Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 41927
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
Just to be sure I understand correctly, will we be reviewing all the Conservative motions?
For our part, we would like to present a motion, when you see fit. Perhaps my colleagues from the NDP or some senators also have motions to propose.
I just want to understand how the meeting will unfold.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to see you and all my colleagues again. I hope everyone had a nice summer.
With respect to this motion, it may be wise to address it now or we could table it until a bit later.
Our principal preoccupation with this motion is that it seems somewhat premature as we don't know which witnesses will be arriving or what the testimony of those witnesses will be. We do have some concerns. The analysts have done a lot of work. A lot of names have been suggested by the analysts and by the various parties. It might be wise and more prudent to vet those lists and cull them to reduce the number to something more manageable before we entertain motions such as this about submitting briefs.
I will leave my submission there.
Merci.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
Along similar lines, I think the practicality of this motion number three is seriously in question in terms of there being no actual limitation, for example, on the number of questions. You could have 100 questions being provided, only five of which would be prioritized.
I think this was raised earlier in a different context, but on the notion of also having written questions submitted and then answered, if that person didn't appear, you lose the ability to cross-examine or challenge the people on their evidence, and you also can't use written interrogatories as a form of compelling information from a witness who otherwise has the discretion whether or not to appear. I think that's important.
The notion of potentially following up after the fact, as Senator White has mentioned, after a witness has appeared, if there were still outstanding issues, that I think would probably circumscribe a number of questions and force us to be a bit more targeted in the questions that we pose and also allow us to pose fewer questions thereby facilitating the work of the committee.
For those reasons, I would be opposing this.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
[Technical difficulty—Editor] limit the number of questions?
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would like to hear it again, but I'll raise two things right off the top. One is that there's still no limit on the number of questions, but even more importantly, two more points arise. A situation could arise where you are then posing written interrogatories towards a Mr. John Doe or Ms. Jane Doe who we think is going to show up. Life intervenes and they never show up, so we never have a chance to cross-examine them on that information.
In that situation, I would say that—
Hon. Vernon White: No, no. This is after the evidence.
Mr. Arif Virani: It's only after the evidence? Okay. But I also have some concern—
A voice: [Inaudible—Editor] don't get to cross-examine all the time.
Mr. Arif Virani: Well, then, we still don't get to cross-examine on their responses, because it's after the evidence has been tendered.
The last piece is on the point in (c)(ii):
provided that a failure to respond to questions shall be approached by the Committee as if a witness declined to respond to an oral question asked at a Committee meeting
That to me seems to be going down the slope of actually sanctioning the individual who has failed to respond. Sanctioning people for failing to respond in committee is something that can only be done in our chamber, in the House of Commons itself. If that's leading us towards contempt proceedings, then I have significant issues with the way this is phrased.
I'll remind my friends opposite that among people on their witness list are Conservative politicians such as the Premier of Ontario.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To begin, I would like to speak to Senator Carignan's proposed amendment.
Out of consideration for our witnesses, we have to remember that not all witnesses will be able to answer 30 or 50 questions in seven days. They have other things to do. Furthermore, we do not know how many questions there will be, since we have not discussed that yet.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Chair.
I will limit my remarks to the following. As you know, our meetings are now just two hours long. If we have two groups of witnesses for one hour each, it is very likely that we will not be able to discuss all the possible topics with them. If we send written questions that are unrelated to the testimony they gave before the Committee, that is not fair. We would be opening Pandora's boxes in writing and would not be able, as several people pointed out, to see the witnesses, look them in the eyes and listen to what they have to say.
This is something that could happen, which in terms of fairness and procedure I find very difficult to accept.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would like to point out two things, and add something else.
I still don't see the ability to cross-examine on the answers to the interrogatories. I still don't see, pursuant to what Senator White just mentioned, a limit on the number of questions.
I'll inject a third element here, and we know this works on both sides. Sometimes the questions you pose are, in part, triggered by what you've heard from the other people around the table. If, perhaps, Mr. Brock asked certain questions that elicited certain types of testimony and I wanted to perhaps respond to it, I would phrase my questions accordingly to elicit some sort of response. That's the natural to and fro of a committee process. That possibility is completely eliminated when we don't see the types of written interrogatories that are put to the witnesses after the fact, and I think that diminishes the quality of the kind of evidence we will hear.
