BOIE
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 120 of 1310
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr Julian. I also thank you for your kind words.
The first option, which is to install neutral or sand-coloured tarps to blend in with the environment, would cost about $1.5 million. The second option, which is to use a trompe l'oeil for the south facade, which faces Wellington Street, would cost about $2.6 million. As for the third option, you already know the costs. There was a $1.2-million difference between options 2 and 3.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
Yes, it is true that this $2-million difference, going from a very spartan approach of $1.2 million to a more elaborate approach, is more money. I certainly concede that.
My thinking is this. Having been to sites around the world and seeing how in Europe, for example, they preserve the monuments as they are renovating them by putting in place tarps so that people can actually see and envisage the monument itself, and seeing how tourists take pictures of that.... You wouldn't think that a tarp would be an attraction, but it is, and we know this. That's why this is increasingly the practice around the world when people travel to these sites. It's to make sure that they get the impression of what they see, even if it is under renovation.
Now, my riding is as far from Ottawa as it comes, and when my constituents go to Ottawa, it is a big deal. It's often a once-in-a-lifetime trip. I've intervened before on making sure that we keep things accessible. As you recall, Mr. Speaker, I intervened so that we kept the Library of Parliament open, which is not being renovated, so that constituents who come from British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador or Nunavut on that once-in-a-lifetime trip can actually access and visit the site.
Even though it is a significant amount of money—I don't doubt that—it seems to me that it is worth that additional expense. Families will often spend years saving up for that trip of a lifetime to come to Parliament Hill, only to see a very plain tarp that doesn't in any way reflect what they may have come to Ottawa to see on that once-in-a-lifetime trip. I tend to be quite critical if we're spending money that is not needed. I think that in this case it is an expenditure that we do need to make, and I certainly support the recommendation.
Thank you.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Are there any other comments or questions?
Mr. Richards.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
Are we just talking about the trompe l'oeil or are we talking about the presentation?
Okay. In that case, first of all, I will say that I appreciate the option that has been provided here for us. Mr. Julian mentioned that for many people it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to come here to Ottawa. I know that certainly the last couple of years in particular have been incredibly hard on the tourism industry. Obviously, anything we can do to not take away further from visitor opportunities and experiences when and if they do choose to come to Ottawa is important. Often when they come to Ottawa, they'll go to other parts of the country as well, so I think it is important, and I appreciate that suggestion.
In regard to some of the other items, there were a number, the welcome centre being one, and there's the light court area, where the Senate seems to be suggesting fairly substantial additional expenditures to accommodate what they say are their needs. I'm not certain that there's agreement that those are necessarily needed. In fact, the minister even has indicated that maybe she doesn't feel there's a need for some of the things the Senate is suggesting.
I'm wondering about that. How does that get resolved? What is done there? It does seem that there are maybe some fairly substantial requests being made there on their part. If there's a feeling amongst many that they're not needed, is there something this board can do to help facilitate appropriate decisions there?
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Richards.
To your first point with respect to the discussions, and to Mr. Julian as well, you have each summarized the very things that the working group discussed with respect to the trompe l'oeil, the notion that this is first and foremost for the incredible number of visitors who come not just to Ottawa but to Gatineau. This was strongly reinforced by the mayors, and the NCC was very clear on that. I think it was a persuasive argument and you have summarized it well.
On the other point, with respect to the working group on the House of Commons side, we are partners. The two chambers share responsibility for parliamentarians' input into the renovation plan. We have had two very constructive and excellent meetings. As soon as we can organize it, we will have another meeting to continue those discussions on the items I mentioned.
Clearly, for the final decision on points where there is disagreement, we are also of the view that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, can and will, as you have seen this week, relay her concerns with respect to some of these issues.
Our working group won't necessarily be taking up that discussion, but I am sure that a number of those concerns will be topics of discussion between Minister Anand and our counterparts on the Senate side. We will continue to work co-operatively and constructively with them and to share our views on some of these issues candidly, as we have and will continue to do. Ultimately, however, the minister will take up those considerations.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Are there any questions or comments?
I take it that we're all in accordance with these recommendations.
Very good.
Thank you very much, Mr. Stanton, and thank you to your team. Thank you for your patience as well.
Now we will go to number 7.
This is the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.
We will hand it over to Mr. Janse.
Mr. Janse.
Eric Janse
View Eric Janse Profile
Eric Janse
2021-06-10 12:47
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
A few weeks ago, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was established. You have before you the tentative budget request of $50,000.
As this is a joint committee—Senate and House—the budget would be divided using the usual 70-30 formula.
