Status of Women Committee on June 5th, 2008

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

Madam Chair, my concern is that the promises of the justice committee meeting and getting on with the job of looking at the legislation seem rather elusive. I want to know if Bill C-484 is the first piece of legislation they'll be looking at, because it's my understanding that a number of pieces of legislation are backlogged, and Bill C-484 may not necessarily come before them. If that's the case, I think it is even more important that we move on this motion.

I'm quite prepared to make whatever changes, whatever amendments, are necessary, and I certainly accept that “Therefore be it resolved” could most certainly indicate that we will study the subject matter of Bill C-484 with regard to examining it from a gender budget analysis perspective. It needs to be worded better than that.

At this point, I have very grave concerns about the justice committee sitting and that this will go by the wayside.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I agree with you.

Mr. Calkins, how many bills does the justice committee have in priority? Do you know?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The committee has not had a formal meeting since March 11 where any legislation has been discussed. We have Bill C-27, Bill C-25, Bill C-26, not to mention the number of private members' bills. Before March 11 the committee had been meeting extra hours just to get through the legislative backlog.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

So it's quite conceivable that Bill C-484 may just pass its 60-day deadline and be assumed to have been adopted and sent to the House again if you do not address the bill. Is that true?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I can't presume to speak on behalf of the committee. I can just speak for myself. From my perspective, I would guess—and this is all it would be—that given the fact that Bill C-484 is approaching the 60-day limit, the justice committee, should it agree to go over this legislation, would do everything it could to at least have a few hearings on Bill C-484. This is what we've normally done. We've used the regular sittings to discuss government legislation and we've had extra sittings to discuss private members' legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's great to have our colleague from the justice committee here today. It's rather timely, I must say. It's really helpful.

I know Ms. Mathyssen has made some suggestions around what might be changed. I think it would be good for our committee to consider some different wording and to try to look at this as not referring to this particular bill, or as little as possible. The subject matter is a concern. Again, I think it would be difficult, but not impossible, to talk about the implications of something that has yet to be put in play.

The bill has been tabled in a certain form. Our colleagues at the justice committee will have their deliberations on this bill, but if Ms. Mathyssen were to come back, perhaps with another wording on the motion, I think it's something the committee could take a look at and decide from there. I don't know whether we have time to do that today, but certainly it would be welcome to look at some kind of an adjustment to this that would clearly not put this subject matter in the form of taking away the responsibility of the justice committee to deal with this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Neville, and then we have some suggestions we might want to present to Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate Mr. Calkins being here today and giving us a picture of what's going on in the justice committee. However, it's not a very reassuring picture to hear the load it has, both in terms of private members' bills and regular business. To me it underlines even more the urgency of this committee's dealing with the subject matter and making the concerns of members known to the justice committee. There's lots going on here, I know. But it just underlines to me the urgency of dealing with the subject matter of this bill and that we provide that information to the justice committee and to the House should this bill come back to the House without any discussion by the justice committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We have two proposals.

Yes, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I don't mean to speak out of order, but the reality of the justice committee before March 11 was that no piece of legislation was reported back to the House—in the time that I spent on the justice committee—without appearing before the justice committee. The justice committee has made every effort it can, which are the extra hours and the extra sitting.... I understand the concern of this committee in having this legislation reported back to the House without the scrutiny of the committee.

I guess I would implore my colleagues at the table here from the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois to talk to their colleagues on the justice committee. If it's the will of this committee to have that piece of legislation discussed, I'm sure we could find all-party agreement to at least have a meeting where we could sit down and discuss the merits of Bill C-484, outside the other issues the justice committee is currently facing. I would make that request of my colleagues here at the table in the hope that that might satisfy some of the concerns this committee has with Bill C-484.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

There are two suggestions. The committee has suggested we have a meeting with the justice committee, failing their response to us in terms of meeting with us. We also have simultaneously a motion that, Ms. Mathyssen, we are going to read and see if you are in agreement with it:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee study the subject matter of injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence and its impact on women.

