Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 368
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2021-07-12 16:06
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've read the subamendment, and I'm just wondering.... I understand the Liberal strategy here. The original motion that brought us in today was talking about a study on the conflict of interest related to taxpayer-funded contracts with Data Sciences and about the committee's inviting Mr. Pitfield to appear. Basically, it seems that we're getting further and further away from that. We're talking about everything else but this. It seems that every time the Liberals have an opportunity, it just brings it further and further.
Now we're debating a subamendment. I'm just wondering if it's actually in order with what we're talking about, with the original motion that we have on the table.
View Jennifer O'Connell Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Once again, where is the relevance? If she would like to point to the section on the supplementary estimates, I am still waiting.
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
I asked if you wanted to respond to the points. However, I am prepared to rule.
I agree that we generally give wide latitude in asking about estimates. I believe that the microbiology lab is relevant. However, I take Ms. O'Connell's point. The direct line of questioning that you reference, Ms. Rempel Garner, is about a House procedure. It's far too peripheral. I would rule that this line of questioning is not relevant, and I would ask you—
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
The Chair: Thank you to the committee.
Ms. Rempel Garner, you may continue with your line of questions.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Oliphant has a point of order. I'll stop the time.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a concern about this line of questioning with respect to a committee of parliamentarians. It is not directly related to either the responsibility or the authority of the deputy minister who is in our presence. Also, the tone of the question is accusatory—
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
—and I don't think it is parliamentary in the way that it is being expressed.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Genuis, as you understand, as the chair, I have to hear a point of order. It doesn't mean that I'm going to rule in favour of the point of order, but Mr. Oliphant has the right to make his argument. It's important, therefore, that you show respect to members when they make their argument and not interject when someone is doing so.
Mr. Oliphant, would you conclude, please?
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, and I would also humbly remind the chair that if he doesn't have control of the meeting, he has the right to adjourn the meeting, should there be an outburst from a member while someone has the floor. It is in the Standing Orders.
As I was saying, I have two issues. One, we have officials here on a very specific study. We are doing a study that relates to our work and we have invited them to come from Global Affairs Canada, from the foreign affairs area. We have the deputy minister of foreign affairs. It is not within her purview or her mandate to understand, to know or to relate to us what NSICOP is about.
The second issue I have is with the parliamentary tone, which I think is absolutely essential for us to maintain. It is decorum. The word is specifically in the Standing Orders when it comes to how a committee needs to operate and how committee members should operate.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I would just say that the dilatory tactics by Mr. Oliphant are very frustrating. I won't deny that I sometimes cross the appropriate tone, but Mr. Chong never does. He's asking pointed questions of a witness. This is bizarre, frankly, and just tries to waste our time here. Let's get back to the line of questioning.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
It would seem to me that senior public officials should have a good sense about how the executive functions in relation to Parliament.
Thank you.
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In support of my colleague Mr. Oliphant's comments, I would like to say that, last week, we heard from the Chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICP. I think that was rather the time for these questions to be asked. So the questions being put to the officials in attendance are really inappropriate.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you very much, Mr. Dubourg.
Colleagues, this is a committee studying the Canada-China relationship. We are all aware of the motion that was passed by the committee regarding production of papers. We're aware that NSICOP has been brought into that, so I find the question to be relevant.
Mr. Chong, I ask you to continue, please.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Oliphant, do you have a point of order? I see your hand up.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a respectful point of order, Mr. Chair.
Before we get too far into the conversation, I would like Mr. Genuis to apologize for using inflammatory language, the word “hell”. I don't think that is parliamentary language. The rules at committee are the same as those of Parliament. I think it is inappropriate, especially toward a public servant who has come to this committee as a witness.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
Mr. Genuis, I'm afraid Mr. Oliphant is correct. I would ask you to—
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2021-04-29 17:42
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I was just wondering about the admissibility of the amendment.
Mr. Turnbull's motion was quite specific, but Mr. Vaughan's amendment is now talking about future studies that have nothing to do with the amendment. I was wondering if you could clarify if it's actually in order.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order on relevance. The member is going on another tangent..
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.
I'll just remind the member to keep to the amendment by Mr. Turnbull.
Thank you.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
Please allow me to speak, Madam Chair.
I'll be brief.
Dear neighbour, Lacolle is indeed part of my constituency.
I have a point of order regarding the relevance of my colleague's remarks. It's all very interesting and we can talk about it more when we recharge our Bolts at a charging station on the road to our respective ridings. For the moment, however, I'd like to hear you discuss Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Although this is an issue that is relevant to PROC because redistribution, renaming and all that stuff does come to this committee, could we refocus the comments towards prorogation and the current amendment we are on?
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I call this meeting back to order. We are resuming meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021.
Today's meeting, as you know, is taking place in a hybrid format. We have our clerk present in the committee room and of course supporting staff, but at this point there are no members there.
