Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 10428
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you.
I just want to say a few things.
First of all, I do appreciate Mr. Rayes's frustration about having to be here. We all have places we need to be. We all have very busy lives. It is always hard when our schedules change on a dime. I know we all have incredibly packed schedules.
I do want to just point out that this is very important work we're doing. In fact, it has not been everybody's priority to do this work in this committee over the past several weeks. We have seen a lot of time wasted by certain members of this committee not letting us get to that work.
That's not really what I want to talk about right here.
In terms of amendment CPC-9.2—and perhaps it would be best for Rayes or Mr. Shields to respond—did you, when you were putting together these thresholds—and of course, I asked some questions about these thresholds earlier—ask any stakeholders in the Quebec cultural sector? If so, could you tell us which ones you spoke to about CPC-9.2 and their support for that?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Well, Mr. Shields was the one who was speaking about it today, so I wanted to see—
The Chair: That's true.
Ms. Heather McPherson: I'll leave it up to them.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I just want to know if you could share some of those names. The question was whether you could share the names of some of the Quebec organizations that you have some support from—just the names of them would be great.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
It's your birthday.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Perhaps we should sing, Mr. Chair.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Happy birthday, Kevin.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to introduce this amendment. This deals with—and I believe I spoke a little bit about this prior—the make-up of the advisory committee, and lays out the expertise that we would like to see represented on that committee. I think it does speak for itself, but this also speaks to a number of the discussions we've had related to previous amendments.
The idea here is that we should be constraining the membership of the advisory body to individuals who have proven expertise in specific areas that are relevant to this legislation and to the goal of net zero by 2050, including indigenous knowledge; climate change science; relevant physical and social sciences, including economic analysis and forecasting; climate change and climate policy at the national, subnational and international levels, and so on.
I think folks are pretty familiar with this amendment, so I'll leave it at that.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
There is one more thing, Mr. Chair.
I would add that this is taken directly from the approach used in New Zealand and the U.K., which are two jurisdictions that we've heard quite a bit about, both in the testimony and in the discussion at committee.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I know you've already called the vote. I was just going to respond briefly to Ms. Pauzé.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, because we have called the advisory body the net-zero advisory body in several [Technical difficulty—Editor], I'm wondering whether all of a sudden referring to it as the “independent expert committee” is going to cause confusion or technical issues in the interpretation of the bill. Perhaps—
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Sure. Maybe Mr. Moffet could clarify.
I know there are a number of amendments that deal with the same thing. It seems to me that referring to the body as two things within the same bill would, at the very least, be confusing and could possibly cause issues in its interpretation.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, this adds words after line 2 on page 9. It inserts the following:
(1.1) When providing its advice and preparing its report, the advisory body must take into account a range of factors, to the extent they are relevant to the purpose of this Act including environmental, economic, social and technological and the best available scientific information and knowledge, including Indigenous knowledge, respecting climate change.
Again, this reflects much of the testimony we heard from various witnesses related to the importance of the best available science and the importance of indigenous knowledge.
I hope the committee sees fit to support the amendment.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I can speak to that, Mr. Chair, if you'd like.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
We heard from the official earlier about the fact there are two versions—a short version and a longer version—of the name of the advisory body. In both cases, the words “advisory body” appear. The way I interpret this is that when simply “advisory body” is used, it refers to the longer form of the same name. My issue with calling it an “expert committee” is that it's entirely different, and that could result in confusion. Often in cases like this there's a shorter version that uses some of the words but not others, so I think it's clear enough. I did not intend to replace it with the longer version.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
NDP-7 amends lines 3 and 4 on page 9 with the following:
Minister's response
(2) The Minister must make the annual report available to the public within 30 days of receiving it and then, within 120 days of receiving that report, the Minister must publicly respond to the advice that the advisory body includes in it with respect to matters referred in paragraphs 20(1)(a) to (c), including any national greenhouse gas emissions target that is recommended by the advisory body if the Minister has set a target that is different from it.
