Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 368
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I think we're good to go until 2:30. We know that the human resources, skills and social development committee has a very important piece of legislation coming forward, so we want to honour the fact that it needs to be heard today.
I would ask that if we do suspend that we return on Thursday, but also to ensure that we do have coverage because we're continuing to try to make sure all the committees are able to sit. It would be great if we could get this one over and done with, this filibuster. Ryan was saying it's been going on for a few weeks. It's been exactly two months and a few days now. I know we all want to get it over with, so perhaps we can focus on making sure it's done on Thursday, and block out Thursday.
Let's get this done.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. I like the ambition and maybe the motivation that's being provided by Ms. Vecchio.
Seeing that it's 2:27, I'm sorry, Mr. Samson, but I feel that giving you a couple of minutes would probably be unfair, knowing how passionate you get when you speak. You would be on the speakers list. We would only be suspending and carrying the speakers list forward.
Perhaps we may have some resolution and votes on these motions or a new path forward, I don't know, but I do encourage everyone in committee, and also in your personal time to try to see if we can find a path forward.
Having said that, I will suspend until Thursday's scheduled time.
Thank you.
[The meeting was suspended at 2:28 p.m., Tuesday, April 27.]
[The meeting resumed at 1:59 p.m., Thursday, April 29.]
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I realize, just like Ms. Duncan, we are all very concerned with this, but we are going further and further each moment. Instead of talking about the fact that we didn't close our borders, they were talking about long-term care homes and what the provinces were doing. Now we're talking about international things.
This motion is about prorogation. It would be as if we're talking about the budget. It's a big thing, but I really question how far off we're going to go when it comes to relevance. I do believe questions should be relevant when we come here. I've questioned the relevance for the last 10 minutes. I find we're so out of the realm of what we're talking about, even from two months ago. At least two months ago we were talking about the motion. Now it's just whatever we can put in to fill in time.
I'm asking that we get back to the motion on prorogation. By the way, I have not heard the word "prorogation" in the last hour, so I'm wondering if we're going to start talking about the motion.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll remind the member to link all her remarks to the issue at hand, prorogation.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Got it.
Madam Chair, although I respect where Mr. Turnbull is coming from in talking about systemic racism, as well as the information regarding women, I have a point of order. I'm looking at what we're actually studying. We're studying prorogation.
I want to inform him that because of prorogation, two studies, one on systemic racism and policing that was started in spring 2020 has yet to be tabled. They're still working on that because prorogation put a two-month stoppage on it. In the status of women committee on July 7 and 8 as the chair, there was the plan to be tabling the status of women report on what has happened to women during this pandemic. It talked about child care, domestic violence. Once again, because of prorogation, we could not do the final steps of interpretation because of prorogation. Once again more studies have been delayed.
I believe because of prorogation, we've made this worse and longer because the studies we had done on these really key issues that we saw in the first three months when we studied, not in PROC, but in status of women and in public safety.
Perhaps the member could get back to relevance. If he wants to talk about these things, he should keep in mind that due to prorogation, some of these studies have yet to be tabled, and the government has actually delayed work on racism.
I want him to note that and maybe get back to relevance.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm not sure what the relevance is of all the animals—to Old MacDonald Had a Farm maybe, but not to the prorogation motion that we're talking about.
Perhaps you could remind the member to make it relevant.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order, Chair.
The minister is here to speak to the public safety estimates and not about his staff and what they might have done or what they're being asked to do. This has nothing to do with that.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I see it as a valid point of order. I usually allow members a fairly wide range.
If Mr. Motz, by some means or another, can tie his question into the estimates, it would be helpful to the chair.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm a little concerned whether you or your colleagues on this committee will put the women who suffered harassment from General Vance ahead of your own Liberal membership and ask the minister to answer the question that he was asked twice.
View Wayne Long Profile
Lib. (NB)
I think my colleague is basically grandstanding here. I think he's off topic, and I question the relevancy.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
The relevancy, Mr. Chair, is that budgets can include changes to employment insurance benefits, so for the government members of the committee to insinuate that our party is holding up the legislative process—
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2021-03-09 16:35
In terms of ruling on the point of order, it's Mr. Vis's time, and he can use his time as he sees fit.
Anyway, I think everyone has retreated to their corners. We can move on.
Mr. Vaughan, you have five minutes, please.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, out of respect for the minister's time, I wanted to wait until the minister was gone to address this issue. I am a bit concerned about a decorum issue in relation to Mr. Weiler's intervention and interruption of Mr. Patzer's line of questioning.
I have been consulting O'Brien and Bosc on committee procedures on this matter. It says that it is the sole prerogative of the chair to interrupt members if their observations or their questions are off topic.
Mr. Chair, I would encourage you to state to the committee that it is not the job of other members to use points of order, and in this case, the inappropriate use of a point of order. The purpose of a point of order is to raise an issue regarding the violation of a standing order of a committee, or not usual practice of the committee.
However, it is the practice of a committee that if somebody is asking a question that's off topic or making an observation, that is the sole prerogative of the chair. I would not want to see any member of this committee usurping the role of the chair in making that decision. You can imagine a situation where any member of this committee could raise repetitive points of order about members stating things off topic. The Speaker of the House of Commons has granted a great deal of leeway in speeches on topics to get back to the point.
I would encourage you, Mr. Chair, to not allow your position to be usurped by members. Maybe in this case, it was an honest intervention, but it is your role, Mr. Chair, not the role of members, to interrupt our fellow members when they have very limited time to ask questions.
Results: 76 - 90 of 368 | Page: 6 of 25

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data