Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 114841 - 114900 of 119369
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Dancho, for the opportunity.
I quite liked Ms. Damoff's point that it will be possible to delineate what is under the control of the RCMP and what is under the control of the Canada Border Services Agency. I think it's a good idea to have them in together. We just need to clarify that we are sure we have three hours for both organizations. I agree with that.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Fair enough. Good.
Are there any other comments on the first proposed amendment?
Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
I'm just wondering how this would impact.... I know that we were talking about a Friday meeting with the RCMP. Is that in the works? If this is passed, will we not be able to see the RCMP on Friday?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
I think Thursday we were supposed to meet with the minister, and I think we were in discussions for a potential meeting on Friday. We were hoping to hear about that today.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
It's the first I've heard of a possible Friday meeting. At the will of the committee, we can discuss that.
Clerk, are you aware of the possibility of a Friday meeting?
Wassim Bouanani
View Wassim Bouanani Profile
Wassim Bouanani
2021-12-14 11:18
I have not received any direction, sir.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Okay.
Well, let's deal with the issues one at a time here. I gather that the wording of the House, which asks the committee to meet with the CBSA and the RCMP for three hours at its convenience, gives the committee some discretion on how many meetings it might take to reach those three hours. Looking at the issues sequentially, the first order of business is to deal with Standing Order 106(4) and the amendments that arise from this discussion. We're involved in discussing the first amendment now.
Are there any other comments about the first amendment? Okay.
Clerk, how do you want to proceed with the vote?
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I can't see whose hand is up. Who has the point of order?
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
It's Dane Lloyd, Mr. Chair.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've listened intently to the amendments twice, but I learn by reading, and I still haven't seen a copy of the amendment. I am still a bit confused about what the amendment is. It's a Standing Order practice of the committee that the chair has to submit the amendment to the committee before it can be voted upon. I still haven't seen a copy of it. I've listened twice, but I'm still not 100% sure what this amendment is really proposing.
I would hope that any future amendments that the member will be proposing today would also be distributed so that we can avoid going through this confusion again.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Yes. I accept your point. I agree that members of the committee should have a printed copy of the amendments as proposed.
What's necessary, Mr. Clerk, to make that happen?
Wassim Bouanani
View Wassim Bouanani Profile
Wassim Bouanani
2021-12-14 11:21
I think maybe Ms. Damoff has an answer to that question, sir. She has raised her hand.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
The members do have a copy of the revised motion in French and English, but it's without the track changes. They do have a copy of the revised motion in both official languages in front of them. They do have everything there. It is always nice to have track changes, but it's not required.
As I said, Chair, I do have it in English, and I'm endeavouring to get it in French with track changes, but the members do have the amended motion in front of them.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Do the members have an amended motion in front of them?
That's “yes”. Unless I hear from any member of the committee who does not have the amended motion in both official languages in front of them, I will assume that it is in front of members and that we can then proceed.
Is that okay with everybody? Okay.
Clerk, I see an empty chair there—maybe that's because you are running around distributing pieces of paper—but we have had a discussion of Ms. Damoff's first amendment, and I'm now prepared to call for a vote....
I see another hand up.
Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Further to my last comment, I'll just clarify. In the original motion, paragraph (a) says the following from Ms. Michaud: “hold, by December 17, 2021”—which is this Friday—“at least one (1) additional meeting to hear from Royal Canadian Mounted Police officials for a duration of three (3) hours”.
In my previous comment, what I was asking about is that Ms. Damoff's motion takes out the requirement to have the meeting by December 17, this Friday, and then adds the CBSA, so we have to have the CBSA and RCMP together before February 4, whereas Ms. Michaud's original motion said we'd have to have the RCMP by this December 17, Friday.
I want the committee to be clear that the amendment will in essence ensure that we will not see the RCMP before we rise for break, and I just want to make sure that this was the aim of Ms. Michaud in her motion.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I think we heard from Madame Michaud. We'll hear from her again, if she has more to add, and also from Ms. Damoff.
