Evidence of meeting #49 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hoeppner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I do not believe that it is up to the committee to discuss such a motion. I do not believe that it is up to the committee to determine how democracy should be expressed, nor how we express our convictions. I do not believe that that falls within the purview of the committee.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, there was no translation.
Nicole, I'll ask you to start again. Go ahead.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Madam Chair.
I do not believe that it is up to the committee to discuss this motion. I do not believe that it is up to the members of the committee to determine how democracy and our convictions are to be expressed. I do not believe that it is appropriate that this motion be discussed here today.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
You believe this motion does not fall within the mandate and jurisdiction of this committee?
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
It is up to Parliament to decide how democracy is expressed, not up to the committee; it is up to our leaders, our whips, our committees on procedure.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We're going to deal here with the question of whether or not this motion is appropriate to the mandate of this committee, so I will entertain discussion on this.
Mr. Van Kesteren.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Madam Chair, I guess because it's my motion, I should probably be first to address that.
It's obviously not our intent. The intent goes a little bit deeper than that. I would suggest that if you're opposed to it, you'll defeat the motion. I just thought it would be a healthy thing to talk about and a thing that would benefit us all if we brought this up.
As to the legitimacy, I think we could argue for a long time. I'd kind of like to get to the party. I'd like to just be able to spend some time with my colleagues.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
No, the issue is that if you feel that way, you can vote it down. We recognize that too, but I just think it's something that should be aired.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
I do not share Mr. Van Kesteren's opinion. I have great respect for you, but I do not believe this is a way of airing things, as you say. The Committee has a mandate and, I agree with Ms. Demers, debating this matter does not fall under our mandate. If we want to air things, there are other, probably friendlier, ways of doing so.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I certainly didn't intend for it to be unfriendly. I just intended that talking about these things could be, as a matter of fact, something that might bind this committee together more.
I'd hoped we could have done this earlier--we didn't have that opportunity--just to show this side of the table's feelings and our position on some of those things. I think it would be wise to look at those things so that in the future when we come across issues like this, we can understand that there are differences of opinion.
Nevertheless, the overall issue, I think, is that we as a committee have an air and a dignity about us and that we move forward on very important issues. I think we've demonstrated that. Madam Chair, you've done an excellent job in the past, chairing for the last committee report, which we've accomplished, and I'd like to see that continue. I just thought this was something that left a little bit of a cloud, so this gives us an opportunity to air those concerns.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I have two points, Madam Chair.
As to whether this is an appropriate motion for this committee to be talking about, if there were issues about Remembrance Day, we would certainly expect that the veterans affairs committee would deal with those.
Very clearly, the women who were killed at École Polytechnique were killed because they were women. We are the status of women committee, so I think it is an appropriate motion for us to talk about, but as a point of order, I don't know that it should be excluded from discussion. Perhaps we could be guided.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I have to say that I think such a discussion would be more divisive as far as this committee goes. We as committee members, as parliamentarians, have to be free to respond to the realities as we see them, and the reality is that the women at École Polytechnique were killed by a non-restricted weapon, and I think that is at the heart of the concern we have expressed.
That weapon was not registered. It was not restricted. That gunman killed 14 women and wounded many others. That, I think, is the essence of our need to—
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Irene, I have to say that you're arguing on the substance of a motion that is not yet on the table. We are asking whether the motion should be appropriately put on the table.
Lise, are you speaking to the procedure here?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Yes, I am.
I understand what you're trying to say, but if we want a unified committee we have to understand that we have different values. We shouldn't have to justify our different values. We should respect our different values and not take anything personally because we have different ideas. I think that's what we're debating here.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I have allowed some discussion on this. I think Ms. Wong would like to say something. Then I would like to speak to the propriety of bringing this motion and--from what I've heard and what I've read in the rules--whether I believe this motion is appropriate here or not.
So I will entertain Ms. Wong. Then I will discuss not the substance or whether people should or should not discuss the issue, but whether this is the appropriate forum for discussing this issue. It's my role as the chair to decide that.
Alice.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If you look at the motion carefully, we should acknowledge that we will be facing a lot of commemorative ceremonies as status of women committee members. So those will come in the future.
Then there's the fact that they should not be politicized and should be treated in a non-partisan manner. I think it applies to all parties, not just to the specific event that was quoted here as an example. I wasn't even there, because I was on the road.
I'm looking at this strictly as a motion, and I think this will also clarify that it's something for all of us to observe in the future--that we will respect each other. So I think that is a positive motion rather than a negative one. In the spirit of cooperation, it's really mutual respect that we put in it.
This time it's one party and next time it could be another party. In other words, we work for the benefit of women. There will be a lot of commemorative ceremonies. For example, down the road there'll be something for first nations women. Those can be politicized, but we don't want that to happen, either way. So that's why I think this is a good motion, and it is nice to set some common understanding that we as a committee observe.
That's my support.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Ms. Wong.
I am not going to speak to the merit of the motion or the demerit of the motion. I'm not going to speak to the intent of the motion, because that is not my role here. But when I look at what the motion is asking, it is meant to cover all commemorative ceremonies, and this is one example. It says “commemorative ceremonies”.
This was a national ceremony; therefore, it was the purview of Parliament and not this particular committee. There are going to be many national ceremonies that are the purview of Parliament and not this committee. How Parliament behaves--the manner in which Parliament deals with ceremonies and other events--is the role of the House and therefore the Speaker. This should be brought rightly, if you wish, to the House and not to this committee.
This committee's mandate is to deal with issues specifically pertinent to women and women's issues and not to ceremonies, which is the purview of the Speaker of the House. I believe this does not belong here, and I'm moving that it not be done so.
If you wish, there is a procedure for challenging the chair's ruling, and I would like to rule on how that moves forward. We're dealing strictly with substance here and the appropriateness of this motion, and not with the substance of the motion.
Do we have the rules for this?