Witness says she’ll return if invited after fracas at House Status of Women Committee, it’s more important than ‘petty politics’

A witness who stormed out of a parliamentary committee meeting late last month after a discussion intended to be about violence against women turned into a political debacle said she would be willing to return to speak again if invited to do so because the issue is more important than “petty politics.” “I'm really tired of politicians hijacking anything for their political gain when I'm losing a friend,” said Cait Alexander, who heads up the advocacy group End Violence Everywhere in an interview with The Hill Times on Aug. 14. “If Anita or whoever wants to play those games, I'll take the hit in order to make sure that this conversation is front and centre. That's what matters. I'm here for survivors, and I'm here for the women who are trapped in houses right now and whoever's going to die today. That's what I'm going back for.” An emergency meeting of the House Status of Women Committee, which was called by Conservative MP and committee chair Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings-Lennox and Addington, Ont.), descended into chaos on July 31 after Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont.) moved a motion which shifted the meeting's focus from violence against women to abortion rights. In an op-ed published by National Newswatch on Aug. 7, Vandenbeld said that the committee chair called the meeting on intimate partner violence unilaterally with only a few days notice, and also only invited witnesses proposed by Conservative Party members. She argued that rules were broken at the meeting, such as allowing props by witnesses (specifically photographs), and that there was a failure to overrule points of order that were unrelated to procedural issues, which placed the Liberals in the position of “either allowing the rules to be broken, or calling it out and being vilified and gaslit through a very effective Conservative communications war.” “The Conservatives knew that we would have no choice but to do something to not allow such a meeting to go ahead. And yet, they invited witnesses who had been victimized and traumatized to testify, using their pain and trauma to put us into a corner,” Vandenbeld wrote in the op-ed. “In my focus on trying to save our committee from the same dysfunction and partisanship that has plagued other committees, I played a role in adding to their trauma and for that I am very sorry.” Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough-Kawartha, Ont.) told The Hill Times in an emailed statement that her party would continue to call on the Liberals to let the witnesses return to committee to speak. “It is disgusting that this so-called feminist Liberal government completely shut down a committee study into violence against women just as witnesses and victims of intimate partner violence were ready to present their testimony,” said Ferreri in the emailed statement. “The same Liberal MP who was responsible for abruptly silencing their voices, causing witnesses to leave in tears, then published a tone-deaf rant making it all about herself.” Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri said 'It is disgusting that this so-called feminist Liberal government completely shut down a committee study into violence against women just as witnesses and victims of intimate partner violence were ready to present their testimony.' The Hill Times photograph by Sam Garcia Alexander said she agreed that meetings should be held with certain rules and accountability, but “this is an emergency, and maybe we can set aside our need for perfect conduct at all times in order to address the actual issue, which is that a woman is being murdered every single day.” Other witnesses at the meeting were Megan Walker, an advocate for ending male violence against women, who previously served as executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre for almost 25 years, and Nick Milinovich, deputy chief for Peel Regional Police, who attended remotely. Alexander appeared before the committee to share her own story of intimate partner violence. She told the committee that three years ago her then-boyfriend beat her for four hours with his fists and a rolling pin, and left her for dead. Alexander’s boyfriend was charged with eight offences—three federal and five provincial—but the charges were stayed, she told the committee. On Aug. 8, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, Ont.) sent a letter to Alexander and Walker, saying that Conservatives would write to other federal parties demanding that the committee be recalled to listen to their stories. Alexander told The Hill Times that she’d be willing to do so. Cait Alexander, head of the advocacy group End Violence Everywhere, testifies at the House Status of Women Committee on July 31, 2024. ParlVu screencapture “I don't want it to appear as if we're aligning with any particular party. We're aligning with what's right for Canadians,” said Alexander. “I don't really care what Anita’s problem is, or what the Conservatives’ problem is, or what the NDP’s problem is. I care that survivors are not being listened to and not being respected, and we're dying because of it.” In her op-ed, Vandenbeld argued that the Conservatives intended to put forward an “ambush motion” at the meeting, and so Liberal and NDP members “were left with no choice but to put forward our own motion first.” Kathy Brock, a professor in the School of Policy Studies who is also cross-appointed to the Department of Political Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., told The Hill Times that, while House committees are supposed to establish their own rules, there are also procedural norms. She said it is the committee chair’s prerogative to call a meeting if they desire, although usually individual members may submit topics, and the committee decides which topics it will move forward on. Parties typically provide input on which witnesses they want to call, she said. Brock said that Vandenbeld’s concern about the Conservatives putting forward an ambush motion is fair, but she doesn’t agree that there was no choice but for the Liberals to put forward their own motion first. In politics, timing is everything, Brock said. Kathy Brock, a Queen's University professor, says, 'in this case, when it's such a sensitive issue ... that's when the committee members could attend, could listen, could even not ask questions afterwards.' Photograph by Jonathan Sugarman “In