:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are very pleased to appear before this committee today. As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Anne Marie Smith, who is the head of our legal department. We are pleased to be here to speak to you about our role and mandate and about how we undertake our work at the Office of the Auditor General.
I'm also pleased to discuss the mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development with you today. As I understand, the committee may be interested in how a similar model could be applied to gender budgets.
As many of you know already, the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. We audit federal government operations and provide Parliament with independent information, advice, and assurance regarding the federal government's stewardship of public funds. We cannot, as an audit office, comment on policy choice. While we may comment on policy implementation in an audit, we do not comment on the policy itself. We do, however, advocate for good, sound management of a program. Madam Chair, this is key to our effectiveness. By not delving into the merits of government policy, we can maintain our independence and objectivity, and therefore our credibility.
[Translation]
Basically, we are in the business of legislative auditing. We conduct performance audits of federal departments and agencies, annual financial audits of the government's financial statements, and special examinations and annual financial audits of Crown corporations.
Our financial audits provide assurance that financial statements are presented fairly in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles and other relevant standards.
Our special examinations assess the management systems and practices of Crown corporations and provide opinions on whether there is reasonable assurance that there are no significant deficiencies.
Our performance audits examine whether government programs are being managed with due regard for economy, efficiency, and environmental impact. I would like to emphasize that we do not do program evaluations — that is, we do not measure the effectiveness of programs.
[English]
The results of our performance audits are presented to Parliament three or four times each year, for a total of about 30 audits or report chapters per year. Chapters may cover topics that are specific to a department or agency, for example military health care, or that are government-wide in nature, for example the use of acquisition and travel cards. Each audit is framed by audit objectives and criteria that are discussed with the departments at the beginning of the audit. Usually an audit process takes between 12 and 18 months to complete. All of our audit work is conducted in accordance with the standards set by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is guided by a rigorous methodology and quality management framework.
[Translation]
The Auditor General Act gives our Office the discretion to determine what areas of government to examine through performance audits. We do risk assessments of federal departments and a number of management areas (such as human resources and information technology) in order to identify the most significant topics for audit.
Since 1995, the Office has also had a specific environmental and sustainable development mandate, which was established through amendments to the Auditor General Act. The Commissioner reports to the Auditor General and leads a group of 40 auditors. Ail work conducted by the Commissioner's group is subject to the same standards as the rest of the Office.
On behalf of the Auditor General, the Commissioner reports to the House of Commons on any environmental and sustainable development matters that he considers should be brought to its attention. The Commissioner uses essentially the same process for his audits that we use for our performance audits. Again, the emphasis is on sound management of an environmental program as opposed to the merits of the policy.
[English]
The commissioner is also responsible for monitoring, auditing, and reporting publicly on the environmental petitions process and departmental sustainable development strategies. The petitions process is unique, in that Canadians can get timely answers from federal ministers on specific environmental and sustainable development issues that involve federal jurisdiction. Petitions have prompted action by federal departments and agencies, such as new environmental projects, follow-up on alleged violations, and changes or clarifications in policies and practices.
Madam Chair, this has been a very brief overview of our role and mandate, including that of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We would be pleased to discuss these issues and answer any questions committee members may have.
Thank you.
Welcome to our meeting. You and I have met at different committees in the past.
I have some very specific questions in this area, because we're looking at the possibility of a commissioner for this and a piece of legislation. I want to understand the audit your office does. Is your audit specific to policy the government has already enunciated, or at least specific programs, and whether they meet the intended target and the expenditures are above board and all that stuff, but not the merits of the policy?
First of all, I see legislation legislating GBA, and then a commissioner who would ensure.... A commissioner wouldn't have that kind of overarching ability if they were under your auspices, would they? I'm just trying to understand. How does it work with the Commissioner of the Environment, for instance? How broad is it? I know you've mentioned some things. They can't comment on the government's overarching plan, whether or not it's....
As we mentioned, we cannot comment on specific policy. So we cannot say this policy is good or bad; we believe that is up to parliamentarians. We can talk about the implementation of policy. We can point to areas where there may be policy gaps.
