Status of Women Committee on May 16th, 2006

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. So we'll have that in front of us on Thursday. That wasn't part of the five, so we've got to reconsider, or review and adopt, and then put forward the five reports from the last Parliament. Then we'll look at the Statistics Canada report on Thursday. That seems sensible.

I was intrigued by the discussion on consensus versus motions. I had the pleasure of chairing a committee by consensus in the early nineties on workplace health and safety. There was big labour on one side, and big business on the other side. It was quite a remarkable experience.

I know how confusing consensus can be. I agree that when it makes sense to use consensus to come to conclusions we should try to do that, but I also know that when it gets difficult to do that we sometimes have to resort to what is said in the Standing Orders. There are procedural guidelines there for us if we need to resort to them.

To Ms. Davidson's point, we certainly want everyone on the same wavelength; when we reach a conclusion, the committee should know.

The other point is that while the practices in the past Parliament or past committees may have been a certain way, it's completely up to the committee to steer and guide how it should manage its deliberations. I'm not suggesting that necessarily has to be a point of discussion for this committee, but if this question of motions versus consensus does become contentious, perhaps we should just solve that question once and for all, agree on the procedures, and then move on.

On the specifics of the workplan, I agree with the other members that the matrimonial property issue is important. We should take into hand the important work that's already been done. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Let's avail ourselves of all the information we can on this to hopefully get this moved along. There's a lot of work in front of us.

More recently, we've seen the negative effects of human trafficking--it's becoming more prevalent--and the damaging effects it has brought to our society. It's one of those issues that needs to be front and centre. It's not something I necessarily see in my particular locale in the country, but we're not completely immune to it either.

I would agree with other members about the other one, the economic security of women, particularly seniors. I saw it time and again while out working in the ridings or during the election, speaking to senior women and seniors in general. The incidence of poverty among seniors is scaling up beyond what we can imagine. It's an area I have some specific interest in.

Those would be my three. I recognize that there's some interest in pay equity. I've had a little bit of experience with that over the years as well. While that may not be at the top of the order for me, I certainly look forward to seeing what previous work has been done on pay equity.

That's about it, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Bourgeois is next on the workplan.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I listened very patiently and with much interest to Mr. Stanton. I researched the repercussions on women of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), and Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms), and another act in consequence.

Were they discussed the last time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I raised that with the clerk this morning. My understanding is that we were talking very generally about the issues that Ms. Mourani and others had raised, and wanted that meeting with the justice department to talk about a variety of related issues.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

In other words, we did not focus on them this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

So that is not the focus of the discussion.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I have another comment about the work plan. The reason I asked us to draw up a schedule, is simply because women—I have said it and I will continue to say it—are expecting us to act. When they learn that we have a schedule, they will know when we will be able to examine their file, and they will be able to contact us so they can come to speak to us. I think it is important to establish such a schedule.

A schedule is also important for each of the reports that we have presented. I don't know if 20 minutes will be enough, given the repercussions that these reports may have.

The reports tabled by the previous committee contain requests. Have these requests been followed up on? Do the people who have been asked to respond to these reports have a schedule as well? Are they required to produce results?

I don't think that Ms. Davidson's proposal to spend 20 minutes per report is... I propose instead that we spend at least one hour per report. Should I make this an official motion, Madam Chair, so the wool isn't pulled over my eyes like it was earlier?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I move that, when we consider the four reports tabled by the previous Committee on the Status of Women and the government's response to these reports, we spend at least one hour per report.

Madam Chair, I imagine that someone has to second this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If I can just clarify this, we were talking about tabling those five reports from the government again, in order to get a response from the new government on them and where they plan to go. Once we get that, it will be very important for us to find time on the calendar to review the response from the government and look at the reports further.

If we start to study them all over again, we'll be going right back to the issue of what we're trying to accomplish. I think the previous committee did a lot of work on them. They were unanimously adopted.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

The government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on gender-based analysis reads as follows:

Consultation by Status of Women Canada to engage civil society on the equality goals for priority action for the future strategy on gender equality is being planned for fall 2005.

May we ask Status of Women Canada if that consultation took place?

The report reads a little further on, again with regard to gender-based analysis:

The onus is on the lead department to ensure this assessment is full and complete.

Do the departments have implementation plans? Has a follow-up been done?

Madam Chair, I was elected to the House of Commons in 2000 and I have been responsible for the status of women since that time. Status of Women Canada has told us every year since 2000 that there will be an implementation plan.

The creation of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has given rise to expectations that, in turn, have resulted in responses from Status of Women Canada. Some $20 million is allocated to this agency. It is our responsibility as a committee to ensure that this money is well spent and in accordance with the requests of the parliamentarians who sat on this committee.

I can, of course, read a report in 20 minutes but that is not enough time to allow everyone to speak. If we had an hour, everybody would be able to speak. Canadian women are depending on us. Consequently, I move that we have at least one hour to consider each report.

Furthermore, does this government—and Ms. Smith will be able to tell us the answer—intend to insist that Status of Women Canada deliver?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Minna.

