Session overview
- Vaccine procurement and domestic manufacturing capacity dominated Question Period, with opposition members pressing the government over delays, the rejection of Laval University research funding, and the failed partnership with a Chinese state firm.
- China policy drew sustained criticism across multiple angles: membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Uighur genocide designation, the detention of the two Michaels, and whether Canada would send a representative to the Beijing Olympics.
- The NDP pressed the Prime Minister twice on whether he would commit not to call an election during the pandemic; both times the Prime Minister declined to give a direct yes-or-no answer.
- The government introduced new gun-control legislation, and the Prime Minister confirmed it targets gun violence, criminal activity, intimate partner violence, self-harm and online hate.
- Official Languages modernization remained unresolved, with the Conservative side demanding a legislative timeline and the Prime Minister redirecting debate toward whether Conservatives would commit to bilingual Supreme Court justices.
- Atlantic and Pacific fisheries generated four exchanges, with Conservative members criticizing the Minister of Fisheries for ignoring science-based proposals and failing to resolve conflicts between indigenous and commercial fishers ahead of the spring season.
The Prime Minister made a concrete, verifiable commitment: 84 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna by end of September and the single largest Pfizer shipment to date arriving that week, with a total of six million vaccines confirmed for delivery by end of March.
Cites a specific grant amount ($1 million), a specific additional request ($2 million), a specific institution (Université Laval), and a specific share of total investment (un milliÚme), with a clear single answerable ask: why was the $2 million refused?
Rather than addressing Blanchet's specific accusations â that M. Kobinger was denied $2 million, that vaccine contracts remain secret, and that decisions were made unilaterally â the Prime Minister responded with a partisan observation about the Bloc leader's frustration and a mild rebuke over the word 'tartes', leaving every factual allegation unanswered.
Outstanding questions
- Alain Therrien (Exchange 16â17) asked why the government refused the $2 million request from the Laval University team to advance their COVID-19 vaccine candidate; the Prime Minister never explained the specific decision, instead listing other domestic investments.
- Jagmeet Singh (Exchanges 8â9) asked directly and twice whether the Prime Minister would commit not to call an election during the pandemic; no commitment was made in either instance.
- Raquel Dancho (Exchange 21) asked for a specific date by which the technical issue at the Canada Revenue Agency causing automatic rejection of CRB applications would be resolved; the Prime Minister did not provide one.
- Alain Rayes (Exchanges 31â32) and Erin O'Toole (Exchange 33) each asked for a date for tabling legislation to modernize the Official Languages Act; the Prime Minister did not provide a timeline.
- Michael Chong (Exchange 35) asked whether the government would at minimum refuse to send a representative to the opening of the Beijing Olympics given the genocide against the Uighurs; the Prime Minister spoke about supporting athletes but did not answer the specific diplomatic question.
O'Toole asks whether the Prime Minister will remove Canada from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, citing disagreement with the Biden administration, Five Eyes allies, and his own caucus on China.
The question references a specific Liberal finance chair quote and names the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, but the ask is a rhetorical call to action rather than a precise accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is out of step with the Biden administration on China. The Prime Minister is out of step with our Five Eyes allies on China. The Prime Minister is even out of step with his own caucus on China. The experienced Liberal finance chair says that he needs to wake up and smell the roses. Will the Prime Minister wake up and remove Canada from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?
Trudeau outlines Canada's general position on China regarding human rights, the Uighurs, Hong Kong, and the two Michaels, and mentions an upcoming G7 meeting, without addressing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
The Prime Minister lists general China policy positions and mentions a G7 meeting but does not address the specific ask about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years we have always been very clear with China when we disagreed on human rights. We have real concerns about the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the situation in Hong Kong. We have continued to express our concern and demonstrate our solidarity with the two Michaels and expect them to be returned home from arbitrary detention, while at the same time we continue to work with partners around the world in holding China to account and improving opportunities for our workers and businesses across the country and around the world. These are things we will continue to work on, including tomorrow in our virtual G7 meeting.
O'Toole asks when the Prime Minister will prioritize Canadian workers, citing 213,000 jobs lost in January and contrasting funding for the Asian infrastructure bank with the Canadian infrastructure bank's zero completed projects.
The question cites a specific jobs figure (213,000 jobs lost in January) and contrasts the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank with the Canadian infrastructure bank's zero completed projects, making a concrete factual claim, but the ask about prioritizing Canadian workers is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we lost 213,000 jobs in January, most of them in Ontario and Quebec. That is 213,000 families looking for a paycheque amidst a pandemic. The Prime Minister is funding the Asian infrastructure bank while his Liberal insider-friendly Canadian infrastructure bank has completed zero projects in Canada. When will the Prime Minister start prioritizing Canadian workers?
Trudeau lists allied members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and cites COVID support figuresâ380,000 sickness benefit applicants, five million jobs via wage subsidy, and $64 billion in worker supportâwhile accusing Conservatives of opposing those measures.
Trudeau lists the countries in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and pivots to reciting COVID support statistics, never addressing the zero-projects claim about the Canadian infrastructure bank or the specific job loss figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a part of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Canada joins countries such as Australia, France, Germany, India, Italy, South Korea and the U.K. in promoting growth around the world. Indeed, when the Leader of the Opposition brings up support for workers, let me point out that the Conservative Party has consistently said we have done too much when we gave 380,000 unique applicants sickness benefit support, supported the wage subsidy with over five million jobs and provided over $64 billion in support for workers. We have had Canadians' backs and we will continue to.
O'Toole asks why Canadians are paying the price for planning failures, citing expert committee testimony about conflicts of interest, late planning, and the gap between two million Americans vaccinated daily versus two million Canadians needed weekly to meet the September deadline.
The question references committee testimony from the previous day about conflicts of interest and late planning, cites two million Americans vaccinated per day versus two million Canadians per week needed, and names the September deadline, giving it reasonable factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday experts spent hours telling committee about the conflicts of interest, the late planning and the end run around Canadian manufacturers that defined the government's vaccine plan. By the end of last week, two million Americans a day were being vaccinated. We need two million Canadians a week to get vaccinated to meet the Prime Minister's vaunted September deadline. Why are Canadians paying the price for the Prime Minister's planning failures?
Trudeau defends the vaccine task force as evidence-based with a robust conflict-of-interest process, and commits to hitting March deadlines and vaccinating all Canadians by September.
Trudeau defends the vaccine task force's conflict-of-interest process and asserts the March and September deadlines will be met, but does not address the specific expert testimony heard at committee the previous day.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, from the very beginning we valued the work of scientific and industry experts who were volunteering their time to ensure sound, evidence-based decisions during the pandemic on the vaccine task force, which has a robust conflict of interest process in place and goes above and beyond the practices of other volunteer external advisory bodies. We have moved forward on procuring vaccines for Canadians. In the coming weeks, we will be receiving millions of vaccines. We are going to hit our March deadlines, and all Canadians will be vaccinated by September.
O'Toole asks why the Liberal government ignored Quebec companies like Solstar Pharma in favour of a partnership with a Chinese state enterprise for vaccine development.
The question names a specific Quebec company (Solstar Pharma) that was allegedly ignored and contrasts it with a partnership with a Chinese state enterprise, making a specific factual allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les talents pour produire des vaccins existent au Canada. C'est un fait. Malheureusement, le gouvernement libĂ©ral a ignorĂ© les entreprises quĂ©bĂ©coises comme Solstar Pharma. Il a prĂ©fĂ©rĂ© un partenariat avec une entreprise d'Ătat chinoise. Pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il abandonnĂ© les entreprises canadiennes et embrassĂ© les entreprises d'Ătat chinoises?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada has the expertise to manufacture vaccines. That is a fact. Unfortunately, the Liberal government ignored Quebec businesses like Solstar Pharma, choosing instead to partner with a Chinese state-owned company. Why did the government abandon Canadian businesses and embrace Chinese state-owned firms?
Trudeau lists specific Canadian investments including up to $173 million in Medicago, $4 million in Glycovax Pharma, and several other firms across the country, arguing the government has invested in domestic production.
Trudeau responds with a specific list of Canadian companies and investment amounts, including $173 million in Medicago and $4 million in Glycovax Pharma, which partially addresses the broader claim about Canadian investment, though he does not address Solstar Pharma or the Chinese state enterprise allegation directly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début, nous nous fions aux experts qui nous ont fait des recommandations sur les investissements que nous pouvions faire ici, au Canada, pour faire avancer l'industrie biopharmaceutique. Nous avons effectivement fait des investissements: jusqu'à 173 millions de dollars dans Medicago, à Québec et 4 millions de dollars dans Glycovax Pharma, à Montréal. Nous avons investi dans VIDO-InterVac, en Saskatchewan; dans AbCellera Biologics, à Vancouver; dans Variation Biotechnologies, ici, à Ottawa; dans Precision Nanosystems; dans ImmunoVaccine Technologies, à Dartmouth; et j'en passe. Nous sommes là pour investir dans la production au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the outset, we have relied on experts who have given us recommendations on investments we could make here in Canada to advance the biopharmaceutical industry. We invested up to $173 million in Medicago in Quebec City and $4 million in Glycovax Pharma in Montreal. We invested in VIDO-InterVac in Saskatchewan, AbCellera Biologics in Vancouver, Variation Biotechnologies here in Ottawa, Precision Nanosystems, and ImmunoVaccine Technologies in Dartmouth, to name only a few. We are here to invest in domestic production.
