Status of Women Committee on March 10th, 2011

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

I'll start all over again: That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all federal funding of sport, including Sport Canada funding programs, and that the Committee invite departmental representatives and the Minister of State (Sport) to discuss funding programs, as well as contributions to Canadian and international athletic competitions [...]

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

That's what you want to put?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Chair, that's an entirely different motion.

I would suggest that we deal with the motion at hand. If my colleague wants to propose that we extend an invitation to discuss with the minister of sport, that's an entirely different issue. I don't think we have to have the fact that this committee would like to extend an invitation to a minister inserted into a motion, and it does change it to the degree that I would argue it's not an amendment in any event.

It sounds to me as though Ms. Boucher has already extended the invitation or had a discussion, because she did say he was willing to appear, which is an entirely different issue. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe that every time we invite a minister, we do a motion.

I'm proposing that what Ms. Neville suggested, together with the changes, is the intent. That's my feeling.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

Let's ask Madame Demers, and then we'll come back to you, Ms. Simson.

Go ahead, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, things are getting rather confusing. The intent of the motion is what has to take precedence. The purpose of this motion is what we should be focusing on in our discussions. The way Ms. Boucher has re-written the motion changes its intent, as well as the actual content of the motion. So, we are no longer dealing with the same motion.

By inserting in there the idea of inviting the minister, she is changing the content of the motion. If she wants to invite the minister, she can add that at the end of the motion. That way, she would not be changing the content. We would simply be adding that the minister is to come and respond to the concerns of the committee that are raised in the motion. However, if we include the invitation in the body of the text, we will actually be changing the content and scope of the motion.

So, I can't vote on a motion where the actual content has been changed.

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

I would like to make a correction.

I mentioned the invitation there because I wanted infrastructure to be separate. I don't understand why there is a reference to infrastructure projects. And I am not the only one. It seems to me we are mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about sport, about infrastructure, and yet we don't know what the idea is behind the reference to infrastructure projects because we have not been given an explanation.

That's why I inserted the reference to inviting the minister there. I would have liked Ms. Neville to be here, because we need to know what she means when she says “funding of infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada”. It's all very well to ask for gender-based analysis, but for what reason? For the trades, for the building? Why? That is what is missing here.

When we did our study on non-traditional occupations, a lot of women came before the committee saying that things were fine in the construction industry.

The reason I added that is that, as far as I'm concerned, infrastructure has nothing to do with sport. I don't know in what connection we would be discussing infrastructure. If we're talking about gender-based analysis, would it be in relation to trade, to buildings, to programs?

We're mixing apples and oranges. The motion talks about “[...] funding of infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada, as well as contributions [...]” So, as far as I'm concerned, either we amend Ms. Neville's motion, or we do things differently. I have to know what she's seeking to achieve with the reference to Infrastructure Canada.

I talked to Gary Lunn to see whether he would be willing to come and explain how that works in his department. This is not about wasting his time; he is prepared to come and meet with us. We have always moved motions to invite ministers, at least in this committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

Go ahead, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to propose a friendly amendment to the motion tabled by my colleague, Ms. Neville, so that Ms. Boucher can wrap her brain around the motion.

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

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with my brain?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

No.

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

You'd better not. Ah, ah!

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

On the contrary, I want to be sure she uses it effectively.

I would like to move an amendment, as follows: “[...] funding of sport infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada [...] ” That way, it would be clear that we're talking about sport infrastructure.

Since the motion deals specifically with sport, Ms. Boucher would then know that we are talking only about sport infrastructure, and not about highways or the Bell Centre in Montreal.

I don't know whether my colleague is prepared to accept that friendly amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

Madame Boucher, you'd have to withdraw that amendment before we could have another amendment from Madame Demers.

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

I just want to be sure I understand. When you talk about sport infrastructure, are you talking about buildings, trades or analysis?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I'm talking about building construction. So, for the construction of the building...

Pardon me, Madam Chair.

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

No. Please explain.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Sorry, Madam Chair; I didn't mean to carry on a two-way conversation.

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

Please excuse us. I simply asked Ms. Demers a question with a view to getting a full explanation.

In terms of construction, it's important to realize that the government provides the funding, but companies are responsible for the actual construction. It's important to be aware of that. That's why I have a problem with this.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I can support Ms. Demers' amendment because it would actually make the motion clearer. I don't understand why it's all so complicated. We were told several times by departmental officials that gender-based analysis is carried out systematically and that the data already exists.

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

That's what I was saying.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Ms. Boucher, I would also be prepared to accept the amendment you have moved. If you don't mind, I'd like to read the motion with the inclusion of Ms. Demers' amendment:

That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all federal funding of sport, including Sport Canada funding programs, funding of sport infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Canada, as well as contributions to Canadian and international athletic competitions hosted in Canada, to ensure that funding is being distributed on an equitable basis;

That the conclusions of this analysis be made publicly available and tabled in the House of Commons;

That the Committee invite the ministers responsible for these departments; and

That this motion be reported to the House.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon]

Just a minute, now; we have too many amendments on the floor. This is not in order until we deal with Madame Boucher's amendment.

Go ahead, Madame Boucher.

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

I'm thinking. Could you read the whole motion again, please?

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Perhaps I could explain it to you.

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

No, please read it. I want to hear the exact wording.