Session overview
- COVID-19 vaccine distribution dominated early questioning, with the Opposition pressing the government on freezer capacity, procurement transparency, and the timeline for a public distribution plan; the Prime Minister offered assurances but no specific details.
- The status of French in Quebec sparked an extended multilateral debate among the CPC, BQ, and the government, triggered by comments from Chelsea Craig, directrice du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec, who called loi 101 a law of oppression; the Prime Minister expressed support for loi 101 but deflected calls for an official languages modernization bill before Christmas.
- The Keystone XL pipeline drew sharp exchanges, with the CPC arguing the Prime Minister devoted far more effort to the UN Security Council bid than to protecting thousands of Canadian energy jobs; Trudeau linked energy projects to climate action.
- Mental health and suicide prevention produced the session's clearest cross-party moment of agreement, with the Prime Minister committing to work with members on a 988 national suicide prevention hotline after pointed questioning from Todd Doherty and Erin O'Toole.
- No-bid pandemic procurement contracts came under BQ scrutiny, including $371 million to Proline Advantage for medical gowns and $237 million to FTI Professional Grade for ventilators, as well as the $900 million WE Charity contract; the Prime Minister did not address the specific companies named and resisted the creation of a special COVID-19 spending study committee.
- The government announced a $1.75 billion investment in the Fonds pour la large bande universelle to connect approximately 400,000 additional households, and $39 million for Brampton's downtown flood protection project as part of pandemic economic recovery measures.
The Prime Minister gave an unambiguous 'yes' commitment to work toward establishing a 988 national suicide prevention hotline, the only direct and unqualified affirmative commitment made during the session.
Therrien provides highly specific details: $371 million to a one-man company selling protein drinks in his basement at double the price for blouses médicales, $237 million overpayment by $100 million to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis for ventilators, and asks directly why the Prime Minister refuses to create the special committee to study COVID-19 spending.
When pressed on why $371 million went to Proline Advantage (which does not make gowns), $237 million to FTI Professional Grade (which does not make ventilators), and $900 million to WE Charity â all without competitive bids â the Prime Minister made no reference to any of the named companies or contracts and instead delivered a general tribute to Canadian innovation during the pandemic.
Outstanding questions
- Erin O'Toole asked who received the freezer storage contracts for vaccine distribution, how much those contracts are worth, and which entity â the Public Health Agency, the military, or another body â is actually responsible for COVID-19 vaccine logistics; no specific answers were provided.
- Michelle Rempel Garner asked when the Prime Minister would allow Canadians access to at-home COVID-19 tests of the type the U.S. approved that same day, and whether he would direct Health Canada to conduct a rapid review; the Prime Minister deflected responsibility entirely rather than committing to any timeline.
- Alain Therrien asked why the government opposes creating a special committee to study COVID-19 spending, given specific sole-source contracts to companies that did not supply the contracted goods; the Prime Minister did not address the committee request or the named contracts.
- Erin O'Toole asked whether the Prime Minister would table a modernized Official Languages Act before Christmas; Trudeau did not answer the question and instead challenged O'Toole on bilingual Supreme Court judges.
- Erin O'Toole asked the Prime Minister to commit to meeting with as many American officials as necessary to advance Keystone XL, citing that only one phone call with President-elect Joe Biden had taken place compared to sustained lobbying for the UN Security Council seat; no specific commitment to additional meetings was made.
O'Toole asks when Canadians can expect a real plan for COVID vaccine distribution, citing lack of freezer capacity and deals that prioritize other nations like the United States.
Raises specific concerns about freezer capacity and sequencing of doses relative to the United States, with a clear ask for a distribution plan, but lacks precise data citations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, experts are raising alarms about the government's plan to distribute a COVID vaccine. We do not have the freezer capacity. We have signed deals that mean other nations, like the United States, will receive millions of doses before a single Canadian does. When can Canadians expect to see a real plan for COVID vaccine distribution from the government?
Trudeau says Canada is positioned better than almost any other country due to a robust portfolio of vaccine deals signed since summer, and that distribution plans are being worked on.
Trudeau touts the portfolio of vaccine deals and leadership without addressing freezer capacity, dose sequencing relative to the US, or providing a distribution timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the best way to get through this COVID crisis is with vaccines. That is why we have been working since the summer on signing deals with a record number of companies around the world to ensure that wherever or however someone gets the right vaccine, it will be available in Canada. We are actually positioned better than just about any other country in the world in terms of access to a robust portfolio of vaccines because we took leadership as a government and got it done. We are also ensuring that we are going to be able to distribute those vaccines as they become available across Canada. Canadians can count on us.
O'Toole presses on why the government will not reveal who received freezer contracts or how much they cost, and why the Public Health Agency's distribution role remains unclear, asking why key vaccine information is being withheld.
Specifically references the minister's committee testimony about freezer contracts whose recipients and costs are undisclosed, names Frank Baylis, and cites Public Health Agency responsibility statements, making a clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said they have signed a record number of deals. The minister told the committee that they have signed freezer contracts, but she will not say who got the contracts or how much. Maybe Frank Baylis makes freezers. Officials said that the Public Health Agency would be responsible for the logistics of handling and distributing the vaccine, but we cannot get a clear answer on that either. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to reveal key information to Canadians, who need to know about the availability and distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine?
Trudeau says Canadians want to know when the pandemic will end, that vaccines are on the horizon, and that the government is working hard on vaccine delivery methods.
Trudeau does not address the undisclosed freezer contracts, the Public Health Agency logistics question, or the transparency concerns, instead pivoting to what Canadians are asking him about.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the number one question I get from Canadians these days, and actually over the past nine or 10 months, has been this: When is this all going to be over? How much longer are we going to have to go through this? That is what Canadians want to know. Of course, now that we see there are vaccines on the horizon, people are very excited about it. What I can tell the House is that we are in for a number of more months of needing to do the right things before these vaccines start landing anywhere around the world. That is why we are working very hard to make sure that Canadians get those vaccines the right way and properly. We are working very hard on a range of different vaccine delivery methods, and we will be there to support Canadians.
O'Toole asks the Prime Minister to commit to rapid vaccine approval, noting the government's shifting distribution story and that Pfizer has already applied for emergency approval in the United States while Health Canada delays have caused problems with rapid tests.
References the changing distribution story (military vs. other), the Minister of Public Services and Procurement's statement about waiting on Health Canada approval, and Pfizer's US emergency application, making a concrete ask about committing to rapid vaccine approval; weakened by rhetorical flourishes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after obfuscation and after prorogation, the number one question I get when I travel around Canada is this: When will the Prime Minister finally answer a question and be transparent with Canadians? The distribution, he said, would be by the military. The government's distribution story keeps changing. Perhaps it has hired a storyteller. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement said that she is waiting on Health Canada's approval for any vaccine. Pfizer applied for emergency approvals in the United States. We know that Health Canada's delays on rapid tests led to problems. Will the Prime Minister commit today to rapid vaccine approval?
Trudeau says the government has delivered PPE and rapid tests to provinces and will be there to deliver on vaccines as it has had Canadians' backs throughout the pandemic.
Trudeau does not address rapid vaccine approval or Health Canada's process, instead listing past PPE and rapid test deliveries and offering a general commitment to deliver vaccines.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that when I speak with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, they are not asking me about QP. They are asking me about COVID. That is continuing to be what we are working on as our entire focus. Every step of the way, whether it has been in stepping up on PPE or stepping up on testing and, indeed, on rapid testing, which we have delivered to the provinces, with the provinces now evaluating how they want to deploy it, we have been there to deliver all of these things that Canadians need. We will be there to deliver on vaccines, as we have had their backs in every other way during this pandemic.
O'Toole asks why Liberal leaders continue to harm French in Quebec, citing Chelsea Craig, described as directrice du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec, who recently called loi 101 a law of oppression.
Grounds the question in a specific recent statement by Chelsea Craig, identified as directrice du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec, calling loi 101 a law of oppression, but the ask about why Liberal leaders keep harming French in Quebec is somewhat broad.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Chelsea Craig est la directrice du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec. Récemment, Mme Craig a dit que la loi 101 était une loi d'oppression. Quarante-trois ans aprÚs son adoption, les libéraux continuent de ne pas respecter la loi 101. Pourquoi les dirigeants libéraux nuisent-ils encore au français au Québec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Chelsea Craig is the Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada. Ms. Craig recently called Bill 101 oppressive. The Liberals continue to flout Bill 101, 43 years after it was adopted. Why do Liberal leaders continue to undermine French in Quebec?
Trudeau says he takes no lessons from a party that refuses to commit to appointing only bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, and reaffirms the government's commitment to protecting French across Canada.
Trudeau deflects by attacking the Conservatives' refusal to commit to bilingual Supreme Court judges and offers general statements about defending French, without addressing Craig's comments directly.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je n'ai aucune leçon Ă recevoir d'un parti qui refuse toujours de s'engager Ă ne nommer que des juges bilingues Ă la Cour suprĂȘme. Nous avons toujours fait ce qu'il fallait pour dĂ©fendre le fait français au Canada, y compris au QuĂ©bec, comme nous l'avons dit dans le discours du TrĂŽne. Nous savons qu'il est essentiel de s'assurer de l'Ă©panouissement de la langue française partout au pays, mais aussi de bien protĂ©ger le français au QuĂ©bec en partenariat avec le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I do not need any lectures from a party that still refuses to commit to appointing only bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. We have always done what is necessary to defend the French fact in Canada, including in Quebec, as we said in the throne speech. We know how important it is to promote the French language across the country and also to protect the French language in Quebec, in partnership with the Government of Quebec.
O'Toole asks the Prime Minister directly whether he will table an official languages bill before Christmas, noting five years without action and that no Liberal Quebec MP denounced the Saint-Laurent MP.
