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 7225
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order regarding the scheduling for this committee. I will say at the outset that I'm very disappointed by what we're seeing. This is an important issue, and I hope we can proceed in a collaborative way.
The committee held a meeting on July 15 and agreed to summer hearings. The committee wished to hear from ministers before July 22. That didn't happen. The committee met once on August 4. It has now been over a month since the committee last met.
In the context of this meeting, we received a notice for a three-hour meeting to hear from witnesses, according to a schedule. Members made plans, prepared questions and provided your office with rounds of questions to be asked, and you, by all indication, unilaterally changed that agenda and shortened the meeting with less than an hour to go prior to the beginning of the meeting. If you proceed with this plan, it will significantly limit our ability to engage with important experts in accordance with the notice that was provided to the committee.
We also requested that there be some time for committee business, so that we could discuss the committee's agenda. You have shortened the committee's agenda, but you have provided no additional opportunity for committee business to talk about the forthcoming agenda and to try to reach some kind of consensus. Of course, in cases on which consensus had been reached in the past, such as having summer hearings, that consensus wasn't honoured by your office.
It's very frustrating and disappointing to see a chair operating in the manner that you have with respect to the schedule, Mr. Chair. I am disappointed and frustrated. This is not what the committee saw in the past from Mr. Spengemann or Mr. Levitt, other chairs who were able to set aside their partisan affiliation and deal respectfully with all members regarding the agenda.
Can you provide an explanation for your conduct, Mr. Chair? Why have you not allowed the committee to meet for over a month? Why did you suddenly shorten this meeting with less than an hour's notice to members? Why are you behaving in such a fashion? Do you think this is an appropriate or respectful way for a chair to operate?
If you would consider appeals from the committee to go back to the agenda that was originally proposed, which was a three-hour meeting, we could hear for three hours from witnesses. Perhaps we could also set aside some time for committee business in the near future, so that we can agree on an agenda and move forward.
Thank you.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, on the point of order.... Maybe Mr. Bergeron can go first.
I would like to clarify my point of order, because I don't think it's been addressed, but Mr. Bergeron is welcome to go ahead of me.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, on the point of order, first of all it's been said a number of times that you conducted consultations with other members. I don't doubt that you conducted consultations with some other members, but I think it would be useful if you told the committee which members from which parties you consulted. I certainly know that no Conservative members were consulted about the last-minute change made to the schedule this morning, for example.
Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: I'm raising a point of order.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
May I raise my point of order, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order to raise. I hope you'll respect my right as a committee member to raise these points. I will be brief. Since we have a three-hour time slot available, I think we can certainly accommodate the concerns of Mr. Zuberi.
My comments, briefly, are these. Mr. Chair, you said you consulted with other members. Which members did you consult with before making a last-minute change to the schedule? You said there was a one-week network outage, but we have had six weeks since the July 15 meeting, and compared to your predecessor, you seem to be uniquely unable to schedule witnesses or to find times when they are available. I don't want to presume bad faith, but that is concerning. Previous chairs didn't, on sensitive subjects, suddenly find themselves unable to schedule times that worked for the witnesses.
Again, I want to ask: Would you set aside time at the end of this meeting for committee business, given that we have a three-hour time slot?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I think you've shown a lot of bad faith, Mr. Chair. I honestly do, respectfully.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Your first act as chair was to rule out of order a motion that your predecessor had ruled in order and that we were already debating.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is great to see the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, UCC, back after so long. I have a couple of questions about other matters related to Ukraine before we get to turbines.
To your knowledge, is there a fully operational Canadian embassy in Kyiv right now?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you very much. That's important information.
Canada has been behind our allies in imposing consequences on Russian diplomats. Are you satisfied with the approach that the Government of Canada has taken on this, and why has the government, in your view, not been more aggressive on this front?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
Is it fair to say you're disappointed with the lack of response from the government so far?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
With respect to the turbine issue, we've seen three different explanations from government officials on this. First they said it was about German energy security. That turned out not to be true. Then they said it was about calling Putin's bluff. That, of course, doesn't make any sense in light of new events, as the government continues to plan to export turbines in spite of the fact that gas has been cut off anyway.
We saw a third explanation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs in court filings in response to the Ukrainian World Congress. In that explanation, the government was essentially showing that this decision was about trying to protect jobs in Montreal, speaking about jobs at a Siemens facility that is in fact relatively close to Minister Joly's own riding. This raises questions about whether the government was trying to take into consideration constituency politics in granting a sanctions waiver.
