Session overview
- The dominant theme was a potential election trigger: CPC, BQ, and NDP members repeatedly accused the Prime Minister of making a routine committee vote a confidence matter to dissolve Parliament and avoid scrutiny of Liberal scandals during the second wave of COVID-19.
- CPC and BQ members pressed the government on ventilator procurement contracts, alleging that FTI Professional Grade â a company created seven days before receiving a $237-million contract â was used as a shell company to funnel money to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis and Baylis Medical.
- Multiple CPC members asked directly whether the Prime Minister had consulted Dr. Theresa Tam about the public health risks of holding a federal election during a pandemic; the Prime Minister did not answer yes or no on any occasion.
- The Huawei/5G ban was raised, with the CPC noting that Sweden joined other Five Eyes allies in banning Huawei from 5G infrastructure and describing China as a national security threat; the Prime Minister deferred to ongoing consultations with allies and intelligence services.
- BQ and NDP members questioned whether throne speech commitments on pharmacare, child care, and climate action were genuine given the looming confidence vote, while the government insisted the opposition had to choose whether to work constructively.
- The Mi'kmaq lobster fishery crisis in Nova Scotia was raised, with CPC members accusing the Prime Minister of failing to act until violence erupted; the Prime Minister condemned the violence and announced a special representative would be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.
The Prime Minister made a concrete, specific commitment that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations would be appointing a special representative very soon to foster dialogue between commercial harvesters and Mi'kmaq first nations â the only new, actionable government commitment disclosed during the session.
The question is specific on three fronts: it notes the unprecedented confidence-motion procedure, cites Elections Canada's October 6 statement requiring four months of preparation, and asks an explicit binary questionâdid the PM consult Dr. Theresa Tam and will he make her advice public?
Faced with a direct request to undertake not to force a general election before receiving public commentary from Dr. Tam and Elections Canada, the Prime Minister gave no answer to either element and instead deflected entirely by stating the choice was up to the opposition parties.
Outstanding questions
- Did the Prime Minister consult Dr. Theresa Tam about the public health risks of holding a federal election during the second wave of the pandemic, and if so, what advice did she give? (asked repeatedly by Michelle Rempel Garner, Alain Rayes, Brad Vis, and Erin O'Toole â never answered)
- Why did the government award a $237-million contract to FTI Professional Grade, a company created only seven days before receiving the contract, rather than directly to an established ventilator manufacturer, and how many other similar contracts were awarded to Liberal-connected firms since March? (asked by Erin O'Toole and Pierre Paul-Hus)
- When will the Prime Minister make a final decision on whether Huawei will be permitted in Canada's 5G infrastructure, given that all Five Eyes allies have already decided to exclude it? (asked by Erin O'Toole)
- Has the Prime Minister given the Minister of Transport a directive and a deadline to address the crisis in the aviation sector? (asked by Stephanie Kusie â the Prime Minister did not answer yes or no)
- Were the throne speech commitments on pharmacare and child care genuine policy commitments or pre-election promises, given that the government was simultaneously threatening to trigger an election? (asked by Don Davies and Leah Gazan)
O'Toole asks whether the PM will admit he wants Huawei in Canada's 5G network, given that all Five Eyes allies have already decided against it and the PM has twice broken his own promised timelines.
The question holds the PM to prior public commitments on Huawei timing and cites Five Eyes allies' decisions, but the ask ('come clean') is rhetorical rather than a precise policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, first the Prime Minister said he was going to make a decision on Huawei before the last election, and he did not. Then he said he was going to listen to our allies before he made a decision, then he did not. Our Five Eyes allies have all decided that Huawei cannot be in our 5G infrastructure. Will the Prime Minister come clean with Canadians and admit he wants Huawei to be part of Canada's 5G network?
Trudeau says 5G innovation is important and that security is the top priority, and that he is working with allies and intelligence services to take the right decision.
The PM recites general 5G talking points about security being a priority and working with allies, without addressing the specific claim that he has repeatedly missed his own deadlines on a Huawei decision.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, emerging 5G technologies have the potential to meet an explosion in consumer and industrial demand for faster and higher-capacity networks. We want to ensure that Canadians benefit from the latest 5G innovations. At the same time, the safety and security of Canadians will always be our number one priority. We will never compromise on issues of national security. That is why we are working with our allies, and with our experts in intelligence and security services, to take the right decision for Canadians.
O'Toole asks why the PM refuses to prioritize public security over a Chinese company, noting that Swedenâa country Liberals often cite as a modelâbanned Huawei and described China as a national security threat that same week.
The question cites Sweden's specific action that weekâbanning Huawei and labelling China a national security threatâand makes an identifiable accountability ask directed at PM's inaction, though the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
And he will never make a decision, Mr. Speaker. La SuÚde a une longue histoire de se tenir debout pour les droits de la personne. Cette semaine, elle est allée encore plus loin en bannissant Huawei de son 5G et en décrivant la Chine comme une menace pour sa sécurité nationale. Les libéraux aiment souvent citer la SuÚde en exemple, mais pas cette fois. Pourquoi le premier ministre a-t-il peur de mettre la sécurité publique plus prioritaire qu'une entreprise chinoise?
Hansard translation: Il ne prendra jamais de décision, monsieur le Président. Sweden has a long history of human rights advocacy. This week it went a step further and banned Huawei from its 5G networks, describing China as a threat to its national security. The Liberals often like to point to Sweden as a model, but not this time. Why is the Prime Minister afraid to put public safety and security ahead of a Chinese company?
Trudeau says protecting the security of Canadians is an absolute priority and that he will continue working with allies, partners, and intelligence agencies to make the right decision for Canada.
Trudeau repeats nearly the same boilerplate as Exchange 1âsecurity is a priority, working with alliesâwithout acknowledging Sweden's specific designation of China as a threat or explaining any substantive difference in Canada's approach.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons toujours travailler pour protĂ©ger la sĂ©curitĂ© des Canadiens et de nos communautĂ©s, c'est notre prioritĂ© absolue. En mĂȘme temps, nous allons continuer de travailler avec nos alliĂ©s, nos partenaires et les agences de sĂ©curitĂ© et de renseignement pour prendre la bonne dĂ©cision pour le Canada. Nous allons continuer de faire ce qui est dans l'intĂ©rĂȘt des Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians and our communities will always be our number one priority. At the same time, we will continue to work with our allies, our partners and security and intelligence agencies to make the best decision for Canada. We will continue to do what is in the best interests of Canadians.
O'Toole asks whether the PM is threatening an election to conceal his role in giving a ventilator contract worth over $200 million to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis, who became a ventilator manufacturer only six months after leaving Parliament.
The question identifies Frank Baylis by name, notes his recent Liberal MP status, and references a contract exceeding $200 million, but conflates the Baylis/FTI issue and tags on a second rhetorical question about elections.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. Des journalistes d'enquĂȘte ont montrĂ© que le premier ministre a offert un gros contrat de ventilateurs Ă un ami libĂ©ral. Frank Baylis Ă©tait dĂ©putĂ© libĂ©ral seulement six mois avant l'obtention du contrat. Il est maintenant fabricant de ventilateurs, quelle coĂŻncidence. Il a reçu un contrat de plus de 200 milliards de dollars. Est-ce que le premier ministre parle d'Ă©lections pour cacher son rĂŽle dans les scandales liĂ©s Ă la corruption?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Investigative journalists have revealed that the Prime Minister gave a large contract for ventilators to a Liberal friend. Frank Baylis was a Liberal MP just six months before obtaining the contract. He is now a ventilator manufacturer. What a coincidence. He was awarded a contract worth more than $200 billion. Is the Prime Minister talking about calling an election to cover up his role in corruption scandals?
Trudeau states there is no contract between Services publics and Baylis MĂ©dicale for ventilators, notes Canada is using less than 10% of its ventilator capacity, and says the government has taken action from day one to secure necessary supplies.
Trudeau directly disputes the factual premise by stating there is no contract between PSPC and Baylis Medical for ventilators, and adds context about ventilator capacity, partially addressing the question though not explaining the FTI relationship.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le premier jour, nous avons pris des mesures pour nous assurer que nous disposons de l'équipement nécessaire pour assurer la sécurité et la santé des Canadiens. Une partie importante de notre stratégie consiste à établir des partenariats avec l'industrie, afin de garantir un approvisionnement sûr en ventilateurs. Je ne voudrais pas que mon honorable collÚgue induise la Chambre en erreur. Il n'existe pas de contrat entre Services publics et Baylis Médicale pour des ventilateurs. Nous sommes bien équipés. Nous utilisons un peu moins de 10 % de notre capacité actuelle de ventilateurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from day one we have taken action to ensure we have the supplies needed to keep Canadians safe and healthy. An important part of our strategy consists of establishing partnerships with industry to guarantee a safe supply of ventilators. I would not want my hon. colleague to mislead the House. There is no contract for ventilators between Public Services and Procurement and Baylis Medical. Canada is well equipped. We are using a little less than 10% of our current ventilator capacity.
O'Toole asks whether the PM is awarding contracts to professionals or friends, citing that FTI was created only seven days before receiving a $200-million-plus contract and that only 2% of the 30,000 ventilators promised by May had been received.
The question is highly specific: it cites FTI's creation date (seven days before the contract), the PM's May commitment of 30,000 ventilators by year-end, and a public figure showing only 2% delivered, closing with a sharp either/or accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est intéressant. La compagnie FTI a été créée seulement sept jours avant de recevoir un contrat de plus de 200 millions de dollars. Le premier ministre a dit, en mai, que nous allions recevoir 30 000 ventilateurs d'ici la fin de l'année. Le résultat, c'est que les derniers chiffres publics disent que nous en avons seulement reçu 2 %. Est-ce que le premier ministre donne des contrats à des professionnels ou à des amis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. FTI was created only seven days before being awarded a contract worth more than $200 million. In May, the Prime Minister said that we would receive 30,000 ventilators by the end of the year. The most recent public figures indicate that we have only received 2%. Does the Prime Minister award contracts to professionals or to friends?
Trudeau says Canada is at 10% of ventilator capacity, has received over 3,500 with more deliveries coming, and that PSPC awarded FTI a contract for 10,000 ventilators at PHAC's request following expert panel recommendations, with PSPC having no role in FTI's arrangements with its suppliers.
