Evidence of meeting #31 for Status of Women in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jag Sahota Conservative Calgary Skyview, AB
My motion lists the people we would like to see come forward after what we heard from the witnesses, since some of them appeared last time. It makes sense to have them again based on the information that came out.
In terms of Ms. Sidhu's comment that we need to have the report tabled, it makes sense then to have these witnesses come in for the time indicated and move forward with a recommendation on tabling the report in the House.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We're supportive of extending the study. There are a lot of things going on, and it brings some of the other workload that we currently have for the staff.... I just want to go back. We've always had the opportunity, all parties, to submit witnesses. To name just a few witnesses in this motion.... I think it would be fair and within the spirit of our committee to ensure that all parties are able to submit witnesses.
I also question having a witness come back a second time. Again, if there's a need, we should be able to keep the hours the way they are, but have an opportunity.... That would make sure that we just don't have one witness for an hour. There could be other points of view also. We could have two or three witnesses in that hour to ensure that we have a better sense of some of the recommendations, and all parties would have an opportunity to submit witnesses. I think that's fair.
I just wanted to make those two points, Madam Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
I have to clarify, because the committee voted on Madame Larouche's amendment to say that a specific witness would be put on the third panel. I don't think we can get rid of that.
If I could just suspend for a moment, I'm going to have a conversation with the clerk of a procedural nature.
In fact, we did vote that the chaplain specifically would come, so we can't unvote that. Because of that, it means that Ms. Sidhu's amendment to remove the list of witnesses from the motion and allow all parties to submit their witnesses is out of order, because we have to at least have the chaplain in there.
The option is either for Ms. Sidhu to have unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment and then put forward a different amendment that says that people could add additional witnesses, or change it so that we keep in the chaplain and then everybody submit other witnesses.
Hopefully that's a little bit clear.
Go ahead, Ms. Sidhu.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Let me just confer with the clerk so I make sure I get this one right. I'll suspend briefly.
All right, so this is how this works.
I would rule the existing amendment that Ms. Sidhu first proposed out of order, because it conflicts with the one that we voted on for Madame Larouche, which gives Ms. Sidhu then an opportunity to freshly propose an amendment that will keep the chaplain in and allow others to add additional witnesses.
Ms. Sidhu, if you want to make that motion, that's just a suggestion.
Liberal
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
I think it's unnecessary to call witnesses who have already been called, so I would like to remove the named witnesses and keep the chaplain.
If we are extending this study, all parties should be able to submit names. The clerk can schedule anyone who's available based on their availability. Anyone who's not available can submit a written submission, and the study would end at the end of these meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
To be clear, the new amendment is to remove the list of witnesses in the original motion, except the chaplain, allow all parties to submit additional witnesses, and end the study at the end of these one and a half meetings. Is that correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
That's the amendment that we're now discussing, so if anyone has any comments, they can make them now. Otherwise, we will vote on that amendment.
Liberal
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I agree with the amendment proposed by my colleague Ms. Sidhu, because I think all the parties should have the opportunity to submit. Usually in one panel we will have three witnesses and we will be having three panels, so all the parties should be given the opportunity to submit a list of witnesses.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
As long as there is still discussion on it we have to take the discussion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Yes, we can.
Clerk, could you take the vote on the amendment, please?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
I will also vote nay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That means the amendment is done, and now we are back to discussing the motion, which has all the names of the witnesses, including the chaplain, for one and a half days of study.
Are there further comments on the motion before we vote on it?
Monsieur Serré.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I want to clarify, Madam Chair. The motion that we're now voting for is essentially saying that two parties, Conservatives and the Bloc, are allowed to bring witnesses forward and the other two parties are not.
I want to make sure I understand what we're voting on.