O'Toole asks the Prime Minister to state specifically how many Canadians will be vaccinated next week, rather than repeating general promises about March and September.
The question is sharp and specific, asking the Prime Minister to name how many Canadians will be vaccinated next week, directly testing the precision of government commitments.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre nous répÚte et nous promet qu'il y aura beaucoup de livraisons de vaccins en mars et beaucoup d'autres avant septembre. C'est bien beau, mais est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous dire combien de Canadiens seront vaccinés la semaine prochaine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps promising us that there will be many vaccine deliveries in March and many more before September. That is all well and good, but can the Prime Minister tell us how many Canadians will be vaccinated next week?
Trudeau states that over 400,000 Pfizer vaccines are being delivered this week and that provinces have administered nearly 90% of the 1.2 million vaccines delivered so far, without giving a specific figure for next week's vaccinations.
Trudeau answers with a delivery figure of over 400,000 Pfizer vaccines this week and notes that provinces have administered nearly 90% of 1.2 million delivered doses, but does not directly state how many Canadians will be vaccinated next week.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je suis trÚs content de souligner que, cette semaine, nous allons recevoir plus de 400 000 vaccins de Pfizer, et ils sont en train d'arriver actuellement dans les provinces et les territoires. Nous savons qu'il y a toujours de petits délais quant à la livraison de vaccins, mais nous avons vu que, sur les 1,2 million de vaccins que nous avons livrés, les provinces et les territoires ont réussi à en administrer quasiment 90 % dans les bras des Canadiens. Nous allons continuer de travailler pour livrer ces millions de vaccins dans les bras des Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report that this week, we will receive more than 400,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and they are arriving in the provinces and territories as we speak. We know there are still minor delays in vaccine delivery, but we have seen that of the 1.2 million vaccines we have delivered, the provinces and territories have managed to get almost 90% into Canadians' arms. We will continue to work to get those millions of vaccines into Canadians' arms.
Blanchet asks the Prime Minister to reveal what his expert committee told him to justify excluding the Université Laval vaccine, while Quebec is now funding the Centre de recherche en infectiologie that the federal government passed over in favour of pharmaceutical multinationals.
Blanchet asks the Prime Minister to reveal what his committee of experts said to justify excluding the vaccine from an internationally recognized Université Laval expert, a specific and pointed accountability question about a named institution and decision.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, Québec assumera à la place du fédéral le financement du Centre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval, qui a jeté les bases d'un vaccin qui pourrait sauver des vies. Le gouvernement favorise plutÎt des multinationales pharmaceutiques à hauteur de centaines de millions de dollars. Or le premier ministre se réfugie derriÚre un comité d'experts et de scientifiques l'ayant conseillé pour ses décisions. Je demande donc au premier ministre qu'il révÚle à la Chambre ce que son comité lui a dit pour exclure le vaccin d'un expert international de l'Université Laval?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the feds refused, Quebec is going to step in with funding for Université Laval's Infectious Disease Research Centre, which has laid the foundation for a vaccine that could save lives. The federal government would rather hand hundreds of millions of dollars over to multinational pharmaceutical companies. The Prime Minister is hiding behind a panel of experts and scientists who have advised him on his decisions. I would like the Prime Minister to share with the House what his panel told him that led him to shut out the vaccine developed by an international expert at Université Laval.
Trudeau states that M. Kobinger received a $1 million federal grant in February through the COVID-19 rapid-response research fund and asserts the government invests in promising Canadian solutions.
Trudeau responds by citing a $1 million federal grant to M. Kobinger in February through the COVID-19 rapid-response research fund, which partially contradicts the premise but does not reveal the expert committee's advice as requested.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir de corriger mon honorable collÚgue et de souligner qu'au mois de février, justement, M. Kobinger a reçu une subvention fédérale de 1 million de dollars pour ses recherches, dans le cadre du fonds de recherche d'intervention rapide sur la COVID-19. Nous allons toujours investir dans des solutions canadiennes prometteuses qui nous aident à combattre la COVID-19. Nous sommes là pour investir dans les scientifiques partout au pays depuis cinq ans, et nous avons été là depuis le début de cette pandémie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct my hon. colleague and point out that, in February, Dr. Kobinger did in fact receive a $1-million federal grant for his research from the COVID-19 rapid research funding opportunity. We will always invest in promising Canadian solutions that will help combat COVID-19. We have been there to invest in scientists across the country for the past five years, and we have been there for them since the beginning of this pandemic.
Blanchet states that M. Kobinger asked for $2 million to develop the vaccine and was refused, and asks why the Prime Minister refuses to disclose what the expert committee said and why vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical multinationals remain secret.
Blanchet raises a specific allegation that M. Kobinger requested $2 million and was refused, and asks why the Prime Minister refuses to disclose expert committee advice and vaccine contracts, but the question ends with a rhetorical flourish about ruling like a monarch.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il ne faut pas prendre le monde pour des tartes. M. Kobinger a demandĂ© 2 millions de dollars pour dĂ©velopper le vaccin et il s'est fait dire non. Le premier ministre refuse de dire aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois ce qu'un comitĂ© lui a dit pour exclure l'UniversitĂ© Laval, une dĂ©cision qui aura des consĂ©quences sur la santĂ©, la sĂ©curitĂ© et peut-ĂȘtre mĂȘme la vie des gens. Il refuse de rendre publics ses contrats avec les multinationales pharmaceutiques pour la livraison de vaccins. Or, c'est notoirement un Ă©chec. Pourquoi le premier ministre se comporte-t-il comme un monarque qui n'a de comptes Ă rendre Ă personne et qui prend ses dĂ©cisions seul et, surtout, en secret?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to stop taking people for fools. Dr. Kobinger asked for $2 million to develop the vaccine and was told no. The Prime Minister is refusing to tell Quebeckers what he heard from a panel that made him decide to shut out Université Laval, a decision with consequences for people's health, safety and even their lives. He is refusing to release his contracts with multinational pharmaceutical corporations for vaccine delivery. We all know that has been a colossal failure. Why is the Prime Minister behaving like a monarch who is accountable to nobody and who makes decisions all by himself and in secret?
Trudeau speaks generally about federal investment in Quebecers and Canadians and criticizes Blanchet for his rhetorical language, without addressing the $2 million refusal, the expert committee advice, or contract secrecy.
Trudeau does not address the allegation that M. Kobinger's $2 million request was refused, the secrecy of expert committee advice, or the non-disclosure of vaccine contracts, instead pivoting to defending government spending and criticizing Blanchet's rhetorical tone.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on entend la frustration du chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois, qui voit un gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral en train d'investir dans les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens, d'ĂȘtre prĂ©sent dans la vie des gens comme nous l'avons fait depuis le dĂ©but, d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour soutenir les familles quĂ©bĂ©coises, les travailleurs quĂ©bĂ©cois et les scientifiques et chercheurs quĂ©bĂ©cois. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour tous les Canadiens, comme nous l'avons Ă©tĂ© depuis le dĂ©but, pour, oui, investir dans la science prometteuse, mais aussi pour appuyer les familles. Mon Dieu que le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois devrait se retenir de traiter les gens de tartes parce qu'il est tellement frustrĂ© que nous tenions nos promesses pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I can hear the Bloc Québécois leader's frustration at seeing a federal government investing in Quebeckers and Canadians, being there for people as we have been from the start, being there to support Quebec families, Quebec workers and Quebec scientists and researchers. We will be there for all Canadians, as we have been since the start, investing in promising science and supporting families. I really think the Bloc Québécois leader should refrain from calling people fools just because he is so frustrated that we have kept our promises to Quebeckers.
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister will commit today not to trigger an election while fighting the pandemic, citing the spread of new COVID-19 variants and the Newfoundland and Labrador situation.
Singh asks a direct yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister will commit not to call an election during the pandemic, which is clear and answerable, but the framing includes context-setting rhetoric about variants.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les nouveaux variants de la COVID-19 se propagent plus rapidement et posent une plus grande menace aux gens. Les gens sont inquiets. Ce n'est pas le temps de tenir une élection. Aujourd'hui, le premier ministre s'engage-t-il à ne pas déclencher une élection pendant la pandémie, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the new COVID-19 variants spread more quickly and pose a greater threat. People are worried. This is not the time to hold an election. Will the Prime Minister commit today that he will not call an election during the pandemic, yes or no?
Trudeau says a minority Parliament means the government alone cannot decide when elections happen, blames the opposition for delaying measures, and pivots to vaccine delivery commitments.
