Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 8 of 8
View Brent Rathgeber Profile
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we last gathered in this room, we were debating a motion put forward by the member from Ajax--Pickering that, “pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), this committee recommend to the House of Commons that the House “not proceed further with Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), because the Committee”—and I need to underscore the next part—“has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle a tool that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers”.
I would submit to this committee through the chair that I think the evidence we have heard is much to the contrary of the expressed wording of Mr. Holland's motion. In fact, I outlined some of that evidence on Tuesday. In fact, I think that when we adjourned on Tuesday, I was talking about the Mayerthorpe incident.
The Mayerthorpe incident, as the members will undoubtedly recall, was mentioned by Chief Blair, the Chief of the Toronto Police Service and head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, as an incident where the long-gun registry somehow promoted the safety of front line officers, and I found that very, very remarkable.
I referred to the CACP magazine--the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police--in which they do in fact list the Mayerthorpe massacre in support of their position or in their advocacy in support of the long-gun registry and against Ms. Hoeppner's bill. A very short excerpt says:
Following the killing of four RCMP officers, the RCMP used registration information in the Canadian Firearms Information System to link a long gun recovered at the scene to a licensed owner. This helped police focus their investigation and identify and convict two accomplices.
Well, that's true as far as it goes, but that wasn't the question.
Mr. Chair, you will recall that the question I posed to Chief Blair was specifically with respect to front line officer safety. I was talking about the Mayerthorpe massacre, a tragic event that occurred two and a half hours northwest of Edmonton--where I live--in March 2005. I remember the day very well. Mr. Roszko had two unregistered rifles.
I was not aware that there was quite a lot of interest in the proceedings of this committee. An individual who was listening to my explanation of the Mayerthorpe incident on Tuesday wanted to correct my lack of knowledge of firearms. I readily admit that I am not as familiar with the names and model numbers of firearms as I might be.
This individual—I'm not going to read his name—claimed to be a friend of the brother of one of the fallen officers. He has seen the effects the shootings had on the fallen members' families and he always wants to make sure that individuals have the right facts. Although he certainly agrees with my premise, he wanted to correct my lack of knowledge about restricted and prohibited weapons.
The rifle James Roszko used was a Heckler and Koch model 91, which is the civilian version of a military assault rifle. There is no firearms manufacturer called Koch and Hegel, as I think I referred to it on Tuesday. He states, “While you are correct that the Heckler and Koch 91 is a semi-automatic, it is, in fact, prohibited by name as part of the C-68 prohibitions by order in council”.
“Specifically”, he says, “G3 rifles and variants, including the Heckler and Koch HK 91, HK 91 A2, HK 91 A3, HK G3 A3, HK G3 A3 ZF, HK G3 A4...” are therefore prohibited firearms and they are not restricted. Also, according to the agreed statement of facts in the Cheeseman-Hennessey case, the firearm given to Roszko was a scoped, bolt-action hunting rifle, not a shotgun, as I referred to it erroneously on Tuesday.
But that doesn't change any of the facts. The fact remains that Mr. Roszko, who had no respect for the law, no respect for order, and ultimately no respect for himself—he ended up taking his own life—did not register those two very dangerous weapons, one of them being the Heckler and Koch model 91 and the other being the 9mm Beretta handgun.
As members will recall, what started out as civil enforcement of the repossession of a truck, over a 24-hour period, more or less, turned into the worst massacre in RCMP history.
When the civilian enforcement officers had trouble gaining access to seize the vehicle, they called in the RCMP for assistance. The RCMP went to assist the civil bailiff. In the course of that attempted seizure, they discovered a marijuana grow operation of some considerable size. They got warrants and seized the drug plants, and then I guess they waited for Mr. Roszko to return so they could effect an arrest.
Things went very badly thereafter. Mr. Roszko somehow snuck back onto his farm unbeknownest to the four RCMP officers, and into a Quonset where he had stashed the aforesaid Heckler and Koch model 91. I think he probably had the 9mm Beretta on his person. In any event, when the officers went into the Quonset he mowed them down, one by one, in a tragic, tragic, horrific massacre that to this day is a black mark in the annals of Canadian crime.
The lessons to be learned from the Mayerthorpe massacre are severalfold. First of all, Roszko did not register his firearms, so if the RCMP had in fact done a Canadian firearms registry search before they entered that Quonset--and there's some dispute as to whether or not they did--the information would have been inaccurate. It would have told them that Mr. Roszko had no registered firearms.
