Guidance: Gender-based Analysis Plus in Impact Assessment
This guidance is intended to provide guiding principles and tools to practitioners, proponents and participants so they can successfully apply Gender-based Analysis Plus to impact assessment. GBA+ provides a framework to describe the full scope of potential positive and negative effects under the Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69). This document provides best practices and examples of the application of GBA+ to impact assessment.
GBA+ is an analytical framework that guides practitioners, proponents and participants on how to ask vulnerable population groups those important questions (see Annex 1 for key terms). Now seen as a best practice in many disciplines, GBA+ leads to more rigorous analyses (Johnson and Beaudet, 2013; Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), 2014; Johnson, Greaves and Repta, 2009). GBA+ recognizes that historical and current power structures (e.g., laws, policies, governments and other institutions) have shaped society and created inequalities. Designated projects and the positive and negative impacts they may cause are layered on top of this structure. Recognizing this context is important to understand why impacts may be different for diverse groups of people and how projects have the potential to both reinforce and transform existing inequalities and unequal power relations in communities.
Many environmental and impact assessment practitioners already apply this type of analysis in their work, and individuals and community members often raise gender and diversity issues in public participation or consultation settings. Practitioners familiar with social impact assessment — and in some cases, health impact assessment or projects in international settings — already apply GBA+ to their work (Rio Tinto, 2009; Vanclay et al., 2015; Hill, Madden & Collins, 2017). However, GBA+ will be formally required through the Impact Assessment Act under paragraph 22 (1)(s).
2. Why conduct Gender-based Analysis Plus in Impact Assessment?
Here are some advantages:
- Better public participation: The application of GBA+ to impact assessment seeks to understand, describe and, where possible, mitigate adverse impacts on diverse populations. It is a driver for more meaningful and comprehensive feedback through public discussion. It is required to stimulate the type of information exchange needed for the assessment. Effective interaction includes considerations of who is “at the table” and works to remove barriers for those not “at the table” in an effort to fully represent community members. GBA+ should be community driven, with an emphasis on including diverse perspectives.
- Better science: The application of GBA+ leads to a more complete and rigorous assessment of the project’s potential positive and negative impacts on diverse community members.
- Better evidence: The application of GBA+ to impact assessment will provide additional relevant evidence to support decision-making on whether the designated project has positive or adverse impacts or both.
GBA+ is an analytical tool — a way of thinking, as opposed to a specific set of prescribed methods. For example, in quantitative statistical analysis, specific methods help analysts to understand relationships between variables. In GBA+, the methods and tools used to understand an issue like underemployment among women in a specific community may include use of descriptive statistics (e.g., percentage of women underemployed, disaggregated by age, ability, ethnic origin or other relevant factors), interviews (e.g., to contextualize statistics and understand why women or particular subgroups of women are underemployed), and community forums (e.g., to discuss findings and propose solutions). The appropriate methods will depend on the community and project context. Proponents and individuals responsible for assessing impacts should provide a rationale for methodologies applied, including reference to relevant literature, best practices and input from communities.
GBA+ provides a framework and a set of analytical questions to guide an impact assessment and to determine if there are different impacts for subsets of the population. GBA+ should be integrated into all aspects of the assessment including those led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (Agency) and those led by the proponent: early planning, impact statement, impact assessment, decision making, follow-up, compliance and enforcement.
We know that projects do not impact all people in the same way. Canadian research demonstrates that designated projects impact women, Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups differently (Goldenberg et al., 2010; Nightingale, Tester & Aaruaq 2017; Cox & Mills, 2015; Windsor & McVey, 2005; O’Faircheallaigh, 2013). It is standard practice in impact assessment to consider effects on groups that are more vulnerable to a project’s adverse impacts. This can include populations close to the project site, young or elderly populations or employees of the project. GBA+ can help engage communities in identifying and interpreting impacts and collaboratively developing mitigation measures. GBA+ prompts practitioners to challenge assumptions and ask why a particular disparity exists. This is particularly relevant to impact assessment because the “why” allows proponents, federal authorities and individuals involved in impact assessment to identify evidence-based, targeted and appropriate mitigation measures. For example, the impact assessment may identify that there are few women working at similar projects in the area. Asking “why” in this case may identify structural barriers like lack of skills development or education opportunities for women, limited awareness of benefits of employment diversity among project proponents, or other barriers such as lack of childcare, challenges with rotating work schedules, lack of affordable and safe transportation, or unequal gendered power dynamics in communities that limit women’s opportunities. Each of these issues suggests a different mitigation approach to address this potential impact for women.
