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 7128
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Now we will move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. We had no amendments that were proposed by anyone, but we'll go through each clause and see if anyone wants to offer any.
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chair: Now we move to the short title of the bill. All those in favour of the short title?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An. hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Are there any amendments to the title of the bill? Did you rethink the title by any chance? Would you like to call it something else?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
All those in favour of the title of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: That takes us through the bill. The bill is now adopted by committee without amendment, and I will report it back to the House today after question period.
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 Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
In all cases, I don't think experience should diminish someone's capacity to act. I would vote against that.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
I'm just wondering, through you Chair, if Mr. Travers can explain the inconsistency between the fact that the RCMP are forbidden but former CBSA members are allowed in this legislation.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
Chair, if I may, it seems like a pretty glaring inconsistency. You're going to have an organization that's now going to handle complaints for two different public safety entities. On the one hand, certain individuals—I take your point about the types of experiences—will be allowed. That's a very specific example, but it basically means that someone who served 30 years as a border officer and who is, with all due respect to the great work that they do, in a bit of a conflict of interest....
I assume that is why the RCMP Act was drafted the way it was. It was to avoid the old adage of police investigating police. I know that it's called “public” now, but I'm just wondering if the civilian nature of it is a bit lost by this pretty important inconsistency that will now exist throughout what is supposed to be one organization. Could you perhaps offer us what the thinking was behind that?
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a very quick question.
I'm not going to support this amendment, but I just wanted to ask a question on the RCMP ban. Who is currently banned? Is it RCMP members in the meaning of the act, or any employee of the RCMP?
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
So this amendment would apply to all CBSA employees, as you said, summer students.
That answers my question, thank you.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I'll support Mr. Manly's amendment because I think it refers to a pretty important inconsistency.
Two big issues come to mind. One, which I think we heard in the testimony previously and through Mr. Eglinski's questions in particular, is the importance of building trust. I just feel that the inequity that this would create in this newly named commission would be problematic for building that trust.
Two, again, we're using such a specific example of a summer student working three months at the agency, when the reality is that the loophole would allow someone who is in a much more conflicted position to be there. Unfortunately, I don't have wording to entertain an amendment to the amendment, to make that exemption appear, but again, just for the record, I think it's a pretty stark inconsistency, and so I'll support Mr. Manly's amendment.
View Pierre-Luc Dusseault Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope that you'll rule this amendment in the package admissible. I'm confident that this will be the case, since the amendment is directly related to the testimony that we heard just yesterday from the United Steelworkers representatives. These people were interested in playing a greater role in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. They not only want to participate in its hearings, they also want the option of filing complaints with the tribunal.
My amendment seeks to achieve this objective by proposing a new definition of “domestic producer” in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act. Under this new definition, the employees and the unions or associations representing them would be considered domestic producers. As a result, they could file complaints through the complaint system set out in the act. If this definition were added, the unions and employees would be considered domestic producers. They could have a voice, and they could use the complaint and dispute settlement system set out in the act.
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?
Results: 1 - 15 of 7128 | Page: 1 of 476

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

For more data options, please see Open Data