What we do know is that the RCMP and the people of Alberta have mourned these four brave officers through videos, through charity hockey games for their families, and through the Fallen Four Memorial in Mayerthorpe.
But these four officers were not prepared for the heavily armoured Mr. Roszko who was holed up with two unregistered rifles. So any suggestion that the Mayerthorpe massacre in any way supports the proposition that the long-gun registry promotes front line officer safety is just erroneous.
It is true that months and years later.... Well, there was a third weapon recovered at the scene, and it was a registered hunting rifle, not a shotgun. It was hunting rifle that was registered to the grandfather of one Shawn Hennessey. The RCMP were able to link that unfired registered rifle back to Mr. Hennessey, and then, through an elaborate and very expensive “Mr. Big” sting operation, they were able to prosecute and ultimately convict Mr. Hennessey and his brother-in-law, Dennis Cheeseman, of aiding and abetting the murder of the four officers. Hennessey and Cheeseman are now serving time in a federal penitentiary somewhere.
I concede that the long-gun registry did assist in the investigation of the aiders and the abettors, but it did absolutely nothing to protect the front line officers who were tragically, tragically murdered by an individual who had no respect for law and did not register his rifles.
With respect to the motion, I suggested on Tuesday--and I'm going to reaffirm my belief--that I suspect this motion was actually drafted months ago, prior to Mr. Holland's attempt to stack this witness list in favour of the adversaries of Bill C-391, because if in fact he had been able to produce his witness list and no others, then perhaps we would have heard overwhelming testimony against Bill C-391.
But of course, through some procedural manoeuvres and, ultimately, negotiation with Ms. Mourani, who was very helpful, we were able to get a balanced list of witnesses. We heard evidence for and against the value of the long-gun registry, and for and against the efficacy of Bill C-391.
Certainly, the evidence that I've heard--the vast preponderance of evidence--would support Ms. Hoeppner's proposition that the long-gun registry has done little, if anything, to reduce crime. It's a huge bureaucratic nightmare for those who are forced to comply with it. It has been expensive. There's much dispute over the current cost. We know that the original overrun costs were well over a billion dollars.
The RCMP are flagging the number of $4.1 million as its current operating costs. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation calls that number nonsense and believes that the actual cost of the long-gun registry, on an amortized basis, is more like $106 million.
But in any event, it's a lot of money--$106 million is a lot of money--and we know it's not $4.1 million. Those who propose that number I think do a disservice to the debate, for the following reason, Mr. Chair.
Everybody knows--and I think even the witnesses and I suspect the members on the other side of the table will probably concede--that the registry in its current form is ineffective. We know that close to half, if not half, of the firearms in Canada are not registered. Thankfully, there has been amnesty from prosecution since 2006, I believe.
Many, many firearms are not registered, through neglect, or wilful blindness, or known amnesty and therefore immunity from prosecution, or blatant disrespect for the law, which is the majority when it comes to organized crime and hardened criminals. For whatever reason, the registry doesn't even purport—even by its proponents—to accurately reflect all of the firearms in Canada.
So it's going to cost millions and millions of dollars to rectify that if this bill is defeated. The Liberal Party, surprisingly to me, did not propose any amendments to this bill, because its leader was “spoof-balling” about taking out the criminal sanction for not registering and turning it into more of a ticketing offence, similar to a highway traffic offence for speeding or failing to stop at a stop sign--something that wouldn't come with a criminal sanction. I was kind of expecting an amendment, but there is no amendment.
Perhaps there will be another bill with this amendment to decriminalize the sanction for not registering, but in any event, if Bill C-391 is defeated and the long-gun registry is to carry on in its existing form—or in any form, for that matter—I think it's to be assumed that it's going to cost millions and millions of dollars, if not close to a billion, to bring it back up to speed and make it even remotely accurate and reflective of the current state of gun ownership in this country. So it is a lot of money, no matter whose figures you choose to accept.
Of course, the Auditor General appeared before this committee and was very critical of the long-gun registry in its infancy. She was the one who pointed a finger at the billion-dollar overrun and the lack of efficacy. She hasn't studied it since then. I think she was called as an opposition witness; she certainly wasn't on our witness list. I'm not sure which of the three opposition parties called Ms. Fraser. In any event, she wasn't particularly helpful to their case that the long-gun registry is now operating efficiently and the taxpayers are getting good value for it, because she simply hasn't studied it.
