Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 525
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
Well, it isn't specific programs or athletes who get it. If you read the motion, it's a recommendation from this committee that the government conduct a gender-based analysis.
I don't think the website says everything compiled here has gone through a gender-based analysis. That's the whole point of the motion: to recommend that this be done on a go-forward basis.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
With all due respect, it's not that I'm in favour of turning down a minister from visiting—we've had difficulties getting him to appear—but hearing what he's doing isn't the point. It's a recommendation for the government to conduct gender-based analysis. He could even write to us to say it is being done or it isn't being done. We don't necessarily want to take up the minister's time on this motion. That's the way I see it. I don't know how the rest of my colleagues see it.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
There are two separate issues with respect to having the minister on this particular motion. First, I think we have a full calendar in terms of the types of things that we're going to get into. There are various studies that we want to get into. I don't necessarily see it as a priority.
The entire issue with respect to Ms. Neville's motion is to ensure and recommend that gender-based analysis is being done. The reality is that in the 2009 spring report for the Auditor General of Canada, she concluded that:
As stated earlier, there is no government-wide policy requiring that GBA be performed.
That's in the Auditor General's report of 2009.
It flies in the face of the federal government's key policy document concerning gender equality. The title was “Setting the Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality”. It was introduced before the Beijing conference in 1995.
Personally, as much as I'd like to hear about what the minister for Sport Canada is doing, it isn't the issue. It's gender-based analysis that's key here. I don't know why we would waste the minister's time. It's a simple answer: we are either doing it or we're not doing it, or we're going to look at the recommendation or we're not going to look at the recommendation. It's that simple.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (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.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'd like to put forward an amendment to the original one submitted by Anita, which would cover off Ms. Boucher's concerns with respect to the invitation to the ministers.
How I'd like this to read is:
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 international athletic competitions hosted in Canada, to ensure that funding is being distributed on an equitable basis;
That the conclusions of this gender-based analysis be made publicly available and tabled in the House of Commons; and
That the relative ministers be invited to appear before this Committee.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
We have to add, “And have this motion reported to the House”. Yes.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today.
As you may or may not be aware, DFAIT originally turned down this committee's request to have you appear, which is why the committee was required to use its power of summons.
As the chair pointed out, this committee began a study last fall on ministerial interference in the language being used at DFAIT. The changes requested by the minister's office included the dropping of the word “humanitarian” from the phrase “international humanitarian law”, and the removal or changing of references to gender-base violence, child soldiers, human rights. Those are just a few of the examples.
This issue was first brought to light in an article in Embassy magazine that was based on information they received in an e-mail that was drafted by Mr. Weetman, which the rest of you received.
With that, my first question is for you, Mr. Weetman. You in fact did craft the e-mail of May 7?
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
In that e-mail, you outlined your concerns--which, by the way, I think most committee members here share--that the Minister of Foreign Affairs office...there was a tendency of late, at the time that was done, in 2009, to remove or change language in letters, speeches, and interventions on multilateral meetings.
In the e-mail you stated that “Some of the changes suggested by [the minister's office] are more than simply stylistic changes.” You implied, and I quote, that “some changes are not consistent with accepted [Canadian] policy”.
Could you give the committee details on the types of changes that were taking place; how that would reflect...where they're not just stylistic changes; and, possibly, whether this practice is still occurring?
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
I understand that; however, it seems to me there was some degree of alarm or concern, because you further state in this e-mail that so far you've largely been “managing” these issues. Managing indicates to me that it could potentially be problematic or that there was some concern on some level. And obviously, the individuals who were included on this e-mail exchange.... You know, when you have the director general of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian ambassador to Norway...you have some senior people who are all seeing the same thing, or you have enough of a concern that you wanted to find out if they were seeing the same thing. Is that correct?
It was fairly senior; this wasn't just a little e-mail to friends.
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
But it obviously accelerated, because you felt that there needed to be a coordinated departmental approach to this issue. So it was becoming an issue, based on who I've seen copied in that e-mail. Then there was a call for a meeting, which brings me to my next question.
It's our understanding that there was a meeting on Thursday, November 21, at DFAIT to discuss these issues. In your e-mail you said, “The purpose of this meeting is to ensure we are clear on the issues we are facing and that we have a coordinated departmental view.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Weetman, that indicates to me--and I know it's the written word--that there was definitely concern on your part and on the part of several others in that e-mail exchange that this language change was, quote, an issue. Am I correct?
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to address something that one of my colleagues across the way, Mr. Tweed, had to say about thanking you.
Of course we absolutely do thank you. I think the misunderstanding is that the committee had exactly--precisely--the same concerns you voiced in this e-mail: language concerns.
We were assured by Mr. Kessel in his previous testimony that they weren't even taking place, so you have to understand that I positively do thank you, Mr. Weetman, because there are changes taking place and they are alarming. There were almost two dozen senior officials from various departments in on this e-mail.
I'd like to go back to the meeting on May 24. Your e-mail exchange says that there was a “positive” response, a need for this meeting, and you say there were six or seven people. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a “coordinated departmental” plan--a plan.
Could you elaborate on what the plan was? Were there any documented minutes of the meeting? Was anything put into writing as to what the planned approach on these arbitrary changes was going to be?
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
Is there a record? It says that a “coordinated” plan was going to be developed. Was it just sitting around having coffee or was it in writing--yes or no?
View Michelle Simson Profile
Lib. (ON)
So you didn't develop an overall plan, even though it said that Mr. Nickel had the same concerns that it was being seen on a broader base and that there was definitely a need for this meeting?
So nothing was formalized?
Results: 1 - 15 of 525 | Page: 1 of 35

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

For more data options, please see Open Data