Status of Women Committee on April 10th, 2008

[Sheila Fraser]

We can look to see how government evaluates the progress. We can say that government has established this particular objective; then we would ask what their performance indicators are to do that, and how they will know where they are in all of it.

I could draw a parallel with work the commissioner did on the Kyoto commitments. There was a clear commitment by government; we then asked how they knew where they were at in all of this, and whether they would actually meet their objective, which was very clearly defined.

We can do that kind of work, but we can't ourselves do the assessment to see where government is. I would expect that another group within government--either government agencies themselves, Status of Women, or some other core agency or central agency--would be responsible for tracking this across government.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thanks for your patience with my basic questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

Is there anybody else? We have two more minutes, but if nobody wants that time, I'm moving on.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I didn't think I was going to have the time, but it's good to have it.

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I know you've made them clear.

I'll be very honest. We are looking at...at least, I have put forward a motion on our side to appoint a commissioner, but we're also looking at legislation.

Maybe this is not a fair question, but nevertheless I'm going to put it to you. Some of the witnesses we've had have talked about the need for legislation. The U.K. is bringing it in, and a number of other countries have done that. There is the need for legislation for GBA, and then the need for a commissioner, but one who, in order to give it a broader scope, is not tied to the Auditor General's office--one who can comment, a bit like the languages office.

I know it's not fair to ask you your opinion, but maybe you could tell us which of the two would be the more effective, given that the GBA issue is a fairly broad and very specific area that needs a great deal of attention, which it hasn't received.

[Sheila Fraser]

I'd be glad to comment, because we've had the same kind of discussion around whether the Commissioner of the Environment should be much more of an advocate and comment on policy and play that kind of role. What I have told parliamentary committees is that it really depends on what you want that person or that office to do. If the goal is to have an advocate to do promotion and bring forward best practices, that cannot be done in an audit office.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That would apply to evaluation as well.

[Sheila Fraser]

It would apply to evaluation as well. That clearly has to be a commissioner, as distinct from an audit office.

With regard to the role of the commissioner of the environment, we say there are a lot of groups and a lot of organizations that comment on the policy, and you have the policy development, the implementation of the policy, and the tracking afterwards. Very few can actually provide advice or information on how well policy is being implemented, and we say that's the role we as an audit office can play. We can tell parliamentarians, once they have decided on a policy or a legislative framework, how well government is doing at implementing it, and there aren't many other places, quite frankly, that can do that with our independence and objectivity.

It depends on whether you want someone at the beginning of the process who's going to give them more the policy advice, the evaluation, or if you want someone who is going to assess how policy is being implemented and how government is doing. It doesn't mean that there's necessarily one or the other. The audit office can still look at implementation and you can still have the advocate, but if you become an advocate for policy, I think you lose your independence and your objectivity, obviously, in all of this, so you have to be very careful about how you frame the role of that commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Boucher, you have five minutes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, everyone.

Good Morning, Ms. Fraser. It is very interesting to hear what you have to say.

We have talked about an action plan in the 2008 budget. We belong to four different political parties, with different mindsets. From the various testimony we have heard, we saw that there was a political will, regardless of the party in power, but it seems to us that the more we move forward and the more political will... I don't know whether it is because it seems to be too big or too complicated. We have good ideas, but at some point we stop having ideas and it ends there.

I would like to know how we should set about getting benchmarks so that regardless of what party is in power, the benchmarks will stay in place and we will have something to get our teeth into, not just "a dream", but something we could do in the long term, knowing that it is going to take more than two or three months. As you were just saying, it takes longer than that.

What would be the best approach — whether or not there is a change of government, regardless of what party is in power — so that having gender-based budgets on a long-term basis could be automatic?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is an excellent question.

I believe that at the bottom of all this, we have to ask ourselves what results we ultimately want to achieve, the outcome, for society.

Is the government — as you said, regardless of what party is in power — clearly defining the results to be achieved? What are the indicators? The results you want to achieve would have to be clearly defined, with performance indicators, and a plan drawn up to achieve them. As you said, this is not something that can be done in six months or two or three years. It is a long-term undertaking.

The analysis is a tool for achieving those results. The analysis is not what is going to achieve them, because we can do the analysis but the government can ignore it in deciding on a policy. It is not obliged to take it into account, necessarily, but if we can make the connection between the analysis, the program and the result we want to achieve, and the results are clear, this might be a possible solution.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So it means having to have a vision that is not for the short term, but for the long term. It means having a goal, an ultimate goal, to achieve this.

[Sheila Fraser]

And measuring where you are as you go along, be it annually or periodically, with very clear indicators. I don't know whether it would be the poverty rate. There can be different measurements...

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

There are a lot of things that can be done.

[Sheila Fraser]

And someone has to be accountable.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So when we were talking about a commissioner or someone who could be completely outside the government and do those kinds of analyses, I imagine that...

[Sheila Fraser]

He or she could see how the departments themselves want to achieve their goals and how that is put into effect in the departments, because it's all very well to have a national plan, but it has to...

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

It has to trickle down.

[Sheila Fraser]

... it has to trickle down to the various levels, and you have to be able to see the progress made and whether there are problems or difficulties along the way.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In the last 20 years, have you seen progress, in the course of the work and the audits you do, or is the situation virtually the same? Has there been progress or are we running on the spot?

[Sheila Fraser]

In what respect?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In terms of women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That is all. Thank you.

Ms. Deschamps, you have five minutes, please.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome you, Ms. Fraser, Ms. Smith. It is always a pleasure to have you speak to the various committees we work on. Your expertise always sheds light on our questions. I have to tell you that I am feeling very frustrated, as Mr. Pearson mentioned a little earlier in his presentation.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women decided to study gender-based analysis, or gender budgeting. The more we do on this, the more we see its multiple facets. When we decided to invite you here, it was somewhat so that we could study this system, which looks to me like a giant puzzle where each department is a piece and what we are trying to do is fit gender-based analysis into it. We wondered how the Office of the Auditor General could play a role in putting that analysis in place and having some oversight of it.

From what I have heard, in all of my colleagues' comments and questions, the easiest way would probably be for there to be legislation that defines the indicators, the framework and the mandate, so that you would have some authority. It would be easier to have...

[Sheila Fraser]

Obviously, it would be clearer if there were legislation. However, we don't need legislation in order to do an audit on a particular question. It can simply be a government policy.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

For example, starting simply with an action plan, are you able to evaluate the progress made with regard to that action plan?