The House portion would be $35,000, and the recommendation is that this funding be taken from the envelope for all standing committees.
Thank you.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Are there any questions or comments?
Seeing none, are we all in accordance with the recommendation? I see everyone nodding their heads in approval.
We will continue.
We are on number 8, the annual report on the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy for 2020-21.
Ms. Laframboise.
Michelle Laframboise
View Michelle Laframboise Profile
Michelle Laframboise
2021-06-10 12:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I am here today to present to the Board of Internal Economy the annual statistical report on the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy for 2020-2021.
As you know, the Chief Human Resources Officer of the House of Commons is required to provide an annual report of cases under this policy.
During the period covered by this report, two cases were managed by our office. We feel that the decrease in the number of cases this year is most likely a result of the pandemic and the current work-at-home situation.
A total of 22 inquiries were also submitted to the “respectful workplace” team. These inquiries involve things like obtaining information on the policy, accessing conflict resolution resources, coaching, reviewing of options, etc.
The annual report also speaks to the communication, training and awareness activities that have been undertaken and that will continue.
A communication from the Office of the Speaker will be sent to all members to notify them of the publication of this report. The availability of the report will also be announced on Twitter. In addition, the report will be available on the www.ourcommons.ca and sourced platforms.
I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have at this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Are there any questions or comments?
Not seeing any, is everyone in accordance with the recommendation?
Everyone concurs.
We're going take two minutes to go in camera. We'll take care of the last issue, and then we can go.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We are beginning the 17th meeting of the Board of Internal Economy.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the previous meeting, on April 22. Are there any comments on that?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille has the floor, and she will be followed by Mr. Holland.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question. We've noticed that over the past two weeks there have been significant technological problems with interpretation, whether in the House of Commons or in committees. Last week, we were having difficulty going from French to English or English to French. This week, we're noticing that it's difficult to go from French to English.
Can someone explain the nature of the problem? Is it a technological or specific problem?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Aubé could answer that question.
Stéphan Aubé
View Stéphan Aubé Profile
Stéphan Aubé
2021-05-13 11:04
Thank you for your question.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, in preparation for the meeting, we always look at our statistics. Statistically, it's clear that we have had some issues in the past two weeks, but I would still say that the number of incidents this week is down from the beginning of April. This week, we've had some technical difficulties in the House.
We had technical difficulties in the House on Monday, and some difficulties this week in committees. As you know, we are in a very difficult time to do infrastructure maintenance. We're trying our best to resolve these issues in the evening, and we are on our way to a solution. We're trying to maintain the functional environment of the House and committees. We're working on it day and night, I assure you.
However, it's true that we saw five or six incidents in the House on Monday this week. We noted a few incidents on Tuesday in the House and in committees. That's more than normal, compared to past weeks. We have some solutions, but it's a matter of finding the time to do the maintenance. It's very difficult right now. We can only work on it at night and on weekends, but we're trying to make the changes. We're doing everything possible. The technical difficulties are with some of the equipment.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'll ask another question.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
It's a question for Mr. Janse.
Mr. Janse, you sent all the whips' offices your desire, in response to the clerks' request, to hold virtual rather than hybrid meetings in committees. Some clerks would be at home or elsewhere, but not on site.
The Bloc Québécois made an effort to ask members who liked attending committee meetings in person not to do so, because you had asked us to. We found that it was not necessarily a directive or an instruction that was followed by the other parties. We've asked our members to do that, because we want to listen to the clerks, as you've asked. However, we see that members from other parties are physically sitting in the meeting rooms. It seems difficult for them to comply.
We in the Bloc Québécois have strictly respected what you asked for, but when we return from the break, some members will probably come and attend committees in person. I wanted to warn you of that. We've made our effort. I think that when we return from the break, some members will want to use their parliamentary privilege to be physically present in committee. It's not out of disrespect for the clerks, but in order to work better.
For them, it's a more efficient way of working. I wanted to formally notify you of this at the BIE. I'm proud to say that we made our effort when you asked us to.
Eric Janse
View Eric Janse Profile
Eric Janse
2021-05-13 11:08
Thank you very much for the information, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
I'd like to make a small clarification. We did not request that members not come into the committee room. We only notified the whips' offices that we had given our clerks the choice of coming in person or working from home. A large number of committee clerks still come into the committee room to work, but others have taken up the offer to work from home. We're still here to see members, either virtually or in person, in committee rooms.
