Status of Women Committee on April 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, I'm afraid I will rule that at the moment we are now moving into a resolution of this issue and to decide how this committee should go.

It is my understanding that there is not unanimous agreement for you to participate.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Chair, a point of order.

Or maybe one of you can raise a point of order. I'll just swap in to make some comments.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Chair, he will swap in, then, because he would like to make some comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, you can't do that either.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Well, we've done that before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is Ms. Gordon leaving the committee?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

She doesn't have to. She can just step away from the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, please. Are you challenging the chair?

We have an agreement at this committee. When Ms. Mathyssen had a replacement who wished to move a motion on her behalf, there was a challenge of this by the party across the way, and we agreed that we have to have unanimous....

Excuse me, Mr. Lemieux. The chair is speaking. Would you please allow the chair to finish?

We challenged this at the committee. It was resolved by unanimous consent. Ms. Glover withdrew her objection, and the committee allowed the member to do so. The committee works by unanimous decision in the case in which we have a member who is an MP and has an absolute right to participate—to sit and observe—and to join in the discussion, provided that the committee unanimously agrees to allow them to do so. That is the rule.

I am asking whether the committee agrees to let you participate, and we have Ms. Mathyssen suggesting that it is inappropriate, because we are at a point when we are about to either decide whether we will vote on this motion or withdraw it.

Yes, Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

This is a point of order. On a number of things that you said, Madam Chair, and with all the respect that I owe you, I need to correct a couple of things on the record.

First of all, I was the first one to bring out the point that you so eloquently brought forward regarding the motion; I want that on the record. Second, with regard to what you just said about the incident when Ms. Mathyssen was not present and a motion was brought forward, it was not because of unanimous consent. It was because we followed Marleau and Montpetit's rules, which I had brought forward, and I agreed to withdraw.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I did say that.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

It had nothing to do with unanimous consent. It had to do entirely with the fact that I chose to withdraw.

Then, third, I believe it is the clerk's responsibility to advise as to whether or not we are following the rules and procedure here. I believe Marleau and Montpetit addresses this, and I believe it is completely appropriate. I would like the clerk to give direction, as he is entitled to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Certainly.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Let me finish, please.

I would like the clerk to give direction as to whether or not we can substitute momentarily Monsieur Lemieux for Ms. O'Neill-Gordon, with the use of a document from the whip's office, and allow him to participate in the debate of this motion, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, Ms. Glover. Actually the term “unanimous” means that everyone around the table agrees. When you were here we did not have unanimous consent until you removed your objections; then we did have it. I am afraid I was right when I related the incident.

We did have a ruling from the clerk at that particular time on this issue, and the clerk told us that was what must occur. You therefore removed your objection, so we then had unanimous consent, Ms. Glover. I would ask you to withdraw that you think I misrepresented the case, because I did not.

We now have the clerk giving me the opinion here. I will read this first:

Members of the House attending committee meetings who are not committee members or substitutes may, at the discretion of the committee, participate in the deliberations.

I have asked the committee for its discretion. Ms. Mathyssen believes it is not appropriate, so the committee has spoken.

Now, shall we move forward?

Mr. Lemieux is now substituting for Ms. Gordon. Therefore, we now have Ms. Davidson, Ms. McLeod, Ms. Hoeppner, Ms. Glover, and Mr. Lemieux who are the members who are allowed to participate in this discussion. Ms. Gordon will not be participating in the discussion for this particular motion, or for the whole committee meeting, depending upon how this works. Unless we have another substitution, Mr. Lemieux is here for the whole committee meeting.

Ms. Glover, I would like to comment. You began your comment to the chair by suggesting that you were the first person to suggest what the chair “so eloquently” summed up. Ms. Glover, I would like to suggest that if you wish for me not to say that it was Ms. Gordon's comment and that I can add your name to it.... We have behaved in this committee in a manner that is respectful and collegial. If you wish to have credit....

I was merely summing up what I heard. And if I forgot, I will now say it for the record. I apologize, Ms. Glover; you were the first person to say it, so you shall receive credit. In my summation I did not give credit to Ms. Glover; I gave credit to her colleague, Ms. O'Neill-Gordon. I would like to make sure that both people get credit for making that statement.

But I would like to point out that if this is the way we're going to conduct meetings, we will get nowhere, because it is not in the spirit of getting along. It is not in the collegial spirit in which this committee is used to dealing with each other.

I'm sorry, we are either going to get on with committee business or we can continue to nitpick over whether one person's name was not given credit for something. I summed it up, which is what I'm supposed to do.

Now, Mr. Lemieux, I should like to tell you where we are before you speak. We are at the point of deciding whether or not we bring this back when we get further information, or whether it is even appropriate for this committee to be dealing with this issue under section 2 of the charter. The mover has the option to decide how she wishes to proceed. If she wishes to proceed with the motion, you will absolutely be the next person to speak for or against the motion.

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I stated when I presented the motion, I brought this motion back before the Committee following a comment made by Mr. Lemieux and that excited my curiosity. After having listened to Ms. Neville, after having listened to you and after having listened to comments according to which excommunication is the affair of the Church and is not a matter of law, I agree with you, Madam Chair, and I withdraw my motion, if such is the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The motion has been withdrawn.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

I'd still like to make some comments. I came before that motion was withdrawn, and I heard your reasoning, Chair, regarding the fact that it's a church matter and that it might not be appropriate for the committee to deal with this. I do agree with you, so I thank you for your comments.

The other part I want to mention, though, in case the motion comes back yet again--to be honest, Chair, I was at the last meeting because I wanted to participate in this debate, and Madam Demers withdrew her motion, so I was surprised when it was tabled again--is that it is a factually incorrect motion. There are statements of fact here that are absolutely incorrect.

I think it's fair to point that out, because it is doing no justice to the Catholic Church and to the Vatican to leave the impression that the only reason the committee is not dealing with this motion is because it's a matter of church. It's factually incorrect. The nine-year-old girl was never excommunicated, and certainly never by the Vatican. That's very clear. Canon law is very clear. At the age of nine years old, she does not have full--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The points you're making have already been made by others.

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

Madam Chair, on a point or order. We have been trying to finish up with this motion for one hour now. How many players are on the bench? Are there going to be even more? Marleau and Montpetit states clearly, and I quote: “A substitution cannot be in effect while the Committee member is present at the meeting“. How many players do we have? How many more will be added?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Johanne, actually Ms. O'Neill-Gordon can't sit at the table. She is not allowed to participate in the debate unless we get unanimous consent. So we actually have the five members who are signed in: Mr. Lemieux, Ms. Glover, Ms. Hoeppner, Ms. McLeod, and Ms. Davidson. Ms. O'Neill-Gordon may sit as an MP and observe, or if she wishes to speak, we must get the unanimous consent.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Pardon, Madam Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me a minute, Mr. Lemieux had the floor.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Sorry--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Lemieux had the floor, Madam Mathyssen.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's all I wanted to remind you, that I had the floor.