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

I want to suggest a minor amendment to Ms. Bourgeois's motion.

Obviously, regarding the response from the previous government, we should study what the department is doing, if anything. That's fair. I also think that given the fact we do have a new government, there may be a different direction. So we can both table the reports and ask for a response from the current government with respect to its position. For instance, on pay equity, the previous government said they would table legislation; I don't know if that's the position or not of the current government. So we would like to hear their position.

As well, we could still do what Madame Bourgeois is suggesting, and have the bureaucracy meet with us to tell us what actions have been taken as a result of the previous government's response. So we're then doing both, which I would suggest we do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The 30th of May, when we have the departmental officials here, will be the time to find out exactly what they are doing in response to previous recommendations. That particular point would be the opportunity for us to find out what the department is doing in response to those.

The second part, as was pointed out, is that it's important for us as a committee not to be spinning our wheels in order to get a response back from the government on the previous work the committee has done. It was unanimously supported, with several members here. So both of those need to be done. So at our May 30 meeting, you should certainly come ready with those questions, because that's when we'll have a chance for the department to respond to previous recommendations of the committee.

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to make sure I have understood correctly.

Officials from Status of Women Canada are supposed to have begun work in order to respond to questions from the previous committee. Does this mean—and please excuse my naiveté—that the new government could prevent staff from working or continue what they've started, no matter which party forms the government?

I also want to know what the government in place intends to do. You are saying yes, but yes to what? Please explain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

On the 30th of May, we have the departmental officials coming here. We can ask questions about things that have previously been adopted or given direction to, and ask where is Status of Women Canada on those issues you just raised and have been working on for so long.

We also have the minister here on the first of June, hopefully. We can also ask the minister for her comments on previous things that have been done.

The third avenue is that when we retable the previous reports of this committee, the government will then have 120 days to respond to those reports and on where they feel they are going with them.

So there are two different things happening here. One is that we will have two meetings coming up, which I think will answer many of the questions you have raised. And the second is to table our previous reports, as we've mentioned before, in order to get a response back from the government, so that we can move forward on anything that may need to be done with those in the fall. So we will get a feel for the government's direction on those reports as well.

Have you tabled that as a motion, Ms. Bourgeois?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Yes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

May I speak, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's okay if it's to speak to the motion of Madame Bourgeois.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

First, as Ms. Bourgeois said, it is important to meet with the officials. We are meeting with them on May 30th. Instead of asking them to provide us with an overview of issues such as women in living in poverty, the division of marital property, economic security or violence against women, we could simply get an account of all the reports that have been tabled.

I don't think that in just two hours, we will be able to talk about the reports and issues such as poverty, violence or marital property, unless we limit ourselves to one or two questions. Let's be logical. We can examine either the reports, or the questions being asked here, concerning poverty, violence and marital property. We will have to choose because we can't do everything.

The officials will be here on May 30th. What will we talk about? Poverty, violence, marital property or the reports? The reports are quite long and contain a number of recommendations. We need to know whether these recommendations have been implemented. It is good that we are meeting with the officials before the minister because, at the very least, we will know where things stand, the minister's starting point and the direction in which she is headed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The intent is to find out from the department what their plan is and what has happened to a variety of other issues.

If we decide that we want to review all of the previous five reports, before getting any comment back from the government, it will take a lot of time. If we are truly committed to moving forward on a variety of agendas, we need to get some comment back from the government.

I'm in the hands of the committee, but I have a motion in response to those committee reports. Maybe I should read this to see if the committee is interested in going in this direction.

If we decide that we want to revisit the reports that were unanimously supported by the committee before, it will take more than 20 minutes for each, because each one is very important. At the end of the day, if the new government wants to go in a different direction, I think it's important for us to know that so we can be working on whatever is appropriate for us.

I want to make one suggestion here that we would concur in the recommendations of the previous reports:

That the Committee concurs in the recommendations of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women presented to the House in the 1st Session of the 38th Parliament; that the Chair report to the House the concurrence in these recommendations; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to those reports.

From the response to those reports, we would know what the government feels. Following that, we could make other decisions on where we might want to go. But it is very important that it be done so that we can get a response back from the government.

It's a suggestion I was going to put before the committee so that we could move on.

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

May we make this a motion, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It is read out in that form.

Before we deal with this, we have a motion on the floor by Ms. Bourgeois.

Could you repeat your motion, if you want to table it as a motion, or is it necessary?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Chair, I agree with your motion. It is simply a matter of time. I don't want us to rush through the consideration of the reports. That is why I wanted us to have an hour. In one hour, we can consider the five reports, but I don't want us to rush through them.

Last week, I received a request from two groups that I will not immediately name, but I could give you the names in camera. It is a matter of time. I agree with your motion. I would withdraw mine because it is almost identical to yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right. Thank you.

We don't have a motion on the table other than the concurrence on the recommendations, which I would hope we would have unanimous consent on.

We need someone to move that concurrence.