Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 46915
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Thanks so much, Ruby. I'm happy to do so.
This amendment would limit the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to accelerate the implementation of the provisions, which would be enacted by clauses 2 through 5, to prevent those provisions from coming into effect prior to September 20, 2021, which is the first scheduled sitting day of the House this autumn. In other words, if the Prime Minister wants to call a summer election, it would be under the current rules that are there.
I have just a couple of things. I'll be honest; I know that some members, specifically Daniel, would really like to see this go through—not necessarily this amendment, but this bill—because he recognizes that there's a good chance the Prime Minister will pull the plug. Let's be honest. The only way he can pull the plug is if there's a non-confidence vote, and we have not seen a non-confidence vote that was lost in this House of Commons.
Since we already had a motion indicating unanimously that we do not want an election, this is something that we thought about. Let's get back to work in September and do the job that Canadians are expecting of us.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I really appreciate that, Ruby. Thanks so much.
As I was saying yesterday, about 15 million Canadians will be voting in this next election. The fact is that this is all about our democracy. We want to ensure that there is safety, but at the same time, we talked about the fact that, if we're in a pandemic, we know that voter turnout might be a question. There's a variety of things that way. Those things are really important.
That said, there is a good chance that this amendment will go through. I wanted to speak to Ms. Lawson or Michel or Andrew about the bottom line here, about going into this election without this legislation. We heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that he would be able to hold an election during the pandemic currently under this legislation. I just want to confirm that this is the case.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Under the current laws of Elections Canada.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Excellent.
I think those are some of the things we need to highlight here. The biggest concern we have, of course, is that we don't want a pandemic election. That is what we'll continue to indicate. Any sort of barrier that we can put up for the Prime Minister, for perhaps the safety....
I'm never wanting to use “the safety of Canadians”. That's not where I'm going with this one, but any time there is something the Prime Minister may have to question himself on—i.e., “Is this going to be good for Canadians?”—we don't want him to be opportunistic. That is why we're looking at this.
Thanks very much.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
I wonder if Mr. Roussel would reaffirm the comment that I believe he made at the last meeting, that to fully implement all of the provisions of Bill C-19, Elections Canada would require the full 90 days.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Thanks very much.
The thing is, even when this gets royal assent.... First of all, when we're looking at this, most of Bill C‑19 could be brought into force by the CEO between zero and 90 days after royal assent is received, so if this receives royal assent, it can go there. That doesn't change with this amendment. It just says that it can't bring them into force before September 20.
We're focusing on what this actually looks like, and we're saying that when we come back, the opportunity.... We can go to voting, and C‑19 could be implemented if there was an election. I think the most important thing is whether we could have a safe election. That's the most important thing that we want to look at. I am very grateful to hear from Mr. Roussel that this is what the focus is. I think what we're recommending here.... Let's not forget that we're talking about whether there should be a summer election versus actually getting back to work and doing our work in the House of Commons.
If, at that time something happens to the government, and the government does fall in a non-confidence vote, these provisions would be in place. We're saying that we do not believe that there should be a summer election, and that would be at the turning of the Prime Minister. That is one of our greatest concerns.
Thank you.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
This truly comes down to whether we're back in the chamber, we're in the House of Commons, where there would be a non-confidence vote, or whether this would be a decision of the Prime Minister, where he unilaterally decides, just like he did with prorogation, that we would be going into an election.
This is where the government would not be held to account due to a non-confidence vote where the majority of the opposition parties disagree. Those are things like that.
This is about letting us get back to Parliament and letting the government do its work, or try to do its work, but this is just the situation and us saying that we do not need a summer election. The only person who can call it—because none of us will be able to go to the Governor General after Wednesday, June 23—would be the Prime Minister. He would be the only one who could trigger an election. I think that's what is extremely important here.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 11)
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Finally, this amendment would add a firm sunset date of December 31, 2022, for the provisions that will be enacted by clauses 1 through 5.
I think one of the most important things is that, as we're looking at this, there is not a sunset clause in the legislation. There has been stuff in the preamble, but there has not been a full dictation on how things go here. There needs to be something we can fall back on. Let's say we go into a 5th or the 6th.... That's not what we're expecting here in Canada.
