Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 12099
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm happy if you just want to call the vote, but perhaps I should introduce it.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for allowing me to sit in for my colleague, Mr. Garrison. I'll do my best here.
NDP-1 is an amendment that Bill C-9, in clause 12, be amended by replacing the line 13 on page 6 with the following:
alleges sexual harassment or that alleges discrimination—or improper conduct that is substantially similar to discrimination—
I believe this was based on a concern brought to the committee by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which appeared before you as a witness during the consideration of Bill C-9.
The goal here, if I understand it correctly, is to avoid complaints being summarily dismissed at the screening stage. It's to ensure that complaints are heard and investigated through that first stage, to increase public confidence in the process. I think that's a summary of why that amendment was brought forward.
Thank you.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I believe the intention was to avoid an overly prescriptive definition at the very first stage, so that the preliminary investigation could then gain greater clarity in terms of whether it indeed fit the more specific legal definitions that counsel has indicated.
The concern is if there's a case where it's unclear if it meets the specific definition, that the bill should err on the side of moving those complaints through to the first stage of investigation as opposed to dismissing them and excluding them from the process, based on limited information at that initial, pre-investigation stage.
I believe that's the intention.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP-2 is an amendment that Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 6 the following:
(2) If the reviewing member dismisses the complaint, they shall inform the complainant in writing of their decision and the reasons for it.
The rationale here is that the complainant should be given full and complete information on the reasons for the decision, not simply a summary of the reasons and the decision itself.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm wondering if I can ask, through you to Mr. Xavier, whether the protection of confidential and personal information would be covered under any other statute. If it weren't explicitly included in this clause, are there statutes that would protect those individuals and their identities?
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I thought that to do justice to my colleague's thinking, I would read the note that he left on this, explaining the rationale:
It is difficult for a complainant to know whether there are grounds for asking for judicial review of a dismissal at the screening level or a decision of a review panel without having the full legal reasons for the outcome. Currently, and continuing under C-9, complainants only receive the decision and a summary of the reasons from the CJC. Ironically, once an application for judicial review has been filed the full legal reasons must be disclosed to the complainant. Both logic and transparency seem to demand that the legal reasons be disclosed at the earlier point in the process.
I would note that I believe Professor Craig Scott from Osgoode Hall law school spoke to this point when he appeared as a witness before the committee.
Mr. Garrison went on to say:
As it stands C-9 inadvertently makes the process more secretive as it reduces the number of opportunities for outside review in its attempt to simplify the process and shorten timelines for resolving complaints. The amendments proposed in NDP Amendments 2 and 3 aim to provide more transparency by providing the complainant with a copy of the reasons for decisions by a review panel as well as the reasons in case of dismissal of a complaint at the initial stage.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, it seemed like we had support for the idea of adding the caveats that Mr. Xavier suggested. If those were provided in writing, could we return to this amendment and—
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Okay. This is more talking than I counted on. It reads that Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 8 the following:
“(2) If the review panel dismisses the complaint, it shall inform the complainant in writing of its decision and the reasons for it.”
Again, this has the same rationale as the previous amendment. Perhaps, likewise, we can return to it.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want a little bit of clarity. First of all, I would like to confirm that it is both the ministers who would be attending. Second of all, I would like to confirm that December 10 is the deadline for the ministers to come for the supplementary estimates, because if that is the case, this is quite urgent. If not, if Mr. Motz is correct, then it's not urgent. However, if December 10 is the deadline, I would suggest that ideally it could happen during committee time, but ministers, of course, don't always have control over their own schedules, so we would have to be flexible and be willing to try to find a compromise for a time when the ministers are available.
From my perspective, from the NDP perspective, it would be very important to have the ministers testify before this committee.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
In the spirit of offering some reflections at the outset for our position with respect to the bill, I thought I would make my own contribution.
Similarly to Mr. Ste-Marie, I think some of the cracking down on tax avoidant measures in Bill C-32 is certainly welcome. There's more work to do, but these are steps in the right direction.
I would highlight in this bill, as well, the elimination of interest on student loans, something New Democrats have long championed and are glad to see a government finally proceed with. It is also under-reported.
I think the headline item for this is actually something New Democrats have been calling for, for some time, which we made sure was part of our understanding with the government in the supply and confidence agreement, and that is the Canada recovery dividend. It means that big banks and insurance companies that did very well during the pandemic, including because of the generous support of the federal government, are going to have to pay some of that money back, and that's important so that there are resources to do the things we need to do in order to support Canadians through a very difficult time.
New Democrats think the Canada recovery dividend is an important step alongside a permanent increase of 1.5% in the corporate tax rate for banks and insurance companies.
These are some of the reasons we're supporting Bill C-32, and I thank you for the time to put that on the record.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
I was going to say that we have some names, and we'd be happy to get those to you as soon as possible—probably by the end of the day tomorrow, at the latest.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Chair, I have had my hand up since the beginning.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
It's not red. It's NDP orange, Madam Chair.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I would beg to disagree with you, Madam Chair. I think the colour is very clear and not confused at all.
I support the motion by Mr. Housefather and the timelines involved. The organizations maintain minutes. It's not as if we're asking them to put together something new. This is something that should be absolutely available to us. At the same time, we do need to give translation teams the opportunity to go through the minutes and actually translate them. That will take a number of weeks. If we then choose in February, when we reconvene, to continue this study and broaden it, as I think as a committee we've already indicated, then I think this is the best approach. The timelines are good.
I was thinking of proposing the same thing Mr. Champoux did, which was to add some national organizations. I am glad he proposed that amendment to Mr. Housefather's motion.
I think we have everything. It is the responsibility of the committee to request the minutes and then have them translated. That will enable us to address this issue when we return in February.
I support the amendment and the motion.
Results: 1 - 15 of 12099 | Page: 1 of 807

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

For more data options, please see Open Data