Interventions in Committee
For assistance, please contact us
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-08-21 13:31
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank you and all members of this committee for giving independent MPs an opportunity to participate in today's meeting.
One of the things I've really appreciated about being an independent MP is the opportunity to take a more dispassionate look at the issues. That's what I've tried to do in all the committee hearings on SNC-Lavalin.
I'd like to say a few words about my reading of the Ethics Commissioner's report and some of the topics that I think might be worth pursuing if this committee decides to hear from the Ethics Commissioner and perhaps other witnesses.
The commissioner's key conclusion is that there was a violation of section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which says that public office holders should not:
seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
I don't think anyone is alleging that the Prime Minister sought to further the private interests of his family, his friends or himself. I also don't think there's any doubt that many, if not most, public policy decisions will either further or detract from the private interests of various companies and individuals. The key conclusion from the Ethics Commissioner is that the Prime Minister improperly tried to further another person's private interests.
That finding hinges critically on an interpretation of what is “improper”. I think it would be well worth this committee's time to dig into that with the Ethics Commissioner. We've heard a lot about findings of fact but really this conclusion comes down to an interpretation of one word in the Conflict of Interest Act, which is something that I think could be open to challenge and certainly could be open to further exploration.
It's a little bit unclear to me whether the Ethics Commissioner believes the Prime Minister is guilty of any kind of conflict of interest in the classic definition of that term. It does seem clear that the Ethics Commissioner believes that the Prime Minister is guilty of improperly furthering another person's private interests but there's already been some debate about how that language should be interpreted and what's improper. I would suggest that as an appropriate focus for this committee's work.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-08-21 15:12
Thanks very much.
Since we seem to have entered a bit of a broader discussion of the SNC-Lavalin case, I just want to make the point that I think it would have been far preferable had there been a more robust investigation and prosecution of the specific executives involved in alleged wrongdoing, rather than being left in this scenario of prosecuting the company as a whole, which inevitably will have negative consequences for people who had no involvement at all in the wrongdoing.
Whether or not members of the committee believe the figure of 9,000 jobs, I don't think anyone would dispute that going after the company as a whole is going to have negative consequences for a lot of people who are totally blameless in this thing. I do think one of the key take-aways from the SNC-Lavalin controversy is that we should have much more effective prosecution of the individual corporate executives who are involved in wrongdoing, rather than relying on the legal fiction of corporate personhood to prosecute whole enterprises.
Thank you.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-07-30 13:33
Mr. Chair, I'd like to begin by thanking you and all members of the committee for enabling me to participate in today's meeting. The reason I want to participate is that China's market has been closed to Canadian canola seed. Notwithstanding the fact that the wheat sheaf continues to be Saskatchewan's provincial symbol, wheat has been surpassed by canola as our most important crop and China has emerged as the most important customer for our canola exports.
My appeal to the committee would be that, to the extent that it decides to undertake a study of Canada-China diplomatic relations, the study not simply focus on the inner workings of our foreign service, but rather try to focus on the practical consequences of that diplomatic relationship for prairie farmers and other Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I think what we need to keep in mind at today's meeting is, first and foremost, the Canadians being held hostage in China, but also the prairie farmers whose livelihoods are being held hostage to this unrelated diplomatic tiff.
Thanks very much.
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I would like to start in the future and then work back to the present, so I'm going to ask you this. I think Ms. Michels mentioned that the last 13 years have seen a decline in religious freedom. Where will the hot spots be over the next two years?
I'll ask each of you, and if your answer is different from hers, then you can just add to that.
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
Does anyone else have a comment they'd like to make?
Mr. Brobbel, you look like you're jumping on the mat.
Go ahead, Ms. Kuo.
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
Can I interrupt you? They're going to take away my mike here pretty quickly, and I'd like you to comment on the social credit card, the ID card that is being required, and the impact that will have on the Christian community. I understand that it's tied to your activities, the choices you make, the comments you make online and those kinds of things. Can you address how that will impact the Christians in China?
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
I think the intent is to have it in place by the end of 2020 across the nations.
I think my time is probably up.
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
Ms. Stangl, you mentioned the social media issue a little earlier, and I think Ms. Hardcastle brought that up as well. I'd like to talk to you about that, because I'm wondering if there's a way that this can be used well. When people have a video of others or themselves beating somebody down, isn't that something we can use to name and shame—I don't know if you want call it that—or to raise the issue and to begin to profile it? Is there anybody who's doing that effectively? Should we be trying to do that?