As Mr. Longfield indicated earlier, this is a more elaborate and robust version of what Ms. May was suggesting. An important component is the requirement that if the minister chooses to set a greenhouse gas emissions target that is different from that which the advisory body recommended, he or she should provide a rationale for why this was done.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Madam Pauzé for recognizing the hard work of Ms. Collins. She laid out many of the arguments that my colleague made at ENVI. I note that Ms. Collins brought forward a motion at this committee to both strengthen the mandate of the environment commissioner and make the environment commissioner an independent officer of Parliament. Unfortunately, other members chose to vote against that motion and it was not successful.
We certainly support the spirit of this. The challenge that we have with this amendment is that it's putting the cart before the horse. It's speaking to an expanded mandate for the commissioner before that mandate has been created. We are going to keep up our efforts in the House to expand the mandate of the environment commissioner and make that position an independent officer, and hopefully at some point in the future, once we're successful with those efforts, we will be able to amend this act accordingly.
At this point, I think we're essentially calling in this amendment for the commissioner to perform a role that he or she is not empowered to perform under the legislation.
I'll leave my comments at that, but I appreciate Madam Pauzé's recognition of Ms. Collins' work and the spirit behind this.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, that BQ-31 also has implications for G-15. I believe the introduction of the 2026 emissions objective changes things for those years leading up to 2030, so we prefer the wording of G-15. It also impacts, as you mentioned, PV-34.
I'll leave it at that and speak to the next amendment.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. May for that explanation.
I fear that you may have misinterpreted my earlier remarks. We've always supported an expanded role for the environment commissioner within the environment commissioner's mandate, so I appreciate your bringing forward this amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I'm going to have to find it here in my list, because my—
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Sure. In the interest of time, that would be helpful.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's fairly self-explanatory. This is to recognize the importance of indigenous knowledge being taken into account, as the amendment states.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
This amendment inserts the following wording:
Whereas Parliament recognizes that it is the responsibility of the present generation to minimize impacts of climate change on future generations;
I believe this is an incredibly important insertion into the bill to clearly state why we are undertaking this important work.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I don't know—
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I won't challenge it at this time.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Moving on to NDP-10, this is to insert the words “and ambitious action” in the sentence, which would read,
Whereas climate change is a global problem that requires immediate and ambitious action by all governments in Canada as well as by industry, non-governmental organizations and individual Canadians;
It's similar to one of our previous amendments. This is to emphasize the need for ambition in conducting this work.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for joining us tonight, Minister Garneau. We're happy to have you here.
This committee presented a report to the House of Commons on February 25, 2021, recommending that the Government of Canada convey to the ambassador of the People's Republic of China to Canada that any interference with the rights and freedoms of people in Canada was unacceptable, will not be tolerated, and will result in serious consequences for those responsible.
Was that message communicated to the ambassador of the People's Republic of China to Canada, and if so, what was the response of the ambassador?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I'd rather hear it from you, sir, while we have you. I can ask her that afterwards.
Alliance Canada Hong Kong and other witnesses have come before our committee in the past year telling us they've been interfered with. Human rights defenders who are protesting, Tibetan nationals who are running for student office and others have been threatened by agents of the People's Republic of China or parent agents.
What is the government doing in response in order to protect these defenders of human rights or citizens going about their business?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
The suggestion by Alliance Canada Hong Kong to this committee—and we've heard it from others as well—was that Canada should require any agents of foreign governments operating in Canada, including China, which we understand has a number of them, to be registered.
Is Canada considering putting in place a foreign agent registry to at least require people to identify themselves?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Can you be specific about the question asked, sir?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Alliance Canada Hong Kong also complained that there appears to be a foreign takeover of Chinese-language newspapers in Canada by agents of China or companies that are related to the Chinese government. A suggestion was made that independent Chinese-language publications in Canada don't have the support they need. Would the Government of Canada consider looking at ensuring that there are independent voices able to communicate with the Chinese-speaking community in Canada, free from interference from the Chinese government?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
On another topic—quickly, as it seems I have a minute and a half left—since GAC has a responsibility and one of their roles is to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the export of dual-use technologies, according to the 2020 report on military goods from Canada, there has been a significant increase in the rejection of exports of dual-use goods to the People's Republic of China.
Why has that increased in the last number of years, from very few three or four years ago to a substantial number now? In 2020, 40 applications were refused. What kinds of items were refused export to China on the basis of this concern?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I understand the rules, sir—
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
—but can you give us an example of the kinds of things that have been rejected by Canada for export to China?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
My time is up, sir.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
That was clear. I thought it was 10 minutes as well, Mr. Chair, but I'll have to settle for two and a half.