Then we'd take out everything else. That way it allows us to study it and it allows us to report it. If the justice committee pulls a stunt on us, we at least have something on paper.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Would you read it again, Madam Chair, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. We remove paragraph 1 totally and we say:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee study the subject matter of injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence and its impact on women.

Yes, Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I appreciate the attempt to put this, and I think it's the right approach given that the first motion is not in order. I would have some concerns around taking one section of that bill and putting that in the frame. Really what's at issue here is the content of the bill. To sort of single out one—I mean, there are a host of issues that are raised in here particularly as they relate to injury to women, which is ultimately what the bill deals with. It really is ultimately about more strict penalties for those who perpetrate such crimes.

I think I would be more comfortable with seeing a general statement there as opposed to taking a specific phrase out of the language, because the bill is certainly more encompassing than just the injury to the unborn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Can we talk about the attempted murder of a fetus and its impact on women? It says that too. We have to decide what we want to study.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Chair, with the greatest of respect, the bill encompasses the crimes against women and the unborn. It needs to be dealt with in that context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Demers, you have the floor. After which it will be Ms. Boucher's turn.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Epp, the sponsor of the bill, said himself that it was not to prevent violence against women. He admitted that this changes nothing in this regard. So I don't want to hear now that this is part of the bill; it's not part of the bill. The only thing in the bill is exactly what is in the bill's title: “(injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)”. That is what the bill is about. It's not about violence against women. That is not what violence against women is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Ms. Boucher, then Monsieur Calkins, and then Ms. Mathyssen.

In the meantime, Mr. Stanton, can you come up with something we can discuss?

Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I want to put one extremely important thing into perspective, in my opinion.

I won't deny it, everyone knows that I voted against this bill for personal reasons. It is a free vote and I want it to be clear. It's not a government bill, it is a private member's bill. In my mind, this makes all the difference.

I spoke with lawyers about the bill before the meeting. I was told that since it is a private member's bill, the bill's sponsor chose to submit it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. That is why it is not in order here. Mr. Epp chose to submit the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Once the bill has been presented to that committee, it cannot be brought back to our committee. That is all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Boucher, we're not bringing the bill here. We're changing the content and we're studying a subject matter. The subject matter has an impact on women, and that's what we're discussing at the moment.

Mr. Calkins, Ms. Mathyssen, Madame Deschamps, et après, Monsieur Goldring.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It sounds like Ms. Demers is concerned about the motivations behind the bill, and I want to give her some assurances about what happened.

I commend this committee for wanting to study this. The bill was actually brought about by.... I remember it well. It was my first election campaign. It happened in Edmonton. I don't remember the name of the individual, but there was a lady that came to one of the rallies, and her daughter was murdered. She was murdered while she was pregnant. It was very clear that she was experiencing the pain and suffering of not only the loss of her daughter, but the loss of a grandchild she was never going to see. That left a void in her heart as well. So that was the motivation. The motivation for this bill actually came from a woman who made her case, very poignantly, at a rally we had during the 2005-06 election campaign.

I do believe that given the right wording.... And I will defer to the expertise that's on this committee. I wouldn't propose to come here and tell you how you should or shouldn't study this.

I certainly commend this committee for at least looking into the impact that some of these things have on women, because the precipitating event for this was indeed brought up by a woman. If the right wording is found for this, I think it's an absolutely valid thing for this committee to study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I have some wording that the clerks and the analysts have been working on.

But I'll let Ms. Mathyssen speak, then Madame Deschamps, and then Mr. Goldring.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the support from around the table, from Madame Demers and Mr. Calkins, and that there is an understanding that it is absolutely essential that this committee study the subject matter of the bill. I'm very grateful for the wording that was chosen.

In response to the notion that it's a private member's bill, whether it's private or not, it has profound implications for women--profound implications. Our job is to look at all that impacts on the women of this country.

Finally, I would very much like to have a joint meeting with the justice committee and our committee. I think that would be a very fruitful undertaking.