Evidence of meeting #5 for Status of Women in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The committee is now committed to this.
As I understand, the committee having committed to it, there would be a scoping exercise and some terms of reference suggested. Given the time we have today, I don't think we should do anything other than say, yes, this is something the committee is committed to.
When we get to the other motions, if they look like they overlap, the committee might decide to vote them down based on the duplication. I do feel fairly strongly that, having invited motions from the members, we look at all of them, even if it's not at this meeting, to say yes or no, we like this idea or we don't. We have four years to do the work. Of course, in time, we may well say, “This isn't as important as it was a year ago, now that we've gotten to it.”
I think that our stakeholders and constituents would want to see our ambitious agenda, even if we do modify it as time goes on. I am a little uncomfortable about saying that we are going to vote only on one motion from each party, unless the ones that remain would be saved over to a future meeting when we could give them other consideration.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
For your information, with unanimous consent, we can amend a motion that has already passed. If we decide to add Ms. Vecchio's shelters to the scope of what we already agreed, we could do it with unanimous consent.
Do we have unanimous consent for that?
Yes...?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
My comment would be that housing deserves its own study. I think there is enough involved with it that at some point we should look at housing, transitional housing, and that whole piece. Violence against young women and girls is a small part of it. I really think that if we are going to look at housing, it deserves its own study. Sean spoke very well to it at another meeting. I know he is quite passionate about it as well.
I think today we should be.... We have one study to get going on. I think maybe we could pick a second one that we could have in the wings. After that, as a committee, we could look at what we want to do after those. There is enough work even with two studies to keep us going for quite some time.
I think that will be part of the discussion anyway, but I do think that housing deserves its own separate study, focusing on it and not on everything else.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
There is an amendment that was on the table, unless Mr. Fraser wants to withdraw the amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sorry, what was my amendment? I did not intend to move an amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Okay. If you did not intend to move an amendment, I'll pretend it didn't happen.
We don't have unanimous consent to do only two. Ms. Malcolmson would like us to at least hear all of the motions. I think we should just go through and decide if it is something the committee would support working on. Then I would suggest that the steering committee get together, take a look at the things, and bring back proposals of what we would work on in a prioritized fashion. If that is not to your liking, there are other methods I could recommend.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I don't mean to complicate things further, but I just need to know for my own understanding.
Given that the motion that is on the table is quite exhaustive, which I believe is a good thing, I wonder if we could study this one topic. We could start with this and then, when we are nearing its completion, have this conversation where we bring our motions back up, discuss them, and decide whether or not they are relevant at that time, whether those are still our passions as a committee. Then we vote on the next one that we are going to put on the table, but for now just focus on the one.
One of the reasons why I would suggest this is that every single person on this committee is brand new. We are all learning this as we go. I just wonder if doing two or three studies at a time is perhaps a little too much and actually distracts or takes away from the point of this study.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
We are going to do the study that we voted the motion on. That motion went through and we will do that. The parliamentary analyst will prepare a work plan once she sees the list of witnesses that will suggest how we will go forward. That we will do for sure.
The other motions that are here are all motions that have been brought to the committee. The choice is that we can withdraw them, amend them, or vote on them.
The intent was that we have to move. I must share my frustration as your chair that we make an agreement about how we are going to proceed and then we change it at the next meeting. That certainly is not good. I want to do the will of the committee, but I think that, having put work into all of these things, we at least need to hear what people say and find out if the committee likes the idea or not. Then I certainly think there needs to be a prioritization exercise.
Ms. Sahota, go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Just to follow up on that point, I think there should be a couple. From my experience on the other committees, at times witnesses aren't available, and I would hate to see us say, “Let's not have a meeting on Thursday or Tuesday” because a certain witness wasn't available for that study. But we can simultaneously work on a couple of things and make sure we're constantly busy and active on this committee.
I'm not saying that we should have a whole bunch, but a couple would be good so that we can get going.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just want to say that if we have to vote on 12 of these, it may not be that I don't support these. I just don't think it's the right time to be doing it. I'd almost prefer that we just start with the one study and perhaps send these others to the procedure and agenda subcommittee, although people may want to speak to them today.
I feel a little bit like there are so many good ideas that have come forward here that I don't want to be put in the position of saying that I don't want to do that study, and six months or a year from now it could be that someone else has done a study, or legislation has come in, and the world has changed. I think everybody agrees that we need to get started on something. We've agreed on the first study, so I think we should just get moving on that.
On what we do next, I know our preference is to move on the gender-based analysis as a second study, but that doesn't mean that there are not a lot of other really good ideas here.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Here is how this works. When we vote on all the motions, there are six of you and you can decide to vote for gender-based analysis. I'm not going to try to tell you what to do, but I'm just saying that, in terms of outcomes, it is one possibility.
Ms. Malcolmson.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
A process proposal.... I'll put this in the form of a motion. I move that this committee now call the question on the motion on gender-based analysis, and that the remaining nine motions be considered at a future meeting of the committee.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
All right, there is a motion on the table. Is there discussion of the motion?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I'm the one who put that notice of motion and I understood that I would have to move it. If you move it, you can't amend it.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I will move the motion that the committee undertake the GBA, the one I submitted. I will move that motion.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
No, actually, your motion is out of order because you're not allowed to call the motion that she submitted. That's according to the House, but I just learned that, too.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
But can we come back to me on waiting for the other nine?
