Evidence of meeting #4 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was groups.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Morgan, you referred to the reports of various committees that have dealt with the same subject, the Court Challenges Program.
I have a question about the list of witnesses, because you were not able to address it. I am wondering how balanced it was. Were there as many "pro" as there were "con"? Were there only groups who supported the program, who were sorry to see it eliminated? Were there groups who said that the program was not necessary? Was it balanced?
3:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Yes, a few.
There were more people in favour of the program than people who were against it. People were also represented who were against the program.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
We have the reports. True, we have not read them. Do they refer to the testimony of the groups that were against the program?
3:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
There was testimony, but it is not set out in the report.
3:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I have read the testimony of the people who were against the program, however.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
As I was discussing with the clerk and the analyst, it would take two meetings, and we can have very balanced viewpoints. We want four witnesses, four for and four against and perhaps we will find out what it...because what we need is the essence and if we can get the essence and balance it out, that should be fine.
The only thing, if I heard Madam Minna correctly, is you wanted to make some changes to the motion that Madame Demers has presented.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Davidson wishes to speak.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to say that I concur that it needs to be a quick study in light of the fact the three groups have already studied it. One thing I was interested in was the dates on which it had been done before.
I think if we do a quick study now--it's been several months since any of these have been looked at—we could do a balanced study and try to limit it to two meetings at the maximum. We could get as many balanced witnesses as we can, get it done, and look at it now.
I think all the reports said reinstate, but one of them also had the rider of reinstate as it was or with something that would perhaps do it. I think that's something we need to look at.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you, Ms. Davidson.
Madame Demers, would you like to read your motion?
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The motion reads as follows:
"That after the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will have studied the 3 reports from the other committees on the Court Challenges Program, that the committee studies the impacts of the cut over the Court Challenges Program on women and more particularly those belonging to the minorities and aboriginal women."
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I wanted to ask if I could ask for a friendly amendment. When you see the phrase “women of the first nations”, it does not include Inuit and it does not include Métis.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
If you say “aboriginal women”, then that will include everyone under the umbrella.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Fair enough.
Madame Demers, would you read the motion, please, with the friendly amendment?