Considering a wide range of different backgrounds, identity factors and experiences can strengthen the analysis of potential impacts of a project. It is within these considerations that particular strengths emerge. For example, Indigenous youth and elders (intersections of age, culture, ethnicity, geography) contribute important knowledge about changes to the environment that may be unique based on their age, relationship with the land, knowledge and relative position in their communities. By thinking about people across a range of identity factors, the impact assessment process can deliberately seek out the views of a diverse range of potentially impacted people and better understand how those people might be affected by a project.
Practitioners and proponents have established expertise in impact assessment. Existing guidance on health impact assessment, social impact assessment and human health risk assessment continue to be relevant to the thorough assessment of a designated project. GBA+ is an analytical lens that should be used within these standardized methods; it is not a prescribed method in and of itself. For many proponents and practitioners the addition of GBA+ to the impact assessment of a designated project is not new; for others, GBA+ refines existing analyses or works to establish links across environmental, social, health and economic impacts to illustrate diversity. The goal of GBA+ is to identify the broad positive and negative effects of a designated project or development within a region for diverse population groups.
3.1 Gender-based Analysis Plus - laying the foundation to begin an assessment
Early Planning is the first stage in the impact assessment process. However, many proponents and practitioners are engaged in project planning activities with communities prior to the start of Early Planning. The Agency will support proponents in the Early Planning phase. The Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines will outline the scope of factors listed under subsection 22(2) that need to be considered in the impact assessment. An impact assessment must consider all factors listed under subsection 22(1), but the scope of certain factors may depend on the specific designated project. The Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines will provide project-specific expectations and will clearly link the GBA+ to the assessment of potential project effects (e.g., health, social, economic).
Project Example - Voisey’s Bay Nickel Mine
Owned by Vale, Voisey’s Bay is a nickel mine on the north coast of Labrador. It was approved in 1999 following a Joint Review Panel (JRP).
The JRP was somewhat unusual in its composition. It included an Inuk member, a well-known feminist social justice advocate, and an expert in social impact assessment in northern Indigenous communities. As a result, the JRP’s work at Voisey’s Bay was “the first time gender [was] formally incorporated into the world of environmental assessment” (Archibald and Crnkovich, 1999, p. 23).
For example, in the environmental impact statement (EIS) guidelines, the JRP required the proponent to provide all data disaggregated by age, gender, Indigenous status and community. It also requested an explanation of how the proponent used research to identify project impacts on women. The JRP held separate technical hearings focused on women’s issues. Numerous women and women’s organizations delivered submissions and presentations. These submissions raised concerns about the mine’s likely impacts on crime, substance abuse, gender-based violence, and access to country foods. Finally, in its report, the JRP made three recommendations related to women. The province ultimately adopted one recommendation, requiring proponents to develop a women’s employment plan as a condition for mine approval. Requiring women’s employment or diversity employment plans is now common practice for project approval in Newfoundland and Labrador (Manning et al., 2018).
Where to start
The following section includes some key points that describe how to start GBA+ during the Early Planning phase of an assessment of a designated project.
1. Understand GBA+ (see Annex 1): Gender-based analysis plus is about people, what makes them diverse and how designated projects impact people differently. Identities matter — how people identify themselves and how they are identified by others affects their experience of the world. In some cases, someone’s identity can influence their power and resources in society, and whether they experience discrimination. The terms sex and gender mean different things but may also be related to each other. Understanding the distinctions helps provide clarity and allows for precision in measurement and communication when describing impacts (Clayton and Tannenbaum, 2016). For example, “sex” should be used when describing a physiological difference in exposure, metabolism or effect of a chemical or toxin in a male or female body. Gender should be used when referring to a social impact that affects men and women or gender non-binary people differently, such as caregiving, expectations of gender-specific roles and relative power to influence decision-making.
2. Know the impacted community: Understanding the history of the potentially impacted community helps to understand the current context. Social processes and power structures that create strengths, resilience and inequalities in communities affect people differently. Community experiences with systemic racism, sexism and colonialism are important to recognize and understand when considering potential project impacts. This knowledge is critical to understanding why some people (and groups of people) are better positioned to benefit from designated projects or why impacts might be different for some subgroups in a particular community. For First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities it is essential to understand the pre-colonial history of communities and the impacts of colonialism. The historical and social context within a community are critical to understanding the issues that are important in that setting, and how these issues should be measured, understood, and reported.