We do need to have an end date to this. This gives it lots and lots of time, a year and a half, to be in effect. I believe we've already talked about what would happen if there was a pandemic and it ended earlier what could we do. I know that's been discussed as well.
We think there needs to be a firm date at the very end, and we just wanted to put that in there.
Thanks very much.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Why don't we do a recorded vote and then it's happy joyful, if that's okay. It will take 10 seconds.
(Bill C-19 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
Daniel, thank you very much for putting forward this motion. I know since we've started this PROC committee we have not actually had a lot of opportunity to discuss motions. I think I took the floor on two motions where, I apologize, Daniel, none of yours got forward because we had a filibuster. I'm sorry, Daniel, that we haven't been able to discuss other things.
I also would look at this committee meeting today and just recognize that we came here for special business. I appreciate all of the work that we're doing, and I think that returning to this great discussion would be best for Tuesday. I don't want to move a dilatory motion right now, but at the same time I kind of do, to say let's get back to this on Tuesday, because I think this is the first opportunity we've been able to talk about it.
I'm sorry, Daniel. I'm going to ask if the meeting can be adjourned just for the day and that we get back to this on Tuesday.
Thank you.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
It's middle dilatory.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I know we're adjourning, but I've never seen an adjournment so nice in the last number of months. How happy and joyful.
View Corey Tochor Profile
CPC (SK)
I'll come back if asked, for sure, any time.
View Lianne Rood Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also had conversations with Mr. Blois and Mr. MacGregor. While I appreciate that we wanted to hear all of the witnesses, I had suggested a friendly amendment that we hear from a full panel of witnesses for one hour today and then move into clause-by-clause to ensure that we can finish this bill and report it back to the House before the end of this sitting session.
In the spirit of goodwill, we will accept Mr. Blois's motion to have the witnesses appear here today, so we can finish this fulsome study on the bill, but I would like to add that I was not appreciative of how this came about, and I think we could have worked together a bit better. We usually work together great. In the spirit of goodwill, we will support your motion, Mr. Blois, and then we'll move forward with the witnesses today.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes. I just want to make it clear that we'll do one witness and two full rounds. If we have to, we can suspend for a few minutes while the other witnesses do their sound check, and then we can start the second round of witnesses as soon as possible.
I appreciate Mr. Komal's expertise, but he has already been a witness. I was hoping the plan would be that we'd go with the one witness, do the two full rounds, and if the opportunity is there, maybe start the second round a bit sooner, as soon as possible.
That would be my suggestion, if that's okay.
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-06-15 15:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Pritchard. Don't feel any pressure whatsoever that you are literally in the spotlight for the next hour. Certainly, it's great to have somebody with your experience and knowledge in this field to provide us with some great insights.
I wanted to touch on some of the things we've heard so far and to get your opinion on what you feel is possible. We heard from CFIA officials that Bill C-205 would be difficult to implement and enforce due to current resources.
You talked about the avian flu that was in the Fraser Valley in 2014, and we've seen the impact of BSE and the concerns with African swine fever. I also kind of tie it back to COVID, where, if we've learned anything, it's that when you prioritize something from government officials and they're given the right direction and adequate resources, you can overcome some obstacles.
Do you feel that with the right resources, and understanding the potential risk that is there with the right priorities, Bill C-205 could be implemented and enforced?
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-06-15 15:49
Thank you for that.
I want to go back to the last comment you made in your introduction about these acts being nothing short of cruel, and that you want to support anything that would address the stress, mental health and anxiety issues that this has on a farm family and processors, but also on the animals themselves.
How important is it, Dr. Pritchard, in your opinion and in your experience, that the federal government show some leadership here and have this type of legislation that would, if anything, act as a deterrent and show those activist groups that there are consequences when they do not follow biosecurity protocol and they cross that line, going onto private property and into enclosed spaces to do this unlawful activity? How important is it for the federal government to show leadership here and have those deterrents in place?
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-06-15 15:51
Yes, I think that's something we've certainly spoken about at this committee. Some provinces, like B.C. for example, are in the process of putting in legislation to address trespassing, but in B.C. and Manitoba, it hasn't passed yet. Alberta and Ontario, from my understanding, are the only two, so you have no consistency across the country, which I think is why this is so important.
