Evidence of meeting #16 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Lemieux, there is a motion to withdraw by the mover of the motion. I am asking now for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. You are not speaking to the process of that.
Yes, Ms. Glover, are you speaking to the process of this?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Then I have asked you to step down from this issue, please, Mr. Lemieux. You are not speaking to the motion to withdraw.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
No, it is not. It is not a point of order. There is a motion to withdraw on the table, and unless you are speaking to the motion to withdraw, you do not have a point of order. I am sorry.
Now, I will call the question. Is there unanimous consent to withdrawal of this motion? There is.
(Motion withdrawn)
We now have a second motion on the table to deal with, and that is another motion from Madame Demers.
The motion reads:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the following be reported to the House at the first opportunity: That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women call upon the government to say what measures it plans to take if President Karzai refuses to repeal the legislation violating the rights of women in Afghanistan.
Now, Madame Demers, you may open your motion.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. The government has already given an opinion on the new law that President Karzai signed without however enforcing it, this winter. We now have President Karzai's promise that the law will be reviewed. We however do not know how it will be reviewed nor whether...
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me, please. A member is speaking to a motion that people are going to have to vote on. I would appreciate it if you could have respect for the person who is speaking at the moment. If you wish to have discussions, could you please do it in a way that does not disrupt? If you wish to leave the room and discuss what you need to discuss, I would be pleased to let you do that.
Ms. Demers has the floor right now and she's speaking.
Thank you.
Ms. Demers.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
The government suggested that it would take measures if the Karzai government refused to abolish the law undermining the rights of women in Afghanistan. I believe that we could ask the Canadian government what measures it has in mind. As you are aware, we have been in Afghanistan for quite some time now. Our soldiers are fighting and they believe in democracy and in the reasons why they are engaged in this fight. I believe that we owe it to them to ensure that democracy is recognized and respected as it should be.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I do want to thank Madame Demers. I think we all share such a strong concern for the women in Afghanistan, and it's very troubling for all of us to see the damage and the potential this could cause for the women in that country.
There are a few concerns, obviously. I think my number one concern is that it's hypothetical, and I think as soon as we deal with hypotheticals.... We are working with the President. I know that President Karzai and his government have indicated they will be reviewing this law. In a way it's kind of like the other motion, where it's presumptuous and not factual, so we cannot deal with a motion that is not factual. We cannot begin to make hypothetical decisions. That is my number one concern. We need to see what happens with this law. If we begin to ask what the government will do if this happens and if that happens, I think that is again very dangerous.
That's what I'd like to say. Thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have to support what Ms. Hoeppner has indicated, but I'd also like to add that I, too, am pleased with much of the work of this committee. I must say, having been here only a couple of times, that I don't want my words to have been twisted.
Madame Demers, I meant absolutely no harm in what I said to begin with. I was clear, and it will show on the record, in the blues, that I was clear: I was not attacking you personally. I commented on something that your party had done, not you as an individual, and that I was surprised at it. That was all. Again, I'm a bit surprised at this one.
I hope that Madam Hoeppner's comments are taken to heart, because, again, I feel it's a bit of putting the cart before the horse. I want to acknowledge that other countries have not at this point indicated what they would do. Because it is a hypothetical situation, it's very hard to be in a situation to predict these things.
Since I do have the floor, I want to take this opportunity to say to Madam Chair that she did ask me a question but she didn't allow me to respond. I did not come here to be spoken to in that way, Madam Chair, and to be disregarded in that way. I have no intent to disrupt the committee, but I find your comments have been personally attacking some of us. I'm offended by them. I believe your tone is condescending. For the record, you asked me a question and I would like to answer it, and that is--
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
You had asked about the unanimous consent and then my withdrawal of a motion, and I only wanted it to be in the right order. That was all. I didn't need to be talked to in the way you spoke to me. I simply want that on the record.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Madam Glover, I would like to actually take a pause. I know we have Ms. Mathyssen yet to speak, but I would like to comment on the tone of this meeting.
We have members speaking to other members in what I consider to be a condescending and lecturing fashion. It is not appropriate for people to believe that they can do so and say to others, “Forgive me for doing it, I didn't mean that”. Then when a member politely corrects the chair, and the chair says in fact that the correction was inappropriate because the chair was stating what did happen, and then there was this need to come back to speak to the chair, it doesn't.... You cannot, in a meeting following rules of procedure, which I have done, ever find a way to legislate courtesy. Attitudes stem from attitudes. When people speak to each other in condescending tones, when they speak to each other in a way that presumes the other person has some sort of hidden agenda, it does not create a good feeling among everyone in the room, and it tends to make other people respond when spoken to in a condescending manner.
I would like to suggest, Ms. Glover, without continuing this conversation any more, that when we speak about who is condescending, we need to sometimes look in a mirror and ask ourselves if we often speak to each other and that it's okay for one person to be condescending to another, but when that person responds, it's not okay.
You have been very condescending to me, Ms. Glover, from the day you came to that last meeting and now. You speak in a condescending manner. I will accept that you do not intend to do it, and I will put the matter to rest now.
Thank you.
We have Ms. Mathyssen ready to speak.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Madam Chair, I understand the points that have been made in regard to hypothetical situations, so might I suggest a friendly amendment, if the mover is interested? I'll read it so that it's clear:
That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women call upon the government to say that it will take measures if President Karzai refuses to repeal legislation violating the rights of women in Afghanistan.
That takes the hypothetical out of it, and basically is supporting the government's initial indication of profound concern about the laws that we heard were being contemplated.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If Ms. Demers approves of that amendment, then we can speak to the amendment.
Do you approve, Ms. Demers?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We now have a friendly amendment that Ms. Demers has accepted, so we will now be discussing the amendment. The amendment is to replace the words “to say what measures it plans to take” with the words “that it will take measures if”. So we are removing the words, and I'll repeat, “to say what measures it plans to take” with the words “that it will take measures”.
Are you speaking to the amendment, Ms. Davidson?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, I am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand the dilemma we're in here with the hypothetical situation and the attempt to remove that and to make the motion more palatable. I still have some concerns that we are going to be putting the government in a difficult position when it comes to negotiating and so on, because we have already said that we're already pressing the Afghan government to meet the international obligations, and we're working with them and we're trying to make sure that the respect for the equality of women under the law is maintained in Afghanistan. That's something we're already working towards.
Given those discussions, we're strongly encouraging that government to remove those provisions in this law that they are contemplating, and to uphold that international human rights commitment. I just think we're sending the wrong message if we pass this at this time. I'm not opposed to what the mover is saying. I think we're all extremely appalled by what has happened here. But I think we have to be able to give the government the ability to negotiate in good faith, and I think that's the point we need to remember.
So I'm not so sure I'd like to hear some more debate on the amendment. At this point, I don't think I can support the amendment either.
