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 3982
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
This amendment would specify that neither current nor former officers nor employees of the Canada Border Services Agency may sit on the public complaints and review commission. This amendment does not appear in Bill C-98, but in the parent act, the RCMP Act. The ineligibility paragraph under subsection 45.29(2) of that act would exclude current or former members from service on the PCRC, and under that act, “member” has a specific definition that means an employee of the RCMP. Presumably, current and former agents of the CBSA should be excluded from sitting on the PCRC as well. This amendment would make that crystal clear.
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, you've ruled twice now on two different amendments that in the opinion of the chair, with regard to the scope of the bill, both are outside the intent of the bill. Since I am new to this committee, could the chair please explain what he believes the intent of the bill is?
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, the reason I ask is that you've been here a lot longer than I have, and sometimes I think we tend to walk through those doors and common sense tends to kind of go out the window. In no way is that referring to you chair; I just mean overall, Mr. Chair.
I just want to know, because Bill C-101 in laymen's terms would be there to protect our domestic producers. Am I correct in that assumption?
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
Correct: and more than that.
The reason I offer this is that if Bill C-101 is here and being developed and passed and put forward to protect our domestic producers against, well, the protectionist measures proposed by those south of the border, as well as dumping by other countries, it would make sense if we reread the original motion that was put forth by the CPC: that it's only to remedy any harm or trade injury to our domestic producers, and that any tariffs or surtaxes that have been collected would then be paid and “shall be used to compensate economic loss incurred by domestic steel producers”.
Mr. Chair, that goes to the direct intent of Bill C-101; it's not outside of Bill C-101. If your argument is that it doesn't fall within the intent of Bill C-101, I think that is a faulty argument.
View Wayne Stetski Profile
NDP (BC)
Okay.
The amendment is that subsection 12(1) would read:
The Governor in Council may, by order, prohibit any interest owner or any other person from commencing or continuing any work or activity authorized under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act on the frontier lands, or any portion of them, if the Governor in Council considers that it is necessary to do so in any of the following circumstances:
(a) a disagreement with any government concerning the location of an international boundary,
(b) an environmental or social problem of a serious nature,
(c) dangerous or extreme weather conditions affecting the health or safety of people or the safety of equipment, or
(d) is deemed to be in the national interest.
It would also add the following new subsections:
(1.1) At least six months before an order is made under paragraph (1)(d), the Minister shall publish a notice of the proposed order in the Canada Gazette and in any other publication that the Minister considers appropriate, shall hold public consultations in all communities that may be affected by the order and shall give any other interested persons the opportunity to file with the Minister comments with respect to the proposed order.
(1.2) In the case of a proposed order that would affect an Aboriginal community,
—and this is key—
the order shall not be made unless—in accordance with Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—the Minister has obtained the consent of the representatives of that community.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Chair, the amendment is inadmissible, but we have not had a conversation about clause 85.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Chair, with regard to both clauses 85 and 86, if we all recall, the Prime Minister went down to New York and arbitrarily, without consultation with territorial governments, without consultation with first nations, made pronouncements regarding, at that time, the Beaufort moratorium. Certainly that is incredibly inconsistent with what this particular government has promised in terms of the consultation process. It was certainly very disrespectful.
From our understanding of these clauses, this embeds in law their ability to continue to be arbitrary and non-consultatory.
View Wayne Stetski Profile
NDP (BC)
This is a really important discussion. When you look at national interest, national interest is undefined in the bill. When you look at where Canada has gone with national interest in the past, residential schools were in the national interest. The national policy of 1878 was proclaimed in the national interest. The policy was sold as good for all Canadians and it talked about immigration and railways.
In the early 1980s, Trudeau Liberals introduced the national energy program and it was promoted as being in the national interest. When you look at the consultation that the committee heard, there was concern expressed by the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers asked if the national interest was in the interest of “parties that could be collectively effected by suspending the interest owners rights under an exploration licence or significant discovery”. It was concerned with the definition of national interest.
The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, in its brief, indicated that the requirement to consult with those who held rights in marine areas was not clearly articulated. The Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce, in its brief, argued that the final decision to prohibit certain works or activities in the national interest “needs to be approved by the Indigenous Nation of the prescribed area who are the stewards of the area but also rely on the land to provide economic independence”.
In my mind, it comes down to either we believe it when we say nice words about UNDRIP and that we should enact it in the legislation that we pass, or we don't. I truly believe we should reflect UNDRIP and support the amendment, which requires consultation with aboriginal communities.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
I think my colleague from the NDP clearly articulated the witnesses we heard. He clearly articulated how this is incongruent with the position of the government.
I want to note that we also had witnesses who talked about how two very disparate pieces of legislation have been slapped together into one instead of doing what, again, the government promised to do, which is to have stand-alone legislation.
Certainly, this particular section of this bill is a concern to us and the ability for the government to be so arbitrary and lacking in consultation is also a concern.
View Wayne Stetski Profile
NDP (BC)
I truly believe the purpose of the committee is to improve on bills. To say that this is not acceptable because it goes beyond where the current act sits.... I thought that's what we're here to do at committee. We are here to actually make improvements to bills and approving the amendment wouldn't ultimately slow up the approval of the bill.
View Wayne Stetski Profile
NDP (BC)
I'll go back to Mr. Amos's comments.
If UNDRIP is going to apply anyway, I see no harm in putting it into the bill and specifying that.
Results: 1 - 15 of 3982 | Page: 1 of 266

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

For more data options, please see Open Data