Thank you.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
I thought, for the purposes of expediting the precious time we have to meet in person, perhaps this could be addressed in writing by the law clerk of each chamber. They could provide this advice to us in writing, as opposed to taking up a precious two-hour session, talking us through what the rules are from their perspective.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm trying to think how I would amend it.
One moment, please.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
Not everyone is in agreement on that.
I think that this is, first of all, extremely premature. We haven't finished with the RCMP witnesses yet, so it's presuming a great deal. Also, it's finding a fairly significant conclusion, which I would oppose, namely, that the finding of potential contempt has occurred. So I would not be minded to support this motion.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I think we need to vote on the suggestion to suspend consideration of this motion, because we are not in agreement.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to redaction, we discussed that at length at a previous meeting. My understanding is that we agreed that, if we have questions or if any documents raise concerns, we can then asked questions about a specific document.
Motion 7 seems to be raising questions about all the documents. We are talking about hundreds of documents, so I would invite Mr. Brock and Mr. Motz to identify the documents in question.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
It is not for me to propose the amendment, but I feel that we cannot support the motion as it is worded.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
If either Mr. Brock or Mr. Motz would like to clarify the motion, they are free to do so.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a just few points, Mr. Fortin. Thank you.
First, I feel that the text is a little misleading. It says, “though the order was silent on authorized redactions”. The text of the order may not reference redactions, but I have extensive memory about the discussions that went into our preparation for that motion. We talked quite openly about the possibility of redactions occurring. I felt it was understood by all of the members of this committee that there would very likely be redactions based on a number of types of privilege that can be asserted. That's the first point.
The second point is that I feel that burrowing into some of these redactions has the potential to derail the work of this committee to a great extent, especially since we're trying to work on a timely basis to address what we need to do to fulfill our statutory mandate.
Based on that, my last point is that I would be in favour of voting down this motion as it's currently worded.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
There's no adjourning and going to a vote. It's one or the other.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
We can.... We're able to vote.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Can I ask a clarification question?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Green, are you suggesting that all publicly available documents be available to this committee from the court proceedings?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Matthew Green): That's correct.
Ms. Rachel Bendayan: Could that be proposed in a separate motion?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, technically, he cannot do it.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, if I may, since we have already discussed eight motions from the Conservatives and we also have amendments—
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is not an amendment. It's another motion, Mr. Chair.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
You said, as chair of this committee, that the amendment was not in order. You rightly said it was a new motion. Obviously, by taking out five of the six lines of the motion, it was made into a new motion. So I would like to clarify the situation with respect to the comments and decisions you made.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, the clerk has received it.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have copies for everyone, Madam Clerk.
In the meantime, I will briefly talk about the motion.
This is a motion that will help us ensure that our committee's work—
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
The motion proposes the names of a number of witnesses we could invite to appear at upcoming meetings.
I think that everyone now has a copy of the text of the motion.
That the committee invite Peter Sloly, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, and representatives from the Ottawa Police Service to appear for one hour each; that the committee invite the Parliamentary Protective Service, the Sergeant at Arms for the House of Commons, and representatives from the Corporate Security Directorate from the Senate to appear on one panel for a period of two hours; and that these meetings take place as soon as possible subject to witnesses' availabilities.
Mr. Chair, I would really like those witnesses to appear for two, three, four or five hours, but time is limited. What is proposed is in the text of the motion. We could always invite those witnesses again as needed.
Now that we have reviewed the motions proposed by our colleagues, we have an opportunity to submit questions in writing. So I am submitting my motion to you for discussion and debate.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I am proposing a one-hour block for each witness.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, those witnesses would be part of the same panel.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
You are proposing two hours for Peter Sloly, two hours for Mayor Watson and two hours for both representatives.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have no problem with the idea in principle. It's just that we have a very limited number of meetings and a huge witness list, which we all contributed to. I'm mindful of using our time judiciously.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
Could I politely suggest 90 minutes as a compromise? I'm conscious of getting through stuff in a somewhat efficient manner.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
We might consider a day during a constituency week to get through some witnesses.
