Status of Women Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

Yes, the original motion is:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommends to the government that a plan be developed and implemented prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes during the duration of the games and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House without delay.

Then my amendment was:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommends to the government that a plan be developed in collaboration with provincial and municipal counterparts as well as experts from the police, international organizations and NGOs and implemented prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes during the duration of the games and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House without delay.

Just to strengthen this, if I could for just a minute, CIDA has brought forward.... The reason why I think Ms. Neville's motion is so strong, and the reason why I think I accommodated her to add the amendment, was because there is a draft report out on trafficking in human beings at the 2006 World Cup in Germany. A lot of those things that were happening there were implemented, as Ms. Keeper so eloquently said, in a crisis situation. The Olympics show that this kind of event is a crisis situation. So as the chair pointed out, more resources would have to be put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I understand the concerns of my colleague, whom I appreciate very much. I also understand Mrs. Smith's concerns.

Our report asked for a plan to eliminate human trafficking. The report is one step. The motion at hand will be a concrete gesture. We have an opportunity to make sure this action is not limited in time to just one event. This plan should be ready on time for the Olympic games, it should be implemented during this event, and we have to do everything we can to restrain or stop all trafficking for sexual purposes. But this plan should not stop there. If we do not stipulate that we want this action to go on after the Olympic games, even if we are quite satisfied with what has been done during the games, we will have to start the process all over again. We could keep the words “during the duration” because they are important, but I do not believe the words “and after” suggested by my colleague limit the motion, quite the contrary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Madame.

For the benefit of the committee, I'm just going to read the amendment that Madame Deschamps had made. It said “implemented prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes during the duration of the games and after”—so that it doesn't get lost—“and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House without delay.”

Can we take a vote on that motion, adding the words “and after”?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It's unanimous.

Now, on the motion as amended....

Yes, Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I still have an item I want to suggest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Sure. Go ahead.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I appreciate the input in helping this motion to become as good as it can be.

I had a suggestion, actually, when I read the motion. I think it would be stronger if we word it in such a way that someone, at least, is taking action. The way this is worded now, “recommends to the government that a plan be developed”, in my way of thinking could be worded more strongly in terms of who is in the lead in terms of not only planning but implementing this. I think perhaps if the mover would agree, there could be a friendly amendment to put the onus on the government in fact to develop and implement the plan, in collaboration and so on.

It's just a slight change in wording. My suggestion would be that the wording be changed to reflect that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women “recommends that the government develop and implement a plan in collaboration with provincial and municipal counterparts as well as experts from the police, international organizations, and NGOs, prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics”.

It's a subtle change in wording, but I believe it puts the onus on the government to lead in this initiative. While the current wording does indirectly suggest that, I think this wording would be somewhat stronger in terms of the leadership role the government will play.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Stanton, so that we know what we are now voting on, could you read the whole motion, please?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It would read:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommends that the government develop and implement a plan in collaboration with provincial and municipal counterparts, as well as experts from the police, international organizations, and NGOs, prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes during and after the duration of the games, and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House without delay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

On the motion as amended twice, all those in favour.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I have a few housekeeping items before we go in camera.

First, the draft report on the economic security of women will be distributed this Thursday. As a committee, we will start to review it. I do not know how long Parliament will continue to sit, so if we hope to have this finished by this summer....once we review the report we will decide whether we want to hold extra meetings or whatever, so that we can get this report through before the summer break.

Second, Minister Oda is not available to come before the committee on May 30. Would the committee like to ask for her appearance in the fall?

Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I think it is better if we get ahead. I still think she should appear before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. That was all I had for committee business.

On Pauktuutit, you will remember they had invited us to visit the north. I seek the committee's direction. I could ask the clerk to determine the feasibility, etc., and report back to us, and then we can discuss whether we can go or not.

Ms. Smith.

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

It's something that I think all sides of the House were approached about, and it's very interesting. I did discuss it with the minister, and she pointed out that there's going to be a ministers' conference. A lot of the ministers are going up to Esquimalt early in July. I would assume we could still do this, but she didn't seem to see a need to do it because of the activity that's going on there and the minsters actually being on site.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

If that changes the dynamics of going to the north, that's fine. We have to check to see whether it is desirable to go, how large the organization is, what it represents, whether our budget allows it, etc., because it all goes before the Liaison Committee.

Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I have a question, because the member mentioned that ministers will be meeting in Esquimalt, but that's on Vancouver Island. I wondered what that had to do with the request to go north.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Where did you say the ministers were going, Ms. Smith?

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

I am sorry. It is Iqaluit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you for that correction.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Madam Chair, might I propose something in regard to the report we're going to be reviewing? The last time we had a report we had changes or amendments in writing before we went through clause-by-clause, and it seemed to make things go more smoothly and better. In light of the gravity of this report, I'd like to take some time. I wondered if it might be possible for the committee to receive the report and have the time between now and Tuesday, June 5, to look at it and put thoughts, amendments or changes in writing so we can pursue going through the report on Tuesday, June 5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That's a good idea, but we do not know how long we are going to be here, and the clerks and the analysts are working on the assumption that June 8 might be the last day. We don't know.

So if we don't know, we're working with so many permutations and combinations. Say June 8 was the last date we were in the House. Then the last possible date for the adoption of the report would be June 5. If we are not ready by June 5, then we will have to go to into the fall to present our report.

Ms. Mathyssen, your suggestion is good, because I would like to start a discussion.

Could you give me one second?

Ms. Mathyssen, the report is in translation, and it will be ready by Thursday. So if we can give you the report on Thursday, and if you decide, as a committee, that you do not want to read the report through at committee level, then we don't have a meeting; we'll just distribute the report. At that time, we will, as a committee, take responsibility, because then the clerks are not responsible for the report; we are. Privacy issues arise there.

We can do that if it's the will of the committee. On Thursday we will have the report ready. We will distribute the report on Thursday. We can go through the report at that time, and the outline of the report will make it very easy for us to go through the report. I understand we need to go through it with a fine-toothed comb, because things will happen. And we'll have to look at what recommendations come out of that report.

Ms. Mathyssen, I hope that satisfies you.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, there is a slight problem. The government's whip in chief told us yesterday morning in the House that this is the last week. In his answer to Mrs. Davies's question of privilege, Mr. Hill said,

It's unfortunate to start the final week this way.

This is the whip in chief. He must know a little bit what he is talking about. In some committees, no witnesses have been called for next week and no sitting is planned. I would not like our report to go unnoticed simply because we expect to be sitting until June 8. The whip used the words “final week”. To me, this really means the last week. You can check the blues.