Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 5834
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I'm not sure if this is a point of order or a point of clarification, but if you take a look at the motion we passed on June 18, paragraph (vi) says:examine the subject-matter of the motions, standing in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper on June 10, 2013.
I think, Kevin, you are trying to reintroduce the same motions that we have agreed to study anyway. I don't see the necessity of that. Part of the House order, and part of the motion that was unanimously passed, was to study the motions that your leader brought forward. We have agreed to do that.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes, and I guess my only comment..... I know that Craig is coming next, so I—
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes.
All I was going to say in response to Kevin is that with all due respect, Kevin, I just think what you're attempting to do here is somewhat redundant, because it's in the motion that we passed unanimously to study all of the elements of your leader's motions of June 10. So I don't think we need an amendment or a clarification. It's in the House order that was discussed.
Eventually...and obviously I don't want to cut off any further discussion of my motion, but I would just reiterate that the commitment of our government is to honour the motion that was approved unanimously on June 18, and that is to conduct a full and thorough review of all issues dealing with transparency and accountability of members of Parliament. It's I think fairly clearly presented in the motion that was adopted where we're going to go with this. We're going to talk about things, about the Board of Internal Economy. We're going to talk to the Auditor General and other financial people. We're probably going to examine other jurisdictions. But the sole purpose of and the spirit behind this motion was to try to increase transparency and accountability. That's why my motion comes forward: just to reaffirm the fact that as a government we are absolutely committed to doing that.
With respect to one further comment that Nathan made as to honouring the deadline of December 2, as a committee—and everyone knows that we're the masters of our own fate—we can meet as often and as frequently as we want. We can have extended hours. We can meet evenings, on weekends, whatever. Our point is that we believe the December 2 deadline can and will be met, and we're fully committed to participating in a thorough review.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
Sure. Everyone has notice of it and this is public, but I will read it just for the record:
That, the Committee hold meetings in the fall of 2013 pursuant to the House order of Tuesday, June 18, 2013, regarding the transparency and accountability of the House of Commons, and that the Committee show respect for the will of the House by allowing one Member who is not a member of a recognized party to participate in these hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of the Committee.
I know that other people are on the speaking list, but I would like to deal with the substance of this, and I would call the question at the first opportunity so we can vote on my motion.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I just don't have a problem with this. As I said verbally, our commitment is to do it. I've said so in public now, and so if this committee wants to instruct you, as chair, to write a letter requesting that we reaffirm the motion we have already passed, we don't have a problem with that. We are fully committed to having the study.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
You've said what I was going to say. It's pretty difficult, if not outright impossible, to set an agenda until we find out how many witnesses people are suggesting we have. That's the way this committee has always worked. That's how every committee works. You get the witness list, and then the chair, with the support of the analysts and the clerk, tries to get a work schedule based on how many witnesses we're going to have to hear from. I think that's the proper way to proceed here.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I don't know until we.... I can't answer that, Kevin, because we haven't sat down to try to determine exactly where we want to go with this. Similarly, every time we've tried to set an agenda at this committee, we've handled ourselves in the same fashion. We have a week or whatever it is to come up with witness lists. You will be speaking with your staff, I'm sure, and with other members of your caucus, as will the NDP, as will we. We'll submit the lists, and only at that time will the chair and the clerk then be able to say okay, we have 20, 30, or 40 witnesses. Then they set a work-plan and an agenda based on that.
I think it's pretty presumptuous and very, very unwieldy to try to force a particular agenda without having seen what we're all suggesting in terms of the witnesses. That's all I'm saying. Plus, the fact is that we've already passed an amendment saying that we're going to reaffirm the motion as soon as Parliament resumes. As was mentioned—and I think both Craig and Nathan said it—with prorogation, the initial motion as unanimously agreed to on June 18 basically goes away, so we're going to reaffirm.... We're going to write a letter to the House leader to bring it back. Let's just do things in an orderly fashion. That's all I'm trying to suggest.
We want to get it done. We've all agreed upon that. We know that we want to have certain witnesses appear before the committee. Let's find out who they are and go from there.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I'm just going to ask for some advice from the clerk regarding prorogation. Parliament originally was scheduled to resume September 16, so I assume this coming week the Prime Minister will make some announcement on that. Once that occurs, what is the status of those committees? I'd like some advice from the clerk.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming you all here today and echoing their sentiments that this has been very interesting and very informative.
I want to perhaps try to understand the history a little bit better. Obviously, we know that this crown corporation was created in 1999, and the pre-2000 contributions were not invested on....
Mr. Ménard, you were here in 1999. I'm wondering if you can help me understand, or describe for me, what was happening at that time, either in the industry or perhaps in other countries, that had our Government of Canada move to the changes and the creation of this crown corporation.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
In other words, many OECD countries were moving towards this kind of pension plan.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Okay, thank you.
My second question has to do with the relationship of this crown corporation to other crown corporations and what sorts of strategies you may be developing or have in place to ensure that these crown corporations move to a 50-50 sharing of costs. An alignment of the age of retirement has been built in, but I wonder about the changes that have been passed in Bill C-45.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
So you don't have a specific responsibility or working relationship with other crown corporations to help them move to the implementation of....
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Results: 1 - 15 of 5834 | Page: 1 of 389

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data