A voice: That's fine.
A voice: I can live with that.
Ms. Rachel Bendayan: I'm sorry. I'm doing this off the—
A voice: Sometimes that's the way to get things done.
A voice: It depends on when.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Motz proposed an amendment to my motion.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, we all agree.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23.
Committee members who are in the room and would like to speak should raise their hands. Those who are participating via Zoom should use the “Raise Hand” feature.
This is our first meeting of the season, and I'm delighted to see you again.
I'm also very happy to receive the hon. Jim Carr.
Without further ado, I will now give the floor to Mr. Carr.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
Hi, everybody.
I want to start by saying that it's a pleasure to appear in front of you because I have learned, especially over the last number of months, that parliamentary committees are the pulse, the heartbeat, of Parliament. I honour the work that you do.
You may think that it's odd to discuss the future of the Prairies. I'm going to start in 1901.
We have spent the last number of weeks mourning the loss of a monarch, but very few people will know that, on the day that Queen Victoria died, Winston Churchill was in Winnipeg. He looked out the window towards the west. He said, in correspondence with his mother that day in January of 1901, that someday this land would feed the world. Little did he know that it wouldn't just be what we grow. It wouldn't just be the food supply that's so essential for all of us, but that a bushel of canola might be as powerful as a barrel of oil.
It is this sense of promise, of discovery, of building an economy from the ground up, that has distinguished the contribution of prairie Canada to the national economy and the international demands that we are meeting all of the time.
It's a very special part of the country, not only for me because I was born and raised there, but for people who appreciate this relationship between natural resources that have fuelled economic development in the region and the intellectual firepower that's a part of it.
I've always thought that stereotypes were dangerous because they are barriers to progress. If you say the word Alberta or Saskatchewan, you may get a stereotype that comes to your mind, but I bet you it's not Michael Houghton. Michael Houghton is a Nobel Prize laureate who works at the University of Alberta. He was given the Nobel Prize for his discovery of vaccines and hepatitis C.
I would prefer, if people think of stereotypes in Alberta, that they think of Nobel laureates rather than whatever else they may have in their mind. It's a tribute to the diversity and the intellectual firepower of the prairie economy.
I won the lottery in appearing in front of you today. Now I know why, when somebody wins the lottery, there are all kinds of people who want to talk to them about the best use of their proceeds. When it became apparent that I was lucky enough to be able to appear in front of you, people had all kinds of ideas of how I should use this slot.
I did have an idea of my own, and it was to build on the work that we had done across the prairie through the lens of how we can align the interests of governments, the private sector, academic institutions and the working class in order to give ourselves a better chance to move this file ahead.
Look at the diversity of what we're dealing with here. It's the natural resource of the production of energy in all of its forms. It's agriculture and value-added agriculture. It's the life sciences. It's how we manage water across our region. The only thing that gets in our way, really, are the limits of our imagination and the barriers that we erect for ourselves.
That's what this bill is all about. It's to reduce those barriers by mandating, by requiring ministers of the federal government to report back to Parliament about the framework that they have constructed in order to better align those policies. This is not a jurisdictional grab to maybe pre-empt some questions. This is within the federal jurisdiction, the federal government reaching out to counterparts in the provinces, the municipalities, the unions and NGOs, because we all have a stake in writing the next chapter of prairie economic history.
I don't think the template in this bill is exclusively regional. I think, if it becomes Canadian law—and I hope it will—it will be an example for other regions of the country whose inhabitants feel as passionately about their region as I feel about mine. I see this as a promise—as a possibility of working not at loggerheads or in opposition, motivated either by ideology or special interest, but in alignment around the common interest. This bill, I think, is a modest expression of what is possible.
When I was first asked by people what I thought the influence of this bill might be, my answer was, “Somewhere between absolutely zero to changing the way we do business as a nation.” We'll see where the truth lies, but I'm betting it will be somewhere in between.
