I can start.
We've thought a lot about whether or not a dedicated minister of Status of Women Canada would help or hinder the cause, and we've had this discussion internally and externally. As I think both sides of the table can appreciate here, one of the rationales for having a joint minister is that she actually has another portfolio at the table and, often, that portfolio can enhance her negotiating power. That's one of the arguments against a dedicated minister.
What we've seen in the past historically are secretaries of state prior to 2004. That's what we had for some time. The secretaries of state, even though they were fully dedicated to the task of the status of women, were often quite marginalized. A dedicated senior minister may produce a different outcome, but it may not, all depending upon how that minister is observed or regarded. Sometimes having another portfolio helps, and sometimes it might not help. I really think it depends on the individual minister.
We do believe, however, that Canadian Heritage is a very demanding portfolio, for a variety of reasons, and having that portfolio coupled with Status of Women Canada, I think, is a difficult challenge for any person to meet. I think the structure of a shared portfolio should be revisited.
In terms of the Status of Women Canada projects that have recently been funded by Status of Women under the community initiatives fund or the partnership fund, I don't actually know the details of many of those projects. I understand that money is flowing to particular organizations on the ground, albeit with the caveat about, or prohibition against, advocacy, which in our view is not constructive. Having said that, however, there is money flowing, and many of the organizations who are receiving that money are credible and do good work, and we're happy to see that happening.
We do believe that the terms and conditions of Status of Women Canada should be further altered to allow advocacy, because part of what helps to attain women's equality is being able to exercise that voice with advocacy. Having said that, there has been a change at Status of Women Canada to include equality back in the terms and conditions—pursuit of the promotion of women's equality—which is a very good thing that we're very happy to see.
In terms of the measures that could be taken that are more objective or that could be seen as less partisan, CFAIA has been saying for some time that the establishment of a gender equality commissioner within the Auditor General's office could be a very constructive move, given how the Auditor General is perceived within the federal government structure and her fairly independent nature.
I understand the Auditor General has been invited to appear before this committee, or she certainly was an item of discussion. I think the committee may want to think creatively about how you could use an Auditor General for the purposes of this kind of analysis or GBA.