Status of Women Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

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

Madam Chair, the study on unemployment insurance has been done. When EI was overhauled in 1996, I think it was, and the new act was put in place, there was provision within the act that it would be reviewed. I think it was five years or so. And the review done by HRDC at the time showed there was a discrepancy and a bias against women--that women were being more negatively affected by the new regulations than men.

So the study is there; they are there; they're part of the record. Some actions were taken to change. Parental leave and a number of things were put in, but I think more improvement can be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Davidson first, and then Ms. Smith

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I am so sorry. I'm not watching my list.

Madame Demers, then Ms. Davidson, and then Ms. Smith.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think this motion is very important because one of our roles, as members of the Committee on the Status of Women, is without any doubt to bring pressure so that the current government, regardless of which party forms it, without partisanship, eliminates all forms of discrimination against women.

This is one of the most distressing forms of discrimination, because, once again, it strikes the most disadvantaged women. Earlier we were talking about women heads of single-parent families. Most of the time, these are women suffering from employment insurance discrimination. Only 33 percent of women who have worked are entitled to employment insurance benefits.

So this is an important motion. We're not telling the government how to resolve the situation; we're telling it to look at the situation and to make the necessary changes. It isn't our role to tell the government how to solve the problem, but we're asking it at least to look at the program as a whole and to make the necessary changes so that the program is aimed at all women, not just a segment of the population.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

I found the conversation interesting. Being new at Parliament, I haven't seen all of those studies. I was just wondering if in fact what I'm hearing is that there were studies done eleven years ago and updates done six years ago, and still everything isn't in place. So is that....?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, go ahead.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

What I'm saying is I think it's an issue that appears to be ongoing, and it sounds as though all parties have been trying to make strides towards it. When we talked about the security of women, those were some of the issues for single moms and for part-time workers in the workforce, that EI was perhaps one of the things we needed to be looking at, I think.

So I'm wondering if we're putting the cart before the horse by putting a motion forward that says “recommend that the government make the necessary changes”. It doesn't say to recommend that we look into it, or that we discuss it. So I think the motion's a bit premature. I thought that was going to be part of what we were going to be looking at, for economic security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), it states very clearly here that there must be a study before a report, and there have been some studies.

Ms. Minna, of course, related roughly around 1996, when the study was done. It's been over a decade now since that has happened. And I would agree with Ms. Davidson that it's putting the cart before the horse. Really, it's a very important issue; it's critical to the economic security of women. And I think in all seriousness that we, as the status of women committee, need to approach things in a very thorough manner and know that when we are making a request, that request is attached to recommendations that can be very clear.

So pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I would like to recommend that this is out of order. We haven't studied it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Minna, and then I'll give Madame Deschamps the last word, and then we'll go to the vote.

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

I have a couple of comments. Firstly, the study was not done in 1996. That's when the unemployment insurance was overhauled and the changes were made and the new act was introduced. Within the act it said there would have to be an analysis five years later, I think it was, to see how it was working and which groups it was affecting most, negatively or not, how it affected people differently.

There was, in fact, a study. I think there has been more than one, actually, from HRDC, but I think it was 2000, 2001, so it was not that long ago. And it showed some of the things we've discussed.

In our study on the women's economic security, Madam Chair, of course we will be dealing with this issue very directly, and there's no question that Madam Smith is right about that. However, as with the report on trafficking, we did put forward a motion that pre-empted the report that Madam Smith put forward, so this really follows in the same steps. If we don't want to go down that road, then we shouldn't start. So I'm quite happy to accommodate Madam Mathyssen, since this will.... We will deal with it more fulsomely as we do the study, but nonetheless I don't have a problem with this, since we've done it before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Before Madam Deschamps has the last word, just to let you know, Ms. Smith, I checked with the clerk, and this motion is not out of order. A study is not defined, and many committees are doing it. It's just a recommendation to the House. Therefore it is not out of order.

Madame Deschamps with the last word, and then we have to go for a vote.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I still say that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Respectfully, I have just cited Standing Order 108(2), and I would like to question the ruling of the chair and to let you know that we will be putting a dissenting report in if this continues. I do think very strongly that we need to be studying this. In the year 2007 things are a lot.... There are more changes.

Standing Order 108(2) requires a study. There's no study by this committee during this time, so we can't talk about seven years ago. We can't talk about eleven years ago. Standing Order 108(2) clearly says.... The language of the standing order is obligatory that there has to be a study in advance, and we have not done that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Smith, we need clarification. Are you appealing my decision? What are you talking about, a dissenting opinion?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

If we're going to do this report, then we have to do a dissenting report. I'm sorry; we have to challenge this motion, because it is out of order. It is clearly out of order according to the Standing Orders. It clearly says in the Standing Orders that a study must be done prior to a report. Well, that doesn't mean that you take a study from years ago; you take a study from right now. This committee this year has not studied this--has not put it forward--nor did it do it last year, to my knowledge.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, what we're seeking is a motion, not a report. Come on!

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I'm sorry; I misspoke.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Ms. Smith, I have just been given by the clerk page 857, chapter 20, on committees: “While the chair's rulings are not subject to debate, they may be appealed to the committee. A member appeals a ruling by requesting that the committee vote on the motion...”. I have ruled that this motion is not out of order, so if you want to rule that my ruling is out of order, let's vote on it and let's finish it, and then we'll rule on the motion itself.

Ms. Smith, what is it that you're really trying to do?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I'm sorry; maybe I wasn't clear. I'm talking about the motion. I feel the motion is out of order. I did not agree that we should continue with this, because we have not done the study. Let's have the vote, and then following that I will go through that procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I ruled that the motion was not out of order and that there was no debate on my ruling, but if you are challenging the chair's ruling that this is not out of order, then let's take a vote that the chair is right in her ruling or wrong in her ruling. If that's not what the issue is, then let's move with the motion.

Madame Deschamps, I want you to have the last word on the motion.

Thank you.

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

Do I have it, Madam Chair? Thank you very much. Before we request a vote, I'd like to point out that this is a motion that, in my view and that of my colleague, should be considered by the Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This is a factor that has been submitted to us on a number of occasions, and it's mostly women who are dealing with this problem. We're giving no directions. We're asking the members of this committee to propose the necessary changes, and it will be up to them to determine them. In my view, this motion is a response to women's expectations, of which we have been informed through this committee. I request a vote.