Status of Women Committee on May 1st, 2008

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

Yes. We can probably simplify this because we're starting to complicate matters and to get bogged down in technical terms. The purpose of the motion was to put some pressure on the government. The reason I'm tabling it is because we are currently involved in a study on gender analysis and I think that we should make the government aware of the fact that when it goes to important meetings or conferences it should invite the committee members. If the reference to committee members is too restrictive, we could suggest that it invite the critics of each party, those who are responsible for this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers, do you want to add anything?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I just wanted to say that the usual representation would apply. We are aware that if the committee cannot decide on its own to attend, then the government cannot invite everyone. When we ask the government to invite us, then the usual rules apply, the usual representation. As a rule, this means one person or member per party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Chair, this presumes that the government has made a decision to send political representation. As we saw with the UN meeting in February, the government did not choose to send political representation. I'm assuming we are hearing from our colleagues that there should be political representation, that there should be a representative of the government and that there should be representation from the other parties involved. So it's not just bureaucrats who go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Minna.

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

I was going to make a similar suggestion, but I'll wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Go ahead, speak. I can multi-task.

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

I was going to say the same two things.

One, when Madame Deschamps' text says “committee members”, it's vague enough that it doesn't necessarily mean or say “committee”; it says “committee members”. It could be any one or two or three members—it doesn't say how many. I think that is broad enough.

Also, I was going to raise the same issue as Madam Neville just raised. Maybe we could change this by saying “international events that Canada is invited to attend” and leave it at that, as opposed to saying that committee members would be asked to be part of events that “Canada is invited to attend”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I think the answer to the question you asked, which was a budget question, is that if APEC asks the government to come—and it's the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with the majority of members who are supposed to be part of that government representation—then yes, the budget would go from the committee to the Liaison Committee and we would seek approval from it. If, for example, it came through the CPA or IPU, then they would pay for the budget.

So your question in terms of the budget is now answered.

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

But the government or the department pays for it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

The department pays for it as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that when it comes to us, the Department of Canadian Heritage would give us the budget to do it; nobody else would. It would come under the Liaison Committee's heading, Canadian Heritage and Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It wouldn't be the IPU or CPA, or any of the parliamentary associations.

Now that we have clarified this and we are on the motion as amended by Ms. Mathyssen, I will re-read it so that we can take the vote in the right way:

That as part of its gender analysis study and all issues that pertain to the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women wishes to be included in all the meetings that the Government of Canada is invited to attend.

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

Okay, that's where the problem is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You can make a friendly amendment for clarification.

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

The issue here, I gather, is that we're talking about the standing committee as a whole. The motion is fine with me, but maybe all we need to say is, “the standing committee members” or “the committee members”, as Madam Deschamps has said, rather than the “committee”. Otherwise it's the standing committee as a whole that is being asked. The other way, it's “standing committee members”, and then it's up to each party to decide who goes. It's little bit more nuanced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Mathyssen, is that okay with you? It would be the “members of the Standing Committee of the Status of Women.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, that's fine, but there might be a simpler way of clarifying it by saying, “the Standing Committee on the Status of Women wishes its members to be included”. That way it doesn't define that it's all members; it's just some members.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

So it would read:

That as part of its gender analysis study and all issues that pertain to the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women wishes its members to be included in all the meetings that the Government of Canada is invited to attend, and that the chair take the appropriate steps to this effect.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

There's one last thing: the action plan on gender equality.

Mr. Pearson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, just before we move on with the action plan, it seems to me that we more or less had a consensus agreeing to pursue that, but I don't think there was a motion saying so. I think it would be helpful for the clerk if there were a defined motion that we all agreed to pursue. I've written one up: that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women undertake a study to hear testimony from different women's groups on the proposed action plan for gender equality that was put forward in budget 2008.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay, that's just a formality, because we've already started it.

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

Ms. Minna.

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

This is for clarification, Madam Chair. I appreciate that with this one we're formalizing what we discussed before, and I've been thinking about it overnight. I don't understand what we're trying to do here, exactly. We have the report on gender budgeting, which is a huge piece of work that we're still working our way through. It's going take us quite a bit of time—I would suspect most of the month of May—to get it right and make sure we have some impact. That is going to have the major impact on women's equality, above anything we could do as a committee.

So I'm not quite sure; is this referring to the government's planning...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

The government has stated that it will do an action plan, so we are pre-empting it. There is no timeframe given, so we would like to have a study, and therefore—

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

I understand that, but I was wondering whether this would take priority over the report.