What was your reaction to the information in those filings, that the minister was taking into consideration jobs close to home in the decision to grant this waiver?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. Thank you very much for that.
Related to questions of Siemens' relationship to the government and these considerations, we did a search of the lobby registry and found that on April 13 of this year, representatives from Siemens met with David Morrison, the deputy minister for international trade in Global Affairs Canada, and John Hannaford, another deputy minister.
Do you have any indication as to what Siemens was discussing when it was lobbying the government back in April, and how lobbying by Siemens might have played a role in this decision that is very much contrary to Ukraine's interest but might be in Siemens' own commercial interest?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Perhaps I'll make a comment for the benefit of this committee, that it would be useful to hear from Siemens at some point, if the chair is able to find time to schedule them.
Thank you.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Like all of my colleagues, I would like to thank the members from the UCC for being here today.
I'd also like to take a moment and acknowledge the generosity that they have shown with regard to their time throughout this entire period. I know that many of us request information from them and are informed by them on a very regular basis. Orest and Ihor, thank you very much for that.
I would be remiss as well if I didn't acknowledge the UCC-Alberta Provincial Council and what an amazing job it is doing in my province.
I want to start today with the waiver question; that's ultimately why we are here. Similar to my colleague, Mr. Bergeron, I just don't understand why at this point the government has not been willing to revoke that waiver.
When this first came up and we were first hearing that this was something the government was considering, similar to many of the people in this room, I wondered why on earth we would trust that Putin would do what he said; he's never done what he has said. He's clearly weaponizing energy and food; he's weaponizing all kinds of those things, so why would we put trust in this? He has made it very clear, and his government has made it clear, that they will not be shipping gas to Germany. I cannot get my head around why the government fails to revoke that waiver.
When Ambassador Kovaliv was in front of our committee, she talked about this being a “dangerous precedent”. I'd love to hear from both of you why you think this is a dangerous precedent and what examples you've seen of how this has proven to be a dangerous precedent.
Ihor, I think you mentioned that the Russians have asked for “further concessions”. Any more clarity you can give on that would be very welcome.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Knowing that this is an attempt to poke holes in the sanctions regime or the cohesiveness with our allies, which nobody wants to see, do you think that this waiver has impacted, and continues to impact, Canada's credibility around the world? If so, what are the implications of that?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I was also surprised at Minister Joly's not agreeing to look at that. This committee should be looking at that as we go forward.
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to extend a welcome to Mr. Michalchyshyn and Mr. Zakydalsky. Thank you for coming here today.
Allow me to reiterate our support for the people of Ukraine in their valiant fight against an aggressive and hostile invading army.
Canada should be doing all it can to assist the democratic and free Ukrainian people in upholding their sovereignty and their right to live as free people in their own country. In my opinion, this includes maintaining sanctions on all trade with Russia.
As recently as August 22, Canada's Prime Minister stated that Canada “will be there to support Ukraine and Ukrainian people with what they need for as long as it takes.” These are words in the air, without substance, after the government's decision in July to grant a two-year exemption to federal sanctions and allow a Canadian company to return repaired turbines from a Russian-German natural gas pipeline. This was a decision that Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, called “a manifestation of weakness”, and I agree. No sooner had the Canadian government capitulated than Russia constrained the supply of natural gas to Europe.
The narrative quickly changed to saying that we called Russia's bluff because we didn't want to be blamed for the shutdown of Russian energy delivery to Europe.
Mr. Michalchyshyn, is it your opinion that there was any bluff to call, or is this just another pivoting narrative from a government with diminishing relevance in international affairs?
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
Let's explore energy security and the notion of weaponizing energy, which one of my colleagues previously referred to.
In 2009, Ukraine underwent its own natural gas supply conflict with Russia. In that sense, Russia showed a clear resolve to weaponize its energy supply to Europe. In spite of this, many European countries ignored the obvious and doubled down on the supply of Russian gas. If Nord Stream 2 had been finalized, fully 80% of Germany's natural gas would have come from Russia.
Can you comment on the naïveté of European countries that are doubling down on energy supply from a hostile provider for the sake of relatively cheap energy, versus the obvious outcome of the energy insecurity that was going to ensue?
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
Point taken, Mr. Zakydalsky. Let me intervene. I have only so much time here. That's a point I also raised with the German ambassador a year and a half ago.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This whole conversation is around the sanctions regime. I have found it incredibly difficult to get information about the sanctions. It's the details of what's been seized and the details of the sanctions. It's not who has been sanctioned, but how much and what.
