THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 27, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:32 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Ratna Omidvar. I am chair of this committee, and I am an independent senator from Ontario. I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Glen Patterson from Nunavut. Good morning.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome, minister.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. It’s nice to see you, minister. I’m here on the shores of the Kitchissippi, the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning, my name is Chantal Petitclerc and I’m a senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent, unaffiliated senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good morning. I am Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Hello, minister. I am Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister, for making the time to come to our committee. Thank you, colleagues, as well.
This is the last panel before we complete our deliberations on GBA Plus. Normally we do this the other way around. In fact, this time we have the minister and colleagues at the end. This gives us a bit of a different lens on the issue because we have already heard from so many expert advisers.
Minister Ien, I would like to invite you to present opening remarks. You have five minutes for your remarks, followed by questions from our members.
[Translation]
The Honourable Marci Ien, P.C., M.P., Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Women and Gender Equality Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take part in the committee’s timely discussion on the role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the policy process.
[English]
I’d like to begin by recognizing that we are together today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation.
This conversation about Gender-based Analysis Plus, or GBA Plus, is timely and very important. I want to thank you for pursuing this study and this important work.
I often think about GBA Plus as a way of looking at my own life. I have many intersections of identity that come together to create the person sitting before you today. That is true for all Canadians and, frankly, people across the world. The things that make us who we are and the different ways in which we identify and exist in this world impact the way we navigate the world.
GBA Plus is the primary tool used by the government to help inform government initiatives and to ensure they are inclusive and responsive to the needs of diverse people. We look at everything from this perspective so that the policies we develop as a government can reach Canadians exactly where they are.
When we do GBA Plus, we consider who is impacted by an issue that we are trying to address and how our initiatives can be tailored to meet diverse needs to eliminate barriers and inequalities. It helps ensure that equality, diversity and equal opportunity are front and centre across all of government business.
GBA Plus is intersectional in its design, which means that along with gender, a range of factors like ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and income, are also considered. Much in the same way that identity factors interact with each other, they also intersect with social norms and attitudes, as well as systems — and I repeat — systems of discrimination to create unique experiences of power, privilege and marginalization.
When we consider the COVID-19 pandemic, we can understand why GBA Plus is an important tool to inform the development of programs as well as policies. Women, girls, youth, Indigenous, racialized and 2SLGBTQI+ people have been impacted.
For example, women and other equity-deserving individuals have experienced mental health challenges during the pandemic. In particular, 57% of women, 71% of gender-diverse people and 64% of youth reported worsening mental health.
When we think of job losses due to COVID-19, these losses disproportionately impacted women — particularly young women, Indigenous women, immigrants, women with disabilities and exceptionalities, and visible minorities. In March 2020, job losses among women were almost double those of men. As the economy began to reopen in May 2020, employment increased twice as fast among men than among women.
However, it is important to note that there were differences within groups — for example, in the case of a single mother working in an essential sector and balancing the care of her children in the absence of schools. The fact that this person is a single mother, a main breadwinner and sole caregiver for her children magnifies the impacts of the pandemic.
These layers of identity — which cannot be understood if we simply look at the numbers — are why GBA Plus is so important. It is about pulling people up out of the shadows. It involves disaggregated data and looking at the reality of our disaggregated world, making sure this is the norm and not just a nice-to-have.
GBA Plus is the centrepiece of policy-making today because of the many public servants who have remained committed to its practice since 1995.
To remain responsive to the issues of the day, GBA Plus has evolved through a process of continuous improvement. Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, works with partners at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Privy Council Office to enhance the government-wide implementation of GBA Plus and to ensure robust application across government business.
When we adopt GBA Plus, we continue to adapt it. It is ever green. More people will see themselves in our work. While these achievements are fine and they’re good, there continues to be room for improvement. We know that.
WAGE monitors and identified gaps in GBA Plus application with the critical support of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Privy Council Office so that training and resources can be targeted. It is important to note that accountability for thorough and robust GBA Plus analysis rests with the subject-matter experts, meaning the department or the organization advancing any particular proposal or any particular initiative.
Since 2016 — and in response to a 2015 audit by the Auditor General of Canada — we have been monitoring GBA Plus through an annual survey of federal departments and agencies. Our findings from the annual survey were confirmed in the Auditor General’s May 2022 report.
The Chair: If you could kindly wind up, please. We have a short period of time with you and we want to get as many questions to you as we can.
Ms. Ien: In conclusion, we know we have a lot of work to do. There is always more work to do. Canada is also one of the few countries that systematically audited how gender and equality is being embedded across all government business so we can continue to improve its application. It is about working together meaningfully to advance justice, equity, diversity and inclusion for all people.
The Chair: Colleagues, we will now go to questions. However, unlike past practice, and because of the time constraints, questions and answers by senators and the minister will be limited to four minutes each. Before asking and answering questions, please remember refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or removing your earpiece when doing so. This avoids any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
Minister, I will take my prerogative as the chair of the committee to ask you a few questions. You have been identified in previous witness testimony as the official champion and leader of the GBA Plus objectives in Parliament. Will you and your government commit to providing GBA Plus analysis to parliamentarians on every bill that comes before us?
Ms. Ien: Thank you so much for the question. The work is being done, and I’d like to give you examples of that work.
Recently, I was in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, where the MP is Leah Gazan. In that riding, there is a low-barrier Indigenous facility called Velma’s House. It needed help. When I visited last summer with a couple of colleagues, everywhere I looked appeared like it was about to be a disaster. Anything could have gone up in flames at any time, yet the house had as many women as it could at the time. There were women sleeping on the porch and under the porch when I walked in. It needed help. We worked across government lines — and, this is GBA Plus — and across the floor to help.