The first step is agreeing that this framework will have to be reported back to Parliament within a reasonable period of time. That framework will drive the future chapters we will write together as prairie folk and as Canadians. It says we're not going to leave partnerships to chance. We're not going to leave them to the ambitions of any one government, any level of government, or any one industry or union. Its aspiration is to align the interests of all of us.
It's not pie in the sky. It's pragmatic, because what we seek to do is create wealth. We spend a lot of time in our country talking about how we are going to distribute wealth. That is a primary function of the public sector and it's important that we have rigorous debates about it. Where is the wealth coming from? Who's creating the wealth? How do we create the conditions where that wealth can be created sustainably, with an eye on trends that will drive future public policy and investment decisions? That's what we seek to achieve.
I know we have most of an hour to engage in debate. I'm really looking forward to that, Mr. Chair. It's a chance for us to think together about the best way we can achieve this common aspiration.
With those few words of introduction, I truly welcome the conversation.
Thank you.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
That was a very eloquent presentation, as I expect from you, Mr. Carr. Thank you very much.
Without further ado, let's start this conversation with MP Michael Kram for six minutes.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I wouldn't say it's unpopular. I just haven't persuaded you yet, and I have 52 minutes to try. The framework will be constructed over 18 months, so there will be a lot more time to do this. I can't possibly explain why, in the initial stage, it didn't receive support from members of Parliament. I hope that, when it's examined and the potential is assessed and some of the details are fleshed out, there will be more support than that.
I could turn the question around and ask, “Well, why did it pass on second reading?” That's because there were a number of members of Parliament who believed it was in both the Prairies' interest and the national interest.
I'm going to try harder to persuade you that it's good for our region.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
The goal is not explicitly to build more pipelines in western Canada; it's to look ahead at the next generation of developing the energy sector in our region of the country. That's going to include sustainable development in the oil and gas industry. It's going to include hydrogen in Alberta. It's going to include biofuels across the region and all the traditional sources of alternative energy that are known or will be known to everybody. It doesn't constrain the possibility of moving in well-known directions or in directions that we now know through experience and following the flow of investment capital internationally. Consumers worldwide are demanding more sustainable energy development, and Canada is a part of that. Canada is actually on the cutting edge of it. Never, ever, underestimate the entrepreneurship and the capacity of traditional sectors to adapt, to adjust and to thrive. I'm sure we're going to witness that.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I'm not going to give Premier Moe advice on how to run his government. I want to reach out to Premier Moe. I have to admit that I'm sure if we try hard enough we will find alignment, because his interests are the same as ours—to create good jobs for his people, where those jobs can be found and where they can be generated, where the public environment will offer incentives for those jobs to be created, but just as there are those around this table who don't want the Government of Canada to creep jurisdictionally, I'm not going to creep jurisdictionally into Premier Moe's territory.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
No, but the committee will have to. If this becomes law, it won't be a suggestion; it will be mandated. Not only that, but they're going to have to report back to you and you're going to have a chance to ask those questions. It's clear what the goal is. The goal is that they will do exactly that and they will look for alignment.
Look, if there's no spirit of goodwill ultimately, a bill like this is not going to succeed. There has to be a sense that its direct objectives are honourable and in the interests of the people we represent, and those interests are rooted in the capacity of my kids and my grandkids to choose to stay in Manitoba, or, in your case, home. That, I think, is really at the heart of what we hope to accomplish here.
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
This bill does not encroach on their areas of jurisdiction, and they're free to do so and they should be encouraged to. It does, however, mandate that federal ministers seek alignment on those policy areas in which we can combine our efforts. There is no attempt to undermine, to encroach or to somehow cajole. It's an exercise in finding common ground. If someone says at the top end that they do not want to find common ground, that they want to be left to their own jurisdiction and that we should go home, that constrains the capacity of other jurisdictions or federal ministers to participate in what I hope to be a positive nation-building exercise.
Let's see where the framework goes, how it's developed, where the opposition lies and why, and seek to answer questions that are motivating people who may start here, but who, I hope, will end up in a different place.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much.
Ms. Lapointe will now have six minutes.
View Viviane Lapointe Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Viviane Lapointe Profile
2022-09-22 16:22
I'll be sharing my time today with my colleague MP Fillmore.