Asks a specific yes-or-no question: will the Prime Minister table an official languages bill before Christmas, and notes five years without official languages measures and the conduct of the députée de Saint-Laurent.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la députée de Saint-Laurent a été trÚs méprisante envers les francophones. Pourtant, aucun député libéral du Québec ne l'a dénoncée. Ces députés ne font rien pour défendre le français. Il n'y a pas de mesure pour nos langues officielles aprÚs cinq ans. Est-ce que le premier ministre va déposer un projet de loi sur les langues officielles avant Noël, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent showed considerable contempt for francophones, but no Liberal members from Quebec have spoken out against that. These members are doing nothing to defend the French language. No action has been taken on official languages in five years. Will the Prime Minister introduce a bill on official languages before Christmas, yes or no?
Trudeau counter-challenges O'Toole to commit to bilingual Supreme Court judges, reaffirms support for French, and notes that the Saint-Laurent MP apologized for her remarks.
Trudeau does not answer yes or no on tabling an official languages bill, instead counter-questioning O'Toole on bilingual Supreme Court judges and noting the Saint-Laurent MP's apology.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le chef de l'opposition veut dĂ©montrer son engagement envers le français, est-ce qu'il s'engage aujourd'hui Ă ne nommer que des juges bilingues Ă la Cour suprĂȘme du Canada? C'est quelque chose qu'il ne voulait pas faire et on verra bien s'il va l'accepter. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre la langue française et dĂ©fendre le fait français au QuĂ©bec et partout au Canada. C'est pour ça que nous regrettons les propos de la dĂ©putĂ©e de Saint-Laurent et que nous sommes contents qu'elle se soit excusĂ©e pour ses propos.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to show his commitment to the French language, will he promise today to appoint only bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada? That is something he did not want to do and we will see whether he agrees to do that. We will always be there to defend the French language and defend the French fact in Quebec and across Canada. That is why we deplore the comments made by the member for Saint-Laurent and that is why we are pleased that she apologized for what she said.
Blanchet asks, in substance, whether the Prime Minister genuinely believes that French is in peril in Quebec, framing it against recent events highlighting differences between Quebec and Canadian or Liberal values on free expression, secularism, and language.
Blanchet frames the question with historical and cultural rhetoric about the gap between Quebec and Canadian values, and poses what appears to be a substantive question about whether French is in peril, but the question is cut off mid-sentence.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le gouvernement uni de ce Canada n'a pas parlĂ© autant du français depuis l'Acte de QuĂ©bec en 1774, quand ils ont eu dangereusement peur des Canadiens français, comme ils s'appelaient Ă l'Ă©poque. Les derniers jours et les derniĂšres semaines ont mis en lumiĂšre le grand canyon qui sĂ©pare les valeurs quĂ©bĂ©coises des valeurs canadiennes, ou les valeurs quĂ©bĂ©coises des valeurs libĂ©rales: la libertĂ© d'expression, la laĂŻcitĂ© de l'Ătat, la langue. Essayons de tirer ça au clair pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et pour les journalistes qui nous Ă©coutent et qui nous regardent. Est-ce que le premier ministre du Canada, en son Ăąme et conscience, juge et considĂšre que le français est en pĂ©ril...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the united government of this country has not spoken so much French since the Quebec Act in 1774, when it was seriously afraid of French Canadians, as they were called at the time. Over the past few days and weeks, we have seen the huge divide between Quebec values and Canadian values, or Quebec values and Liberal values. Quebeckers value freedom of speech, secularism and language. Let's try to make this clear for the Quebeckers and media representatives who are watching. Does the Prime Minister of Canada believe, in his heart and in his soul, that French is in jeopardyâ
Trudeau says his government has always stood for French in Quebec and across Canada, expresses personal concern that people cannot be served in French in Montreal, and pledges to continue defending French language and culture.
Trudeau engages with the concern about French, offers a personal anecdote about being unable to be served in French in Montreal, and commits to defending French, but does not directly answer whether French is in peril.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, notre gouvernement a toujours Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour le fait français, au QuĂ©bec et partout au Canada, et nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ . En tant que dĂ©putĂ© montrĂ©alais et fier MontrĂ©alais et QuĂ©bĂ©cois, le fait que bien des gens ne peuvent pas se faire servir Ă MontrĂ©al en français me prĂ©occupe. C'est inacceptable. C'est pour ça que nous allons continuer de travailler pour dĂ©fendre la langue française et d'ĂȘtre aux cĂŽtĂ©s des QuĂ©bĂ©cois pour dĂ©fendre notre culture, notre langue et notre identitĂ©, mais aussi pour l'environnement et pour la croissance Ă©conomique, avec un gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral qui est toujours lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois pendant cette pandĂ©mie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, our government has always been there for the French fact in Quebec and across Canada, and we will continue to be there. As a Montreal MP and a proud Montrealer and Quebecker, I am concerned about the fact that many people cannot get service in French in Montreal. That is unacceptable. That is why we will keep working to defend the French language and stand by Quebeckers to defend our culture, our language and our identity, as well as the environment and economic growth. Quebeckers can count on our federal government to be here throughout the pandemic.
Blanchet asks whether the party directrice and the Saint-Laurent MP now also believe, after being repudiated by the Prime Minister, that French is threatened in Quebec.
Blanchet asks a pointed question about whether the directrice du parti and the Saint-Laurent MP now believe French is threatened in Quebec, grounding it in Trudeau's recent repudiations, but wraps it in considerable rhetorical framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce ne sera pas long: on va lui faire dire les mots « loi 101. » On ne lĂąchera pas. AprĂšs avoir dĂ©savouĂ© le ministre du Patrimoine canadien, hier et aprĂšs avoir dĂ©savouĂ© la dĂ©putĂ©e libĂ©rale de Saint-Laurent aujourd'hui â il la punit pour avoir Ă©tĂ© honnĂȘte et dit tout haut ce que beaucoup de libĂ©raux pensent tout bas â, le premier ministre nous fait croire que le caucus libĂ©ral s'inquiĂšte pour le français, au point qu'on pense que ses membres ont la loi 101 comme lecture de chevet. Je suppose que le premier ministre a parlĂ© Ă la directrice de son parti et Ă la dĂ©putĂ©e de Saint-Laurent. Est-ce que toutes les deux croient dĂ©sormais, elles aussi, que le français est menacĂ© au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it will not be long until we get him to say the words âBill 101â. We will keep pushing. Yesterday, the Prime Minister dissociated himself from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Today, he dissociated himself from the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent. He punished her for being honest and saying publicly what many Liberals are thinking privately. Now he would have us believe that the Liberal caucus cares so much about French that its members probably keep a copy of Bill 101 on their bedside tables. I would imagine the Prime Minister has spoken to his party president and the member for Saint-Laurent. Do both of them now also believe that French is under threat in Quebec?
Trudeau says there is a real danger and real decline for French, questions why the Bloc is pressing a point of agreement, and accuses the Bloc of refusing to acknowledge federal supports like the PCU and funding for small businesses.
Trudeau does not answer whether the two individuals believe French is threatened, pivoting instead to questioning why the Bloc is pressing an issue on which they agree and defending federal government supports during the pandemic.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les gens pourraient bien se demander pourquoi le Bloc québécois s'acharne tant sur ce sujet, un sujet sur lequel nous sommes d'accord. Nous nous devons de continuer à protéger le fait français au Canada et au Québec, parce que, oui, il y a un réel danger et un réel recul. Cependant, en plus de cela, pourquoi cherche-t-il la chicane au sujet d'une chose sur laquelle nous sommes d'accord? C'est parce qu'il ne veut pas reconnaßtre qu'un gouvernement fédéral est là pour aider les Québécois, qu'il s'agisse de la PCU, de l'argent pour les petites entreprises ou de la lutte que nous menons contre la COVID-19 main dans la main avec le gouvernement de Québec. Quelle horreur c'est, pour le Bloc québécois, un gouvernement fédéral fort!
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, people might well be wondering why the Bloc Québécois keeps hammering us on this subject when we actually agree with them on it. We must continue to protect the French fact in Canada and in Quebec because, yes, the danger is real and the decline is real. Why, then, is the member trying to pick a fight over something we agree on? It is because he does not want to admit that a federal government is delivering for Quebeckers, whether through the CERB, money for small businesses or the battle we are waging against COVID-19 in lockstep with the Quebec government. It must be so awful for the Bloc Québécois to see a strong federal government.
Singh asks what the Liberal government is waiting for to act, arguing that despite knowing the second wave would hit hard, there is now less support for people than during the first wave.
Singh notes the severity of the second wave and asserts that less support is in place than during the first wave, but the askâwhat is the government waiting for to actâis vague and not tied to specific measures or data.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, honnĂȘtement, les choses vont mal. Il y a des Ă©closions de COVID-19 partout au pays et la situation au QuĂ©bec est grave. Les gens et les familles ont peur. On a peur pour nos aĂźnĂ©s. Cependant, on savait tout cela. On savait que la deuxiĂšme vague de la COVID-19 allait frapper fort, mais maintenant, il y a moins d'appui pour les gens que lors de la premiĂšre vague de la COVID-19. Comme nĂ©o-dĂ©mocrates, nous sommes prĂȘts Ă travailler ensemble pour aider les gens. Qu'attend le gouvernement libĂ©ral pour agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to be frank, things are not going well. There are COVID-19 outbreaks happening across the country, and the situation in Quebec is serious. Canadians and their families are scared. Everyone is frightened for our seniors. However, we knew all this was coming. We knew that the second wave of COVID-19 would hit hard, yet there is less support for people now than in the first wave of COVID-19. We in the NDP are ready to work together to help people. When will the Liberal government finally take action?
Trudeau says the government has acted since the start, has been there for Canadians at every step, and sent more than 25 billion dollars to provinces to prepare for the second wave.
