Evidence of meeting #16 for Status of Women in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ministers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
I call the meeting to order. We are back, and we are in public.
Madame Vien has the floor.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank my colleagues for agreeing to allow us to discuss this important motion in public.
Here are the facts.
We have started a study on women's safety in relation to the Criminal Code, more specifically section 810, and the legislative amendments resulting from the passage of Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75 in the House of Commons.
As part of this study, we all agreed that we wanted to hear from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety. This was not a frivolous request. It was justified by the invaluable contribution that these two ministers could make to our committee's study. Their input is important for our analysis, because we are going to make recommendations that could change a number of things, including in the Criminal Code.
We tried several times to convince the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety to come and meet with us. I know that our Liberal colleagues will try to soften the blow by saying that they didn't quite refuse. However, the fact is that they refused to come and meet with us as part of this study, period. If anyone thinks that appearing in January or February amounts to the same thing, they're wrong. We've completed the study. We've heard from all the witnesses and received all the briefs. We're at the stage of giving instructions to the analysts. January or February will be too late to hear from ministers.
Need I remind you that the Minister of Justice himself is talking about a 41% increase in the incidence of crime? This isn't Dominique Vien saying this, nor is it the members of the committee. The Minister of Justice himself said so just two weeks ago.
What we're asking for is not that big a deal. We're asking the ministers to come and sit here for an hour. An hour is small part of someone's schedule. We can acknowledge that ministers are very busy. I was a minister for a long time myself, so I know what it's like. However, in this case, we asked ministers to come and sit with us on this committee, to share their experience and to hear what we have to say to them in order to improve women's lives and safety. I can't believe they couldn't find an hour of their time to come and meet with us. I repeat, if they come in January or February, it will be too late, the study will be over.
Therefore, this is the motion I am moving today. I put it on notice several days ago, and even a few weeks ago. Everyone was able to read it. The motion is as follows:
Given that Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, each received two separate invitations from the committee and refused to appear, the committee expresses its disappointment with the ministers and requests that their refusal to be accountable to parliamentarians and Canadians be reported to the House.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank my colleague in terms of trying to wrap up the study that we are doing today.
I'm new. We're supposed to be doing the study within five days. Clerically speaking, this is day four, because we've had witnesses not be.... We had only the one witness. We are trying to reschedule them. Can we not change the timeline within the study?
I've been privy to different correspondence between both ministers' offices, trying to work with the clerk in terms of dates that would work. I know that Minister Anandasangaree was at SECU on October 9, and again on October 23. He was then at INAN on November 5, and then back to SECU on November 6 for two hours. In terms of the dates that would have worked for us, he was already pre-scheduled.
We want them to come. There was not ever, in any communication, an outright no. It was a question of suggesting a different timeline, and I know with the clerk.... I'd probably ask if they could please share and explain why they had agreed to a date in mid- to late January or February that we have correspondence for. It's not that they've ever said that they do not want to respond. As a matter of fact, in hearing about this a couple of weeks ago, I very quickly reached out to my Nova Scotia colleague, Minister Fraser, regarding this. He said, “No, I'm coming. I think they're still working on dates.” It was never, “No, I'm not doing this.”
Being new, I'm thinking that this is a huge study. We've had to readjust our sales a little bit in terms of our timeline. Isn't this something that we could work on with the ministers to amend? Instead of having...make it timeable. I think the correspondence between the clerk and one of the ministers' offices was to have it by February 13 or something along those lines. That would probably be a better use of the testimony of the ministers, which we all agreed was what we wanted in the first place. It's a matter of adjusting the timeline by a couple of weeks, because it is an important study.
Instead, can we not use the drafting instructions that we were going to do today and postpone those? I think that also ties into a discussion of.... I know that in other committees, because I'm serving on two and a half of them right now, they are doing concurrent studies to allow for this, and this is before the weather in the winter even gets bad, for those who want to appear in person.
For me, if we were to open up the suggestion.... We have lots of amazing motions that are being tabled. Can we not do concurrent studies to help fill some of these gaps so that we can get the witnesses we really want—the two ministers who are part of this amendment? That was what I was going to say in terms of concurrent study—changing the schedule to allow them to come.
It's not like they've ever.... None of them has said no. We have correspondence that proves that none of their offices has said no, that they don't want to come serve on FEWO. What they're saying is that they've been trying to work with the clerk, and it just didn't meet the timeline of our proposed study. That's what I wanted to open up for discussion.
I used to be a teacher, and sometimes you have to move the benchmark a little bit. As a group, if we wanted to discuss changing the timeline to allow the ministers.... Those are just the dates that I pulled really quickly for Minister Anandasangaree that correlated with this committee's time slot. I think there's a way that we can all work together here in changing the schedule so that we can get the testimony they really want.
That being said, if we're going ahead with this motion and we don't want to talk about changing the schedule or the timeline, then can I propose a couple of amendments to that?
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Okay.
It says, “Given that Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, each received two separate invitations from the committee”. Could I please take out “two” so that it says, “each received separate invitations from the committee”?
