Absolutely. I can tell you that, first of all, the kinds of conversations we're having, in general, about gender-based analysis are far deeper. That's because ministers are, for sure, coming much more prepared, because their department is doing so much more thorough a job. Not only are they being held to account for their work but they're actually asking questions about each other's work, which to me is phenomenal, because now I'm not the only one speaking up.
The true indication of the beginning of a culture shift is that the spokesperson for women is not the only person speaking for women, and you start to hear other people saying, “Wait a minute. That doesn't seem like a very thorough GBA. How would that affect this group or that group?”
Also, because of the “plus” component, there is an openness to talking about the aspects of other vulnerable populations, whether it be culture, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever. For me that's very affirming on the large scale.
Certainly, GBA of the federal social infrastructure strategy has resulted in the identification of the need for a greater investment in shelters and transition houses, as well as talking about affordable housing and the impact it will have on women, who are disproportionately heads of single-parent families and households, and their children.
Those kinds of conversations indicate to me that people are starting to understand that this has impact no matter what their portfolio is.
We are using GBA in the analysis of large-scale procurement projects so that we consider the workforce makeup of the industry and ways to ensure that more of these people benefit—