Trudeau does not answer yes or no, instead noting that in a minority Parliament the government cannot unilaterally decide on elections and pivoting to blaming Conservative delays, without making any commitment.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis les dĂ©buts de cette pandĂ©mie, notre prioritĂ© Ă la Chambre â et d'ailleurs dans le travail que le gouvernement fait â est d'aider les Canadiens, d'adopter des projets de loi pour soutenir les familles, les aĂźnĂ©s et les jeunes, et c'est ce que nous avons fait en partenariat avec beaucoup de dĂ©putĂ©s de tous les cĂŽtĂ©s de la Chambre. La rĂ©alitĂ© est qu'on voit actuellement des dĂ©lais causĂ©s par le Parti conservateur sur des mesures que les conservateurs veulent, je le sais, que les Canadiens acceptent. Nous allons continuer d'essayer de travailler tant bien que mal avec les dĂ©putĂ©s de l'opposition pour rĂ©pondre aux attentes des Canadiens, tant et aussi longtemps que nous le pourrons.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the start of the pandemic, our priority in the House, and in the government's work, has been to help Canadians and pass legislation to support families, seniors and youth. That is what we have been doing in partnership with many members on all sides of the House. The reality is that we are now seeing delays caused by the Conservative Party with respect to measures that I know that Conservatives want Canadians to accept. We will keep doing our best to work with opposition members to deliver for Canadians for as long as we can.
Singh asks the Prime Minister to commit, yes or no, not to call an election while fighting the pandemic, citing the Prime Minister's reported instruction to prepare for a spring election and the Newfoundland and Labrador delayed election as evidence of COVID's impact on democratic participation.
Singh cites the Prime Minister's reported instruction to his party to prepare for a spring election and references the concrete example of Newfoundland and Labrador's delayed election due to COVID-19, and asks a direct yes-or-no question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told his party to get ready for a spring election. All the while, the new variants of COVID-19 are spreading like wildfire. We have seen the effects of the new variant in Newfoundland and Labrador, where people are getting sick and are afraid to vote, and it has meant they have had to delay the election. I have committed that I will not trigger an election while we are fighting this pandemic. Will the Prime Minister commit today in this chamber that he will not call an election while we are fighting this pandemic, yes or no?
Trudeau says in a minority Parliament the government does not have sole power to decide on elections and pivots to committing to over six million vaccines by end of March and all Canadians vaccinated by September.
Trudeau again does not answer yes or no, citing the dynamics of a minority Parliament and pivoting to vaccine delivery numbers, without addressing the spring election preparation allegation or making any commitment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know well that in a minority Parliament the government does not have the sole power to decide when we go into an election. The opposition members have a role to play not only in providing confidence for the House, but also by being able to function appropriately to deliver the help to Canadians that Canadians so seriously need. We will continue to stay focused on delivering for Canadians and delivering vaccines, with over six million vaccines by the end of March, tens of millions of vaccines into the spring and every Canadian vaccinated by September. That is our focus. That is what we will stay concentrated on.
Poilievre asks when Canadian families will have their paycheques back, citing 834,100 missing paycheques and unemployment a third higher than the G7 average.
Poilievre cites a specific figure of 834,100 missing paycheques and notes unemployment is a third higher than the G7 average, grounding the question factually, though the ask about when families will have paycheques back is broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 834,100 is the number of paycheques that are missing in Canada. It is the number of families sitting teary-eyed around the kitchen table trying to figure out how they are going to fund their future. While the Deputy Prime Minister is congratulating the Conservatives for supporting income programs for those same families, those families need jobs back in order to secure their future. With our unemployment a third higher than the G7 average, when will those families have their paycheques back?
Trudeau invokes the CERB delivered to eight million Canadians and accuses the member for Carleton of opposing worker support measures, without addressing the unemployment gap or timeline for job recovery.
Trudeau recites CERB delivery to eight million Canadians and attacks Poilievre's alleged past statements about doing too much, without addressing the 834,100 figure, the G7 unemployment gap, or when jobs will return.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this pandemic we made a simple and straightforward promise to Canadians that we would have their backs regardless of how long it took, regardless of what it took. That is why we delivered the CERB to eight million Canadians, even while Conservative politicians, like the member for Carleton, were saying we were doing too much too fast, we should not be helping workers and we have to help businesses faster than workers. Sorry, but we were there for Canadians and we continue to be there for Canadians. We know the best way to get the economy to come roaring back is to create opportunities for Canadians.
Poilievre challenges the Prime Minister's claim that Conservatives opposed worker assistance, citing the Deputy Prime Minister's thanks to Conservatives, and asks why workers in other countries with lower unemployment get paycheques while Canadians get credit card debts.
Poilievre calls out the Prime Minister's prior statement as false and references the Deputy Prime Minister's acknowledgment of Conservative support, then asks why workers abroad get paycheques while Canadians accumulate credit card debt, which is more rhetorical than precise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has just said is false. In fact, his Deputy Prime Minister thanked the Conservatives for supporting that assistance. It just shows how out of touch he is that he thinks families can go on living forever off a measly $2,000 cheque from the government. They do not have multi-million dollar trust funds like he does. They want jobs like workers in other countries, where unemployment is significantly lower than it is here. Why is it that workers abroad get paycheques while ours here at home just get credit card debts?
Trudeau cites IMF recognition of Canada's approach to supporting workers, businesses, and communities, and says the government will continue supporting families through the pandemic.
Trudeau cites IMF recognition of Canada's approach and speaks generally about supporting workers during the pandemic, but does not address the international unemployment comparison or the credit card debt point.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, among others, the IMF has recognized that Canada's approach to supporting workers, supporting businesses and supporting communities through this pandemic has left us better positioned to come roaring back once this pandemic is over. We had to do the things that were necessary to protect Canadians during this pandemic, and as a government we were there to support those families. We are all looking forward to getting back to work right across the country, but the fact is that we need to continue to be there to support them while we get through this pandemic. This government will continue to do so regardless of what the Conservatives say.
Poilievre states the IMF cut Canada's growth projection by a third, cites G7 unemployment comparisons (G7 average 6%, U.S. 6.3%, EU 7.5%, Canada 9.4%), and asks whether it is clear that Canadians regaining jobs requires the Prime Minister to lose his.
Poilievre cites specific unemployment statisticsâG7 average 6%, U.S. 6.3%, EU 7.5%, Canada 9.4%âand the IMF's cut to Canada's growth projection by a third, making this factually grounded, though the conclusion is a partisan rhetorical jab.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the IMF actually did is cut Canada's growth projection for this year by a third, not to mention that we are falling behind the rest of the world on jobs. In fact, the G7 average is 6%; the U.S., 6.3%; the EU, 7.5%; and Canada, 9.4%. They also have COVID, but they are getting their jobs back. Is it not clear that for Canadians to regain their jobs, the Prime Minister will have to lose his?
Trudeau quotes the IMF report stating Canada's actions 'provided crucial support to the economy' and that Canada's 'prudent policymaking afforded it the policy space to respond forcefully,' reframing the IMF finding without addressing the unemployment rate comparison.
Trudeau quotes the IMF report selectively to rebut Poilievre's framing, citing specific language about Canada's 'strong and decisive actions' and 'prudent policymaking,' but does not address the unemployment rate comparison figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this crisis demanded targeted, time-limited support to keep people and businesses afloat and that is exactly what this government chose to do. The IMF report indeed found that Canada's strong and decisive actions at the onset of the pandemic âprovided crucial support to the economy and the functioning of financial markets, and helped protect lives and livelihoodsâ and that âCanadaâs strong history of prudent policymaking afforded it the policy space to respond forcefully to the crisis and avert much steeper declines in economic activity and employment.â We were there for Canadians. We will continue to support them through this pandemic.
Martel asks why the federal government did not prioritize vaccine research and development in Canada, citing the Centre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval's Ebola vaccine credential and its COVID-19 prototype developed with minimal resources.
Martel names the Centre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval and its specific credential (progressing an Ebola vaccine to approval) and references a prototype developed against COVID-19, giving the question factual grounding in a specific case.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, alors que les libéraux tentent de trouver un approvisionnement en vaccins un peu partout sur la planÚte, on aurait pu en fabriquer un, directement dans notre cour, au Centre de recherche en infectiologie de l'Université Laval. C'est la seule équipe canadienne qui a fait progresser un vaccin contre l'Ebola jusqu'à l'homologation. Ils ont développé, en quelques semaines, avec des miettes, un prototype efficace sur les animaux contre la COVID-19. Pourquoi le fédéral n'a-t-il pas donné priorité à la recherche-développement sur le vaccin au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals are searching the globe for a vaccine supply, we could have produced one in our own backyard at Université Laval's Infectious Disease Research Centre. It is the only Canadian team that got an Ebola vaccine all the way to the approval stage. In a matter of weeks and with little to go on, they developed a prototype COVID-19 vaccine that was effective on animals. Why did the federal government not prioritize vaccine research and development in Canada?
Trudeau cites a $1 million federal grant to M. Kobinger at the start of the pandemic and lists other Canadian investments, arguing the government has consistently supported Canadian scientists.
