Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 795
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:12
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like my colleague to tell us whether the amendment she is proposing would be part of Ms. Neville's motion. In other words, in addition to the request that she has made, we would also be inviting the minister to appear before the committee to explain how his department is distributing funding on an equitable basis.
I think it's always a good idea to ask a minister to come and talk to us. Would my colleague agree to our also asking the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to do the same?
We're talking about two different things. This refers to sport, but it also talks about Infrastructure Canada. Would everyone agree to our asking officials from Infrastructure Canada to come and explain how that works?
As far as I'm concerned, our colleague's idea is an excellent one.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:17
When you talk about developing infrastructure, you're not necessarily talking about washrooms in arenas. When you're talking about infrastructure development, you're talking about the impact that infrastructure has on the population as a whole.
In this case in particular, I think the idea was to see to what extent women are involved in developing infrastructure in terms of the construction itself, their participation in infrastructure work, the opportunity for women to get involved in non-traditional work and to be represented within the different construction trades that are involved in infrastructure construction.
I think that's what it really refers to. I'm not sure whether that's the case, but it seems to me it's something along those lines.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:27
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.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:31
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.
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher: Are you suggesting there is something wrong with my brain?
Ms. Nicole Demers: No.
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher: You'd better not. Ah, ah!
Ms. Nicole Demers: 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.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:33
I'm talking about building construction. So, for the construction of the building...
Pardon me, Madam Chair.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:33
Sorry, Madam Chair; I didn't mean to carry on a two-way conversation.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:50
Keep up the suspense, Madam Chair.
Voices: Ah, ah!
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:51
Madam Chair, before we consider another motion, we do have to study the report on violence against aboriginal women. We took the trouble of asking the analyst to draft it quickly because we wanted to look at it before leaving on break week. She has done that work.
So, I would like the time for debating any motions to be limited. We spent two days on a single motion, only to end up agreeing unanimously. Are we now going to spend two more days on the other two motions? That's ridiculous, Madam Chair.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:52
I would like you to limit debate on the motion, along the lines of three in favour and three against. These are simple motions.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:55
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.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:57
It's a question of semantics, as Mr. Cannon would say.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 11:59
It was supposed to be addressed to the minister and to Ms. Clement.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 12:02
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.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 12:04
That isn't relevant, Mr. Boughen.
View Nicole Demers Profile
BQ (QC)
View Nicole Demers Profile
2011-03-10 12:04
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.
Results: 1 - 15 of 795 | Page: 1 of 53

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data