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 22
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect, I would say that the committee simply does not have the authority to decide to hear from Mrs. Fortier today. Mr. Chair, you called this meeting pursuant to an order of the House of Commons for one simple reason, and that is to hear from Ben Chin. That is our mandate. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to appear in Ben Chin's place. Again, I respectfully submit to you that the committee does not have the authority to decide whether or not Mrs. Fortier can replace Mr. Chin. As such, I don't think she can.
As I pointed out last time, the job of the committee is to note the absence of the witness and report it to the House, because we are proceeding today pursuant to an order of the House. The House will decide what it wants to do. In my view, it should ask the recalcitrant witnesses to explain their absence today and on other occasions. Then it should decide what to do with them. I think the committee can only report to the House and ask that it take whatever action it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
I have shared a motion addressing all the appearances that were scheduled for March 29, March 31 and April 8. On March 29, Rick Theis was scheduled to appear; on March 31, Amitpal Singh; and today, April 8, Ben Chin. The motion notes the failure of these witnesses to appear, as well as the failure of the Prime Minister, who had the opportunity to replace them. The motion also notes that the committee never relieved the witnesses of their obligation to appear. It therefore calls upon the House to take such action as it deems appropriate. I move the adoption of this motion, which you have received and which applies to all the witnesses that we had scheduled.
I have sent you another motion with much the same purpose. It has to do with the due diligence reports on WE Charity, which were due by April 1 and were never produced. We have received documents that are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long; I have not counted them. I personally have done investment and due diligence work and I can tell you that the documents we received are documents that an accountant or a lawyer might request from a company or a person undergoing due diligence. However, this is not an audit report. A due diligence audit report should be one page or [Technical difficulty—Editor]. It should contain the auditor's findings about the investment and their recommendations. That's what a due diligence report is. We didn't receive one. So that's another obligation that has not been met.
I am therefore moving these two motions to note the failures to appear and to prepare reports, and to report them to the House.
I see no other reason to make this committee meeting longer, Mr. Chair. With all due respect, I think that's the extent of our mandate.
Thank you.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to repeat the same speech every day, but I made a proposal on Monday about a situation quite similar to the one we have today, and my opinion is still the same.
I don't want to make drama where there is none, but something pretty problematic is going on right now.
Basically, we know that since parliamentarians decided last summer to look into the WE scandal, government members have tried everything to prevent us from doing so. There has been filibustering at almost every committee, including the Standing Committee on Finance, which wanted to look into this, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Committee on Access to Information Privacy and Ethics.
There was filibustering everywhere, and parliamentarians were obstructed. When that wasn't enough, documents produced were redacted to such an extent that the clerk had to say that there were redactions that had nothing to do with last year's request by the Standing Committee on Finance. I'm talking about the famous 5,000 pages.
Then, Parliament was prorogued to dissolve the committees. When they were reformed and tried to continue their work, after Parliament reopened in late September, there was more filibustering, and now we have a new situation.
Last week, this committee tried to debate a motion to summon witnesses, because after hearing from the Kielburger brothers, among other things, we realized that there were inconsistencies and that we needed to hear from individuals to whom the Kielburger brothers had spoken or written to get to the bottom of this.
However, we saw filibustering again last week, and we weren't able to decide, in committee, to summon these people. On Thursday, our colleagues from the Conservative Party decided to use one of their opposition days to ask the House to order these individuals to appear before committees to answer questions from parliamentarians. The House debated all day, there were arguments for and against this request, but in the end, the House, rightly or wrongly, passed a motion ordering these people to appear before committees. An order of the House is a serious matter.
On Monday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons came to tell us that he had told his people not to appear before us. He ordered the witnesses not to obey the order of the House.
Yesterday, we received a letter from the Honourable Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance). I won't read it in its entirety, since you read it as I did, but at the end, she said:
Accordingly, Mr. Amitpal Singh has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Wednesday, March 31, 2021.
She is going down the same path as her colleague Mr. Rodriguez did on Monday. I think this is serious.
Often motions or resolutions that order the government to act are passed by the House and the government does not act, for various reasons. I would say that there is disobedience by omission. For example, I remember when we asked for the flag to be flown at half-mast. That wasn't done. There are many things that the government hasn't done or has delayed by dithering, despite resolutions of the House. However, we aren't talking about the same thing here. We aren't talking about disobedience by omission; we're talking about a clear notice, an order to oppose a decision of the House. That is defiance.
So far, two ministers have said and admitted that they were defying the House and that their authority was superior to that of the House. I think this is serious, not on a partisan level, because you know as well as I do that, in the Bloc Québécois, our first mandate is certainly not to assert the authority of the House of Commons, but the fact remains that democracy, for me, is a cardinal value.
I have always believed that Canada, the country in which we live and of which Quebec is still a member, was a democratic country where decisions were made democratically. I have always believed that a decision of the House has a certain value. I am quite surprised to see government ministers defying the House.
I'm not prepared this morning to say how the House should sanction them, but I think our first duty as a committee is to note the failure of the witness who was summoned by the House and to report it to the House. I think the House should then take up the matter and hear from these people as to why they didn't obey the order that was given to them. Then we'll see.
