Evidence of meeting #3 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 reports.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
On a point of order, Ms. Smith, have you read the report of the aboriginal affairs committee?
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'm surprised and dismayed that this simple motion has caused a problem this morning. I'm here to emphasize the fact that we're all on the same page. A motion simply formalizes. We can all agree. Also, I think there has been much good work done on this aboriginal matrimony issue, and certainly I think that members opposite and everybody around the table will feel that we are together here and we're saying very strongly that all of us within the parliamentary system want to make this work.
So the motion is not to be offensive to anyone. It is to--
Liberal
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Excuse me, may I finish a point of order?
I'm curious about this strong reaction. I would rather just get on with the work. I think it's a very useful motion. We can vote it down if you don't like it, but it is on the table, and I would like to put it forward so we can formalize it.
I would like to say that we need to put this to the forefront and move it as quickly as we can.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I still have speakers to the motion, and we are probably going to end up talking longer to the motion than to the workplan.
We have Ms. Neville, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Bourgeois.
Ms. Neville.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do find this offensive. I find it very offensive. Last year the status of women committee was noted in Parliament as a committee that worked together in a collegial way, and within a very short period, within, I think, ten months--I've got all of the reports here--we were able to table five reports. We tabled those five reports because we worked together in cooperation without the need for motions and one-upmanship and whatever.
We've had agreement that matrimonial property is an important issue. It's an important issue for everybody. I do want to say that within the aboriginal affairs committee yesterday, the government was not anxious to see matrimonial affairs moved forward. I don't know what is going on over there, but there certainly was an issue around it.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I'm telling you what the government members did yesterday; I was present.
I've read the report; it's a comprehensive report. There is a response from the government. There is also a Senate report dealing with these issues.
Moving forward on this agenda item, I think it's important that those two reports be brought before the committee, as well as the numerous studies that have been done on it, perhaps incorporating the matters of Bill C-31 that also relate to matrimonial property and the impact on women.
I guess what is distressing me more than anything, Madam Chair, is the change in culture of this committee. This committee was a model for committees of Parliament last year. We accomplished much, and we accomplished much by working together to make things happen.
We're now in our third week. We didn't meet the first week. The second week we met we were into procedural wrangling, and we're back at it again. As we've all said, the agenda is substantial, and it really is time to move forward on the agenda. Nobody disagrees with the issue of the importance of matrimonial property. Let's not reinvent the wheel. Let's move forward on it, but let's try to do it in a collegial way, as we should all topics that we undertake.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
To the motion, Ms. Bourgeois. Then I'm going to call a vote on that motion, if it's still on the table.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Petty in-fighting and power struggles have always hampered the women's movement. The worst power struggles have always found women fighting each other. While women were fighting each other, their cause was not advancing. Earlier, I supported Ms. Smith and agreed to proceed by consensus, but I just realized that to some extent, the current government is demonstrating... I'm saying this very frankly, because there is nothing in it for myself; I am here only to defend women's rights. The government would probably like to demonstrate that it is introducing motions. That's fair enough. However, we are here to work for women. So, could we stop fighting each other? Ms. Smith, I would amend your motion, because it is too long. We all want to work toward improving the living conditions of aboriginal women, particularly with respect to marriage. If that is the point, let us remove half of your motion.
In addition, could we stop quarrelling over words and motions and get rid of your motion altogether in the spirit of working for women? While we are talking and quarrelling, aboriginal women do not have access to the equity to which they are entitled.
That is all I wanted to say, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, I totally agree. The only purpose, regardless of what has been said around the table, is to put this up to the forefront. It's very important. I have been in numerous meetings with our government, and we're very wanting to move this forward.
Ms. Bourgeois, if you could put an amendment to this to shorten it, then we could take that motion forward and do it as a consensus around the table, and to formalize what we want to do to make sure that it isn't lost. It's very important. We could do that very briefly, get it done and it's over.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Can I make a suggestion? Ms. Minna had initially suggested that we do the following things, if I have them all straight: retable the reports that were unanimously adopted; focus on the matrimonial reports; get a presentation on the pay equity report; and, again, focus on the whole issue of violence against women.
If we were to list our issues on our work plan as the issues that we were going to agree on, there would no longer be a need for a motion, because we'd be unanimously agreeing to what our work plan was. We don't want to initiate a study until we've had a meeting, I would suggest, with the joint committee on aboriginal affairs. Following that, we could see what was necessary for us to focus in on at that particular point--what part of a study was not covered in the 32 recommendations, what area might be more focused--in order for us to be more successful.
I would make that suggestion as a way for us to move forward, but as a compromise, if we go ahead and we move forward on our work plan, I think there's no need for a motion. We would unanimously agree on the work plan, which is that the matrimonial issue be the first item on that work plan. There would then be no need for a motion, because we would have come to a compromise.
We are all saying the exact same thing--the unanimous consent of the status of women committee that we are going to focus on the issue of the matrimonial challenges, and that our first meeting, following the initial three, would be the aboriginal committee and a review of the 32 recommendations. At that point we would decide on what more needs to be done so that we could move that forward, from that perspective.
So if I could make that suggestion, it might be a way for us to move forward so that we can start to get some of these things done. I'm sure Ms. Smith doesn't want to reinvent the wheel and is anxious to see some success on that very important file.
Ms. Smith.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It seems to me, from what I'm hearing, that it's the word “study”—we don't want to go through a study—so let's take that word out and let's just put “undertake the matrimonial property rights of aboriginal women as top priority”.
Then we might as well just have a vote on it, because we're—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Because we're all agreeing that's exactly what we're going to do.
You have the motion on the table, Ms. Smith.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You are laughing in our faces over there, so if you're going to grin at us, leave the room. This is my committee, not yours.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I don't need this young man over there grinning at us the whole time. He can leave and go to wherever he belongs. You should tell him to keep decorum.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Let's get back to focusing on what we're trying to accomplish. All of us sitting around the table care about exactly the same issues. We all want to see it, so let's just have a vote on that motion and move on, so that we can get a workplan finalized today.
Would you repeat the motion, Ms. Smith?
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'm going to take the word “study” out of it, because I don't want it to be a problem for anyone; that's not the intent. I'm going to read this into the record:
Whereas the equitable split of matrimonial property is guaranteed for both spouses when divorcing under Canadian law;
and whereas this guarantee does not apply to status Indians living on reserves where property is split in favour of the male spouse;
pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on the Status of Women undertake matrimonial property rights of aboriginal women as top priority.
So I took out “study”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Yes, we are voting on it now, Ms. Mourani, finally.
We are in the midst of a vote right now, Ms. Smith. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Needless to say, the motion carries unanimously.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