3. Early, meaningful engagement and consultation: Engage in early, meaningful and ongoing community consultation that deliberately seeks out participation from diverse groups within the community. Community engagement and consultation will support an understanding of the social and historical context of the community. Ensuring broad participation and asking “who is at the table and who is missing?” helps practitioners develop relationships within the community to support accurate scoping of potential issues of importance to communities within the impact assessment. Asking critical questions about who is represented can expose existing power inequities that limit participation by some individuals or groups. For example, analysts may require separate consultation sessions for some community members to create a safe space where they can raise their concerns. The Impact Assessment Act emphasizes early, meaningful engagement and broad-based consultation and is not exclusive to GBA+ but part of the assessment as whole.
4. Establish a baseline: To accurately assess project impacts over the short and longer term, analysts need an accurate baseline of the community. Without an accurate baseline, it is difficult to determine whether negative and positive effects are associated with the project or other issues. Baseline information for the community should include qualitative and quantitative data that describes a detailed socioeconomic profile including data disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity and any other community-relevant identity factors. Where possible, information from government statistics, non-governmental organization reports, academic sources or community consultations can be used to describe community context (including history) and existing gender issues in the community (e.g., gender-based violence, gender division of labour, gender roles, responsibilities, who makes decisions/controls resources). Establishing an accurate baseline community profile will mean recognizing and valuing diverse forms of data and knowledge including Indigenous and community knowledge. Detailed guidance on Indigenous knowledge within the impact assessment process is forthcoming. The appendix provides information on existing statistical data sources to support baseline information.
5. Assessment of effects: Steps 1-4 provide the foundation for the assessment of potential project effects. Meaningful engagement, understanding community context and issues and a thorough and accurate baseline allow for a comprehensive effects analysis. Throughout the preparation of the Impact Statement, the proponent and practitioners will be guided by the project-specific Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines which will outline expectations for the Impact Statement including the application of GBA+ throughout the effects analysis.
3.2 Best practices
- Multiple sources of information may be needed, including qualitative and quantitative data. Methods should remain flexible and responsive to communities. For example, input from community members may support determining how a particular effect is measured. Oral histories, storytelling or song may be the most effective ways to describe the impact on Indigenous communities.
- Identification of outcomes and measurement methods that reflect local knowledge are important to the community. For example, how are outcomes defined in that particular community? How does the community interpret social, economic, health and environmental effects? How is Indigenous knowledge valued and recognized in the assessment process?
- Analysis should move beyond the descriptive (e.g., percentage of low-income people) to ask critical questions about social roles, relationships, relative power in communities and intersections among these factors that create disparities. For example, the analyst could ask if there are limited employment or education opportunities among subsets of the population, or if there are historical or contextual issues that have limited access to opportunities. Statistics need to be situated within the broader community context in order to be meaningful.
- Use best available evidence where data are missing or limited. Proponents, practitioners and individuals involved in impact assessment may need to collect primary data.
Projects can have positive or adverse health, social or economic effects.
Enhancement and mitigation measures can help address these effects. For example:
- Workplace wellness programs can support meeting the different health needs of diverse subgroups of employees.
- Jurisdictions could examine what health services are offered in the region and whether they address the needs of diverse populations.
- Transient, male-dominated workforces can have adverse social impacts in communities. Workplace education and sensitivity training and strict enforcement of alcohol and drug policies may be required.
- Housing costs — the proponent could ensure adequate housing is built for its workers in order to reduce the burden on local housing stock.
- As with all data collection, analysis or reporting, proponents, practitioners and individuals involved in impact assessment should be aware of ethics protocols for dealing with primary data, protocols for collection and reporting of data within Indigenous communities (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2014; First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2013) and confidentiality guidelines for disaggregated data from small or unique populations (Statistics Canada, 2011).
- Use an interdisciplinary approach; engage individuals with varying perspectives to enhance understanding of complex issues.
- Be aware of unintended consequences:
- For example, economic benefits for community businesses from project workers may also increase risk to safety caused by increased vehicle traffic in the community. This safety risk may affect specific subgroups of the community such as children or seniors.
- Workplace health services for project workers are a positive way to support worker health and well-being, but they have unintended consequences if they draw health professionals away from community services, thus limiting or reducing personnel available to community members.