Mr. Garneau, the security issue comes to light every now and then. Before our committee, we've heard some security concerns about equipment being used or contracted by the Government of Canada. Nuctech, for example, has a standing offer for X-ray equipment in our embassies. In Beijing, our immigration department contracted a company being operated by the Beijing police to look after collecting data for immigration visas. You mentioned the 43 export permits being denied to China these last number of years. Is it fair to say that in the past we took less seriously these issues of security with respect to China? Is that something that the government is prepared to admit, or is everything going according to plan all the way down the line?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to join in wishing Mr. Oliphant a happy birthday. I'm sure he would probably be celebrating it some other way than joining us this evening.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Well, I'm glad to hear that.
I have some sympathy for what Mr. Oliphant is saying, in that we are in the process of undertaking a study on what happened through PHAC at the lab in Winnipeg and we need these documents and this information to be able to do our work. I wanted to congratulate the enthusiasm of Mr. Genuis and others on the committee in pursuing that information. We all joined in that pursuit and in the motion before the House.
I'm a little bit concerned that it would be difficult for the public to follow what we're doing if we're calling for these papers, as in the title of Derek Lee's book, and we're not getting them. Then I guess the pursuit is to follow through on that in the House of Commons.
I wasn't there—I was busy at another committee doing a report—but I gather the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has actually written to them since the question was raised by you, Mr. Genuis, in the House this afternoon, saying that we did not get the unredacted papers, and there's now a motion of privilege before the House. All of this seems to be perhaps piling on one procedure after another.
As to the release of these documents in a redacted form while we're asking for the unredacted ones, I'm wondering whether there is a value in that right now. Will it stop us from pursuing our work, or is it just giving other people an opportunity to comment on them while we're trying to pursue the other documents?
I'd like a little clarification on that, because I think the narrative to the public may just be confusion about various parliamentary procedures going on, as opposed to the substance of what is being sought by the committee with respect to these documents and papers. I wonder if you could explain that a little better.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I'm certainly prepared to support this motion. The explanation makes sense. The only part that didn't make sense was the assertion of openness by default coming from someone who was active in the Harper government. I don't think we saw very much of that during the years that I was here when Mr. Harper was prime minister. Be that as it may, perhaps this is a new era of conservatism that we haven't experienced before.
Your explanation is a simple one. If we have these documents and they are redacted to the satisfaction of PHAC and don't contain anything that they wouldn't give to someone asking for an ATIP request, such as has happened in other committees, then making them public is not going to do any harm.
Mr. Oliphant was concerned that we might be causing confusion with three or four different things going on at once.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
Madam Morgan, perhaps you could now answer the question I asked Mr. Garneau. I'll repeat it for those who didn't hear it. It related to this committee recommending that the government convey to the Chinese ambassador to Canada that any interference with rights and freedoms of people in Canada is unacceptable, won't be tolerated and will result in serious consequences for those responsible.
In what manner was this conveyed to the Chinese ambassador? Can the deputy minister tell us whether there were serious consequences from the government for any persons who acted contrary to this requirement by interfering with the rights and freedoms of people in Canada?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Yes, I appreciate that.
Can you tell us whether or not any representatives, any embassy staff or any people accredited to Canada have been advised to leave or have had serious consequences for interfering with the rights and freedoms of people in Canada? Has that happened, to your knowledge?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
You referred to serious action being taken and joint statements made with respect to matters in Hong Kong and the result of the security law and the changes to actions within Hong Kong itself. I'm wondering whether we're getting to the point where these joint statements aren't really effective. We just saw another sentencing of Jimmy Lai for another 18 months or 14 months on top of an existing sentence for participating in a demonstration that was unauthorized.
Isn't it time that we should consider Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals responsible for this layer of oppression in Hong Kong and consider that these joint statements are not effective in actually changing any behaviour of the Chinese government in respect to Hong Kong?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Could I ask you to comment on the statement of the New Zealand foreign minister regarding the Five Eyes?