The rest of us will be participating virtually. I'd just like to remind you to unmute your mike—I myself sometimes forget to unmute—and when you are about to speak, raise your hand on the toolbar below if you'd like to speak to anything, or call out if you have a point of order, so I can distinguish whether you want to speak on the regular speakers list or would like to raise a concern.
Other than that, just as a reminder, you have interpretation at the bottom. Let's make sure with the points of order and other things as well that we wait for the speaker to stop speaking and not interrupt so that it's easier for the interpreters.
We are still on Mr. Turnbull's amendment from the last meeting. We do have a speakers list. I do have both the motion and the amendment before me, so if anyone needs a refresher as to what the nuances are between the main motion and the amendment, let me know.
Ms. Shanahan had the floor when we suspended, so I will give the floor back to her. After her we had Ms. Lambropoulos, who she is not here at this time, so she'll probably be dropped off the list unless she's back to resume her spot. Ms. Petitpas Taylor is after that, and then we had Mr. Long who is also not here currently and will be dropped off the list.
We have Ms. Shanahan, and then most likely Ms. Petitpas Taylor would be after her.
View Tom Lukiwski Profile
CPC (SK)
I note that Madam Shanahan is relatively new to PROC, so I welcome her and I welcome her perspective. It's always good to get new perspectives, but I would encourage you, Madam Chair, to remind all members that the topic we are discussing primarily is on prorogation. I remind you of that, Madam Chair, because in weeks past, we have seen several members who had a propensity to veer off topic and at times become completely irrelevant to the topic we are supposed to be addressing.
I would hope, Madam Chair, that you will remain vigilant in your duties to keep people on topic, and if they do tend to veer off, that you offer a course correction to get them back to the topic we are discussing. That will, I think, allow us to have a far more productive meeting and stop the interventions coming from people like me and others, reminding of the rules of relevance and repetition.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski. I'm sure all the members are heeding your warning, and we appreciate the reminder. I'll do my best to keep everyone on topic.
Ms. Shanahan, I'll give the floor back to you.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do just want to note how pleased I am to be here in this committee and to make a reacquaintance with my good colleague Mr. Lukiwski, who was an excellent chair of the government operations committee. I think we did tremendous work together in the last Parliament, and I so respect his words of guidance and wisdom. I hope that what I will be saying today will be germane and useful to the topic at hand.
It's true that I poured out my heart last week. I have to say that, as members, we don't often have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings of other committees, especially those of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which considers matters of parliamentary procedure.
I'm very interested in the history and development of things, and I like putting things in context. I'm far from being an expert in the field, but it helps me when I look at matters in context.
However, I must say it's really unfortunate that we're here debating Ms. Vecchio's motion, which is under consideration, and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which is designed to rectify matters.
My opposition friends' attempt to make the WE Charity issue the focal point of several other committees was unsuccessful. I would have preferred that they stop that little shell game. I would remind people that I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and that I've seen a few things.
It's unfortunate because, as parliamentarians, we should focus on issues that really count for Canadians. We're currently in the third wave of the COVID‑19 pandemic. A year ago, we hoped we could overcome the first wave and resume normal life, but that's not what happened. We're now in the third wave of the pandemic because some provinces unfortunately haven't managed to introduce adequate measures to ensure people's safety.
I say that with all due respect for the various levels of government because it's very difficult to put those measures in place. I was very pleased to see that all the levels of government in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, in the Montérégie region, did a good job of cooperating. That was unfortunately not the case everywhere.
Canadians are rightly focusing on much more important issues, the millions of doses of vaccine in particular. The situation in Quebec is unfolding as it should, and we're very proud of the way vaccine distribution has been organized and of the booking system, which is very simple and accessible.
The government recently announced that we were able to vaccinate increasingly younger people, which is important, as young people are at risk as a result of the new variants. Large businesses are participating in this effort by offering vaccinations in their workplaces. Society stakeholders are showing the solidarity we expect of them and working together to combat COVID‑19.
We want to focus on an imminent economic recovery. It's coming. It will be one of the biggest in more than a generation. And that's truly the test of our generation, isn't it?
We often talk about how people lived through World War II and all the subsequent economic reconstruction and transformation in Europe. People from the generations of our grandparents and parents really did work to build a better world for us young people.
Our challenge today is to create a better world for our children and grandchildren. That's what we've done by developing the budget we introduced last week. It must be a good budget because the Conservative members, who form the official opposition and whose job it is to criticize the budget, found nothing to criticize in that budget, even though they voted against it.
They don't want Canadians to be aware of what's in the budget. On the contrary, we need everyone to talk about budget items, initiatives and investments in health, economic recovery, of course, and the environment, which is the next test we'll have to face.
View John Nater Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
I really don't know how the budget is relevant to the amendment at hand that's related to last summer's prorogation. I would encourage Ms. Shanahan to get back on topic.
Results: 1 - 30 of 368 | Page: 1 of 13

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

For more data options, please see Open Data