Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 1333
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the motion, I'm taking a little detour to comment on what our colleague Mr. Chong told us. We talked about ethics. He talked about concerns about ethics, conflicts of interest, finances, public funds, and so on. I have no objection to discussing these things in a context other than the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which does not have the mandate to do so. There are committees that do have those mandates and they do it very skilfully and very well. They have done so particularly in recent weeks with regard to the WE affair. We all know that here.
The mandate of the Standing Committee on Official Languages addresses the application of and respect for language rights in Canada. The amendment proposed by my colleague is along those lines. We can start from the premise that WE Charity has caused some concerns about its capacity to be bilingual and to provide services, good, weak or average. In any case, a contract no longer exists. It would be pointless to stop at this study because there is no longer a contract. What would be the purpose of this study?
If we start from the premise that the WE episode has cast doubt in our minds about third parties who are contracted to provide services on behalf of the Government of Canada, if we start from that premise, there is doubt. How do we ensure that this is respected across the country and not just for one event or one organization? That is reflected in the proposed amendment. That is within the mandate of this committee. It does not preclude any colleague around the table from asking the ministers questions about WE or about other contracts. In fact, we are running with the ball; we are starting from a doubt that has been sown by one event and extending it to a topic that is fully within the mandate of this committee.
Mr. Chong, I would like to correct what you said earlier, with no ill intention: very few motions are perfectly worded. I have been a member of this committee for five years. Mr. Généreux may be able to correct me, but to my knowledge, all of the motions that have come through in the last five years have been tabled with amendments from all parties on both sides of the table, and always unanimously. Virtually every report that has been written in the last five years of the committee has been unanimous. So we make great motions in our committee; we make wonderful motions.
In fact, we are not in the process of doing something partisan. Our concern is that we want to know what we need to do to ensure that, under the umbrella of official languages, third-party organizations that get service contracts from the Government of Canada and that have to speak as if they were the Government of Canada, comply with the linguistic obligations of this great country.
That is the amendment on the table, as proposed by my colleague. Then, in subcommittee, we can decide whether we want to call other witnesses or whether we will stick with those already proposed. We had already decided to create a subcommittee to deal specifically with the witness list. We can do that later. We can limit ourselves to those, but one does not preclude the other. I am wondering, on behalf of Canadians and taxpayers, what would be the point of the motion as put forward by the opposition, by the Conservatives. How would we be serving Canadians by focusing on a contract that no longer exists?
Why do we not seize the opportunity to address the doubt that has been cast on the linguistic capacity of third-party organizations by this event? Why not conduct a study that is consistent with the mandate of this committee, which has been a superb committee, Mr. Chong, for at least five years?
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Chair, I just have a question before we vote. Is the number of meetings for a study normally set in advance?
My second question is about the allocated time. I know that we are in a crisis situation owing to COVID-19 and that the same rules don't really apply. We have already gone over the allocated time and we usually need to reach unanimous consent before we continue the meeting.
How will it work and how many days are planned for discussion? I don't know whether my question is out of order, but I feel it's necessary to ask it.
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
That's the date on which we will be able to hear from witnesses. Is that correct?
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
Because I am so far away, it is hard for me to attend subcommittee meetings.
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
As a parliamentarian, I have to drive for nine and a half hours to come here, and Air Canada no longer flies to where I live. No other explanation is necessary. We could skip the subcommittee for now and rely on the Chair and the clerk. That is my opinion. I do not know if everyone agrees.
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
I do not see why we need to meet in subcommittee, if "virtual" is no longer an option, of course.
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
I am going to back up a bit. Will the meetings be two, three or four hours long? Usually, they last for two hours and we need the unanimous consent of all committee members to extend them. How does it work with COVID-19?
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, special guests, for your input and the perspectives that you all bring to the table today. I'd like to direct my questions to Mr. Pearce to start.
DFO recently provided the committee with written responses to questions raised by committee members about the pinniped population in and on the B.C. coast. The DFO responses stated:
The current harbour seal population is in line with historic population norms....
Steller sea lion populations in BC waters have increased by approximately 4-fold since surveys began in the early 1970s.
Do you agree with these statements?
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you.
It is apparent that active management of pinnipeds in our Pacific region could be a valuable tool for conserving and restoring wild salmon stocks. Could you describe what a sustainable pinniped fishery should look like, if the purpose of the fishery is to conserve and help restore the wild salmon populations?
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to go back to Mr. Donnelly one more time, and I want to circle back to whether the Fraser watershed initiative is an initiative of the Rivershed Society of British Columbia. Is it working in conjunction with them?
Results: 31 - 45 of 1333 | Page: 3 of 89

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

For more data options, please see Open Data