We do this as a practice. Leah Gazan was a part of this. Minister Hajdu was a part of this. Minister Hussen was a part of this. Minister Miller was a part of this. We worked together to get a new facility and to provide operating and capital costs for years to come for Indigenous women fleeing violence in Winnipeg Centre. That is one example of how we are working across government, across lines and doing everything we can in order to implement this, because GBA Plus is a way of life, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m sure my colleagues will pick up on this question, but I have a question around what you think about the terminology and vocabulary. It is GBA Plus. We have heard from witnesses that the “plus” is automatically a hierarchical construct, that it stands second in line to the stress on gender, which we know is important but not at the expense of —
Ms. Ien: Yes; not as fulsome.
The Chair: Do you think that another nomenclature or branding is required under your leadership to bring it under an umbrella of equity?
Ms. Ien: This is an excellent conversation. In fact, this conversation is ongoing. You will notice with our newly released 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan that the “2S” comes first. It comes first for the reason. Two-Spirit comes first now right across government. The conversation you are talking about is a conversation that we are absolutely having and willing to pursue. It is one that takes place across cabinet. It is one that takes place across government. As you see in what we put forward in the 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, it is one that we take very seriously.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for being here with us, minister. We were interested in the story about the great work you did in Winnipeg, but, with respect, there is a question that still needs to be asked. Specifically, you say you are working with both PCO and the Treasury Board Secretariat. Will you ensure that GBA Plus is one of the checklists for every memorandum to cabinet on every new bill coming to Parliament?
Ms. Ien: It already is in many ways, senator. If I might say, with respect, this is something that is embedded into cabinet. It is embedded across government. GBA Plus is something that is considered all the time.
You mentioned — and I will revert to Madam Chair — that I am the champion of this, the leader of this. I absolutely am, senator, because I am this. It is the only lens I see this through. I am this. I am a Black woman with two children; without a partner. There is no other lens, senator, that I see this through.
Senator Patterson: Your action plan on gender-based analysis 2016 to 2020 has lapsed. Are you considering developing a new action plan or framework? If so, will an evaluation mechanism be embedded within this plan?
Ms. Ien: Senator, the work continues. I will turn to Ms. Smylie for more on that. I am just back from Berlin, where I met with my G7 counterparts. We should remember that Canada has led for 25 years on this file. In speaking to my former colleagues, from the Honourable Jean Augustine, to Maryam Monsef, to Patty Hajdu, to Hedy Fry — to so many others who have held this file — Canada has led. I saw this at the G7 meeting. The U.K. has its framework on GBA Plus because of us. They have modelled it after us. There were many questions on the dashboards that I saw and answers that had everything to do with Canada and how we are leading on this.
Again, senators, I accept that there is more work to do. However, I want to make it clear for the record that we are leaders in this aspect. I will ask Ms. Smylie to add more to this. Thank you for the question.
Lisa Smylie, Director General, Research, Results and Delivery Branch, Women and Gender Equality Canada: Thank you for inviting me here. I have been dedicating my career to GBA Plus since 1996. There is nothing closer to my heart.
To answer the senator’s question directly in terms of an action plan, the plan was a result of the 2015 audit by the Auditor General. We just had another audit report in May of this year, and we are working on a new action plan to respond to the recommendations in that audit report with PCO and TBS.
Senator Patterson: Evaluation?
Ms. Smylie: In terms of evaluation, it is important to monitor the impacts of GBA Plus and the extent to which we are applying it. That was clear in the auditor’s report. We will have an action plan that responds to the recommendations.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for being here today.
My question follows from the comments about the Auditor General’s report. The Auditor General identified a number of issues. I would like to hear from you as to which of those you think are important; prioritize the issues her office has identified. Also, what is planned to deal with the issues that were identified? Please focus on that.
Ms. Ien: Thank you so much for the question. I will say disaggregated data, disaggregated data and disaggregated data. I come to this job, senator, as a former reporter, and I know the power of numbers. We can’t move forward unless we know what’s happening. The pandemic laid clear and put a very bright spotlight on who is getting left behind, what we weren’t doing and where we needed to do more.
So I don’t see a world in which we don’t have the hard numbers around whom exactly, in an interactional way, is being impacted. Some of that work happens, I like to say, in the street, and it does, because I’m very much grassroots. Our team is very much grassroots. That happens with talking to young people across Canada and understanding how they are impacted; breaking that down into Indigenous youth, racialized youth, youth with disabilities rural youth and women; and understanding what they need through the lens of GBA Plus and then from an interactional lens in terms of what that looks like.
The only path forward is to get that data and then continue building.
Senator Dasko: I have a couple more questions I’m going to throw on the floor here.
The Auditor General also identified the timing of the analysis — often they are done quite later in the process — as an issue and the lack of comprehensiveness across departments also related to lack of capacity. How are those being addressed?
I’m also going to throw in one more here: Can you share with members of Parliament and senators the government’s GBA analysis that is conducted?
Ms. Smylie: We know from the auditor’s report, as you pointed out, that the timing and the comprehensive aspect of GBA Plus are not up to where they need to be. So in June 2021, our department, Women and Gender Equality, put out a new suite of tools to make clear to folks where GBA Plus needs to start. It needs to start before people think about options for an initiative or the direction of an initiative. We put out a step-by-step guide that made that clear to departments.
But it carries through; it doesn’t stop once you have developed the initiative. You have to carry it through to the implementation, monitoring and, to the point of the previous question, evaluation.
With that guide, we also put out a compendium of tools — a tool for each of the factors that need to be considered when you do GBA Plus. That was to try to build capacity on that issue that you have pointed out and to consider a whole host of factors in an intersectional way.
So we are currently monitoring the extent to which GBA Plus is improving in things that come to cabinet. We are seeing an improvement as a result of those tools, but we know we still have more room to improve.
