Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 12264
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Usually when there is a request for unanimous consent, the Chair asks members to respond in the affirmative to determine whether there is agreement.
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, were the Chair to proceed in this fashion, if there were any dissenting voices, particularly for members participating via teleconference or video conference, they may not be audible. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement. In this way, the Chair will hear clearly if there are any dissenting voices and I will accordingly be able to declare whether or not there is unanimous consent to proceed.
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to statements by ministers.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I will take that under advisement and report back to the House.
Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 26, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other matters.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I will interrupt for a moment. I am having a hard time hearing the answer. If members could keep it down, I would appreciate that.
The hon. minister.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Before I recognize the minister, I would like to remind members that they cannot do indirectly what they are not allowed to do directly.
The hon. minister.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Burnaby South.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Burnaby South.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. opposition House leader.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not think I have to remind hon. members that we cannot refer to someone's absence or presence in the House, or in committee, for that matter. I want to remind everyone that it is not something we can do.
The hon. minister.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. minister.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
If I can interrupt, I will call order.
There is something that came to mind as I was sitting here, and I started doubting myself and asking myself questions. When there is a committee of the whole, according to the third edition of the House of Commons Practice and Procedure, at page 932 in chapter 19, “in these exchanges, Members should nevertheless always refer to one another by the names of their ridings as is done in the House.”
I just want to remind everyone what the rules are, and I am sure this is a learning experience for all of us.
Now, we will proceed with the hon. member for Lakeland.
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2020-08-12 13:20 [p.2757]
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance asked me to testify, and I was there to answer their questions. They asked me—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Can I ask the minister to begin her answer again? We will restart the clock.
The hon. minister.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would remind members that it is inappropriate to refer to any member's absence in the House.
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:33 [p.2759]
Resuming debate, we will go to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:42 [p.2761]
Back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:49 [p.2762]
The hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:51 [p.2762]
The hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:55 [p.2763]
We will now go to the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:56 [p.2763]
We will go back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:57 [p.2763]
We will go back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:57 [p.2763]
The hon. minister.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:57 [p.2763]
We will go back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:58 [p.2763]
That will conclude that round.
We will now go to resuming debate.
The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 13:59 [p.2764]
Back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 14:18 [p.2767]
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 14:19 [p.2767]
Order. The member has the floor.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 14:22 [p.2768]
We will go back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 14:26 [p.2769]
We will go back to the hon. member.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 14:27 [p.2769]
We have time for one short question, 15 seconds, and we will have time for a response.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2020-08-12 14:29 [p.2769]
Mr. Chair, the government House leader is not in the House of Commons, and so I think the government may want to repropose the motion with the minister who is actually here.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 14:30 [p.2769]
I thank the hon. opposition House leader for bringing that to my attention. It occurred to me as I read his name, actually. I will indicate then that the motion will be proposed by the hon. Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth on behalf of the hon. government House leader. I think that should take care of it.
We will proceed with the debate with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2020-08-12 15:32 [p.2778]
We have just enough time for one short question.
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I want to hit on something that the member mentioned toward the—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Should I wait until they are done, Mr. Speaker?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Order, order. I want to remind everyone that if they are going to have conversations, they should not shout.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fredericton.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
It being 4:54 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired and the motion is deemed withdrawn.
The hon. minister on a point of order.