Go ahead, Madame Michaud.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
I'd just like a small clarification.
The document that has been distributed to us is Ms. Damoff's amended motion, correct?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
I see that the length of the testimony would be changed, so I wonder if that is in the amendment that is being proposed now or if it is a new amendment that will be proposed later. It's okay if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are delayed, but I just want to make sure that we get them for three hours, as planned, as well as the Canada Border Services Agency and the union. I just want to make sure that the first amendment we are debating does not refer to hours. Then I would have no problem with it.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Chair, I was putting it in the time of our committee meetings, which is two hours; however, if the member feels strongly about three hours, I won't move that part of the amendment.
In essence, right now we're only discussing (a), but assuming that the clerk can do three hours and that the committee can do three hours at a time, I won't move that portion of (b) when we get to that.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I see that Mr. Van Popta has his hand up to add to the discussion.
Go ahead. The floor is yours.
View Tako Van Popta Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
Part of my question has been answered already, but my concern is that the original motion from Ms. Michaud is for three hours for the RCMP and the subsequent meeting is for three hours with CBSA and union representatives. Now it's all being squeezed into one meeting of two hours. Maybe it becomes three hours, but still, there are three sets of witnesses in one meeting over two or three hours when it was going to be six hours originally.
Is my understanding correct of the amendment and of the original motion? Also, what does Ms. Michaud say about what is essentially a reduction in the time that's being allocated to a very important study?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Go ahead, Madame Michaud.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Ms. Damoff might be in a better position to clarify this. My understanding was that while we would not receive the RCMP representatives before Christmas, we could receive them after Christmas for a three-hour period, as per the original motion.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Go ahead, Madame Damoff.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
My intention was to have both agencies.
Chair, I think there are others who had their hands up before me, but if you want to recognize me, that's fine.
Wassim Bouanani
View Wassim Bouanani Profile
Wassim Bouanani
2021-12-14 11:26
If I may, Mr. Chair, Mr. MacGregor raised his hand earlier.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. MacGregor, the floor is yours.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
I think we can find a compromise here. We do have to be mindful of the order from the House, which does, in part (d) of its motion, specify a period of three hours. I think there's a relatively easy fix whereby we take Ms. Damoff's amendment to this motion, make a quick change to the number of hours and go from two to three. Because of the constraints on where committees can meet and the House resources that we have, we may have to spread it over two meetings, but as long as we get the three hours so that we honour the House motion and what Ms. Michaud's intent is with her motion directing this committee's study, I would submit that we compromise and amend Ms. Damoff's amendment so that it reads three hours and includes the RCMP and CBSA.
I hope committee members will agree to that as a quick fix, and I'll leave it at that.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. McKinnon, your hand is up.
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd certainly like to support Mr. MacGregor's comments. I just want to observe to the committee that we don't need to get overly litigious about the particular times and particular meetings. We have the scope to add and adjust as we go forward. The House motion does not require us to have these three-hour sessions with the minister and the RCMP in one fell swoop. They can be spread out over time. We can absolutely honour the intent of the House motion, but I would recommend that we don't get too bound up in particular dates and times at this time. We can adjust as we go forward so that we can get a full and robust study before us.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Thank you.
Mr. Van Popta, did you have your hand up?
View Tako Van Popta Profile
CPC (BC)
I think my question has been answered. I would support what Mr. MacGregor is saying, but I want to speak in favour of having two separate meetings if that's what is required. It's a very important study, and I think that we need to give it the time it requires.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Thank you.
Mr. Noormohamed, your hand is up. The floor is yours.
View Taleeb Noormohamed Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In respect of what Mr. MacGregor and Mr. McKinnon said, I think we may wish to take advantage of the fact that the House motion is not specific to having a three-hour block. Our ability to potentially have those conversations spread over one or two different sessions will allow us the time to consider what we have heard.