You've also touched on the fact that.... One of the instances we had was a group of protesters going from a hog farm in Abbotsford to a turkey farm in Alberta. From your experience, can you just explain what the risks are of these protesters going from one farm to another—this was within a couple of days—potentially harming animals but also spreading infectious diseases or other dangerous bacteria or viruses?
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I look forward to saying, “Thank you, Mr. Chair,” many more times yet, but given your recent announcement, I hope that our bonding opportunities over our favourite vegetable—which of course we know is a fruit—will not be cut short.
We'll go on to the testimony.
Dr. Pritchard, thanks for being here with us today. We very much appreciate it.
We've heard in previous testimony that there are a number of vectors for how disease could come onto a farm. Obviously, Bill C-205 is dealing with one particular vector, and it's in that vein that we have heard some conflicting testimony.
We've heard one witness explain that human beings need to have close, prolonged contact with animals to transmit a disease to them, and that scientific literature provides very little evidence that farm trespassers have transmitted pathogens to animals. Conversely, though, we've also heard from Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt at the University of Montreal, from Scott Weese at the University of Guelph, from Dr. Brian Evans and from Dr. Henry Ceelen that there are very real risks of transmission. You've alluded to that in your testimony.
To me, this is something that's at the basis of how a law to combat this needs to be solid. I wonder if I could solicit your opinion as to if there are real risks here, or are they just perceived risks?
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Over breakfast.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
Moving on, then, to how we might administer such a law should it come into place, my understanding is that the RCMP has livestock units, particularly in western Canada. Is that something the CFIA could leverage in its administration of a potential law such as Bill C-205?
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
You've mentioned deterrence several times in your testimony. When we're crafting legislation, there's the balance or principle of law that the punishment should fit the crime. However, in something like this, given the risk or the outcome—the massive harm that could come from mental anguish, animal cruelty, etc.—is there not more value in deterrence in such a law, as opposed to trying to fit the punishment to the crime after the fact, when the damage has been done?
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon to the witnesses. My thanks to them for joining us today to talk about Bill C‑205.
My first question goes to Mr. Lampron or Mr. Wiens, from Dairy Farmers of Canada.
At your symposium in 2020, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that break-ins were unacceptable. Can you tell us today whether you have had any discussions with the Minister on the issue since February 2020? What is her approach to it?
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:44
Mr. Tremblay, can you answer that for us?
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:45
She decried the situation, but she took no concrete steps with regard to it.
However, it does have a significant impact on producers. Mr. Lampron or Mr. Wiens, do you have any examples of break-ins on dairy farms in Canada? What is the impact on mental health that we talked about earlier? I will also turn to the representative of the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec a little later.
Have your members given you any specific examples?
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:46
Thank you, Mr. Lampron.
Mr. Wiens, do you want to add anything?
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:47
Thank you, Mr. Weins.
Mr. Leblanc, good afternoon again.
We realize that the poultry farming sector has some vulnerabilities. Your biosecurity standards are very stringent. Do you think the fines prescribed by Bill C‑205 are stiff enough to deter people from trespassing on farms?
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:48
At the end of your opening statement, you talked about the anxiety and the stress these incidents cause farmers. Can you elaborate on that? It's important to understand that farmers are very worried about the consequences of these break-ins.
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:49
Do you think Bill C‑205 establishes a robust enough framework for police, whether it be the RCMP or Quebec provincial police, to respond quickly?
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:50
Thank you, Mr. Leblanc.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to the poultry producers and the Dairy Farmers of Canada for being here.
First I want to go on record that the Conservative Party believes it is not the farmer's job to make sure that people don't come on their property. They're doing a great job with the signage and ensuring that people know where property lines are. Sometimes activists don't listen to signs. I don't think it's the farmers' fault when people trespass on their property. I just want to make sure that people realize the Conservatives stand with those farmers.
I'm going to be very clear. I think some of my colleagues have danced around this, asking the same question and hoping they get a different answer.
I'll ask the dairy farmers first and then the poultry farmers: Do you believe that this bill will help alleviate some of the fears and stresses that are put on farmers because of these activist activities?
