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.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Boughen said the information about Sport Canada funding is already on the Internet. It's available and it's public, so even I'm wondering what this motion is all about.
March 10th, 2011 / 11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Well, it isn't specific programs or athletes who get it. If you read the motion, it's a recommendation from this committee that the government conduct a gender-based analysis.
I don't think the website says everything compiled here has gone through a gender-based analysis. That's the whole point of the motion: to recommend that this be done on a go-forward basis.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Last week, I wanted to propose an amendment to have it read:
That the Committee recommend [...] a gender-based analysis [...] and that the committee invite departmental representatives and the Minister of State (Sport) to discuss funding programs and contributions to Canadian and international athletic competitions [...]
The idea is to have the minister provide a thorough explanation of how gender-based analysis works in his department.
The minister is willing to come and meet with us. I know that he would be very pleased to provide information to committee members about what Sport Canada is doing and what is being done by his own office in that regard. We often ask to meet with ministers. I think this is important and it would be an opportunity for us to hear his explanation.
I would like that to be considered and that is the amendment I am proposing.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
With all due respect, it's not that I'm in favour of turning down a minister from visiting—we've had difficulties getting him to appear—but hearing what he's doing isn't the point. It's a recommendation for the government to conduct gender-based analysis. He could even write to us to say it is being done or it isn't being done. We don't necessarily want to take up the minister's time on this motion. That's the way I see it. I don't know how the rest of my colleagues see it.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Again, with all due respect, for once that a minister is agreeing to come and share his vision with us, I think we should take the opportunity to meet with him.
We are all aware of the fact that Status of Women Canada has carried out this kind of gender-based analysis. We know that certain departments have not done this kind of analysis; but now there is a minister who is prepared to come and talk to us about what his department is doing for women. I think it would be important for us to be aware of that, particularly if we want our young women to be more involved in sport and become better integrated into society.
So, I think it would be very worthwhile to meet with the minister and a representative of Sport Canada. We have never invited them to appear before this committee.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like my colleague to tell us whether the amendment she is proposing would be part of Ms. Neville's motion. In other words, in addition to the request that she has made, we would also be inviting the minister to appear before the committee to explain how his department is distributing funding on an equitable basis.
I think it's always a good idea to ask a minister to come and talk to us. Would my colleague agree to our also asking the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to do the same?
We're talking about two different things. This refers to sport, but it also talks about Infrastructure Canada. Would everyone agree to our asking officials from Infrastructure Canada to come and explain how that works?
As far as I'm concerned, our colleague's idea is an excellent one.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm talking about Sport Canada. As far as Infrastructure Canada is concerned, I don't really understand the point. I discussed this briefly with Ms. Neville, but she didn't have time to fully explain it to me. In terms of that part of the motion where it says “funding of infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada”, I would like Ms. Neville to explain to us what she is looking for there.
When they build new arenas, for example, as far as I know, they have washrooms for girls. When they build roads, the assumption is that women will be driving their cars on those roads. I certainly hope roads are not being built just for men.
It's all very well to aim for gender equality in all things, but when I go on the road, I don't start asking myself whether the road was built for men or women. When you build Olympic infrastructure, you're thinking about everyone. There are washrooms for women, for children.
Ms. Neville didn't have time to explain exactly what she meant with her reference to Infrastructure Canada.
If we're talking about gender-based analysis of highway construction—I don't even know whether such a thing exists—well, as a woman, I'm not sure I'm really interested in it. The fact is that the road belongs to everyone.
That is what I was asking Ms. Neville. That's why I wanted us to come back to this when she was here, so that she could explain what she meant with her reference to infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada, and exactly what she was aiming for there.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
There are two separate issues with respect to having the minister on this particular motion. First, I think we have a full calendar in terms of the types of things that we're going to get into. There are various studies that we want to get into. I don't necessarily see it as a priority.
The entire issue with respect to Ms. Neville's motion is to ensure and recommend that gender-based analysis is being done. The reality is that in the 2009 spring report for the Auditor General of Canada, she concluded that:
As stated earlier, there is no government-wide policy requiring that GBA be performed.
That's in the Auditor General's report of 2009.