I would support what Mr. McKinnon is saying. I think it does allow the committee to do its work in perhaps a more extensive way.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Ms. Damoff, you've heard the discussion around the detail of your first amendment. Are you supportive of what the consensus seems to be? Could you articulate that consensus...?
Oh, I have another hand up. Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.
View Doug Shipley Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
I don't want to belabour this issue too much. I agree with what Mr. MacGregor is saying. I like the tone of it, especially since we're all heading into Christmas time and conciliatory efforts are great. Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
By the same point, Mr. McKinnon, I think that sometimes the devil's in the details. I think that sometimes around this table we need to decide now what we're doing and when we're doing it, going forward. Sometimes it clears up a lot of confusion down the road. As much as I hate to sit here in the minutiae of it and waste time on planning meetings and times—because we really want to get into the study and make some resolution—I think today is the day we sit here and figure out exactly where we're going as a committee. Let's get it figured out.
I think Mr. MacGregor has us on the right track. Let's just get the details down and know where we're going as we move into the new year. That's my opinion on it.
Thank you.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I think we've had a pretty robust discussion.
Ms. Damoff, I'll give you what might be the last word in this discussion before we go to a vote. You can summarize the consensus that I think is discernible around the table, and then we'll move.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thanks, Chair.
The vote we're doing right now is only on removing paragraph (a), but the second part is contingent on that. I'm in agreement that three hours is appropriate. When we get to paragraph (b), I will not move to change that to two hours.
The intent will be that the RCMP and the CBSA appear together at one meeting for three hours. For any of you who have been in these meetings, you know that three hours for those two agencies is more than ample time to deal with the issues that will be before us.
Right now we're only dealing with paragraph (a). The motion right now is to remove paragraph (a) from the motion in front of us.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I believe that we have consensus. Clerk, how do you want to proceed with a vote on the first amendment?
Wassim Bouanani
View Wassim Bouanani Profile
Wassim Bouanani
2021-12-14 11:31
We can have a recorded division, sir, unless there's unanimous consent.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Do we have unanimous consent? Does anybody disagree with the proposed amendment?
Hearing none, I would say we have unanimous consent. Excellent. That's a great start, everybody.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Madam Damoff, let's go to the second amendment.
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thanks, Chair.
In paragraph (b), the change would be to delete the words “plan, prior to the holiday break, to”, and then it would start with “invite representatives from the Canada Border Services Agency and union representatives of the agency employees” and add the words “and the RCMP”. The rest is “to appear for a period of three hours and that this meeting be held no later than February 4, 2022”.
The two agencies who would have a great deal to say on this issue would appear before our committee prior to February 4, and the meeting would be for three hours.
I would propose that if the House administration does not have the capability to do a three-hour meeting during that week of February 4, we have the ability to have a two-hour and a one-hour meeting. Regardless of how the logistics work, it would be for three hours, as proposed by Madame Michaud.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Would this honour the spirit of the resolution of the House?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Let's open the floor to discussion of the second amendment.
Who would like to speak to it? I don't see any hands up. Clerk, do you?
Wassim Bouanani
View Wassim Bouanani Profile
Wassim Bouanani
2021-12-14 11:33
No, sir—
I see Ms. Dancho, sir.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Ms. Dancho, the floor is yours.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry. I'm just not clear on it. The first motion that we moved was to combine.... It's paragraph (a) that I'm looking at here. Is that correct? Are we just changing it from two hours, as listed on your document, to three hours?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
The second amendment proposes three hours in a combined meeting with the CBSA and the RCMP.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
I'm sorry. I thought that the first motion was to combine them.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
It just deleted paragraph (a) in the original motion.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
I understand. We're doing this in two parts in paragraph (a) of the our document.
View Ron McKinnon Profile
Lib. (BC)
I have a point of information.
Results: 114841 - 114900 of 119369 | Page: 1915 of 1990

|<
<
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data