Trudeau corrects the 2% figure with a concrete number (over 3,500 received), explains the contract was awarded at PHAC's request following an expert panel, and clarifies PSPC's non-involvement with FTI's sub-agreements, but does not address the 30,000-ventilator commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne voudrais pas que les gens s'inquiÚtent. Nous sommes actuellement à 10 % de notre capacité d'utilisation de nos ventilateurs. Nous en avons reçu plus de 3 500 et nous sommes en attente de livraisons supplémentaires dans les semaines à venir. Par rapport au contrat, nous agissons selon les recommandations de groupes d'experts et, à la demande de l'Agence de la santé publique du Canada, les responsables de Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada ont accordé un contrat à FTI pour 10 000 ventilateurs. Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada n'a joué aucun rÎle dans les accords conclus entre FTI et ses autres fournisseurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would not want people to worry. We are currently using 10% of our ventilator capacity. We have received more than 3,500 and we will be taking delivery of more ventilators in the coming weeks. As far as the contract is concerned, we are acting on the recommendation of an expert review panel and at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Public Services and Procurement Canada officials awarded a contract for 10,000 ventilators to FTI. PSPC has no involvement with agreements reached between FTI and its suppliers.
O'Toole asks how many more contracts the PM handed out for Liberals to profit from during the COVID pandemic, citing the $200-million contract to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis's company signed that morning.
The question references the specific Frank Baylis/FTI contract and the $200-million figure and raises accountability about Liberal insider contracting, but the closing ask ('how many more contracts') is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a 10% result means the Prime Minister is failing Canadians once again. Yesterday the Prime Minister was willing to call an election to cover up the truth as to who was getting contracts from the government. This morning we learned that former Liberal MP Frank Baylis signed a contract with the government that pays his company over $200 million for ventilators. Even in a once-in-a-century pandemic, Liberals find a way for Liberals to help themselves to taxpayer dollars. How many more contracts did the Prime Minister hand out so that the Liberals could make money during a COVID pandemic?
Trudeau says Canada is well equipped with ventilators at less than 10% capacity use, thousands have been received with more coming, and the FTI contract was awarded at PHAC's request following an expert panel recommendation, with PSPC uninvolved in FTI's supplier agreements.
Trudeau restates the PHAC/expert-panel justification for the FTI contract and the ventilator capacity figures, partially addressing the specific contract question but not engaging with the broader 'how many more' ask or the insider-contracting allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since day one we have taken action to ensure that we have the supplies needed to keep Canadians safe and healthy. Canada is well equipped with ventilators. We are now using less than 10% of our current capacity. We have received thousands and will be receiving thousands more in the coming weeks. Following the recommendation of an expert review panel, and at the request of PHAC, PSPC officials awarded the contract to FTI for 10,000 ventilators. PSPC has no involvement with agreements reached between FTI and its suppliers.
Blanchet asks what the PM thinks about the censure of a professor at the University of Ottawa.
After a lengthy rhetorical preamble listing Liberal scandals, the actual questionâwhat does the PM think about the censure of a professor at the University of Ottawaâis identifiable and specific but entirely disconnected from the preamble.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en 2015, on entendait « Canada is back » sur la scÚne internationale. On a eu le scandale de l'Aga Khan. En 2019, on veut parler d'environnement, et on a la premiÚre partie du scandale de nomination des juges. En 2020, on veut investir dans la lutte contre la COVID-19, et on investit dans le scandale de WE Charity. En 2020 toujours, on veut parler d'aide aux entreprises en difficulté, et on a le scandale de la subvention salariale au Parti libéral. On ne réussit jamais à parler de ce qui inquiÚte et intéresse les gens. Je veux savoir ce que le premier ministre pense d'un enjeu qui intéresse les Québécois. Que pense-t-il de la censure à l'encontre d'une professeure de l'Université d'Ottawa?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2015, we heard the Liberals say âCanada is backâ on the international stage. Then there was the Aga Khan scandal. In 2019, we wanted to talk about the environment, but then there was the first part of the judicial appointments scandal. In 2020, we wanted to invest in the fight against COVID-19, but instead we are investing in the WE Charity scandal. Again in 2020, we want to talk about helping struggling businesses, but we are talking about the Liberal Party's wage subsidy scandal. We never get to talk about what people care about and are interested in. I want to know what the Prime Minister thinks about an issue that is of interest to Quebeckers. What does he think about the censoring of a University of Ottawa professor?
Trudeau says everyone must be aware of the impact of their words, that he promotes respect and listening to communities, and that the priority is taking concrete action to combat racism in all its forms.
Trudeau offers only a generic statement about being aware of the impact of words and combating racism in all its forms, making no reference whatsoever to the University of Ottawa professor situation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous devons tous ĂȘtre conscients de la portĂ©e de nos paroles. Nous favorisons le respect des autres et l'Ă©coute des communautĂ©s. Notre prioritĂ© est toujours de mettre en l'avant des actions concrĂštes pour combattre le racisme sous toutes ses formes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we all need to be conscious of the power of our words. We support respect for others and listening to communities. Our priority is to always take real action to combat racism in all its forms.
Blanchet asks whether the PM has an opinion on the University of Ottawa professor case, noting that real students are worried about racism and a real professor is afraid.
Blanchet again asks whether the PM has an opinion on the University of Ottawa professor situation, framing it as affecting real students and a real teacher, with a pointed observation that the PM is burying scandals under other scandalsâmoderately specific but rhetorically heavy.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il a oublié le sirop d'érable dans le Pablum, cela ne goûte pas grand-chose. Cette semaine, on voulait revenir sur l'affaire WE Charity et on a eu encore la nomination des juges. On voulait parler de la nomination des juges et on a eu le scandale de 237 millions de dollars à un chum, dont on sait qu'un chum, c'est un chum. Le premier ministre est rendu à enterrer ses propres scandales sous un autre scandale. Pourtant, le scandale, c'est à la fois des jeunes qui sont réellement inquiets du racisme et une professeure qui a réellement peur. A-t-il une opinion?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister forgot to put maple syrup in the Pablum. It tastes a little bland. This week, we wanted to revisit the matter of the WE Charity, but we had to talk about the judicial appointment process again. When we wanted to talk about the judicial appointment process, we had to talk about the $237 million that was given to a Liberal friend, so we know that a friend is a friend. The Prime Minister has gotten to the point where he is trying to hide his scandals behind other scandals. However, the real scandal is that there are young people who are really concerned about racism and there is a professor who is truly afraid. What does he think about that?
Trudeau says the priority during the pandemic is the health and safety of Canadians and equal opportunity for all, then attacks the Bloc québécois for opposing a federal government that he says takes daily concrete action for Quebecers.
Trudeau does not address the University of Ottawa professor question at all, instead pivoting to a partisan attack on the Bloc québécois for opposing federal action benefiting Quebecers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre préoccupation pendant cette pandémie, c'est la santé et la sécurité des Canadiens et d'assurer l'égalité des chances pour tous. C'est ce que nous allons continuer de faire en travaillant directement avec les Canadiens. Toutefois, je comprends l'inquiétude et l'angoisse du Bloc québécois lorsqu'il voit le gouvernement fédéral poser des gestes concrets tous les jours pour les Québécois. C'est un gouvernement fédéral qui aide les familles québécoises. C'est un gouvernement fédéral qui aide les entreprises québécoises. C'est un gouvernement fédéral qui travaille main dans la main avec le gouvernement du Québec pour aider les Québécois. C'est une horreur pour le Bloc québécois!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our chief concerns during this pandemic are the health and safety of Canadians and ensuring equal opportunity for all. That is what we will keep doing by working directly with Canadians. However, I can understand why the Bloc Québécois might feel worried and distressed when it sees the federal government take concrete action every day for Quebeckers. Our federal government is helping Quebec families. Our federal government is helping Quebec businesses. Our federal government is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec to help Quebeckers. That must be a nightmare for the Bloc Québécois.
Singh asks whether the PM prefers to plunge the country into an election or to help students who are struggling with tuition and employment, noting the $900-million promise ended up helping the PM's close friends at WE instead of students.
Singh acknowledges student struggles and references the $900-million promise diverted through WE Charity, but the ask is a binary choice ('election or help students?') that is more rhetorical than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant cette pandémie, les étudiants font face à de grands défis. Il est difficile pour les étudiants de payer leurs frais de scolarité et ils ont de la difficulté à trouver un emploi. Le premier ministre a promis d'aider les étudiants avec 900 millions de dollars, mais, au lieu d'aider les étudiants, il a aidé ses amis proches de l'organisme UNIS. Maintenant, est-ce que le premier ministre préfÚre plonger le pays en élections ou veut-il aider les étudiants qui en ont besoin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has created major challenges for students. Students are having a hard time paying tuition fees and finding work. The Prime Minister promised $900 million to help students, but instead of helping them, he helped his good friends at WE Charity. Would the Prime Minister rather trigger a federal election or help students who need help?
Trudeau lists measures including the Canada emergency student benefit for over 700,000 students, over 84,000 Canada summer jobs, up to 40,000 student work placements, 9,500 youth employment and skills strategy opportunities, and doubled Canada student grants.
Trudeau provides several concrete figuresâover 700,000 students helped through the Canada emergency student benefit, over 84,000 Canada summer jobs, up to 40,000 student work placements, 9,500 additional youth employment opportunities, doubled student grantsâdirectly addressing the 'helping students' dimension of the question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Ă©tudiants et les nouveaux diplĂŽmĂ©s se trouvent dans une situation extrĂȘmement difficile Ă cause de cette pandĂ©mie. Nous avons annoncĂ© un plan solide pour les soutenir, qui comprend la Prestation canadienne d'urgence pour les Ă©tudiants, qui aide plus de 700 000 jeunes, et la crĂ©ation d'emplois, de stages et de possibilitĂ©s de formation, dont plus de 84 000 emplois d'Ă©tĂ© et jusqu'Ă 40 000 stages et 9 500 autres opportunitĂ©s avec la StratĂ©gie emploi et compĂ©tences jeunesse. Nous avons aussi doublĂ© les bourses aux Ă©tudiants. Les jeunes sont au cĆur de notre relance. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this pandemic has put students and recent graduates in an extremely difficult situation. We announced a solid plan to support them, including the Canada emergency student benefit, which is helping more than 700,000 young people, as well as the creation of jobs, placements and training opportunities, including over 84,000 summer jobs, up to 40,000 student work placements and 9,500 other opportunities through the youth employment and skills strategy. We have also doubled the Canada student grants. Young people are at the heart of our recovery. We will always be there for them.