Perhaps the message you are referring to is about next week's meetings, next week technically being a break week, although many committees will be in session. When we talked with other departments and our partners, some questions arose about resources. We wondered if the whips would consider the possibility of some committees meeting only virtually, given that it will be a break week and most members will be at home. If no members attend in person, it's going to require fewer resources, so all departments will be better able to accommodate all meetings requested for next week.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
All right.
The Bloc Québécois will support you on this. No problem.
Eric Janse
View Eric Janse Profile
Eric Janse
2021-05-13 11:10
Thank you very much.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
We'll continue with Mr. Holland, followed by Mr. Richards.
Mr. Holland.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2021-05-13 11:10
I'm not addressing this matter. I believe Mr. Julian had his hand up. If either Peter or Blake has something related to this matter, I'll wait. I don't want to interrupt the flow.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
Mr. Richards is addressing a different matter as well.
Mr. Julian, are you addressing the same matter or a different matter?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
It's about the same matter raised by Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I just want to say briefly that we know very well that we are in the third wave. The idea of having exclusively virtual meetings, in my opinion, is simply a workplace health and safety issue. So, we support the idea of limiting as much as possible the exposure of employees and members to the variants circulating in this third wave, which is proving to be extremely dangerous across the country.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Richards.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
I'll stay on the list for my other items—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, that's no problem. Go ahead.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
—but I'll address this point quickly.
I'm supportive of the way the administration has approached this. They've given clerks the option to be there in person if they choose or to be there virtually. I think all people need to be given the choice to do what they feel is safest. It sounds like that's what the administration has done, so I'm supportive of what they have suggested.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Very good. Thank you.
Now we'll go to Mr. Holland, followed by Mr. Richards.
Mr. Holland.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2021-05-13 11:12
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, on that point, I would wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Julian that, wherever possible in this third wave, we need to avoid coming in. I understand there are challenges for all of us, but this is a matter of public health and safety. It's a matter of the security and health of people who work at the House of Commons, and it's a matter of risk for members traversing provincial borders. Hopefully, folks will take that into consideration, as we try to navigate through this global health crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak at this point, if I could, on a matter arising from the previous meeting, as noted in the minutes.
In the previous meeting, we had a very lengthy discussion in camera with respect to the member for Pontiac and the terrible incident that occurred with the photo that was taken of him during private proceedings. I'm not going to have any questions for the House legal teams, so my comments here are not in any way in camera. This is a very troubling incident because it is.... Let's start in the ways in which it's different from what we have dealt with before.
In the thrust and parry of partisan politics, we are all used to our characters being besmirched or having our ideas attacked. Before we come to this place, we have an idea that's going to happen. That's not what happened here. This was a member of Parliament who, in a private proceeding, made a decision to take a video or a picture and then share that image somewhere. That was an image of another member naked. That image was then disseminated across the planet. Because of that decision, a member of Parliament and his family were subjected to the image of him naked on late night talk shows in England and the United States, and on social media sites around the world.
To date, the member of Parliament in question, Sébastien Lemire, has refused to say where he sent that photograph or what his intent was in sending it. And that matters.
Now, fellow board members, there is only one place that can adjudicate our own behaviour. That's it. We're it. If this were any other workplace.... When I headed up the Heart and Stroke Foundation, if an employee took a naked photo of another employee against the will of that employee and disseminated it, I can guarantee that an apology and walking away as if nothing happened wouldn't be the end of the matter. I can assure you that no workplace in this nation—
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I believe we have a point of order.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille has the floor.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, I have a point of order.
I don't understand. It's a very important matter, I agree, and I hope we have time to grant it the importance it deserves, but it's already an item on the agenda for the portion of the meeting in camera. So, I have a lot of trouble understanding why Mr. Holland is starting the discussion on this during the public portion of the meeting, because he is well aware of it.
So I'm asking you to rule on this, Mr. Speaker, because we're not following the agenda right now.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's a matter related to the business arising from the previous meeting. It was a little mixed up, but we let it go.
Mr. Holland, I'm not sure exactly how you would like to proceed right now. Would you like to withdraw and then come back?
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2021-05-13 11:16
No, absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. There's nothing that I'm saying that needs to be put in camera. The process of in camera is not to hide matters. It is not to bury matters. It is not to avoid dealing with matters. The purpose of going in camera is to allow matters to be discussed that cannot be discussed publicly.
One of the reasons the Board of Internal Economy made its meeting public was specifically so the deliberations of this body could be seen by the general public. It would be a violation of that principle to move this matter in camera. There is absolutely nothing I am saying now, or that I will say, that in any way needs to be in camera. And that is why I will continue.