The evidence I've heard, and I'm sure Mr. Holland, if he wakes up, will tell me if he has a different recollection of the evidence, but—
Mr. Mark Holland: You're filibustering. What am I supposed to do?
An hon. member: You have a job to do, Mr. Holland. You have a job to do.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Brent Rathgeber: Since Mr. Holland's motion specifically uses the words that “...the Committee has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle a tool that promotes the public security and the safety of Canadian police officers”, I thought it would be instructive for this committee, before we vote on this motion, to review some of the evidence we have heard.
The first witness was Candice Hoeppner, MP for Portage—Lisgar, who is of course the sponsor of the bill and is admittedly not unbiased. But her evidence raised a couple of points.
She says that, statistically, individuals who have a licence to use and/or possess a firearm are actually 50% less likely to commit a crime than individuals without a licence. Ms. Hoeppner testified that the long-gun registry is at best “a partial investigative tool” that police officers cannot rely on and that this bill—and this is very, very important—will not end licensing.
Ms. Hoeppner has spoken in the House. She has spoken in the media as to the merits of Bill C-391. She makes a very valid and very compelling point with respect to her bill not affecting licensing in any way, shape, or form.
There was considerable agreement from all of the witnesses that licensing is where the authorities, the state authorities, whether they're the RCMP, which administers the firearms registry, or whether they're the municipal police officers.... It's through the licensing provisions that people who ought not come into possession of firearms are weeded out. One has to submit to a criminal records check. One has to comply with rigorous safety checks. Unless you can pass the safety checks and the criminal records check, you're not getting a licence.
So it's through the licensing provisions that there is valuable gun control, Mr. Chair. It's not through the long-gun registry, which only talks about who owns the weapons, not who's going to come into contact with them. As many of the witnesses testified, it really is only valuable when it comes to counting weapons. It's in the licensing provisions that people who ought not to come into contact with weapons are denied the licence and therefore denied the legal opportunity to come into contact with those weapons.
I think Ms. Hoeppner is quite right on that point--and others--and certainly I commend her and thank her for all the hard work that she has done on this file.
Then we heard from Chief Rick Hanson, the chief of the Calgary Police, who has testified before this committee and the justice committee. I will read a couple of his quotes for the benefit of the members who may have forgotten what Chief Hanson had to say. He said:
It is vitally important to maintain criminal sanctions for the illegal possession of restricted and prohibited weapons, but in my opinion, the registry only marginally addresses the broader issues of gun crime and violence in Canada.
Under questioning from the opposition, Chief Hanson stated that Canada needs “a comprehensive gun strategy”, but that the registry “goes too far”. For criminals, he said, the risks are worthwhile because the consequences are minimal. Most guns used in the commission of crimes are handguns and a large portion are smuggled into Canada. That's certainly with respect to the organized crime that's a problem in his city of Calgary, and certainly in my city of Edmonton, and my friend Ms. Glover's city of Winnipeg.
This is key, Mr. Chair: no direct links have been made between the existing gun registry and the behaviour of criminals. I think that's a very valid point.
Mr. Holland is fond of saying that there are only three rogue police chiefs in all of Canada and that Chief Blair speaks for the other x minus three, whatever that number is. Statistically that might be right, but I think before we decide how we're going to vote on this motion that would recommend to the House that it proceed no further with Bill C-391, we have to do a qualitative analysis of what the respective chiefs said, not just count hands.
I think a quantitative analysis of the police chiefs is insufficient. I think we have to actually look at the quality of their arguments and what they're saying.
Speaking of individuals who had a great deal to say, we had Jack Tinsley, who was with the Winnipeg Police Service for 33 years, 11 years of that on SWAT. He testified that drugs are the underlying cause of most crime.
Criminals do not obtain firearm licences and do not register their guns. The long-gun registry is not a proven deterrent of violent crimes.
He also told this committee that it is not a useful investigative tool, and this is very, very important and the subject of some controversy. Ultimately, I think, this committee, if and when it has time, should look into this issue of officers having been silenced, stopped from speaking out.
I know that this question was put specifically to Chief Blair. He unequivocally denied that he or anybody under his command has silenced or muzzled any officers with respect to their views on Bill C-391.
I take the chief at his word, but we have heard, and not necessarily from Toronto, so I take the chief at his word..... But we have heard anecdotes from coast to coast to coast in this country, anecdotes of police officers, who will not let us use their names, not ironically, Mr. Chair, who want to come out in favour of Bill C-391. They don't believe the long-gun registry is an effective tool of law enforcement.