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Go ahead, Mr. Leblanc.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
We very much appreciate the work you all do.
On the second question, one comment was that if this isn't a national framework, some provinces that don't have the same laws in place might be targeted by activists. I would like you to build on that comment. I think it's very salient right now, to the point that the federal government should show leadership on this file and have a national bill put in place.
I just want to hear comments. If this isn't done nationally, will some provinces be targeted that don't have the same laws?
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Leblanc.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much.
Finally, I have one quick comment to make. A previous witness said there are many third party animal welfare auditors, like the SPCA and others, specifically industry auditors, that come on farms safely and check on animal welfare.
There is no hidden, behind the scenes production going on, on dairy farms or producer farms. There are already many audits being done by third parties to ensure animal safety.
Could you guys confirm that?
We heard it from a witness just before you guys came on. I want to make sure it is on the record that there are already third party auditors ensuring animal safety on farms across the country.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
I don't need the floor anymore, Madam Chair. Thank you.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, it just gives a grace period of three years for its coming into force. This will allow companies that might be in a difficult financial position to ready themselves, to bolster their balance sheets and to properly fund their pension fund plans in order to stay solvent.
My worry is that if we go ahead with the bill without any coming into force delay, you will have some companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy that will no longer be able to borrow money, because lenders of lower-grade debt will say that the risk is too high, given that the pension obligations would come before the loans. If that happens, what might occur is that the company would just go bankrupt now. Ironically, the pensioners would be in a worse position than at present.
If a company has an underfunded pension and it goes bankrupt because it can't secure lower-grade debt to stay a going concern, then not only would the workers all lose their jobs but there would be no time for the company to recover its financial position and bolster the pension. You could lose jobs and pensions if the change in this law is too abrupt.
Some of the witnesses agreed this was the best solution, including witnesses who supported the overall bill. This is just to have it coming into force in about three years, so that businesses can focus aggressively on bolstering their pension plans, perhaps buying an insurance product, a large-scale strategic insurance product that will back up the pension, thus reassuring lending markets that their loans are in safe hands.
I think this is a good amendment. It would make the bill more successful. It makes the bill stronger, not weaker, and it's good for pensioners. I encourage everyone to support it.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Like my colleagues, I'd like to remind everyone that I introduced a motion calling for a meeting before the end of the session, after Bill C‑10, to address the issue of copyright and compensation for publishers, creators and artists. Unless I am mistaken, that motion had carried.
I wanted to issue that little reminder, because I know we have several issues to address. Now, it seems to me that we agreed to devote at least one meeting to the topic, before the end of the session and after the study on Bill C‑10.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
I don't have a problem with that. I like the fact that we're working in a collegial manner, except for a couple of weeks that were a little difficult.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make that reminder, and I will count on you to tell me when to bring this up with all the committee members. The other motions from my fellow members are very relevant and Mr. Waugh's is also very intriguing.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I concur.
Since we want to discuss other business, and, to save time, I would ask for a vote on Ms. McPherson's motion. I think you will quickly realize that we have consensus on that motion.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I fully agree with my colleague Mr. Champoux's premise regarding the motion to undertake a study.
With respect to Ms. McPherson's question, if we are going to undertake a study, it should be of all sports, not just one. I coached soccer for 26 years and I can tell you that I've seen several cases of coaches or officials who have been found guilty. If we initiate a study to provide relevant information to all parliamentarians and to determine what can be done, that study should look at all sports.
That being said, I'd like to go back to my request for a motion, which I believe had already carried. My motion only asks for one meeting, and I feel we need to devote more than one meeting to Mr. Champoux's request if we are to do our job properly.
I believe we have two more meetings from now to the end of the session. So maybe we could see what can be done in the short term, even if it means having a meeting to lay the groundwork if we come back to the House in the fall, so that we can do our job well on the issue that Mr. Champoux is raising.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
We can't hear Mrs. Bessette. Perhaps the sound would be better if she turned off her camera.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, if members want the rest of the meeting to be public so that we can save time, I don't see a problem with that, unless you want to have the rest of the meeting in camera or someone says that is essential. I feel the issues we are discussing could be of public interest. I don't see a problem with that and it would save us time technically.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes. I believe it is timely, Mr. Chair. That is the reason. Canadian Heritage gave $40,000 as a grant for the radar ground penetration. Other indigenous groups are asking if they can get the same grant for the machine, to find the bodies spread out over this country.