Trudeau lists general actions taken (PPE, testing, plus de 25 milliards de dollars aux provinces) without addressing Singh's specific claim that second-wave support is less than first-wave support.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis le dĂ©but de cette pandĂ©mie, nous avons agi pour aider les Canadiens, les familles, les jeunes, les aĂźnĂ©s et les travailleurs. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour aider les entreprises, petites et grandes, et les communautĂ©s. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour envoyer de l'Ă©quipement de protection individuelle et du matĂ©riel de dĂ©pistage aux provinces. Nous avons envoyĂ© plus de 25 milliards de dollars aux provinces pour qu'elles soient prĂȘtes pour cette deuxiĂšme vague, et nous allons continuer Ă travailler avec elles. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour tous les Canadiens pendant cette pandĂ©mie. Aussi longtemps que cela durera, nous serons lĂ , en tant que gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this pandemic, we have been there to help Canadians, families, young people, seniors and workers. We have been there to help businesses, both small and large, and communities. We have been there to provide personal protective equipment and testing supplies to the provinces. We have sent the provinces more than $25 billion to help them get ready for this second wave, and we will continue to work with them. We will continue to be there for all Canadians during this pandemic. For as long as it lasts, we will be there as a federal government.
Singh asks what the government is waiting for to act in the second wave, citing crowded homes in Nunavut, long-term care outbreaks in Manitoba, and overwhelmed hospitals in Ontario, while noting less help is in place than in the first wave.
Singh names specific situationsâcrowded homes in Nunavut, outbreaks in Manitoba long-term care homes, hospitals being overrun in Ontarioâand repeats the claim that second-wave support is less than first-wave, making a concrete implicit ask for new measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, crowded homes in Nunavut mean the risk of the outbreak spreading is severe. In Manitoba, outbreaks in long-term care homes means we are losing seniors. In Ontario, hospitals are being overrun, yet, despite how serious the situation is right now in the second wave, there is less help in place for people than there was in the first wave. We, as New Democrats, are ready to work together to get help to people who are in need. What is the government waiting for to act, now we are in the second wave?
Trudeau says the government has not waited, is increasing supports to individuals, communities, first nations, the north and provinces, and commits to continuing to have Canadians' backs for as long as it takes.
Trudeau says the government has not waited and is continuing to increase supports, but does not address the specific situations in Nunavut, Manitoba, or Ontario, nor does he respond to the claim that second-wave support is less than first-wave.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have not waited. We are continuing to increase our supports to individuals, communities, first nations, the north and provinces. Every step of the way during this pandemic, the federal government has made this promise: We have Canadians' backs. That is exactly what we have done and what we will continue to do for as long as it takes, whatever it takes. I look forward to working with all members of this House to make sure we are moving forward on getting Canadians the supports they need. Every step of the way, this government will be there for Canadians.
Bergen asks whether the Prime Minister will commit the same focus, determination, and zeal he showed in his UN Security Council bid to ensuring Keystone XL gets built and creates thousands of jobs for Canadians.
Bergen draws a pointed contrast between the Prime Minister's intensive UN Security Council campaign and his efforts on Keystone XL, and asks directly whether he will commit the same focus and zeal to Keystone XL, but the framing relies heavily on rhetoric about a vanity seat.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we all know the lengths the Prime Minister went to in his attempt to get a seat at the UN Security Council, including the money he spent, the political capital he used and the tenacity he showed. The Prime Minister, his ministers and even civil servants were relentless in the campaign for the Prime Minister's vanity seat. It did not work, but the entire world knew the Prime Minister wanted this. Will the Prime Minister use that same focus, determination and zeal in his fight to ensure that Keystone XL, a project that will create thousands of real jobs for Canadians, gets built?
Trudeau says he has supported Keystone XL for seven years, personally lobbied Democrats in Washington before becoming Prime Minister, raised it in his first conversation with President-elect Joe Biden, and will continue to work on energy security alongside climate change.
Trudeau provides a reasonably direct answer, stating he has supported the project for seven years, went to Washington to lobby Democrats before becoming Prime Minister, raised it in his first conversation with President-elect Joe Biden, and will continue to work on it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have supported that project for the past seven years. I actually went down to Washington, D.C., to speak to a room full of Democrats before I was Prime Minister to talk about how important that project is for Canadian and American energy security. I will continue to bring that up. We continue to work on it. I brought it up in a conversation with President-elect Joe Biden. It was in our very first conversation. We will continue to work together on fighting climate change, ensuring energy security and building a better future for all of our citizens.
Bergen asks the Prime Minister to guarantee he is as committed to getting Keystone XL built as he was to his UN Security Council vanity seat, arguing that energy workers and Conservatives do not trust him.
Bergen asks the Prime Minister to guarantee his commitment to Keystone XL is as strong as his commitment to the UN seat, but this is largely rhetorical and does not cite specific actions or data beyond the general assertion about lost trust.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem is the Prime Minister has said so many negative things about Canadian oil and gas, and done so many things to kill jobs in the Canadian energy sector, that nobody believes him or trusts him to do anything to stand up for these jobs in Canada. Conservatives do not trust him, and I promise members, Canadian families and energy workers do not trust the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister stand up today and guarantee that he is as committed to Keystone XL pipeline getting built as he was to his vanity UN seat?
Trudeau argues that Conservatives misunderstand the link between environmental action and protecting energy jobs, and says moving forward on protecting the environment is the best way to ensure jobs and security for energy workers.
Trudeau does not guarantee commitment to Keystone XL, instead pivoting to a broader argument that protecting the environment and building a greener future is the best way to secure energy workers' jobs, effectively changing the subject.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the problem that Conservatives face: Any time someone talks about doing right by the environment, or building a greener or cleaner future, they think it is an attack on workers, the oil sands and the energy industry, when, indeed, moving forward on protecting the environment is the best way to ensure jobs and security for our energy workers and our energy industries. We know that international investors and consumers are looking for people with plans, with resolve and with a lower carbon future. That is what we are working on building right across the country. Energy, environment and economy go together.
O'Toole asks the Prime Minister to commit to meeting with as many American officials as possible to advance Keystone XL, contrasting the whole-of-government UN Security Council campaign with what he describes as only one phone call for the thousands of jobs that rely on Keystone XL.
O'Toole cites the Obama state dinner and Keystone XL cancellation, the whole-of-government OECD campaign for Bill Morneau, and contrasts many meetings for the UN bid with only one phone call for Keystone XL, making a clear ask for meeting commitments, though partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the problem that Canadians face: The Prime Minister had a state dinner with President Obama, but Obama cancelled Keystone XL. The government is running a whole-of-government campaign to find Bill Morneau a retirement job at the OECD. The Prime Minister toured the world meeting with despots for his UN Security Council bid, but only one phone call for the thousands of jobs that rely on Keystone XL. Will the Prime Minister commit today to meeting with as many American officials as possible to get this project done, help western Canada and help all of Canada?
Trudeau says Conservatives do not understand that projects cannot get built without an environmental plan, argues that showing real leadership on climate change is the only way forward with Americans and people around the world, and asks when Conservatives will realize they need to fight climate change to protect jobs.
Trudeau does not commit to meeting with American officials, instead pivoting to the argument that Conservatives fail to understand the link between environment and jobs, and turning the question back on Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is what Conservatives simply do not understand. We cannot get projects built, and we cannot move forward to create good jobs for Canadians, if we do not have a plan for the environment at the same time, and if we are not committing to fight climate change. That is where Conservatives are stuck in ideologies of decades past. Canadians know that the only way forward with Americans and people around the world is to show real leadership on climate change, the kind of leadership we have shown over the past five years. When will Conservatives wake up and realize that to protect jobs, they need to fight climate change?
Martel notes that Democracy Watch has filed a judicial challenge that day against the government's judicial appointment method for alleged political bias and compromised impartiality, and asks what the minister's refusal to comment says about this government's transparency.
Martel references a specific Democracy Watch judicial challenge filed that day against the government's judicial appointment method for alleged political bias, and asks what the minister's silence says about transparency, but the ask is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, j'ai posé des questions concernant la confiance aveugle du gouvernement en des informations compromises. Il semble que le gouvernement libéral soit peu préoccupé par des institutions compromises. Aujourd'hui, l'organisme Democracy Watch annonce qu'il a déposé une contestation judiciaire concernant la méthode du gouvernement pour nommer des juges, qui favorise un parti pris politique et compromet l'impartialité des cours. Le ministre refuse de commenter cela. Que dit ce silence sur la transparence de ce gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked questions about the government blindly trusting compromised information. It seems that the Liberal government is not very concerned about compromised institutions. Today, Democracy Watch announced that it has filed a lawsuit against the government's judicial appointment system, which is politically biased and compromises the impartiality of the courts. The minister refuses to comment. What does this silence say about this government's transparency?
Trudeau says a merit-based, independent judicial appointment process was established in 2015 replacing Conservative patronage, resulting in judges reflecting the full diversity of the country.
Trudeau responds by describing the merit-based process introduced in 2015 and contrasting it with Conservative patronage, but does not address the Democracy Watch judicial challenge specifically or the transparency concern.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en 2015, nous avons mis en place un processus basé sur le mérite pour la nomination des juges. AprÚs des années de favoritisme du gouvernement conservateur à l'endroit de ses alliés et de ses amis, nous avons mis en place une façon de nommer des juges basée sur le mérite et sur des recommandations indépendantes. Maintenant, ces juges sont le reflet de toute la diversité de notre pays, qu'elle soit géographique, d'origine ou de perspective politique. Il est important d'avoir un programme judiciaire qui reflÚte la réalité du pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in 2015, we brought in a merit-based process for judicial appointments. After years of Conservative patronage for its friends and allies, we put in place a system for appointing judges based on merit and on independent recommendations. Now these judges reflect the geographic, ethnic and political diversity of our country. It is important for our judiciary to reflect the reality of our country.
Martel asks whether the government intends to follow the advice of Democracy Watch and the président de l'Association du Barreau canadien and revise the judicial selection process to avoid partisan manipulation, noting that the minister's office refuses to comment.
Martel cites the Democracy Watch grade of F on transparency from May 2019 and a specific request by the président de l'Association du Barreau canadien for changes to the selection process to avoid partisan manipulation, and asks directly whether the government will revise the process.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce mĂȘme gouvernement a reçu la lettre F de la part de Democracy Watch en mai 2019 en matiĂšre de transparence. Le prĂ©sident de l'Association du Barreau canadien a demandĂ© qu'on apporte des modifications au processus de sĂ©lection des juges pour Ă©viter des manipulations partisanes. Le bureau du ministre refuse de faire des commentaires, parce qu'il sait que ce dernier influence sĂ©rieusement le processus. Est-ce que le gouvernement entend suivre l'avis des organismes et rĂ©viser le processus de sĂ©lection des juges?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in May 2019, Democracy Watch gave this very government an F in transparency. The president of the Canadian Bar Association has asked that changes be made to the judicial selection process to prevent partisan manipulation. The minister's office refuses to comment because it knows that he has significant influence over the process. Does the government intend to follow the organizations' advice and revise the selection process for judges?