Trudeau again cites the $1 million grant to M. Kobinger and lists past Canadian investments but does not address the broader question of why domestic vaccine R&D was not prioritized or explain the decision-making process.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons investi dans l'industrie canadienne, nous avons investi dans les scientifiques canadiens, pas seulement pendant cette pandémie, mais depuis cinq ans, puisque l'ancien gouvernement conservateur avait tellement sous-investi dans la science. Effectivement, on parle de l'Université Laval. Nous avons donné à M. Kobinger une subvention fédérale de 1 million de dollars au début de la pandémie pour ses recherches dans le cadre du fonds de recherche rapide sur le nouveau coronavirus. Nous allons continuer d'investir dans les Canadiens, nous allons continuer de tenir nos engagements envers les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been investing in Canadian industry and Canadian scientists, not just during this pandemic, but for the past five years, because the previous Conservative government seriously under-invested in science. Since we are talking about Université Laval, we gave Dr. Kobinger a $1-million federal grant for his research at the beginning of the pandemic through the novel coronavirus rapid research funding opportunity. We will continue to invest in Canadians. We will continue to keep our promises to Canadians.
Martel asks whether the Prime Minister is surprised to have been taken advantage of again by China, citing the preference for a Chinese deal over domestic developers, the loss of that deal and intellectual property, and contrasting it with quick assistance to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis.
Martel makes a specific allegation about preferring China over domestic developers, losing the deal with China along with intellectual property, and contrasting that with quick assistance to former Liberal MP Frank Baylis, which is pointed but mixes several claims.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que le premier ministre a favorisĂ© la Chine pour dĂ©velopper un vaccin au lieu d'appuyer des dĂ©veloppeurs de chez nous. En fin de compte, on a perdu le deal avec la Chine, on a perdu notre propriĂ©tĂ© intellectuelle et le gouvernement s'est retrouvĂ© en retard dans les autres nĂ©gociations. Quand c'est venu le temps d'aider son ancien dĂ©putĂ© fĂ©dĂ©ral Frank Baylis, il n'y a pas eu de problĂšme. Est-ce que le premier ministre est surpris de s'ĂȘtre fait encore avoir par la Chine?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister chose China to develop a vaccine instead of supporting Canadian companies. We ultimately lost the deal with China, we lost our intellectual property and the government wound up behind in its other negotiations. The Prime Minister had no issue helping his former federal MP Frank Baylis when the opportunity arose. Was the Prime Minister surprised to be once again duped by China?
Trudeau asserts the plan is working with six million vaccines by end of March and all Canadians vaccinated before September, and lists domestic investments in Medicago, Glycovax, Variation Biotechnologies, AbCellera Biologics, Symvivo, and VIDO-InterVac.
Trudeau asserts the vaccine plan is working, lists domestic investment recipients including Medicago, Glycovax, and others, and gives the six million by end of March and September vaccination targets, but does not address the China deal loss, the intellectual property claim, or Frank Baylis.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, effectivement, nous avons fait des investissements partout au pays en mĂȘme temps que nous avons signĂ© des contrats avec des compagnies internationales pour nous assurer que les Canadiens recevront les vaccins, et notre plan fonctionne. Nous aurons plus de 6 millions de vaccins Ă la fin de mars. Nous aurons vaccinĂ© tout le monde avant septembre de cette annĂ©e. En mĂȘme temps, nous avons investi dans la capacitĂ© au pays. Que ce soit Medicago Ă QuĂ©bec, Glycovax Ă MontrĂ©al, Variation Biotechnologies Ă Ottawa, AbCellera Biologics Ă Vancouver, Symvivo Ă Burnaby, VIDO-InterVac en Saskatchewan, nous sommes lĂ pour investir dans la production au pays aussi.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we did make investments around the country while we were signing contracts with international companies to secure vaccines for Canadians, and our plan is working. We will have more than six million vaccines by the end of March. We will get everyone vaccinated by this coming September. We have also invested in Canada's manufacturing capacity, with companies like Medicago, in Quebec City; Glycovax, in Montreal; Variation Biotechnologies, in Ottawa; AbCellera Biologics, in Vancouver; Symvivo, in Burnaby; and VIDO-InterVac, in Saskatchewan.
Martel states the government is already behind its vaccination schedule and that six million doses is only a fraction of what Canada needs, and asks how many lives will be lost due to the government's incompetence and poor vaccine supply management.
Martel notes the government is already behind schedule and that six million doses is only a fraction of what is needed, and asks how many lives will be lost due to the government's incompetence, which is a provocative framing that undermines an otherwise substantive accountability challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement peut nous dire, tant qu'il le voudra, que le Canada va recevoir 6 millions de doses de vaccins d'ici le 31 mars. Il est déjà en retard sur son horaire. En plus, 6 millions de doses, ce n'est qu'une fraction de ce dont nous avons besoin. Des gens meurent à cause de la mauvaise gestion et du manque d'approvisionnement en vaccins. Combien de vies seront perdues à cause de l'incompétence de ce gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government can keep insisting that Canada will receive six million doses by March 31, but it is already behind schedule. What is more, those six million doses are only a fraction of what we need. People are dying because of bad management and a vaccine supply shortage. How many lives will be lost because of this government's incompetence?
Trudeau rejects the Conservative December prediction about Canada's vaccine rollout, asserts Canada was among the first two or three countries to vaccinate citizens with approved vaccines, and reaffirms six million doses by end of March and full vaccination by end of September.
Trudeau rejects a past Conservative prediction that billions would be vaccinated globally before a single Canadian, restates the six million by end of March and September commitments, but does not address being behind schedule or the fraction-of-need concern.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au dĂ©but de dĂ©cembre, les membres du Parti conservateur disaient que des milliards de citoyens de la planĂšte allaient se faire vacciner avant qu'un Canadien reçoive sa premiĂšre dose. C'Ă©tait tout simplement faux. Au contraire, on a vu que le Canada Ă©tait parmi les deux ou trois premiers pays au monde Ă vacciner leurs citoyens avec des vaccins sĂ»rs, approuvĂ©s et efficaces. Nous sommes lĂ pour livrer les vaccins pour les Canadiens. Nous nous apprĂȘtons Ă en recevoir 6 millions de doses pour la fin de mars, comme nous l'avons promis dĂšs le mois de novembre. Nous aurons vaccinĂ© tout le monde avant la fin de septembre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in early December, members of the Conservative Party were saying that billions of people around the world were going to be vaccinated before a single Canadian received the vaccine. That is simply not true. On the contrary, we have seen that Canada was among the first two or three countries in the world to vaccinate its citizens with safe, approved and effective vaccines. We are there to deliver vaccines for Canadians. We are preparing to receive six million doses at the end of March, as we have been promising since November. We will have vaccinated everyone by the end of September.
Why did the government refuse an additional $2 million to the Université Laval team that had already received $1 million and discovered a potential vaccine, representing only one-thousandth of total vaccine R&D spending?
Cites a specific grant amount ($1 million), a specific additional request ($2 million), a specific institution (Université Laval), and a specific share of total investment (un milliÚme), with a clear single answerable ask: why was the $2 million refused?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, au début de la pandémie, il fallait que le gouvernement agisse de toute urgence. C'est pourquoi, en mars, tous les partis ont permis au gouvernement d'aller chercher 2,5 milliards de dollars à injecter dans la recherche et le développement de vaccins. Le gouvernement a donné 1 million de dollars à l'équipe de l'Université Laval qui, avec ce million, a découvert un vaccin potentiel. L'équipe demandait à ce gouvernement 2 millions de dollars de plus pour tester ce vaccin, soit un milliÚme de tout ce qui a été investi en recherche sur les vaccins. Pourtant, le gouvernement a dit non: pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the pandemic, the government had to act urgently. That is why, in March, all parties allowed the government to take $2.5 billion and invest it in vaccine research and development. The government gave $1 million to the team at Université Laval, who used it to discover a potential vaccine. The team asked the government for an additional $2 million to test the vaccine, one-thousandth of all the money invested in vaccine research. Still, the government said no. Why is that?
Trudeau spoke generally about investing in domestic production capacity through Medicago and the NRC, without addressing the refusal of the Université Laval request.
Trudeau does not address the refusal of the $2 million Université Laval request at all, instead pivoting to broad domestic production investments like Medicago and the Conseil national de recherches du Canada.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons rapidement compris dÚs le début de la pandémie que nous devions investir dans une production intérieure souple et mettre nos installations à niveau. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait. En fait, nous avions déjà pris des mesures importantes en ce sens avant la pandémie. Durant notre premier mandat, nous avons redonné à Innovation, Sciences et Développement économique Canada la capacité d'investir dans les sciences de la vie. Depuis le début de la pandémie, nous n'avons fait qu'accélérer nos investissements de maniÚre importante en faisant de grands investissements dans les capacités de production comme celles de Medicago et du Conseil national de recherches du Canada à Montréal.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we quickly realized early on in the pandemic that we needed to invest in flexible domestic production and upgrade our facilities. That is exactly what we did. In fact, we had already taken significant steps in that direction before the pandemic. In our first term, we gave Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada the means to invest in life sciences. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have only accelerated our investments significantly by making large investments in production capacity, like Medicago and the National Research Council of Canada in Montreal.
Given that the government's refusal to invest $2 million may have contributed to Canada ranking 52nd globally in vaccination and forced reliance on vaccines meant for developing countries, and given that Québec's government stepped in yesterday with the $2 million, is the Prime Minister embarrassed?