I would ask Ms. Kuo to respond to that, too, as a journalist. Is there a way in which we can use these kinds of social media contacts, the videos and those kinds of things, to actually highlight the issue and to name and shame—if you want to call it that—the Indian government into doing something on these...? Can that be done effectively?
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
Ms. Kuo, do you have a reaction to that as a journalist?
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
I understand that Ms. Hardcastle's making a motion, but we haven't heard this before so I think we will defer on it for now.
I wanted to have the floor just to thank people. Since 2010, I've been focused on some of the freedom issues around speech and belief and religious freedom. Starting in 2012-13, I was on the foreign affairs committee for a couple of years, and then since 2015 I've been able to be here to work on the projects we've worked on. I'm not coming back, so this is my last chance, I guess, to do that.
I want to thank the staff who have served us so well. There are our clerks and our analysts. We've gotten to be friends over the years and have done some travelling together. There are also the folks who work in the translation booth and the people who have had to put up with our coming in here at the end of one meeting and have then been expected to set up instantaneously for us. They've done so well on that. I want to just thank those people who have set up for their service.
I also want to thank my colleagues. We've had a good run here, and it's good that we can have the kind of discussion that Ms. Hardcastle is speaking about. I want to recognize that.
I also want to say that I was disappointed that this was not on TV. I know yesterday we made the decision given that there were challenges to it, but as I approached the whip's staff—not only ours but also those of some of the other parties—and tech staff, I was getting contradictory messages from a number of them. I think on issues like this one that are this important, and even for two hours on a subject, we should be trying to televise those. I'm not going to get into any more detail than that, so I will just leave it at that.
I want to thank you for your time and for the work that we have put together. I think we have made a difference. Even today, I think this is probably some of the most important work that's been done on the Hill today. We need to recognize that for what it is.
Thank you.
A voice: Hear, hear!
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.
I'm going to start by saying that the Conservatives are going to support this deal. We've already indicated that. We worked with the Liberals all the way through this and we've had our ups and downs, but we still have lots of concerns. We're still hearing a lot from industries within Canada about concerns that are coming up.
I'll use the example of fabricated steel. They're looking at tariffs coming on August 1, until USTR will decide, and then we'll see what that looks like. We still have no resolution on softwood lumber; that was not addressed in NAFTA. We still have buy American provisions sitting there in the background, which are going to have implications for our industries.
How do you guys square that? I know you want stability and bankability, but in the same breath, are you really getting that in this deal?
I'll start off with you, Brian, and then go to Mathew.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
What concerns me, like fabricated steel, the government's been preaching about how it got rid of the tariffs and everybody thinks they're all gone, but what they've really been telling us is that these guys have been trying to meet with this government to address this. They've been down in the U.S. a substantial number of times, and there's no response. Nobody's mentioning it, and nobody's highlighting it. Everybody's closing their eyes, plugging their ears, saying, “We'll get through this and then we'll deal with that later.”
I also have to deal with the fact of the tweets. I almost think EDC needs to offer insurance for tweets because of the unpredictability and instability those create. How do you take that out of the marketplace? Maybe that's an option they should look at.
Dan, you talked about the vintners and the excise tax. How many more times do you have to say that? This is something we heard right before the budget came into implementation, and we've heard it year after year. It's nice to see B.C. making movement on the grocery stores, because that was a big issue. I think we would have lost at WTO, so it needed to move forward on that.
What else do you think we need to do to get this government to understand? Maybe a new government will actually understand that better. What else can be done there? Is there compensation coming if you should lose that WTO case because it didn't react accordingly?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
Okay. I'm going to stop you right there just so I can ask Roger one question.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
I have 20 seconds.
Roger, what did they offer you for compensation, in light of the fact that you are one of the losers in this deal? You are giving up market access that you normally have. What is there for the losers, the people who are not getting or maybe are more a victim of a deal like this?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
There was nothing pre-negotiated, then.
Mr. Roger Pelissero: Not really, no.
Mr. Randy Hoback: It's election year. You should be good.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:47
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here and for attending by video conference.
Mr. Volpe, you talked about wanting to have this ratified right away. I just want some clarification. When you say “right away”, do you mean in sync with the U.S., or do you want us to go ahead of the U.S. in the ratification process?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:47
I just want clarification.
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:48
Will it change anything? I don't know, but I want to see it for sure.
Ms. Citeau, is that the same interpretation you have, that you want to see it done now, and we'll take whatever we get, or do you want to see it move along with the U.S.?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:48
Yes. They just want to see it done at the end of the day, once everybody agrees, and I agree with that.