Examples: What difference does GBA+ make?
|Without GBA+||With GBA+|
The mine will aim to recruit workers from surrounding communities (Target: 60% of workforce)
Extensive community consultation revealed that unemployment is a particular issue for young men and Indigenous women. Consultations addressed employment and education opportunities in the community and culturally specific needs. As a result, the proponent will seek community input to help develop targeted hiring and skills training goals for these two underrepresented groups. Workplace policies will also focus on such additional concerns as the need for flexible work schedules to accommodate cultural needs and for cultural sensitivity training.
Concerns related to housing cost and availability will be addressed by building temporary housing at the worksite.
Separate consultations with local Indigenous women’s groups were held and a detailed history of impacts of transient populations, including colonial legacies, was prepared and discussed. Within this context, Indigenous women highlighted specific impacts: safety concerns, demand on local community resources (e.g., policing, health and social services), appropriate employment opportunities for Indigenous women at project site (e.g., separate housing), the need for cultural competency training and enforceable safety rules at project site.
It was determined that the contaminant of potential concern did not have a significant impact on the local community.
Were different thresholds by sex considered? Is it possible that the contaminant will have different physiological impacts in males and females? How do we know? Was the contaminant present in air, soil or water? Is it possible that some community members may be more impacted, such as people who eat country foods, children, the elderly, pregnant or breastfeeding women?
4. Gender-based Analysis Plus in decision-making
The impact assessment report will outline the positive and negative effects of the project as required under subsection 22(1) of the Impact Assessment Act. The Minister or Governor in Council must decide whether a project’s adverse effects that are within federal jurisdiction, and adverse effects that are directly linked or incidental to other federal decisions that would allow the project to be carried out, are in the public interest – taking into account the extent to which those effects are significant.
It is anticipated that the application of GBA+ to the impact assessment process will allow for a more detailed and specific description of positive and adverse effects and enhancement and mitigation options. For example, if a project is expected to have a positive economic effect in the neighbouring community, the application of GBA+ will provide specific details about who will benefit, who may be adversely affected and whether specific mitigation is warranted.
The application of GBA+ is expected to encourage refinement of the initial analyses of social, economic or health effects to enhance understanding and improve mitigation efforts. For example, if the impact assessment described a negative effect to country food harvesting, the GBA+ may refine our understanding of this effect by highlighting that the specific country food was primarily harvested by women or that part of the harvesting process (e.g, preparing meat, fur) was completed primarily by women.
This process of refining reveals a unique impact on women in terms of cultural practice, loss of income if the food source is sold or if materials are used for crafts, and possibly in terms of health, through the loss of this nutritionally dense traditional food source. This very thorough description will allow for more obvious links to targeted mitigation measures such as changes to the project footprint to protect the source of this country food or monitoring programs to ensure predicted effects are accurate. The application of GBA+ did not propel this effect on country foods into consideration, but it allowed for a more detailed analysis of who was impacted and possible mitigation measures.
The Minister or Governor in Council’s public interest decision would be based on the impact assessment report and a consideration of:
- the designated project’s contribution to sustainability;
- the extent to which the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or that result from federal decision are significant;
- mitigation measures;
- the impact the designated project may have on any affected Indigenous groups and any adverse impact that the designated project may have on the rights of Indigenous peoples; and
- the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change.
These considerations could be disaggregated by the application of GBA+ to describe which specific subgroups may be most impacted. For example, the impacts on Indigenous peoples’ rights could be different for elders, young people or women. Once the public interest decision is made, the Minister issues a decision statement with conditions which may contain mitigation measures to address adverse effects, including those highlighted by the GBA+, that are within federal jurisdiction or that are directly related or incidental to a federal decision that would allow the project to be carried out.
Other effects described in the impact assessment report that are outside federal jurisdiction may be jointly addressed by provincial, territorial or Indigenous jurisdictional partners or voluntarily by proponents. Federally, the government could apply complementary measures, such as federal programs, to the project area to support mitigating impacts that are outside federal jurisdiction. The federal government, if needed, could work collaboratively with Indigenous, provincial and territorial governments to appropriately target federal programs (e.g., skills development programs; Indigenous wellness programs, health promotion programs).
