Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 9708
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McGowan, Mr. Fast asked you many times in his opening statement who authorized the announcement or who decided to put that announcement out. The first several times, you didn't answer the question, merely referring to the regular process. The final time, you spoke of members of the elected government as making the decision on this announcement. By that I presume you mean the Prime Minister, other members of his cabinet, or the members of their offices who serve them.
Can you tell the committee who in the elected government decided to put out the first notice on June 30 to announce that you were not implementing a law passed by Parliament?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Did I just hear you correctly that it was the minister who decided that you would delay implementation of a law passed by Parliament? Was that the Minister of Finance?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Mere hours before this committee meeting was scheduled to begin, where parliamentarians could demand answers as to why this announcement of June 30 went out, there was a clarification to backpedal this announcement.
Again, the question I really want clarity around is this: Whose idea was it in the first place to delay? The June 30 announcement is pretty clear. It talks about the absence of an application date. It talks about implementing on January 1 following amendments. You said “the minister” in your last answer to me. Can you clarify that you meant the Minister of Finance?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Please answer the question.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt. You're—
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
We've had about 10 minutes now of the question from my Conservative opposition colleagues, and in this time we've circled it down to a “minister” seems to have the decision. We can't confirm yet which one, but that was the question, whether it was the Minister of Finance.
Further to that, I take you to the June 30 announcement. This announcement speaks of the bill having received royal assent but not having an application date. Then it goes on to talk about amending it and starting on January 1.
I don't really even want to go down that path any further about what the amendments you may propose might be. We'd like to know who made the decision on that press announcement—which minister.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
There are a couple of minutes left, but if you—
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
If you like, we can move on to the next speaker if you have nothing to add.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. Thank you.
Next on our list is Mr. Ste-Marie for five minutes.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
I'd like to speak to the point of order.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
I think this is really the same line of questioning, in a way, that Ms. Dzerowicz introduced earlier in her testimony, so I presume it's relevant.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you. I don't have a question. I know that we're down to just the last few minutes.
I move that the committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear within two weeks of passing this motion.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you so much, Mr. Dufresne, for appearing today and for the clarity you've brought to this issue. Let's just get right to it.
Bill C-208 became law on June 29. Is that correct?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
All right. Can you imagine any possible explanation for why this government would say otherwise in its June 30 press announcement?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
On the eve of a really embarrassing meeting that the department would have to go through, they backpedalled the June 30 announcement. Do you know of any precedent of a government refusing to implement a law upon its receiving royal assent, such as has been the case with this bill?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
No government has ever done this—just put out an announcement to say it is not going to implement a law passed by Parliament.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Right.
Your office has been very busy over this last year and a half or so. We have seen this government defy Parliament and defy orders of committee. You've been present at this committee with regard to this issue. Are you concerned by the pattern of government, of any government, ignoring the will of Parliament?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Again, I thank you for your vigorous defence of Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament has to have the last word on public policy. We have a government that has ignored Parliament by refusing to implement this bill when it received royal assent and that has been on the heels of actually suing the House of Commons and naming the Speaker of the House in seeking court approval to defy Parliament. This is all within the last few weeks. Can you comment on a pattern emerging with this government? This is also on the heels of the defiance of orders at this committee.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Responsible government was achieved in Canada before Confederation. Really, since 1858 has any Canadian government besides this one openly and blatantly refused to implement laws passed by Parliament?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Yes, and we thank you for that and for your defence of Parliament.
Mr. Chair, do I have any more time?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Despite the backpedal that we saw yesterday, I would suggest there are still questions that remain and still an intention by this government to not implement the bill as passed by Parliament. What further steps do you think the government needs to take to assure Canadians that it will actually follow through and implement this bill and respect the will of Parliament as expressed through its democratically elected members and senators?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you. My question is for former speaker Milliken.
Thank you for your service to Canada during your long tenure as Speaker. During your time as Speaker, which spanned two governments and two prime ministers, did the government of the day ever sue the House of Commons and name the Speaker of the House in a lawsuit against the House of Commons?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
To speak to the point of order—
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
—the topic of the meeting, of this panel of the first meeting today, is the authority of Parliament.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Does it concern you that the government would sue the elected members of the House over their authority?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Yes. They have done so, anyway.
Mr. Chair, if this is indeed the last panel, I will maybe let Mr. Maguire get a question in. I think I have a minute and a half left.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
I call to order the 42nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I would like to remind colleagues that today's meeting is webcast and will be available through the House of Commons website. The committee is meeting today because of a request that I and the clerk received from four members of the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), to discuss a request to undertake a study of members' expenses related to Data Sciences and NGP VAN.
