Evidence of meeting #60 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 analysis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
That's a good question, Mr. Boughen, but at this stage, it isn't relevant, because we are not interested in knowing what the status is in your riding, although we would like to know who is going to win the election. We want to know what is being done to implement gender-based analysis in the different departments—for example, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. We want to know how far along they are in the implementation process.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Status of Women Canada has identified certain factors to try and determine what the impacts of a specific measure or initiative are on men, women, children and the population as a whole. Using that analysis by Status of Women Canada, tools have been developed that the departments are to use when they are designing certain measures, programs or legislation. They have to look at whatever they're planning through that lens—in other words, the future impacts on the population as a whole, and not just one segment of the population. That is what gender-based analysis involves, Mr. Boughen.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Just to maybe answer your question, if you go on the Status of Women Canada website, you will find the definition of GBA. It is very defined on the website.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
Is there further debate?
(Amendment agreed to)
It's unanimous.
Madame Zarac, do you want to go on to the next one?
March 10th, 2011 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Yes, please. I hope it will go more quickly than the first one. I'll read it first and explain it after, because I understand that you have a good report that we need to go through.
The motion is as follows:
That the Committee recommend that the government conduct a gender-based analysis of all legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety before it is introduced to Parliament, and that this analysis be tabled in the House of Commons after each bill is adopted at first reading; and that this motion be reported to the House.
The reason I'm putting this motion forward, Madam Chair, is that we've seen through Bill C-59—and this was strongly reported by the Elizabeth Fry Society—that it had a big impact on women, and not only on women, but on women who had financial difficulties, women who were autochtone.
Here we are talking about women in very difficult circumstances.
For all those reasons, I think it's important, when we are asked to vote on motions and bills, that we be aware of their impact on women. That is the reason why we are tabling this motion today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure whether I want to vote for or against. I just voted in favour of Ms. Demers' motion which includes all the ministers. That's why I wanted all the ministers to be included. We just passed a motion that includes all the ministers. I don't see why we're necessarily talking about these ministers.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
As I explained earlier, Madam Chair, the important thing is that we be made aware of the impact. This deals with motions and bills that are tabled. It specifically refers to motions and legislation, the idea being to have an understanding of the impact of these motions and this legislation on women. This will provide us with important information about the decisions we have to make.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Well, quite frankly, I just voted in favour of Ms. Demers' motion, which includes all the ministers. Based on Ms. Demers' motion, we will be able to invite them, and they will be there as well. We will have an opportunity to put the question to them. With all the analysis, we'll have a chance to see what's being done in terms of implementation. I see no reason to vote in favour of this. We will be able to look at this with all the other ministers. We have asked all the ministers to provide that information to us. I see no reason to vote in favour of something like this, when we have just asked all the ministers to do that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
I will try to be more specific. This only deals with motions and legislation. It's completely different from all the reports that ministers are required to make. This is specifically addressed to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety, because this can have a very significant impact on the decisions they have to make. It's completely different from what every department has a responsibility to provide. In addition to that, we are asking that, when a bill or motion is under consideration, that a study be done to determine the impact. It's more specific than the last one. It's not the same thing; it does not deal with the reports that departments are required to make. Here we're asking that a specific analysis be done with respect to any motion or bill brought forward by these ministers.
I'm not sure whether that helps you, Ms. Boucher.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Yes, to a certain extent.
Can I go and get something to eat before making my comments? I will make them afterwards.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's important to remember that, two weeks ago, when officials from the Departments of Justice and Public Safety appeared the committee, they explained that they were not able to provide us with answers about some bills that were brought forward, particularly with respect to incarcerated aboriginal women. We noted that aboriginal women represent 70% of the female prison population, even though they only constitute a small proportion of the total population. So, there are a lot of aboriginal women in prison.
At that point, Ms. Neville must have been thinking that if the minister were to carry out a prior analysis, before actually proposing a bill, a motion or a measure dealing with justice or public safety, it would be an opportunity to assess the impact of these measures on aboriginal women, children and men.
If the work were done upstream, rather than downstream, we would see better bills come forward. In fact, we would be in a position to know what kind of impacts these bills would have. We would be in a better position to vote on them as well, because we would be aware of those impacts.
Too often, we may think of one thing without seeing all the rest. We don't see it, because there are too many things happening at the same time. When we consider a bill that may seem appropriate, we need to know what impact it will have on aboriginal communities, on women and on children. We have to know what the outcome will be, and whether that is the outcome that we seeking. Otherwise, the outcome may be completely different and come as a surprise to us. Then we will be thinking that this is not what we were hoping to do with the bill, nor is it the outcome we were seeking.
That's why I think asking the minister to conduct an analysis prior to bringing forward a motion or bill is a good idea. I believe that must have been Ms. Neville's intention when she tabled her motion.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Tilly O'Neill-Gordon
Is there any further debate on the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
That's that, and then we're going down to the report. We have to suspend for a moment or so because we have to go in camera now.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