View Anita Anand Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 472--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to preparation and response to COVID-19: (a) what are the reasons for the decision of the National Research Council (NRC) to grant a non-exclusive licence to the biotechnology company CanSino to utilize a modified cell line invented by the NRC; (b) under the licence referred to in (a), what compensation, consideration, or other reciprocal arrangements did the NRC receive or agree to from CanSino; (c) under the licence referred to in (a), did the NRC obtain from CanSino or others an agreement that the Government of Canada could receive or make use of any resulting COVID-19 vaccine, and, if so, what are the details of those agreements, including the cost and other compensation or consideration; (d) if the answer to (c) is negative, what are the reasons for the lack of such an agreement; (e) if there are costs to the NRC, or any other Government of Canada entity, payable to CanSino or any other entity, resulting from the provision or licence of a COVID-19 vaccine to the Government of Canada further to the licence referred to in (a), what are the details of those costs, and what are the reasons for agreeing to those costs; (f) under the licence referred to in (a), did the NRC obtain from CanSino or others an agreement that CanSino would furnish any resulting COVID-19 vaccine to developing countries on a not-for-profit basis, and, if not, what are the reasons; (g) what is the total amount of direct or indirect funding that has been provided by the Government of Canada to Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the research, development, manufacture, or clinical trials of remdesivir; (h) what is the total value of any funding, tax incentives or credits, or other arrangements made with Gilead Sciences, Inc. with regard to its Canadian manufacturing or research and development facilities, including to retrofit or build new Gilead facilities to scale-up production capacity, including the (i) amounts, (ii) dates, (iii) specific uses of those funds; (i) what are the details of each grant from the Government of Canada, or a related agency, made to any academic institution to conduct research on remdesivir, including the (i) value, (ii) recipients, (iii) dates, (iv) terms of each grant; (j) was any research and development on remdesivir conducted directly by the Government of Canada or any public servants or federal agencies, and, if so, (i) what is the budget of each research project, (ii) who conducted it, (iii) on what date; (k) does the Government of Canada own any patents on remdesivir or has the government licensed any patents on remdesivir and, if so, which patents and patent applications, including their numbers, and what are the details of any licensing agreements, including (i) to whom or from whom the licences were issued, (ii) on what dates, (iii) the terms of the licences; (l) has the Government of Canada secured or negotiated access to remdesivir, should it receive regulatory approval from Health Canada, and, if so, what price has been negotiated per treatment; (m) further to the Prime Minister’s announcement on April 7, 2020, that Canada would purchase up to 30,000 ventilators, how many ventilators has the Government of Canada ordered, on what date, from which supplier, at what price per ventilator, which models and manufacturers, and how many have been received by the federal government and each province; (n) for each type of ventilator ordered by the federal government, are they capable of providing mechanical ventilation as described by the ARDSnet protocol by, for example, controlling and limiting respiratory rate, tidal volume, peak pressures, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), and fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO2); (o) which sources or officials, broken down by name or, if names will not be disclosed, by job title or position, provided technical advice related to the selection of ventilator models, modes, and capabilities in the context of COVID-19; (p) since 2016, what funds, broken down by year, were allocated to the National Emergency Strategic Stockpile (NESS) of personal protective equipment, how much of those funds allocated were not spent, if any, and, if applicable, for what reasons were those funds not spent; (q) as of January 1, 2020, February 1, 2020, March 1, 2020, and March 15, 2020, what quantities of personal protective equipment were in the NESS inventory, broken down by (i) masks, (ii) N95 respirators, (iii) gloves, (iv) other personal protective equipment; and (r) who at the Public Health Agency of Canada is presently responsible for stock rotation of the NESS inventory, and on what date was that individual tasked with that function?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 473--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to preparation and response to COVID-19: (a) why did the Chief Public Health Officer (CPHO) state that the risk of COVID-19 to Canadians was “low”, following cabinet’s approval on February 17, 2020, of the statement that "the introduction or spread of [COVID-19] would pose an imminent and severe risk to public health in Canada”; (b) which officials, broken down by name or, if names will not be disclosed, by job title or position, drafted or approved the talking points for the CPHO that reads “the level of risk within Canada [...] remains low”, and which is contained in the Annotated Agenda for the federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) health ministers’ special call on novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) of February 3, 2020; (c) which officials, broken down by name or, if names will not be disclosed, by job title or position, participated in formulating the conclusion of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) risk assessment in (b), and what professional credentials or higher education, and in which subjects, do each of these officials possess; (d) which officials, broken down by name or, if names will not be disclosed, by job title or position, drafted or approved the “Responsive, if asked [...]” talking points for the CPHO that are contained in the Annotated Agenda for the FPT health ministers’ special call on 2019-nCoV of February 10, 2020; (e) on which dates has the Minister of Health or her officials furnished advice or direction on the talking points of the CPHO, and