I would like to take a moment, if I could. Please bear with me to read into the record a motion that I brought forward on May 31, 2022:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee conduct a follow-up study to the 2017 FAAE Committee study on Canada's sanctions regime titled “A Coherent and Effective Approach to Canada's Sanctions Regimes: Sergei Magnitsky and Beyond”; that the Committee review the Government's implementation of the recommendations in the 2017 report; that the Committee review the need for new recommendations, if any, resulting from Canada's response to the situation in Ukraine and other situations since 2017; that the Committee hold no fewer than (4) four meetings; that the Committee report its findings to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.
I would like the subcommittee to have an opportunity to discuss this. I think we've heard from our witnesses from the UCC that our sanctions regime needs to be re-examined very carefully. We've heard that the waiver has fundamentally damaged our sanctions regime and fundamentally damaged the credibility of Canada. It is imperative that this committee undertake a study as soon as possible.
I will end at that point because I know I'm very close to my two minutes.
Orest and Ihor, I would like to thank you both very much for being here. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us again.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I don't believe Mr. Aboultaif is on it. Either I or Mr. Chong could take the round. I will defer to Mr. Chong if he wants to, but otherwise I'm happy to proceed.
I guess the limitation of a hybrid meeting is that we can't whisper to each other as we normally would.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I will proceed. That's excellent.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could one or both of you comment on the impact that this turbine decision has had on Canada-Ukraine relations?
President Zelenskyy chose to speak personally to this issue. I know from friends and contacts I have spoken to in Ukraine that there's a lot of disappointment. There's a sense of betrayal. There's a long history of close relations between Canada and Ukraine, but in this very dark time for Ukraine, what was the significance of this decision for Ukraine?
Also, maybe related to that, the government talks about standing with our allies. Germany and the U.S., our allies, have said this was okay. Ukraine is also supposed to be an ally, yet the government speaks of standing with our allies with no acknowledgement of the response to this decision from Ukraine.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Personally, I think the study that Ms. McPherson spoke about, a study on the effectiveness of our sanctions regime, would be very important and worthwhile in order to build on the work that we're doing in the context of this discussion.
As a follow-up to Mr. Bergeron's point, some of us took the position right at the beginning that this was a terrible decision. That was where we as the Conservative Party were at. I think there were others who were maybe a little bit more sympathetic to the government's decision initially, and then since more facts have become clear, since Gazprom hasn't taken the first turbine and Russia is seeking further concessions, more and more people are coming over to the point of view that surely even if the decision was justifiable in the first instance, there's no reason to continue the waiver now.
Have you had ongoing engagement with the government, even in the last couple of days, since the most recent announcements from the Kremlin? What is the government saying now? Are they saying the same things? Are they saying different things compared to what they were saying at the beginning?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
I'm assuming you would welcome the opportunity for further engagement with the minister. We would welcome the opportunity to have her back as some of these new revelations have come out. Are you seeking opportunities for further engagement with the minister to get clarity on what the government's position is now in light of the new information?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Further, following up on Mr. Zuberi's comments, one of the principal arguments for—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank our witnesses today. It's been very enlightening. Before I start I just want to take a moment. One of the biggest issues for me has been the efficacy, the transparency and the ability of Canadians to understand how our sanctions regime is working. I think that probably some of you saw that I brought forward a motion in the previous session, but I think it's important to note.
Mr. Kolga, you were one of the key witnesses for the 2017 study, but we also had another witness who testified for this committee. Vladimir Kara-Murza was one of the witnesses. He was arrested in Russia in April and he's facing 10 years. Today is his birthday. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge that he has testified for this committee and that he is in a very difficult place looking at 10 years in prison for criticizing the war in Ukraine. I am sorry, Mr. Kolga, and those who know Mr. Kara-Murza.
I would like to start with you, Mr. Kolga. You were a key witness in 2017. You have talked about how this particular waiver has harmed our sanctions regime. There were recommendations that came out of the study of the sanctions regime in 2017 that have not been acted upon. Can you talk a little bit about how we could strengthen our sanctions regime and how we should be making it more transparent, more accountable and easier to understand for Canadians?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you.
You talk about transparency and accountability. I've asked about it multiple times in the House of Commons and I've put in Order Paper questions through access to information, and I cannot get the answers I need. In fact, I've been told that because they can't give a pure or 100% accurate answer, they won't give me an answer at all.