The Chair: Senator Dasko’s time is over. We hope we can get the rest of the questions answered.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. Broadly speaking, could GBA Plus be handled by a single entity like the Library of Parliament?
[English]
Ms. Ien: Could it be used by one central entity?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Yes, like the Library of Parliament, for instance.
[English]
Ms. Smylie: We are finding, and we have heard from experts, that GBA Plus is best done by those who are developing initiatives. If we put the role of doing GBA Plus in the hands of one entity that isn’t involved in developing those initiatives, then I don’t think we are going to have the maximum impact that GBA Plus could have.
Our approach has been that it is every department’s role to do GBA Plus in every aspect of decision making. That is not just developing programs and policies for the public, but also our internal decision-making such as our HR policies for the public service and our procurement practices.
I suppose it is always a possibility, though I’m suspect of the impact it might have — or lack of impact it might have — if only one person were responsible.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I have a second question. From what I understand, occasionally, when departments do GBA Plus, some of them keep the information; it isn’t private but it’s confidential. Would it be possible to open all the GBA Plus analyses and make them available to the public, even if it’s not in the context of a specific study? I’m talking about all GBA Plus analyses across all departments. Could these be released so that people can understand the project for which the GBA Plus was done?
[English]
Ms. Ien: You are talking about transparency, senator, and that is very important, I agree.
I also want to hearken back to the question before that Ms. Smylie was talking about and the importance of stakeholders with regard to GBA Plus, the programming and how it is put forward — how important it is to have those conversations with others outside of government, as well, to understand in a fulsome way what we need to do. That is why the Library of Parliament may not work as well, because it wouldn’t do that.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a question. We’ve had witnesses tell us that, from personal experience, living with a disability is a dimension that isn’t always covered by GBA Plus. Not only has our committee heard this in the context of the current study, but other committees have, as well, when studying legislation. We often hear that, in this grand conversation on equity, diversity and inclusion, we often forget people living with disabilities. We talk about GBA Plus, LGBTQ2S+ folks and racialized groups. How can we ensure that people living with disabilities aren’t entirely left out of this kind of analysis, while acknowledging that they form a heterogeneous and highly diverse group?
Ms. Ien: Thank you for the question, senator.
[English]
This is such an important conversation. My colleague Minister Qualtrough has just put forward Canada’s first-ever Disability Inclusion Action Plan. That has everything to do with GBA Plus, and it has everything to do with us working cross-cabinet to make sure that GBA Plus is front and centre — and it is.
I’m not sure I will reiterate it again, but these are the conversations we have had and continue to have across this country with stakeholders and beyond about how to do this right — how to be inclusive of persons with disabilities. And then there is that intersectionality: women with disabilities; those in the 2SLGBTQI community with disabilities; seniors with disabilities. There are so many different intersections here. You are absolutely right, senator. When we look at this through the lens of the pandemic in which we have learned so much, those are the groups — those with disabilities — who have suffered the most. Therefore, they are very much at the centre of this. It is why I included it in my opening remarks. This is the kind of disaggregated data we need more of to continue to centre these communities and to continue to work with all of my colleagues — but, of course, including Minister Qualtrough — to ensure that this work gets done.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you to your officials for being here today.
I was looking at your letter from the Prime Minister and what you and your department are ultimately responsible for prioritizing the development of a ten-year plan to end gender-based violence and continuing to lead the evaluation process of the GBA Plus. My question is this: Has there been a baseline established, so we know how far we have gone? Sometimes we hear this and this and this, but you don’t know where the starting point was. For those who are not involved as we are in government and who are trying to follow it, sometimes that becomes difficult. Are there easily measurable things that the public can see?
Ms. Ien: This is a great question. As Ms. Smylie pointed out, she has been here from the very beginning, and so we want to take you through that: 1995 to where we are now and the measured results. Again, senator, I will point out how disaggregated data matters in order to be included in those measured results.
Ms. Smylie: We’ve certainly made progress since 1995. GBA Plus is part of Memoranda to Cabinet, or MCs, and Treasury Board submissions. As of 2016 and 2018, it’s a mandatory aspect of the budgeting process. In terms of monitoring implementation and baselines, since 2016, as a result of the 2015 audit report, we have done an implementation survey. Our very first one was in 2016. The results are on our department’s website for folks to have a look at. We have repeated that survey four times since, and as part of the minister’s mandate to enhance the framing and parameters, we’re taking a look at those data to see how they can inform an enhanced framing of GBA Plus as well as how we can better monitor the implementation of GBA Plus going forward.
Another way we look at baselines is through our federal budget. In 2018, we released for the first time the GBA Plus of the budget. I want to point out a couple of metrics. In the budget GBA Plus, in 2022, most GBA Plus — 78% — were initiated early compared to 2019 when that number was 51%. Then if we take a look at the number of initiatives that actually responded to GBA Plus in Budget 2022, that number is 85%. I compare that to 2019, when it was 8%.
So we’re looking at baselines and we’re looking at monitoring those same metrics over time. I think that’s really important for measuring our progress and the impact of GBA Plus.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that very clear answer from both of you. That was very good.
I’m going to ask a question that looks at it from a totally different perspective. Our committee has been studying a suicide prevention framework, and we heard excellent testimony. We heard very moving testimony from one of our colleagues. The thing I brought out from it was that the suicide rate for men is astronomical and higher than for women. There are many reasons for that, which were given and which I studied further after listening to the testimony.
Would GBA Plus analysis look at the aspect of the suicide rate of men being so high and how we are going to find programs and policies that would work for that?
The Chair: Senator Cordy, your time is up. Hopefully, we can get an answer to that question from the officials.
Senator McPhedran: One year and almost a full day — how are you doing, minister?