what was the guidance or direction, in summary, in each case; (f) with respect to the role of the CPHO as an official advisor to the World Health Organization's (WHO) emergency committee regarding the outbreak of the 2019-nCoV, did the CPHO expressly recommend during the Emergency Committee meetings of January 22 and 23, 2020, that the WHO should immediately declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and, if not, why not; (g) with respect to the role of the CPHO as an official advisor to the WHO as noted in (f), did the WHO request the CPHO to agree to any form of confidentiality or non-disclosure, and, if so, did she agree in writing or otherwise; (h) on which dates did the government give notification to the WHO of COVID-19 and communicate information about the outbreak, as required under Articles 6 and 7 of the International Health Regulations, and what are the details of each such communication; (i) why did the PHAC refuse to support or collaborate in a research grant application to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in which Professor Amir Attaran was to be a co-investigator, and only agree to participate once informed that Professor Attaran voluntarily removed his name from the application; (j) if the research grant application referred to in (i) is successful, does the government object to Professor Amir Attaran participating as a co-investigator and, if so, what are the reasons for the objection; (k) which officials, broken down by name or, if names will not be disclosed, by job title or position, ghost wrote, co-wrote, edited, or otherwise contributed to article by the Prime Minister entitled "Canada's vision for global health and gender equality” that appeared in The Lancet on April 28, 2018; (l) which of the contributors to the article referred to in (k) filed an author statement or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) form with The Lancet, and what contributions or conflicts of interest did each disclose therein; (m) further to the article referred to in (k), did the Prime Minister file an author statement or ICMJE form with The Lancet and, if so, what contribution did he disclose, and what contributions or conflicts of interest did he disclose therein; (n) how much money was spent by the government in the researching, writing, and promotion of the article referred to in (k); and (o) further to the article referred to in (k), for what reasons was pandemic preparedness, or an analogous topic, not included?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 474--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the investigation into the leak of the Statistics Canada data relating to the April jobs numbers: (a) have ministerial staff been ordered to fully cooperate with the investigation, and, if not, why not; (b) who is conducting the investigation; (c) has the leak been referred to the RCMP, and, if not, why not; and (d) what is the full list of individuals outside of Statistics Canada who had access to the data prior to it being publicly released?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, August 26, 2020, at noon.
(The House adjourned at 4:56 p.m.)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Colleagues, before we begin our proceedings, I would like to say a few words regarding the special measures in place today.
Pursuant to orders made on Tuesday, May 26, the application of Standing Order 17 will be suspended for current sittings to allow members to practice physical distancing. Members desiring to speak and address the Chair may do so from any seat in the House.
In addition, as members know, this will be a hybrid sitting of the House. Some members will be participating via video conference and some will be participating in person.
I remind all members that in order to avoid issues with sound, members participating in person should not also be connected to the video conference. I would like to remind those joining via video conference that when speaking, you should be on the same channel as the language you are speaking.
Finally, I ask that all members who are tabling a document or moving a motion to sign the document and bring it to the Table themselves.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on July 20, 2020, by the Leader of the Opposition concerning remarks made by the Prime Minister in committee of the whole regarding an investigation headed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Leader of the Opposition maintained that the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House in his response to questions about his past co-operation on the investigation into SNC Lavalin matters. This question of privilege is related to the one that the Leader of the Opposition initially raised in the committee of the whole on July 8, 2020. However, he felt that, due to exceptional circumstances, the Chair should consider the matter even in the absence of the committee report.
On July 21, 2020, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons presented arguments suggesting that the question of privilege was not valid, but he did not address whether it was appropriate to raise the matter with the Speaker directly.
Let me address with this procedural issue first.
I accept that the particular circumstances of this situation, notably the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format, do make it appropriate to bring the matter to the Speaker. While this is clearly an exceptional case, I do wonder if it would be useful for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look into this issue of questions of privilege arising from committee more thoroughly, since, as the Leader of the Opposition noted, it is ultimately within Parliament's authority to defend members' privileges.
In the second part of his question of privilege, the Leader of the Opposition focused on the responses from the Prime Minister that he felt were misleading. He rightfully noted that there are three criteria that the Chair must assess in order to determine whether a statement sought to deliberately mislead the House. I will take them in turn.
The first criterion is whether the statement was in fact misleading. In the response at issue, the Prime Minister said that the government had taken “the unprecedented step of waiving cabinet confidentiality and of waiving solicitor-client confidentiality in the situation so that the Ethics Commissioner could fully investigate the matter at hand.”
The Leader of the Opposition noted several passages of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report which referred to the latter's “inability to access all Cabinet confidences related to the matter" and which led him to conclude that he was “unable to fully discharge the investigatory duties conferred upon” him. The report also suggests that some witnesses felt constrained by what they could say during the course of the investigation because the waiver of cabinet confidence was limited. These elements of the report led the Leader of the Opposition to conclude that the Prime Minister had misled the House in stating that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner had been able to fully investigate the matter.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the Prime Minister's response was being taken out of context and that it referred to the unprecedented step that the government had taken in waiving access to cabinet confidences and solicitor-client privilege in the context of this investigation.
He further argued that the commissioner had himself stated that he had “gathered sufficient factual information to properly determine the matter on its merits”.
The second criterion is whether the member making the statement knew it be incorrect. The Leader of the Opposition argued that the Prime Minister must have known that the statement was incorrect because he would have been aware of the contents of the commissioner's report and that he had been questioned extensively in the House on the extent of the government's co-operation with the investigation. In return, the parliamentary secretary's assertion was that, in the context the response was provided, it was not incorrect at all.
The third criterion is whether, in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. The Leader of the Opposition did not provide any argument about what he viewed as the Prime Minister's intent, while the parliamentary secretary's contention is that the Prime Minister was speaking about the rationale for waiving certain privileged information in relation to the commissioner's investigation.
In reviewing these arguments, it appears to me as though there is a disagreement as to the meaning and the context of the Prime Minister's comments. It is reasonable for members to disagree as to what constitutes a full investigation or full co-operation and thus it is not obvious to the Chair that the statement was clearly misleading.
As a previous Speaker noted in a ruling that he delivered on April 30, 2014, “Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period.” I cannot therefore conclude that the first criterion was met.
If one cannot conclude definitely that a statement was misleading, it would be difficult to conclude that the member making that statement knew it to be misleading and, as a result, that the member intended to mislead the House in making it.
Therefore, based on my assessment of these three criteria, the threshold for finding a prima facie question of privilege has not been met.
I thank the members for their attention.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 26, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other matters.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The committee will begin its proceeding with the questioning of ministers on matters relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and other matters for a period not exceeding 95 minutes.
The Chair will call members from all recognized parties and one member who does not belong to a recognized party in a fashion consistent with the proportions observed during the special committee on the COVID-19 pandemic. Each member will be recognized for not more than five minutes, which may be used for posing questions to a minister of the Crown, and members are permitted to split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the Chair.
Please note that we will briefly suspend this part of the sitting partway through to allow members and employees who provide support for the sitting to replace each other safely.
We will now begin with the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, what we have before us with the WE corruption scandal is an organization that receives sole-sourced contracts from the government, from the taxpayer. The organization then sets up a real estate company and gobbles up over $40 million worth of prime downtown Toronto real estate. It also pays members of the Prime Minister's immediate family cash for speaking engagements. It also provides a huge platform for Liberals to do their campaigning. The organization even did an election-style ad promoting the Prime Minister.
However, it gets into trouble. Red flags start going up about its bank covenant, members of the board resign and so it lobbies the government and the government gives it another sole-sourced contract from which it can take $40 million worth of administration.
Canadians, rightly, are concerned by this kind of “You scratch my back, I scratch your back” type of relationship with a Liberal-friendly organization. Therefore, I have a series of very simple yes or no questions to help Canadians understand the depths of this scandal.
Was the Prime Minister aware that the agreement he signed with this organization was not with the WE Charity itself but was with a shell corporation that has no assets and no history of charitable work?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-07-22 12:16 [p.2703]
Mr. Speaker, as was made clear at committee, the non-partisan public service recommended this approach as the only way to deliver this program in the timeline required this summer during COVID. Last week, I acknowledged that I should have recused myself and I apologized.
However, our goal was and is to provide opportunities for students to serve in their communities right across the country in this unprecedented time. Obviously the way it unfolded was regrettable and the program is no longer unfolding, as we have said.
In regard to aspects of the WE Charity Foundation, the public service worked to find the best possible delivery of this program to get student grants for volunteer hours. The public service worked with the WE organization to develop the agreement and the work was done and negotiated at the officials' level in those details.
We have consistently approached it as a way of empowering young people across the country, the way other governments of all stripes have worked with this organization in the past.
Results: 1 - 60 of 12264 | Page: 1 of 205

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

For more data options, please see Open Data