Status of Women Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Demers, you are asking me to make a decision as a chair. I am asking the committee to decide how they want to proceed, mainly because—yes, I agree with you that if Madame Deschamps presents that motion now, she does not have to present it in two languages. I explained that to Ms. McLeod just now, so you repeated what I just said.

I am suggesting that if Madame Deschamps presents a motion and it's pertinent to what we're doing, we have to debate it. I am suggesting that we could resolve this by setting a time limit on debate so that we have some time to go into the work plan. If not, we are not going to do that.

I have also said to Madame Deschamps that if the motion is not urgent, if it doesn't have to come in today, she could bring it in at the next meeting and we will debate it in public in this committee.

I am asking her to first make a choice. This doesn't seem to be understood by anyone.

Do you want the motion to come now because it's urgent, in which case we will have to limit debate, or do you wish to wait until the next meeting when we can debate it in full? That's the first question.

You need it now; it's an urgent motion. All right, then, go ahead.

Before we do that, I will suggest that we limit debate. Does the committee feel we need to limit debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Then what is the limit on the debate? May I suggest five minutes?

Madam Davidson.

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

Madam Chair, I have no idea what the motion is, but apparently if it is urgent, we need to hear it. But saying right now that we're going to limit debate when we don't even know what the subject is.... I am not in favour of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

So let us not limit debate. But then I think this committee needs to understand, I am asking you to make a decision. If we allow ourselves to debate until one o'clock, you do not do the work plan.

[An hon. member]

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We are using up time to discuss it, so let's just go into it, and I will allow the debate to continue until one o'clock, when we adjourn. That's fine; so we will not go in camera today and discuss the work plan.

Madame Deschamps, let us have your motion.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have been talking about economic security for women for three years now. We have come up with nothing new. We have devoted two meetings to these discussions, and the same things keep getting said over and over.

In my opinion, it is urgent that a motion be introduced to say as follows:

The committee asks that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development change the eligibility criteria for the employment insurance program to give more women access to it, and that the Chair report it to the House.

In the current economic climate, everyone agrees that we have to take speedy measures to give more women access to the scheme. If we sit and twiddle our thumbs, as my friend Sylvie Boucher would say, we could keep on studying the problem for years to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Now, before we debate this motion, may I please suggest that what this motion is effectively saying is that the work that we are doing right now should cease because we have all the information we need, and it is presuming that there would be a unanimous decision to do this.

So I'm going to open debate. Those who wish to speak?

Madam Davidson

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

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to see the motion in writing at some point in time. But I'm not so sure from what I've heard that I'm in agreement with it at this point. I think we do have more people to hear from. I think there is more information coming that we need to hear.

We heard from Mr. Shillington today that one way to improve the situation is to change the “voluntary quit” rule. That is not what this motion says. He also said that another way is to go back to the weeks instead of hours. That's not what this motion is saying.

So I think we need to hear more information, and I really think I cannot vote for this motion. I cannot support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madam McLeod

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I will reiterate that perhaps Madame Deschamps is very familiar with all of the issues, but we've only heard from three witnesses and we have many, many more to hear from. I don't feel I have a picture that would allow the full, appropriate recommendation.

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

Madame Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Deschamps, is this on a point of information only, because if you speak, you will automatically be closing debate? I have a list of people to debate the issue.

Go ahead.

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

It is in response to what you said. I don't want to end consideration of the subject. My motion relates simply to the eligibility criteria under the scheme and not to the entire program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

However, from a study you make a report and put recommendations in the report. If you put a recommendation in the middle of a study, you're almost making the study invalid, because you don't know what people will decide by the end of the study and whether or not they will then agree with this. And people are suggesting that they lack information.

However, I will allow the debate to go on.

Ms. Hoeppner.

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

I have two things to say.

First of all, on a point of order, I just want to express for the record that I believe we are on a very slippery slope when we take motions like this and say we don't need 48 hours' notice. We can generally say that everything we're talking about pertaining to women has to do with what we're talking about. I know not everybody would agree, but I think we have to be very careful that motions that we take without the full 48 hours truly are related specifically to what we're doing, and I realize this is a difficult judgment to make—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, it's not actually difficult in this instance.

We are speaking about EI. We're doing a study on EI. Ms. Deschamps' motion pertains specifically to EI. It is an appropriate motion to bring forward without our 48 hours' notice.

We decided on how the committee would work. We decided that if something pertained to the agenda item, it would not need 48 hours' notice.

This is about EI. We are studying EI. It is a relevant motion. Thank you.

Anything further, Ms. Hoeppner?

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

Can I speak to the motion, then, for a moment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, go ahead.

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

First of all, I would like to hear it re-read, if we could.

I truly believe there are a host of other witnesses whom we need to hear from. We want to do justice to the women in this country, and if that truly is our motivation, we need to make sure that the motions we're bringing forward to the government will be productive and that we'll be able to move forward with them. What concerns me is that this does not seem to fall in line with that.

So could we hear the motion read again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The motion is that the committee asks, or demands, that the Minister of Human Resources change the criteria for admissibility or being able to apply for the EI program to allow for a larger number of women to participate in it, and that the chair report this to the House.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you, particularly for reading the motion again. I understand the urgency that Madame Deschamps feels on the EI issue. We're all hearing stories in our communities. I can't help thinking of the dislocation of the economic climate, as Mr. Shillington referred to it.

I'm also part of another group, Madam Chair, that is looking at EI and EI alternatives. There are a number of ways of changing the criteria to ensure greater accessibility to the EI program. I don't think we've heard them all here yet today in terms of how it benefits women.

We haven't looked at the regional discrepancies. We haven't looked at taking it down to a solid 360 hours. We haven't looked at the implications of turning it from hours to weeks. I'm particularly concerned about the regional discrepancies.

While I understand the urgency, and I, like Madam Mathyssen, am particularly concerned about the potential social unrest that is going to come in this country, I think it's premature to deal with this motion right away.

In speaking to it, I would say that I think it's important that very soon in the discussion we hear from the Minister of Human Resources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

In our work plan we had put forward a lot of people who would be able to broaden the scope, as you said, Ms. Neville, but we will not be discussing the plan right now.

Madame Boucher.

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

I know the situation is urgent. Everyone here agrees on that point. But with all due respect to Ms. Deschamps, I would point out that we have not finished our consideration. As Ms. Neville said, depending on where you are in Canada, there are differences. Ultimately, women are the ones who pay. We are trying to get some social justice for women. Whether we are on the government side or the opposition side, we are all trying to work together. In my opinion, it is important that nothing be left to chance, so that women are not the losers. Most importantly, we have to consider the differences, be it rural or urban communities. In order for the rules to be changed and everybody to be winners, it is very important to know where we are going with it.