It seems to me that the Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing arrangement with several nations, but it seems that the Five Eyes designation seems to be used for some other kind of alliance. Do you think that use of the phrase is misused in the public eye and is giving the false impression that this is a different type of activity here? “Five Eyes” names the countries clearly, but this is an intelligence-sharing operation and not more than that. Is that correct?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I understand that, but doesn't the minister have a point when she says that there are two different types of alliances, and one doesn't always include the other?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
Madam Morgan, last October on the 50th anniversary of Canada-China diplomatic relations, Minister Champagne, who was then foreign minister, spoke about a new framework for relations with China. Before this committee, he talked a little bit about that. Can you tell us whether or not this new framework appears in any document that is to be delivered and when it will be made public and made available to this committee for discussion and review?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I asked you specifically whether there was a new framework and whether it was going to appear in any document. To suggest that the relationship is evolving means either no, there isn't, or that the new framework is evolution. Could you be more specific about whether or not there is a new framework that will appear in a statement or a document that can represent what we expect in the future with respect to China?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I see we're very close to time. I don't even know if I have time for another question and answer.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I won't press the clock too much.
Thank you, Ms. Morgan.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for joining us today and sharing your knowledge about organized crime, Dr. German.
In part 2 of “Dirty Money”, you refer to the Chinese crime groups allied with the Mexican and Middle Eastern crime groups and talk about their creating partnerships for different illegal enterprises and commodities, but then you go on to say—with emphasis:
In addition, there have been multiple reports of state actors operating in Greater Vancouver.
Then, in the footnote, it talks about “hybrid warfare”, describing “states working in concert with organized crime to achieve...objectives”, including “economic subversion and threat finance, in which a nation state conducts offensive actions through financial vehicles.”
Can you tell us what this is about? You just indicated that you didn't have much evidence of state action, but this clearly refers to multiple reports of state actors operating in Greater Vancouver. Could you tell us a little more about that?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
For what purpose is this? Is it for the purpose of prosecution?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
It's been suggested that some of the influence actually goes the other way and that it's possible that the Chinese state actors are influencing the money laundering or are in cahoots with some of this organized crime to inflate the price of real estate in Canada—and maybe this is far-fetched, and perhaps you can comment on that—to support the casino business and all this illegality.
Is there any evidence of that? Are you aware of these kinds of allegations? A recent book was just published about that. Is that something you have given any credence to?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I'll turn back to let you answer your question about the RCMP being under-resourced. You were there. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has reported in one of its reports that in fact the RCMP were so under-resourced from around 2014 on that they were focused on domestic terrorism, and files that were supposed to be dealing with organized crime, smuggling, and everything else were neglected to the point that we had this huge increase in money laundering in Canada.
Can you tell us anything about that?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Do you think the Cullen commission is going to have a look at whether there is a Chinese government influence on organized money laundering in Canada, in B.C.? Is that part of their remit?
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I think my time is up, sir. Thank you.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Mr. German, thank you very much for coming.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
It would be me, Madam Chair.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you so much.
Thank you to our witnesses for helping us launch this very important study.
I believe that maybe my first question would be best suited to the Department of Justice. I was present in the previous Parliament when we were debating Bill C-14, and I know that there were some legitimate concerns raised about the safeguards that we were placing in the legislation.
Is there any information about how those safeguards have acted over the years? What about compliance? Have there ever been any kinds of investigations, or is there just general satisfaction that they've been adequate and that they've been followed? Anything you can do to inform us on that, please....
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Sure. I'll turn it over to Ms. Hoffman then.
Thank you.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
For those of us who represent ridings with fairly large indigenous populations.... My riding is home to many Coast Salish nations, including the Nuu-chah-nulth. There has been a general distrust—very warranted—over the decades by indigenous people toward health care providers.
Is there any information that you can provide from Health Canada's perspective on that sort of ownership of the data, any information that would help us with our study as it relates to indigenous peoples?
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
You made mention of the fact that, yes, many indigenous communities are remote and certainly other non-indigenous communities are remote. Can you elaborate a little bit more just on how the provinces are doing in collecting the information for people who live in remote communities and who have a desire to access this service?
How well are they doing in meeting those demands?
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
Maybe what I'll do in the interest of my two minutes here is to front-load two questions.
First, and I'm sorry if you've covered this already, but out of the written requests, you said 12.7% of patients died prior to receiving medical assistance in dying. Is that primarily because they were so advanced in their state, or were there some unnecessary delays? Could you just illuminate that a bit?
