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 1087
View Murray Rankin Profile
Thank you, Chair; and thank you to all the witnesses for a really interesting presentation.
I want to start with my friends from the B.C. Nurses' Union.
Ms. Gear, thank you for your presentation. I have a question for both you and Mr. Singh. I really appreciate what you have told us and the work that you're doing.
For example, I'm very impressed with the brochure, “Have You Experienced a Violent Incident at Work?”, which says in very clear terms, “Here's what to do”. I think it is empowering to the nurses who you represent.
Marilyn Gladu talked about her family member. I have a sister, Joyce Rankin, who's a nurse in Toronto, and she has told me about the increasing problem that you've all put your finger on. I don't think Canadians really understand.
Thanks for your anecdotes about Victoria, Kamloops and Prince George. I was particularly disturbed when you said that 40% of members in your survey might be considering leaving. My goodness, we have a shortage already. To think 40% might leave just because of violence is extremely sobering.
Before asking my question, I want to thank you as well for supporting my colleague Don Davies' private member's bill on the sentencing issue, although you were quick to say that criminalization is not the way to go but only part of the solution.
Here's my question to start.
Regarding your brochure that I referenced, about experiencing violence, I have two things I want to ask. First, you talk about calling the nurses' violence support line and you give a 1-800 number for that. Do you have any data on how many people are calling and what the implications of that have been? Has it been a good idea? Should other nurses' unions across the country or employers do a similar thing?
Then, as the final point on what to do, you say, “After a traumatic incident, you may benefit from a critical incident stress debriefing”. I want to hear what that critical incident stress debriefing entails.
View Murray Rankin Profile
I'd appreciate that. I think that would be useful.
I'm asking this next question of all the witnesses who wish to answer, and perhaps Ms. Schultz in particular.
We heard a lot about psychological versus physical violence. Linda Silas, who is the president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, says that the law should be simple: “If you hit a nurse, you go to jail!” That sounds as though it's a pretty simple message, but when you think about people with psychological harm, it really doesn't work, because of course, criminalization, having to have the mental element, might not apply if you are suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's, or the like.
I'd like to know, then, if criminalization isn't the answer, what you think should be the answer for people with psychological damage. What should we do? I've heard a lot of things about how we should make the workplace safer, about the structural problems with understaffing, and not leaving people alone on the shift.
In particular, Dr. Margaret Keith and Dr. Brophy's study talked about 56 participants, just seven of whom were men. Women are obviously disproportionately impacted. Are racialized Canadians also disproportionately impacted?
I'd like you to talk about that, and if you have an opportunity to talk about the psychological aspects, people with psychological harm and how we can address those issues, I'd be grateful as well.
View Murray Rankin Profile
Thank you very much, Chair, for having me back to the committee. I have a personal interest in this, as I'll describe, so I'm pleased that my colleague allowed me to have the floor.
I can't really do much to amplify the seriousness of this. I can tell you, though, that there are 125,000 lawyers in Canada represented by something called the Federation of Law Societies, and here's what they say. Ross Earnshaw, president, said:
When the current process was established, one goal was to eliminate any perception that partisan considerations enter into what Canadians ought to expect to be a purely merit-based appointment process. It is critical to the integrity of that process that individuals under consideration have no fear that their identity or other information will be used for any purpose other than the one intended. It is deeply concerning that such information was leaked in this instance.
This is not partisan. This is the head of every law society in Canada, the federation of all of them, saying what a travesty this is, the leak of this information.
I have been on record as praising this government for the appointment process to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I don't draw back from that. You can see that I'm not making that up; you can read the comments I've made in the media about it.
To have a former prime minister of another party chair a group of people from across the country and to give, under a non-disclosure agreement, to Mr. Nicholson, the member for Niagara Falls, the then justice critic, and me, the then NDP critic, access to all the information on the finalists, and then for us to make recommendations and have that go to the Prime Minister, and for the recommendations to be essentially followed, to me is an unbelievable process. Compare that to what happened with Mr. Justice Kavanaugh in the U.S. Supreme Court. We've a lot to be proud of. We've a lot to be proud of, and I've praised the government for that.
