Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 368
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
I don't know when the technical glitch happened, but I was explaining that we received such a large number of briefs that we have been unable to read them all. The fact that we received so many and that so many people wanted to come and testify is a sign of success, and we should not complain about it. It means that the public is interested in the bill.
Therefore, in our thought process, we must consider what people have told us. We will agree with some and disagree with others. In some cases, the proposals they submitted may prompt us to introduce amendments to the bill. One thing is for sure, out of respect for those who have written to us and come to testify, we should postpone clause-by-clause study of the bill to a meeting after we come back in January. It will give all of us the time over the holiday season to read the briefs, reflect on them and propose amendments if we think it is appropriate.
For example, I personally have not seen much done to clarify the proposed definition in clause 5 of the bill. I'm really concerned about that definition. All of the witnesses we heard from, regardless of their background, agree that the definition is unclear. Obviously, we all need to think about it.
When I had my practice, lawmakers were seen as godlike figures. Here, however, I find we are being a bit sloppy by doing a clause-by-clause study of the bill when we have not yet had time to read the briefs, thoughts and comments that members of the public have sent us.
For all these reasons, I suggest that we postpone the clause-by-clause study to a meeting after work resumes in January.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
My thanks to Mr. Fortin for his comments. However, let us not forget that we have made arrangements and planned the committee's schedule accordingly, as this is an important study for all Canadians, particularly for the LGBTQ2 community.
We have indeed received many briefs. However, we can start reviewing them today and continue at later stages. Yes, the briefs could have an influence on different points of view during our debates in the House at third reading and when the Senate is considering the bill. Even if we go ahead today with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, it doesn't mean that the briefs and other documents we have received will not have an impact, because it will still be possible for them to influence the debate throughout the parliamentary process in either the House or the Senate.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to point out that there is a procedure for raising amendments at report stage that were unable to be considered at committee. Should there be proposals for amendments in the briefs that came in late, which I know we will all look at in the intervening period, it would be possible for Monsieur Fortin to make those amendments at report stage. I think he would have a very good argument, for the reason was the volume of submissions that came in and the inability to consider them before then.
However, I would say that I would like to proceed today. I think this is an important bill, especially to the sexual orientation and gender identity community in this country. The longer we go on in a minority Parliament, the more we are in danger of bills being lost to an early election. I think we've had a wide range of witnesses before the committee. We have a good selection of amendments in front of us, and I would like to proceed today.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Madame Findlay asked the question I was going to ask.
I know, for myself and all committee members.... I received a number of briefs last night, and then I received a number of them even today. I do think when there's a lot of interest.... There's some merit in what Monsieur Fortin is saying, because there seems to be a lot of interest. There were certainly diverse views on the bill itself at the three meetings that we had on it, so I do sympathize. Mr. Virani said it's important to study this bill, and it is, but part of studying is hearing from Canadians and hearing from different groups and witnesses.
Madame Findlay asked the question, but since I have the floor, I will take a moment to commend our translation services, because the volume of work that they would have had to go through to translate all of those is unbelievable. I'm sure they had to have been working through the night when we see the volume that we received, so hats off to them.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm not trying to take any time from Mr. Cooper.
I firmly believe that we can disagree without being disagreeable, and comments like that are not appropriate when they're volleyed at any member of Parliament, including the members of this committee.
I would just ask the chair to perhaps caution the witnesses in their use of terminology.
Thank you.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Yes. We have heard testimony in this committee, both in the last bill and this one, where witnesses attack—that's the word—other witnesses and attack members of Parliament without comment from my colleague, Mr. Virani, if it was in line with his thinking on these bills. You cannot say to one witness, “You cannot take issue with other testimony”, and not do it for each and every one. That is totally improper.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Madam Chair, on a similar vein to Madam Findlay, the time for Mr. Virani's intervention would have been when Mr. Garrison started throwing out offensive terms and disparaging our witnesses. Witnesses are here, and for many of them it's probably their first time being before a parliamentary committee. This is their time. Let's listen to them.
