Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 3724
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
I just want to make a note for the record. The committee has chosen, the majority in opposition, not to appeal the ruling of the chair because of the fact that it's not within the context of the bill or within the objective of the bill in terms of the definition, yet appealed the decision of the chair on a matter that was fundamental to this bill that would make it a less-than-national national housing policy. And I think that's regrettable.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
If there is a ruling to be made, your option is to appeal. You did previously on a more fundamental issue, you didn't on this one, and that's your choice. There won't be any consent to change that.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
We tried for about an hour to reach a bunch of your colleagues when you were away last week to say that the Speaker's ruling shouldn't have been appealed, because fundamentally you couldn't do what they intended to do and have this bill go through, and it didn't. So there's no point in prolonging--
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Given that there was a challenge to the chair's ruling, there's a possibility it will be taken to a further level. Should this committee not wait to pass the bill until a definitive decision is made on that?
In light of the fact that there was great debate about the basis upon which the chair was overruled--which I found to be groundless, with no premise under it--I wonder whether the members might consider unanimous consent to hold the bill back until we have a determination from a higher level that we have some reference to common sense and logic.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as an actuary you deal with the numbers--
A voice: I know. They understand the procedures.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Let me have my point of order, Mr. Savage, and then you can speak your piece.
The point of order is that I think the question is not relevant to why we have the actuary here. It was so the committee could talk about specific costs, numbers, participants, and how he arrived at his numbers, but not about government policy, the government decision, or what process can be taken in terms of passing it or not passing it through the House in this session.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Just for the record, I don't think Mr. Lessard reads this quite right. I don't think because he says it's so it makes it so. And I take objection to his saying that we don't treat this witness with respect, because we absolutely do and we have respect for him, which means we're entitled to question him as well.
I don't agree with him, and I don't accept that on a matter of record.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you for appearing on what I would call the Michael Savage motion or amendment.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
This business of being an actuary is somewhat complicated. A lot of it depends on the assumptions you make. Is that true? If you make a different assumption, you'll get a different outcome.
You're shaking your head.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
You're going to have to say yes or no.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes, assumptions are very important.
Before I get into the actuarial portion, I understand you have some problems with the bill itself. One was the voluntary nature of the system. That's not an actuarial matter; that's a policy matter. Would you agree?
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes, it will have an impact. Whether you commit people for life once they join a program is another policy decision, is it not?
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes, and it'll have an impact on the cost.
Why you have to wait 12 months for coverage is also policy issue.
View Ed Komarnicki Profile
CPC (SK)
When you were here the week before, I gather you had put some figures together that were distributed to our committee. In that projection, you said the premium rate that Quebeckers should pay under Bill C-56 for sickness benefits should be 0.41% or 41¢. You said the other premium would be excessively high. That was based on a premise, an assumption, was it not?
Results: 1 - 15 of 3724 | Page: 1 of 249

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

For more data options, please see Open Data