Neither Chief Blair nor Charles Momy from the Canadian Police Association speaks effectively or accurately for them, but they won't speak out because they're scared that they're not going to be promoted or they're going to spend the rest of their time writing out tickets to senior citizens with fake bus passes. I know that's not a very welcome job to a police officer: to be on parking patrol for the next 20 years of your life.
So we have heard that, and I think it's important that officers have been stopped from speaking out. That's according to Jack Tinsley. He told us about New Zealand, a country that I've never been to but should go to, because New Zealand scrapped the registry after seven years. Australia's program has been a failure. Violent crime actually increased in Australia during the tenure of the long-gun registry.
On the same day that we heard from Mr. Tinsley, May 6, 2010, we heard from Dave Shipman, also from the Winnipeg Police Service, a veteran of 25 years, with 19 years in the homicide and robbery division. He was very candid with his testimony. He was very humble.
He told us, Mr. Chair, that in his experience, domestic homicides were perpetrated by legal gun owners with legal long guns where no previous domestic disturbances had occurred, and that--this is important--the long-gun registry did not stop these from happening.
He was in homicide and robbery. He acknowledges that from time to time, and maybe more often than time to time, long guns are used in domestic disturbances, but the preponderance of those were without any history of problems at that residence, and the long-gun registry didn't stop these from happening. The long-gun registry was useless in stopping that offence or even in solving it.
Mr. Shipman told us that criminals do not register their guns. The majority of guns they use are either stolen or smuggled into Canada and the long-gun registry has not deterred the illegal possession of these guns.
In northern Canada, it is not designed to deter the illegal possession of the guns. Even if the long-gun registry worked to the maximum of the way in which it was designed, it would only be a registry of people who lawfully own and possess those guns. It can't possibly help law enforcement track illegal possession of guns. It's not even designed to do that.
Mr. Shipman confirmed what members on this side of the table have always suspected: that the long-gun registry is about counting guns. Many legally owned guns are outside the registry. I talked about that a few minutes ago. Amnesties are going to cost millions and millions of dollars to get 50% of the firearms that are currently domiciled in Canada registered, if the government decides that this long-gun registry has value. Certainly, with respect to long guns, I don't think so.
Mr. Shipman told us that most police officers don't use the registry. In fact, they don't even know how to use the registry. This was very remarkable and cogent testimony, Mr. Chair. We know from Charles Momy and the Canadian Police Association, from Chief Blair, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and from Marty Cheliak, who is the superintendent at the registry, that police forces are going coast to coast as we speak to.... I know they've been in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Estevan, and elsewhere; they've been all over the country. In fact, we have a copy of their power-point deck, where they teach front line officers how to use a--
View Garry Breitkreuz Profile
I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 15. We are today focusing on Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry).
Our first witness is the mover of Bill C-391, Ms. Candice Hoeppner, the MP for Portage—Lisgar.
We agreed on April 28—I'll read from the motion of Mr. Holland. He makes the comments, “...just so it's clear that she's getting special consideration...”--referring to Ms. Hoeppner--“that the mover of the bill, Mrs. Hoeppner, be granted 30 minutes at the beginning to present her private member's bill, and that she be included in the list of 15 witnesses afforded to the Conservative Party.”
That's taking away one witness from the Conservative Party and giving Ms. Hoeppner 30 minutes.That's the motion. We had a recorded vote on that. It was in public.
Do you have a point of order?
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2010-05-04 15:32
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Mr. Chair, to be very clear, when we said a presentation, it would be that there would be a presentation such as given by any other witness. This would mean we would have a period of time for questions. On that basis, if it wasn't clear before, I'll give you a motion that the witness before us now, the mover of the motion, be granted 10 minutes, and that each party have a round of five questions.
Some hon. members: Five minutes.
Mr. Mark Holland: Five minutes, excuse me.
View Shelly Glover Profile
View Shelly Glover Profile
2010-05-04 16:10
I maintain that Mr. Holland has been bullying not only the committee but the women who are on this committee, and I don't appreciate it.
I want to know how you feel about the fact that the Liberal members not only have tried to whip this committee, but that the leader of the Liberals has whipped his members into not following what they believe is the right thing for their constituents. I want to know from you how you feel about the fact that you are once again being told by a male member of the opposition that your rights don't count, that your rights here in this committee don't count.