If I were one of the two ministers who had ordered their staff not to appear, I would be uncomfortable, even in front of my family. Democracy is a cherished value. There are countries where it doesn't exist. We're lucky to live in a democratic country where we can share and debate our ideas, whether we agree or not. This democracy has been challenged by two ministers so far. I confess that I'm very disappointed and almost tormented by this situation.
I'm making my proposal again, the one mentioned in the motion tabled on Monday. The debate was suspended while we heard from Minister Rodriguez.
I have another motion, and you should have received it by now. It's to the same effect, mutatis mutandis. I've changed the name and the date, since it isn't the same witness who is at fault. I move that the committee adopt this motion so that Amitpal Singh's absence from the committee this morning, despite the order that had been given, can be reported to the House, and that the committee leave it to the House to determine what measures should be taken when an individual refuses to comply with an order of the House.
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair.
With respect to this motion, it's incredibly troubling that we're in a place where the House passed a motion by a vote of 181 to 153, and in the composition of—
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I believe the motion we are debating is different from what we had in writing. Can it be circulated, please?
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to interrupt the witness here for a moment. I would like to put up a notice of motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and the potential loss of the Line 5 pipeline in northern and Indigenous communities, that the study take into account but not be limited to the impact on Indigenous businesses, jobs, economic prosperity, self-determination, and mutual benefit agreements as well as the efforts of the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the committee report its findings to the House.
I just wanted to get that on the record for a notice of motion. I hope to be discussing that at a future committee meeting.
I know this is something very pertinent for the first nations communities in my area. Many of them work in the oil patch and are very much concerned about their jobs. They've been in tenuous employment situations for the last five years, and now, with news around the Keystone XL pipeline and also the potential around Line 5, they're looking forward to having this committee do a study on that as well. I look forward to having future discussions at this committee.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I look forward to discussion at a future committee meeting.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I would like to move:
That the committee call on the federal government to launch, as early as possible, a public inquiry into Canada’s aircraft certification process and its role in certifying the Boeing 737 Max as well as Transport Canada’s actions following the Lion Air crash in 2018.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.
Respecting time, I'd like to go ahead and give notice of motion. I'm not going to move the motion, but read the notice, and we will have a translated copy sent out through the clerk to all members of committee.
The notice of motion reads:
That the committee invite the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development to appear before the committee to discuss the mandate of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, the role of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development within the office of the Auditor General, the budget of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, the number of permanent fulltime equivalent staff assigned to the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, the prioritization of Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development audits within the Office of the Auditor General workplan for 2021 and 2022, and that the committee report its finding back to the House.
You can feel free to continue to run the time. I don't want to take away from anybody else's time, so I'll go into my general question, which—
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into questions for our excellent witnesses, I have a couple of quick housekeeping thing. I want to give other committee members notice of the following motion:
That this Committee prepare a report on the situation in Hong Kong, to be tabled following the completion of hearings looking specifically at the situation in Hong Kong.
That's a notice of motion. I'm not moving it at this time. I also want to suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that in light of that notice of motion, and a motion that we previously adjourned debate on, that we consider scheduling 20 to 30 minutes to discuss these motions after the witnesses at the end of Monday's meeting. I'll put that out there for your consideration and the consideration of other members.
Now I'll go to my questions for the witnesses.
Thank you for your excellent testimony. It's important that we hear that Magnitsky sanctions are a recurring theme not only in these hearings on Hong Kong but really across the board. I really appreciated Mr. Rogers' clear statement that the Chinese regime does not respond to statements or rhetoric, but to pressure.
I want to also single out Mr. Kwan's comments on Nuctech. I think they're so important that we should take a look at what happened here from the government on this Nuctech issue. Given what we're finding out now, it looks like this is either historic stupidity, explicit corruption or maybe someone here getting caught in some kind of honey trap. It's just so bizarre that it's hard to explain any other way, and I think we really need to get to the bottom of that.
Thank you, Mr. Kwan, for your comments on that.
I want to drill further now into the immigration and lifeboat questions with Ms. Go and Mr. Rogers.
In the opposition, we've been calling on the government to have and to articulate a plan for helping Canadians who want to leave Hong Kong to be able to do so. I'm quite concerned that the Government of China could take action against Canadians living in Hong Kong. Canadians are well aware of the case of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. One of our witnesses at the last meeting referred to the possibility of “thousands of Michaels” being used against Canada—really the escalation of hostage diplomacy on a massive scale—if efforts are made by the Chinese government to prevent Canadian citizens, citizens of other countries, and human rights defenders who might want to claim asylum from being able to leave Hong Kong. I think we've already seen efforts by the Chinese government to make it more difficult for British nationals to leave in response to the schemes put forward by the British government.
Maybe, Mr. Rogers, I'll ask you first. What efforts are we seeing by the Chinese government to prevent foreign nationals from leaving, and what should Canada do to plan for that scenario and be prepared to ensure the security of our citizens?
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to give notice of a motion at this time.