Singh asks whether the PM's promise to help students was just empty words, given that the WE scandal revealed the government helped its close friends at WE instead of students who cannot pay their bills or find jobs.
Singh revisits WE and the student promise with rhetorical force, asking whether the PM's commitment to students was 'empty words'âpartially specific in linking the WE scandal to diverted student funds, but the ask is still binary and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the entire WE scandal was based on trying to help students, and instead of helping students, the government helped its close friends at WE. Now it has become very clear that while students are struggling, while they are afraid, while they are worried, while they cannot pay their bills and while they are not sure if they will find jobs, the government would rather risk plunging our country into an election than help students. Were they just empty words, as I said, when the Prime Minister promised to help students, or will the Prime Minister get to work and actually help those in need?
Trudeau says the government pledged and delivered a comprehensive $9-billion plan for students, including the Canada emergency student benefit for over 700,000 students, over 84,000 Canada summer jobs, up to 40,000 student work placements, 9,500 additional youth employment and skills strategy opportunities, and doubled Canada student grants.
Trudeau provides the same concrete figures as in Exchange 8 (comprehensive $9-billion plan, 700,000+ students, 84,000 summer jobs, 40,000 placements, 9,500 youth strategy opportunities, doubled grants), directly rebutting the 'empty words' charge with specific numbers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, not only have we pledged to help students but we have helped students. Students have been at the heart of the challenges faced by this pandemic. Therefore, we announced a comprehensive $9 billion plan to support them, including the Canada emergency student benefit, which provided direct financial support to over 700,000 students and recent grads. We created jobs, placements and training opportunities, including over 84,000 Canada summer jobs, up to 40,000 student work placements, an additional 9,500 opportunities through the youth employment and skills strategy. We have doubled the Canada student grants. We will continue to be there for our students all through the country.
Rempel Garner asks whether the PM consulted Dr. Theresa Tam about how a federal election could spread COVID-19, and if so, what advice she gave, noting polling locations are often in schools, community centres, long-term care facilities, and hospitals subject to COVID restrictions.
The question is specific and time-bound: it cites Elections Canada's October 6 statement about needing four months to prepare, notes concrete COVID restrictions on gatherings, and asks a single verifiable yes/no questionâdid the PM consult Dr. Theresa Tam and what did she say?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, with tens of thousands of businesses closed across the country and limits on gatherings everywhere, the Prime Minister is on the edge of calling an unnecessary election to cover up his scandal. Polling locations for a federal election are often in schools or community centres, even in long-term care facilities and hospitals where there are restrictions related to COVID-19. Before the Prime Minister made this afternoon's vote a matter of confidence, did he consult with Dr. Theresa Tam about how a federal election could spread COVID-19 and, if so, what advice did she give him?
Trudeau says Parliament has worked to deliver the Canada emergency response benefit, wage subsidy, supports for seniors and youth, PPE, and testing, and urges opposition parties to continue making Parliament work constructively for Canadians.
Trudeau does not address the question about consulting Dr. Theresa Tam at all, instead listing past pandemic legislative achievements and urging the opposition to let Parliament work constructively.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their Parliament to work to deliver for them through this pandemic and indeed over the past many months we have done that. The government has worked with Parliament to deliver on the Canada emergency response benefit, deliver on the wage subsidy, deliver supports for seniors and for youth. We have also worked with manufacturers to create PPE. We have moved forward on testing. We have moved forward with the provinces on keeping Canadians safe, and we will continue to focus on that. We certainly hope the opposition parties choose to continue to make Parliament work constructively because we want to keep delivering for Canadians.
Rempel Garner presses the PM to explain why he will not say whether he consulted Dr. Theresa Tam about the COVID-19 spread risk of a federal election, given that Canadians are subject to gathering-size restrictions.
Rempel Garner sharpens the Tam question by noting existing gathering restrictions and the asymmetry of Canadians being asked to sacrifice while the PM won't confirm a basic public-health consultation, making it more pointed than the first iteration.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear. This threat of an election is all about the Prime Minister wanting to go to an election. He is out there doing this and that. However, he did not answer the question. We have restrictions across the country on the size of gatherings. He is asking Canadians to sacrifice, and he is not willing right now to say if he consulted with Dr. Theresa Tam on what would happen if we had a federal election and how much that would spread COVID-19. Why?
Trudeau says Parliament's institutions are strong and democracy remains strong, that parliamentarians worked together on historic aid, and that the government does not want an election but needs Parliament to continue working constructively.
Trudeau again does not answer whether he consulted Dr. Theresa Tam, instead speaking generally about Parliament functioning and democracy being strong, and claiming the government does not want an election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, throughout this pandemic we have reassured Canadians that Parliament continues to function, that our institutions are strong, that our democracy remains strong. We watched parliamentarians work together to deliver a historic aid for Canadians. Obviously, we do not want an election; Canadians do not want an election. However, Canadians need to know their Parliament continues to work constructively. It does not mean we need to agree on everything, but it does mean we need to be able to come together and deliver concretely for Canadians. That is exactly what we plan to do on this side of the House.
Rempel Garner asks whether the PM consulted Dr. Theresa Tam about the risk of a federal election spreading COVID-19 and, if so, whether he will make her advice public, citing Elections Canada's October 6 statement that it needed at least four months to prepare for a pandemic election.
The question is specific on three fronts: it notes the unprecedented confidence-motion procedure, cites Elections Canada's October 6 statement requiring four months of preparation, and asks an explicit binary questionâdid the PM consult Dr. Theresa Tam and will he make her advice public?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, never before in parliamentary history has the creation of a committee become a confidence motion. That is all on the Prime Minister. We are in the middle of the pandemic. He has shut businesses down and there are restrictions on gathering sizes. On October 6, Elections Canada said it needed at least four months to prepare for a general election in the middle of the pandemic. Today, the Prime Minister cannot even say if he talked to Dr. Theresa Tam. This is what I want to know, very clearly. Did the Prime Minister consult with Dr. Theresa Tam about a federal election potentially spreading COVID-19 and, if so, will he make her advice public?
Trudeau says the government has been engaged with Elections Canada and other officials as people reflect on the possibility of an election in a minority Parliament, but that his focus is on working with all members to deliver for Canadians and making Parliament work constructively.
Trudeau vaguely acknowledges engagement with Elections Canada 'from the very beginning' but does not confirm or deny consulting Dr. Theresa Tam specifically, does not commit to releasing any advice, and pivots to the parliamentary confidence vote.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged with Elections Canada and other officials from the very beginning, as people reflect on the possibility of an election, which could theoretically happen at any time in a minority Parliament. However, our focus is on delivering for Canadians. Our focus is on working with all members of the House to deliver concretely for Canadians. We want the House to work constructively, as it has in the past. What the members opposite now get to face, in a few minutes, in the vote is whether or not they want Parliament to work constructively for Canadians.
Paul-Hus presents a five-step dated timeline showing Baylis Medical was approached March 26, FTI was created March 31 (the same day the bidding period closed), Ottawa signed a $237-million contract with FTI on April 11, and FTI then contracted Baylis on April 16, asking what differentiates this from the sponsorship scandal.
The question is highly specific, presenting a precise timeline of five dated events (March 26, March 31, April 11, April 16) linking Baylis Medical, FTI's creation, the contract close date, contract award, and the FTI-Baylis sub-contract, closing with a sharp analogy question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le 26 mars, Baylis MĂ©dicale dit avoir Ă©tĂ© approchĂ©e pour la production de ventilateurs. Le 31 mars, FTI Profesionnal Grade est crĂ©Ă©e par Rick Jamieson. La mĂȘme journĂ©e, le gouvernement annonce la fin de la pĂ©riode de soumissions. Le 11 avril, Ottawa signe un contrat de 237 millions de dollars avec FTI. Le 16 avril, FTI signe un contrat pour la production de ventilateurs avec Baylis. C'est quoi la diffĂ©rence entre ce contrat et le scandale des commandites?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Baylis Medical says it was approached on March 26 about producing ventilators. On March 31, Rick Jamieson created FTI Professional Grade. On the same day, the government announced the end of the bidding period. On April 11, Ottawa signed a $237-million contract with FTI. On April 16, FTI signed a contract with Baylis to produce the ventilators. How is that contract different from the sponsorship scandal?
Trudeau says partnering with industry to secure ventilators is a key part of the government's strategy, that PSPC awarded FTI a contract for 10,000 ventilators at PHAC's request following expert panel recommendations, and that PSPC had no role in agreements between FTI and its suppliers.
Trudeau repeats the standard PHAC/expert-panel justification and PSPC's non-involvement with FTI's supplier agreements, but does not address any element of the specific chronology presented or explain the coincidence of dates.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, une partie importante de notre stratégie pour assurer la santé et la sécurité des Canadiens consiste à établir des partenariats avec l'industrie, afin de garantir un approvisionnement sûr en ventilateurs. Nous sommes bien équipés déjà , mais nous attendons encore plus de ventilateurs. Nous agissons selon les recommandations des groupes d'experts et, à la demande de l'Agence de la santé publique du Canada, les responsables de Services publics ont accordé un contrat à FTI pour 10 000 ventilateurs. Services publics n'a joué aucun rÎle dans les accords conclus entre FTI et ses fournisseurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, an important part of our strategy to ensure the health and safety of Canadians consists in developing partnerships with industry to secure a safe supply of ventilators. We are well equipped already, but we are waiting for even more ventilators to arrive. We are acting on the recommendations of an expert panel and at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada. PSPC officials awarded the contract to FTI for 10,000 ventilators. PSPC has no involvement with agreements reached between FTI and its suppliers.
Paul-Hus asserts that FTI is a shell company created specifically to channel a $237-million government contract to Frank Baylis's company, since Baylis could not receive it directly, and asks why the PM is willing to play this kind of game.