My second question is how Canada's model is holding up in international discourse on the subject of medical assistance in dying. Are other countries seeking our official feedback when developing their own systems? Can you talk about whether other countries are looking to Canada as a model or anything like that?
Thank you.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
I'll leave it there, Chair.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm wondering if I could ask for clarification, Mr. Chair.
Along the lines of what Ms. May has mentioned, could you indicate to us if it would be in order for a member of the committee to bring forward a motion that would remove those amendments from consideration?
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to bring forward this amendment on behalf of Ms. Collins. I believe it's fairly self-explanatory. There are pieces that I will highlight. This amendment speaks to the role of the net-zero advisory body.
The first piece I would bring to the committee's attention is the word “independent” under subclause 20(1), “to provide the Minister with independent advice”. I believe this speaks to some of the conversation we've had in today's meeting around the independence of the committee.
Secondly, this amendment seeks to specify that the advisory body will provide advice respecting “greenhouse gas emissions targets” as well as “greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans”.
Lastly, it adds a line about engagement activities being part of the advisory body's mandate.
I believe the rest is fairly self-explanatory. I'll yield the floor.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank everyone for your testimony here today.
For me, this is a really important issue. I've worked with veterans who have been denied housing because there is no national standard. People say that it's just their pet, but the reality I hear from those veterans is that they can't walk out that door unless their “pet” is with them. That's what really concerns me.
When I look at all of these challenges, I think they're all important. We need to have a standard, so that people can get on a plane with their service animal and be able to travel as they need to. We need to make sure that we don't have veterans choosing to be homeless because they can't find a place to live that will allow them to bring their service dogs. This is my challenge. It's different from province to province to territory.
I'm just wondering if I could come to you first, Mr. Cousineau. Could you just speak to what the lack of this support really means for veterans?
I think you've highlighted it perfectly. These dogs fundamentally change your life and allow you to have one, which, as somebody who served our country, should be absolutely necessary. What would having some sort of format that makes space for these important service dogs to be recognized do for veterans across our country?
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
If I could come to Ms. O'Brien, I have a question.
I'm still trying to grapple with all of the testimony we've received. I'm just wondering if you could talk about your organization. Do you have training standards for dogs or do you have a code of conduct for trainers?
If you could explain to the committee a little bit about what the difference is, so that we better understand that, it would be extremely helpful.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm talking about ADI.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Are they reviewed by a third party?
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. O'Brien ended her answer to my question talking about making sure that veterans are ready for the dog. I'm just wondering if that did come up in other testimony. One of the concerns is having a service dog placed and not having the capacity within the veteran's household to care for the dog.
I'm just wondering, Ms. Forbes, if you could start, and then maybe I'll come to you, Ms. MacKenzie, to just talk about how that assessment is done and what supports are in place, not only for the veteran but for the family to support the service dog.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cousineau, perhaps I could come to you one more time. In your last answer, you talked about having the medical professionals involved. I think what you said is super important, but I'm trying to understand what the process is.
If a veteran reaches out to your organization or to one of the other organizations, who assesses whether the veteran is prepared and what supports need to be put in place, and how do they assess that? What is that process?
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate that answer. It really helped me understand.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
My first question is for you, Chris, if I may. The issue that always comes back is that we can't really have temporary foreign workers come with landed status on arrival, because if they did, they would leave the community. I'm wondering what suggestions you might have to bring in the workers right from the beginning, giving them full status, and also supporting them to stay in the community.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you for that.
Since the COVID exposure and the explosive report on the plight of migrant workers came out—though it's not as if those issues weren't already happening, but just that they were really brought to light because of COVID—have there been improvements with respect to that?
On the question about attracting and retaining workers in rural communities, what must the federal government do in that regard, especially in light of the explosive reports?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Should the government then be bringing forward an immigration stream with, in particular, different labour demands? For example, caregivers would be one that comes to mind. Agriculture would be another. Instead of relying on the temporary foreign workers system, we could create a specific immigration stream targeted at the workers that you're talking about, with the talents, experience and knowledge base they have, to bring them in under that new stream. We currently don't have that stream. Should we have that immigration stream now?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Canada used to have an immigration stream that spoke to the full range of skill sets—what used to be defined as “high”, “medium” and “low”.