MP Carr, the rural and northern immigration program is a very successful program in northern Ontario. It helps our businesses with their workforce shortages and labour needs. It grew out of a very successful initiative in Atlantic Canada. In your opinion, would this model you're proposing be relevant to other parts of Canada?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
I'm glad you brought up immigration because it was actually my home province of Manitoba that initiated increases to the provincial nominee program. When we began our advocacy in 1999, Manitoba was taking in 500 provincial nominees a year. Now it's taking in more than 15,000. It fuelled the economic development of Manitoba. That model has been replicated across the country and is thought by many to be a model for the world.
It's an extraordinary example of how creative and ambitious immigration targets and a change in the way we administer the program can allow us to take full advantage of our economic potential, which was not the case in Manitoba. It was not the case in many parts of Atlantic Canada or in rural Canada.
I'm very glad you brought up that example.
View Viviane Lapointe Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Viviane Lapointe Profile
2022-09-22 16:24
There are many very good goals in that bill, but how do we ensure that the bill complements what's already happening in the Prairies to build a green economy?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
We do that by assessing where we are and where we want to be, and then by aligning the interests of everybody around the table to work together to get there.
The successes are fabulous. The story of the development of prairie Canada from so many perspectives is really a model for the world, I would say. We opened the door to the talent, the creativity and the entrepreneurship from every continent. We have the wisdom and the savvy to find a way to make those people who are so diverse feel at home. In the first place, it was agriculture that drove it and subsequently it was other industries.
If you look at the development of the demographic profile of prairie Canada, you will see a success story that should help inform us as we move forward to debate immigration policy, temporary foreign worker issues and how we relate to the rest of the world. This is an important role for us to play because we have to diversify our trading partners. We're still so dependent on our relationship with the United States. Because of our profile and because Saskatchewan—as an example—is by far the most diverse trading province in Canada, doing business with so many nations around the world, there are lessons there, too.
If you combine a progressive immigration policy with a trade policy that reaches out to those parts of the world where we have not been successful, you have a recipe for very exciting potential.
View Viviane Lapointe Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Viviane Lapointe Profile
2022-09-22 16:26
That's the end of my questions.
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2022-09-22 16:26
Thank you, Chair. I will take it up if there's still time.
Jim, it's wonderful to see you. Congratulations on a wonderful PMB. I've been happy to support it so far and I look forward to continuing to support it.
You will remember back to when our government tabled a motion declaring a climate emergency. I listened carefully as we debated that in the House to my prairie colleagues and I listened to all of the debate. We learned from that debate that even though, for many Canadians—even many corporations, including energy corporations—the existential threat is climate change, for a segment of the population, which is concentrated in the Prairies, the existential threat is loss of job, not being able to pay a mortgage or put food on the table. I learned a lot from listening to that.
Now you're here today to convince parliamentarians that there's a better, cleaner and greener way to transition. If your bill passes, government and Parliament will have to work with those residents to win them over and show them a better way.
I wonder if you have any advice for us in that eventuality. How can we bring the people for whom the existential threat is economic along with us in this transition?
View Jim Carr Profile
Lib. (MB)
It's by the force of argument and by the use of measurable statistics, which will be compelling to people who have open minds and an open hearts.
If they've made up their mind and if they're not interested in entertaining argument—that is to say that they dissent from their own position of “I don't know”.... This is a question for the ages: What do you do in a conversation if nobody wants to listen to you?
I happen to believe—I'm just built in a way that wants to believe—that most Canadians are open to reasonable argument and debate. If that assumption is wrong, then I wish all of us luck. I'm pretty certain that I'm not wrong. I have lots of evidence to think that people do change their minds. They change their minds when circumstances change. If they don't care about circumstance, then I don't think they have an open mind and I don't think they have an open heart.
I would remain optimistic based on that presumption of human nature, the Canadian national character and building on the success that we've already achieved together. I hope I'm right.
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2022-09-22 16:28
I think you are, Jim. Thank you.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Fillmore.
Mr. Lemire, you have six minutes.
Results: 1 - 60 of 41927 | Page: 1 of 699

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

For more data options, please see Open Data