If I take the example of the Commissioner of the Environment, if you talk about gender-based analysis, for example, I can equate that to the strategic environmental assessments. Most recently the Commissioner of the Environment did an audit to say these things weren't being done. We could probably look at their quality, but we couldn't say this program.... Once a program has been decided, if the analysis has been done and the program is decided, if people say we haven't taken that analysis into account, we can't comment on that.
I guess that's pretty much it. We can't promote.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. It's certainly always a treat to hear from you and to have you here with your expertise.
I think you can get a sense of the confusion and the problems we're facing on this committee in trying to ensure that GBA is being done. We've heard from a tremendous number of witnesses. We've been doing this for quite some time. We're hearing varying degrees of what is expected and what actually is being done and who actually is being responsible for it.
We're now down to the stage where we really need to know how we can determine whether or not it is being done. We're considering, do we need a commissioner? Do we need legislation? Is your office able to perform these tasks? That's really what we're looking for this morning.
I think you said that legislation may not be necessary, that if it were a clear policy or a commitment from the government, or from the cabinet—I'm not sure where this will come from—we could accomplish the same thing without legislation. Did I understand you correctly?
:
I was referring to the basis on which we could do an audit. For us it's usually important that there be some clear direction. Before we hold government departments to account and say they should be doing something, we like to have somebody somewhere telling them that they should do it, other than us. It's much easier to say “Here's what you're supposed to do”, and “Are you doing it or not?”
It does not require legislation to do that. I gave the example of strategic environmental assessments. There is no requirement in law. It was a cabinet directive that departments should do it, and as the Commissioner of the Environment just reported in February, departments aren't doing it, which is not a good thing.
So if there was a clear policy that said departments should be doing this analysis, and our role is really to provide parliamentarians with information, we could then say departments are supposed to be doing this, and they are or they aren't.
I know I have some people in the office who won't be happy with me, because we're probably going to change all our planning, but what we can do for this committee, if the committee wishes, is to say “What is the state of this? Is there a policy?” I've seen some testimony where people are saying yes, they do this. Well, on what basis...? Are they really doing it? Who's doing it and who isn't? And perhaps we can even look at some of the quality of the analysis, although that might be a little difficult for us to get into.
We can certainly give parliamentarians a perspective on what is actually happening with gender-based analysis. I would think we would obviously have to work with Status of Women Canada in that, because they have a very important role to play in this.
That will take a little while. As I said, our audits take anywhere from 12 to 18 months, but that is the kind of information we could provide for you.
:
Actually, the evolution of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development probably has an interesting parallel. The Office of the Auditor General started doing audits on environmental issues in the late eighties, early nineties, and it was really about environmental management. So there were a number of issues done, probably on the more obvious areas--fisheries, management of natural resources, things like that.
In the mid-nineties there was obviously a lot more attention being paid to environmental issues, and government, I presume, would have had some policies in place around environmental management going back into the eighties, at least. But in the mid-nineties there was a statement by government or a will by government to strengthen environmental management, and at that point there were modifications to the Auditor General Act, which required the departments to produce sustainable development strategies every three years, which instituted a petitions process, and which created a Commissioner of the Environment in the Office of the Auditor General.
Now, in the work that the commissioner does--the audits--there is no change. We didn't need to have a commissioner legislated in our act to do those audits because the office had been doing them already for several years. What it did change was the requirement to audit the sustainable development strategies, which were new, and to manage this petitions process.
So we don't need a commissioner per se in legislation to go into these areas.
Madam Fraser, I'd like to exercise the chair's prerogative on something. I've listened to everybody's questions; I have sat on public accounts and heard you express a lot of frustration about things in aboriginal communities and areas of value for money.
If you're doing value-for-money audit, and the government spends $200 billion on programs or tax cuts or whatever it does and still we do not have social justice--we still have poverty, we still have drinking water issues, we still have housing issues, etc.--would a gender-based analysis, if it were given a framework that asked all departments to look at eight components to help them in GBA, be a starting point and be a tool if the auditor ever were to do a value-for-money audit on how government effectively spends its money?
We've heard from Status of Women; they do the training. We have heard from central agencies, and they that feel they're doing it, but when we do third-party verification, there is a huge variance of what GBA is and what GBA should be--you know, gender budgets--and its impact.
If you were to do value-for-money accounting or value-for-money audits, and you found a framework, would that help?
