Status of Women Committee on June 9th, 2009

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I will be very brief.

I will just say that this is an attempt--it will be a failed attempt--to try to change the issue. This is about a basic human right. We talk about pay equity being a basic human right that you believe cannot be bartered away. This is a basic human right to have access to your property that you bought and paid for. If you're an aboriginal woman in this country, you don't have it.

No, this isn't about consultation. This is about acting.

Anyway, that's all I'll say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Sylvie.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Earlier, I heard Ms. Neville say that First Nations needed schools and housing. That's very true. I myself have gone to reserves to provide money for shelters. These women need to have the same rights as other Canadian women. That is a fundamental consideration and a matter of respecting aboriginal communities. I will not be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madam Demers, did you wish to speak?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand and hear very well what Ms. Hoeppner is saying. However, when we speak to leaders of First Nations, they tell us that they are especially concerned about this part of the legislation. Living in an First Nations community—and not on a reserve, because this isn't Africa where animals are kept on reserves—is a totally different experience. These women do not want to have to deal with the problems that arise when their husbands leave, assets are divided and they keep the home. That isn't how things work. The reality in a closed community is very different from the reality in a city. If my husband and I were to separate and divide our assets, he could move 100 miles away and it would not make any difference. I would not have to face him and his family every day. In an aboriginal community, which is a closed community, the reality is quite different. Women want rights, but they want these rights to correspond to their needs, not to what we imagine their needs to be. That's the reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Madam Demers.

After Ms. Boucher, I will allow the mover of the amendment to close if she wishes. Then I will limit debate to these two speakers.

Sylvie.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'd like to respond to Ms. Demers. I too understand very well what you're saying. I've met with many aboriginal women and with their leaders, and spoken to other women as well, women like you and me. They may not be playing a leading role, but they do exist. They asked us to take action. I've met with several such women, I've been around and I can tell you that women who are not leaders, but who live on reserves, have asked us to take some action. I will not be voting...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you....

No debate across the floor, people. It will....

Ms. Neville.

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

I wasn't going to get into it again, Madam Chair. I guess what I'm saying...and I'm listening to Ms. Boucher saying that she knows better than the leadership that the aboriginal women have designated to speak for them on this issue.

I am just overwhelmed with...or stunned, really--I think somebody else used that word--with the idea that we can impose it on a group of people whose leadership have said, “Listen to us, hear us, hear our concerns”.

I spoke to the fact earlier that aboriginal women have identified their needs. They were very much part of the discussions of the Kelowna Accord. I've been at the native women's summits and I've heard their issues. Women from across the country, grassroots women along with leadership women, have attended these summits. Quite clearly, this is not their priority.

I think it's important that we listen to them, and that the government moves forward on this issue but moves forward on the issue according to the needs, desires, or whatever of aboriginal women across the country.

I'm not going to belabour it any more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I'll call the question now....

No, I think we've belaboured this long enough. Let's call the question.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Chair, it's not--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I did say, Sylvie, that it would be you and then we would close with the mover of the amendment, and that would be closing the debate.

If we were to do a debate across the floor on every point, we'd never get to the end of this.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

No, I simply want to...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, as chair, I'm sorry, I'm calling the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have another motion to deal with.

I would like to apologize to the group waiting to present to us. We need to get this business done. I'm sorry. We did a press conference this morning that set us back a bit.

The motion is by Mr. Desnoyers. It says:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Standing Committee on the Status of Women requests that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council produce all documents and analyses that the Auditor General of Canada used or may have been used in the preparation of its study on “Gender- Based Analysis”.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a small correction to the translation. The last sentence of the English version says this:

“analyses that the Auditor General of Canada used or may have been used”. I would say “could have used”, because

the French version reads “qui auraient pu être utilisés”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Or “may have used”, yes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Not “may” but “could”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Oh, “could have been used”?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

No, just “could have used”.

There are some documents that were denied her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. So the English will read, “or could have used”.

Now, is there any discussion? It's pretty simple.

Mrs. Davidson.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion sounds fairly innocuous on first reading. If you stop and take a look at it, the Auditor General is an independent officer of Parliament. She does have access to confidential information, which we do not. She saw confidential information from these bodies when she was doing her report, and I don't think, even if this motion were to pass, that people would be able to comply with it because of the confidentiality that is involved in those departments. This government did increase the Auditor General's access to confidential information, but that's her access; that's not the committee's access.

I'm going to have to vote against the motion because I do not feel that it's even possible to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Monsieur Desnoyers.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

When she tabled her report and held discussions with us, the Auditor General clearly stated that she had not had access to all of the documents to which she should have had access. She was limited to exchanges with officials from TBS and PCO. These are the documents that we would like to have. The committee has asked to see them. We want to be sure that things were done correctly. I think that the committee has a legitimate right to see these documents. As MPs, we are entitled to see any and all information that helps us to make enlightened decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I shall call the question, since no one has any further discussion.

Is there a discussion there? Do you have anything further to say?

You want to go to a vote. Good.

Those in favour of the motion as it stands? Those opposed?

I'm going to have to break the tie again.

I would actually vote against the motion. I think the point is taken that by using the word “all” documents...there are documents that are not available, that are very secret and personal and private. The government cannot refuse...so if people wanted this to pass, you should have changed the word “all” to reflect the fact that you cannot ask a department to do what it cannot do.

The Auditor General should have had access to all of those documents, but this committee may not have access to some documents. So by using the word “all” and not clarifying it, you made this a very difficult motion to pass, because it is going to be un-implementable.

On that basis, I will vote against the motion.

(Motion negatived)

Now, if someone wants to come back with something that is reflective of what could happen, we will look at that motion down the road if you wanted to bring it in, or if you want to amend it now.

Yes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I would ask you to reconsider your position. The Library of Parliament sent us a list of all of the documents to which we are entitled. I'll ask someone to fetch it right away. The committee is entitled to view confidential departmental documents. We can ask to see them and opt to discuss them in camera, but regardless, we are entitled to see them. I'm sending someone right away to get this document so that you can see for yourself, Madam Chair, what the situation is.