Status of Women Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I would have a lot of difficulty supporting this motion right now. I don't know what it means, nor do I understand its implications.

I mean, I understand the first clause clearly enough, but I'm looking at this part:

That the Committee therefore recommend to the government that it take this opinion of the Committee’s into consideration in orienting the work of Status of Women Canada and the various other Canadian government agencies;

Does that mean we determine what research funding goes out? Does it mean we determine what programs are funded?

I just don't understand how this is worked into the criteria of other programs. It's far too vague, it's far too open, it has no specificity to it, and it's not a motion that I would be willing to support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I would like to speak to that.

As a matter of fact, I took this very motion to seven different focus groups made up of women. They understood its intent, and felt very good about the fact that at status of women we were saying that prostitution was really sexual exploitation of human beings. They really liked the idea, and in fact helped me out with this. This business of inequality...if you want to talk about inequality for women.

So you know, we can debate all we like, but today I'm asking for a recorded vote on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Fair enough, Ms. Smith.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Smith, I don't think anybody is saying that we disagree with the first statement. I think the first paragraph is standing on its own, and it's quite fine if we want to vote for it. On that I have no problem.

The difficulty, though, is what is meant when you suggest that the government should take all of that into consideration as it develops its laws. Because that's how I interpret the second paragraph. I suppose that part is okay, but then the third paragraph says that this should orient, somehow, Status of Women Canada in its funding or various programs.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's dealing with the mandate of Status of Women Canada, which is a whole other thing too. Again, as Ms. Neville says, what does that mean?

I don't like vague recommendations on things that have major impacts like that. If we want to make a bald statement about the fact that prostitution is exploitation of women, as the first paragraph states, I have no problem. If we want to say, in the second paragraph, that as the government develops its legislation and reviews the Criminal Code or what have you, it should take that into consideration, that's fine too, I suppose. It's the last one I have some difficulties with, because I'm not quite sure what it does.

Also, I thought we had a recommendation in the report to this effect. Did we not also address this in the report? If so, why are we doing it as a separate motion, which is out of context now, and has other meanings? That's my problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I'll ask the analyst to see if we have a recommendation in the report to that effect.

First, Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to add my voice to this. I certainly understand why women's groups would in fact agree with the first paragraph. It's clear. But I have some concerns about the lack of clarity in terms of the direction that the third paragraph seems to be suggesting.

The word “orienting” strikes me as perhaps being rather restrictive in terms of the freedom of the committee, and I wouldn't want that. This committee must act independently, and must pursue issues and concerns of women without there being any fetters, and I see this as problematic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I've just received feedback from the analyst that there are recommendations and comments in the body of the report that address the intent of your motion. They do address the intent of the motion, and they are more clear than....

What the committee is having problems with, Ms. Smith, as I hear it--otherwise this is just going to go in a circular motion--is that there is no clarity on what you mean in number three. And if we are overlapping or trying to recreate the mandate of the Status of Women, it won't be accepted. Are we overlapping with justice issues, etc.?

I will let you speak for a minute. If you wish to make any amendments to your own motion, or if you want to clarify things, that option would be open to you.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

On Status of Women, certainly it's in the report, and this does mirror the report, which strengthens the report.

I brought this motion forward because as the status of women committee, we are saying that there is a new way of looking at things here on Parliament Hill. We are looking at human trafficking. We, as a committee across all party lines, together are saying that we do not support sexual exploitation and we would like this to be taken into consideration.

As you know, Madam Chair, if members around the table don't like it, they can vote against it, but I think this does strengthen what we're doing.

I will not amend the motion. There is no need to do that.

I would like a recorded vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers next.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm new to this committee. Therefore, I'm not familiar with what has gone on in the past. I've read the testimony in connection with the report. It's important to assimilate all of this information in order to gain a better understanding of the situation.

I deeply regret our having to debate this motion today. While I believe the aim of the motion is positive, I think we're being forced into voting on something that isn't clear to us. I find that most regrettable.

I have come here in good faith and I support the first part of the motion. The only amendment that is needed is the addition of the word “notably” in the English version, to correspond with the word “notamment” in the French version.

I wouldn't want the actions of committee members to be restricted because a motion was introduced saying that the government could direct out work. That isn't right.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

If you have anything that will add to the value of the motion, then please speak. But we have a time constraint, so if you don't have anything that will add value, I'll take the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Chair, just before you get to adjournment, in the course of our discussion on this motion--and I understand that this is a public meeting--there were references made to what is in the report. I understand those types of discussions should in fact be in camera. It didn't occur to me until several comments had been made.

I agree that these comments were made in a general sense, but I would think it is something we should watch in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Agreed, Mr. Stanton.

I'd like to bring it to the attention of the committee that on February 8 we will be discussing the economic security of women. I was advised by the analyst that we had started with the economic security of seniors. If you go to the economic security of women, it becomes a very large base. As well, if you want that report to be done by June, we have to work backwards, because we need to know what date the analyst and the research clerk have to have before the report is finished.

On the economic security of women, especially senior women, I guess the analysts have some draft papers ready that they could distribute to jolt everyone's memory as to what was discussed. February 8 is when you're going to discuss it, but if you want to keep the pool wide open, remember that you have time constraints. You will have 20 meetings in total, which you will have to cut off at least at the twelfth meeting to let the draft reports, and so on, come through. So please think through that one when you are discussing....

The clerk advises me that you will get the report by e-mail tomorrow so that you will be prepared for the February 8 discussions. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of members.

Is there any other business?

The meeting is adjourned.