Trudeau says the independent merit-based process has produced quality judges with diverse political backgrounds, interests, and origins, including a record number of women and people from diverse communities.
Trudeau reaffirms the merit-based independent process and highlights diversity outcomes without acknowledging the Canadian Bar Association president's request or the Democracy Watch F grade, not answering whether the process will be revised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, nous avons mis en place depuis plusieurs annĂ©es un processus indĂ©pendant basĂ© sur le mĂ©rite. Ce que nous avons vu, c'est que des juges de qualitĂ© ont Ă©tĂ© nommĂ©s partout au pays et que ces juges avaient des antĂ©cĂ©dents politiques divers, des intĂ©rĂȘts divers et des origines diverses. Nous avons choisi un nombre record de femmes et un nombre record de personnes de communautĂ©s diverses. Nous sommes en train d'amĂ©liorer le processus judiciaire. Nous allons continuer de nous assurer de la nomination de juges de qualitĂ© indiscutable, partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, several years ago, we put in place an independent, merit-based process. Thanks to our process, high-quality judges with diverse interests, backgrounds and political histories have been appointed across the country. We selected a record number of women and a record number of people from diverse communities. We are improving the judicial appointment process. We will continue to ensure that judges of indisputable quality are appointed across the country.
O'Toole asks the Prime Minister directly when he will admit that he interferes in judicial appointments, citing media reports, Democracy Watch, and the Association du Barreau canadien as all reaching the same conclusion.
O'Toole synthesizes the media reporting, Democracy Watch, and Canadian Bar Association positions to ask directly whether the Prime Minister will admit to interfering in judicial appointments, making a pointed accountability question though the ask invites a yes/no on a contested claim.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on parle de processus de sĂ©lection basĂ© sur le mĂ©rite. Les mĂ©dias ont dit que ce gouvernement interfĂ©rait dans la nomination des juges. Democracy Watch a dit cela. L'Association du Barreau canadien a dit la mĂȘme chose. C'est seulement le premier ministre et son ministre qui sont en dĂ©saccord. Quand est-ce que le premier ministre acceptera d'admettre qu'il interfĂšre dans la nomination des juges?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he mentioned a merit-based selection process. The media reported that this government was interfering in the judicial appointment process. Democracy Watch said it, as did the Canadian Bar Association. The Prime Minister and his minister are the only ones who disagree. When will the Prime Minister admit that he is interfering in judicial appointments?
Trudeau reaffirms the strong, independent, merit-based process and says improvements to the process botched under Harper have improved the diversity of the judiciary.
Trudeau reaffirms the merit-based process and attacks the Conservative record under Harper without addressing whether interference has occurred, deflecting with a counter-attack.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, nous avons mis en place un processus fort, indépendant et basé sur le mérite, qui permet d'avoir des juges de qualité partout au pays. Je comprends que le chef de l'opposition officielle cite les médias et Democracy Watch. Il suffit de voir ce que les conservateurs ont fait par rapport à ces deux organismes quand ils étaient au gouvernement. Les améliorations que nous avons apportées au processus qui avait été complÚtement botché sous Harper ont amélioré la diversité judiciaire du Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, we brought in a robust, independent, merit-based process that helps us get quality judges to the bench across the country. The leader of the official opposition referenced the media and Democracy Watch, but just look at what the Conservatives did to these two groups when they were in government. The process was completely botched under Harper, and our improvements have made Canada's judiciary more diverse.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister regrets spending Quebec taxpayers' money against le français, whether the Charte canadienne des droits et libertés has served to demolish la loi 101, and whether he believes la loi 101 oppresses Anglophones.
Three distinct pointed questions about federal spending against la loi 101, the Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s, and whether the Prime Minister believes la loi 101 oppresses Anglophones â specific but compound and rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce que le premier ministre appelle de façon un peu rĂ©ductrice le fait français, c'est la langue nationale et officielle du QuĂ©bec. Chacune des interventions, l'essentiel des jugements de la Cour suprĂȘme du Canada et l'argent du fĂ©dĂ©ral servent Ă contester et Ă dĂ©molir la loi 101. Le premier ministre regrette-t-il d'avoir dĂ©pensĂ© l'argent des QuĂ©bĂ©cois contre le français? ReconnaĂźt-il que la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s a servi Ă dĂ©molir la loi 101 devant la Cour suprĂȘme? Est-ce que le premier ministre du Canada croit que la loi 101 opprime les Anglais du QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister somewhat simplistically refers to as the French fact is Quebec's national and official language. Every speech, most Supreme Court of Canada rulings, and federal money are being used to challenge and gut Bill 101. Does the Prime Minister regret spending Quebeckers' money to oppose the French language? Will he acknowledge that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was used to gut Bill 101 before the Supreme Court? Does the Prime Minister of Canada believe that Bill 101 oppresses English speakers in Quebec?
Trudeau says the Liberals restored the Programme de contestation judiciaire after the Conservatives cut it, and states that for Canada to be bilingual Quebec must be francophone, expressing support for la loi 101.
The Prime Minister defends the Programme de contestation judiciaire and states support for la loi 101, but does not directly answer whether federal money was spent against le français or whether the Charte has been used to demolish la loi 101.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, en parlant du Programme de contestation judiciaire, je rappelle que c'est nous qui l'avons restaurĂ©, aprĂšs que les conservateurs l'eurent sabrĂ© deux fois. Nous l'avons fait justement pour que les gens puissent se dĂ©fendre quand leurs droits sont brimĂ©s, y compris le nombre Ă©norme de francophones qui veulent s'assurer de vivre dans leur belle langue. C'est important pour nous et ce le sera toujours. En ce qui a trait Ă la loi 101, nous reconnaissons que, pour que le Canada soit bilingue, le QuĂ©bec doit ĂȘtre d'abord et avant tout francophone. C'est pourquoi nous appuyons la loi 101 dans ce qu'elle fait pour le QuĂ©bec, et c'est pourquoi il est important de gĂ©rer ce bilinguisme officiel d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the court challenges program, I would like to remind the House that we are the ones who reinstated that program after the Conservatives scrapped it twice. We reinstated it so that people would be able to defend themselves when their rights are violated, and those people include the many francophones who want to be able to live in their own beautiful language. That is and always will be important to us. With regard to Bill 101, we recognize that, in order for Canada to be bilingual, Quebec must first and foremost be francophone. That is why we support Bill 101 in what it does for Quebec, and that is why it is important to manage official bilingualism across the country.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister will tell his caucus to vote in favour of the Bloc's bill, to be introduced the next day, requiring a basic knowledge of le français to obtain Canadian citizenship from Quebec.
Blanchet references a specific upcoming Bloc project de loi requiring basic knowledge of le français for citizenship from Quebec, and directly asks whether the Prime Minister will tell his caucus to vote in favour â a clear, answerable ask tied to a concrete legislative event.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il va faire la une des journaux. La derniÚre fois qu'on a abordé le sujet de la citoyenneté, le leader du gouvernement a littéralement « pété une coche » et il a dit que le Bloc visait à créer une division sur la base de la langue, de la culture et de la couleur. Si le premier ministre reconnaßt que le fait français est menacé et qu'il est soudainement en amour avec la loi 101, est-ce qu'il va dire à son caucus de voter en faveur du projet de loi qui sera présenté demain par le Bloc québécois? Ce projet de loi fera en sorte que, comme pour l'anglais au Canada, il faudra avoir une connaissance de base du français pour obtenir la citoyenneté canadienne à partir du Québec. Je suis convaincu que nos amis conservateurs seront en faveur de ce projet de loi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he is going to make the front page. The last time the subject of citizenship came up, the Leader of the Government literally blew a gasket and said that the Bloc was seeking to divide on the basis of language, culture and colour. If the Prime Minister acknowledges that the French fact is under threat and is suddenly in love with Bill 101, will he tell his caucus to vote in favour of the bill that the Bloc Québécois will be introducing tomorrow? The bill would require newcomers to have a basic knowledge of French if they are applying for Canadian citizenship in Quebec, the same way knowledge of English is required in Canada. I am confident that our Conservative friends will support this bill.
Trudeau says it is troubling that the Bloc is allying with the Conservatives and criticizes the Parti conservateur's record on francophone rights, pledging the Liberals will always defend le fait français.
Trudeau does not address the projet de loi or the vote, instead pivoting to criticizing the Parti conservateur's record on francophone rights and making a general pledge to defend le fait français.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je trouve cela un peu drĂŽle et inquiĂ©tant que le Bloc s'allie tant avec les conservateurs sur la question du fait français au QuĂ©bec et au Canada, parce que le Parti conservateur a toujours Ă©tĂ© le parti qui minait les droits des francophones hors QuĂ©bec et qui continuait de s'attaquer au fait français en refusant de s'engager Ă ne nommer que des juges qui peuvent parler français Ă la Cour suprĂȘme. Nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre le fait français au Canada. Nous allons toujours dĂ©fendre la langue française et l'identitĂ© française au Canada. C'est une chose sur laquelle les gens peuvent compter de la part du Parti libĂ©ral.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little strange and worrisome that the Bloc is working so closely with the Conservatives on the issue of the French fact in Quebec and Canada, given that the Conservative Party has a tradition of chipping away at the rights of francophones outside Quebec and attacking the French fact by refusing to commit to appointing only judges who could speak French to the Supreme Court. We will always stand up for the French fact in Canada. We will always stand up for the French language and the French identity in Canada. That is something people can count on the Liberal Party to do.
Rempel Garner asks when the Prime Minister will allow Canadians access to at-home tests for COVID, noting Anthony Fauci's call for widespread community testing and the U.S. approval of such a test that day.
