Status of Women Committee on March 10th, 2011

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

Are you in favour? I'm looking for all those in favour of Ms. Demers' motion coming first, before Ms. Neville's.

(Motion agreed to)

I'll move on, then, to Ms. Demers' motion. It reads:

That the Committee ask every federal Minister to inform it, before Monday, April 4, 2011, of the status of implementation of the gender-responsive analysis in his or her department.

Is there any debate?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Could I explain my rationale, Madam Chair?

Madam Chair, we heard from officials from several different departments, who did not seem to be aware of what is going on in their respective departments with respect to the gender-based analysis that is now being done, or is supposed to be done.

Of course, departmental officials cannot be aware of everything. However, we also heard from official from Status of Women Canada, who told us that they help departments to take ownership of gender-based analysis, so that they can make it a normal part of their everyday way of working when they develop new programs, initiatives or legislation.

It would be interesting to see how far along that process is, whether it's working well, whether the people who are supposed to be in charge of that have all the necessary tools, whether those tools are being used appropriately—that's probably the case—and whether there have been other meetings like the one that took place in February. It was a year when all departmental officials met to debate gender-based analysis and the status of that analysis in their respective departments.

I think that would be a good thing to do, before the Auditor General comes and tells us that it hasn't been done. We may want to ensure that this has started to be implemented in the different departments.

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

Go ahead, Madame Zarac.

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

I simply have a question for Ms. Demers. I'd like to know whether she really wants to use the expression “analyse sexospécifique” or whether she would agree to saying “analyse comparative entre les sexes”. I believe the government always uses the latter expression. In French, the expression is “analyse comparative entre les sexes”, or ACS, as opposed to “analyse sexospécifique”. In English, it's “gender-based analysis”, or GBA, as opposed to “gender-responsive analysis”.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It's a question of semantics, as Mr. Cannon would say.

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

Is there any further debate?

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

Could you repeat that, please?

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

I will read it.

That the Committee ask every federal Minister to inform it before Monday, April 4, 2011 of the status of implementation of the gender-based analysis in his or her department.

The only word that is changing is “gender-based”.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we will go for a motion to pass the motion.

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

What is the motion? What did we just vote on?

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

You just voted on the amendment.

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

I had another amendment. I raised my hand. We just voted on Ms. Demers' amendment, but I had raised my hand previously to propose another amendment.

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

I think I need a motion.

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

When Ms. Suzanne Clément came, she suggested passing a motion that would say: “That the Committee ask Status of Women Canada to inform it, before Monday, April 4, 2011, of the status of implementation of gender-based analysis [...]”

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It was supposed to be addressed to the minister and to Ms. Clement.

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

She told us that Status of Women Canada provides assistance to departments. In fact, she has the tools to provide that assistance.

So, it really should say: “That the Committee ask Status of Women Canada to inform it, before Monday, April 4, 2011, of the status of implementation of the gender-based analysis [...]”

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

So where it says every federal minister, it already includes the Status of Women.

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

Status of Women Canada is not a department. There is a minister responsible for the Status of Women, but Status of Women Canada is another entity.

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

No, but she's a minister.

It's already included in the motion, because the safety minister will inform all the other departments and other....

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

It would be preferable to say: “That the Committee ask Status of Women Canada to inform it [...]”. If we say that it's Status of Women Canada, everything is included; she will have all the analysis.

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

On your note, what I'm hearing is that Status of Women is part of the heritage department, so it will automatically respond to our request.

Go ahead, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I believe Ms. Boucher is misinterpreting the role of Status of Women Canada, which is not to implement gender-based analysis in the departments; rather, it is to provide the tools with which to carry out that analysis. Status of Women Canada does not even provide the staff to implement it. Indeed, the different departments appoint champions or individuals who are well acquainted with this type of analysis to do that work.

So, Status of Women Canada provides the tools and leaves it up to the different departments to use them as they see fit, or as best they can. That's why we are asking the departments and the ministers to come and explain how far along they are in the implementation process. It is possible that some departments are doing this systematically, as is the case for CIDA. We also know that it is part of their usual way of working at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

However, some departments are struggling a little more with this. How can we help them improve implementation of gender-based analysis? We can have a look at the obstacles that are preventing them from moving forward. That's the only reason.

I think that once we have heard from the various ministers, we could meet with officials from Status of Women Canada and make them aware of the specific obstacles the departments are encountering as they attempt to implement gender-based analysis.

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

Is there further debate?

Go ahead.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Chair, I have a question. How do we define this? Is it a number count? How's our definition around the...?

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

For how many departments, you mean?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Well, for individual ridings. If we're talking about ridings, is it the implementation of more women in the workforce? What's the definition of what it is we're doing?