House of Commons Hansard #140 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was heritage.

Topics

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am listening to one point of order. If the hon. member wants to go back to the other point of order, I will go back, but I am not going to interrupt the hon. member during his point of order.

The hon. government House leader.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity at the House leaders meeting to talk about the manner in which we address each other. We have had good discussions and agreed to stop yelling and to follow the Standing Orders—

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Madam Speaker, that was my understanding, but I am hearing the other side saying no, they do think it is acceptable—

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would ask the hon. House leader to speak to his point of order and ignore anything coming from the other side because this should not be about debate. If there are other points of order, I will address them.

The hon. House leader.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Madam Speaker, specifically on this point, after hearing the members yelling “no”, I realize that I have to go back to the House leaders to have a conversation about what I thought we had agreed to.

What I thought we had agreed to was that, when a member is speaking, the practice of screaming or yelling at them when they are attempting to speak is not becoming of this place. It is against the Standing Orders, and it needs to stop. I will take it back to the House leaders, and I hope that we will have a productive discussion in that regard.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Madam Speaker, people are yelling even as I am speaking here, so clearly we have more work to do.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has the floor.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Madam Speaker, I was absolutely wrong, although the member for Ajax did apologize for something he had no idea what he was supposed to be apologizing for. This was regarding the member for Pickering—Uxbridge, who stood and talked about the way women were treated in the House, yet did the exact same thing to her own female colleague, so I do find it very rich.

I would ask that the member for Pickering—Uxbridge recognize that all women in Parliament, regardless of political party, matter. All women matter, not just those from the Liberal Party.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Would the hon. member for Pickering—Uxbridge like to comment?

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

Pickering—Uxbridge Ontario

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. That is not what happened. The members opposite were screaming, as they are screaming at me now, when I simply raised the point that yesterday, when I stood in this place, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was screaming for me to sit down, and they were trying to deny that it happened.

There are lots of witnesses on this side, and the member has to account for her denial of a member on her side telling another woman to sit down.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind all members that there are things being said on both sides. I would ask members to please respect the rules of the House and to respect each other, whether one is asking the question, waiting for an answer or delivering the answer.

All in all, there have been words said on both sides, and I would ask members to please refrain from that.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I was watching that member. It was eye-to-eye contact. I would like an apology from that member because that members knows it was directed at me. That member looked directly at me and said it to me, and the House was quiet at the time. It was not during that, and I would like to share that with you, Madam Speaker. I wish that she would reconsider her actions and—

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Again, I will have to review Hansard to see exactly what was said. As far as looks in the House, it is something that Hansard will not show. I would again ask members to be respectful of each other in the House.

I also want to add that I owe an apology to the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton for the comments that I made about him today. He did not ask the hon. member to sit down, but he did call her by name.

I want to again reinforce the fact that we need to be respectful of each other here in the House.

COVID-19 Rapid Test Procurement and DistributionRoutine Proceedings

December 2nd, 2022 / 12:15 p.m.

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report on COVID-19 rapid test procurement and distribution.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Natural ResourcesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2022-23.”

Air TransportationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB

Madam Speaker, I proudly stand today to present a petition on behalf of the amazing people of Calgary Forest Lawn, particularly those who live in the Mayland Heights community, who are calling on the government to stand with them, along with myself, in asking that the alternate departure heading trial route not be made permanent.

The air traffic using YYC Calgary airport's alternative departure heading trial route very significantly from the required heading. Air traffic is often too low and loud, and passes directly overhead the residents. A large portion of Mayland Heights residents do not fall within the government's AVPA NEF contours. East Mayland Heights residents are not constructed per Canada building code requirements for NEF.

Many senior residents were not aware of nor able to voice concerns via Nav Canada's online consultations, and many questions were asked at the consultation, yet no public reply has come from Nav Canada or YYC on them. Petitioners call on the government to stand with the residents of Calgary Forest Lawn to not have the new temporary route become permanent.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 874, 875, 877 and 880.

Question No.874—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the commitment in the Liberal Party’s 2021 election platform to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations, such as crisis pregnancy centres: (a) what consultation processes has the government established to define an anti-abortion organization; (b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

Question No.874—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

University—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act does not define the concept of charity but relies on the common law definition. Under the common law, charitable purposes fall under one of four categories: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the courts have determined to be charitable, for example, the protection of the environment or the promotion of health.

Canadian tax incentives for charitable donations are considered to be amongst the most generous in the world. Given this generosity and other tax privileges provided to charities, organizations that choose to register as charities are required to follow a particular set of rules set out in the Income Tax Act. These rules are primarily designed to ensure that donated funds are used for charitable purposes, protecting public trust in the charitable sector as a whole.

All registered charities are required to ensure that the information that they provide is accurate and evidence-based, and are prohibited from disseminating information that is false or misleading.

Our government remains committed to no longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of a pregnancy.

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations in Canada, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year, since 2015-16: (a) how does the government define what an anti-abortion organization is; and (b) how many organizations have received or maintained charitable status while meeting the definition in (a)?

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, as the federal regulator of registered charities, the CRA is responsible for making sure charities comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and common law. While the CRA is responsible for administering policy once implemented, it is not the CRA’s role to develop tax policy. As such, while the CRA is prepared to administer any new rules that are implemented and to provide relevant guidance to the charitable sector, the CRA is currently unable to respond in the manner requested.

Question No.877—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, broken down by each vaccine: (a) which pharmacokinetic studies were considered as part of the approval process, and what were the results of each study; (b) if there were no pharmacokinetic studies available for review, why did Health Canada not require such studies; (c) were genotoxicity studies reviewed in the approval process, and, if not, why not; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the details, including who conducted the studies and what were the findings; (e) were carcinogenicity studies reviewed in the approval process, and, if not, why not; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the details, including who conducted the studies and what were the findings; (g) what are the details of all safety, toxicology, developmental, and reproductive studies which were conducted on humans prior to the vaccine being approved, including, for each, (i) who conducted the study, (ii) the methodology, (iii) the findings; (h) were the vaccines tested in regards to transmission, and, if so, what were the results; and (i) for each study in (a) through (h) what is the website location where the raw data and findings can be viewed by the public?