Paul-Hus builds on the previous exchange by explicitly characterizing FTI as a 'compagnie coquille' created specifically to act as an intermediary for Baylis, and asks why the PM is willing to play this kind of gameâan identifiable accountability question grounded in the previously established facts.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre sait trĂšs bien que FTI est une « compagnie coquille ». Elle a Ă©tĂ© crĂ©Ă©e exprĂšs pour ĂȘtre en mesure de faire une liaison avec Frank Baylis et son entreprise. Tout est lĂ . Dans ma premiĂšre question, j'ai fait mention des dates. C'est clair. Une « compagnie coquille » reçoit le contrat du gouvernement de 237 millions de dollars qu'on transfĂšre Ă Frank Baylis. Le premier ministre savait trĂšs bien que Frank Baylis ne pouvait pas l'avoir directement. Pourquoi accepte-t-il de jouer Ă ce genre de jeu?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that FTI is a shell company. It was created specifically to be able to connect with Frank Baylis and his business. It is all there. In my first question, I mentioned the dates. It is clear. A shell company receives a government contract for $237 million that is transferred to Frank Baylis. The Prime Minister knew full well that Frank Baylis could not get the contract directly. Why is he agreeing to play this type of game?
Trudeau says there is no contract between PSPC and Baylis MĂ©dicale for ventilators, that the government acted on expert panel recommendations, and that PSPC awarded FTI the contract with no role in FTI's arrangements with its suppliers.
Trudeau again simply repeats that there is no contract between PSPC and Baylis MĂ©dicale and restates the PHAC/expert-panel explanation, without engaging with the 'compagnie coquille' characterization or explaining why FTI was chosen as intermediary.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, il n'existe pas de contrat entre Services publics et Baylis Médicale pour les ventilateurs. Nous avons agi selon les recommandations des groupes d'experts et les responsables de Services publics ont accordé un contrat à FTI pour les ventilateurs. Services publics n'a joué aucun rÎle dans les accords conclus entre FTI et ses fournisseurs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, Public Services does not have a contract with Baylis Medical for ventilators. We acted in accordance with the recommendation of an expert review panel. PSPC officials awarded a contract to FTI for ventilators. PSPC had no involvement with the agreements reached between FTI and its suppliers.
Paul-Hus asks how many other Liberal friends have received contracts like the FTI deal since March, asserting that the government paid double the price for ventilators made by Medtronicâmeaning $137 million overpaidâto a company that did not exist one week before receiving the contract.
Paul-Hus introduces a new specific claimâ$137 million overpaid, ventilators actually made by Medtronic, and the company didn't exist a week earlierâand broadens to ask how many other Liberal friends received similar contracts since March, making the question factually grounded though the closing ask is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, beau contrat: 237 millions de dollars donnĂ©s Ă une compagnie qui n'existait mĂȘme pas. De plus, on paie le double du prix pour des ventilateurs qui sont fabriquĂ©s par Medtronic. On parle donc de 137 millions de dollars payĂ©s en trop pour des ventilateurs achetĂ©s Ă une compagnie qui n'existait pas une semaine auparavant. LĂ , c'est Baylis qui a le contrat. Le premier ministre ne me fera pas croire que ce n'est pas tout organisĂ©. Combien d'autres amis du Parti libĂ©ral ont eu des contrats comme cela depuis le mois de mars?
Hansard translation: What a good deal, Mr. Speaker, a $237-million contract to a company that did not even exist. On top of that, we were paying double the price for ventilators manufactured by Medtronic. This means we overpaid by $137 million for ventilators purchased from a company that did not exist one week earlier. Baylis has that contract. The Prime Minister cannot convince me that this was not all planned. How many other Liberal Party friends have gotten contracts like this since March?
Trudeau says the government has from day one taken the necessary steps to secure equipment to keep Canadians healthy and safe, has worked with industry and partners to procure ventilators, and will continue acquiring necessary equipment during the pandemic.
Trudeau offers only generic language about taking necessary measures to secure equipment and working with industry partners, without addressing the $137-million overpayment claim, the Medtronic allegation, or the question about other contracts to Liberal friends.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le premier jour, nous avons pris les mesures nécessaires pour nous assurer que nous disposons de l'équipement nécessaire pour assurer la santé et la sécurité des Canadiens dans cette pandémie sans précédent. Nous avons travaillé avec l'industrie, avec des partenaires pour faire l'approvisionnement de ventilateurs. Nous allons continuer de chercher à acquérir l'équipement nécessaire pour garder les Canadiens en sécurité pendant cette pandémie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from day one we have taken action to ensure we have the supplies needed to keep Canadians safe and healthy in this unprecedented pandemic. We worked with industry and partners to obtain ventilators. We will continue to purchase the supplies needed to keep Canadians safe during this pandemic.
Therrien accuses the government of blackmail by linking the WE Charity confidence vote to upcoming business aid legislation (wage subsidy, rent relief, red-zone support), asking who they think they are to take businesses hostage.
The question identifies a specific political maneuver â tying business aid legislation to a confidence vote â and frames it as blackmail, but the ask is rhetorical ('pour qui se prennent-ils') rather than a clear answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est le gouvernement qui a dĂ©cidĂ© de faire, du vote d'aujourd'hui sur WE Charity, un vote de confiance. C'est le mĂȘme gouvernement qui nous annonce tantĂŽt que, la semaine prochaine, il va dĂ©poser un projet de loi sur l'aide aux entreprises. Quand on parle d'aide aux entreprises, on parle de subvention salariale, de l'aide au loyer et de l'aide aux entreprises en zone rouge. Ce qu'ils nous disent, c'est quoi? Soit on la ferme au sujet des scandales des libĂ©raux, soit on abandonne les entreprises. C'est ce qu'ils nous font: du chantage. Pour qui se prennent-ils pour prendre les entreprises en otage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government decided to make today's vote on WE Charity a confidence vote. It is the same government that told us earlier that next week it will introduce legislation to support businesses. When we talk about support for businesses we are talking about wage subsidies, rent subsidies and support for companies in red zones. What exactly are they telling us? Either we stop talking about Liberal scandals or they will forget about businesses. Essentially, we are being blackmailed. Who do they think they are to be holding businesses hostage?
Trudeau says the government has worked to support businesses and families throughout, and that if the Bloc wants an election, that is their issue â the government does not want one.
Trudeau does not address the accusation of holding businesses hostage or the confidence vote mechanism, instead pivoting to general pandemic support and implying the Bloc wants an election.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis le dĂ©but, nous travaillons pour soutenir les entreprises, les familles quĂ©bĂ©coises, les travailleurs partout au pays. Nous avons continuĂ© de collaborer avec les partis de l'opposition pour pouvoir bien servir les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et tous les Canadiens. Si les dĂ©putĂ©s du Bloc ont dĂ©cidĂ© qu'ils en ont assez d'un gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral qui sert concrĂštement tous les jours les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens, c'est leur enjeu. C'est peut-ĂȘtre pour cela qu'ils veulent les Ă©lections. Nous, nous ne voulons pas d'Ă©lections. Nous voulons continuer de remplir nos engagements auprĂšs des QuĂ©bĂ©cois et de tous les Canadiens, tous les jours.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we have been working to support businesses, Quebec families and workers across the country. We have continued to work with the opposition parties to ensure that we are serving Quebeckers and all Canadians well. If the Bloc Québécois members have decided that they have had enough of a federal government that takes real action every day for Quebeckers and Canadians, then that is their issue. Perhaps that is why they want an election. We do not want an election. We want to continue to meet our commitments to Quebeckers and all Canadians every day.
Therrien argues the Liberals are willing to sacrifice SMEs and trigger an election solely to cover up a Liberal scandal involving public money given to friends, asking them to recognise the pandemic as the real priority.
The question lists several policy areas to argue the government is manufacturing an election to hide a scandal, but the ask ('vont-ils enfin comprendre') is rhetorical and vague rather than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Bloc en a assez de la corruption. C'est simple comme cela. Les libĂ©raux ne veulent pas dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections pour les PME. Au contraire, ils sont prĂȘts Ă sacrifier les PME pour dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections. Ils ne veulent pas dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections sur les transferts en santĂ© durant une pandĂ©mie; non. Ils ne veulent pas dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections pour l'aide financiĂšre aux aĂźnĂ©s; non plus. Ils ne veulent pas dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections pour l'Ă©conomie, l'environnement ou la gestion de l'offre. Ils veulent dĂ©clencher des Ă©lections pour camoufler un scandale libĂ©ral qui fait qu'ils prennent l'argent du public et le donnent Ă des amis des libĂ©raux. Vont-ils enfin comprendre que la prioritĂ©, c'est la pandĂ©mie, et non les petits amis?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has had enough of the corruption. It is as simple as that. The Liberals do not want to call an election for the sake of SMEs. On the contrary, they are ready to sacrifice SMEs to trigger an election. They do not want to call an election for health transfers during a pandemic. No. They do not want to call an election for the sake of financial support for seniors either. They do not want to call an election for the sake of the economy, the environment or supply management. They want to call an election to cover up a Liberal scandal in which they are taking taxpayers' money and giving it to Liberal friends. Will they finally understand that the priority is the pandemic and not their friends?
Trudeau calls for a Parliament that works together, says it is up to the Bloc to explain why they want an election, and notes the House will see how opposition parties vote shortly.
Trudeau does not acknowledge the corruption accusation or explain the confidence vote, instead urging collaborative Parliament and turning the voting question back on the opposition.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant cette pandĂ©mie, nous nous devons d'avoir un Parlement qui travaille ensemble â pas en Ă©tant toujours d'accord, bien sĂ»r. Nous avons besoin d'une dĂ©mocratie robuste, mais nous avons besoin de pouvoir livrer des services pour les Canadiens, pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, comme nous le faisons depuis le dĂ©but de cette pandĂ©mie. Si les dĂ©putĂ©s du Bloc, depuis plusieurs semaines maintenant, parlent de vouloir des Ă©lections, c'est Ă eux de s'expliquer. D'ailleurs, c'est Ă eux de voter, comme tous les partis de l'opposition vont devoir voter: pour continuer de travailler de façon collaborative dans ce Parlement, ou non. Nous allons voir dans une demi-heure ce qu'ils vont faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during this pandemic, we need a Parliament that works together, even though we may not always agree. We need a robust democracy, but we also need to be able to deliver services for Canadians and Quebeckers as we have been doing since the beginning of this pandemic. The Bloc Québécois members have been talking about wanting an election for several weeks now. It is up to them to explain that. What is more, it is up to them to vote, like all the opposition parties, on whether to continue working collaboratively in this Parliament or not. We will see what they will do in half an hour.