It flies in the face of the federal government's key policy document concerning gender equality. The title was “Setting the Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality”. It was introduced before the Beijing conference in 1995.
Personally, as much as I'd like to hear about what the minister for Sport Canada is doing, it isn't the issue. It's gender-based analysis that's key here. I don't know why we would waste the minister's time. It's a simple answer: we are either doing it or we're not doing it, or we're going to look at the recommendation or we're not going to look at the recommendation. It's that simple.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
When you talk about developing infrastructure, you're not necessarily talking about washrooms in arenas. When you're talking about infrastructure development, you're talking about the impact that infrastructure has on the population as a whole.
In this case in particular, I think the idea was to see to what extent women are involved in developing infrastructure in terms of the construction itself, their participation in infrastructure work, the opportunity for women to get involved in non-traditional work and to be represented within the different construction trades that are involved in infrastructure construction.
I think that's what it really refers to. I'm not sure whether that's the case, but it seems to me it's something along those lines.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to say that I think that this is an important motion inasmuch as we do need to know what the level of gender-based analysis is in regard to these programs.
In terms of having the minister, I don't understand why it would be difficult to have both. Ministers are rare in terms of their appearance here, so perhaps it could be later in the spring, but before that I'd like to see the data, the information, so that I can ask good questions once the minister gets here. I don't like operating in a vacuum. I would certainly support this motion.
Second, I think that Madame Demers makes an excellent point. When we talked about infrastructure in connection with non-traditional jobs, we heard that less than 8% of the benefits in terms of jobs went to women. That is a very salient point. Infrastructure was there not just to improve communities, which of course is a very good thing, but to stimulate the economy and create those jobs. Women were excluded, and we need to take a very serious look at that.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In that case, we should be looking at two separate motions. The first one could deal with Sport Canada, reflecting the points you raised.
However, the kind of infrastructure you refer to is not really an area where gender-based analysis applies. The fact is that when you build infrastructure, the work is on a contract basis. When you hire people, it's on a contract basis.
We have looked at non-traditional occupations. We could look at another motion dealing with infrastructure, with a view to finding out how female workers are hired when projects start up, and how they go about including women workers in their plans. Do you understand what I mean? That could be the subject of another motion.
In this motion, it talks about sport and infrastructure. If I understand you correctly, you're not talking only about sport infrastructure; you're talking about all infrastructure. Is that correct? Is anyone listening to me?
A second motion could be drafted dealing with Infrastructure Canada, as a means of finding out more about how Infrastructure Canada ensures that contracts provide opportunities for women to access non-traditional trades and occupations. Perhaps we could study that.
This time, we could hear from officials from Sport Canada along with the minister. The minister will not be wasting his time. He is prepared to come and meet with us and has already accepted the invitation to appear and explain how things work in his department.
With respect to Infrastructure Canada, Ms. Demers' comments clarified things for me. I think it would be important to find out how Infrastructure Canada includes women and facilitates their access to contracts. Infrastructure Canada provides funding for infrastructure, but from that point on, it is not the government doing the work; rather, it's individuals who do it. What is being done to ensure, in partnership with contractors, that women have a definite place in the construction industry?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
Madame Boucher, you have a motion or an amendment there. What you just finished would be another amendment, or should we deal with the first amendment you put forth, and where would you want it to go?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I would like to move an amendment to have the motion read as follows:
“[...] and that the Committee invite departmental representatives and the Minister of State (Sport) to discuss funding programs, as well as contributions to Canadian and international athletic competitions [...]”
We can keep the word “analysis”; he will explain that to us. In addition to that, we should be asking what Infrastructure Canada is doing to include women in its contracting. Do you follow me?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
Thank you.
Whereabouts in the motion...? We missed where you wanted to put it. I'm trying to follow it in English.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm also trying to read it: That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all federal funding of sport [...] and that the committee invite departmental representatives and the Minister of State (Sport) to discuss funding programs, as well as contributions to Canadian and international athletic competitions [...]
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
Funding programs--is that where it goes? It would read,
That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all federal funding of sports, and that it invite officials and ministers to discuss Sport Canada funding programs.
Is that it?