As well, I would take out “and refused to appear”, because they never refused to appear. It was all about scheduling.
I would then keep “the committee expresses its disappointment with the ministers” and just call it that. I would strike everything else.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Thank you.
I have just a couple of clarifications. The study was supposed to be a five-meeting study. Specifically, the study motion did call for the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety. You may recall that initially the Minister of Justice said he was not going to come but would give his department officials. The Minister of Public Safety said he was not going to come but we could have his department officials. The committee then wrote a second letter to the Minister of Public Safety pointing out specifically the areas that would matter. Obviously, with a femicide every other day and sexual assault up 76%, you have the Minister of Justice who is able to put the Criminal Code in place and you have Minister Anandasangaree who is responsible for public safety.
After that, we had an indication from the Minister of Public Safety that he was going to come the first week of December. That would have been very good for us to fit into our study time, but then I had a meeting with him on Thursday, at which point he indicated that he wasn't going to be able to come until the new year, when the study was going to be completed.
We're now discussing an amendment from Ms. Fancy to take out the number “two”, to take out “refused to appear”, and to just end by saying that we are disappointed with the ministers.
Ms. Nathan, I have you next on the list.
Liberal
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you always say—to quote you back—we are the masters of this committee. We can do whatever we want with the committee. In light of both that and what Jessica is saying, this is an important study. There are bills going through the House of Commons pertaining to the exact study we're doing. It would be imperative for us to hear from the ministers.
We have such a large gap. February seems so far away. We're not sitting for six weeks. If we were sitting, we'd probably find more suitable times. We could do another study in between and fill the time. We could still do that. Even listening to the witnesses, half of them we couldn't hear. I don't think this study really got what it deserves even from the witnesses, because half of them, because of technical difficulties, we weren't hearing properly. It might serve us well to maybe get a few more different witnesses in here, or even to have the ones who weren't able to answer questions to come back. When we hear from the ministers, maybe we can fill in those time slots with some of these witnesses to have more robust information in this report.
The report can be written at any time. We're not racing against time to do this report. It's a study that's supposed to inform our system. I would agree with Jessica's amendments, but I also feel like a lot of these things are not necessary. We could maybe suspend this study at this moment and start with something else and complete that. Then it'll be time for the ministers to come. We could hear them and complete that study and have the two reports looked at in the future.
That would be my suggestion. Otherwise, we're going to waste a lot of time unnecessarily in the House and everywhere else, whereas we could be doing good work. I don't want FEWO to be a very partisan type of committee. We're doing good work for the Canadian people, and it's our duty to make things work.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Very good.
From a procedural point, we have a motion. We have an amendment to the motion. We can't have a second motion about changing the number of meetings, at this point, but I can add you to the list of people who want to bring motions. We have quite a long list today.
Next on the list is Ms. Cody.
Conservative
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to say that I agree with my colleague Madame Vien and I support her motion. Having the ministers come to our committee in a timely manner, when we're discussing the concerns, is very important. We're in a crisis situation. Time is of the essence. We've heard from witnesses on these serious issues and things that are negatively impacting their lives. Women are being murdered. The serious concerns about safety and section 810 need to be addressed by the ministers. We can't have any further delays.
In my community of Cambridge, people want answers. They want to hear from the ministers, and not months from now. How many more women are going to be murdered in the weeks that we have to wait to hear from the ministers on what they're going to do and to answer questions? When lives are at stake, delay is unacceptable. These ministers need to come, answer questions and be held accountable, not only to Parliament but to the people of Canada.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have a couple of concerns.
First and foremost, I understand and appreciate the importance of this study, the importance of the government combatting gender-based violence in our country and the role of this committee to make recommendations—to take impact statements from experts and to put together recommendations that the government can then hopefully take advice on and respond to, eventually.
This motion.... I'll take a step back before I get to the motion. We were having a wonderful meeting in camera. We were having a good discussion. We spent almost half an hour moving this meeting in public. I'm sure we could have had this exact same conversation in camera. I will let people infer where this is going. I agree with Juanita saying that it's better if things are non-partisan and we're having a collaborative discussion.
On the amendments that have been proposed, there are two things I want to clarify with the clerk, if that's okay. When we're talking about how many invitations were sent out and whether there were explicit refusals from the ministers to appear in this committee, is that something that perhaps the clerk can clarify for us before I continue with the rest of my remarks?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Sure, the clerk can perhaps indicate how many times each of the ministers' offices was contacted and whether they refused or whether they merely didn't respond.
She's adding them up. I think that means there's more than one.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Would it be possible to read out the correspondence so we know in what context they were asked?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
The clerk has indicated that the emails did invite for a date and time. She can let you know what the date and time is, if that's acceptable.
