Evidence of meeting #58 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
We vote first on Ms. Smith's motion. Then we can take the next step.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
We have to amend her motion first, because it's the first amendment. So we have to amend the amendment, if we want to be able to amend the main motion afterwards.
We just want to take the words out.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Madame Demers, a subamendment is allowed. So you can subamend Ms. Smith's amendment.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I would like to move that the words “pendant la durée des jeux ” or “during the games” be deleted. I would just like to take these words out of the motion.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Oui, six mots. The six words are “during the duration of the games”. So that is a subamendment. Now we have to vote on the subamendment.
No?
The clerk asks that she explain what's going on.
3:40 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Michelle Tittley
I just seek to clarify for the knowledge of the committee.
The motion was moved by Ms. Neville. We then had an amendment moved by Ms. Smith. The amendment would be what is on the floor presently, because the subamendment that was proposed by Madame Demers is actually a subsequent amendment, not amending the subamendment.
Therefore, what we will proceed to do is vote on the amendment. Then perhaps we will have another amendment proposed, vote on that amendment, and then vote on the motion.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
My first proposal was right, so let's go back to the first proposal.
Oui, madame. No problem. Pas de problème.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
So all in favour of the amendment proposed by Ms. Smith, raise your hands.
(Amendment agreed to)
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I move that the words “during the games” be deleted in Ms. Neville's motion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
So we are proposing the removal of those six words, “during the duration of the games”, from the amendment.
Yes, Mr. Stanton.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think the amendment in this case is certainly well intentioned. The only difficulty I see is that it changes the essence of the motion, in terms of broadening its scope.
Essentially it is then asking the government, working in collaboration and so on to develop and implement a plan to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes. By not putting that qualification in there, it leaves it general in nature for all future purposes. The only thing that is being compelled vis-à-vis the Olympics is the timing of such plan and implementation.
This is really suggesting that the government, working with other governments, plan and implement this initiative prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics.
It's relatively broad in its scope, and certainly it's well intentioned. But I don't know what implications that has. For example, is it in conflict with what we have already done in the recommendations of our comprehensive report on human trafficking?
Before agreeing to that amendment, I want to go back and take a look to see if in fact we have not already done that. Because I believe we had recommendations around curtailing the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you, Mr. Stanton
If you could indulge me, Ms. Smith, I think the removal of the six words has been suggested by Ms. Neville.
I think Ms. Demers was just facilitating the process. So could Ms. Neville please clarify why she feels it necessary to remove this, because it was her original motion?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
My intent in putting the suggestion forward was that important processes will be put in place for the Olympic games. But once the games are over, we don't want these processes to be dismantled and the intensity of the activity....
The Olympics will generate its own activity and intensity, but it's important that these organizations remain vigilant on the issue as well.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Just to simplify things, I would agree with Ms. Neville that she makes a very good point. However, I also think she brought up a very important motion because of the Olympic games. So I'm wondering if she might think about doing this motion with the amendment—this is a suggestion to the committee—because it addresses the Olympics, and then perhaps the member could bring another amendment forward to expand on that motion at another time.
So in other words, there would be two different motions, because I believe what she's done is very important. I don't think it would curtail anything, because we have the report tabled in the House of Commons.
We have my motion 153 that has been supported by all members, and this motion is the first to address the Olympics. I just throw that out.
If everyone wants to take out the six words, I'm more than willing to do that, because it's a good motion. But it's very strong with the Olympics, so I would like to have the motion remain with the amendment and all of us see that through. We will support either way.
Do you know what I'm saying? I'm just saying that this is very important, and if she takes out the six words, she might lose some of its strength.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
For my clarification, do you want this amendment to stay? Then would you like the Olympic aspect of it, “during the duration”, and then should she make another amendment, saying that we have the systems in place, don't dismantle them?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
No, we're making this too complicated. I agree with what the member is saying. I know she looked at this a second time and said, oh dear, I don't want it to stop with the Olympics. I totally agree with that. This motion will be supported by this side of the House.
I'm just thinking that the very important aspect that she brought forward about the Olympics has never been brought forward before.
I put the amendment forward to make sure it was in collaboration with all the members. So if she would be willing, I would like to see her original motion and the amendment be carried today. Then if we need more at a future time to carry on...because this is a very important motion put forward today in its original form.
But I'm willing; I just want to throw that out.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, I have a suggestion that could be simpler than removing six words. The motion could read, “a plan to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes during and after the duration of the games”.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
The amendment would be “during and after”, or “pendant et après”. I see.