Martel cites 250 job losses at Pratt & Whitney the previous week and asks how many more aerospace jobs must be lost before the government reacts.
The question cites a specific recent job loss â 250 jobs at Pratt & Whitney â and asks a clear threshold question about when the government will act, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la semaine passée, le secteur de l'aéronautique au Québec a encore perdu des centaines d'emplois: 250 emplois chez Pratt & Whitney, sur la Rive-Sud de Montréal, pour ne pas les nommer. Le secteur de l'aéronautique, ce sont des emplois de haute qualité, de haut savoir et trÚs bien rémunérés. Combien d'autres emplois le secteur devra-t-il perdre pour susciter une réaction du gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's aerospace industry lost hundreds more jobs last week, including 250 jobs at Pratt & Whitney on Montreal's south shore, to give just one example. The aerospace sector provides high-quality, well-paid, knowledge-based jobs. How many more jobs does the sector need to lose before this government reacts?
Trudeau says the government is fully aware of COVID-19's impact on the aviation and aerospace industries, that $1.1 billion in wage subsidy support has been provided to air industry workers, and that work continues.
Trudeau references $1.1 billion in wage subsidy support to the air industry, which is relevant context, but does not address a specific plan for aerospace or answer the threshold question posed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes pleinement saisis par les enjeux importants que la COVID-19 a crĂ©Ă©s pour les industries aĂ©rienne et aĂ©ronautique. Comme il a Ă©tĂ© mentionnĂ© dans le discours du TrĂŽne, nous travaillons afin de mettre en Ćuvre des solutions qui offrent au secteur aĂ©ronautique le soutien dont il a besoin. Jusqu'Ă prĂ©sent, 1,1 milliard de dollars en soutien aux travailleurs de l'industrie aĂ©rienne ont Ă©tĂ© fournis par le biais de la subvention salariale. Nous continuons d'aider les travailleurs de l'industrie aĂ©ronautique. Nous continuerons d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour appuyer les travailleurs d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays. C'est pour cela que nous devons continuer de travailler et ne pas tomber dans la partisanerie, comme les conservateurs le font toujours.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are fully seized with the serious problems that COVID-19 has created for the airline and aerospace industries. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we are working to implement solutions that provide the aerospace sector with the support it needs. To date, $1.1 billion in support for airline industry workers has been provided through the wage subsidy. We continue to help workers in the aerospace industry. We will continue to be there to support workers across the country. That is why we need to keep working and not play partisan games, which is what the Conservatives are always doing.
Martel cites a PBO report indicating Canada is not meeting its superclusters objectives and that the aerospace sector is being neglected, and asks when the Liberal government will have a plan for aerospace.
The question cites a PBO report finding that Canada is not meeting its superclusters objectives and that aerospace is being neglected, and asks when the government will have a plan â a reasonably specific, document-grounded ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la réalité, c'est que le gouvernement n'a pas de plan pour le secteur de l'aéronautique. Un rapport du DPB rapportait récemment que le Canada n'atteindrait pas ses objectifs avec la stratégie des supergrappes et que le secteur de l'aéronautique était délaissé. L'immense territoire du Canada permet au secteur d'innover, un avantage que nos concurrents à l'international envient. Quand le gouvernement libéral aura-t-il un plan pour le secteur de l'aéronautique?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the government does not have a plan for the aerospace sector. A recent PBO report revealed that Canada would not achieve its goals with the supercluster strategy and that the aerospace sector has been abandoned. Canada's vast territory creates an opportunity for the sector to innovate, giving us a coveted edge over our international competitors. When will the Liberal government come up with a plan for the aerospace sector?
Trudeau says the government has worked with the aerospace industry for five years, will continue investing, and acknowledges COVID-19 is hitting the sector hard while promising longer-term solutions.
Trudeau does not address the PBO report, the superclusters finding, or provide any plan details, instead speaking in generalities about five years of work and ongoing investment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis le dĂ©but de notre mandat, il y a cinq ans, nous travaillons avec l'industrie aĂ©ronautique au QuĂ©bec et partout au pays pour assurer de bons emplois et un bel avenir Ă cette industrie importante pour le Canada et le monde. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec les innovateurs canadiens et les compagnies aĂ©ronautiques. Nous continuerons de faire les investissements nĂ©cessaires. Nous comprenons que la COVID-19 frappe fort cette industrie, mais nous continuerons d'ĂȘtre lĂ avec une aide directe aux travailleurs. Nous travaillons aussi avec le secteur afin de trouver des solutions Ă plus long terme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since taking office five years ago, we have worked with the aerospace industry in Quebec and across the country to secure good jobs and a promising future for this industry, which is important to Canada and the rest of the world. We will keep working with Canadian innovators and aerospace companies. We will keep making the necessary investments. We understand that COVID-19 is hitting the industry hard, but we will continue to step up by providing direct assistance to workers. We are also working with the sector to find longer-term solutions.
O'Toole states FTI Professional Grade was created seven days before receiving a $200-million contract, that it is a partner of former Liberal MP Frank Baylis, and asks why there is a cover-up.
O'Toole lays out a specific sequence of facts â company created seven days before a $200-million contract, FTI Professional Grade as a partner of Frank Baylis, Baylis as a Liberal MP only six months prior â and asks a direct question about the cover-up.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, sept jours avant l'obtention d'un contrat de 200 millions de dollars, l'entreprise FTI Professional Grade a été créée. Cette entreprise est un partenaire de Frank Baylis. Frank Baylis fabrique les ventilateurs Baylis. Frank Baylis était un député seulement six mois avant l'obtention du contrat. Quelle est la vérité? Pourquoi y a-t-il du camouflage?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, FTI Professional Grade Inc. was created seven days before winning a $200-million contract. That company is a partner of Frank Baylis. Frank Baylis manufactures Baylis ventilators. Frank Baylis was an MP just six months before the contract was awarded. What is the truth? Why the cover-up?
Trudeau says Services publics Canada concluded an agreement with FTI Professional Grade on public health recommendations, that there is no agreement with any supplier of FTI, and that delivering ventilators was the priority.
Trudeau confirms a contract with FTI Professional Grade on public health advice but does not address the timeline, the Baylis connection, the no-bid nature of the contract, or the cover-up allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début, nous travaillons avec les industries du Canada pour livrer les services et l'équipement dont nous avons besoin pendant cette pandémie sans précédent. Selon les recommandations de Santé publique, Services publics Canada a conclu un accord avec FTI Professional Grade. Nous n'avons pas d'accord avec aucun fournisseur de FTI. Nous reconnaissons qu'il faut livrer des ventilateurs afin de garder les gens en sécurité. C'était notre priorité. La santé et la sécurité des Canadiens seront toujours notre priorité.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from day one, we have been working with Canada's industries to deliver the services and equipment we need during this unprecedented pandemic. On the recommendation of public health, Public Services Canada signed an agreement with FTI Professional Grade. We have no agreements with any of FTI's suppliers. We know that we need ventilators to keep people safe. That was our priority. The health and safety of Canadians will always be our priority.
O'Toole asks whether the Prime Minister consulted Dr. Tam about holding an election during a pandemic, invoking Trudeau's own previous statements urging Canadians to follow public health advice.
O'Toole builds a coherent accountability argument using the Prime Minister's own public statements about following Dr. Tam and cancelling Thanksgiving, then asks a pointed yes/no question about whether he consulted Dr. Tam on a pandemic election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for months the Prime Minister asked Canadians to follow public health advice. For months he asked Canadians to consult Dr. Tam and health authorities for their well-being, for the health of all Canadians. Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister cancelled Thanksgiving and said we had better be prepared to cancel Christmas, and today he will not answer our question on whether he asked Dr. Tam about having an election in a pandemic. Will the Prime Minister admit he's willing to put his electoral fortunes ahead of the well-being of Canadians?
Trudeau says he has full confidence in Elections Canada to work with health officials, lists pandemic supports delivered, and says it is up to the opposition to decide whether to make Parliament work.
Trudeau does not answer whether he consulted Dr. Tam about an election, instead citing Elections Canada's work with health officials and pivoting to general pandemic supports.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the well-being of Canadians is what this government has been focused on since day one. We have delivered on supports for families and for seniors. We have delivered on supports for students and workers. We have delivered for small businesses, and in Small Business Week we heard across the country how much of a difference what we have done has made. Furthermore, we continue to work with public health officials, and I can assure members that Elections Canada has worked very closely with health officials to determine what the best paths forward are. I have full confidence in Elections Canada to be able to do those things. Our focus is on continuing to deliver for Canadians. It is up to the opposition to decide if they want to make Parliament work.
Davies asks whether the pharmacare commitment made in the throne speech two weeks ago was a genuine commitment or another hollow Liberal campaign promise.
Davies asks whether the pharmacare commitment in the throne speech was serious or a hollow promise, which is a substantive accountability question, but it is wrapped in partisan framing about the Prime Minister forcing an unnecessary election.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has become very obvious to Canadians that the Prime Minister is trying to force an unnecessary election, but our country is facing an unprecedented pandemic. Canadians are deeply concerned about their health and also about paying their bills and feeding their families. The Prime Minister says he wants to help Canadians, but he is clearly more interested in playing politics. My question is this: When the Prime Minister committed to pharmacare in the throne speech just two weeks ago, was he serious or was that just another hollow Liberal campaign promise?
Trudeau lists COVID-19 pandemic supports â for families, workers, small businesses, provinces, and the vulnerable â without mentioning pharmacare, and urges opposition parties to work collaboratively.
Trudeau does not address pharmacare at all, instead listing general pandemic supports and framing the session as a choice for opposition parties about collaborative work.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of this pandemic, we have stepped up to help Canadians, to help families, to help workers, to help small businesses and to ensure that the provinces have adequate PPE and testing facilities. We have flowed billions of dollars to the provinces to make sure we are reopening schools safely. We are supporting our most vulnerable. Every step of the way, we have worked constructively with members of all parties to deliver in this pandemic. Today, unfortunately, opposition parties need to make a choice about whether or not they want to work collaboratively and constructively, which does not mean agreeing on everything, but does mean moving forward and focusing on Canadians. That is the choice they get to make.
Gazan asks whether the government's throne speech commitment to universal child care and early learning was a real commitment to help families or just an empty pre-election promise.