Rempel Garner cites Anthony Fauci's specific statement about testing asymptomatic spreaders, notes the U.S. approval of at-home tests that same day, and asks when the Prime Minister will allow Canadians access to this tool â reasonably specific with factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just said that it would be months and months before a vaccine is available in Canada, so we need to use other tools right now. Yesterday, Anthony Fauci said that Canada must test widely in the community for asymptomatic spreaders in order to stop the spread of COVID. To do this, we need things like at-home tests that people can easily buy and frequently use. Today, the U.S. approved this type of test. When will Prime Minister allow Canadians to have this life-saving and job-saving tool?
Trudeau highlights $25 billion sent to provinces for testing and contact tracing and says rapid tests have been delivered to all provinces by the millions, without addressing at-home tests specifically.
Trudeau mentions $25 billion to provinces, rapid tests delivered by the millions, but does not address at-home tests or the specific regulatory approval question Rempel Garner raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, $25 billion, that is what we have sent to the provinces so they can invest in testing, in contact tracing. We sent that over the summer for vulnerable people, for back to school, to support their health systems. We understand how important it is for the federal government to be there to support Canadians directly and to support the provinces. I certainly look forward to continuing to work with the provinces on delivering these tests that they need. We delivered rapid tests to all the provinces and hopefully soon some of the provinces will start deploying those rapid tests that we have delivered to them by the millions.
Rempel Garner asks when the Prime Minister will stop blocking Canadians from having access to at-home tests, arguing they could reduce stigma and keep things open.
Rempel Garner makes a specific point that at-home tests approved in the U.S. that day could reduce stigma and keep schools open, but the question is somewhat muddled by rhetorical framing about 'rich privilege' and 'blocking.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just to remind the Prime Minister, it is actually his job to approve technologies like at-home tests, which the Americans just approved today. He might not realize in his rich privilege that people might not be getting tested because of the stigma. If we could have at-home tests that people could use in the privacy of their homes frequently, it could be a game-changer. It could keep things open, it could keep kids in schools. When will the Prime Minister stop blocking Canadians from having access to at-home tests?
Trudeau states it is not the job of the Prime Minister or politicians to approve tests, but rather professional independent public servants, and says the government has been guided by science not politics.
Trudeau makes the factually relevant point that approving tests is the job of professional independent public servants, not the Prime Minister, which partially addresses the confusion in the question, but does not explain the status of at-home test reviews.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that in the middle of a pandemic, where health is on everyone's mind, the opposition health critic does not understand that it is not my job to approve tests, it is not the job of the Prime Minister or any politicians to approve tests; it is the job of our professional independent public servants, who we trust to do those jobs. Maybe she thinks it is all about politics. It is not; it is about protecting Canadians and saving lives. That is what has guided this government every step of the way in this pandemic, science not politics.
Rempel Garner asks why the Prime Minister has not directed Health Canada to conduct a fulsome review of at-home tests quickly so Canadians can access these tools.
Rempel Garner makes a substantive argument that the Prime Minister's job is to direct Health Canada to conduct a fulsome review of at-home tests quickly, but the question is embedded in extended argumentation rather than a crisp ask.
Source text
What the Prime Minister does not understand, Mr. Speaker, is that it is his job to go to the bureaucracy and tell it we need both. We need a rapid test review. We need to have that sanctity and that thoroughness of review, but we need to have it quickly so that we can save lives. At-home tests should be something the government is encouraging Health Canada to do a fulsome review on in a short period of time so we can have access to these tests and stop the pandemic in its tracks. That is his job and it is his lack of ability to get this done that is preventing Canadians from having access to these tools. Why?
Trudeau says the government has worked closely with scientists and health professionals and has supported provinces in making difficult decisions about shutdowns through financial backing.
Trudeau discusses working with scientists and provinces on COVID decisions and fiscal supports, not addressing the at-home test review timeline or Health Canada's process at all.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way this government has worked closely with scientists and health professionals to ensure they have the tools to do their jobs and can make the best recommendations possible to Canadians. We have amplified those and ensured that Canadians right across the country, from public health officials to premiers, can make the right decisions to keep people safe. We have told them we know they are going to face difficult decisions about whether to shut down quickly or try and stretch it out a little. We have made that job slightly easier by saying we will have the backs of their citizens, we will have the backs of their businesses. We will give them those supports so they can make the decision to shut down quickly. That is what we have been there to do for the provinces and we will continue to be there to support all Canadians.
O'Toole accuses the government of shutting down the early warning pandemic system a year ago to focus on vaping and criticizes the Prime Minister's arrogance, implicitly asking why the government is not doing more to save lives and the economy.
O'Toole references the shutdown of the early warning pandemic system a year prior and frames a concern about arrogance, but there is no single clear answerable question â it is largely a rhetorical speech.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is the arrogance of the Prime Minister. We ask questions, hoping for a better response from the government. Science above politics. A year ago the government shut down the early warning pandemic system to focus on vaping, a system that for 20 years protected Canada from an outbreak like this. For 20 years scientists were tasked to rely on their own intelligence, not on China. Excuse me if we are bothering the Prime Minister with these questions. We want to save lives. We want to save our economy.
Trudeau rejects the suggestion that government actions caused the pandemic, calls the Conservative attacks irresponsible, and lists collaboration with provincial governments, local health authorities, and indigenous communities.
Trudeau disputes O'Toole's characterization and lists federal-provincial collaboration efforts, but does not address the early warning pandemic system claim or any specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I did not just hear the Leader of the Opposition say that because of something we did last year, Canadians are now facing a pandemic. The level of political attacks the Conservatives are actually tossing out is irresponsible at a time when Canadians are looking to government and political leaders to pull together. That is exactly what we have done. We have been working, hand in glove, with the provincial governments. We have been working with local health authorities. We have been ensuring that indigenous communities get the supports they need. We have been working directly with Canadians. We will continue to have the backs of Canadians every step of the way.
Davies asks why national vaccine distribution details â including six million doses to be delivered between January and March â are being disclosed by a provincial health minister, and when the Prime Minister will reveal full vaccine distribution details for Canada.
Davies cites a specific disclosure by the Ontario health minister of six million doses to be delivered January to March, contrasts it with the Prime Minister's broader claims, and asks a clear double question: why is national vaccine distribution information coming from a province, and when will full details be revealed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government has refused to be transparent about the vaccine deals it has signed with drug makers or its plans to deliver COVID vaccines to Canadians. Just today, we learned from the Ontario health minister that six million doses of vaccine will apparently be delivered to Canada between January and March, with almost half for Ontario alone. This is just a fraction of the doses the Prime Minister claims he has secured. Why are we hearing national vaccine plans from a province, and when will this Prime Minister reveal full vaccine distribution details for Canada?
Trudeau says Canada has the strongest portfolio of potential vaccines among peer countries and acknowledges the challenge of distributing many different types to Canadians, but offers no specific distribution timeline or national plan.
Trudeau speaks in generalities about signing deals with vaccine producers and having the strongest portfolio of potential vaccines, without addressing the dose numbers, the January-to-March timeline, or when a national distribution plan will be released.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the summer onwards, we have worked extremely hard to sign deals with as many potential vaccine producers as possible around the world. As a result, Canada has the strongest portfolio of potential vaccines of any of our peer countries, because we have been there to support Canadians. We know that getting those vaccines out to Canadians across the country is going to be a significant challenge, because there are so many different types of vaccines and so many Canadians who need to get them. However, as we have been every step of the way, we will be there to deliver for Canadians to get us through this pandemic.
Blaney describes the case of Leesee Qaqasiq, an Inuit woman denied water and diaper changes in an Ottawa hospital, and asks when the Liberals will be done with racism in the health care system given that First Nations and Inuit health is a federal responsibility.
Blaney cites the specific case of Leesee Qaqasiq with concrete details about her treatment in an Ottawa hospital and frames a clear accountability question about racism in the health care system, a federal responsibility for First Nations and Inuit.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Leesee Qaqasiq came to Ottawa from Nunavut to treat a broken pelvis. In the hospital here, she was denied water and staff refused to change her diaper. She called 911, and emergency services brought water to her room. This strong indigenous woman said, âWe're done...we're not going to be treated like that anymoreâ. First nations and Inuit health is a federal responsibility, and this is another example of the racism indigenous people face in the health care system. Indigenous people are done with racism. When will the Liberals be?
Trudeau acknowledges systemic racism against indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians, and says the government is moving forward on distinctions-based health legislation, but does not address the specific case.
Trudeau acknowledges systemic racism and mentions distinctions-based health legislation, but does not address the specific case of Leesee Qaqasiq or provide any concrete action or timeline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, systemic racism against indigenous peoples, against racialized Canadians, continues and is something that this government is committed to fighting against. We made a commitment and are moving forward on distinctions-based health legislation that will ensure that we are doing a better job of supporting indigenous peoples through their health challenges. We will continue to work hand in hand with them and ensure that, through provincial systems as well, there is better treatment for indigenous peoples. We have a lot of work to do, but this government is committed to doing it, and we will continue to do exactly that.
Sidhu asks how local sustainable infrastructure projects like Brampton's Riverwalk will play a part in Canada's economic recovery, referencing the $39 million infrastructure announcement for Brampton South made that morning.
Sidhu is a government backbencher asking a clearly scripted setup question referencing the $39 million Brampton announcement made that morning, designed to allow the Prime Minister to promote the government's infrastructure agenda.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today, Brampton got its fair share. This morning, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announced that my community of Brampton South will receive almost $39 million from our government towards a transformative downtown development project. It is expected that this will create 23,000 jobs and impact the local GDP to the tune of $1.4 billion. Can our Prime Minister tell us how local sustainable infrastructure projects, like Brampton's Riverwalk, will play a part in Canada's economic recovery?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton South for her tireless advocacy for her community. Climate change and the severe weather it can bring has increased the risk of flooding in Canada. We are committed to helping communities overcome these new challenges. That is why we announced improvements for the downtown Brampton flood protection project. It will reduce the risk of flooding for hundreds of families across the downtown core, while attracting new investment to the city and creating good jobs for the future.