When you look at the agreement, and when you look at the beef producers and grain producers in that scenario, do you see any real change in market access? Do you see any real change in the supply chains and how they're going to operate? Do you see any harmonization when it comes to regulatory requirements for new medications and standard stuff like that? Is there anything there you'd identify that has been an improvement compared to what we had before?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:49
Do you want me to ask them that?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:49
Okay. I appreciate that.
Mr. Adams, you talked about global automakers. Canada has lots of market access around the world. We have a labour force second to none. It's educated. It's there. What is preventing more of the global auto players from relocating in Canada? You could do a platform here and supply anywhere in the world. Why are we not seeing that investment happening here? Why is there hesitance? What's the issue?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:51
Mr. Volpe, I'll go to your side of things. You talked about three facilities on the OEM side. I look at it differently. The U.S. is not going to get any more market access. I don't think they are going to do any more trade agreements under this administration. I just don't think it's going to happen. But Canada already has them, so why haven't we leveraged that fact? We could say, “You know what? You can have a facility in the U.S. take care of the domestic market. I get it. But you could have another facility two hours north, and you could export all around the world from that facility.”
Why haven't we leveraged that? What is the thing that's holding them back? Is it our competitiveness? Is it the taxation? Is it the unionization? What are the issues that are keeping them from coming up north?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 10:53
[Inaudible—Editor] and rationalized their domestic production to one facility in the U.S., and then they went to Asia. Why didn't we grab that second facility and say that they can still export to Asia, and they're only three hours away?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 11:53
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
Chief Bellegarde, I'm going to start off with you.
You talked about how you'd like to see an amendment put forward as we go through this. Let's flesh that out a little bit as to what you're looking for in that amendment and how it would act. You say you don't want to reopen it, and I think we all agree with that, but how would an amendment actually impact the implications?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 11:54
Okay. I appreciate that.
You also talked about economic activity. I agree with you. I think we need to look at the trade missions, the whole.... I'll take a step back. We have this issue in Canada where we do an agreement, and then we go with the rest of the people back to Canada and we say, “Okay, the agreement is done”, but nothing happens. Chrétien did the team Canada missions once in a while and I think they worked fairly well. I'm not sure if that's the right approach, but how do we ensure that first nations get a chance to participate in this? What are the things we can do proactively to lay the groundwork to make sure that happens?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 11:56
How do we identify the appropriate people in, as you said, softwood lumber in northern B.C.? How does a government find the appropriate people to tap in first nations?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 11:56
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Masswohl, on the beef side, and Mr. Lowe, I agree with you; it looks like it's good. I just want to flesh out a little bit of the regulatory side, the harmonization side of medications, treatments and stuff like that.
Do you see this actually being improved under this agreement? Did we make some headway to get some harmonization in some of those areas?
View Randy Hoback Profile
CPC (SK)
View Randy Hoback Profile
2019-06-18 11:57
There's one other area I wanted to ask you about, and I asked the auto manufacturers the same thing.
With the trade agreements that we have with TPP and CETA and things like that—well, maybe not so much CETA for the beef sector, but TPP—do you see a historical change in the flow? It used to be that cows were born in Canada, maybe background in Canada, and were finished off in the U.S. Do you see now that we have market access coming out of Canada that might reverse that, and you would see more of the finishing done in Canada, as well as more of the packing and distribution out of Canada?
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
In the spirit of brevity and efficiency, I think I will forgo the opportunity to put a 10-minute statement on the record and just speak informally for a couple of minutes about Bill C-98. Evan Travers and Jacques Talbot from Public Safety Canada are with me and can help to go into the intricacies of the legislation and then respond to any questions you may have. They may also be able to assist if any issues arise when you're hearing from other witnesses, in terms of further information about the meaning or the purpose of the legislation.
Colleagues will know that Bill C-98 is intended to fill the last major gap in the architecture that exists for overseeing, reviewing and monitoring the activities of some of our major public safety and national security agencies. This is a gap that has existed for the better part of 18 years.
The problem arose in the aftermath of 9/11, when there was a significant readjustment around the world in how security agencies would operate. In the Canadian context at that time, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency was divided, with the customs part joining the public safety department and ultimately evolving into CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency. That left CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, on its own.
In the reconfiguration of responsibilities following 9/11, many interest groups, stakeholders and public policy observers noted that CBSA, as it emerged, did not have a specific review body assigned to it to perform the watchdog function that SIRC was providing with respect to CSIS or the commissioner's office was providing with respect to the Communications Security Establishment.