Builds on the previous exchange with specific consequences (52e rang mondial, dĂ©pendance aux vaccins de pays en dĂ©veloppement, investissement du gouvernement du QuĂ©bec hier), but the culminating ask â 'le premier ministre est-il gĂȘnĂ©?' â is more rhetorical than specifically answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je crois que le premier ministre n'a pas lu la bonne feuille, car sa rĂ©ponse ne correspond pas Ă la question. Il a refusĂ© d'investir 2 millions de dollars pour un vaccin quĂ©bĂ©cois potentiel. S'il avait investi Ă temps, peut-ĂȘtre que le Canada ne serait pas actuellement au 52e rang mondial dans la vaccination. S'il avait investi Ă temps, il n'aurait pas Ă©tĂ© obligĂ© de piger dans les vaccins destinĂ©s aux pays en voie de dĂ©veloppement. S'il avait investi Ă temps, peut-ĂȘtre qu'il n'aurait pas Ă©tĂ© obligĂ© de se mettre Ă genoux devant l'Inde pour avoir des vaccins. S'il avait investi Ă temps, peut-ĂȘtre aurions-nous eu des QuĂ©bĂ©cois qui se seraient fait vacciner au cours du dernier mois. Hier, le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec a encore fait le travail du gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral et investi 2 millions de dollars. Le premier ministre est-il gĂȘnĂ© de la situation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am guessing the Prime Minister read from the wrong notes because his answer had nothing to do with the question. He refused to invest $2 million in a potential made-in-Quebec vaccine. Had he invested in time, maybe Canada would not now be in 52nd place for vaccination rates. Had he invested in time, he would not have been forced to dip into vaccines for developing countries. Had he invested in time, maybe he would not have had to go begging India for vaccines. Had he invested in time, maybe some Quebeckers would have been vaccinated in the past month. Yesterday, the Government of Quebec once again did the federal government's job and invested $2 million. Is the Prime Minister embarrassed about that?
The Prime Minister said the government listens to experts and scientists to make the best investments of taxpayer money.
Trudeau offers a generic statement about listening to experts and using taxpayer money wisely, never addressing the refusal, the Québec government's compensating investment, or the specific consequences cited.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, notre responsabilité, en tant que gouvernement, c'est d'écouter les experts, les scientifiques et les autorités qui émettent des recommandations sur les meilleurs investissements à faire. Il est question de l'argent des contribuables, lesquels s'attendent à ce que nous fassions les meilleurs investissements possible. Nous avons énormément d'excellents scientifiques dans ce pays, mais c'est à nos experts de choisir qui pourrait nous livrer des vaccins le plus rapidement possible et qui y parviendra. Nous écoutons ces experts et nous leur faisons confiance lorsque vient le moment d'investir l'argent des contribuables.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as the government, it is our responsibility to listen to the experts, to scientists and to the authorities who issue recommendations about the best investments to make. This is about taxpayers' money, and taxpayers expect us to make the best possible investments. We have plenty of excellent scientists in this country, but it is up to our experts to decide who is likely to deliver vaccines fastest and who will succeed. We listen to those experts, and we trust their advice when we decide how to invest taxpayers' money.
Why has the Prime Minister shown zero engagement on Keystone XL when 14 U.S. states have taken their federal government to court over the cancellation and bipartisan voices are calling for reversal?
References the fact of 14 states suing the U.S. federal government and bipartisan calls for reversal, but the ask is essentially a character attack ('zero engagement, zero energy, zero passion') rather than a precise accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not even pretend to support Canadian energy, and his lacklustre approach is proof. Fourteen states in the U.S. have taken their federal government to court over the Keystone XL cancellation. Democrats and Republicans alike have called for the decision to be reversed, but as for our own Prime Minister, he is silent. He has not even bothered to reach out to any of these possible allies. Why is the Prime Minister always mailing it in, with zero engagement, zero energy and zero passion when it comes to protecting Canada's energy security?
Trudeau said he raised Keystone XL in his recent phone call with the President, that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the U.S., and that the government will continue working with the new administration.
Trudeau confirms he raised Keystone XL in his recent call with the President and acknowledges the decision, providing some relevant factual content, though he does not address the specific claim about failing to reach out to potential U.S. allies.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been consistent in our support for Canadian energy workers and Keystone XL. We continuously advocated for this project to our counterparts in the United States. In my recent phone call with the President, I raised Keystone XL again. We are disappointed, but we acknowledge the President's decision to fulfill his election campaign promise. We continue to be the single largest supplier of energy to the United States, contributing to U.S. energy security and economic competitiveness. We will continue to work hand in hand with the new administration to ensure that we are creating good jobs for Canadians and opportunities for energy for all.
With 30,000 jobs in Ontario and Quebec at stake on Line 5, why has the Prime Minister made no calls to the governors of Michigan or Wisconsin or the relevant cabinet secretaries?
Identifies 30,000 specific jobs at stake on Line 5 and specifies that no calls have been made to the governors of Michigan or Wisconsin or relevant cabinet secretaries, making it reasonably grounded, but the closing ask is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister failed miserably on Keystone XL. We expected a little more effort from him on Line 5. After all, there are 30,000 jobs in Ontario and Quebec at stake. It would be nice if the Prime Minister passionately advocated for them, but it does not seem he is going to do that. The Prime Minister has made no calls to the governors of Michigan or Wisconsin, or to the cabinet secretaries responsible for these projects. What is it? Is the Prime Minister going to actually pick up the phone, or is he going to continue this half-hearted do-nothing approach to securing Canadian energy jobs?
Trudeau listed past government achievements on NAFTA, aluminum and steel, supply management, and cultural industries, and said the government takes no lessons from the Conservative Party.
Trudeau does not address Line 5, the 30,000 jobs, or the allegation of no calls to Michigan/Wisconsin governors, instead pivoting entirely to attacking the Conservative Party's record and listing unrelated government achievements.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I understand well that the Conservative Party of Canada has a job to do of throwing random accusations at the government to see what will stick. It has been doing that for the past number of years while we have been busy at work standing up for Canadians against what was, at certain times, a very difficult American administration. We stood up for jobs on NAFTA; we stood up for aluminum and steel workers; we continue to stand up to protect our supply management; we continue to protect our cultural industries; and now we work hand in hand with a new administration that is serious about tackling climate change and creating good jobs across the continent. We will continue to work with the Americans, and we will take no lessons from the Conservative Party on how to do that.
How many self-employed Canadians are going bankrupt due to the government's failure to address problems with CERB repayments, given that over 440,000 letters were sent warning recipients of potential repayments of up to $14,000?
References the specific detail of over 440,000 letters sent to CERB recipients warning of repayments of up to $14,000, identifies poor communications on eligibility as a systemic issue, and asks for a number of bankruptcies â a concrete if hard-to-answer metric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, just before the holiday season, the Liberals sent over 440,000 letters to CERB recipients warning them that they might have to repay up to $14,000. This bad news came following the worst economic downturn in nearly a century. Talk about kicking someone when they are down. For months, Conservatives have been raising the alarm about poor communications on eligibility for CERB, but the Liberals ignored the concerns of our constituents and instead told Canadians that the upcoming tax season would be âtoughâ. Well, no kidding. How many self-employed Canadians are going bankrupt by the government's failure to face up to the problems with CERB repayments?
Trudeau accused the Conservatives of being incoherent and said the government was guided by the principle of supporting Canadians as long as possible and as much as necessary.
Trudeau does not address the 440,000 letters, the repayment issue, bankruptcies, or CERB eligibility communications, instead attacking the Conservatives for alleged incoherence and delivering boilerplate about supporting Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, here is the situation the Conservatives find themselves in: They say that the Liberals have invested too much in Canadians and been there too much to support workers, been there too much to support seniors and youth and that we have done far too much in terms of spending on Canadians to get them through the pandemic, but at the same time they say that we should have done more. They are completely incoherent. On this side of the House we were guided by a very straightforward principle: to support Canadians as long as possible and as much as necessary, and that is exactly what we have been doing.
Can the Prime Minister provide a date for when the technical issues at the Canada Revenue Agency causing automatic rejection of CRB applications for non-EI-eligible Canadians will be resolved?
Identifies a specific technical problem at the Canada Revenue Agency causing automatic rejection of CRB applications, cites two concrete constituent cases (Winnipeg couple with newborn, single mother in Vaughan), and asks for a specific resolution date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the Prime Minister is leaving thousands and thousands of Canadians behind. For example, those who are not eligible for EI are being directed to apply for the new CERB, the CRB. However, technical issues at the Canada Revenue Agency are resulting in automatic rejection of their applications. A Winnipeg couple with a newborn baby is dealing with this disaster and we have heard the same from a single mother in Vaughan, Ontario. A year into this pandemic, Canadians are being made more and more aware of the Prime Minister's incompetence. Can the Prime Minister provide a date as to when the EI and CRB issue will be resolved?
Trudeau listed various pandemic support programs including CERB, wage subsidies, small business support, and shelter investments, and said the government would continue to support people.
Trudeau lists past government pandemic spending programs without addressing the CRB technical rejection issue, the constituent cases cited, or providing any date for resolution.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of this pandemic, we faced unprecedented situations of hardship across the country, and this government stepped up with CERB supports for over eight million Canadians; with wage subsidies that made a huge difference to businesses across the country; with direct support for small businesses; with investments in shelters and homeless support programs; and with investments to fight gender-based violence, which is on the rise in this pandemic. We have been there to support students and to support seniors. We will continue to be there to support people, and yes, as the member points out, there is more to do, and we will do that, too.