What has happened here is devastating to the integrity and credibility of that process. We need to investigate it. There needs to be an investigation. We stood up and asked the new Attorney General, “Sir, would you investigate this?” We did that on several occasions. My understanding of his answer, and I stand to be corrected, is, “I asked the Prime Minister's Office and they didn't do it, and I talked to my people and we didn't do it.”
Now it gets personal.
I am under a cloud of suspicion, as is my colleague from the Conservative Party. I was prepared to go to my grave with the information as to who were the finalists in this process. Indeed, there are other names that I cannot and will not mention. They are people I happen to know, who put their name forward in the confidence that it would not be leaked.
Imagine you're a sitting judge, the chief justice of the Manitoba superior court, in the case of Mr. Justice Joyal. Imagine if your colleagues know that you're really not that interested in your job because you want to go off and be in Ottawa. How does that leave you with your colleagues? There are implications of this; this isn't just politics.
I think that if the Attorney General is not going to investigate this, we have an obligation—this committee—to do that job. I resent that I'm under a cloud of suspicion. I resent that this process has left my friend Mr. Nicholson under a cloud. I would never disclose that this particular candidate was on the list. Now we know he was. There are others you don't know about and I will not disclose.
This is a serious matter, as the Federation of Law Societies has said. This committee in particular should take this seriously. How often have we said, Mr. Chair, and you've been clear on this, that we will not discuss candidates for who is going to testify on the public record about any number of issues, right? We always go in camera to talk about witnesses. This issue is ten times—a hundred times—more serious than whether we choose Mary or Bill to be a witness on a particular topic.
The integrity of how we appoint people to the highest court of our land is at issue. If the Attorney General is not going to do it—and he's made clear in the House, at least, that he is not—I say that we have an obligation to Canadians to do it. This is serious.
View Murray Rankin Profile
Mr. Chair, I'd like to respond to the Liberal speaker, Mr. Ehsassi.
You started by saying the government understands this is serious. I don't see any evidence of that. What are you doing about it? I asked the justice minister. He said there's nothing here. He's not doing anything about it. If it's serious, that usually means something is done.
The suggestion that there is a parallel to the Nadon situation, yes, there was partisan politics. I regret that. The Liberals were very much an opposition part of that. Don't pretend you weren't. I was with the official opposition then. I remember it well. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it the correct thing to do.
When there was a leak of another sensitive matter, Mr. Goodale, dealing with the Omar Khadr leak, said it was “very, very serious”. He didn't blame journalists for reporting it, but considered it very serious and said “the individuals, whoever they are, that took it upon themselves to release confidential information in an unauthorized manner should reflect very carefully on the consequences of their behaviour for the course of justice and also for their professionalism in the roles that they are presently filling.”
This isn't about calling journalists here. I'm not interested in hearing from journalists. I don't know who suggested that. That's the first I've heard of it.
I want to hear from the official. I want to hear from people in the Department of Justice. I want to hear from people in the Prime Minister's Office. Somebody leaked it. It was either my Conservative friend, me, or an official. Whom they leaked it to is irrelevant to me. I'm not interested in hearing from journalists. That's a bit of a red herring, in my humble opinion. I don't know why we would have to turn this into politics.
To quote you, Mr. Ehsassi, you said, ”Let's just make sure that all those safeguards are in place”. I agree. What are you doing about that? What comfort are you giving to the next Mr. Justice Joyal, or someone else who has their reputation smeared as collateral damage to some other agenda?
As Mr. Cooper said, this process is not perfect, but a flawed process at this committee is certainly better than no process at all, which is what I hear you're leaving Canadians with. If you can tell me what the process is, I'd be happy, but I certainly don't know of any.
Ms. Khalid said we're here to frighten Canadians. The conclusion is the state of our rule of law is very much intact. Thank you for that conclusion, but I have no confidence in your conclusion. I have evidence that there are very serious consequences here. When the spokesperson for 125,000 lawyers agrees, I think I have reason to have those concerns.