4.1 Gender-based Analysis Plus in follow-up programs
Follow-up, monitoring, compliance and enforcement are distinct processes during the impact assessment and are subject to varying legislative requirements. In some cases, mitigation measures or follow-up plans related to GBA+ are implemented voluntarily as part of good practice prior to the start of a project or as part of project plans. For example, proponents may commit to developing employment equity hiring plans and reporting back on progress implementing these plans. Follow-up programs verify the accuracy of the impact assessment and the effectiveness of any mitigation measures.
Follow-up program requirements are implemented by the proponent. Other partners may also have specific requirements based on their jurisdiction and may have a role reviewing and analyzing the results of a follow-up program required through the IA Act.
GBA+ in monitoring and follow-up
Red Mountain Gold Mine, British Columbia (Approved 2019)
- Proponent commits to using a GBA+ to assess outcomes included in the project’s social and economic monitoring plan.
- Lack of childcare in the community cited as a barrier to local employment; proponent commits to support childcare programs if necessary.
The Agency lead on compliance and enforcement and focus on promoting, monitoring and facilitating compliance with conditions set out in decision statements. Any adverse effects within federal jurisdiction, including any effects highlighted by the GBA+ that have associated conditions, would be monitored through this mechanism.
Overall, the goal of GBA+ is to understand how a project might affect diverse groups of people differently and identify ways to address these impacts to ensure a more equitable distribution of the benefits where possible. This goal will guide the assessment of the GBA+ aspects of the Impact Statement.
The addition of GBA+ will not change the basic review processes that Agency staff and federal authorities conduct once they receive the proponent’s Impact Statement. Agency staff will assess the Impact Statement for conformity with the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and conduct a technical review to assess the quality of the impact statement. The TISG, issued at the end of Early Planning, will provide project-specific guidelines to the proponent. GBA+ will be integrated throughout the TISG such that the analysis of effects (e.g., environmental, health, social, economic) will include an analysis of disproportionate effects on diverse or potentially vulnerable subgroups where applicable.
As described in section 3, the basic steps to applying GBA+ include gathering appropriate data, understanding context, and asking analytical questions to determine whether the project is expected to have disproportionate effects on diverse or potentially vulnerable subgroups. Agency staff will look for some key indicators that the GBA+ was integrated throughout the Impact Statement and that the analysis was thorough and complete (see Table 1). Note that not all expectations will necessarily be required for each project. The depth and extent of analysis will vary according to project-specific circumstances, including the potential issues associated with each project.Overall expectations that apply to the Impact Statement as a whole, such as clearly reporting on methods and data used, and transparently reporting data gaps, assumptions and rationale for methodological approach, also apply to the GBA+ aspects of the report.
|Meets Expectations||Insufficient Analysis|
|Integration of GBA+||
GBA+ is clearly and fully part of the overall analysis. Findings are described throughout the Impact Statement where relevant.
GBA+ has been conducted but is found in the annex, is clearly an add-on to the overall analysis or an aside. GBA+ not linked to the overall Impact Statement.
|Diverse subgroups considered||
Multiple, community-relevant, diverse subgroups have been clearly considered in assessing potential effects of the project.
Sex and/or gender has/have been considered in assessing potential effects of the project, but no other diverse subgroups have been assessed.
The data presented are thorough and clearly support conclusions. Follow-through from baseline to effects analysis is clear. Data gaps or limitations are clearly described.
Data are sparse and/or do not support the conclusions of the GBA+. Data gaps or limitations are not described.
|Meets Expectations||Insufficient Analysis|
The proposed mitigation (where relevant) clearly addresses the issues identified in the GBA+.
The proposed mitigation (where relevant) addresses a few or none of the issues identified in the GBA+.
Proposed indicators for follow-up clearly link to GBA+ analysis and propose relevant indicators and data collection for diverse subgroups.
No means of follow-up have been proposed. Indicators do not reflect that a GBA+ has (or should have) been conducted.
6. Tools and Resources
There are several existing sources of information, introductory training and case examples to support the application of GBA+ to impact assessment:
- Status of Women, training, micro-learning videos
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research, training videos
- Native Women’s Association of Canada A Culturally Relevant Gender Application Protocol
- Rio Tinto: Why gender matters: A resource guide for integrating gender considerations into Communities work at Rio Tinto
- Oxfam Australia: A Guide To Gender Impact Assessment For The Extractive Industries
In addition to these GBA+ specific information sources, there are existing best practices documents related to impact assessments that outline consideration of issues of diversity, equity and inclusion:
- Best Practices in Environmental Assessment: Case Studies and Application to Mining (Arnold and Hanna, 2017).