Trudeau highlights that the Brampton flood protection project will reduce flooding risk for hundreds of families downtown while attracting investment and creating jobs, framing it within the government's commitment to addressing climate change.
Trudeau provides relevant details about the Brampton flood protection project, connecting it to climate change, flood risk reduction, and job creation, which is substantive given the softball nature of the question.
Moore asks whether the Prime Minister will listen to voices from the persons with disabilities community, including Krista Carr of Inclusion Canada, and support Conservative amendments to reinstate safeguards in Bill C-7.
Moore cites specific testimony from Krista Carr of Inclusion Canada at the justice committee, names Bill C-7, and asks a clear question about whether the Prime Minister will support Conservative amendments to reinstate safeguards.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, recently at the justice committee we heard moving testimony from individuals in the persons with disabilities community who are gravely concerned about the government's Bill C-7 and its impact on their community. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, said that if Bill C-7 passes, discrimination on the basis of disability would once again be entrenched in Canadian law. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, listen to the voices of Canadians living with disabilities and support our amendments that would reinstate safeguards to protect vulnerable Canadians?
Trudeau says the government has worked closely with disability community advocates from the beginning and is trying to get the balance right between a constitutional medical assistance in dying bill and protecting the most vulnerable.
Trudeau says the government has worked closely with disability community advocates and is trying to get the balance right between constitutional requirements and protecting the vulnerable, but does not address the Conservative amendments specifically.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning we have worked closely with advocates within the disability community to hear their concerns and to look at how we can get the balance right. We know how important it is to move forward with a medical assistance in dying bill that is constitutional and that both maintains and protects people's rights while at the same time protects the most vulnerable. It is something we did as we moved forward a number of years ago. We are continuing to move forward, while listening to people, to try to get a very difficult balance right, but Canadians deserve us to get this right.
O'Toole asks why the Prime Minister is rushing Bill C-7 when physicians and disability advocates are raising alarms, and whether he will accept amendments to protect the most vulnerable.
O'Toole references physicians calling Bill C-7 a massive failure of compassion and specific disability advocate testimony including a witness who described being seen as a woman alone, sick, tired, and probably tired of living, and asks why the government is rushing the bill.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is listening, he has heard from physicians who have referred to Bill C-7 as a massive failure of compassion. He might have heard from disability advocates from across the country who have raised alarms that the bill goes too far and devalues their lives. One of the witnesses at committee said that she believed all her doctor saw when looking at her was a woman alone, sick, tired and probably tired of living. Let us get the balance right. Why is the Prime Minister rushing the bill when so many people fear the vulnerable will be impacted? Can he listen and have amendments that will protect society's most vulnerable?
Trudeau says the courts have ruled on the matter and that Parliament is listening to different perspectives to get the balance right, looking forward to good robust conversations.
Trudeau acknowledges court rulings and multiple perspectives without addressing the rushing concern or the specific witness testimony, falling back on a general commitment to getting the balance right.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite well knows that the courts have ruled on this and that there are pressures and questions from many different Canadians on all sides of this, wanting to get this bill right and move it forward. We continue to work as a government should, and indeed as a Parliament should, listening to different perspectives and trying to get that balance right because we know that what we need to do is to ensure that all Canadians' rights are protected, while at the same time we protect the most vulnerable. As this Parliament has in the past, I look forward to good, robust conversations as we work to get something very important just right for Canadians.
Gray asks when the Prime Minister will bring a Canada-U.K. trade agreement to Parliament, noting his previous statement about it being easy, U.K. representatives' denial of his bandwidth claim, and only 23 remaining sitting days.
Gray cites the Prime Minister's specific statement from the previous week about a U.K. trade deal being easy, the U.K.'s denial of the bandwidth claim, and the specific number of 23 remaining sitting days, asking a concrete question about when an agreement will be brought to Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister stated he thought a trade agreement with the United Kingdom was an easy one to move on, and then he blamed delays on the U.K. lacking bandwidth. U.K. representatives have denied this claim. The Prime Minister patronized one of our most trusted allies. The government has had years to work on this agreement and now there are only 23 more sitting days of Parliament to make this happen. When is the Prime Minister going to be bringing an agreement to Parliament?
Trudeau says Canada has been working for many years on a seamless transition for the U.K. post-Brexit and is hopeful of reaching an agreement very soon, without addressing the bandwidth claim or committing to a specific timeline for Parliament.
Trudeau says the government is hopeful of reaching an agreement very soon given the Brexit transition timeline, but does not address the bandwidth claim controversy or give a specific date for bringing an agreement to Parliament.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been many years that we have been working on moving forward on a seamless transition for the U.K., following its Brexit, to ensure that the trade relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom continues on the same rhythm. We are hopeful that we are going to be able to get to an agreement very soon, because, indeed, we know that the transition to Brexit is happening in a matter of weeks. We continue to work to ensure protection for Canadian companies, access for Canadian consumers and certainty for our U.K. friends.
O'Toole asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to having a Canada-U.K. free trade agreement completed and presented to Parliament by year-end, noting the government's 18-month absence and a British minister's suggestion that the Prime Minister's statements should not be taken seriously.
O'Toole contrasts five years pursuing a free trade agreement with Communist China against 18 months of absence on a U.K. deal, references a specific statement by a British government minister that the Prime Minister's statements should not be taken seriously, and asks for a commitment to complete and present a Canada-U.K. free trade agreement to Parliament by year-end.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the government spent five years chasing a free trade agreement with Communist China until the foreign minister just recently gave up this summer. However, with our oldest ally, the United Kingdom, the government has been missing for 18 months. Yesterday, in the United Kingdom's House of Commons, a minister for the British government suggested that our Prime Minister's statements should not be taken seriously. It has taken them five years to realize what we have known from day one. Will the Prime Minister commit today to having a Canada-U.K. free trade agreement completed and presented to Parliament by the end of the year?
Trudeau says the government is working hard to ensure a seamless transition, is there to sign, and is hopeful of moving forward shortly, but says it is really entirely up to the U.K. to get it done.
Trudeau says the government is working hard and is there to sign, but deflects by saying it is entirely up to the U.K., without addressing the British minister's statement or committing to the year-end deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are working extremely hard with the U.K. on ensuring that they get a seamless transition. They chose to leave the CETA, the European Union agreement with Canada. We look forward to seeing that roll over in a seamless transition, but it is really entirely up to the U.K. to get that done. We are there to sign it, and we are very hopeful that we will be able to move forward shortly. We respect the sovereignty of the U.K. and its ability to make its own decisions.
Therrien asks why it is so easy for this government to give hundreds of millions of dollars without appel d'offres to entities that do not provide the required goods or services, citing $371 million to Proline Advantage for blouses médicales it does not produce, $237 million to FTI Professional Grade for ventilateurs it does not produce, and $900 million to WE Charity.
Therrien cites three specific contracts with dollar amounts â $371 million to Proline Advantage, $237 million to FTI Professional Grade, and $900 million to WE Charity â all awarded without appel d'offres to entities that did not produce the contracted goods or services, asking a clear accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'entreprise Proline Advantage a obtenu 371 millions de dollars sans appel d'offres pour des blouses médicales. Le problÚme, c'est qu'elle ne produit pas de blouses. L'entreprise FTI Professional Grade a obtenu 237 millions de dollars pour des ventilateurs médicaux sans appel d'offres. Le problÚme, c'est qu'elle ne produit pas de ventilateurs. Cet été, WE Charity a obtenu 900 millions de dollars sans appel d'offres pour inventer un systÚme de bourses. Pourquoi est-il aussi facile pour ce gouvernement de verser des centaines de millions de dollars à des gens qui n'offrent pas les services ou les biens qui sont exigés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Proline Advantage was awarded an untendered $371-million contract for medical gowns. The problem is, that company does not make gowns. FTI Professional Grade was awarded an untendered $237-million contract for medical ventilators. The problem is, that company does not make ventilators. This summer, WE Charity got an untendered $900-million contract to create a grant system. Why is it so easy for this government to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to people who do not provide the goods or services required?
Trudeau praises Canadians, businesses, and creators who mobilized to fight the pandemic and developed personal protective equipment solutions, without addressing any of the specific contracts raised.
Trudeau speaks broadly about Canadians and businesses mobilizing to fight the pandemic and developing personal protective equipment solutions, without addressing any of the three specific contracts named or the no-bid procurement process.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début de la pandémie, nous avons vu des Canadiens, des entreprises et des créateurs se mobiliser pour aider à lutter contre la pandémie. Que ce soit des producteurs qui ont développé de nouveaux équipements de protection individuelle ou des gens qui ont trouvé des façons d'en faire venir de partout dans le monde, on a pu développer des solutions ici, au Canada, afin de ne plus avoir de défis d'approvisionnement en équipement médical ou de protection individuelle nécessaire. Nous sommes trÚs fiers des efforts que tous les Canadiens ont faits et nous allons continuer de travailler à assurer la protection de tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the pandemic, we have seen Canadians, businesses and creators mobilize to help fight COVID-19. From manufacturers developing new PPE to individuals finding ways to bring it here from around the world, we have been able to develop solutions right here at home so we would no longer face the challenges of sourcing the necessary medical equipment and PPE. We are very proud of the efforts that all Canadians have made, and we will continue to work to ensure that all Canadians are protected.
Therrien asks why the Prime Minister refuses to create a special committee to study COVID-19 spending, citing $371 million to a man who sold protein drinks in his basement and $237 million â $100 million too much â to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis.