Gazan asks whether the child care commitment in the throne speech was a genuine commitment or an empty pre-election promise, but the framing is heavily rhetorical and the ask mirrors exchange 22.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, COVID cases are increasing and people are worried about their jobs, their kids and the health of their loved ones. Instead of building a universal child care and early learning system that would help families, the Prime Minister would rather throw us into an election. If the Liberals really cared about families and parents who must make the difficult decision between going back to work and taking care of their kids, they would work with the opposition to find a solution. The government bragged about its commitment to child care in the throne speech. Was this really a commitment to help families or just another empty pre-election promise?
Trudeau says the throne speech commitments on child care and pharmacare were genuine, cites historic investments for families and working moms, and asks the opposition to choose to work constructively.
Trudeau mentions child care and pharmacare briefly as throne speech commitments but provides no specifics, immediately pivoting to pandemic investments and the opposition's choice about Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we were proud to stand before Canadians with that throne speech and talk about child care, talk about pharmacare and talk about the investments we were going to be making to recognize the gaps that COVID-19 has demonstrated in our social safety nets, in the fabric of Canadians' lives, and work closely with all others to fill them. We flowed historic investments to support families, to support working moms and to support Canadians from one coast to the other to the other to deliver for them, and we are going to continue to do that. The opposition parties need to choose whether they want to work constructively in this House or not. We will see.
Powlowski asks the Prime Minister to update the House on measures the government is taking regarding the Canada-U.S. border and non-essential travel restrictions.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to update the House on border measures, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. border between Thunder Bay and Manitoba is part of my riding. We know that border restrictions to non-essential travel have been effective in limiting the introduction and transmission of COVID-19 into Canada from other countries. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on measures our government is taking with regard to our border?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder BayâRainy River for his hard work as a health care professional as well as an MP. Since January, we have taken multiple measures at our border to protect the health and safety of Canadians by limiting the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Canada. We made the extraordinary decision back in March to introduce reciprocal border restrictions for non-essential travel with the U.S., and just this week we announced its extension for another month. We will continue to do what is necessary to keep Canadians safe, and will always base our decisions on the best public health information available.
Trudeau says border measures have been in place since January, a reciprocal restriction on non-essential travel with the U.S. was introduced in March, and this week it was extended for another month.
Trudeau provides substantive information: border restrictions have been in place since January, a reciprocal travel restriction with the U.S. was introduced in March and was just extended for another month.
Rayes asks a simple yes-or-no question: did the Prime Minister consult Dr. Tam about whether it was possible to hold an election during the second wave of the pandemic?
Rayes strips the question to its bare yes/no form â did the Prime Minister consult Dr. Tam about holding an election during the second wave â making it one of the most precisely answerable questions of the session.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef de lâopposition et la dĂ©putĂ©e de Calgary Nose Hill ont posĂ© une question extrĂȘmement simple au premier ministre: a-t-il consultĂ© la Dre Tam pour savoir s'il Ă©tait possible de tenir une Ă©lection pendant cette deuxiĂšme vague de la pandĂ©mie, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: Did he or did he not consult Dr. Tam about holding an election during this second wave of the pandemic?
Trudeau expresses confidence in Elections Canada and its capacity to run democratic processes during the pandemic, without saying whether he consulted Dr. Tam.
Trudeau does not answer yes or no, instead expressing confidence in Elections Canada and describing collaborative pandemic governance â a complete non-answer to the specific yes/no question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, j'ai Ă©normĂ©ment confiance en Ălections Canada et en sa capacitĂ© de faire fonctionner notre dĂ©mocratie. Depuis le dĂ©but de cette pandĂ©mie, nous avons dĂ©montrĂ© que, malgrĂ© la pandĂ©mie â et mĂȘme Ă cause de la pandĂ©mie â, il Ă©tait essentiel de faire fonctionner nos institutions parlementaires et dĂ©mocratiques, et c'est exactement ce que nous avons fait. Nous avons travaillĂ© avec nos partenaires ici Ă la Chambre, nous avons travaillĂ© avec les provinces, nous avons travaillĂ© avec les Canadiens pour rĂ©pondre concrĂštement Ă leurs attentes pendant ces moments difficiles, et nous allons continuer de le faire. L'opposition doit dĂ©cider si elle veut continuer Ă collaborer, ici Ă la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have immense trust in Elections Canada and its ability to make our democracy work. From the beginning of this crisis, we have shown that despite the pandemic, or perhaps because of it, it is essential to make our parliamentary and democratic institutions work, and that is what have done. We have worked with our partners here in the House, we have worked with the provinces, we have worked with Canadians to meet their expectations during these tough times, and that is what we will continue to do. The opposition needs to decide if it wants to continue to collaborate here in the House.
Rayes repeats the yes/no question â did the Prime Minister ask Dr. Tam whether an election could be called during the second wave â while accusing the Prime Minister of wanting to hide the WE Charity and other scandals.
Rayes repeats the yes/no Dr. Tam question but embeds it in partisan framing about the WE Charity scandal, judicial appointments, and friends of the Liberals, somewhat diluting the precision of the earlier iteration.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on est en face d'un premier ministre qui veut dĂ©clencher une Ă©lection et en faire porter l'odieux par l'opposition. Ce premier ministre veut cacher ses scandales de l'organisme UNIS, de la nomination des juges et de l'argent qu'il donne Ă ses petits amis libĂ©raux. La question du chef de l'opposition et de la dĂ©putĂ©e de Calgary Nose Hill est extrĂȘmement simple: le premier ministre a-t-il demandĂ© Ă la Dre Tam si l'on pouvait dĂ©clencher une Ă©lection pendant cette deuxiĂšme vague de la pandĂ©mie, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who wants to trigger an election and blame the opposition for it. This Prime Minister wants to cover up his scandals involving WE Charity, judicial appointments and money given to his Liberal cronies. The question posed by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Calgary Nose Hill is extremely simple: Did the Prime Minister ask Dr. Tam if we could call an election during the second wave of the pandemic, yes or no?
Trudeau says Elections Canada is doing the necessary work to ensure readiness for any election, whether in three weeks or three years, and asks opposition parties to decide if they want to collaborate.
Trudeau again does not answer yes or no about Dr. Tam, pivoting to Elections Canada preparedness for any future election and the opposition's choice about collaboration.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans notre pays, dans notre dĂ©mocratie robuste, il existe des systĂšmes qui s'occupent des Ă©lections. Ălections Canada est en train de faire le travail nĂ©cessaire pour s'assurer que, quand il y aura une Ă©lection, que ce soit dans trois semaines ou dans trois ans, on sera prĂȘt malgrĂ© la pandĂ©mie. Nous avons confiance dans nos institutions et les Canadiens peuvent avoir confiance dans leurs institutions. Ce que les partis de l'opposition doivent dĂ©cider, c'est sâils veulent continuer Ă collaborer pour travailler de façon constructive Ă la Chambre, oui ou non.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in our country and in our robust democracy, there are systems governing elections. Elections Canada is doing the work to ensure that when there is an election, whether that is in three weeks or three years, all will be ready despite the pandemic. We have confidence in our institutions, and Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. What the opposition parties must do is decide if they wish to continue collaborating and working constructively in the House, yes or no.
Stubbs accuses the Prime Minister of ignoring the Nova Scotia lobster fishery crisis until violence erupted â people hurt and buildings burned â and asks why he won't pick up the phone and talk to people on the ground.
Stubbs characterises the Prime Minister's response to the Nova Scotia lobster fishery crisis with specific allegations (violence, burned buildings, tweeting from Ottawa) and asks why he won't pick up the phone and talk to people on the ground, though the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's failure of leadership turned the tensions over the Nova Scotia lobster fisheries into a crisis. He ignored it until violence erupted. People were hurt and buildings were burned. However, that is his MO, is it not? It is do nothing, send out a couple of tweets, do nothing some more and then blame everyone else. What is worse is that as vandalism and violence escalated, he decided to join the debate here in Ottawa a couple of days ago a thousand kilometres away. Why does the Prime Minister not finally pick up the phone, talk to the people on the ground and actually do his job?
Trudeau strongly condemns the violence, racism, and threats in Nova Scotia, says violence must end for productive conversations, and announces that a special representative will be appointed soon to foster dialogue between commercial harvesters and first nations.
Trudeau condemns the violence and racism, states the violence must end for productive conversations, and announces that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations will be appointing a special representative soon â a partial but substantive answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, obviously we strongly condemn the acts of violence, racism and threats we have seen in Nova Scotia. I have to be clear: For productive conversations to continue, we need to fully implement this right, so the violence must end. We will continue to work with both first nations and industry leadership to find a path forward, ensuring a safe, productive and sustainable fishery for all harvesters. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations will be appointing a special representative very soon to continue fostering further dialogue between commercial harvesters and first nations. We will continue our discussions with the Mi'kmaq, nation to nation.
Stubbs cites a former top DFO official who said the government 'mishandled this situation terribly,' notes the crisis has gone on for over a month, and asks what the Prime Minister is actually going to do to fix it.
Stubbs cites a former top DFO official saying the government 'mishandled this situation terribly' and notes the crisis has lasted over a month, grounding a specific ask about what the Prime Minister will actually do to fix it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this crisis has raged on for over a month. Fishers on all sides condemn the Liberal government's lack of action. Even a former top DFO official in the region said the government âmishandled this situation terriblyâ. Now the Prime Minister wants to force an election, just for his own self-interest, just to keep covering up his own scandals. For once, maybe he should actually lead. The Prime Minister could protect indigenous and non-indigenous people, keep their communities safe, and ensure conservation and a prosperous fishery for all in Nova Scotia. The Prime Minister allowed it to become a crisis. What is he actually going to do to fix it?
Trudeau says federal governments have made progress since the Marshall decision 21 years ago, references prior Mi'kmaq agreements, and commits to solving the issue once and for all in partnership with the Mi'kmaq and all people of Nova Scotia.
Trudeau references the Marshall decision's 21-year history, mentions the minister of fisheries' prior agreements with the Mi'kmaq, and commits to resolving the issue in partnership â relevant context but no concrete new measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 21 years, since the Marshall decision, federal governments of all different stripes have made progress on resolving this issue and recognizing the inherent rights of Mi'kmaq first nations fishers. We will continue to do so. A number of years ago, our minister of fisheries from Beauséjour moved forward on strong agreements with the Mi'kmaq. We are continuing to move forward constructively and productively, not to solve this with just a band-aid but to solve this issue once and for all, in partnership with the Mi'kmaq and all people of Nova Scotia.