- Health Impact Assessment International Best Practice Principles (Quigley et al., 2006)
- Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment (Bhatia et al., 2014)
- Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects (Vanclay et al., 2015)
Annex 1: Key terms
Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. (CIHR, 2015). It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed. (CIHR, 2015).
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender is usually conceptualized as a binary (girl/woman and boy/man) yet there is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience, and express it. (CIHR, 2015).
Sex, gender and intersecting identity factors are terms that describe people. This terminology is used in the Impact Assessment Act. Sex and gender are distinct concepts but are interrelated through complex pathways. Each person identifies differently along the spectrum of sex, gender and many other identity-related factors such as national or ethnic origin, indigeneity, age, sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic condition, place of residence or ability. How people identify, how people express their identity, and how society views their identity, affects the way people are treated in society and their relative power including access to resources and decision-making power.
Gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) is an analytical framework that guides the assessment of how designated projects may have different positive and negative impacts on diverse groups of people or communities. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges the multiple identity factors that intersect with sex and gender to affect how people may experience projects differently and be differently impacted by projects (Status of Women Canada, 2018).
Annex 2: Data Sources for Reference
Statistics Canada Gender, diversity and inclusion statistics
The site provides data on sex, education and skills by gender, economic prosperity and participation by gender, leadership by gender, crime victims by gender, poverty and health/wellbeing by gender.
Women in Canada, A Gender-based Statistical report (StatCan)
Women in Canada provides data related to women's family status, education, employment, economic well-being, unpaid work, health, and more. It also includes chapters on immigrant women, women in a visible minority, Indigenous women, senior women, and women with participation and activity limitations.
UN Gender Statistics Minimum Set of Indicators
The Minimum Set of Gender Indicators is a collection of 52 quantitative indicators and 11 qualitative indicators addressing relevant issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment.
Aboriginal Peoples Survey
The Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS) is a national survey of First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit living in Canada. The 2017 APS is a thematic survey with a focus on participation in the Canadian economy. It will continue to collect important information concerning Indigenous people such as health, language, housing and mobility.
Canadian Survey on Disability
The Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD) gathers information about Canadians aged 15 and over whose daily activities are limited due to a long-term condition or health-related problem.
The survey collects information on: type and severity of disability, use of aids and assistive devices, help received or required, educational attainment, labour force status, experiences and accommodations at school or work and Internet use.
Canadian Community Health Survey
The survey provides population-level information on health determinants, health status and health system utilization. The CCHS comprises two types of surveys: 1) an annual component on general health; and
Uniform Crime Reporting Survey
The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS), in co-operation with the policing community, collects police-reported crime statistics through the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR). The UCR Survey was designed to measure the incidence of crime in Canadian society and its characteristics.
General Social Survey: An Overview
The survey gathers data on social trends in order to monitor changes in the living conditions and well-being of Canadians, and to provide information on specific social policy issues. Current GSS themes comprise caregiving, families, time use, social identity, volunteering and victimization.
First Nations Food, Nutrition & Environment Study (FNFNES)
The FNFNES aims to gather information from 100 randomly selected First Nation communities across Canada about:
First Nations Labour and Economic Development Survey
This new survey will focus on Indigenous participation in the economy, including information on:
First Nations Regional Health Survey
The First Nations Regional Health Survey (FNRHS, or RHS for short) is the only First Nations-governed, national health survey in Canada. It collects information about on reserve and northern First Nations communities based on both Western and traditional understandings of health and well-being.
Archibald, Linda, and Mary Crnkovich, 1999. If gender mattered: A case study of Inuit women, land claims and the Voisey’s Bay nickel project. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada.
Arnold, L., and K. Hanna, 2017. Best Practices in Environmental Assessment: Case Studies and Application to Mining. Canadian International Resources and Development Institute Report. 2017-003. Vancouver: Canadian International Resources and Development Institute.
Bernauer, W. Mining and the social economy in Baker Lake, Nunavut. Saskatoon: Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, 2011.
Bhatia, R, et al. Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment. Version 3. North American HIA Practice Standards Working Group, 2014. http://advance.captus.com/planning/hia2xx/pdf/Minimum%20Elements%20and%20Practice%20Standards%20for%20HIA%203.0.pdf
Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Integrating Gender and Sex in Health Research: A Tool for CIHR Peer Reviewers. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2014. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/43216.html. Accessed 06 Oct 2018.
Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, 2014. Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf
Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada. Ottawa: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, 2014. Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.
Czyzewski, K, et al. The impact of resource extraction on Inuit women and families in Qamani’tuaq, Nunavut Territory. Ottawa: Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, 2014.
Clayton, J.A., and Cara Tannenbaum. Reporting Sex, Gender, or Both in Clinical Research? Journal of the American Medical Association, (August 2016): 2016;316(18):1863–1864. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16405.
Cox, David, and Suzanne Mills. 2015. Gendering Environmental Assessment: Women’s participation and employment outcomes at Voisey’s Bay. ARCTIC journal. 68,2 (June 2015):141-282
First Nations Information Governance Centre. Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) or Self-Determination Applied to Research: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary First Nations Research and Some Options for First Nations Communities. First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2013. Available at: https://fnigc.ca/ocapr.html.
Goldenberg, S.M., et al. And they call this progress? Consequences for young people of living and working in resource-extraction communities. Critical Public Health.20, 2 (June 2010):157-168. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590902846102
Hill, C., C. Madden, and N. Collins. A Guide to Gender Impact Assessment for the Extractive Industries. Melbourne (Australia): Oxfam, 2017. Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-PA-001-Gender-impact-assessments-in-mining-report_FA_WEB.pdf
Johnson, J.L., and A. Beaudet. Sex and Gender Reporting in Health Research: Why Canada Should Be a Leader. Can J Public Health. 104,1 (November 2012): e80–e81. Available at:
Johnson, J.L., L. Greaves, and R. Repta. Better science with sex and gender: Facilitating the use of a sex- and gender-based analysis in health research. International Journal for Equity in Health, 8, 14, 2009. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-8-14.
Manning S., Nash P., Levac L., Stienstra D., Stinson J. (2018) on behalf of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. Strengthening Impact Assessments for Indigenous Women. Available at: http://fnn.criaw-icref.ca/en/product/strenghtening-impact-assessments-for-indigenous-women#.XxIZAyMpBhE
Nightingale, E., et al. 2017.The effects of resource extraction on Inuit women and their families: Evidence from Canada. Gender and Development. 25:367-385.
O’Faircheallaigh, Ciaran. 2013. Women’s absence, women’s power: Indigenous women and negotiations with mining companies in Australia and Canada. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 36: 1789–1807. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2012.655752.
Quigley, R., et al. 2006. Health Impact Assessment International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 5. Fargo, U.S.A.: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available at: http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP5_3.pdf.
Rio Tinto International. 2009. Why gender matters: A resource guide for integrating gender considerations into communities work at Rio Tinto. Available at: https://www.extractiveshub.org/servefile/getFile/id/1182
Springer, K.W., J.M. Stellman, and R.M. Jordan-Young. 2012. Beyond a Catalogue of Differences: A Theoretical Frame and Good Practice Guidelines for Researching sex/gender in Human Health. Social Science & Medicine. 74: 1817–1824.
Canada. Statistics Canada. Data quality and confidentiality standards and guidelines. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011. Available at: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/ref/DQ-QD/2011_DQ-QD_Guide_E.pdf.
Canada. Status of Women Canada. “Glossary.” In Introduction to GBA+. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 2018. Available at: https://swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/course-cours/eng/global/glossary_glossaire.html.
Tudiver, S., et al. “Challenging ‘dis-ease’: sex, gender and systematic reviews in health.” In: What a difference sex and gender make: A Gender, Sex and Health Research Casebook. Edited by S. Coen, and E. Banister. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Gender and Health, 2012. Available at:http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/What_a_Difference_Sex_and_Gender_Make-en.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018, December 18). News Release: National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2017. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf.
Vanclay, F., et al. Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. Fargo, U.S.A.: International Association for Impact Assessment, 2015.Available at: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf
Welch, V., et al. 2017. Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0039-6.
Windsor, J.E., and J.A. McVey J.A. 2005. Annihilation of both place and sense of place: the experience of the Cheslatta T’En Canadian First Nation within the context of large scale environmental projects. The Geographical Journal 171:2: 146-165. Available at: https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00156.x.
Scott, Jen, et al. Extracting lessons on gender in the oil and gas sector. Extractive Industries for Development Series, No. 28. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2013 Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/266311468161347063/Extracting-lessons-on-gender-in-the-oil-and-gas-sector.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: