Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 4317
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I want to hit on something that the member brought up toward the end of his speech, when he paid credit to the incredible public service we have in this country, which has been able to create, implement and deliver various programs that were brought forward and voted on by all members of the House, in most cases unanimously. It was able to deliver those programs to Canadians. For example, in a month and five days, we went from the World Health Organization declaring a pandemic to money getting into the bank accounts of 5.4 million Canadians. That would have never happened without the incredible public service that we have in this country.
I wonder if the member would like to expand on the final comment he made in that regard.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2020-08-12 16:13 [p.2784]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague providing me the opportunity to give more praise to our public service.
I have never in my life seen a government respond more quickly at a time when people needed it most. Oftentimes what we see and hear in the public realm is that people feel that our institutions do not move quickly enough. What I have seen is that our government has launched programs in a record amount of time and all of this work has been done by the public service.
There are certainly roles that we all play. Just as I value the role of opposition members in these debates, I value the leadership that our caucus has shown in relaying all of the feedback we have been hearing in our communities to ensure that the Canada emergency response benefit will reflect the needs of people on the ground. It was restructured. It is the same with the wage subsidy. It was restructured multiple times, and I really feel that all of the changes that have been made have included the feedback we have heard.
It is incredible work. I am really proud to be Canadian and part of this government. I really think we are doing exceptional work. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to further praise our public service.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fredericton.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2020-08-12 16:46 [p.2790]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her extraordinary speech. I have listened to speeches that are good, speeches that are great. I have seen a lot of hand sock puppets, speaking whatever their leaders tell them to. For all the sham and drudgery in this place, the only thing that makes it extraordinary is when members come here who want to make changes. That is why we should be here, to be change-makers.
From her perspective as a parent, mother and teacher, I want to ask my colleague this. When I have talked to young people during this pandemic, a seismic shift is happening. It is a difference between millennials who are being economically crushed at this time, down to generation Z. The world will be changed by generation Z. This generation is not having it. These young people get that we have a pandemic that has upended everything, but for them the crisis is environmental. They see a world that is in a serious crisis, and we need voices.
Therefore, I want to ask my hon. colleague, as a parent and teacher, how she thinks we can use this Parliament to start engaging young people and making them believe we can actually make a better world, rather than just accept the same old, same old.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
It being 4:54 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, 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 Anita Anand Profile
2020-08-12 16:55 [p.2792]
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 472 to 474.
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, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, August 26, at noon.
(The House adjourned at 4:56 p.m.)
The first session of the 43rd Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on August 18, 2020.
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 practise 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, 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 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 to 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 Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I am just going to pause and stop the clock for a second.
I understand it is very emotional and it gets very tense in here sometimes, but coaching somebody with answers probably is not the right way to have these sessions. I just want to point that out to those who are shouting across from one side or the other.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Burnaby South.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The hon. member for Burnaby South.
Results: 136 - 150 of 4317 | Page: 10 of 288

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data