Ms. Ien: I appreciate it. I had to be reminded that it was the one-year anniversary. One of my colleagues, who was sworn into cabinet a year ago, reminded me, and said, “Hey, it’s our anniversary,” and I went, “Oh yeah.”
Senator McPhedran: A busy time.
Ms. Ien: It’s been a busy time. Thank you so much.
Senator McPhedran: Let me embrace the question that was asked by Senator Cordy. It looked like you were ready to jump in. So please proceed.
Ms. Ien: Thank you so much for the opportunity.
One of the first meetings I had when I became minister was with an elder. At that time, she gave me sage advice. She said something very important: An eagle cannot fly with one wing. What she meant was that when we are looking at gender-based violence, or GBV, and when we’re looking at GBA Plus — when we’re looking at all these things — it can’t just be about women. It has to be about men and boys as well. An eagle cannot fly with one wing.
So yes, senator, there are programs being implemented. There are funds through Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, that have supported programs throughout this country that specifically deal with men and boys. When we’re talking about the suicide rate of men, it’s important to talk about them before they get there — when they are boys and adolescents.
We briefly talked about mental health. What I can tell you as the mom of a boy and a girl during the pandemic is that it was so hard on kids. I sit here in a privileged position. I can tell you that both of my children struggled, and I am able to get help for my children when they struggle. These are the kinds of things that don’t allow me to sleep at night when I know that others aren’t in the same position. So yes, men and boys are a big part of what we do, and I’m stressing the boys because it’s important to reach them before they get to that point. A lot of those things — and I am not a doctor, obviously — that impact the numbers we’re seeing happen earlier in life. Therefore, it really is about doing the work and supporting those that do the work sooner.
Senator McPhedran: I’m going to shift to a very blunt question.
Ms. Ien: You love to be blunt, senator. This is not a surprise.
Senator McPhedran: It picks up on the polite question from Senator Dasko about the reporting and the timing of that. Why does this government continue to keep secret the GBA Plus analysis that’s going into cabinet? When and how can we get that information sooner to be able to use it?
Ms. Ien: It’s a good question. As you pointed out, it’s one year and one day, so it means that there is more work to be done. It means that I need to continue the work that is ongoing with my cabinet colleagues and our government to push forward exactly what you are talking about.
Senator McPhedran: So we have your commitment?
Ms. Ien: Look at you. Look at you.
Senator McPhedran: Yes?
Ms. Ien: You have my commitment.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Minister, we understand those memoranda to cabinet are confidential, and if you are not able to share them with parliamentarians, could you, at least, consider sharing a summary of their findings?
Senator Pate: That is a perfect segue into what I was going to ask. Thank you very much, and thank you, again, Minister Ien, and officials for being here.
I want to talk about that very issue and how we actually get access to the information. We asked and received information at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for instance, about Bill C-5, which is currently before the Senate. When we asked for the Gender-based Analysis Plus, it included the reality that Indigenous women, in particular, were grossly overrepresented, but it fell short of the analysis component showing — it was aspirational in the hope that the bill would impact, but there was, in fact, no evidence that it would. There was a summary of the data but no analysis of the fact that the bill will not achieve that.
I am curious as to how you, as the champion — of course, it is not all on your shoulders — but how do we get that information out so that it is accurate and so we can accurately assess the analysis and the impact of legislation and policy?
Ms. Ien: Again, an excellent question.
Senator, we work in a partnership here, and so the role of the Privy Council Office and the role of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat comes into play here.
I have to tell you that I accept all of this committee’s recommendations. I look forward to learning from you as to what we can do moving forward, but I will say that this is very much a partnership.
Senator Pate: In terms of being able to access the information, is there a mechanism whereby you would encourage we seek out the analysis component?
Ms. Ien: That is information that I will take away and work on, and I’m happy to get back to you on that.
Thank you so much, senator.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. As you can see, we’re keen on that, so we will take you up on your undertaking to do whatever you can, as the champion and the leader, to share that information, both the data and the analysis, with us as we weigh in.
Senator Clement: Welcome to the witnesses. Thank you, Madam Minister, for referencing the Honourable Jean Augustine. Any meeting where her name is referenced promises to be interesting, so I appreciate that reference, particularly now.
I heard you reference the Treasury Board and the Privy Council and their roles. We know that departments — all of us — have come through a tough time over the last few years. There is more work than ever.
I would like to know what the government is doing to either compel or incentivize departments in terms of analyzing and collecting data. It can be seen as a burden, but it has to be done. How do we incentivize them? What are you doing about that?
Ms. Ien: Thank you so much.
The Deputy Minister is perfectly placed to answer.
Frances McRae, Deputy Minister, Women and Gender Equality Canada: Thank you, senator, for the question.
The minister referenced the partnership with the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and you will be aware that in the Auditor General’s report — in fact in continual reports from the Auditor General over the last number of years — that split of roles has been recognized, and we have worked on each of the audit responses with the central agencies.
The reason for that is that, of course, the central agencies — the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat — are the ones that have the levers within government working with other government departments in terms of setting the rules around how Memoranda to Cabinet are to be constructed, how Treasury Board submissions are to be constructed and what types of information are required, so ministers and cabinet can make good decisions.
When we talk a little bit about issues like transparency and summaries of material, I think there has been some progress made on transparency over the last number of years, and maybe I’ll let Ms. Smylie talk to those specifically. It is true that we do go back to departments and talk to them about the quality of their submissions.
The Chair: The department officials are here with us for another 45 minutes, so Ms. McRae, I apologize. Because we have the minister, I believe, for a nanosecond more —
Ms. Ien: Yes, a nanosecond more.
The Chair: — I think my colleagues have a few more questions of the minister.
Senator Clement, we will get back to a fulsome answer to your question.