Therrien provides highly specific details: $371 million to a one-man company selling protein drinks in his basement at double the price for blouses médicales, $237 million overpayment by $100 million to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis for ventilators, and asks directly why the Prime Minister refuses to create the special committee to study COVID-19 spending.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le mois dernier, le gouvernement insistait pour créer un comité spécial pour étudier toutes les dépenses liées à la COVID-19. Depuis, on a appris que 371 millions de dollars avaient été confiés à l'entreprise d'un seul homme pour des blouses médicales à deux fois le prix, alors que cet homme vendait des boissons protéinées dans son sous-sol, pas du matériel médical. On a appris aussi que le gouvernement avait donné 237 millions de dollars, soit 100 millions de trop, à l'ancien député Frank Baylis, qui, pas plus tard qu'il y a un an, était encore député libéral. Le premier ministre peut-il nous expliquer pourquoi il ne veut pas nous offrir ce comité d'étude des dépenses liées à la COVID-19?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, last month, the government pushed for the creation of a special committee to study all COVID-19-related spending. Since then we have learned that $371 million was awarded to just one man for medical gowns for twice the price, a man who was selling protein drinks out of his basement, not medical supplies. We also learned that the government had given $237 million, which is $100 million too much, to former MP Frank Baylis, who just a year ago was still a Liberal MP. Can the Prime Minister explain to us why he does not want us to have this committee to study COVID-19 spending?
Trudeau reassures the House that equipment is being delivered, listing more than 5.2 million N95 masks, more than 3 million surgical masks, and more than 1 million robes delivered to provinces and territories in recent days, without addressing the committee or the contracts.
Trudeau pivots entirely to listing recent equipment deliveries â more than 5.2 million N95 masks, more than 3 million surgical masks, more than 1 million robes â without addressing the specific contracts, the overpayments, Frank Baylis, or the refusal to create the special committee.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je comprends que quelqu'un qui écoute cette période de questions orales pourrait s'inquiéter qu'il y ait un manque énorme d'équipement médical ou d'équipement de protection individuelle. Je peux rassurer la Chambre et les Canadiens qui écoutent. Au cours des derniers jours seulement, les produits suivants ont été livrés aux provinces et aux territoires: plus de 5,2 millions de masques N95, plus de 3 millions de masques chirurgicaux et plus de 1 million de robes. Nous allons continuer de livrer l'équipement nécessaire aux provinces et aux territoires et à tous les Canadiens au pays pendant cette pandémie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I know that some people watching this question period might be worried that there is a tremendous shortage of medical equipment or personal protective equipment. I can assure the House and Canadians who are watching. Over the past few days alone, the following products have been delivered to the provinces and territories: more than 5.2 million N95 masks, more than three million surgical masks and more than one million gowns. We will continue to deliver the necessary equipment to the provinces and territories and to all Canadians in the country during this pandemic.
Rayes asks why the Prime Minister has not removed the Liberal MP for Saint-Laurent from the Comité permanent des langues officielles after she questioned the decline of French in Quebec.
The question identifies a specific person (the Liberal MP for Saint-Laurent), a specific committee (ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles), and makes a clear single ask â replace her â though it rests partly on hearsay ('on entend en coulisses').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la dĂ©putĂ©e libĂ©rale de Saint-Laurent a choquĂ© les francophones en remettant en question le dĂ©clin du français au QuĂ©bec. En coulisses, on entend mĂȘme que d'autres libĂ©raux seraient d'avis que le français n'est pas si important que cela. C'est le premier ministre lui-mĂȘme qui a nommĂ© la dĂ©putĂ©e au ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles, et elle a perdu toute lĂ©gitimitĂ© d'y siĂ©ger et d'y demeurer. Qu'attend-il pour faire ce qu'il se doit et la remplacer immĂ©diatement au ComitĂ© permanent des langues officielles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member from Saint-Laurent shocked francophones when she called into question the decline of French in Quebec. Privately, we are even hearing that other Liberals believe that French is not all that important. It was the Prime Minister who appointed the member to the official languages committee, and she no longer has the legitimacy to sit and remain on the committee. When will he do what is required and immediately replace her on the Standing Committee on Official Languages?
Trudeau notes the MP apologized and reaffirms his government's commitment to French, then attacks the Conservative Party's record on francophone rights.
Trudeau acknowledges the apology but ignores the specific ask about replacing the MP on the committee, pivoting instead to general francophone commitments and a Conservative attack.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la dĂ©putĂ©e a prĂ©sentĂ© ses excuses pour ses propos. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre la langue française. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre le fait français au QuĂ©bec et partout au pays. C'est ce gouvernement qui a toujours Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les minoritĂ©s linguistiques. Nous avons toujours reconnu Ă quel point il Ă©tait important d'avoir un pays bilingue. Pour avoir un Canada bilingue, il faut que le QuĂ©bec soit d'abord et avant tout francophone. C'est exactement pour cela que nous luttons. Nous n'allons pas recevoir de leçons du Parti conservateur, qui s'est toujours attaquĂ© aux droits des francophones au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member apologized for her comments. We will always be there to protect the French language. We will always be there to protect the French fact in Quebec and across the country. It is this government that has always been there to protect linguistic minorities. We have always recognized how important it is to have a bilingual country. For Canada to be bilingual, Quebec must first and foremost be francophone. That is exactly what we are fighting for. We will take no lessons from the Conservative Party, which has always attacked the rights of Canada's francophones.
Rayes quotes Chelsea Craig, identified as présidente du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec, calling Bill 101 oppressive, and asks whether the Prime Minister will immediately condemn those remarks, yes or no.
The question is well-grounded, citing a direct quote from Chelsea Craig, identified by name and title as prĂ©sidente du Parti libĂ©ral du Canada au QuĂ©bec, and poses a clear yes-or-no ask â will the PM condemn those remarks.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, excusez-moi, mais les propos du premier ministre sont irrespectueux et ne démontrent pas la réalité. Voici les faits. La présidente du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec, Mme Chelsea Craig, a dit, et je cite: la loi 101 est une loi oppressive qui a ruiné l'éducation des anglophones au Québec, et de me faire dicter que je dois parler le français au travail est oppressif. Cela n'a aucun sens, et c'est la présidente du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec qui a dit cela. C'est le Parti libéral qui est dans le champ. Le premier ministre va-t-il condamner immédiatement ces propos irrespectueux de sa présidente, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the Prime Minister's comments are disrespectful and do not reflect reality. Here are the facts. Chelsea Craig, the Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada, said, and I quote, â[Bill 101 is] an oppressive piece of legislation that has ruined English education in this province...dictating the language I speak to my coworkers in is oppressive." This makes no sense, and that came from the Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party has completely lost its way. Will the Prime Minister immediately condemn these disrespectful comments from the Liberal president, yes or no?
Trudeau restates his party's commitment to official languages and redirects by asking whether the Conservative Party will commit to appointing only bilingual judges to the Supreme Court.
Trudeau does not condemn Craig's remarks, does not mention her by name, and instead deflects by turning the question back on the Conservatives with a query about bilingual Supreme Court judges.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le Parti libĂ©ral et le gouvernement libĂ©ral vont toujours dĂ©fendre nos deux langues officielles. Je donne Ă mon honorable collĂšgue l'occasion de confirmer que le Parti conservateur, Ă l'avenir, ne nommera que des juges qui parlent français Ă la Cour suprĂȘme. C'est l'engagement que j'ai pris en tant que premier ministre, et c'est l'engagement du Parti libĂ©ral du Canada. Le Parti conservateur va-t-il nommer seulement des juges bilingues Ă la Cour suprĂȘme dans les annĂ©es Ă venir, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party and the Liberal government will always defend our two official languages. I am giving my hon. colleague an opportunity to affirm that the Conservative Party will only appoint judges who speak French to the Supreme Court in the future. I have made this promise as Prime Minister, and the Liberal Party of Canada has made that commitment. Will the Conservative Party only appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court in the future, yes or no?
O'Toole demands that the Prime Minister table the projet de loi sur la modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles before Christmas, citing five years of inaction on official languages.
O'Toole makes a specific demand â table the modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles bill before Christmas â though it is framed within a rhetorical preamble about five years of inaction.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il dit qu'il les défendra toujours. Le premier ministre et sa ministre des Langues officielles sont de beaux parleurs, petits faiseurs. Cela fait cinq ans que les libéraux sont au pouvoir et cela fait cinq ans qu'ils ne font rien dans le dossier des langues officielles. Le français n'est pas une priorité pour ce gouvernement. Qu'il dépose à la Chambre le projet de loi sur la modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles avant Noël.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, he claims they will âalways defendâ them. The Prime Minister and his Minister of Official Languages are all talk and no action. The Liberals have been in power for five years, and for five years they have done nothing on official languages. French is not a priority for this government. The Prime Minister should introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act in the House before Christmas.
Trudeau accuses the Conservative leader of failing to commit to bilingual Supreme Court judges and asserts that only Liberal governments have defended francophones.
Trudeau does not address the demand to table the modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles bill and instead attacks the Conservative leader's failure to commit to bilingual Supreme Court judges.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voilĂ encore une occasion ratĂ©e par le Parti conservateur pour dĂ©fendre le fait français. Le chef du Parti conservateur s'est levĂ© Ă la Chambre pour rĂ©pondre Ă ma question, qui visait Ă savoir s'il s'engageait Ă ne nommer que des juges bilingues Ă la Cour suprĂȘme dans les annĂ©es Ă venir, et il ne s'y est pas engagĂ©. Alors, entendons-nous: ce n'est pas le Parti conservateur qui va ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre les francophones ou le fait français au Canada. Ce seront, comme toujours, des gouvernements libĂ©raux qui vont le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has missed yet another opportunity to defend the French fact. The leader of the Conservative Party rose in the House to answer my question as to whether he would promise to appoint only bilingual judges to the Supreme Court in the future. He did not make that promise. Let me be clear: It is not the Conservative Party that will be there to defend francophones or the French fact in Canada. As always, it is Liberal governments that will do so.
