Status of Women Committee on May 5th, 2016

[Neil Bouwer]

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I was speaking about our internal process. Within the department we play a challenge function and we return proposals. I'm not aware of any cases where a central agency has asked us to redo or reconsider our GBA.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That's good to know.

And how about you?

[Mitch Davies]

It's within the department. It's incumbent upon us to do this work within our organizations. Our deputies operate under the policy and should make sure it's done. There are certainly circumstances where proposals will come forward, and the first assessment of whether a full GBA analysis needs to be done might well be no, and we, in my group, may well have a different view and send it back to be done.

I actually saw one three weeks ago when I asked for exactly that to be done. I can't say what the proposal is because it's something in the midst of policy development, but, yes, it happens. In other words, is it serious? Is it taken seriously? Are we acting on it? The answer is yes.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Is there that accountability at the Treasury Board cabinet and budget-making proposals that if your departments don't do their work, then you get your proposals returned to you to perfect the application?

[Mitch Davies]

Well, I would say more importantly it's actually happening before it ever gets to go to the cabinet table or the Treasury Board committee, because it's incumbent upon departments to see that it's done. Then we're essentially giving accounting to the central agencies that it's been taken care of, but it's really our job to do it and to do it properly.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Have you got examples of times when your department did not complete a GBA test internally and you then found that your program did not actually reach the people that you hoped or had unintended consequences?

[Neil Bouwer]

I can start and just say that I'm not aware of any cases where we sort of regretted not having done a GBA and sort of caught ourselves. I certainly can't recall that being the case. What I can tell you is there have been cases where we have done a GBA and have found it very enlightening. There's one case in particular where it did impact the program design of an initiative that was going forward in a very tangible way.

[Mitch Davies]

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.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

We're looking for inspiration here. Can you think of particular programs that you're really proud of where the outcome was changed by virtue of running this assessment, something that anybody outside of government might be able to relate to or understand?

[Mitch Davies]

Repetition is the art of pedagogy, so I would restate that I think the best example for us was the science and technology innovation strategy renewal where the gender-based analysis that supported it actually identified and provided the evidence in terms of participation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

We made it a goal and then we actually went on to fund programming to try to work on closing that gap in terms of the participation of women in those high-tech fields, the economy of the future type fields. For us, that is very important, and one of our core policy directives is this kind of initiative.

[Neil Bouwer]

I would answer more generally, Madam Chair, just to say that in areas where our department engages with indigenous groups and some remote communities, we find a gender lens to be very helpful in making sure that we have a broad spectrum of engagement opportunities to make sure that we hear from all parts of different communities. While I don't have a specific that I can share with you, I would say that in general that is one helpful area in which to consider GBA+ lens.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Finally, for the Auditor General, any observations?

The description from these departments sounds very robust, yet the assessment really was a failing grade with both your 2009 and 2015 studies.

Any observations, generally, on where we are and what we might recommend that would improve outcomes?

[Nancy Cheng]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We're going to go to Anita Vandenbeld, who is sharing her time with Mr. Sheehan.

Let's start with Mr. Sheehan.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

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.

[Mitch Davies]

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.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

I represent an area that's called Sault Ste. Marie. It's up in northern Ontario, and we do have a lot of indigenous residents throughout that area. Through the pay equity committee we've been talking about how that group and other groups, such as newcomers, are even more under-represented. They make even 30% less than most folks, and stuff like that.

What is ISED doing to really work particularly with those two groups, with indigenous groups, identifying them and trying to help them as well with GBA, and also with newcomers?

[Mitch Davies]

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 Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent, and that's your time.

We're over to Ms. Harder for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Studying GBA is certainly interesting to me. I support doing GBA.

I think perhaps, Mr. Bouwer, you are someone who could answer this for me, given the department you represent. It's one of the fundamental questions that I have in all of this. I'm wondering, is it always a bad thing to have gender inequality within a workforce?

[Neil Bouwer]

That's an interesting question.

I mentioned labour market availability to begin with, and certainly one benchmark that we look at is labour market availability. So when we look at our own workforce or consider issues you have to be realistic about the starting point and about the realities of the labour markets that you're dealing with. Certainly, as I said, there are long-standing differences in the participation of men and women in natural resource sectors.

I think from an analytical point of view those are the facts, and we look to improve the gender equity as a matter of public policy, and in that sense it's a good thing to have greater parity.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Interesting.

I'll go to Mr. Davies now. I just want a point of clarification here.

Earlier you made reference to some awards that were given out, and you said there was one round where they were all given out to men, so this caused some further thought and consideration, and then in the next round there were some women included. I'm just wondering, then, was that because the criteria changed, or was that because there were women who now met that original criteria?

[Mitch Davies]

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.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I think that's a really helpful distinction, so thank you very much for that.

My next question would be for Mr. Bouwer again.

I'm wondering if you can tell me how the specific sex-disaggregated data that you have access to has affected your policy-making within the department? As well, I'd like you to draw on a specific example for me.

[Neil Bouwer]

The level of data and the quality of data varies by policy area. We seek to use the best data available depending on the area.

In terms of a specific example for you, I'm not equipped to be specific about the data on any one given example today. I recognize that it might make it more tangible for you, but I'm not equipped to do that today.