Senator Patterson: Women and Gender Equality Canada did a 2021 GBA Plus implementation survey. I would like to ask if you could share information about the results and give us the disaggregated results of your implementation survey.
Ms. Ien: Of course, senator.
The breakdown, please.
Ms. Smylie: Let me very quickly say that when we do the implementation survey, we’re collecting from departments, and so we have data that’s disaggregated at a very high level. It’s not individual-level data that can be disaggregated, but let me share some of the findings from —
Senator Patterson: I’m wondering if they could they be tabled with the clerk?
Ms. Smylie: They would be published on the website.
Has it been on the website yet? Not this one? So we would be planning on publishing it.
Senator Patterson: If I may, quickly, your own ministry’s surveys, we have been told by witnesses, indicated that only 39% of departments were conducting GBA Plus at an early stage and only 60% of the time. I’m wondering if you are working to emphasize the importance of the timing of GBA Plus?
Secondly, the Auditor General said that this analysis should not just be applied to new policies but also to existing ones. Can you support conducting GBA Plus of older, existing policies?
Thank you.
Ms. Ien: Thank you so much, senator. There are a couple of questions rolled into one there.
Our response to the Auditor General’s report is forthcoming, and all of that will be in it.
Senator Patterson: What about the fact that most departments are not starting their analysis early enough?
Ms. Ien: Again, senator, as Ms. Smylie pointed out, we are working as the centre of expertise with all departments to get those numbers up.
You pointed out the 60% number, which is not where we want to be, but it shows some improvement year over year.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Minister, are you with us for a few more minutes? I can quickly see that there are people who would like to ask you more questions. I’m being respectful of your time.
Ms. Ien: I’m just checking with the keeper of my time, and apparently I have five more minutes, Madam Chair. I’m happy to be here for five more minutes.
The Chair: Let me ask a question, then, Minister Ien.
We look to you, we rely on you, based on what we have heard from civil society leaders and others, that, really, the championship and the leadership on this file rests on your shoulders. Can you tell us whether your department has established benchmarks in increasing the uptake of the work within departments so that they are involved in GBA Plus earlier, consistently through the process and post-evaluation? Setting a benchmark to increase the uptake.
Ms. Ien: I will start and then I will turn to Ms. Smylie, because the data is important for concrete numbers.
To your question, absolutely, yes. We are working with departments and across government in a fulsome way to make sure we are trending upward when it comes to GBA Plus and how it is applied. I will reiterate — and we have said this during our time here this morning and now into the afternoon — that this is a cross-government approach. While you rightly point out that we are the champions and leaders of this, the work is for all of us to do. The work rests on all of our laps.
Ms. Smylie: We have been paying attention to some metrics in terms of resources dedicated to GBA Plus. Let me give you a few highlights.
Between 2019 and 2020, we saw a 12% increase in terms of resources within departments that were dedicated to GBA Plus. We saw a 6% increase in GBA Plus Champions within departments. We saw a 9% increase in the number of departments that have GBA Plus implementation plans. We saw a 12% increase in just one year in the number of departments that have a formal GBA Plus policy.
Those are some of the things we’re paying attention to and championing with departments to make sure they have the infrastructure and support needed to do GBA Plus.
The Chair: Can you then also help us close the gap between what we heard from civil society members — and Senator Patterson tabled those figures — and your own figures? Is there a misunderstanding here? Are we measuring things differently? That would be helpful.
Colleagues, with that, I want to thank the minister for her generous time and for her generous and thoughtful responses to our questions.
Minister, you will see our study and hopefully respond to our recommendations sooner rather than later; and beyond responding, hopefully you will act on them.
Ms. Ien: Thank you so much.
The Chair: Welcome, again, to the department officials. Thank you so much for your participation in the study. It is hugely appreciated.
We will carry on with our questions to the two officials. We have heard from you already a bit.
Let me start with Senator Clement’s question, because I feel bad that I cut her off. Perhaps, Senator Clement, refresh our minds and rephrase the question.
Senator Clement: Ms. Smylie, you were starting to quote some percentages of increased uptake. My question is about how you incentivize or compel overworked departments having to do this crucial work. How do you support and incentivize them to actually do that, so you are getting more than just a 12% increase but a 25 or 30% increase?
Ms. Smylie: On the one hand, our department doesn’t necessarily have the levers to force people to do things. The central agencies have those levers. We certainly work closely with the central agencies to ensure they have the training and capacity to look at GBA Plus and to make sure folks are doing what they are mandated to do.
One way that we incentivize and promote the uptake of GBA Plus in our department is by convening people. We have a GBA Plus Champions network and focal point network for all departments. We work with those folks to ensure there is capacity in departments to do this work.
We do training for public servants. As part of that training, we remind folks that doing GBA Plus is just good public service. If we aren’t considering who is impacted by the issues we’re addressing through our initiatives and how they are impacted, and if we’re not tailoring our initiatives to meet the needs of diverse people in Canada, then what are we doing as public servants?
We incentivize them by understanding that this is just part of the fabric of public service. We equip them with guidance, tools and training to be able to provide that public service and to do GBA Plus as part of all decision making.
Ms. McRae: Perhaps I could add to the answer that Ms. Smylie gave.
The minister mentioned data. Data is, obviously, critical, but so is knowledge. Knowledge of the people who are affected by the issues, and their solutions, are also very important.
Part of the training is focused on ensuring that departments understand that as part of a good piece of policy work, regulatory work, program or service, they are obligated to talk with people and not simply look at numbers and data. They need to be speaking with people and getting out to talk to those affected.
Senator Petitclerc’s comment earlier about homogeneity is a really important issue. It is a very different situation when you are working with a person with a disability, for example, as we were saying. If you just take one dimension, rural and urban, all other things being equal — which, of course, they rarely are — the situation, the lived experience and the ability of those individuals to access proper government supports and to be benefiting from government policy is very different.