Finnigan asks the Prime Minister to update the House on the Fonds pour la large bande universelle and how it will improve connectivity for Canadians.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to provide an update on the Fonds pour la large bande universelle with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui plus que jamais, les Canadiens ont besoin d'ĂȘtre connectĂ©s Ă un service Internet haute vitesse Ă large bande. Ils en ont besoin, car de plus en plus de Canadiens travaillent et apprennent Ă partir de la maison et accĂšdent Ă des services importants tels que la tĂ©lĂ©santĂ©. Le premier ministre peut-il faire le point sur le Fonds pour la large bande universelle et sur la maniĂšre dont celui-ci amĂ©liorera la connectivitĂ© de tous les Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today more than ever, Canadians need to be connected to high-speed broadband Internet. That is essential because more and more Canadians are working, attending school and accessing important services such as telehealth from home. Can the Prime Minister provide an update on the universal broadband fund and how it will improve connectivity for all Canadians?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© de MiramichiâGrand Lake, qui a parfaitement raison. Les Canadiens comptent sur Internet pour les aider Ă se connecter aux ressources et Ă leurs proches. C'est pourquoi nous avons annoncĂ© un investissement de 1,75 milliard de dollars pour offrir Ă tous les Canadiens un accĂšs Ă Internet haute vitesse. Cela permettra de connecter prĂšs de 400 000 mĂ©nages additionnels Ă Internet haute vitesse, surtout dans les rĂ©gions rurales. Cela reprĂ©sente le plus important investissement fĂ©dĂ©ral du genre, et cela changera rĂ©ellement les choses dans la vie des gens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for MiramichiâGrand Lake, who is absolutely right. Canadians rely on the Internet to help them connect to resources and loved ones. That is why we announced a $1.75-billion investment to give all Canadians access to high-speed Internet. That will connect nearly 400,000 more households to high-speed Internet, particularly in rural areas. This is the biggest federal investment of its kind, and it will really make a difference in people's lives.
Trudeau announces a 1,75 milliard de dollars investment to connect nearly 400 000 ménages additionnels to Internet haute vitesse, describing it as the most important federal investment of its kind.
Trudeau provides specific figures â a 1,75 milliard de dollars investment connecting nearly 400 000 mĂ©nages additionnels â directly responsive to the setup question.
Doherty challenges the Prime Minister for directing Canadians in crisis to call 211, noting it is a directory not a suicide prevention hotline, and asks whether he is comfortable with that response.
Doherty grounds his question in the government's own cabinet acknowledgment of rising suicide rates and makes a precise factual point that 211 is a directory rather than a crisis hotline, leading to a pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are reaching epidemic levels of suicide in our country. The Prime Minister's own cabinet has acknowledged that suicide is on the rise and that we face a mental health crisis. Last week, the Prime Minister told Canadians who were feeling anxious or overwhelmed to call 211. Again, for the record, 211 is a directory. It is not even available in all regions of our country and it is not a national suicide prevention hotline. Is the Prime Minister comfortable with telling Canadians in crisis to please hold?
Trudeau says Canadians deserve mental health access and that the government is open to discussing a consolidated hotline, but makes no specific commitment and does not address the 211 error.
Trudeau acknowledges the issue and expresses openness to a consolidated hotline but gives no specific commitment or timeline, remaining vague rather than addressing the 211 error or the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we need to be there for Canadians when they need us the most. Canadians deserve access to mental health services regardless of where they live or when they need help. We are having discussions with partners on how we can help more people get the access to the help they need. We are open to having discussions about a consolidated hotline. We will work with members of the House on how we can continue to support Canadians through this pandemic and beyond. This pandemic has exposed many challenges in our society that we will continue to fix, not just for now but for the years forward as well.
Doherty asks the Prime Minister to commit, yes or no, to bringing a 988 national suicide prevention hotline to Canada, citing the U.S. as a model for real action.
Doherty grounds his question in a concrete U.S. example of the 988 national suicide prevention hotline, references the PM's own stated priority of saving lives, and poses a direct yes-or-no ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has taken real action on suicide prevention by moving to a 988 national suicide prevention hotline. The Prime Minister has said over and over again in question period about protecting Canadians and saving lives. Therefore, this is a simple question. The time for him to step up is right now and it is right here. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, commit to working together in a bipartisan way and bring 988 to Canada, yes, or no?
Trudeau says yes to working together, cites past investments including $7.5 million to Kids Help Phone, but does not specifically commit to the 988 number or provide a timeline.
Trudeau opens with 'Yes' and references past investments including $7.5 million for Kids Help Phone, but does not specifically commit to the 988 number or a timeline, making the answer partial.
Source text
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to working together to figure out how to best serve Canadians suffering from mental health challenges. In the very beginning, in 2015, we brought in record investments to the provinces on mental health. We have continued to work, including during this pandemic, on increasing the funding for Kids Help Phone by $7.5 million, by reaching out to the United Way to help it provide more services, but we are always happy to do more. I look forward to working with the hon. member on this issue and making sure we are getting the very best help to Canadians that we possibly can.
O'Toole asks the Prime Minister to join a cross-party effort to establish a 988 hotline national by Christmas, citing the aggravated mental health crisis under COVID-19.
O'Toole makes a specific ask â 988 hotline national by Christmas â and frames it with genuine cross-partisan appeal and reference to COVID-19 aggravating mental health, though the question is partly rhetorical in tone.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are rare occasions where I agree with the Prime Minister. We do need to be there. We all know that mental health issues have been aggravated by COVID-19. We all know that a single point of contact for those in need in their darkest hours will save lives. Isolation has already been a death sentence for too many. All MPs in the House know members of their families, their communities and even their political families who have been struggling. We have an opportunity to work together for the mental health and well-being of all Canadians. Will the Prime Minister join our effort to have a 988 hotline national by Christmas?
Trudeau reaffirms past investments in mental health programs and says he is happy to work with all members of the House, but does not commit to the 988 hotline or the Christmas deadline.
Trudeau expresses willingness to work with all members and mentions prior investments but again avoids committing to the 988 hotline specifically or to the Christmas deadline.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we have made many investments in mental health. We have made many investments in programs that offer supports, from Kids Help Phone to the United Way to others. We are happy to work with all members of the House on something, yes, indeed, we can all agree on. We need better supports and we look forward to working with members to figure out exactly what that is and how we can get it delivered to Canadians.
Erskine-Smith asks the Prime Minister how the government plans to modernize and strengthen Canada's digital privacy laws.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to explain plans to modernize digital privacy laws, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians we take our digital privacy seriously, and there has been good reason for increasing concerns about how that data and personal information is being collected and used. In a fast-moving digital world, we need both strong privacy and digital rights and a strong regulator to enforce them. Could the Prime Minister tell my constituents and all Canadians how our government plans to modernize and strengthen Canada's digital privacy laws?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for BeachesâEast York for his tireless advocacy on this important file. To be competitive and to recover from the effects of this pandemic, our economy must harness the power of data while at the same time protecting the privacy of Canadians. Canadians deserve more control and greater transparency over how companies handle their personal information. This is why we are proud to introduce the consumer privacy protection act, which would establish Canada as a global leader in protecting digital privacy.
Trudeau announces the introduction of the consumer privacy protection act, describing it as making Canada a global leader in protecting digital privacy.
Trudeau names a specific piece of legislation â the consumer privacy protection act â and frames its purpose, providing substantive information in response to the setup question.
Boulerice cites unemployment near 20% for youth and over 30% in some racisées communities and asks what the government's plan is to help these young people regain confidence and hope.
Boulerice cites specific unemployment figures â nearly 20% for youth, over 30% in some racisĂ©es communities â giving the question factual grounding, but the ask is broad and compound: what is the plan for youth and how will confidence be restored.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la pandémie frappe durement et frappe tout le monde, mais certains groupes de la population sont plus touchés que d'autres. Les femmes, les jeunes et les personnes racisées subissent les conséquences plus graves de cette crise. La place des femmes sur le marché du travail a reculé. Chez les jeunes, le chÎmage frÎle les 20 %. Dans certaines communautés racisées, le chÎmage est supérieur à 30 %. Quel est le plan du gouvernement pour venir en aide à ces jeunes? Qu'est-ce que le gouvernement compte faire pour que nos jeunes retrouvent confiance et espoir en l'avenir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has been very hard on everyone, but some segments of the population have been hit harder than others. Women, young people and racialized people are more severely affected by this crisis. The progress women have made in the workforce has regressed. Unemployment among young people is approaching 20%. In some racialized communities, unemployment is over 30%. How does the government plan to help these young people? How does the government plan to help our young people regain confidence and hope for the future?
Trudeau says the pandemic hits the most vulnerable hardest and that the government will continue to invest to support women, youth, and minority communities, without specifying any measures.
Trudeau acknowledges the disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and promises continued investment but provides no specific plan, figures, or measures targeted at youth or racisées communities.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie l'honorable député de sa question. C'est également quelque chose qui nous préoccupe énormément. La pandémie frappe plus fort les plus vulnérables. C'est pourquoi, dÚs le début, nous étions là pour soutenir les femmes, les jeunes et les milieux minoritaires. Nous continuerons de les aider. Je remercie tous les députés qui soulignent que nous devons en faire davantage pour certaines communautés. Nous allons continuer d'investir afin de nous assurer que tout le monde surmonte la pandémie et pour créer un monde meilleur aprÚs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We are also very concerned about this situation. The pandemic is harder on the most vulnerable. That is why we have been there all along to support women, young people and minority communities. We will continue to support them. I thank all the members who have pointed out that we need to do more for certain communities. We will continue to invest to get everyone through this pandemic and to ensure that the world is a better place when the crisis is over.
Boulerice proposes a motion for unanimous consent asking the House to recognize the fragile and declining state of French in Quebec and Canada and calling on the government to develop an action plan with provinces and territories to protect and promote French.
Boulerice frames a motion for unanimous consent rather than a direct question to the government, making it a procedural manoeuvre with substantive policy content â the decline of French and a request for an action plan â but not a question requiring a ministerial answer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, si vous demandez l'avis de la Chambre, je pense que vous obtiendrez son consentement unanime pour l'adoption de la motion suivante. Je propose: Que la Chambre reconnaisse que la situation du français est toujours fragile, que l'usage du français est en déclin au Québec et au Canada et demande au gouvernement de s'engager à mettre sur pied un plan d'action en collaboration avec les provinces et les territoires afin de protéger et mieux promouvoir le français, au Québec et au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if you ask the House, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That the House recognize that the status of French remains fragile and that the use of French is declining in Quebec and Canada and call on the government to commit to developing an action plan together with the provinces and territories to better protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada.
No ministerial answer was recorded for this exchange.
There is no ministerial answer recorded; this was a request for unanimous consent and no government response to the substance of the motion is captured.