Why did the government stand by when Mi'kmaq fishers needed protection, given an APTN report showing the government knew violence against the Sipekne'katik Nation was likely before they launched their moderate livelihood fishery?
References a specific APTN report alleging prior government knowledge of likely violence against the Sipekne'katik Nation, frames a clear accountability question about why the government did nothing despite that foreknowledge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, an APTN report showed us that the government knew that violence against the Sipekne'katik Nation was likely to happen before they launched their moderate livelihood fishery, and yet the Liberals did nothing. They allowed lives to be threatened, and only showed concern after these acts of terror took place. This is textbook systemic racism, and indigenous fishers do not need more symbolic gestures by the Liberals. They need leaders who will keep them safe. Could the Prime Minister tell us why the government stood by when Mi'kmaq fishers needed him to step up?
Trudeau said the government has been working with indigenous leaders on advancing rights and reconciliation, and deeply condemned the actions of a few in Nova Scotia.
Trudeau expresses condemnation of the violence and references reconciliation work in general terms but does not engage with the APTN report's allegation that the government had advance knowledge and failed to act.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been working with indigenous leaders in Nova Scotia and indeed across the country on advancing their rights and recognizing them and moving forward on reconciliation and supporting them. We deeply, deeply condemn and regret the actions of a few in Nova Scotia, and that is why we are there to continue to support and move forward to build a better future for the Mi'kmaq and for everyone across the country.
Will the Prime Minister commit to immediate and substantial new investments to address the housing crisis in Winnipeg, given a PBO report noting 9,000 indigenous households in core housing need and a community death in an encampment fire?
Anchors the question in a specific PBO report finding (9,000 indigenous households in core housing need), references a community death from an encampment fire, and asks for a specific commitment to immediate and substantial new investments in Winnipeg.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, today our community is mourning another life lost to a fire that broke out in an encampment. The government's failure to uphold the right to affordable, accessible social housing is costing lives. In fact, a PBO report released last week noted that 9,000 indigenous households are in core housing need and that investments are critical. The federal government needs to step up and act now before more lives are lost. Will the Prime Minister commit to making immediate and substantial new investments to address the housing crisis in Winnipeg before more people die?
Trudeau referenced the $40 billion national housing strategy, housing first program, rapid housing initiatives, and supports for urban indigenous people, without making a specific commitment for Winnipeg.
Trudeau cites the $40 billion national housing strategy and housing first program but does not make a specific commitment for Winnipeg, address the PBO report's finding, or respond to the urgency framed around the encampment fire death.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past years we have stepped up significantly with a $40 billion national housing strategy, a housing first program to combat homelessness, supports for people living with addictions and investments in indigenous communities, including investments for urban indigenous people facing challenges. We continue to be there. We look forward to continuing to work on rapid housing initiatives, on local municipal initiatives to build more housing. We are there as a partner to support vulnerable Canadians through this difficult time and into the coming years.
What next steps is the government taking to end gun violence and death, following the 2019 background check legislation and last year's ban on military-style assault weapons?
A government backbench question that references a bill introduced yesterday and cites past measures but is designed to invite the Prime Minister to announce next steps, functioning as a soft setup rather than an accountability moment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a family physician, I know that gun violence is a public health issue that affects cities and small towns across Canada. Last month alone, there were three fatal gang shootings over three nights in Vancouver. We must end the gun violence and criminal activity. In 2019, we passed a bill expanding background checks for prospective gun buyers. Last year, we banned arms that were made for soldiers in war. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what next steps the government is taking to end this violence and death?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for this important question and her many, many years of public health advocacy. While the Conservatives made promises to the gun lobby to weaken gun control, we are taking action to keep Canadians safe. Just yesterday, we introduced legislation that targets gun violence and criminal activity and addresses intimate partner violence, self-harm and online hate. As Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns has declared, âThis is a comprehensive bill that, if enacted, will save lives.â
Trudeau announced legislation introduced the previous day targeting gun violence, criminal activity, intimate partner violence, self-harm and online hate, citing an endorsement from Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.
Trudeau announces legislation introduced the previous day targeting gun violence, criminal activity, intimate partner violence, self-harm and online hate, and quotes Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, providing real new information.
Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Fisheries to ensure that indigenous and non-indigenous fishers in Nova Scotia will not relive another season of insecurity, fear and violence given that no official agreements have been reached despite a year of discussions?
References a year of raised concerns and the lack of official agreements despite claimed stakeholder discussions, with a specific ask for assurances to both indigenous and non-indigenous fishers, but the framing is partially rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since I first raised concerns about the fisheries crisis in West Nova with the Minister of Fisheries, and we all know how bad events played out due to her inaction. Spring fishing is just around the corner, and although the minister says that she has been holding discussions with stakeholders, no official agreements have yet been made. Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Fisheries to take on her responsibility and assure indigenous and non-indigenous fishers in Nova Scotia that they will not have to relive another season of insecurity, fear and violence?
Trudeau praised the Minister of Fisheries for her work on moderate livelihood for Mi'kmaq fishers and said the government hopes to resolve the longstanding situation soon.
Trudeau praises the Minister of Fisheries in general terms and says the situation is being worked on, but provides no specific assurances, timeline, or details about agreements, and does not address the claim that no official agreements have been made.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to highlight the extraordinary work that the Minister of Fisheries is doing in resolving this issue, moving forward on the moderate livelihood for Mi'kmaq fishers and ensuring the commercial fishers in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada continue to benefit from a strong future for their communities as well. We know that this is a situation that has been in place for many, many decades, but it is time to recognize those rights that have been identified for many years but not been fulfilled. This is what we are working on now and hope to resolve soon.
When will the Prime Minister do his job and look out for the livelihoods of all Canadians, including those in the fishing sector, given a pattern of neglect and lack of communication?
The question is largely rhetorical, with vague references to 'a pattern of neglect' and 'lack of communication,' and a broad non-specific ask about when the Prime Minister will 'look out for the livelihoods of all Canadians.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yet again we are given more dither, delay and denial from the Prime Minister. Canadians are realizing more each day that they have, yet again, walked to the far side of a disappointing decision by entrusting the Liberal government to deal with the challenges of these times. The fact of the matter is that the government has demonstrated a pattern of neglect and lack of communication. The Atlantic fishing crisis is just one example of how the government has failed on numerous occasions to keep stakeholders informed and a part of the process. When will the Prime Minister do his job and look out for the livelihoods of all Canadians, including those in the fishing sector?
Trudeau listed pre-pandemic poverty reduction and job creation achievements and said the government has been supporting all Canadians through the pandemic, including Atlantic fishers.
Trudeau lists unrelated pre-pandemic achievements and generic pandemic support commitments, never addressing the Atlantic fishing crisis or the specific governance failures alleged.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past five years, we have demonstrated what a government that is focused on Canadians can actually deliver for Canadians. Whether it was lifting a million people out of poverty or whether it was creating a million new jobs, these are the kinds of things we worked on. Then the pandemic hit, and we had an opportunity and demonstrated the ability to be there for Canadians. We made a simple promise that we would support Canadians as much as it took, as long as it took, to get through this pandemic, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing it for fishers in the Atlantic. We are doing it for farmers on the Prairies. We are doing it for community members in the north. We are doing it for all Canadians.
When will the Prime Minister direct the Minister of Fisheries to work with the fisheries sector to rebuild fisheries and restore access for all Canadians, given that viable science-based proposals are being rejected and indigenous food, social and ceremonial harvest rates have been undermined?
Raises a substantive concern about the minister rejecting science-based proposals and notes impacts on indigenous food, social and ceremonial harvest rates, but the framing mixes genuine substance with rhetorical assertions of ministerial failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, things are not good on the west coast either. Canadians who depend on fisheries have been let down by the minister. Investments across all sectors are being shelved because of uncertainty and instability. The minister's rejection of viable, science-based proposals is keeping Canadians off the water. Even indigenous food, social and ceremonial harvest rates have been undermined by the minister's decisions and failures. When will the Prime Minister direct his minister to start working with the fisheries sector to rebuild fisheries and restore access for all Canadians?
Trudeau invoked his family connection to fisheries and said the Minister of Fisheries is working to solve current challenges and ensure a vibrant fishery industry for decades to come.
Trudeau speaks in general terms about commitment to fisheries and the minister's long-term work on the sector, but does not address the allegation of rejected science-based proposals or the impact on indigenous harvest rights.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the grandson of a proud minister of fisheries and oceans who was in the House many years ago, I can tell the member that we continue, as a government, to be deeply committed to supporting fishers right across the country. Whether it is on the west coast or the east coast, the work that the Minister of Fisheries is doing with them is not just to solve the challenges of today but to ensure a vibrant fishery industry for decades to come. Given the scientific advancements and various climate challenges we are facing, we know that there needs to be a strong future for our oceans. That is something we are working on hand in hand with communities right across the country.
