Evidence of meeting #59 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 language.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry. If the mover of the motion calls for a vote, it means there is no more debate.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Tweed, your name is on the list, and I'll come to you when your name arrives.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
I share the concern of some of the comments that this motion is a recommendation to the government to do something as simple as conduct a gender-based analysis. It's a recommendation just to ensure that funding is equitable. I would really argue about the number that was thrown out by my colleague, Ms. Boucher, that 50%, I really and truly would, because we've had several cases where that just isn't the case.
So all we're looking for from the Status of Women is to conduct a gender-based analysis. If the government were to follow that recommendation, then we would probably hear three cheers from a lot of the female athletes in this country.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you again, Madam Chair.
I would suggest that if you want to know if there's been an audit done, the first thing I would do is bring in the minister and his departmental officials, and ask them directly, and if you're not satisfied with what they can do.
It's interesting. If you're surmising that all of this work hasn't been done, what if we do a review and it shows that they got 60% of the funding? Are you prepared to make adjustments backwards in that situation? I'm not saying that it's happening; I'm just saying it's going to create a divide at some point in time. I have a lot of male athletes who, if a pendulum swings the other way...maybe they're going to come back before this committee and ask you to reallocate the funding accordingly.
That's the only reason why I'm arguing that it should be the minister and the department, and then you make your decision, and you can refine your questions and you can refine exactly what you want. It's a very general statement. For everybody that says we do one, obviously there are some who don't believe that it happens, and who better to ask than the minister of the department? Who better than his officials?
Has that ever taken place? Has the committee ever written a letter to the minister and asked him that question directly? Has anybody ever raised it in question period? I mean, those are our opportunities to do it. I just worry that the good work of any committee is sometimes consumed in these kinds of fact-finding missions when I can just go on the Internet and get the same examples of what has been spent. So it--
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you. I just want to answer your question.
It has been asked in this committee of the Minister of Justice, for example, who said he didn't know, and none of his officials could answer that question either. So it has been asked.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Merv Tweed Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
--but I think if you're talking about sport in general, let's ask the minister directly. Let's bring him in here and ask him directly. Obviously, again, he has staff who are listening to this conversation. They're probably scrambling right now to put those numbers together.
All I'm suggesting is that, before you approve a motion that's going to create work for many, to collect and put this together, we ask them directly, and if we're not satisfied.... Again, I'm only looking at the experiences I've had in other committees. Having the minister appear before you is usually the best opportunity to ask the most direct questions.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think we will see how the committee feels about this process when they vote.
Thank you.
Ms. Mathyssen.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be very quick.
Basically, I'm supporting what Madame Demers said. The departments across government are supposed to do this analysis anyway. We've been assured over and over again--well, except for today with DFAIT--that it is in fact done. So it doesn't really create work; it's simply a compilation of what has been done.
As Madame Boucher said, we had intended to look at social media, and that study has been delayed and delayed. I would think that bringing in the minister for sport would further delay that. I would suggest that simply a compilation for this committee shouldn't be a big problem, and it shouldn't create such consternation.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to reiterate what my colleagues have said and remind you that to conduct an audit, or to come back on any of this, costs a lot of work, and it also costs a lot of money. It may not be necessary. We've seen that those answers.... We've seen the list on the computer, on the web. We have it all there. What other information are we going to get such that there would really be a need for us to cause a cost for all of this?
Sometimes, ladies and gentlemen, we have to use a bit of common sense and go forward and do our work in a common-sense way. If we can bring in a minister to speak to us and bring us this information, that wouldn't be as costly. I think that's the step we should take first before venturing into something that's going to be costly to everyone.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I would like to go back to the issue of the minister's appearance.
I sit on other committees. We've always done this and it works very well. I do not understand why this would not work here.
Madam Chair, there is a technical problem with the translation
12:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