It reads, “That, in relation to the motion passed on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 to ensure the privacy and security of this personal information of Canadians, the committee adopt the following procedures for the handling of these documents:
“That the documents not be emailed to Members, staff or anyone else;
“That for the consideration of the documents during in-camera meetings, numbered, paper copies be provided to committee members by the Clerk at the start of any meeting at which they will be considered, and that they be returned to the clerk at the end of the meeting;
“That no staff and no mobile or electronic devices be allowed for the duration of the in camera meeting;
“That the documents be held in the Clerk’s office, and that outside of in-camera committee meetings, Members may only view the documents in the Clerk’s office and that no mobile or electronic devices may be in the room when the documents are being reviewed.”
We have the same motion in French.
View Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Profile
BQ (QC)
Excellent.
I will read it out, because it's still an oral motion: “In view of the admissions of the Minister of Finance to having obtained remuneration from ‘WE Charity’ and to having placed himself in a conflict of interest, the committee requests his immediate resignation.”
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
The motion reads as follows:
That whereas the Minister of Finance has accepted $41,000 in illegal travel expenses, and that the Minister of Finance is in flagrant breach of multiple sections of the Conflict of Interest Act, including but not limited to sections 6, 11 and 21, in addition to prior violations, that the Standing Committee on Finance hereby call on the minister to immediately resign.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Cardinal.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a notice of motion right now. I was going to do that right at the beginning of my comments, but I'll do that right now. The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a comprehensive study of the Indian Act, an outdated colonial statute, and the Act’s contribution to systemic racism, women’s inequality, violence, injustice and poverty experienced by First Nations and that the scope of the study include but not be limited to discussing the abolition of the Indian Act and the fiduciary obligations of the Federal Crown to improve the living conditions of First Nations; that the witness list include Ministers and department officials, band councils, band members, individuals, and community groups; that the committee report its findings and recommendations of concrete steps the government can take to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Absolutely. I have an old friend I used to work with who heads up the local friendship centre. It's absolutely great for the youth, and trying to get the youth to that next step and to a great life.
I have to interrupt my question. I have a motion to table, Mr. Chair:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, adopt the following motion, that, in the light of COVID-19 pandemic and how it has negatively impacted on the governance of Indigenous communities, including the postponement of elections and gathering of traditional decision making bodies, that the committee call the Wet’suwet’en elected Chiefs to provide testimony on how the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected their ability to enter into open and transparent negotiations regarding land rights and title with the federal government.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, very revealing.
The email references an official UBC point of view:
I would recommend we have one meeting in which all players are present.
Yves—you should trigger that meeting sooner rather than later....?
You wrote back saying, “I just sent the general email triggering the message.”
Another question I asked of you is if professors on the China council are involved in commercial negotiations with Huawei. You said no. I have here an email you received from Paul Evans on on March 9. It reads as follows:
Meigan set up a very good session for me on Wednesday with six of her...applied science colleagues. Crisp and informed discussion about experiences in working with China, Huawei related matters in particular, and the changing environment for future collaborations.
Reconciling national security concerns and related risks with advancing research and science is a complicated issue that they are all thinking about. So far there has been no interaction with Ottawa on this but clearly an interest in doing so.
I've suggested a second meeting with the same or a slightly enlarged group or the smaller UBC group (four of five were with us) negotiating with HW now. Meigan made the case that this is an issue where UBC could play a national leadership role. She'll do some internal consultations. Gail has informed.
I had asked you as well if the China council played a direct role in university fundraising or in providing advice related to fundraising. You said not in many years.
On March 20, 2019, you sent an email to various colleagues called “Strategic follow-up action items UBC-China” in which one of the items is the presidential advisory council on China. About this advisory council, you said that Jack Austin, one of the co-chairs of the China council, remained very excited about this process and thought that it held the key to a higher quality relation of UBC with China, but also to fundraising related to China.
The minutes from the September 12, 2018, meeting of the China council say, “Community engagement and PACC: to complete the President's Advisory Council on China...to incorporate top...societal leaders (and future fundraisers), as this could have tremendous impact in terms of the university's reputation, networks, and fundraising.”
I asked if decisions about awarding honorary degrees were discussed at the council. You said no, but according to the agenda for January 18, 2019, UBC awarded an honorary degree to Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia.
I asked if CSIS had issued warnings about the risks of collaboration with Huawei. You said, not that you were aware of, but on January 22 of last year Paul Evans wrote to you and said, “CSIS has issued warnings already about the risks of research and other collaboration with Huawei in particular.”
Mr. Chair, I'd like to, in light of this, give notice of the following motion:
That the Committee undertake a study of no fewer than four meetings into the relationship between Canadian Universities and Chinese government-controlled entities, and that as part of that study the committee hear from the Co-Chairs of the UBC China Council, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.
This is a notice of motion. I'm not moving the motion, just providing the verbal notice of motion.
View Wayne Long Profile
Lib. (NB)
The next is regarding notices of motions. Before I read this, I'll add that this one is extremely important. I know we certainly had discussions about this in the last session.
I move:
That forty-eight (48) hours' notice, interpreted as two (2) nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved.
Results: 1 - 15 of 22 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data