Carol Allison-Burra
View Carol Allison-Burra Profile
Carol Allison-Burra
2010-05-04 16:18
I am Carol Allison-Burra. I am a director on the board of the Canadian Association of Police Boards as well as chair of the Kingston Police Services Board.
On behalf of the CAPB and our members, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear before you on the important issue of Canada's firearms registration system, which Bill C-391 would eliminate for all firearms that are not restricted or prohibited.
We are especially pleased to appear before you at the outset of the committee's hearings, and we have prepared a brief that we hope will be of assistance to you as you proceed in your important work.
The CAPB is the national association for police boards and commissions from across the country. Our members provide governance and oversight of more than 75% of municipal police in Canada. These boards and commissions are made up of ordinary residents as well as elected members of local municipal councils, and often provincial appointees as well. As such, they give voice and respond to the concerns and expectations of their specific communities.
One concern that has been expressed by communities throughout Canada pertains to violent incidents involving firearms. These include both handguns and long guns. Firearms are used in a wide spectrum of violent incidents, such as domestic disputes, bystander shootings, robberies, homicides, as well as drug- and gang-related activities. While different kinds of guns are more or less frequently involved in different kinds of crimes, the communities we represent understand that crimes involving guns of whatever kind or classification are especially serious and require special attention.
I'm sure that committee members know all too well that these kinds of firearms crimes have cost many innocent lives, including those of young people, women, and police officers. It's important to appreciate that not all the perpetrators of these violent criminal acts were people with criminal records or self-professed risks in their community. Many were ordinary people who for any number of reasons committed or were involved in the act of using their firearms illegally. Equally, in many of these instances the firearms that were used were legally owned or had once been legally owned.
By having a national firearms registry that records the existence and identified locations of all firearms, we have created an important preventative and investigative tool, as well as one that enhances police officer and public safety. Our brief to your committee identifies the specific preventative investigative and public safety benefits the registry currently provides. We believe you will receive tangible examples of identified benefits of the current registry from the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
We urge the committee to explore, in the course of these hearings, whether these benefits are real or illusory. We are confident, frankly, that such an objective analysis will lead you to the same conclusion we have been led to, which is that the current registry performs cost-effectively and provides important public and police officer safety benefits.
Although we can discuss this in greater detail during questioning, let me take a moment to identify what we have determined to be irrefutable preventative officer safety and investigative benefits of the current registration system. I know that the advocates of Bill C-391 dispute many of these suggestions, but I hope that from this day forward the committee will receive accurate information, ask pertinent questions, and discern for themselves fact from fiction.
From our association's perspective, the current system's benefits include: increased officer safety through more detailed awareness of the existence, quantity, and type of firearms at specified locations; preventative awareness of potential access to firearms involving persons with mental health issues; dramatically improved ability to enforce court-ordered prohibitions to firearms possession made through bail, sentencing, firearm prohibitions, licence revocations, or preventative orders. The alternative seems to be to ask the offender or any other intimidated third party what guns they have.
Other benefits include the enhanced ability to detect and return stolen firearms; the enhanced ability to investigate and prosecute crimes involving stolen firearms, which saves resources; the identification of an accumulation of firearms that could potentially harm public safety; the enhanced ability to investigate crimes through links established by the registry; the reduced ability to traffic stolen firearms and reduced illicit export or import of firearms; the reinforcement of the inherent public safety interest; and the responsibility inherent in firearm acquisition and possession.
Let me add that the reported annual cost of the registry today is $4.1 million.
In the weeks ahead, you will be hearing from law enforcement officials directly, and we encourage you to seek specific details.
I hope our submissions before you will assist you in ascertaining from proponents of Bill C-391 the reasons they discount these benefits. I sincerely hope that you have more success than we have had in trying to get a straight answer.
In light of the clear benefits of the firearms registry, it is important to understand the articulated rationale for its elimination as proposed by Bill C-391. In order to do this fairly, the CAPB has reviewed the public statements in Hansard made by the bill's sponsor, which are, to say the least, noteworthy. If the assertions made to justify the bill are unfounded, then clearly the bill itself is unnecessary and ill-advised. This reality was recognized by no less than the bill's sponsor herself, when she noted on September 28, 2009, in the introduction of the bill, “if I believed that the long gun registry would help reduce crime or make our streets even a little bit safer, I would be the first one to stand up and support it.”