Will the Prime Minister step in and demand that the Minister of Fisheries listen to the B.C. fishing community, given the minister's own department data showing strong river returns and the Public Fishery Alliance's open letter saying science-based management is not guiding her actions?
Quotes directly from the Public Fishery Alliance open letter to the minister, references the department's own data showing strong river returns, and asks a specific yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister will intervene.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the B.C. fishing community has expressed that if the Minister of Fisheries continues to ignore sound science, the impact on our angling families will be devastating. Her own department's data shows that many rivers are showing strong returns, and 100% closure of the fishery is not required. From the recent Public Fishery Alliance open letter to the minister, âFailure to do so reinforces the common view that science-based fisheries management and your mandate letter from the Prime Minister are not guiding your actions.â Will the Prime Minister step in now and demand that the minister listen to the concerns of our B.C. fishing community: yes or no?
Trudeau said science and evidence must underpin government decisions and that the government defers to experts, contrasting this with the previous Conservative government's approach.
Trudeau makes a general defence of science-based decision-making and attacks the previous Conservative government's record, but does not address the specific departmental data cited, the Public Fishery Alliance letter, or answer yes or no.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, science and evidence must always underpin the decisions taken by any government. That is something we knew and heard very clearly from Canadians when we took over from a Conservative government that used to put policy ahead of science every single time. We base our decisions on science, and that is why we defer to the experts across the country in making recommendations on how to best preserve our fishers' livelihoods for the present and for decades to come. That is the work we will continue to do with indigenous fishers, commercial fishers and, indeed, with people from coast to coast to coast.
How can the Prime Minister claim assault weapons are banned if a voluntary buyback program leaves up to 200,000 of them in communities?
Identifies a specific policy design flaw â a voluntary buyback program attached to what the questioner characterizes as a voluntary ban â and puts a concrete number (jusqu'Ă 200 000 armes) on the problem, with a clear pointed question about the contradiction.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre n'a aucun courage dans le dossier des armes d'assaut. Comme d'habitude, il a complÚtement abdiqué devant ses responsabilités en créant un programme de rachat facultatif. En effet, c'est ce que c'est réellement: un programme facultatif tiré d'une interdiction facultative des armes d'assaut. Le gouvernement s'en remet totalement à la bonne foi des propriétaires. Comment le premier ministre peut-il prétendre que les armes d'assaut sont interdites s'il en laisse jusqu'à 200 000 dans nos communautés?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no courage whatsoever when it comes to assault weapons. As usual, he has completely abdicated his responsibilities by creating a voluntary buyback program, since that is what it really is: a voluntary program based on a voluntary ban on assault weapons. The government is totally relying on the good faith of gun owners. How can the Prime Minister claim that assault weapons are banned if he leaves up to 200,000 of them in our communities?
Trudeau stated that since last spring it is illegal to use, sell, buy, transfer or bequeath military-style assault weapons anywhere in the country, and that a fair compensation program will be established for those who legally purchased them.
Trudeau states clearly that it is now illegal to use, sell, buy, transfer or bequeath military-style assault weapons and that a buyback program will provide fair compensation, partially engaging the substance but not fully addressing the voluntary compliance gap or the 200,000 figure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vais me permettre d'ĂȘtre trĂšs clair: depuis le printemps dernier, il est illĂ©gal d'utiliser, de vendre, d'acheter, de transfĂ©rer ou de lĂ©guer des armes d'assaut de style militaire partout au pays. C'est une chose que nous avions promise. C'est une chose que nous avons rĂ©alisĂ©e. Nous allons maintenant mettre en place des mesures pour offrir une compensation Ă©quitable Ă tous ceux qui ont achetĂ© ces armes de façon lĂ©gale et qui ne peuvent plus les utiliser parce qu'on leur interdit maintenant de le faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let me make this perfectly clear. Since last spring, it has been illegal to use, sell, purchase, transfer or bequeath military-style assault weapons anywhere in Canada. That is something that we promised to do, and we delivered. We are now bringing in measures to provide fair compensation to anyone who purchased these weapons legally but can no longer use them because they are now prohibited from doing so.
Is the Prime Minister betraying Polytechnique families and survivors who were promised a ban on assault weapons, given that people can still legally possess these military-style weapons and the only change is that they may now also sell them to the government?
Sharpens the prior exchange by specifying that the only change is that owners can now sell the weapons to the government while still legally possessing them, and invokes the Prime Minister's specific promise to Polytechnique families and survivors, raising a concrete broken-promise accountability question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas une interdiction. C'est une suggestion. Les gens ont encore le droit d'avoir des armes d'assaut. La seule chose qui a changé est que, maintenant, ils ont aussi le droit de les vendre au gouvernement. Je veux le rappeler: on ne parle pas d'armes de chasse ni de harceler les chasseurs, on parle d'armes de type militaire comme celles qui ont été utilisées dans les tueries de masse comme celle de Polytechnique. Le premier ministre a promis aux familles et aux survivantes de Polytechnique d'interdire les armes d'assaut. Réalise-t-il qu'il est en train de les trahir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is not a ban. It is a suggestion. People are still allowed to have assault rifles. The only thing that has changed is that now they are also allowed to sell those rifles to the government. Again, we are not talking about hunting rifles or harassing hunters; we are talking about military-style rifles like the ones that were used in mass shootings such as the one at Polytechnique. The Prime Minister promised the families and the survivors of Polytechnique that he would ban assault rifles. Does he realize that he is betraying them?
Trudeau stated it is now illegal to use military-style assault weapons anywhere in Canada including in one's basement or backyard, calling it a formal legal ban, and described the buyback as compensation for weapons that now serve no purpose.
Trudeau clarifies that it is now illegal to use military-style assault weapons anywhere in Canada including at home or in one's backyard, and describes the buyback as compensation for weapons that now 'serve absolutely no purpose,' engaging the substance more directly but still not addressing the broken promise to Polytechnique families.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je ne voudrais pas que la dĂ©putĂ©e induise la Chambre ni les Canadiens en erreur. Si on me le permet, je serai trĂšs clair. Il est maintenant illĂ©gal d'utiliser n'importe oĂč au Canada, y compris dans son sous-sol ou dans son jardin, ces armes d'assaut de style militaire. C'est une interdiction lĂ©gale et formelle. C'est fait. Ces armes sont bannies. On offre maintenant la possibilitĂ© Ă ceux qui ont achetĂ© ces armes lorsqu'elles Ă©taient lĂ©gales de les revendre au gouvernement parce que, maintenant, elles ne servent strictement plus Ă rien.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to mislead the House or Canadians. If I may, I will be very clear. It is now illegal to use these military-style assault rifles anywhere in Canada, including in a person's basement or backyard. It is a legal and formal ban. It is done. These weapons are banned. We are now giving those who bought these weapons when they were legal the opportunity to sell them back to the government because now they are absolutely useless.
Rayes asks the Prime Minister to give a specific date for when legislation to modernize the two official languages will be tabled, as demanded by organizations for years.
The question cites a specific commitment (projet de loi dans les 100 premiers jours) and asks for a concrete date for the modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles, but is wrapped in considerable partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux nous lancent encore de la poudre aux yeux ce matin en annonçant l'arrivĂ©e imminente â attention â non pas de la modernisation des deux langues officielles, non pas du livre blanc qu'ils nous ont « shootĂ© » avant les FĂȘtes, mais d'un document pour protĂ©ger le français. Pendant ce temps-lĂ , notre chef, lui, est clair sur la question des deux langues officielles et de la protection du français partout au pays. Il s'engage mĂȘme Ă dĂ©poser un projet de loi dans les 100 premiers jours, une fois qu'il sera premier ministre. J'ai une question simple pour le premier ministre. J'espĂšre qu'il va faire un effort pour y rĂ©pondre. Peut-il nous dire quand nous allons voir ce projet de loi pour moderniser les deux langues officielles, comme cela est demandĂ© par tous les organismes depuis dĂ©jĂ plusieurs mois et plusieurs annĂ©es?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tried to throw more dust in our eyes this morning by announcing the imminent release not of the modernization of the two official languages, nor of the white paper that they proposed before the holidays, but of a document to protect the French language. Meanwhile, our leader has been clear on the issue of the two official languages and protecting French across the country. He has even promised that when he becomes prime minister, he will introduce a bill in the first 100 days. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. I hope he will make an effort to answer it. Can he tell us when we will see the bill to modernize the two official languages, as all organizations have been calling for for the past several months and years?
Trudeau says the government will proceed with modernizing official languages as promised, then turns the question back on the Conservatives by asking whether they commit to appointing only bilingual judges to the Supreme Court.
The Prime Minister does not provide a date or any timeline, instead pivoting to attack the Conservatives by asking a counter-question about bilingual judges at the Cour suprĂȘme.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis plusieurs annĂ©es, nous avons renforcĂ© les mesures pour protĂ©ger les deux langues officielles partout au pays. Nous allons continuer de le faire, effectivement, avec la modernisation des langues officielles. Je comprends que les conservateurs essaient de se porter soudainement dĂ©fenseurs de la langue française. Alors, peut-ĂȘtre qu'ils peuvent me rĂ©pondre maintenant. S'engagent-ils aujourd'hui Ă ne nommer que des juges qui savent parler français Ă la Cour suprĂȘme, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for several years we have been strengthening measures to protect both official languages across the country. We will continue to do so with the modernization of official languages. I understand the Conservatives are suddenly trying to position themselves as defenders of the French language, so perhaps they could answer my question right now. Will they undertake today to appoint only judges who can speak French to the Supreme Court, yes or no?