We asked to have representatives from the CBSA and the RCMP attend this committee so that we could get a better understanding of that. I fully agree with you when you talk about the need for us to do that.
In terms of that review and the Magnitsky sanctions, are there other people who should be added to those lists? Is there more that should be done using that tool? We know that some are being used, but is there more that should be done using the Magnitsky tools?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you very much, Mr. Kolga.
Mr. Chair, I believe that's my time.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is really high quality testimony we're receiving from all three of you. Given your thoughtful and biting critique, I now find it no surprise that the Liberal chair made a last-minute change to the agenda that limits the time we have with you, though it is unfortunate.
Mr. Kolga, you mentioned the ability of committees to be able to nominate people for sanctions.
I want to note, for your information and for the record, that Bill C-281, tabled by my colleague, Philip Lawrence, the international human rights act, contains some of those provisions. We will be debating that bill in Parliament this fall. Hopefully it will be coming to us here at this committee soon.
It's been reported recently, as well, by CBC that the value of frozen sanctions in Canada has dropped in recent months to suggest the possibility that some people have been allowed to sell off assets.
Do you have any reflections or information about how it is that the value of frozen assets under sanction would somehow be dropping?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. It's something that maybe the committee should seek further information on.
This question is for all of the witnesses. The Canadian Press reported recently that the Government of Canada was considering the domestic economy, jobs and inflation in making their decision on granting the sanctions waiver. The fact that they were considering domestic economic factors was a big surprise, given that it was discordant with the explanations previously given. We know that the government was lobbied recently by Siemens, but we don't know on which subjects. It seems that the minister has waived sanctions on Russia, rejecting concerns raised by Ukraine, in part to protect the interests of a large company that operates fairly close to her riding.
I wonder what kind of precedent is set when the government is saying that they are granting an exemption like this not because of geopolitical factors but because of domestic economic factors.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
Are there any other...?
A voice: If I may, I'd like to—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I have two minutes and Mr. Bergeron had four?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
It would be all right with me if you miscalculated again; just a heads-up.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Ms. Heather McPherson: Thank you. I'll be very, very quick, then.
I believe all of our witnesses today spoke about the weaponization of energy, but we also have some deep concerns, of course, about the weaponization of food and the impacts that will have around the world; the weaponization of climate; and the weaponization of nuclear power. I am somebody who is very deeply afraid of what we're seeing happening in the nuclear plant in Ukraine. I'm deeply concerned about what we're hearing from the UN observers who are there.
I'm wondering if I could just very quickly ask all three of our witnesses—perhaps, Mr. Kolga, I can start with you—what Canada can be doing more to help with regard to the grain weaponization and with regard to other aspects like the weaponization of nuclear.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Kolga.
Would either of our guests from the chamber also be interested in answering that?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you.
Mr. Schmitt.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
That's an excellent place to end. Thank you very much.
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Schmitt, you talked about the energy delivery from Russia to Germany. Let's talk about fund flow and the choking back of natural gas delivery. There is one pool of natural gas delivery to foreign entities in the world, and it gets balanced back and forth.
The pricing of natural gas in Europe now is about 11 times higher than North American benchmark pricing. Russia can afford to cut back summarily its natural gas production and its supply to the world and still benefit economically and use that money to continue the war machine.
Do you have any comment on the algorithms they must be using in order to maximize their own fund flow here?
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
If I can interrupt, Mr. Schmitt, that's exactly the case.
The issue is that Canada, at the same point in time, is not supplying its energy to the world because we've been constrained in production to the point where we're actually getting negative numbers for our natural gas in North American delivery, versus the 11 times the U.S. benchmark that we were receiving.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Genuis, please.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair; thank you, Mr. McLean, and thank you to the witnesses again.
Just to avoid further shenanigans and delays, I think it's important to move the following motion. My motion is as follows:
That the committee meet in public within seven days of the adoption of this motion for a discussion of committee business related to the study of the export of Russian Gazprom turbines.
That motion has been moved; the clerk has it in both official languages and can distribute it to members.
In light of the fact that it's been a month since the committee met, in light of the last-minute changes we've seen to the agenda, and in light of some of the issues we've had, I think it is important that the committee provide clear direction to the chair, in the form of a discussion on committee business, that programs our path forward. That is why I am moving this motion. It's very reasonable that we would, within seven days, meet, do committee business, and be able to define an agenda so that we don't have some of the things that have happened from the chair's office happening again, and so that we can establish some clarity going forward.