That’s a key piece of the work we ask departments to do. It is not just to follow the training but to apply the training, and that includes knowledge of lived experience.
Senator Clement: I find that these conversations are often awkward for people when you are trying to lean into talking to people’s lived experiences, so the option is often to avoid those conversations. That leads to homogenous responses and everybody feeling “I’m not comfortable asking.” Talking to Canadians and having Canadians feel comfortable around these issues is a whole other thing.
Does the training speak to that? A lot of people are doing a lot of emotional labour, and they don’t want to engage because they are tired of doing all the work and the talking.
So how are you training your people to get past that or to be respectful of that so that we are really getting at the right information but doing so respectfully?
Ms. McRae: Maybe I can start generally with the situation right now in the public service, and Ms. Smylie can go into the training.
You may be familiar with the fact that the Clerk of the Privy Council has put out a call to action on racism and discrimination in the public service, within our own institutions. Part of the work we all need to do as public servants is getting comfortable with having those kinds of conversations and being in those kinds of situations, really reflecting and learning.
The other piece that the public service is working very hard on is reconciliation. Again, that requires self-awareness, education and being in a position where we are being humble about what we know and what our own experience is relative to other people.
It is a journey; all Canadians are on this journey of self-awareness and understanding of the lived experiences and the lives of other people. I would leave it at that.
I will turn to Ms. Smylie specifically regarding the training and the question of comfort and engagement.
Ms. Smylie: There are two aspects to the training that we deliver that are relevant to the point you are making here. One of them is —
The Chair: Unfortunately, I have to be strict on time.
Senator McPhedran: I can pick up on this theme.
I may have missed it, but I didn’t hear the word “incentives” in your list. Of course, given your years of work in this, Ms. Smylie, it has been a recommendation for years and years. It is the carrot and stick, et cetera. We know that people change their behaviours when they are rewarded, and we know that senior managers are the ones who are the drivers for the kinds of systemic change we are looking for here.
Where are we in terms of genuine progress in terms of creating incentives and measurements among the management cadre of the government?
Ms. Smylie: In terms of incentives, the minister’s mandate letter has that commitment in terms of enhancing GBA Plus. One of the things we are doing as we support her in that mandate letter commitment is looking to international best practices. The U.K.’s Government Equalities Office, in order to incentivize some of what we are talking about — the analysis, mainstreaming gender — implemented a Behavioural Insights Team. We are looking to them as a best practice; we are paying attention to how that has worked in terms of their nudge approaches and behavioural insights so we can incorporate that into enhanced GBA.
Senator McPhedran: Are you anticipating legislation, regulations, Treasury Board guidelines or rules? Are you going to codify this in some way?
Ms. McRae: I think what the minister was talking about in response to the Auditor General’s report and successive reports is that more needs to be done. We can demonstrate that, over the years, a number of pieces of rules and policies have been put in place that make it difficult to get around a good Gender-based Analysis Plus but also demonstrate to people through examples the impacts that a good Gender-based Analysis Plus can have.
Senator McPhedran: So you’re tilting to “no” to the question.
Ms. McRae: I’m going to get to the answer to this. Progressively, though, we need to be looking at what is working and shifting people to better performance in this area. If it is not fast enough, if the government determines that things are not moving quickly enough, then it does have options.
Senator McPhedran: You are being questioned right now by an old feminist warhorse. This has been a long-time topic for me. I would suggest that if we are going to claim leadership, as we legitimately can from 20 years ago — I’m not quite so sure about today whether we can claim that leadership — but if we are going to continue to claim it, why are we waiting to see what others are doing? Why aren’t we leading and running our own pilots and maintaining the bold leadership we used to be known for?
Ms. McRae: As I said, senator, the work has been done progressively, and we have talked about gender-based budgeting introduced in 2018, for example. I do think the government has shown some resolve around moving this into requirements, legislation and transparency.
For the future, as the minister said, we have partners in government, like the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat, that we need to work with to be able to move departments and agencies. That’s what we do. I am hopeful that the response we have and are working on with the central agencies will address the Auditor General’s recommendations, including around how we move faster and more comprehensively.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.
My question is a followup to the questions that were asked by Senator Clement and somewhat by Senator McPhedran. We know there are certain populations where the data is lacking. Within the Indigenous community is one such place. You go to study something, and there is such a lack of data.
Also, our culturally diverse committees — someone mentioned earlier that we are sometimes nervous about asking the right questions. But when you are a minority, you tend to be afraid to be different, so you tend to give an answer that it is not wrong or false, but it is not giving the full picture.
How are you dealing with getting valid, in-depth data from such populations?
Ms. Smylie: When we think about data, often we think only of numbers and quantitative data, which are important. I’m a statistician; I understand and do believe in the power of quantitative data. But that is not all that data is. It is important to engage with people, to speak with people, to gather lived experience. In order to do that — just picking up on the previous couple of questions — we have to have diverse people around the table asking the questions and having the conversations.
GBA Plus is not done by me in a room or a single public servant. When we train people, we talk about the importance of having diverse teams doing GBA Plus so that they are bringing the lived experience to the table. And we are all checking in with our unconscious biases. We are all able to bring the cultural sensitivities and knowledge to the table when we talk to people as part of the GBA Plus process.
That’s some of the ways in which we do that work in GBA Plus.
Senator Cordy: Do you go into communities or do you invite communities to come to Ottawa or Halifax or wherever you happen to be?
