Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 368
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have to agree that we talked about having departmental officials. A representative of the PPS would not be a departmental official. Nobody pushed to have us invite someone from the Public Prosecution Service.
If there isn't anybody from that service today it's because there was never a request, as far as I can see.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
We did, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate we're in a debate stage here, but again the motion itself said, investigating and charging of Volkswagen. One would simply say that as a matter of course you would need to have people who were on the case, both from an ECCC side and public prosecutions. It's right in there.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
But I have specifically asked questions about the charging and the ability to deal with.... We have asked questions about successful prosecutions, Mr. Chair.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
That is from the department. Mr. Chair, it seems that ECCC from the deputy minister.... We have made suggestions before, and they have not honoured them. In this case, we have no one who has direct experience working on a specific case.
I will let MP Collins speak to her own motion, but Mr. Chair, it's the government's decision whom they send. By not sending someone from the Public Prosecution Service there are questions the study is unable to contemplate because we just don't know. They have said time and time again they don't know.
That doesn't mean they are not responsible public servants, but this could be by design, or it could be a simple oversight. I'm saying how frustrated I am that we can't get answers on those things.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, in our last meeting, I tried to raise and propose that the committee adopt a witness for a different study who I thought would add value to the study. Before the pros and cons of that witness were considered, Mr. Albas dismissed it outright because he said that that's a decision of the subcommittee. Now Mr. Albas wants to have it the other way, and he's criticizing the choices that were made by the subcommittee and the chair in the context of that process.
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we can have it one way or we can have it the other way, but we can't have it both ways. I think we have some excellent witnesses here. I think if we're genuinely interested in looking at the enforcement of CEPA instead of debating this issue and venting, as Mr. Albas said he was doing.... Let's hear from the witnesses.
Thank you.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
You know, again, venting can be good for the soul, but it's also important for us all to recognize that it's not the steering committee that chooses which government representatives will come to committee. It's the government that chooses to do that. I understand his point, but it's not matching means with ends. This was a decision about who was sent by the government, not by the committee.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you have just stated that you intend to either suspend or attempt to adjourn this committee meeting based on resources. I realize that we are undertaking this meeting from a virtual perspective, but I believe that democracy has to proceed regardless. It is actually incumbent upon the House of Commons to ensure that we have resources for situations like this.
It is clear that the Liberals are filibustering this motion. I don't believe that they should be given a convenient window to stop the debate on this motion using the excuse of “resources”. The House of Commons—whoever it is, the Speaker's office, your office or whatever—should be attempting to find resources rather than shutting down the committee because of a “lack of resources”. My privilege as a parliamentarian is being violated by your decision to attempt to shut down the committee with regard to this.
I submit this as a formal point of privilege and I do not accept your attempt to shut down this committee due to “resources”.
Find them.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-01-25 15:56
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Before our colleague proceeds, since he is the parliamentary secretary to the public safety minister, I just want to clarify whether or not he has had any role with the department or the agencies on this report. I know, rightly or wrongly, there have been questions raised about the independence of the report, given that it has been undertaken by the Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada themselves. I think real independence as well as the perception of independence is crucial to our work here on this committee. It is crucial to the victims' families, to Canadians at large and, of course, to everybody involved in this system in order to have confidence in the process.
I just wonder if there is any conflict of interest here, real or perceived, and whether he wants to take that into consideration before he proceeds with questions—or perhaps he could clarify.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I don't know whether you are asking me for a ruling on this, but if it were up to me, the ruling would be that the member sits here as a member of the committee but also as a parliamentary secretary. His position is known to everyone. If there are some who perceive that to be a conflict of interest, so be it. However, it's not as if it were anything other than a public position as both parliamentary secretary and member of Parliament. I think it is up to members to declare their own conflicts of interest. Since the member hasn't declared any conflict of interest, and I'll give the member an opportunity to speak for himself, on the face of it, I don't see that as a valid objection to a member asking questions.
Mr. Lightbound, do you wish to respond to Ms. Stubbs? If not, we can continue.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
I want to reassure my colleague that I had no direct or indirect involvement in the work of the board of investigation, which was co-chaired by two independent criminologists from both the Correctional Service and the Parole Board. However, I read the report, and I hope that all committee members did so as well.
As the chair clearly stated, my role as parliamentary secretary is known to everyone. However, I had no involvement in the development of the report. Moreover, the two external co-chairs were always free to speak out publicly if they had any concerns or questions over the course of their study and investigation.
First, I want to echo what the commissioner and the chairperson said. We must think of the victim's family and friends. This focus must guide our committee's proceedings today, beyond partisan considerations. I find it unfortunate that some politicians are trying to exploit a tragedy of this nature for political purposes. Our committee must shed light on what happened in January 2020 to Marylène Lévesque. The system clearly failed, and it mustn't happen again.
My questions are mainly for Commissioner Kelly.
The report refers to some confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of the clinical workers at Maison Painchaud and the parole officers.
Can you explain how there could have been confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of these two groups? As you said, this model has been used in Quebec for 40 years.
Clinical workers provided direct supervision. Why was there confusion regarding roles? The board of investigation recommended that the model no longer be used and that supervision activities be centralized within the Correctional Service. How will this practice prevent this type of confusion in the future?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
I'm sorry, I always forget where you have to click to raise your hand.
Madam Chair, I am a little unhappy with the way we are doing this. I consider this bill to be very important. I feel all members of the committee have worked very hard on this bill over the last few days. Certainly, several of us in my office worked on it, and I'm sure the same is true for the other members. Similarly, I am sure that the people who submitted briefs or came to testify also spent many hours preparing and sending them to us. As we all know, most of these briefs were sent to us yesterday and today. We were still receiving some this morning. My assistant has counted 246 briefs. We have not been able to read all of them. We have read about 50 of them and we are still working on them. Does that mean that, even though we have invited hundreds of people to submit their views on this bill, we will not even hear them all?
I know it's not bad faith on the part of anyone on this committee, but it still shows a lack of respect for those individuals. No one has disrespected the witnesses directly, but if we do a clause-by-clause study of the bill and vote on it this morning before we have even read all the briefs, that will be a form of disrespect. Unless someone has an exceptional gift, which I would love for them to pass on to me, I'm sure none of us has read all of the 246 briefs we received.
That was a long preamble on my part, Madam Chair. In a word, I propose that we give ourselves time to look at all of these briefs. We may find other proposals for amendments, because that's actually what this process is all about. When people write to us and tell us what they think, sometimes we respectfully tell them that we disagree and that we will not be acting on their proposals, but sometimes—
Results: 121 - 135 of 368 | Page: 9 of 25

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data