Evidence of meeting #60 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was analysis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome, everyone, on this nice March morning. It's a messy morning. I'm glad to see you all.
To begin with, we'll be looking at committee business. The first business is the motion from Anita Neville, and I will ask to resume debate.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Since Ms. Neville is absent, perhaps we could wait until her return to debate this. There is a motion we wanted to debate.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
The clerk says we can go ahead without her. She has someone here to represent her, so that person who's representing her will take her place.
11 a.m.
Liberal
11 a.m.
A voice
Ah, ah!
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
The motion for Anita Neville reads:
That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender audit of all federal funding of sport, including Sport Canada funding programs, funding of infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada, as well as contributions to international athletic competitions hosted in Canada, to ensure that funding is being distributed on an equitable basis;
That the conclusions of this audit be made publicly available and tabled in the House of Commons; and
That this motion be reported to the House.
Go ahead, Madame Zarac.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to refresh members' memories about the motion. We had decided to change the wording. If you don't mind, I'd like to read the motion to you:
That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all federal funding...
Everything that follows stays the same in English. In French, the wording is: “Que le Comité recommande que le gouvernement effectue une analyse comparative entre les sexes concernant le financement fédéral dans le domaine du sport [...]” The rest of the paragraph stays the same.
In the second paragraph, it says: “That the conclusions of this analysis be made publicly available[...]” We had agreed to replace the word “audit” with the word “analysis” at the last meeting.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
The motion in French reads as follows:
Que le Comité recommande que le gouvernement effectue une analyse comparative entre les sexes concernant le financement fédéral dans le domaine du sport selon le sexe, y compris les programmes de financement de Sport Canada, le financement des projets d’infrastructure par Infrastructure Canada ainsi que les contributions aux compétitions sportives canadiennes et internationales tenues au Canada, pour garantir que le financement est distribué sur une base équitable;
Que les résultats de cette analyse soient rendus publics et soient déposés à la Chambre des communes;
Que cette motion fasse l’objet d’un rapport à la Chambre.
Madam Chair, I'd just like to add, since this is International Women's Week, that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has encouraged young girls and women to participate more. It seems to me this would be a way of opening the door to them and setting an example, to ensure that this is the direction we want to move in.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I missed part of it. It says: “That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all federal funding of sport, including Sport Canada funding programs [...]” I missed what came after that.
Please forgive me; I still think I'm in the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I'm a little confused.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Without reading the entire motion again, perhaps I could explain what it's all about to Ms. Boucher, since she was not at the last meeting. We were told by government members that the data is already available, but hasn't been compiled yet. So, we're asking for an analysis of all that existing data.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
All right. But I missed what came afterwards. After “Sport Canada funding programs”, what does it say…?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
It's exactly the same thing. The rest of the wording stays the same, Ms. Boucher.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I see. All right. So, we're keeping the rest of the wording, which is “funding of infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada, as well as contributions to”, and everything after that.
I understand now.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure what it is we're asking for that we can't already find. Most of this information is on the Internet right now; it's listed there. If we're talking about funding for women athletes or men athletes, it doesn't really matter, because unless there's been a change, the funding is put together on a performance base.
If a young person is an Olympic-level athlete, their funding is much more than it is for a person who is just starting out. We can argue one way or another as to whether that's good or bad, but that's currently the way it's done. Carded athletes are given more funding than athletes who are not carded. It has nothing to do with gender; it simply has to do with performance. If you're in the upper 10% of the performing athletes, you get more dollars than if you're not.
I'm sure those figures are available from the minister of sport and athletics. They've been compiled for the recently completed Olympics, and they should be fairly current.