Now, given the ongoing restrictions here in the province of Ontario and in the House of Commons, based on the recommendations of health authorities, I'd like to remind members that there is a two-metre physical distancing requirement. Members must maintain masks when circulating throughout the rooms. Proper hand hygiene is encouraged as well. Hand sanitizer is available here in the room. As chair, I will be enforcing those measures. If you as members have any requests in terms of these requirements, please let me or the clerk know. Thank you for your co-operation.
I see that I have a speaking list starting to develop. Mr. Barrett has indicated he wants to go first, followed by Mr. Carrie.
Mr. Barrett, I will turn to you.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
What we'll do is circulate it. I will suspend the meeting until such time as it's been circulated. I'm not sure it will be for a full 10 minutes, but it will allow for members to at least read it before debate. I believe Mr. Barrett had some further comments to make, so it will allow members to read through that as well during that period of time.
We'll now suspend for just a moment....
Mr. Dong.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Barrett did not cede the floor. He did make it clear that he was circulating the motion to allow him to speak to it.
If it's the member's desire, we can continue and not suspend, if that's more helpful for members. I think there's a difference of opinion.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
He's moving the motion, and he's made it clear that he has some comments to make with regard to the motion.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
We will suspend until such time as the motion is circulated.
The meeting is suspended.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
I call this meeting back to order.
I believe the copies have been circulated.
Mr. Barrett, we will turn to you.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
I have a speaking list that has developed here: Mr. Carrie, Mr. Boulerice, and then Mrs. Shanahan.
Mr. Carrie.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
We'll turn to Mrs. Shanahan.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Mrs. Shanahan, if you have that sent over to the clerk so that it can be circulated, I will review it then.
Members, we will suspend for a couple of minutes until such point as....
Monsieur Boulerice, you have a point of order.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
It would be helpful if you would supply it to the clerk in both official languages.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
That makes it much faster, in our experience.
We'll suspend until such time as it has been distributed in both official languages.
The meeting is suspended.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
We'll call the meeting back to order.
The amendment has been circulated. It would insert the text sent by Ms. Shanahan between the words “That” and “pursuant”. Based on the amendment, it would add to the motion proposed by Mr. Barrett. That is the amendment.
As the chair, I'm in a little bit of a conflicted position in that I don't know that it's out of order for us to do this, but I do know that that is not done: Committees don't tell other committees, and don't have the power to tell other committees, what to do. So we are restricted. This amendment, based on the way it has been proposed, would simply be an addition to the motion and the instruction that Mr. Barrett's motion would provide. It would effectively make simultaneous or concurrent investigations by two separate committee, if in fact BOIE took up the recommendation. We aren't able to instruct other committees what to do.
I do have a speaking order on this. We have Mr. Barrett, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Carrie and Madame Gaudreau.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
I believe you all had it sent to you. Effectively, Ms. Shanahan's amendment would be inserted, as it prescribes, after the word “That” of Mr. Barrett's motion. Ms. Shanahan's amendment would be inserted there as per her instructions.
Mr. Barrett.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay.
It seems that we've gotten into a point of debate. I believe the point of order was Ms. Shanahan's originally. She was making a point of order with regard to whether her text would be inserted or whether it would replace existing text. I have ruled that, based on how she submitted it, it would be inserted between the words “That” and “pursuant”. This would be an addition.
It is not common—it is something that actually is impossible—for one committee to tell another committee what to do, but I am going to allow this amendment to be voted on by the committee members to determine. Whether or not they appreciate our instruction, if in fact it passes, that's up to them. I think it would probably be best to move to a vote on the amendment, if the committee would allow for that. Then we can get on with debate on either the amended motion or the original motion.
We'll move to a vote, unless members want to....
We still have a speaking list. Okay. We'll go back to a speaking list on the amendment.
I'm getting different signals here. Some don't want to go back to the speakers—
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
The debate right now is on the amendment. It's just on the amendment. It's not on the motion but on the amendment from Ms. Shanahan.
If members want to speak to that, I do have a list of members.
Mr. Barrett.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm recognizing a point of order.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
No, we're on the speaking list. We're on the debate—
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
It's on the amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm going to continue down the speaking list. If members don't want to speak to the amendment but would like to speak to something else, just indicate that you no longer desire to speak to it.
Madame Lattanzio, you have the floor.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Madame Lattanzio, we are speaking to the amendment. We are discussing the—
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
It's to the amendment. Okay. Very good.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Go ahead, Mr. Carrie.
Results: 1 - 60 of 9708 | Page: 1 of 162

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

For more data options, please see Open Data