Fortin argues the Bloc is consolidating four committees into one to investigate the WE Charity scandal and asks what the Liberals are hiding from Quebecers, citing prorogation, the Finance Minister's resignation, and the confidence vote as attempts to suppress scrutiny.
Fortin describes the Bloc's proposal to consolidate four committees into one to study the WE Charity scandal, recounts the government's alleged tactics to suppress scrutiny (prorogation, Finance Minister resignation, confidence vote), and asks what the Liberals are hiding â a partially substantive but rhetorically framed question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tout ce qu'on veut, c'est qu'un comitĂ© fasse la lumiĂšre sur le scandale WE Charity, au nom des QuĂ©bĂ©cois. On libĂšre quatre comitĂ©s qui Ă©tudiaient le scandale pour en crĂ©er un seul. La vĂ©ritĂ©, c'est qu'on facilite le travail du gouvernement en temps de pandĂ©mie, pourvu qu'il rĂ©ponde Ă nos questions, mais les libĂ©raux sont prĂȘts Ă tout pour qu'on ne parle pas de ce scandale. Ils ont fermĂ© le Parlement, cet Ă©tĂ©, afin de noyer le poisson. Ils ont fait dĂ©missionner le ministre des Finances et, aujourd'hui, ils veulent faire tomber leur propre gouvernement pour ne pas rĂ©pondre Ă nos questions. Qu'est-ce qu'ils cachent aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all we want is a committee to look into the WE Charity scandal on behalf of Quebeckers. We would be freeing up the four committees that were looking into the scandal and create one new one. We are actually making the government's job easier in the midst of a pandemic, as long as it answers our questions, but the Liberals are doing everything they can to stop us from talking about the scandal. They shut down Parliament this summer in an attempt to dodge the issue. The forced the finance minister to resign, and now they want to topple their own government just to avoid answering our questions. What are they hiding from Quebeckers?
Trudeau suggests the Bloc wants an election because the federal government has been concretely helping Quebecers â families, workers, small businesses â and working hand in hand with the Quebec government, which creates a political problem for the Bloc.
Trudeau does not address WE Charity, the committee proposal, prorogation, or what is being hidden, instead suggesting the Bloc needs an election because the federal government has been helping Quebecers.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je comprends pourquoi le Bloc a tant besoin d'une élection. C'est parce que depuis 6 ou 7 mois, le gouvernement fédéral prend des mesures concrÚtes pour les Québécois, aide les familles québécoises, les travailleurs québécois et les petites entreprises, et travaille main dans la main avec le gouvernement du Québec. Nous allons continuer d'appuyer les Québécois. Sur le plan politique, cela pose problÚme au Bloc de voir un gouvernement fédéral faire tant de bien à tant de Québécois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Bloc wants an election so badly. For the past six or seven months, the federal government has been delivering the goods, literally, for Quebeckers, helping Quebec families, Quebec workers and small businesses. It has been working in partnership with the Government of Quebec. We will continue to support Quebeckers. It cannot be easy, politically speaking, for the Bloc to see a federal government doing so much good for so many Quebeckers.
Fortin reveals that a $237-million no-bid contract was awarded to Frank Baylis â a Liberal MP as recently as last year â through a shell company created only seven days before receiving the contract, and asks how many special committees will be needed to cover all Liberal scandals.
Fortin cites a specific new contract â $237 million to Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP from the previous year, no-bid, through a shell company created seven days before receiving the contract â and connects it to the WE Charity pattern, asking a pointed rhetorical question about the number of special committees needed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si seulement on était aussi mal pris, cela poserait moins problÚme. Ce qui paralyse le Parlement, ce n'est pas l'opposition, c'est l'accumulation des scandales libéraux. On apprenait aujourd'hui que les libéraux ont confié un contrat de 237 millions de dollars à Frank Baylis, qui était député libéral à la Chambre pas plus tard que l'an dernier. Il s'agit d'un contrat sans appel d'offres, comme dans le cas de WE Charity, à travers une société-écran créée à peine sept jours avant de recevoir les chÚques libéraux. S'il fallait un comité chaque fois qu'il y a du copinage libéral, on paralyserait le Parlement pour longtemps. Cela va en prendre combien, des comités spéciaux, pour faire le tour des scandales libéraux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if only that was the extent of our problems, things would be much easier. It is not the opposition that is paralyzing Parliament but rather the growing number of Liberal scandals. Today we learned that the Liberals awarded a $237-million contract to Frank Baylis, who was a Liberal member of the House just last year. It was an untendered contract, much like the one involving WE Charity, awarded through a shell corporation created just seven days before receiving the Liberal cheques. If we had to set up a committee at every instance of Liberal cronyism, Parliament would be paralyzed for quite some time. How many special committees are we going to need to get through all the Liberal scandals?
Trudeau lists pandemic measures â CERB, wage subsidy, PPE, testing, school reopening support â without addressing the Baylis contract or cronyism allegations, and asks the opposition to choose productive collaboration.
Trudeau does not address the Baylis contract, the no-bid process, the shell company, or the cronyism allegation, instead listing general pandemic measures and asking the opposition to work productively.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début de cette pandémie, nous avons travaillé avec tous les partis de la Chambre pour « livrer la marchandise ». Nous avons établi la PCU, la Subvention salariale d'urgence, de l'équipement de protection individuelle et du matériel de dépistage. Nous avons pris des mesures pour rouvrir les classes de façon sécuritaire pour nos étudiants. Nous avons travaillé main dans la main avec les provinces. Nous allons continuer à travailler avec tous les membres de la Chambre pour aider les Canadiens. L'opposition doit faire un choix. Est-ce qu'elle veut continuer à travailler de façon productive ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this pandemic, we have been working with all parties in the House to âdeliver the goodsâ. We delivered the CERB, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, personal protective equipment and testing supplies. We delivered by supporting the safe restart of classes for our students. We worked very closely with the provinces. We will continue to work with all members of the House to support Canadians. The opposition must make a choice. Do opposition members want to continue working productively or not?
Kusie asks when the Prime Minister will deliver a plan for the aviation sector, citing over 200 days of suspended operations and furloughed workers.
Cites specific airlines, a 200-day figure, and affected worker categories, but the ask â 'when will the Prime Minister finally deliver a plan' â is broad and lacks a deadline or specific policy benchmark.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we saw hundreds of aviation workers protesting here on Parliament Hill, pleading for the government to provide them with a plan that gets them back to work. It has been over 200 days since both Porter and Sunwing Airlines have operated flights, with both Air Canada and WestJet suspending dozens of routes. Because of the Liberal government's failure, flight attendants have been furloughed, pilots are struggling to get flight hours and air traffic controllers have been laid off. When will the Prime Minister finally deliver a plan for the aviation sector?
Trudeau cites over $1.1 billion in wage subsidy support to the airline industry and pledges continued support, without committing to a specific plan or timeline.
Provides a concrete figure ($1.1 billion in wage subsidy support) but does not address the demand for a sector-specific plan or timeline, pivoting to general reassurances.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that many sectors have been extremely hard hit by this pandemic, particularly the airline sector, among others. That is why the wage subsidy has helped the airline industry with over $1.1 billion in support. We will continue to work to support our airlines as we go through this difficult situation. We know we need to have a strong airline industry once we come through this pandemic. That is what we are focused on. We continue to work with partners. We continue to support workers across this country. We will ensure that Canada stays a strong leader in airlines and aeronautics.
Kusie asks whether the Prime Minister has given the Minister of Transport a directive and a deadline to address the aviation sector crisis, framing it as a yes or no question.
Cites consultations with over 30 stakeholders in four weeks, references the EU removing Canada from approved traveller lists that day, and poses a binary yes/no question about a specific directive and deadline to the Minister of Transport.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have met with over 30 stakeholders in just the past four weeks, and they continue to tell me how desperately they need a plan or some kind of action from the government. We have heard that the government is starting to consult and work on solutions for the sector, but the fact is it should have been listening long before now. Just today, the EU removed Canadians from the list of approved travellers, and the ripple effects of the Prime Minister's negligence will continue to grow. Has the Prime Minister given the Minister of Transport a directive and a deadline to address this critical situation, yes or no?
Trudeau focuses on keeping Canadians safe from COVID-19 and border measures, without addressing the question of a directive or deadline for the Minister of Transport.
Completely ignores the yes/no question about a directive and deadline, instead pivoting to border safety, COVID-19 responsibility framing, and general support for workers â a near-total deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a government we have been squarely focused on the safety and security of Canadians. Now, we have seen other parties and other leaders not be as responsible in terms of doing the things that are protecting from the spread of COVID-19, but we will continue to ensure that what we do in terms of closing the borders and keeping Canadians safe is always top of mind. Yes we are there to support small businesses and large, we are there to support workers, and we will continue to, but we will always make our decisions based on protecting Canadians from this pandemic first and foremost.
Vis asks whether the Prime Minister consulted Dr. Theresa Tam about holding a federal election during a pandemic and what the science-based plan would be for immunocompromised Canadians to vote.
Asks three connected but distinct questions â whether Tam was consulted, what the science-based approach is, and how immunocompromised Canadians would vote â making the ask compound and somewhat diffuse despite referencing a specific public figure and scenario.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister please share whether he consulted with Dr. Theresa Tam on how a federal election would be held during a national pandemic? What is the science-based approach to keep Canadians safe? If an election is called today, how will immunocompromised Canadians be able to go to the polls?
Trudeau states Elections Canada has been working to ensure a safe election is possible and deflects by saying the opposition is choosing whether to force an election.
Trudeau notes Elections Canada is working on safe election procedures and deflects by saying the choice for an election lies with the opposition, without confirming or denying consultation with Dr. Tam or detailing any science-based approach.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning we have worked with scientists and health experts, and we know full well that Elections Canada has continued to work to ensure we are able to hold an election in a safe way. We do not want an election, and the choice is up to the opposition parties whether they want to keep working productively and constructively in Parliament or not. That is what they are facing as a choice, and that is what we will see shortly.
Khalid asks the Prime Minister to inform the House about the government's progress in addressing the Christchurch call to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.