Ms. Smylie: I can’t speak to how individual departments do it, but as part of our guidance to folks on GBA Plus, we have a set of questions that folks need to ask themselves as part of engagement. It is meeting people where they want to and where they need to be met. It doesn’t always mean bringing them in. It means going to them, but talking to them about what works for them, talking to them about how they want to be engaged, about what meaningful engagement looks like. Those are all part of the guidance we give to departments on GBA Plus.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being here and your answers. We have the data — and many have said sometimes it is not complete, it is not perfect — and we realize that. But when we have the analysis, the data, the results, and let’s say it is all good, how good are we in using these numbers — and not just numbers, this data, and translating into services and programs?
Do we know how good we are in making sure that it goes down properly into the services and programs? Do we have a process or a way to evaluate performance we are in making sure it goes to where it should go?
Ms. McRae: Maybe I’ll start to answer that question. I want to pick up on Senator’s Cordy’s comment. One of the issues we have around how we engage people, I think it is important to say that with the post-COVID environment and what we have learned, using hybrid being able to engage people online, even in face to face where they are at does allow many more opportunities for public servants to engage many more diverse communities than they perhaps would have been able to in the past. So I wanted to mention that.
On the question of how the knowledge is applied, this is where the implementation survey that we do comes in. That’s one area where people not only have to analyze but in their proposals have to demonstrate to ministers that they have taken into account that analysis. The analysis is not simply analysis for the sake of completing a template.
If you do identify in the analysis that you do have barriers for particular types of people and Canadians, you then are expected to demonstrate in your proposal that you have taken that into account in the way that you have designed.
Now, I think what the Auditor General also said in her report was that we can do better on pulling through the analysis into the assessment of implementation and results. And so we certainly take that recommendation seriously.
Ms. Smylie: In terms of some data and what we are looking at with respect to progress. If we look at subsequent federal budgets, when we take a look in 2019, only 8% of proposals used their GBA Plus to design tailor measures and make sure there were no barriers to access. That number went up to 15% in Budget 2021, and it now has at 85% in Budget 2022. It is not perfect, but you can see we are starting to make progress, so people are not just doing GBA Plus and leaving it to the side, but they are using the information to tailor initiatives.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a couple of questions of my own with the luxury of time to ask. I think these can be answered by either of you.
We have heard from a number of civil society organizations through our witness study. We have heard from the Canadian Women’s Foundation, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, and Elevate. What we have heard from them is they have their own expertise and their own depth in GBA Plus analysis. According to them, they are able to use the analysis and the data to inform their own institutional, decision-making capacity.
I wonder if WAGE makes any effort to gather together the government plus, civil society GBA Plus community to advance knowledge, understanding and wisdom in a more grounded sense than in the towers of government.
Ms. Smylie: Perhaps I’ll take this one. The short answer is yes. For example, in designing our tools and resources for GBA Plus, we worked with folks like Sarah Kaplan who helped us design some competencies for GBA Plus. We worked with the Canadian Women’s Foundation and DAWN, whom you have heard from, to design tools for GBA Plus. Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada are working with organizations like Pauktuutit and Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak to design GBA Plus materials. We do leverage that expertise. We rely on it. We welcome it.
We have folks come in from civil society to talk to our GBA Plus champion’s network and GBA Plus focal point network. We invite them, we work with them and do rely on that expertise. It is invaluable.
The Chair: Are these conversations happenstance or are they structured and institutionalized as something that the government does at least on an annual basis? We heard a lot about capacity and the lack of capacity to do GBA Plus. It has been stated to us again and again that a community of GBA Plus practitioners is a desirable one. I want to know if it is happenstance or do you put a structure and institutional framework around these communications?
Ms. Smylie: We have a quarterly champion’s meeting. We have monthly focal point meetings. We regularly bring in experts to those meetings. That’s as structured as I would say it gets.
We don’t have a set schedule by which we bring in experts, but we do have agendas well in advance and think about what the needs are of the community of practice that we have created.
The Chair: To what extent do you connect with the academic world, because after all, they develop much of the science, much of the expertise? To what extent are universities developing the science and teaching it to their students so that we can hire people who come equipped with the science and the methodology and the knowledge of GBA Plus analysis?
Ms. Smylie: I think the academics are best placed to talk about what they teach in their individual courses. I couldn’t speak to that.
The Chair: No, to what extent are you connected as potential employers?
Ms. Smylie: Absolutely. We do connect with academics. For example, last year we had three interns from Wilfred Laurier University. We brought them in, we had them do rotation through GBA Plus as part of their co-op. So trying to build GBA Plus capacity early in their careers.
I talked about connecting with Sarah Kaplan to identify competencies. We work with academics regularly to identify knowledge gaps and data gaps and to fill those gaps. We are regularly in contact, and the relationship is mutually beneficial. We train their students and they help build our expertise as well.
Ms. McRae: In addition, we talked about the accountability for GBA Plus analysis and assessment being done within the responsible organization. Those organizations do engage with academics in the work that they do. I know, for example, that you had the Diversity Institute here as a witness. When I was in a previous government department, we worked closely with the Diversity Institute around women entrepreneurs with extremely heavy emphasis on intersectionality and on analysis, data and knowledge sharing.
While we, as the department, engage academics, it is part of both the training and the expectation that departments and agencies responsible for these policies are engaging not only with subject-matter academics in whatever initiative they are running but also with those who know who are affected by those policies and programs.
Senator Pate: In addition to a GBA Plus analysis, there are supposed to be Charter analyses the intersection of which, typically when we are talking about section 15, is hugely significant.
My experience over the last 30 or 40 years — not as long-standing as Senator McPhedran’s — has been that more and more of the summaries like the one we got for Bill C-5, from the Department of Justice, are rationales for allowing the government to do what it wants to do versus analyses of the intersectional impact that legislation, or policy will have, as well as whether it is actually promoting the Charter — not whether it will withstand the 5% rate of challenge to the Charter. I’m curious as to how we can get to that stage — that is, where departments are actually doing a thorough, accurate analysis of the interactional impact, the impact in terms of Charter rights and then providing that information to parliamentarians to improve legislation and policy — and not leave it so that it has to be challenged in the courts or by civil society.