The Clerk of the Committee Tina Miller
The Minister of Justice was invited on October 1 for October 22 and was not available. We invited the minister for November 3. On October 22, he indicated that he was not available for November 3 and offered to send officials only. On October 23, the Minister of Justice was invited for November 24 or 26. On October 31, officials were available to appear on November 17 or 19. On November 3, the minister was not available November 24 or November 26. On November 17, he was available to appear at a later date. On November 18, there was an invitation for December 1 or December 3. On November 19, the minister indicated no availability and asked for dates after the winter break.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Just to clarify, Chair, when these invitations were sent out—and again, these are communications between the clerk and the minister, so I'm not privy to any of this—did the ministers outright refuse to attend the meetings, or were they trying to figure out when and where they could come? Was there a back-and-forth between the dates they were playing with?
As Ms. Fancy pointed out, Minister Anandasangaree was at SECU on October 9, SECU again on October 23, INAN on November 5 and SECU on November 6 for two hours.
The reason I'm going down this path is that it seems like the motion is blaming the ministers for refusing to attend. I'm wondering if it's a refusal or if we are looking at basically a scheduling issue that we've now spent over an hour discussing.
My understanding is—and I'm sure the clerk would be happy to clarify as well—that the ministers have agreed to come before the committee early in the new year, and I'm hopeful the clerk will clarify that for us.
The Clerk
Yes. After the November 18 invitations, the responses were that they accepted the invitations but that they were not available.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
If I could also comment, I believe the clerk could verify that, with respect to Mr. Anandasangaree, his response indicated he didn't think our study was related to anything he could contribute to. Is that correct?
The clerk can look for that one. It doesn't really matter, but that's the whole reason we decided to write a letter. It was based on that one.
Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I really appreciate that, Madam Chair.
Based on my understanding, earlier today—I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say this publicly, because we are in public—you shared that you had a meeting with the minister, who indicated to you that he would be willing to come in the new year, depending on his schedule.
I don't understand why this motion is necessary, when we realize that it's not a refusal to appear, but it is a scheduling challenge, as other committees are also competing with us for the ministers' time. Ms. Vien indicated earlier that the study has been concluded. My understanding, as per Ms. Fancy, is that the clerk sent out an invitation, and the minister accepted, saying that, yes, he's happy to appear in the new year.
If the study was concluded, then why would we continue to invite them to speak to the study? Also, if the study was not concluded, and we're still making room for them, what is the purpose of this motion?
How it reads now, with the amendments, is that they've “received two separate invitations from the committee and...the committee expresses its disappointment with the ministers”. I just really don't understand the purpose of this. I thought the purpose of this committee was to complete the report.
As valuable and as accountable as they are, ministers are not the sole definers of what our committee reports are going to look like. We heard from many different experts and looked at many different written testimonies, here in person and online, for people to give their feedback.
We are trying to move things forward. As you know, Madam Chair, there have been a lot of issues that we could have dealt with and that we should be dealing with on a regular basis. However, for us to put forward a motion that we're now spending an hour debating.... I still don't understand the purpose of this motion. As corrected, the ministers—both of them—did not refuse to appear. Then, we're talking about “their refusal to be accountable to parliamentarians”.
As a committee, we have the dominance of our own domain here. We figure out how we're going to move things forward. When we know that ministers are being seconded to all of these different committees, is there not a workaround?
I sat on many committees in the past, Madam Chair. There have been opportunities where, if a witness is not available or if a minister is not available, we keep moving forward with the study, or we pick up a different study in the queue until we find availability for that minister or for that witness, whoever it may be, to be able to come.
That doesn't stop the analysts from starting their reports or from continuing the work. It doesn't stop the committee from continuing its work.
With the fact that we went from having a great, wholesome discussion in camera about all the wonderful work that we want to do as the status of women committee, to then spending half an hour becoming public, and then going on and finding out that there's misrepresentation here in this motion, and now trying to fix it up with the amendments that Ms. Fancy quite prudently put forward, I'm just really wondering why we are here. I thought the status of women committee was supposed to be more of a collaborative committee.
I'm sorry. I'm still new. I'm still learning.
I think there are opportunities for us to put away this motion and get to the reality of business and to the actual work we've been trying to do, instead of posturing or playing politics, which I think is beneath us here in this committee. I know I am surrounded by some phenomenal women who do excellent work and who genuinely care about the issues we speak about on a daily basis and at every single committee meeting.
Therefore, I support Ms. Fancy's amendments as they are proposed. However, I am opposed to the substance of the motion in and of itself.
I'll park my comments there, Chair, but I do reserve the right to come back if I need to.
Thank you.
Conservative
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wish we could have received the amendment proposed by Ms. Fancy so that we could analyze it. I just want to make sure I understand the amendment proposed by the Liberals, because the issue is quite serious.
In a number of committees, we see that ministers don't always accept invitations. We might find that reprehensible. However, I want to make sure I understand Ms. Fancy's amendment. We want to have a debate, but we don't want excessive procedures, either.
Right now, I'm trying to wrap my head around this amendment. It says that we may have to wait until January. I would really like to understand Ms. Fancy's amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
The motion as amended would be, “Given that Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, each received separate invitations from the committee, the committee expresses disappointment with the ministers.” That's with the amendments.
Ms. Roberts.