As I mentioned earlier, we cannot do evaluations of programs; we can only look to see if government is applying the management principles that they are expected to apply. If there is an expectation--and it could be simply a policy or even a broad commitment by government--that they are doing gender-based analysis in programs and policies, we can audit to see if that is actually happening. We can also ask them if they are doing the evaluations necessary to know if they are meeting the objectives that are set out.
You mentioned aboriginal. Aboriginal is different because the federal government has a clear responsibility. An example is education: they have a clear responsibility to provide education, so we ask them if they are providing it, how they are providing it, and how they know what's happening. We don't actually go in ourselves to assess the educational outcomes; we ask the departments if they know, and how they are producing it.
We could do the same sort of thing on gender-based issues, but we can't ourselves do the evaluation of programs, and I suspect that is where much of the frustration in the third-party groups is coming from; the outcomes are not what they would hope they would be, but to be a little blunt, that's the case with many programs.
:
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.
:
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.
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?
:
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.
:
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...
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Minna raised this point with regard to our consideration of a GBA commissioner. I just want to make sure I was hearing what I thought I was hearing from you with regard to the best way to set it up.
I understand that if it is a stand-alone individual, there may be some time factors, in that it would take a long time. Under the auspices of the Auditor General's office, which is already in place, it would be more expedient, but you also said it depends on what kind of commissioner you want. Do we want someone at the front end providing advice, or do we want someone who is simply monitoring?
In terms of having it all, would it make sense, then, to make sure that the NGOs, the equality-seeking groups at the front end, were pushing equality through their research and through their lobbying, and then have the commissioner at the other end evaluate whether the recommendations from the groups had actually been implemented by the government?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning. [Witness speaks in her native language]. I bring you greetings in my Blackfoot language.
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee and for the work you're doing in moving towards a greater gender action plan.
I have a very nasty cold. If I have to pause, I apologize; it's something I picked up in Ottawa.
I would like to briefly introduce myself and the role of the AFN Women's Council.
As you know, the AFN represents all first nations men and women, regardless of residence. The role of the AFN Women's Council is to ensure that the AFN is an effective advocate on behalf of first nations women. We have ten representatives, one from each region, who comprise the women's council. As the chair of the women's council, I also sit on the AFN executive committee and provide input into decisions made at that level.
I would like to begin my presentation by presenting the rationale for a culturally relevant gender-balanced analysis. First I will describe the AFN position on GBA.
In 2005 a renewal commission consulted first nations citizens about the role and relevance of the AFN. Coming out of the renewal commission was a clear message that the AFN must ensure that gender is considered in all policies, measures, and programs. It was equally important to the women consulted that gender be looked at from a cultural perspective. As a result, the AFN has developed a first nations gender-balanced framework. It can be applied to research, policy, and program development work.
We firmly believe our GBA will get better results for first nations women than other approaches, because it overlays gender analysis with a historical understanding of our culture. It asks policy-makers to look at the central role women played in pre-contact cultures, and how and why change occurred after contact. It asks them to offer options based on this context. In plain language, it explains how first nations women see themselves and where they want to go from here.
We hope that all federal departments will implement our GBA in work affecting first nations peoples. However, as we are looking at gender budgeting today, I will concentrate on two examples of why the finance department should apply a culturally relevant GBA.
Next I will discuss gender, federal budgeting, and Bill C-31.
Let me start with an example of a budget decision made in 2006, the cutting of the court challenges program. If the finance department had applied a culturally relevant gender analysis to that decision, they might have asked how cutting this program would affect first nations women. Would it be for their benefit or for their harm? Just asking that question would have led them to the Sharon McIvor case.
Let me take a moment to explain the context through a gender and cultural lens. In many first nations cultures, identity is passed through the female lines, a fact not recognized by the Indian Act. Since 1876, first nations women who marry non-native men have lost their right to live on reserve. They cannot vote in band elections or access the same health services as their brothers.
An amendment to the Indian Act in 1985 corrected this inequity, but only for a small group of women. We believe that about 200,000 are suffering because the 1985 amendment did not include them. Sharon McIvor, a descendant of the Lower Nicola Valley band, is one of them.
