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 400
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
We are back in business, folks.
We have the motion by Mr. Lukiwski.
Mr. Cullen, you have the floor. Did you—
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Just on relevance, I appreciate that Mr. Lamoureux would be fully within his rights to introduce a motion or, indeed, several motions. I don't think there's a notice requirement under our committee's rules, but we are actually in the midst of discussing not merely another motion—and everything discussed must be germane to that motion—but an amendment to that motion. I would think that these remarks would be more appropriate when we've dealt essentially with this.
Let's deal with Mr. Cullen's amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion first.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Reid. I was about to get there as Mr. Lamoureux was rounding the corner into new motions.
We are still on Mr. Lukiwski's notice of motion of today. Unless you are trying to move these as amendments to that, I don't see a way forward until after that discussion is complete. I'd be happy to come back to it at that time.
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 Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Well, I think this committee would like to usually move in that step, where we'll study before we come to the conclusion as to what we'll put in our final report.
I have Mr. Scott, Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Lukiwski, but I'm trying not to get out of sync here as to where we are.
Mr. Lamoureux, as Mr. Lukiwski has pointed out, the subject matter you're talking about is already in the motion that founded the reason for our meeting. Belt and suspenders I understand, but I just don't understand why we need to go that deep at this moment, further—
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
If you'll allow me, let's leave it. If at the end you don't believe that the subject matter you're looking for is going to be covered, I might even give you some leeway to bring it back, but at this moment I think we're already discussing the topic that you're trying to put on the floor, either as an amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion or as another motion.
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 Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Lukiwski, thank you for that recap, but I'm wondering if you wanted to read your motion into the record, because it was done while we were in camera.
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 Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
All right, I have no one else on the speaking list, so shall we call the vote on the amendment?
Some hon. members: Yes.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Fantastic. That accomplishes a good combination of motions today. Thank you very much. That's great.
Mr. Cullen.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
There are a couple of programs that will sunset in 2014-15. The major projects management office will sunset, and the government will assess, as we do with all term projects, the effectiveness of the project and whether or not to renew and at what dollar amount. The other one is the aboriginal consultation funding, which was increased last year for CEAA, but again it comes with a multiple-year term, which is set to expire, as you point out, March 31, 2015.
It would be premature to anticipate, but I would think, given the direction of responsible resource development and CEAA's mandate, that funding will be renewed at appropriate levels.
Results: 1 - 15 of 400 | Page: 1 of 27

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

For more data options, please see Open Data