this case, when it's such a sensitive issue, and when you have a witness testify on what is clearly a very personal, sensitive matter, then that's when the committee members could attend, could listen, could even not ask questions afterwards. They could have just let it go and then raise a point of order at the next meeting,” said Brock. “What could have done was waited for the Conservatives to bring forward this motion, and then if she and the other members of the Liberal Party on the committee, the Bloc members and the NDP members were all offended by the motion brought forward by the chair, they could have stood up, walked out, and effectively quorum is denied.” Brock also said that committee members could have tried asking for a point of order at the beginning of the meeting, saying they want it on the record that “although we are very sympathetic on this issue, we didn't like the way this was called.” Steven Chaplin, a fellow at the University of Ottawa Public Law Center and a former senior parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons, told The Hill Times that MPs trying to find ways to get around the rules for political purposes can happen on both sides of the House. He said the Conservatives bypassed the normal committee process by calling an emergency meeting. “In the normal process you would have… these steering committees where all the parties and co-chairs and whatever, they decide what they're going to study, what witnesses are going to be called,” he said. “I think this abuse of, or this misuse, or the expansion of rules outside of the normal course and trying to turn this into an urgent debate is something I think people have to look at, and the House may have to look at. Are there ways that that power should be, if not constrained, at least defined?” Chaplin described the Liberal response of putting forward a motion to move towards the topic of abortion rights as a way of “trying to blunt whatever approach the Conservatives were using.” “ didn't know who the witnesses were, how they were to prepare, what was coming, who these people were,” he said. “This is what the steering committees, under normal circumstances, are designed to work out. If this had been a normal process, the Liberals would have been informed.” Chaplin said that because of the way the meeting was put together, the discussion became “a-fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants approach,” with all the MPs “winging it politically.” “It's really, really unfortunate that these witnesses—who have legitimate concerns on legitimate matters that they thought they were going to be discussing before committee—got tangled up in it,” he said. “That's the real shame in all of this is that numbers of witnesses find themselves being sidetracked by what amounts to being almost a political circus on both sides.” Alex Marland, a professor in the Department of Politics at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, told The Hill Times that, regardless of the party, MPs will strategize before a committee meeting, and discuss tactics and the message they will try to convey. Alex Marland, a professor in the Department of Politics at Acadia University, says, 'there was a time where parliamentary committees could operate relatively at arm's length from the leader's office.' Photograph courtesy of Alex Marland “There was a time where parliamentary committees could operate relatively at arm's length from the leader's office, but now with smartphones it means that everything is going back and forth," he said. "There's a lot more ability for the leader’s office, even though … they're not even necessarily in Ottawa, they can be finding out what's going on, and so they're relaying things back and forth so that there's more co-ordination.” Marland argued that, because of the use of smartphones, “everything is much more immediate,” which creates more need for “partisan symmetry” at committee meetings. He recalled that the former Conservative government under Stephen Harper was accused of a plot to wreak parliamentary havoc when a 200-page handbook that provided details for how to obstruct and manipulate committees was leaked to the press in 2007. “I think it's a bit rich for anybody in any party to try to suggest that the other parties are to blame. Because the reality is they all do it, and none of them are out there providing magnificent solutions," he said. "If the Liberals—any Liberal—were to suggest that the Conservatives are up to these things, the reality is, the Liberals are, of course, trying to manage their own MPs because they're trying to align their messages,” he said. “It happens regardless of what party is in power. When you're in power, you're always trying to make sure that the messaging coming out of the committee is not going to cause problems for the government if you're on the same side of the House.” The Hill Times reached out to every MP on the House Status of Women Committee. Ferreri was the only member who provided a comment on the matter, which she provided by email. jcnockaert@hilltimes.com The Hill Times

Witness says she’ll return if invited after fracas at House Status of Women Committee, it’s more important than ‘petty politics’

Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to allow witnesses to return to speak after a disastrous House committee meeting on July 31.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

Billions from public-service pension plan surplus gives Liberals many options

New government spending request will be snared in parliamentary gridlock while privilege debate persists

Trump adds pressure to increase defence spending, but MPs and others consider U.S. NATO withdrawal unlikely

NDP won’t be ‘baited’ as Tories attack Singh amid Liberal labour moves, says MP Green

Not if, but when: Foreign Affairs Committee keys in on question of Palestinian statehood

‘This is not a game’: MPs point fingers over use of committee for ‘content creation’ as procurement studies evolve

House Status of Women Committee should learn from fracas

Summer House committee meetings are running hot

Everyone loses in political point-scoring

PBO tallies the capital gains hike

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Witness says she’ll return if invited after fracas at House Status of Women Committee, it’s more important than ‘petty politics’

Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to allow witnesses to return to speak after a disastrous House committee meeting on July 31.

Become a Political Insider