I know you're having trouble hearing me, so that's all I'll say. The heritage department gave the $40,000 for the radar equipment, and that's why there are big stories about this everywhere in this country.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Dabrusin's proposal is very compelling, and the issue raised by Mr. Waugh is timely and topical. As the saying goes, “let's strike while the iron is hot”. So I feel we should, as Ms. Dubrasin suggests, start to address this issue on Friday. I also agree with her proposal to work on the copyright issue on Monday.
To follow through on Mr. Champoux's request to send a clear message, given the complexity of the issue, I feel we're going to spend a lot of time on the study he is requesting, which I want to say is very timely. Perhaps we could get a unanimous motion from the committee, which would demonstrate how important the issue is to us, so that when we return to the House, the committee will have been able to prepare over the summer and taken steps to present a plan. That way, all members will have time to send in their list of witnesses from different associations and experts on the subject and we could get to work on it as soon as the House is back in session. The subject will still be topical, I'm sure, because it's a big issue and we need to deal with it.
That would send a clear message, given the importance of the issue. Since we don't have enough time, we can start to tackle it, but postpone it until later. I would rather do it right when the House is back in session.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, I feel if you were to ask the entire committee, they would reply that we should start with the study requested by Mr. Champoux. There will be ample time for the clerks, analysts and staff to put together a plan so that we can send out the lists of witnesses that we would like to call for the study.
That is what we'd like to propose in order to send a clear message about the importance of this issue.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes. In the motion it was department officials. The second one was the chief of the residential schools from the Kamloops area. We may want more in the second hour, and that's fine, but the first hour would be the department officials, because I believe they've received a lot of requests for this branch. The second one would be Kamloops.
We can send you the information from Kamloops. We'll get some names and numbers for you.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, there are two major Canadian organizations. I'm sure that once each party sends you their list, the two main witnesses will be listed more than once. If we have a third, I will rely on your and your staff's expertise to complete the list. If I count correctly, since we will have a meeting, we will hear from no more than three groups.
I will have someone from my office send you the names of the two major organizations, if they have not already done so. We can even do it by the end of the meeting, if everyone agrees, and make it easier for you.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair.
My questions will be for Dr. Kohler.
Dr. Kohler, our committee has had a great degree of difficulty obtaining details around the contracts that were signed by the federal government with vaccine manufacturers. One small example would be that I don't think Canada has received a single dose of vaccine from AstraZeneca, in spite of our bilateral contracts.
Based on your research, is there any reason why we as parliamentarians shouldn't be getting access to that?
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Can I just get in on that?
Do you think that happened because they came late to the table? Once upon a time I used to work in something like that space, and that's really the only reason I can surmise.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm sorry to cut you off, but I have a very short period of time.
I've read some of your work, and I know you do a lot of work on anti-corruption and accountability. Do you have any comments on what potentially went wrong between CanSino and the federal government on that vaccine contract?
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
The other thing the committee is looking at right now, in the context of both PMPRB reform and access to vaccines, is the concept of the government's role and what the government has done in terms of supporting research and pharmaceutical research, particularly in the private sector in Canada, and then what the trade-off should be.
In bullet-point format, in 30 seconds or less, what are the types of subsidies that government would give to pharma right now, including intellectual property protection frameworks?
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
No, no; it's good. I think we have to talk about intellectual property rights in a broader context here.
In that context, I know that therapeutics for infectious diseases and vaccine development are normally on the low end of the priority list for pharma development. What are the incentives, and what are the reasons for that? Is it our IP protection model or what?
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
I have just a last question. I'm sorry. I'd love for you to table any recommendations that you have with our committee.
It's on a different subject, but it's related. The COVID Alert exposure app has only been downloaded a few million times. One expert called this ludicrously low, but a lot of government resources have been attached to it.
You talk about value for money. Do you think additional resources for this app at this time are a good idea? This is another thing that is before our committee in terms of supplementary estimates.
Results: 1 - 60 of 46915 | Page: 1 of 782

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

For more data options, please see Open Data