Ms. McRae: Thank you for the question around how we come at GBA Plus analysis as public servants. I think that what you are mentioning there goes back to something that we talked about earlier, namely, not having our biases interfere with how we do our analysis. The idea is that we shouldn’t be coming up with an idea and then figuring out how to get that idea and that policy through as opposed to understanding what is required and then designing the policy or the program around that. This is something the Auditor General talks about in her report. For us, it is really a question of that front-end analysis and thinking as opposed to the assessment after people already have an idea in their mind about what they want to do.
I feel confident that, as we think about what we want public servants to be doing for Canada; and as we draw on their values and ethics around justice and serving all Canadians, part of our training and our insistence is that they will be looking at these issues at the beginning, not once they have decided that something needs to be done.
Senator Dasko: Off the top, can you mention some success stories in terms of GBA analysis that would actually involve intersectionality? Is there a case study or a couple of case studies that you might hold up as models for other departments to take a look at and say, “Here is a great analysis that was well done and had an impact on policy and outcomes”? It would be great to hear this briefly.
Ms. Smylie: When I’m doing GBA Plus training, I use one of the recent examples during COVID-19 and the emergency response. It does create an “aha moment” for folks. They understand what I’m talking about.
I point to the student grants, the emergency funding that was provided to students in COVID-19. The GBA Plus of that recognized that, yes, students were impacted by COVID-19. They lost jobs and sources of income. Instead of creating a one-size-fits-all approach for all students, the measure was tailored to students with dependents, to Indigenous students and to students with disabilities, recognizing the unique experiences and circumstances of each of those groups. I use that as an example that everybody can understand at a foundational level.
Ms. McRae: I have an example. We were talking about this earlier with Senator McPhedran.
When I was in a previous organization, I was responsible for developing the women’s entrepreneurship program. The interesting part of that work is that people would say women entrepreneurs are women entrepreneurs, but we quickly determined — and it was really through talking to the community and to people like the academics at the Diversity Institute — that a women entrepreneur who is located in Halifax and who may be Black is different and has different barriers than a woman entrepreneur who may be on reserve; or a woman entrepreneur who may be in the North. They have different challenges to a woman entrepreneur whose first language is not the official language in the province they are located in, for example. I could go on and on.
We specifically designed that program so that the ideas for what we would fund through the program work were to come from the community. We specifically said we wanted to hear from women entrepreneurs with disabilities to understand what specific barriers they were facing for which they would have a solution.
That entire program was designed to have those experiencing barriers identify those barriers, identify the solutions to those barriers and then lead in the response to the solutions through a proposal that we would fund.
It is always eye opening that when people hear “woman entrepreneur,” they think that is just one group of people. But it is not just one group of people. That’s one of my top examples.
The Chair: Thank you so much for that question. It is good to get good news as well. I have a final question, but it is not as profound as Senator Dasko’s. My question is about the natural relationship between what you do and the work of the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat because race is a big part of GBA Plus. I think you can see which way my bias is going.
How do the two departments work together? Can you give us another success story coming out of that relationship?
Ms. McRae: I’m going to turn to Ms. Smylie on specifics around our relationship with the secretariat.
I will tell you that I have been having good discussions at the deputy minister level with my counterparts within Canadian Heritage to talk particularly about the anti-racism strategies and how we can work together.
We believe that GBA, Gender-based Analysis Plus — whether it’s called that or something else — is fundamentally about equity, fairness and inclusion. It is likely — and proper — that with different initiatives, different parts of intersectionality have more emphasis than others.
You made the comment earlier and we have heard from some of your witnesses around the question of gender and the centrality of gender in the gender-based analysis tool and whether that’s appropriate. We are listening carefully to stakeholders, and we welcome the committee’s recommendations on that.
We firmly believe — and this is in the minister’s mandate letter — that the GBA Plus tool connects other issues. If I read from the minister’s mandate letter, it says that we need to enhance:
. . . the framing and parameters of this analytical tool and with particular attention to the intersectional analysis of race, indigeneity, rurality, disability and sexual identity, among other characteristics.
Specific ministers are named in this mandate letter whom Minister Ien is to be working with. Once ministers are named to be part of the solution, we, as organizations, work closely with those departments and agencies that serve those ministers.
The Chair: Colleagues, I promise this is my final question. We’re conducting another study in the Human Rights Committee on Islamophobia. It has come as a shock to me and to many of my colleagues that the level of Islamophobia in this country is higher than in any other country in the world.
I want to know whether that aspect — it’s not just race and gender; it’s now religion — is covered and to what extent, or not at all. Should it be, given the expression of Islamophobia in terms of restricting opportunities, especially for employment?
Ms. Smylie: I talked about the tools we put out in June 2021, the step-by-step guide and compendium of tools on each of the factors to consider. We worked with the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat at Canadian Heritage, among other departments, to develop that set of tools. In particular, the Anti-Racism Secretariat helped us develop the tool with respect to race, racialization and religion as part of GBA Plus.
The way the tools are designed is that they have a set of questions that people should be asking themselves. If you are considering religion, race and racialization as part of GBA Plus, what are you asking yourself? What kinds of questions do you need answers to? How do you do that analysis? We also provide sources of data with respect to some of those issues.
Ideally, it is considered. It’s in our guidance. Those are factors that are part of GBA Plus, and we have a set of tools to help people do that fulsome analysis and consider those factors.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We really appreciate your time, expertise and wisdom in helping us close our information gaps in this study. I’m sure you look forward to our report. Again, your assistance is greatly appreciated.
(The committee continued in camera.)