Of course, these workers that we're talking about today are essential workers in many ways. They help to put food on the table. They're incredibly important to our economy and our well-being on the whole.
Should Canada be bringing back an immigration stream that provides for a full range of workers?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
I just want to build on that last question in terms of resettlement services, the support network that is required to attract and to retain workers in rural communities.
Chris, I'd like to come to you. From your perspective, in your work with the workers themselves, what are they saying? What do they need for them to stay in Canada?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
For those 30 seconds, finally then, if Canada reflected those supports you are talking about, would it then not also attract other people from workers' home countries as they invited others through word of mouth? Would that have an effect?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I'm going to give a couple moments for that answer to be completed. I think it's important to hear the answer.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
That is exactly the point from our last panel as well, where we heard some of the witnesses saying that what Canada really needs to do is provide landed status on arrival so these people can, in fact, put down roots, access the services and be fully supported. As such, not only would they come, but they would also stay.
Would you agree that part of the issue of what we need to do is, in fact, change our immigration system to allow for landed status immigrant pathway as opposed to just a temporary pathway?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Yes, it is, sorry. It's just to build on the answer.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
That's interesting. We had other witnesses at different meetings who provided information to the effect that the workers would want to stay, particularly, for example, in the meat packing industry. The employer was very proactive in supporting the employee finding that permanent pathway. They are saying, in fact, that it would be great if they didn't have to do all of this rigmarole, and to have the family stay right from the get-go.
The other issue as well is that a lot of the migrant workers who come, even if they are able to bring their families here temporarily, aside from not be able to access the services.... For example, if you have children, you have to pay foreign student fees, which are very expensive and have a big impact on people.
All of those thing, right from the get-go, set up barriers for people. It's not welcoming, right off the top.
What are your comments about that?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
If there is such an exemption, should that not be applied across the board? If I were a parent, I'd be very worried about it right off the top, and that would be a deterrent for me.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Also, it shouldn't just be from school to school either—
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
—or from province to province because, again, that does not help the situation at all.
Thank you very much. I think I saw the chair—
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
—flash the card, so thank you.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm going to direct this question to Ms. Lalande if I may. It really is premised on the notion of retention, whether you be a temporary foreign workers or an immigrant coming into a rural community.
In our last panel, part of the issue that was discussed, of course, for temporary foreign workers is that if they don't have access to full status, they are already at a disadvantage right from the get-go.
From that perspective, do you think that the Canadian government should be bringing in immigration measures to attract and retain immigrants in rural communities? If so, what do you think we need to do with our immigration measures?
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
I know they used to have immigration streams that target the full range of labour skill sets—high, medium and low. However, we have now really primarily focused on the high-skill level, the economic level—not to say that agricultural workers should be devalued, because our system as it stands right now devalues them.
Do you think we should bring back an immigration system that brings in the full range of workers from the labour force—high, medium and low skills?
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here today. As usual, it's been a very interesting discussion so far.
I'm going to continue on with Dr. Jaccard, to allow him to go into more detail.
Dr. Jaccard, I want to ask you about the mix of carbon pricing and regulations that you talked about. You used the example of biofuels, and how we needed the regulations to get us to 100% biofuels when we're talking about diesel, for instance.
I assume that carbon pricing also plays a part in that. The carbon pricing on biofuels would be much lower, and the same goes for hydrogen or green electricity. You would have regulations, perhaps, on the number of hydrogen vehicles versus the push from carbon pricing, as well.
I want to give you some more time to speak to that.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
I'm going to move to Mr. Layzell now and talk about hydrogen.
You mentioned the possibility of an export market for hydrogen, especially green hydrogen in Canada. When I talk to energy ministers of countries like Germany and Japan, they are very big on export markets or importing hydrogen from other countries that have a clean source of hydrogen. Germany, I remember, used an example of a big mega solar project in Chile and using that to produce hydrogen to move that clean energy around the world.
I was wondering if you could expand on that idea of a possible export market for Canadian hydrogen.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Could that link in with Canada's expertise in hydrogen fuel cells, using those fuel cells here in Canada and exporting them?