That's the motion. It's been distributed. Thank you very much.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. Are you engaging in debate on my motion or...?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you for the clarification. I guess my motion to be debated—
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Certainly how it's being run under you, Mr. Chair, I'm not familiar with at all.
Thank you.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm wondering whether or not it would be appropriate to let our guests leave while the committee has this discussion. It seems that we asked them to come, they [Technical difficulty—Editor] their schedules and we've made them sit through longer testimony than we had originally planned for.
Perhaps the next step would be to allow them to depart and thank them very much for their testimony today.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
On the point of order, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we vote on the motion and then proceed to give the Liberals their round. I'm prepared to vote if others are.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we can allow this briefly, Sameer, on what day, or days, is your caucus retreat?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Do you mind just saying the day? That will help us move this forward.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm sorry. Is it the full day on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday that you're in meetings?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
We also have a caucus retreat...I had the floor, so I'll finish my comment.
We also have a caucus retreat in the next seven days. I think it would be good for the chair and the clerk, in scheduling this meeting, to take into consideration potential conflicts with caucus retreats. However, a seven-day window is a pretty wide window. We could meet on Friday; we could meet.... Someone could propose an amendment to move it to eight days or nine days, but I'm really sick of the delays. We were sitting on our hands for a full month.
I think this motion is very reasonable. We should work around caucus schedules, but I somehow highly doubt that any caucus is meeting solidly for the next seven days from dawn until dusk. We can probably find a window that works.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
No, it doesn't. It's a dilatory motion and we go to a vote, Mr. Chair, on Ms. Bendayan's motion to adjourn debate.
Thank you.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but just on a point of order, there's an amendment on the floor, but I don't quite understand the specific language of that amendment. Maybe there's a translation issue, but just which words are being removed and which words are being added? Could that be clarified?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
To save time, I suspect you'd find unanimous consent to deem the amendment and the motion adopted, rather than have us go through the votes again.
View George Chahal Profile
Lib. (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today, and the minister for taking time out of his schedule to do so as well. I hope he is feeling better and wish him a quick recovery.
I've been to a number of airports over the last few months, and some have been busy. Maybe I haven't had the same experiences as others. My experience has been great at all the airports I've been through.
I went through Toronto Pearson just last week. I was telling friends and family, as they thought I was going to be delayed, that I was through the lineups and security in under five minutes. I was really impressed with the great work that officials were doing there at security helping to process travellers through. My experience was great, quick and efficient.
I know other airports across the country have had challenges. My travels mostly go through the Calgary airport and I've never had to wait very long. As there are some particular problems at some of our major airports, how have the Calgary and Edmonton airports been doing when it comes to traffic and passenger movement?
Mr. Keenan, maybe you would like to answer this.
View George Chahal Profile
Lib. (AB)
Thank you for that.
Maybe I'll jump to the CBSA and Mr. Vinette for comment. We've had this conversation, but please add to what Mr. Keenan has just stated. A lot of the challenges I've been hearing are about staffing shortages at the U.S. customs and border security, on that end. Can you tell me and the committee what you've observed and how that's affecting operations at our airports?
View George Chahal Profile
Lib. (AB)
Thank you for clarifying that. I think that's helpful for everybody listening today, as many of those challenges are in working with our neighbours in clearance and pre-clearance when going to the U.S.
For the next question, I want to go to Ms. Lutfallah from PHAC.
My question is about masking. Does the rationale for masking still apply? Could you provide some comments on that? We've seen over the last number of years a conversation on masking. We saw, early on in Alberta, a lack of action by many prominent Conservatives on the issue of implementing masking, and cities taking it into their own hands to do so to protect their citizens.
I want to know, from a public health perspective, the rationale for requiring masking. Does it still apply?
View George Chahal Profile
Lib. (AB)
Do you still believe that it protects folks from transmission—
View George Chahal Profile
Lib. (AB)
—and that we should continue having masking as a protection for folks who are travelling?
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Earlier today in your testimony, you stated that you didn't see any problem with Chief Superintendent Leather releasing information about the April 28 call because that was already in the public domain. Is that correct?
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
You also said you were not aware of the April 22 call that Chief Superintendent Leather had with Commissioner Lucki until he spoke about it at the inquiry. Is that correct?
Results: 1 - 60 of 7225 | Page: 1 of 121

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

For more data options, please see Open Data