making that international commitment. Even with the 2009 government position saying we will now have a government-wide departmental audit plan to implement GBA, we're still finding it's not quite there yet, so what does it take? That really is the point.
What we seem to be hearing from some of the witnesses today, at least the first two, is that the time frame seems to be fairly important for them, and I'm not quite sure whether there's been more dialogue in terms of looking at the best way to look at that. Maybe Status of Women can also help to look at that to see what better can be done there.