The Senate came forward with a proposal, if members will remember, to fix that problem. Senator Willie Moore introduced Bill S-205, which was an inspector general kind of model for filling the gap with respect to oversight of CBSA. While Senator Moore was coming forward with his proposal, we were moving on the House side with NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, by virtue of Bill C-22, and the new National Security and Intelligence Review Agency which is the subject of Bill C-59.
We tried to accommodate Senator Moore's concept in the new context of NSICOP and NSIRA, but it was just too complicated to sort that out that we decided it would not be possible to salvage Senator Moore's proposal and convert it into a workable model. What we arrived at instead is Bill C-98.
Under NSICOP and NSIRA, the national security functions of CBSA are already covered. What's left is the non-security part of the activities of CBSA. When, for example, a person comes to the border, has an awkward or difficult or unpleasant experience, whom do they go to with a complaint? They can complain to CBSA itself, and CBSA investigates all of that and replies, but the expert opinion is that in addition to what CBSA may do as a matter of internal good policy, there needs to be an independent review mechanism for the non-security dimensions of CBSA's work. The security side is covered by NSICOP, which is the committee of parliamentarians, and NSIRA, the new security agency under Bill C-59, but the other functions of CBSA are not covered, so how do you create a review body to cover that?
We examined two alternatives. One was to create a brand new stand-alone creature with those responsibilities; otherwise, was there an agency already within the Government of Canada, a review body, that had the capacity to perform that function? We settled on CRCC, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which performs that exact function for the RCMP.
What is proposed in the legislation is a revamping of the CRCC to expand its jurisdiction to cover the RCMP and CBSA and to increase its capacity and its resources to be able to do that job. The legislation would make sure that there is a chair and a vice-chair of the new agency, which would be called the public complaints and review commission. It would deal with both the RCMP and the CBSA, but it would have a chair and a vice-chair. They would assume responsibilities, one for the RCMP and one for CBSA, to make sure that both agencies were getting top-flight attention—that we weren't robbing Peter to pay Paul and that everybody would be receiving the appropriate attention in the new structure. Our analysis showed that we could move faster and more expeditiously and more efficiently if we reconfigured CRCC instead of building a new agency from the ground up.
That is the legislation you have before you. The commission will be able to receive public complaints. It will be able to initiate investigations if it deems that course to be appropriate. The minister would be able to ask the agency to investigate or examine something if the minister felt an inquiry was necessary. Bill C-98 is the legislative framework that will put that all together.
That's the purpose of the bill, and I am very grateful for the willingness of the committee at this stage in our parliamentary life to look at this question in a very efficient manner. Thank you.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
I think, Ms. Dabrusin, it's simply a product of the large flow of public safety business and activity that we have had to deal with. I added it up a couple of days ago. We have asked this Parliament to address at least 13 major pieces of legislation, which has kept this committee, as well as your counterparts in the Senate, particularly busy.
As you will know from my previous answers, I have wanted to get on with this legislation. It's part of the matrix that is absolutely required to complete the picture. It's here now. It's a pretty simple and straightforward piece of legislation. I don't think it involves any legal intricacies that make it too complex.
If we had had a slot on the public policy agenda earlier, we would have used it, but when I look at the list of what we've had to bring forward—13 major pieces of legislation—it is one that I hope is going to get to the finish line, but along the way, it was giving way to things like Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-83, Bill C-59 and Bill C-93. There's a lot to do.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
The funding is provided for. It will be coming through the estimates in due course. We're picking up the base funding that's available to the CRCC, and then, as the responsibilities for CBSA get added and the CRCC transforms into—I have to get the acronyms right—the PCRC, the public complaints and review commission, the necessary money will be added to add the required staff and operational capacity.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
It's simply because the expertise required on both sides is quite similar. It's not identical, granted, but it is quite similar. There is a foundation piece already in place with the CRCC. There are expertise and capacity that already exist, and the analysis that was done by officials and by Treasury Board and others led to the conclusion that we could move faster and we could move more cost effectively if we built on the existing structure and expanded it, rather than start a whole new agency from scratch.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
If an individual thought they had been mistreated in some way at the border, or if their privacy rights had been violated, or if a border officer conducted themselves in a manner that the traveller found to be intrusive or offensive, they would have now, or as soon as the legislation is passed, the ability to file an independent complaint with the new agency. The agency would investigate and offer their conclusions as to whether the procedure at the border had been appropriate or not.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
The agency is going to be set up in such a way that wherever the person, the traveller, goes with their complaint...they may complain directly to the CBSA, not knowing there is a separate agency, or they may complain to the separate agency, or they may take it to NSIRA, the national security agency. If it's a grey area, the three possibilities—CBSA itself, the public complaints and review commission or NSIRA—will make sure that it lands in the right agency that has jurisdiction to hear it. There may be some jurisprudence that has to develop, informal jurisprudence, at the administrative level about what constitutes a national security complaint or question versus simple objectionable behaviour.