Sharon recently won her case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The federal government is appealing the ruling of the McIvor case. Because of the cancellation of the court challenges fund in budget 2006, she may not be able to afford the appeal. I believe that if the finance department adopts a culturally relevant GBA, it will be better able to predict the consequences of cuts; even better, it would be able to set goals by asking how it can advance equity for first nations women.
That brings me to a second example: matrimonial real property. This year the budget missed a key opportunity to assist first nations women, and here I am speaking of the matrimonial real property bill.
Under the Indian Act and Canadian law, there is no way to divide matrimonial property between first nations couples living on reserves in cases of marriage failure. The government and the AFN held a series of consultations with first nations women to find solutions. In the matrimonial real property consultations, women told us that they wanted access to timely community-based remedies that fit within their own cultural traditions. Unfortunately, the current MRP bill before the House failed to include these recommendations. Instead, the bill will force first nations women to seek remedies in provincial courts.
Now, if this is the solution the government is proposing, a culturally relevant gender budget analysis might look at issues like remoteness, language, and other barriers that prevent access to the justice system. The budget could also then set aside funding to ensure women in remote communities can have timely access to courts as well as funding to support educating women about their rights under this bill. Finally, finance could address the need for an increase in funding for housing.
In closing, I'll add that at this time the AFN has not been able to secure funding for implementation of our GBA; however, we have approached various departments, such as Health Canada, to begin discussions. We are anxious to see our GBA applied by Health Canada because we can see how applying a GBA to health issues could really benefit our women. For example, we know that across all age groups women have higher rates of diabetes. We believe looking at gender and culture will help us target prevention and treatment initiatives for first nations women.
I would just add that GBA approaches will be a key issue at the 2008 National Aboriginal Women's Summit, scheduled for this summer in Yellowknife. We see the issue of gender balance as critical, as it will assist all of us in creating a more just and humane society, not only for first nations, but for all Canadians.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for being here this morning, ladies.
Ms. McHugh, you talked about your balanced approach, the framework you have developed to ensure that you put tools in place for helping first nations women have greater autonomy and better economic security. For some years, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, like all departments, has been supposed to use and introduce the gender-based budget approach in new programs and in new measures and policies that are developed. You have developed an approach that is specific to your needs and the needs of your communities.
Have you submitted it to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Does it take it into account in its new policies and new measures? Have anyone asked to consult you so that this new approach can be taken into account? If not, can you explain why?
Ms. Frawley-Henry said that you needed resources to achieve the various objectives you have adopted. Have you thought about applying your women's programs? This year, one of the goals and objectives is to promote equality. I think that projects can be submitted starting in August. Certainly you will get assistance for setting up your program.
:
Thank you for your question.
If I could answer that, yes, the Department of Indian Affairs does have a GBA unit. We are in the early process of presenting our framework, so that's an opportunity. As I indicated earlier, we certainly want to share our framework and to meet with various departments. Actually, we're meeting today with Health Canada.
We've also met with Status of Women Canada. We worked with Status of Women Canada in preparing our framework. We've also submitted to the community fund of Status of Women Canada without success, so we're hoping that we can have an opportunity to secure funding. As we indicated, we have not been able to secure funds to date.
So we're looking at Health Canada. We're looking to meet them. We know that Health Canada is a huge area—
:
Everybody has a copy. Okay.
What I want to say in connection with this is that the reason I'm saying “independent” and not tying it to the Auditor General is that I thought from the start that it ought to have independence. After listening to the Auditor General this morning and to the expert panel earlier this week, I think it's quite obvious. The expert panel, which had done a great deal of research and study and consultations, have advised that it should be an independent office because it would have a broader reach and an ability to actually oversee and analyze and go in and look at policy directions of government, as well as be a bit of an advocate, I suppose. The Auditor General herself also said this morning that a commissioner working through her office would be limited primarily to evaluating after the fact and would not really be part of the overall process.
I think it's important because there are six officers reporting to Parliament now and women in this country make up 51% of the population. It affects more than women, actually, because GBA is about more than just women; it's about all the population, and the commissioner's office ought to have the strength and powers required to report to Parliament directly. I have neglected to say that the commissioner would report to Parliament; I think it's understood, but if anyone wants to put that in, that's fine.