The problem that I have is—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
If I could, at this point, because we had determined that this was an item that was in camera, and it is—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll refer to our legal team to comment on it, just so that we're not breaking any rules and to make sure that we're within our legal parameters.
Mr. Dufresne, would you like to comment on this?
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2021-05-13 11:17
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we were reviewing the items for consideration, it seemed to us that the discussion could touch upon powers and legally available avenues for the board to deal with the situation involving use of House of Commons resources. It could give rise to discussion about scope and legal consideration about those powers. These types of discussions could normally involve receiving or discussing legal advice. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, the recommendation was that this be considered in camera.
The Parliament of Canada Act does have a presumption that the board meetings are in public, and it is only in stated circumstances that it is in camera. Those circumstances include matters subject to solicitor-client privilege and when legal advice will be obtained. The board can discuss matters in camera and make its decisions public after the fact. If the discussion does not involve the giving or the receiving of legal advice, then it could take place in public. It is also possible for a member to state their position on something that they would want the board to consider at a later stage.
Matters covered by solicitor-client privilege have to be discussed in camera.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Dufresne, based on what was just said, I want to make sure whether Mr. Holland can continue or cannot continue. My impression is that based on what you're saying he can continue and it won't be an infraction.
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2021-05-13 11:19
If Mr. Holland does not disclose confidential information or legal advice or seek or share, he can.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Holland, I'd ask you to continue, then, please.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2021-05-13 11:19
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, as noted, I'll be careful not to cross into matters that are legal in nature, namely any legal advice that might have been given on this matter.
The situation that we are in now, as in any workplace where a naked photograph had been taken without the consent of another employee and then sent out by email, is that there would be action taken. Let's consider what reasonable action would be taken.
First, mens rea would need to be established. What was the intent both in taking the photograph and in disseminating it? We know there were only about two hours between when Sébastien took this photograph and it appeared in social media by both Chris Nardie and Brian Lilley. There were about two hours between when he took that photograph and when it first appeared on social media.
The question is: How did it get there?
We know, and it's been well established, that Sébastien Lemire, as the Bloc has said, would have no relationship with these media outlets, so mens rea, intent, is extremely important. I would ask that he appear before the board in an in camera session to answer what his intention was when he sent this. What was his intention when he took the photograph? When he sent it, did he send it to a reporter? Did he send it to another MP? Did he send it somewhere where he should have known that it would wind up in the public domain?
It's entirely unacceptable for him to send it to a private individual, but if he sent it somewhere where he knew that the image of the member for Pontiac would be used and sent around to humiliate him, that is not an acceptable tactic.
I have had members from both sides of the House come to me and ask, “What does that mean for the lobby? If I've had a red-eye flight, and I come into the lobby, and a member of Parliament can come in and take an unflattering picture of me with my shirt dishevelled, perhaps my bra showing, or perhaps my underwear showing, is that now fair game?”
What we're saying is that as long as you say sorry, it's no problem.
Imagine if this were a female colleague. What would our discussion be? Would it be a month later? A month later, would we be saying that maybe we'd do something about this, maybe we wouldn't?
What is owed to the member of Pontiac? What is owed to his family? What lines do we have as an organization? At what point do we say that there are limits to partisan engagement? The naked body of a fellow colleague, I would say, is an absolute limit. Today we're establishing a precedent for how such a matter is dealt with. I think that precedent must be expunged. I think the idea that a member can take a naked photograph of another member and disseminate it around the world is wholly and entirely unacceptable.
We have to understand what Mr. Lemire's intent was in sending this message, to whom he sent it to, and to whom that recipient then sent it to and if they happen to be a member of our organization, so that their actions can appropriately be captured, because that all speaks to the damages that were done and, frankly, the consequences that should be faced. Right now, the consequence faced by Mr. Lemire for this terrible action is nothing—not a thing.
I would request, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Lemire appear before this body in camera so that he could be appropriately questioned for the actions he took. I think it is a minimum action that any reasonable organization would take. We are the body that holds responsibility for that action.
With that, I'll make a request officially that Mr. Lemire appear before this committee in an in camera session to answer questions relating to his taking and disseminating of that photograph.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Are there any comments or questions from the other members?
Go ahead, Mr. Richards.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
I do understand the clarification we received earlier allowing Mr. Holland the opportunity to speak to the matter, because it arose from previous minutes.
