Status of Women Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Go ahead on a point of order.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I did put forward a motion, so I would ask that we have a conversation on the motion at hand and have a vote on it, then we can, from there, go back to any kind of conversation on other pieces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

We have a motion to approve the budget.

All those in favour of approving the budget?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

The budget approval has been circulated and approved for $5,750.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to say something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

If we're going to be following the list—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It's a point of order, Madam Chair. Michelle had her hand up. It's the same thing Lisa did. Then after that, how come...? Can you repeat the order for speaking, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

At this point, we have Laila, who has just finished, and Anna, Andréanne and Lisa. I'll add you, if you'd like, as well.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

When you started the meeting, Michelle and Lisa had their hands up at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I missed Lisa. I'm mindful of that now. I will be sure to take the full scope of the room.

At this point, with regard to the coercive behaviour study, I'd like to acknowledge where we're at.

We have had two and a half meetings of witness testimony so far. The study motion adopted by the committee on November 27, 2023, notes that the committee would hold “at least six meetings” for the study. Therefore, at this point we have three and a half meetings to sit in the schedule moving forward, and before the study wraps up, the committee will need to decide which study it wants to pursue this fall.

Currently, we have the study on sexual violence against women and girls as a weapon of war. There was a motion that called for four meetings. As well, we have a study on breast cancer screening for women aged 40. The motion calls for a maximum of four meetings.

Go ahead, Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

Typically in this committee we've handled all this organization in the subcommittee. I understand that this was the plan for today: a subcommittee meeting where everybody, in camera, would go over the studies, finish coercive control and decide what we're going to study next.

At the last minute again—

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

What is your point of order, Lisa?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

It's about procedure.

The procedure is that people all around this table had decided that we were going to have a subcommittee meeting today, and you unilaterally decided that we were going to be in public and debate things around the table. Instead of a conversation that was supposed to be in camera in a subcommittee, we're having this conversation in public among all of us. I don't think it's the right process. This is not how we've done this in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I found it important to have a conversation of this scope in public, and I thought we would have consensus and opinions from all of us. That was my thought.

Go ahead, Leah, to that point of order.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think, Chair, that we've done a lot of good work together. I think usually.... I mean, certainly making assumptions that you thought we would....

I think it goes back to process. What is the process? We've had a process, and in it we have discussed studies very collegially in subcommittees. Especially as somebody who only has one seat at this table—I don't have a lot of power on this table and I'm not delusional—I think that part of the reason was to make sure that we weren't playing partisan games and that we were putting forward the best studies we could.

I know that because of the subcommittee, I was able to work with all the parties with support of and in solidarity with women and with diverse-gendered people, knowing that this is the only place in the House of Commons that actually focuses on women's issues. I got the red dress study and I also got the study connecting increased violence against indigenous women and girls and resource extraction. That was agreed on across all party lines.

We have always done that. We don't have vicious debates in subcommittee. We look at the issues of the day and we discuss them. Part of the reason that it's worked is the process. Clearly, going forward with different processes doesn't seem to be working. I know who suffers for that, and they are the people we're fighting for, so this is very much on a point of order.

I question if our priority is shifting. I don't want to make assumptions. I do know what we're going into: It's from fighting for women and diverse-gendered people across party lines in a non-partisan way to getting ready for an upcoming election.

I think that in this committee, out of all the committees, we could actually get something done. We completed nine studies. Those studies have saved lives. I'm speaking to you as a human being, because I know that you're a good human being and that your role is critical in the process to make sure that we can ensure those things keep happening.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

On that point of order, go ahead, Laila.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Chair, perhaps we could consult the clerk on this. It's my understanding, from the green book that guides where the process is, that having these kinds of conversations is allowable in both a closed in camera meeting or an open meeting, as this space is. Perhaps the clerk can clarify that this is an allowable way of having these conversations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Sonia, is this on that same point of order?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes, it's on the same point of order.

Madam Chair, the subcommittee was scheduled. You consulted all the vice-chairs. The members expressed that this was their preference. Can you explain why it was changed at the last minute when you had consulted the vice-chairs and the subcommittee meeting was scheduled?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I know that we're assuming that we're speaking on the point of order, but we have to make sure that we keep our points of order as structured as possible.

To answer your question, I'll—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

On the same point of order, I would like an explanation. In the past we were doing our procedure in camera, in the subcommittee. You consulted with the vice-chairs and we scheduled a subcommittee, and then it was cancelled without consultation with anyone. I would like the rationale for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Yes. Thank you.

With that, every style of every chair will do things a bit differently. I'm hearing every single thing that all of you are saying, but I thought it was prudent of us to have a couple more motions and topics and ideas on the table before we went to a steering committee with just a few of us.

I know I changed from Thursday to Friday with my dialogue with all of you, but then, as soon as I did that, I reached out to all the vice-chairs to give them a heads-up that this was my intention. There was no malicious intent here.

Nonetheless, I think it's healthy that as a community around the table we can solve and talk about the issues at hand and get motions on the table that will allow this committee to have a productive fall.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, this is to the same point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Go ahead, Lisa.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I appreciate my friend Laila Goodridge's input, but I don't think it's necessary to consult the clerk. The point is not whether it's allowed; the point is committee practice. I think you've heard around this table how well this committee has worked over the past eight or nine years, and we're seeing that collapse.

The point is not whether it's something that's allowed but whether it's the practice of this committee and what has worked well in this committee. That is what we're speaking out against. You can't expect collaboration without talking to anyone. You can't expect that you're going to have consensus if you haven't bothered to talk to anyone else.