That will take time, but we will make sure that no complaint ends up in the wrong place. Wherever you go with your complaint, the agencies will ensure that it lands on the right desk and gets heard by the right authority.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Are you referring to the one that was referred to in question period today?
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
That is an issue that the employment department is examining. The funding involved was through the jobs fund and, as I understood the answer in the House today, the minister is asking her officials to investigate to ensure that whatever the decision-making process was with respect to that funding, it was fully and properly conducted. The matter is in fact being investigated.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Certainly, the expanded agency will have more work to do. At the moment, the CRCC looks exclusively at issues related to the RCMP. Under the new configuration, the review agency will examine both the RCMP and the CBSA. Presently—
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
The CRCC I believe will be available to you later this afternoon—
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Okay.
Hon. Ralph Goodale: —and they will be able to explain their workload, but on your basic point, Monsieur Paul-Hus, clearly the new agency is going to have more work to do. Therefore, it will need more resources, but we will be more cost-effective in applying those resources if we build on the platform the CRCC already has rather than building a brand new stand-alone agency for CBSA.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
That's a question that may fall a bit in the grey area between a complaint about the behaviour of an officer, such as “was I treated roughly or rudely”, compared to “was I put out of the country for good and valid reasons”. If you have a dispute about the reason for which you are being removed from the country, there are legal appeal mechanisms available to you to contest the rationale for it.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
No. The decision on removal or not, depending on which section of the act you're dealing with, is a decision made by either the Minister of Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety. It's not an administrative decision.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
I'll ask Mr. Travers, who assisted with the policy preparation and the drafting, to comment on that.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
The policy decision, Mr. Paul-Hus, was clearly made by the government based on all of the public representations that had been received that this was a gap that needed to be filled.
In terms of the structure or the method of filling the gap, we settled on that in the discussions between the public safety department, the CBSA and the RCMP. Once that policy decision was made and the legislation was in the public domain, the CBSA, as I understand it, talked further with their union.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Well, as I said, Monsieur Dubé, we have had an enormous volume of work to get through, as has this committee, as has Parliament, generally. The work program has advanced as rapidly as we could make it. It takes time and effort to put it all together. I'm glad we're at this stage, and I hope the parliamentary machinery will work well enough this week that we can get it across the finish line.
It has been a very significant agenda, when you consider there has been Bill C-7, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-37, Bill C-46, Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-59, Bill C-97, Bill C-83, Bill C-93 and Bill C-98. It's a big agenda and we have to get it all through the same relatively small parliamentary funnel.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
There is no internal resistance at all. In fact, the organization, CBSA, recognizes that this is a gap in the architecture and that it needs to be filled.
Part of it was filled by Bill C-22 with the committee of parliamentarians, as far as national security is concerned. Part of it was filled by Bill C-59 and the creation of the new NSIRA, again with respect to national security.
This legislation fills in the last piece.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Monsieur Dubé, the issue was thoroughly debated within the government department and within CBSA. It's up to CBSA to have that interface with their employees. They conducted those conversations at what they considered to be the appropriate time.
The point is that the legislation is now ready to go. You'll have the opportunity to examine it in detail to ensure, through the democratic process in Parliament, that it's properly addressing the needs of the workers.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
That would be the goal, Mr. Dubé. We're obviously working on the development of an expanded agency. We may run into administrative issues that we hadn't anticipated, but the objective is to get this in place as quickly as possible. The mechanism we're choosing will let us move more quickly than we could if we were creating an agency from the ground up.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Yes, Monsieur Picard.
Do you see a problem with that?
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
The whole objective, Monsieur Picard, is to have fairness both ways. When someone is travelling, they deserve to expect an efficient professional experience at the border. The public servants who are administering border services should also expect to be able to function in a safe and respectful work environment. It works both ways.
I suspect that once a certain file of complaints has been received and heard, we'll be developing a pool of experience and expertise that will improve the border experience both ways.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
I'll ask either Mr. Travers or Mr. Talbot to comment on the ultimate authority, but in response to your last question, Mr. Picard, I'd refer to proposed subsection 32(2) in the act, which deals with how you handle trivial, frivolous or vexatious complaints or complaints made in bad faith, which is, I think, what you are concerned about.
Mr. Talbot or Mr. Travers, can you comment on the ultimate decision-making authority if there's an argument between the review body and the agency?
Results: 1 - 60 of 13228 | Page: 1 of 221

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|