Now we're starting to get into some debate and discussion about potential remedies and things like that. I think we are now starting to get into where there would be potential during this discussion and debate about the motion—I don't know if he's made a motion to this effect or what has just happened—where we would be talking about legal matters. Even by establishing the very precedent that we have jurisdiction here as a board, we could be getting into where there are questions that could arise here about asking for legal opinions, etc. I do believe that then falls under what needs to be in camera.
I'm not certain, but my suspicion is that now, at this point, it probably is best to defer that to the in camera portion of the meeting. I'll seek some guidance on that, but it seems to me that it's probably the best course of action there.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm suggesting that we get some better guidance. At this point, because we need to establish.... It's actually a legal matter to even establish whether we have jurisdiction here. There are many questions that arise then that could, in fact, fall into what the law clerk was telling us would then be the in camera portion, based on the decision made before the meeting that that would be where the discussion should take place.
I'm not suggesting that we move in camera now, but perhaps that this be deferred to the in camera portion where it was originally intended to be discussed, because I think we are now getting into.... Mr. Holland was able to make his comments, because we weren't falling into the discussion about jurisdictional and legal issues. A lot of the discussion that might now flow, I think, would be a better fit into the in camera portion. We will start to get into some pretty grey areas otherwise, right?
That's what I'm suggesting, that we defer it until its scheduled as part of an in camera meeting.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have two more members to speak, but before we go to Mr. Julian and Mr. Rodriguez, I'm going to defer to Mr. Patrice to give us a legal opinion on what we're doing right now, or where we're at to make sure that everything is in line.
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2021-05-13 11:26
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It won't be a legal opinion, because I won't speak in my capacity as a lawyer.
Mr. Richards raises a good point about the grey area. Obviously, based on what the law clerk has previously said, if the board is of the view that it can have the discussion and make a decision on the motion presented by Mr. Holland without receiving, asking for or discussing legal advice, it can do so in public.
If, on the other hand, members want to receive legal advice and discuss it, then the Parliament of Canada Act and the prescribed regulations and bylaws that have been passed by the board come into play. The meeting should then proceed in camera in accordance with the bylaws.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
If I could add to that, because I think I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly imagine that there are some questions of a legal nature that I would have in order to establish where we should be going with this. I would imagine others will probably be in the same boat, because there are many questions about what we can and can't do that I would want to have answers to, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.
That's why I made the suggestion that that's probably what we should be doing.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm going to continue then. There's a fine line that we're stepping on here.
I'll let Mr. Julian go ahead, followed by Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Holland and Madame DeBellefeuille.
Mr. Julian, please go ahead.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I listened very attentively to Mr. Holland, and I certainly have a lot of sympathy for his views, and the importance of coming to terms with this issue. There's no doubt that there was a pretty profound violation that took place.
That being said, at the end of his comments, he very clearly stepped to the issue that raises a whole range of legal concerns. There's no doubt that any further discussion really needs to be taking place, as was foreseen on our agenda, in the latter part of the meeting.
There are a whole bunch of legal ramifications, of course. Those need to be considered, and I think the direction that we've gotten from the legal adviser to the BOIE is that we should be proceeding in camera to have that discussion later on.
We do have a number of other items that need to be discussed in public, and then we should move to the in camera portion of the meeting.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We'll go to Mr. Rodriguez, followed by Madame DeBellefeuille, and then come back.
We have some different interpretations here.
Mr. Rodriguez, you have the floor.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I feel like we're complicating matters. Mr. Holland is simply asking that Mr. Lemire appear in camera.
We all know that what happened is extremely serious, and that it had a huge impact on Mr. Amos's life. We have to be able to say that there are limits in politics as well and that the line has obviously been crossed.
We're not having a legal discussion today, or a discussion about solicitor-client relationships or anything of that nature. All Mr. Holland is asking is that the committee call Mr. Lemire to appear, and there is no question that he has the authority to do so. In fact, recently, on several occasions, the committee has called individuals to appear before the Board of Internal Economy to explain themselves.
I would point out that when an in camera meeting is recommended, it is done under section 3.1 of the Board of Internal Economy Rules of Practice and Procedure, which I will read to you:
The Board must hold a meeting or portion of a meeting in camera in circumstances where it considers:
(a) matters subject to solicitor-client or litigation privilege; or
(b)sensitive matters respecting the health or family situation of an identifiable individual.
This matter has nothing to do with either of those things. We're simply looking at whether or not we should call Mr. Lemire to appear in camera to come and explain himself. I feel we should vote on it.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille has the floor, and then it will be Mr. Holland's turn.
Results: 61 - 120 of 1310 | Page: 2 of 22

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

For more data options, please see Open Data