If the leak is not unprecedented, Mr. Casey, I don't really know what that adds to the debate. Just because we made errors in the past, does that mean we shouldn't try to correct them in the future?
This is very serious. If the government wants to pretend there's nothing here and tells me that safeguards are in place, that the rule of law is just fine in Canada, that there's nothing to see here, I've been to this movie before because I used to be on this committee, and I saw how you dealt with another issue. I suppose we're going to go to a vote very much like that now. I don't look forward to it. I hope Canadians realize the gravity of what the Liberals are about to do.
Thank you, Chair.
View Murray Rankin Profile
I'm not sure that there really is a conflict on the table. I understand from your recent comment that you're saying that a certain amount of latitude, insofar as the minister speaks about matters qua as Minister of Finance, will be accepted. It's your job to police this. I know that when we are in the House of Commons, the Speaker allows people—to a degree I find rather shocking, frankly—to speak very much outside the four corners of the bill that's at issue. Questions of relevance are rarely, if ever, addressed by the chair.
Given your commitment that you accept that a minister can come and talk about ministerial responsibilities, and given what Mr. Poilievre said, that he is not going to talk about personal matters but merely things concerning his work as finance minister, I don't understand that we have a real conflict on the table. I would suggest that we are ad idem.
View Murray Rankin Profile
That's a summary of what I've heard here, so I would support that amendment.
View Murray Rankin Profile
Thank you.
I am very, very sorry to announce that I'm not the regular member of this committee, but I've been well armed by Ms. Kwan with some questions that I'd like to pose, if I may. I'm not sure who will field them. I'll direct them to Ms. Morgan, and she can decide.
The questions Ms. Kwan wrote for me concern asylum seekers. In January, it was announced that the government would be following up on the $50 million that was provided to Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba to compensate for the impact on social services posed by the increase in inland asylum claimants. The amount of $114.7 million would be spent to help pay for temporary housing for asylum seekers. That was immediately criticized as insufficient. Despite hosting the second-highest number of irregular border crossers who make inland asylum claim, British Columbia did not receive a single cent of the original $50 million. There are yet to be any details released regarding how the $114.7 million will be spread across the country.
Can you confirm whether British Columbia will be receiving any of that funding, and, if so, how much? When will the details be released publicly? Will funding be focused solely on temporary housing, or will the IRCC be listening to the experts and looking into ways to invest in solutions more permanent than shelters and hotel rooms?
View Murray Rankin Profile
So the answer is zero and you're talking.
View Murray Rankin Profile
The answer is zero and you're talking, and yet you said nothing to the question I asked concerning whether there will be simply a temporary housing focus or whether you'll be looking beyond shelters and hotel rooms.
View Murray Rankin Profile
So it's hotel rooms and shelters, not what so many experts have been talking about in terms of more lasting solutions to the temporary housing at issue. That's your answer, right?
View Murray Rankin Profile
Yes, but I'm talking about IRCC.
Ms. Marta Morgan: Right.
Mr. Murray Rankin: I'm not talking about government-wide solutions. We're aware of that. We know what comes after the budget.
I want to go to grandparents and parents sponsorship. This year the government attempted a new system for the sponsorship program for parents and grandparents. This saw the “interest to sponsor” form cap hit in less than 10 months, with countless Canadians kicked out of the application midway through or unable to open it all. Has the IRCC undertaken a review of how this process went? Have ineligible and duplicate submissions now been removed? Will there be any need for a second application window, as there was with the lottery system?
View Murray Rankin Profile
I hear you on the duplication issue. I mean, it was notorious. It certainly made the media in my city of Victoria that this cap was hit in less than 10 minutes and then that was it. I mean, that surely isn't a success story.
What are you doing to address it, if you share my premise that it was a disaster?
View Murray Rankin Profile
Is there no opening, no second window, being planned at this time?
Results: 1 - 15 of 1087 | Page: 1 of 73

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data