A government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to report on progress related to the Christchurch call, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, online hate is an ever-increasing and pervasive threat that has dangerous implications. We have seen racism simmer and rise. We have seen members of this House face the consequences. We have lost too many lives to despicable acts of violence in Canada and globally. We need concrete action. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House about our progress in addressing the Christchurch call to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. Too many people have been victimized by online hate, and we have seen the results of this too many times. That is why, yesterday, we announced over $700,000 in funding to YWCA Canada to examine hate speech trends while developing online tools and digital literacy training for young Canadians. We are also working toward establishing requirements for social media platforms to remove such hatred within a reasonable time or be held accountable. We are working together to address harm caused by online hate.
Trudeau announces over $700,000 in funding to YWCA Canada for hate speech research and digital literacy training, and states the government is working toward requirements for social media platforms to remove hatred.
Trudeau provides a specific funding figure ($700,000 to YWCA Canada), names the recipient and purpose, and references forthcoming legislative requirements for social media platforms â substantive content directly responsive to the question.
Vis presses the Prime Minister to explain why he will not provide a science-based approach to holding a federal election during a pandemic, referencing that multiple colleagues' similar questions went unanswered.
Frames the question around prior unanswered instances from named members, but the ask â why is the Prime Minister refusing a science-based approach to an election during a pandemic â is mostly rhetorical and repeats Exchange 33 without adding new specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refused to answer the question from the member for Calgary Nose Hill, the member for Durham and the member for RichmondâArthabaska. The question is simple: Why is he refusing Canadians an answer to a simple question on how a federal election would be held during a pandemic? What is he afraid to tell us, and why is he afraid to give this House a science-based approach to an election during a pandemic?
Trudeau states the government is focused on keeping Canadians safe and that the opposition's non-confidence motion puts the choice of an election in their hands, without addressing the science-based approach question.
Trudeau does not address the science-based approach question at all, instead repeating that the opposition is responsible for any election and that the government is focused on delivering for Canadians â a full deflection.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to focus on delivering for Canadians in this pandemic, on keeping Canadians safe. The members of the opposition have brought forward a motion that is clearly of non-confidence in this House, and they will then need to decide whether they want to continue to work collaboratively in this House, or not. That is the choice they get to face. On this side of the House, we are not interested in an election. We are dealing with Canadians. We are delivering for them every single day. The choice is up to the opposition.
O'Toole quotes the Prime Minister's own statement about consulting experts and asks him to undertake not to force a general election before public commentary and opinion from Dr. Tam and Elections Canada.
O'Toole quotes the Prime Minister's own September statement about being informed by experts and poses a specific binary ask â undertaking not to force a general election before public commentary from Dr. Tam and Elections Canada â grounding it in a prior public commitment.
Source text
âKeeping Canadians safeâ, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has had multiple joint press conferences with Dr. Tam. In September, he said this: âEvery step of the way, we were informed by our experts as to how to keep Canadians safeâ. Today, the Prime Minister's silence is an admission that he has not consulted Dr. Tam or experts ahead of threatening a general election in the second wave of a pandemic. Will the Prime Minister put the health and well-being of Canadians first, today? Will he rise in this House and undertake not to force a general election, before public commentary and opinion from Dr. Tam and Elections Canada?
Oh, oh!
Trudeau repeats that the opposition moved a non-confidence motion and that the choice of whether to have an election lies with opposition parties, without addressing the request for an undertaking or any consultation with Dr. Tam.
Trudeau entirely ignores the specific undertaking requested and the question about consulting Dr. Tam, repeating only that the choice is the opposition's and that the government does not want an election â a near-complete non-answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the choice is up to the opposition parties. They moved a motion that is clearly not in confidence of the government. They have decided that they no longer want to work constructively in this House to deliver for Canadians. It is their choice. On this side of the House, we are not interested in an election. We have much work to do to continue to deliver for Canadians. The question before the opposition members today is whether they want to continue to work constructively for Canadians. We shall soon see their answer.
Gourde asks whether partisan activities such as donating to the party, posting signs, and attending partisan events are truly the new Liberal criteria for judicial appointments in Canada.
References specific media reports listing criteria for judicial appointments (donations, sign-planting, partisan events, Canadian Bar Association membership) but frames the ask rhetorically as 'are these really the new Liberal criteria' rather than demanding a specific accounting.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, selon les mĂ©dias, pour une nomination Ă la magistrature libĂ©rale, on doit avoir cotisĂ© au parti, posĂ© des pancartes, participĂ© Ă un Ă©vĂ©nement partisan, fait des appels pendant une campagne Ă©lectorale, Ă©tĂ© le bĂ©nĂ©vole du mois et, bien sĂ»r, ĂȘtre membre de l'Association du Barreau canadien. Sont-ce vraiment les nouveaux critĂšres libĂ©raux pour devenir juge au Canada? C'est un vrai scandale.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to the media, the criteria for a Liberal appointment to the bench are party membership, putting up signs, participating in a party event, working the phones during an election campaign, being volunteer of the month and, of course, being a member of the Canadian Bar Association. Are these really the Liberals' new criteria for a judicial appointment in Canada? This is absolutely scandalous.
Trudeau outlines the 2016 judicial appointment reforms, emphasizing independent advisory committees, merit-based selection, and the diversity of political backgrounds among appointees.
Trudeau describes the 2016 reforms, references independent advisory committees and merit-based criteria, and acknowledges appointees come from different political affiliations, partially engaging the allegation but not addressing the specific media-reported criteria.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons apporté des réformes importantes au processus de nominations judiciaires en 2016. Nous avons renforcé le rÎle des comités consultatifs indépendants sur les nominations à la magistrature. Nous avons établi un systÚme plus rigoureux, ouvert et responsable qui reflÚte mieux la diversité du Canada. Les nominations sont fondées sur le mérite ainsi que sur les besoins des tribunaux et le domaine d'expertise de chaque candidat. Nous sommes fiers des juristes hautement compétents qui ont été nommés depuis la mise en place de notre systÚme renforcé. Ils viennent de milieux variés et, oui, d'affiliations politiques différentes.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we brought in major reforms to the judicial appointment process in 2016. We strengthened the role of independent judicial advisory committees. We created a more rigorous, open and accountable system that better reflects Canada's diversity. Appointments are based on merit, on the needs of the courts and on each candidate's area of expertise. We are proud of the extremely competent members of the legal profession who have been appointed since our improved system was introduced. They come from diverse backgrounds and, yes, they have different political affiliations.
Koutrakis asks the Prime Minister how the government will support small and medium-sized businesses during the pandemic recovery, citing Small Business Week.
A government-backbench softball during Small Business Week asking the Prime Minister to highlight government support for SMEs, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă l'occasion de la Semaine de la petite entreprise, les PME sont au cĆur de notre relance et le meilleur moyen de relancer l'Ă©conomie. Dans ma circonscription, Vimy, les petites entreprises ont souffert de la pandĂ©mie, mais, malgrĂ© cela, plusieurs d'entre elles ont fait preuve de courage et ont Ă©tĂ© aux premiĂšres lignes pendant la pandĂ©mie. Le premier ministre peut-il mentionner Ă la Chambre comment notre gouvernement en tant qu'Ăquipe Canada appuiera nos PME d'ici?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is Small Business Week, and SMEs are vital for our recovery and the best way to boost the economy. Small businesses in my riding of Vimy have been hit hard by the pandemic, but even so, many of them have bravely stood on the front lines during this time. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how our government will support our SMEs with a team Canada approach?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de Vimy de sa question trĂšs importante et de son travail acharnĂ©. Les entreprises ont toujours Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour nous et, aujourd'hui plus que jamais, elles ont besoin de notre soutien. C'est pourquoi nous avons lancĂ© le plus grand ensemble d'aides aux petites entreprises de l'histoire de notre pays, avec des programmes comme la Subvention salariale d'urgence du Canada, le Compte d'urgence pour les entreprises canadiennes, qui a aidĂ© plus 770 000 petites entreprises, l'Aide dâurgence du Canada pour le loyer commercial, et bien plus encore. Rien n'est exclu lorsqu'il s'agit d'aider les petites entreprises parce qu'elles sont au cĆur de notre rĂ©ussite en tant que pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vimy for her very important question and all of her hard work. SMEs have always been there for us, and they need our support today more than ever. That is why we launched the largest small business aid package in the history of our country, with programs such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy; the Canada emergency business account, which helped over 770,000 small businesses; the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program; and many more. Nothing is off the table when it comes to helping small businesses, because they are the key to our country's success.
Trudeau lists key support programs including the Subvention salariale d'urgence du Canada, the Compte d'urgence pour les entreprises canadiennes (which aided over 770,000 small businesses), and the Aide d'urgence du Canada pour le loyer commercial.
Trudeau names four specific programs â the Subvention salariale d'urgence du Canada, the Compte d'urgence pour les entreprises canadiennes, the Aide d'urgence du Canada pour le loyer commercial â and cites 770,000 small businesses helped, providing concrete and relevant information.
Collins asks whether the Prime Minister's throne speech climate change promises were real commitments or just empty pre-election announcements, given the government appears determined to call an election.
References the throne speech climate commitments made two weeks prior and raises the contrast with a potential election, but the core ask â whether the promises were real commitments or empty pre-election announcements â is rhetorical rather than a specific accountable ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is hiding behind the opposition and refusing to be open with Canadians about his agenda. While people are struggling with the second wave, they also know that we are facing another impending global emergency: the climate crisis. Just two weeks ago, in his throne speech, the Prime Minister made promises to take long overdue climate action, but now the Prime Minister seems determined to go to an election. He is playing politics with our climate and our future. Were those promises on climate change real commitments, or just empty pre-election announcements?
Trudeau points to increased ocean and coastal protection (from 1% to 14%, targeting 25%) and pledges continued climate action and investment in transforming the economy, without addressing the pre-election announcement allegation directly.
Trudeau cites the increase in protected coastal areas and oceans from 1% to 14% with a 25% target, which is relevant but does not directly address whether the throne speech climate commitments were genuine or why an election would be called before implementing them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past five years, we have done more on climate change and to protect Canada's natural habitats than any government in the history of the country. When we came in, a mere 1% of Canada's coastal areas and oceans was protected. We are now up to 14% and are on our way to 25%. We will continue to stand up for Canada's environment, continue to create good jobs into the future by investing in transforming our economy in positive ways, and we will ensure that every region of the country plays a strong role in building that better future. Even as we are in this crisis of the pandemic, we need to address the crisis of climate change, and this government will.