Should the committee reach the conclusions noted above, then even the bill's sponsor has indicated that Bill C-391 should not be supported.
We invite the committee to closely examine the objections to the current system put forward. In doing so, it's important to be clear that this necessarily means assessing the value and the cost-effectiveness of the firearms registry as it is today, not as it was previously.
Thanks to the fact-based inquiries of the Auditor General and the informed actions of this government since 2006, the firearms registry is a vastly improved, cost-effective, public safety tool over what it was when it was under the operational control of the Department of Justice. Bill C-391 would, however, eliminate today's firearms registry and not the one that it appears to target.
It is like a vein. The actual benefits of a firearms registry need to be candidly and objectively determined. False expectations of the past do not justify ignoring tangible results today. While asking the wrong question may be a successful political strategy, it is not an advisable basis for informed and effective police policy-making.
Regrettably, due to the issues that predate the current registry, the debate surrounding the firearms registry has become politicized to an extent rarely seen in Canadian public policy development. We have witnessed that already this afternoon. The sponsor of Bill C-391 has made the accusation that groups that support the registry sit “behind a desk trying to score political points or gain favour”. This would be insulting were it not so patently ridiculous. The leadership of the CAPB are representative of the communities we come from and have a statutory responsibility to provide effective and efficient policing. We are accountable for public safety in our communities, and we are concerned for the welfare of our employees, the sworn officers on the street. Therefore, we are concerned about the development of a public policy that would jeopardize safety in our communities and the safety of the officers serving our communities.
We are here to contribute to a factual and respectful debate so that members of Parliament can make an informed decision on an initiative that seeks to significantly change an incredibly important public policy. The consequences of eliminating the registry are enormous. The current registry has value that this bill will eliminate.
No doubt there are improvements that can be made to the registry, and we will be the first to support the government in justifiable, fact-based, positive changes.
Thank you.
View Marlene Jennings Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to thank all of the witnesses here.
I'd like to make an opening statement, because I do have seven minutes.
As a woman, I was appalled to hear the statements made by my colleague Ms. Shelly Glover and my colleague Ms. Candice Hoeppner. Those statements called one of the most ardent proponents for gender equality and women's rights, my colleague Mr. Mark Holland, a bully of women. I believe there may be a short memory on the part of at least one of my colleagues sitting on the other side, because Mr. Holland was one of the members of this committee who actually brought a motion to hear from more groups representing women, and the Conservatives in fact voted against it. It's a recorded public vote. Ms. Glover was one of them.
I believe that if there's been any bullying happening in this Parliament, it has been by the government towards anyone who opposes their position, whether it be on gun registry, whether it be on women's equality advocacy, or whether it be municipalities saying they don't agree with a particular policy of the federal government. I think the statement made by Senator Nancy Ruth, as profane as it was, saying to women's groups not to push on the issue of abortion and to shut the eff up, actually demonstrates the attitude of this government towards anyone who dares to oppose a policy that they're proposing.
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
View Candice Hoeppner Profile
2010-03-15 15:31
Hello, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. The orders of the day are to look at supplementary estimates (C) for 2009-10, as well as the main estimates for 2010-11.
We have with us today officials from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development: Scott Streiner, assistant deputy minister for the labour program; Liseanne Forand, senior associate deputy minister; Karen Jackson, associate deputy minister; and Michael Saucier, acting chief financial officer.
We also have with us, from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Sharon Matthews, vice-president, and Michel Tremblay, director of financial operations.
Welcome to our committee.
We are so glad you're here. I believe that three of you will be presenting: Mr. Streiner, Ms. Forand, and Ms. Matthews. You will each have five minutes to present and then we will begin our round of questions.
We will begin with Mr. Streiner, please.
View Irwin Cotler Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Irwin Cotler Profile
2009-12-08 11:43
Okay. If I can use the member's name, it was Candice Hoeppner who got up and said in effect--I was holding up Ivison's article and the like--that the Liberal Party and the member for Mount Royal have been caught red-handed. In other words, we had been caught red-handed in a lie. In other words, not only did the member willingly participate in an overtly anti-Semitic Durban I, but he lied about the facts when he said Canadians remained to combat anti-Semitism and that the Israelis had commended them for it. There were statements that we have Alan Baker's words, and Alan Baker was the head of the Israeli delegation, and Alan Baker said that he asked the Canadian delegation to leave. That is all false.
Results: 1 - 8 of 8

Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data