Evidence of meeting #47 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.
A recording is available from Parliament.
March 29th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'm sorry, I don't have the amendments. Is that what you're reading right now?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Yes, I am.
Would you please give him a copy of the amendments?
It ends with: “and that the chair report the adoption of this motion to the House forthwith.”
Would anyone like to speak to the amendments, or can we proceed? Ms. Crowder.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Ms. Mathyssen briefed me in advance and fully supports its coming before the committee today and would hope the committee—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Yes, absolutely. I just want to be on the record as saying that I have Ms. Mathyssen's support to have this here.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Madam Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion. The amendment would essentially have the effect of removing the two studies that are referenced—studies number one and two—because the information we've received with respect to the status of these reports indicate that both of the reports, by Townson and Hayes, and by Day and Brodsky, are in fact in the process of being translated and will be published on the website in short order.
In view of the fact that these are processes that are and have been under way, and that nothing we have in front of us has suggested this would be impeded—as a matter of fact, we have a commitment through, in this case, the department that Status of Women Canada will publish these two reports—I would move an amendment to this motion that both of those studies be removed.
The third one we haven't been able to establish, because the name of that particular study doesn't seem to match up with any of those we've already received here, so there's still a question. By all means, let that one stand.
I would move that amendment. I don't know whether we need a seconder for it; I don't know that we do.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We don't have the amendment yet to the motion that I read, and then we'll do the amendments after that.
Maybe I'll have the clerk explain this procedure, because I want to make sure we're all clear on it, including me.
5:10 p.m.
The Clerk
I'll just make reference to the notice of motion by Irene Mathyssen of March 27, in which the three titles are cited. It was submitted by Ms. Mathyssen, who, because she was the mover of the original motion, cannot move an amendment to her own motion. Therefore, the chair read it into the record.
We would require a mover for those amendments, if we wanted to do that. They haven't been moved, technically; they've been read into the record.
So at this point we have Mr. Stanton making an amendment to the amendment, which hasn't been moved.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Madam Clerk, you're talking about this notice of motion of March 27--
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Could we have order, and we'll do this one by one. So we will not proceed unless we can do it in an orderly fashion.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
You referred to this notice of motion of March 27 as an amendment. Are you saying that it is an amendment to the earlier motion? That earlier motion was withdrawn, if I recall.
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk
In fact, in the explanation it was stated that it was withdrawn, but it was in fact the consensus of the committee that it be deferred to the following meeting. So there was a misunderstanding in that regard.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk
To clarify it, it might.... Sorry, I'll let the committee decide how they want to proceed.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I was actually responding to Mr. Stanton's effort to amend the motion, now that it's been....
Okay, so we're clear about that? Can I go ahead and do that now?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I have a point of clarification. As Mr. Stanton pointed out that one of reports that's in the amendment actually isn't listed in the file, then we need a clarification as to whether or not that amendment actually should stand. If in fact the report doesn't exist, you can't ask for a report, an amendment, that actually does not exist or has never been written.
So I would ask for the clarification of the clerk on that.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I think, Madame Demers, you were asking me a minute ago what this was. Just let me explain, and then I'll tell you what I think we have to do.
On the original motion that Ms. Mathyssen put forward, she amended it; but she can't amend her own motion, so we have to move this amendment. I support the moving of this amendment because I would then like to deal with these items, simply for reasons that I can explain now or later, if you like; it doesn't matter. I can explain them now.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'll explain them now, no problem.
There was a letter sent to Monica Townson by the department on January 16 saying that her document was not going to be published. Ms. Mathyssen wrote a letter to the minister, as I understand it, and the minister has not yet formally replied to her on this issue. So this letter still stands. While I understand that we are being told it will be posted, it's not yet been posted. In fairness, I need to go by what is there. What I have so far is a letter to Ms. Townson that says her report is not going to be published.
Now, I understand we are being told that it will be, but it's been weeks now, so I think we should go ahead.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I just have one clarification here.
On the list of reports that I read out the other day: Integrating the Voices of Low-Income Women into Policy Discussions on the Canada Social Transfer: Aboriginal Women in Vancouver, Immigrant Refugee Women in Calgary, and Women with Disabilities in Winnipeg.... There were discussions on the Canada social transfer, aboriginal women in Vancouver, immigrant and refugee women in Calgary, and women with disabilities in Winnipeg. That is the same as the one on the notice of motion of March 27 by Ms. Mathyssen, which says, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, Integrating Marginalized Women's Voices into Policy Discussions and Debates Linked to the CST. That's the same one.
Questions?