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Layzell, you talked about hubs and investing in hydrogen hubs. We've heard that from other witnesses. Perhaps you have an idea of how the government could help create those hubs.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
I'd like to continue with you, Dr. Layzell, and talk about those hubs. I want to get a little more information.
You talked about capital investment being important. When I talk to people in the hydrogen world here in British Columbia, they talk about the capital investment that's needed to create these hubs as being the critical thing they need. These fairly small companies just don't have the capital themselves. It's difficult for them to get it from within Canada. This is the ideal place for the government to really step up and produce the infrastructure to help build the hydrogen sector in Canada.
Could you maybe expand on exactly what type of infrastructure is needed here?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I was just very interested in seeing if there was a way we could move forward and look at the motion I brought forward last time. I know that we do need to finish on the Green Party amendment that we discussed for two straight hours last meeting, and I'm certainly hopeful that we don't go through that again today and that we actually can continue to work to improve this proposed legislation.
I would like to propose that we take the vote on that Green Party amendment and that we move on to the motion I have tabled, if that's at all possible, Mr. Chair.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I just want to clarify, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rayes asked that I send the motion to the clerk, but the clerk has already received it and sent it to the members, so I'm not exactly sure what he'd like me to send.
Could we get some clarity?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
The one I wanted to talk about most was the first motion I had sent out about sitting during July and August. Both were sent out last week, so I think all committee members should have both of those motions.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
The clerk is indicating one second.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Perhaps I could raise my motion in the meantime, Mr. Chair.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I brought forward a motion last week for this committee because I am quite concerned that we are not progressing through Bill C-10 at the rate that I think we all want to. I hope that everybody on this committee is interested in making sure that we get the very best piece of legislation that we possibly can at the end of this clause-by-clause process, and that we are all being very propositional to add amendments to try to make this the very best legislation we can, which will protect the Canadian broadcasting landscape, protect Canadian artists and our cultural sector, which is vitally important, and also ensure that Canadians' freedom of expression is protected.
I want to be as propositional as I can. I want to work with all committee members to make this happen. I know it's extremely important legislation. As we know, it has not been updated in 30 years and it's well overdue.
I know there are times during July and August that we are unable to sit, and I do also realize that this would mean we would be sitting, in person, in Ottawa, but I would like to propose that the committee take the decision to sit into July and August to ensure that we have time to complete this work. I think that allocating to stop the debate and to stop the conversation on Bill C-10 would cause a lot of problems, because we won't have had time to go through the important amendments that I know all parties are putting forward.
That said, I also think that filibustering and not letting us get this work done is also a mistake. This gives us a little bit more space, a little bit more runway to get a good piece of legislation.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
That's what I would like to propose. That's what I would like my motion to be.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a few things.
First of all, in terms of Mr. Champoux's amendment to the motion, I had suggested that we could go forward in an in-person format. I recognize that the House leaders—I am a deputy House leader myself—are discussing what the hybrid will look like into the summer months. I was not proposing that we use the hybrid system but rather come to Ottawa, travel to Ottawa, for the meetings. We could probably have longer meetings and get a little bit more done.
In terms of the questions put forward both by Mr. Rayes and Ms. Dabrusin, I very much feel that we are now in a situation where the Liberals have put forward a flawed bill. We are trying to fix that bill. We are trying to be propositional and we are trying to fix that bill. The Liberals have now put forward in the House, not in committee, a time allocation of five hours. That is wholly insufficient to get through the remaining amendments that need to be examined so that we make sure that we have good legislation. That's wholly insufficient. Such a heavy-handed manoeuvre hasn't been done for decades. It has not been done for decades. The last time it was done, there were 10 hours allocated, twice as long.
I have some real concerns about being told by Ms. Dabrusin that I am choosing to either support the Liberals' very heavy-handed move through time allocation or abandon it and support the very disturbing and very wrong-headed comments of my colleague from Lethbridge. I feel like we're in a situation where the flawed legislation that was brought forward by this government needs to get fixed, and the Conservatives are making it impossible for us to fix that legislation.
I'm incredibly frustrated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives on their inability to see that we have a job to do, that we have an obligation to work as hard as we can—
Results: 1 - 100 of 10428 | Page: 1 of 105

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

For more data options, please see Open Data