PROC Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I'd like to call us to order, please. This is a meeting of the procedure and house affairs committee on the votability of a private member's bill.
Mr. Warawa, it's great to have you here today. I'm going to start with you. We'll go with a five-minute presentation by you.
Very good. Thank you so much, Chair.
Thank you, colleagues, for this opportunity to speak to you about M-408.
I'm here to appeal the decision of the private members' business subcommittee that deemed my motion M-408 non-votable. I refer you to the Annotated Standing Orders, which states on page 340:
There are four criteria established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by which bills and motions may be declared non-votable.
I'm sure you're all aware of those criteria, so I direct your attention to the statement made by the expert analyst at last Thursday's subcommittee meeting. The analyst repeatedly and emphatically stated that M-408 was in line with those criteria:
This motion will ask the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. With respect to this motion, I will first underline that there is a fundamental distinction between a motion and an Act of Parliament.
A motion does not enact in itself a rule of law; it's not an Act of Parliament. It does not put in place rules. This motion refers to the deliberative functions of Parliament, which are protected by parliamentary privilege. If we look at the criteria, it is within federal jurisdiction, it does not...offend the Constitution, and there's no similar motion currently on the order paper.
At the subcommittee, a member questioned if M-408 is similar to another motion. The analyst said no. They also referred to Speaker Fraser's decision of November 2, 1989, later affirmed by Speaker Milliken's ruling in November 7, 2006, which stated that “two or more items are substantially the same if, first, they have the same purpose and, second, they obtain their purpose by the same means.”
There has been no substantially similar piece of business put forward during this Parliament. No other piece of government or private member's business has called on Parliament to condemn discrimination against women and girls occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination. M-408 is the first motion of its kind.
I would like to share with the committee the intent of my motion. M-408 is in response to a CBC investigation that aired on June 12 of last year, which found that discrimination against girls through sex selection is happening here in Canada. The next day, all our official parties in the House condemned that practice. Our Conservative government said that they condemned the practice of sex selection. The NDP said that sex-selective pregnancy termination reflected the deep inequalities between men and women and that it had no place in our society. The Liberals said you wouldn't find anyone agreeing with abortion purely for the sake of sex selection.
Moreover, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada declared that they vehemently oppose sex selection. A 2011 Environics poll showed that 92% of Canadians want sex selection made illegal.
The United Nations states that 200 million women and girls are missing due to gendercide, right now. It states:
Renewed and concerted efforts are needed by governments and civil society to address the deeply rooted gender discrimination which lies at the heart of sex selection.
M-408 is about that discrimination against women and girls. Canadians abhor all forms of violent discrimination against women and girls. Why are Canadians still deeply upset that women at École Polytechnique were brutally killed? Why are people outraged that Malala, a 14-year-old girl, was shot by the Taliban? It is because these violent acts of discrimination were targeted at women and girls. The killers did not value girls.
Again, the expert analyst stated:
A motion does not enact in itself a rule of law; it's not an act of Parliament. It does not put in place rules. This motion refers to the deliberative functions of Parliament, which are protected by parliamentary privilege. If we look at the criteria, it is within federal jurisdiction, it does not...offend the Constitution, and there's no similar motion currently on the order paper.
M-408 clearly meets the criteria and should be votable. The question for each member here today is, what kind of Parliament do we want?
Canadians want a Parliament that follows the rules and procedures—
Okay, I'm almost done.
Canadians want a Parliament that follows the rules, and 92% of Canadians want the practice of sex selection condemned. The future of Parliament and the future of M-408 is in your hands.
Thank you.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer