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 501
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As always we benefit from your wisdom.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Because I believe that all of the amendments by all of the parties should indeed be considered and voted on, I challenge the ruling.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Champoux is not there.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, you say that you want to keep things on the ball field. My friend isn't even in the outfield. He's not even in the bleachers. He's outside the stadium. If he could perhaps move back to the amendment, it would be greatly appreciated. He's well smart enough to stay on the amendment.
Thank you.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have a point of information, Mr. Chair.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I actually was asking for a point of information from you, Mr. Chair.
Do the Standing Orders not require members to speak to the amendment before them, as opposed to the gallivanting that we're now having?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, we don't have copies of these amendments.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate Mr. Champoux's contributions, which he always makes in good faith.
I have nothing against his amendment, but I do object to the main motion by Ms. McPherson. I'll tell you why.
I want to say this with all my friendship for Ms. McPherson, who, again, I respect very much as a member of the committee. Normally, I would agree with this motion. Normally, I would agree that we should work all summer to get a law right and to continue debate as long as there was actual debate going on that was reasonable with respect to each amendment, but that's not happening.
In the last meeting, we spent two hours filibustering on an amendment that each and every member of this committee voted against. Each and every member of this committee was going to be against it from minute number one, yet we spent two hours on it. As someone who has really tried in good faith to work with members of all parties on this committee from the beginning, I have at this point grown completely exasperated by what has happened in terms of us not working in good faith, so I see no reason for us to sit here having meeting after meeting of two or four hours and not advancing on the bill.
I don't see any other alternative to move forward at this point, unless I see a huge change in comportment from the Conservatives, than going to time allocation. I'll vote for Mr. Champoux's subamendment, but I'm going to vote against the motion as amended, because I just don't see that it's going to help us in any way.
Thanks very much for the effort, though, Ms. McPherson.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some questions for Mr. Rayes, too. Indeed, I am not sure yet whether I am for or against the amendment, but I would like to hear from Mr. Rayes on this, because I am willing to discuss it.
What I don't understand is why companies with fewer than 500,000 subscribers or less than $80 million in revenue are excluded, rather than those that meet both criteria.
Let's take the example of a company that has 495,000 subscribers and earns $2 billion, because its service is very expensive. Shouldn't a company that makes $2 billion be considered important enough to be included?
It's the same for a company that has 30 million subscribers in Canada, but gets very little revenue from advertising, signup, usage, or subscription, because it has a different revenue stream than those listed.
So why are we excluding companies that meet either of the two criteria? I don't understand that. I would like Mr. Rayes to clarify that.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, I'm going to go back to a point I previously raised. This time I'm going to ask Mr. Ripley.
I am still at a bit of a loss here to understand why, if we were to exclude various online undertakings, we would say that they could be excluded if they fall below either x number of subscribers or x amount of revenues per year, thus leaving an online undertaking that could earn $2 billion excluded because there were fewer than 500,000 subscribers.
While I did listen to Mr. Rayes and his mathematical skills, I could simply see that you could charge a lot of money, for example, for a certain service and you could be up at a threshold. If you're charging $250 a year and you have 490,000 subscribers, you could be earning $2 billion a year from Canadians, yet be excluded.
I would like to ask Mr. Ripley this: If the department was considering at any time such a limitation—meaning that smaller online undertakings would be excluded from the application of the act—what formulation would the department suggest the committee consider in the event we are going to go in that direction? Should it be the way it is formulated here or should it be that you would have to be both below one and below the other to be excluded?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Can you hear me now, Mr. Chair?
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you. I think I was on the wrong speaker.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] for committee members and Canadians what is exactly happening and what's been happening for the last hour and a half. We have an amendment on the floor that not one member of the committee is actually voting for. It's been clear from the comments that have been made, yet we've been debating it for more than an hour. This is exactly the reason this committee—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was pointing out, we are now incessantly prolonging debate on an amendment that is going to be defeated. The simple goal is to stop the committee from doing its work. I think Canadians are starting to see that.
It's exceptionally frustrating, as a member of this committee, to see a committee that used to work very well descend to this level, which I think has gone far below the level any parliamentary committee should operate at. I just voice my disappointment. That really explains why I think we need to go to time allocation at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their hard work to support our seniors. We're very grateful to them.
I am going to start with Ms. Mackenzie.
During the course of COVID, in my riding, I had numerous long-term care facilities where many, many people died. I had four facilities where over 50 people died. I watched facilities that were not only understaffed but underequipped in the sense that there were four people to a room where there should not be any more than one or two in today's society. I saw very well-meaning but underpaid and understaffed nurses and PABs. I saw families kicked out and caregivers who were meaningful and necessary to the patients kicked out. People died not only of COVID, but of neglect. It was a tragedy.
While this is within provincial jurisdiction, Ms. Mackenzie, you talked about enforceability of national standards and how they could be made meaningful. Could you talk a little more about whether or not you agree that national standards are important in this case and how they could be made meaningful and enforceable?
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 501 | Page: 1 of 34

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

For more data options, please see Open Data