I think it's a two-way street, and respect has to come from our members of Parliament towards the witnesses as well. We shouldn't disparage any of them. I think every witness here today has brought something of value, and that's what we're discussing. So whether it's witness to witness, parliamentarian to parliamentarian, or between parliamentarians and witnesses, let's just have a respectful dialogue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Iqra Khalid Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
I thank members for raising the points of order. I will remind members that witnesses do have privilege when they come before committee to testify. With that privilege we hope that we can have respectful dialogue, respectful debate on the issues that are before us. I encourage all witnesses and members to please be mindful and be respectful of one another as we endeavour...on this study.
Thank you for raising this.
Mr. Cooper, we're back to you.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I would like to take some of my time to express the deep unease I felt earlier when my colleague Mr. Fergus began his speech in French and then stated: “Perhaps I should say it in English.” It is as if the French language is from another planet and it will be impossible for witnesses and committee members to understand.
Madam Chair, as a Quebecker, my official language is French. I want to make it clear that I have no qualms about speaking French, and I hope that my colleagues do not feel embarrassed or afraid to speak in one of Canada's two official languages. I just wanted to say this at the beginning of my speech, because I can absolutely—
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, Madam Chair.
The only reason I switched from French to English to make my comments is that I had read the English version of the document I was about to quote. As I was not able to provide a free translation, I changed the language. That's the only reason.
I have a very good relationship with Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, so I wanted to inform him that this was the only reason. I must admit that I felt a little hurt when he said that I did not respect the French language. The only reason I spoke in English was because I had the technical terms in English in mind.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Chair, a point of order from me as well.
I would like to tell my colleague that I did not suggest any ill intentions on his part. I never clearly stated that he did not respect the French language. I simply expressed the discomfort I felt at the beginning of his speech. I welcome his clarifications. However, I find it more difficult when people suggest that I said things I did not say or, even worse, when people claim that I said things I did not say. At any rate, I thank my colleague for his clarification.
Madam Chair, while I have the floor, let me continue on the topic that brings us together today, which is the Auditor General's report.
Good morning, Ms. Hogan, distinguished witnesses.
Of course, we notice—
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas. I've been able to confer with the clerk, and these are not points of order. I appreciate that you have expressed your opinions. As you appear to be ready to do so, we will move back to the questioning. We did stop the clock, so we will start the clock now.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
On a point of order, Madam Chair, while I respect your ruling, I do feel that CPC-9 is within the scope of this legislation. It deals directly with the provision of assisted dying; it deals with the very things this bill deals with, and it's an important safeguard.
For that reason, I would like to challenge the ruling of the chair on the admissibility of CPC-9.
View Bernard Généreux Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair.
First, before the meeting started, you asked me to lower my hand, which I did. However, I saw Ms. Lattanzio immediately raise hers when you began to speak, whereas the meeting had not yet begun. I would like to be able to speak first, given that I raised my hand before she did.
Second, if I'm not mistaken, our meeting is public, not in camera.
View Emmanuel Dubourg Profile
Lib. (QC)
All right.
Can you wait 30 seconds so I can respond to Mr. Généreux's point of order?
Mr. Généreux, I understand that you requested the floor first. The chair has the discretion to decide who will speak. We discussed that internally. We said that a member may not request the floor until the meeting has begun. I understand that you intended to speak at the start. Perhaps the clerk was busy and didn't see you. That's why I will agree to give you the floor following the points of order.
I'm also told that Ms. Lambropoulos's entire speech was broadcasted on ParlVu and therefore need not be repeated.
Once again, I ask for your indulgence in the matter of raising your hand in the meeting room and on the computer so we can respect everyone's right to speak.
Ms. Lalonde has a point of order.
Results: 136 - 150 of 368 | Page: 10 of 25

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data