Rayes cites multiple specific failures on French-language rights (the Governor General's report in English only, WE Charity, COVID Alert texts in English only in Quebec, frustrated public servants) and presses for a date for the legislation.
Rayes cites specific examples of failures (rapport de la gouverneure générale en anglais seulement, WE Charity, textos d'Alerte COVID en anglais au Québec, fonctionnaires) and again presses for a date, but the framing is heavily rhetorical ('blabla').
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ce premier ministre ne fait que du blabla. Dans les derniers mois, le rapport de la gouverneure gĂ©nĂ©rale Ă©tait strictement en anglais, WE Charity, un organisme qui ne peut pas s'exprimer en français, a Ă©tĂ© engagĂ© pour 1 milliard de dollars avec l'argent des contribuables, on reçoit des textos d'Alerte COVID en anglais seulement au QuĂ©bec, et les fonctionnaires du gouvernement sont tannĂ©s parce qu'ils ne se sentent pas respectĂ©s lorsqu'ils veulent parler en français. Alors, le blabla du premier ministre, on n'en a plus rien Ă voir. On est tannĂ©s. On a des propositions concrĂštes qui ont Ă©tĂ© dĂ©posĂ©es. On attend le projet de loi. Peut-il donner une date au lieu de continuer Ă parler comme il le fait sans arrĂȘt?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all this Prime Minister is giving us is rhetoric. In the past few months, the report on the Governor General was published in English only; WE Charity, a unilingual anglophone organization, was given a contract that cost taxpayers $1 billion; COVID Alert texts have been sent in English only in Quebec; and government workers are getting fed up because they do not feel respected when they want to speak French. We do not want to hear any more of the Prime Minister's rhetoric. We have had enough. Practical suggestions have been made. We are waiting for the bill. Can he give us a date rather than talking non-stop like he is doing?
Trudeau accuses the Conservatives of being sensitive to his earlier counter-question and again challenges them to support the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, without addressing any of the examples raised.
Trudeau ignores the specific examples cited and the request for a date entirely, again pivoting to the Conservative position on bilingual judges at the Cour suprĂȘme.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je pense qu'on voit que le dĂ©putĂ© en face est un peu sensible Ă la question que je lui ai posĂ©e. Effectivement, mĂȘme s'il veut essayer de dĂ©montrer que le Parti conservateur est sĂ©rieux dans son dĂ©sir de protĂ©ger le français, il ne peut pas dĂ©montrer qu'il approuve cet Ă©lĂ©ment de base qu'est le choix de juges bilingues pour la Cour suprĂȘme du Canada, une promesse que nous avons faite en tant que gouvernement. Les conservateurs ne peuvent pas faire cela. Pourquoi ne souscrivent-ils pas au bilinguisme au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I think the question I asked the member opposite touched a nerve. Although the member may be trying to show that the Conservative Party is serious about wanting to protect French, he cannot demonstrate that he approves of something as basic as appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, a promise we made as a government. The Conservatives cannot do that. Why do they not support bilingualism in Canada?
O'Toole notes the last modernization of the Loi sur les langues officielles was done by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and asks when the Prime Minister will accept to modernize it after five years of inaction.
O'Toole grounds the question with a specific historical reference (last modernization under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney) and a clear ask, but the framing is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la derniÚre modernisation de la Loi sur les langues officielles a été faite par le premier ministre Brian Mulroney. AprÚs cinq ans d'inaction et de belles paroles, le gouvernement libéral ne fait rien. Quand le premier ministre sortira-t-il de son silence et acceptera-t-il de moderniser la Loi sur les langues officielles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney was the last prime minister to modernize the Official Languages Act. After five years of talk and no action, the Liberal government has yet to make a move. When will the Prime Minister step up and modernize the Official Languages Act?
Trudeau says the government is moving forward with its proposal to modernize official languages as promised, and again challenges the Leader of the Opposition to commit to only appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court.
Trudeau provides a vague commitment to proceed with modernizing official languages but gives no date or details, then pivots again to challenge the opposition leader on bilingual judges.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons de l'avant avec notre proposition de moderniser les langues officielles comme promis. Depuis cinq ans, les communautĂ©s linguistiques minoritaires de partout au pays savent trĂšs bien Ă quel point nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les dĂ©fendre et pour dĂ©fendre le français et l'anglais dans tout le pays. Nous allons continuer de le faire. Voici une autre occasion pour le chef de l'opposition de dĂ©montrer son engagement en disant qu'il ne va choisir que des juges bilingues pour la Cour suprĂȘme. Malheureusement, il ne dit rien Ă ce sujet. Il ne peut pas vraiment protĂ©ger la langue française, il veut juste faire de la petite politique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward with our proposed modernization of official languages as promised. Over the past five years, we have shown linguistic minority communities across the country that we are there to stand up for them and to protect French and English across the country. We will continue to do so. This is another opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to demonstrate his commitment by pledging to appoint only bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. He is mum on this issue, unfortunately. He cannot really protect the French language. He just wants to play petty politics.
Romanado asks the Prime Minister to provide an overview of the Fonds de réponse et de relance féministes announced the previous week.
This is a government-backbench softball setup, mentioning a meeting with the Table de concertation des groupes de femmes de la Montérégie as pretext to invite the Prime Minister to announce the Fonds de réponse et de relance féministes.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, plus tĂŽt cette semaine, j'ai rencontrĂ© des reprĂ©sentants de la Table de concertation des groupes de femmes de la MontĂ©rĂ©gie pour discuter des Ă©normes dĂ©fis auxquels font face les femmes et les organismes qui leur offrent des services depuis le dĂ©but de la pandĂ©mie. La semaine derniĂšre, la ministre des Femmes et de l'ĂgalitĂ© des genres a annoncĂ© un nouveau moyen de soutenir ces organismes essentiels. Le premier ministre peut-il donner Ă la Chambre un aperçu de ce Fonds de rĂ©ponse et de relance fĂ©ministes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I met with representatives of the Table de concertation des groupes de femmes de la Montérégie to discuss the enormous challenges faced by women and the organizations that have been providing services to them since the beginning of the pandemic. Last week, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality announced a new way to support these vital organizations. Can the Prime Minister tell the House a bit about the feminist response and recovery fund?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie la dĂ©putĂ©e de LongueuilâCharles-LeMoyne de sa question et son travail. Pour que le Canada puisse se remettre de cette pandĂ©mie, il faut que les Canadiennes travaillent et soient en sĂ©curitĂ©. C'est pourquoi nous avons annoncĂ© notre Fonds de rĂ©ponse et de relance fĂ©ministes d'une valeur de 100 millions de dollars pour soutenir les efforts rĂ©gionaux et nationaux visant Ă mettre fin Ă la violence Ă l'Ă©gard des femmes et des filles et Ă amĂ©liorer leur situation Ă©conomique.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for LongueuilâCharles-LeMoyne for her question and her work. In order for Canada to recover from this pandemic, Canadian women need to be working and safe. That is why we announced our $100-million feminist response and recovery fund to support regional and national efforts to end violence against women and girls and improve their economic status.
Trudeau announces the Fonds de réponse et de relance féministes valued at $100 million to support regional and national efforts to end violence against women and girls and improve their economic situation.
Trudeau provides a concrete figure ($100 million) and identifies the purposes of the Fonds de réponse et de relance féministes, giving substantive information in response to the setup question.
Chong asks whether the government will at minimum refuse to send a representative to the opening of the Jeux olympiques de PĂ©kin given the Chinese government's genocide against the Uighurs, treaty violations regarding Hong Kong, and other belligerent acts.
Chong identifies three specific categories of Chinese government conduct and poses a concrete, answerable question about whether the government will refuse to send a representative to the opening of the Jeux olympiques de PĂ©kin.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement chinois commet un génocide contre les Ouïghours, viole un traité international en menaçant 300 000 Canadiens vivant à Hong Kong et commet d'autres actes belliqueux dans la région indo-pacifique. Compte tenu de ces informations, le gouvernement va-t-il agir? Au minimum, va-t-il refuser d'envoyer un représentant à l'occasion de l'ouverture des Jeux olympiques de Pékin?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Chinese government is committing genocide against the Uighurs, violating an international treaty by threatening 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong, and committing other warlike acts in the Indo-Pacific region. With that in mind, will the government take action? Will it at least refuse to send a representative to the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing?
Trudeau says Canada will continue to firmly defend its principles and interests abroad and will continue to support Canadian athletes and organizations for the next Games, without addressing the specific question about sending a representative to the opening ceremony.
Trudeau does not address the specific question about a representative at the Jeux olympiques de PĂ©kin, instead speaking in generalities about supporting Olympic athletes and defending human rights principles.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons continuer de dĂ©fendre avec fermetĂ© et dĂ©termination nos principes et nos intĂ©rĂȘts Ă l'Ă©tranger. Nos athlĂštes olympiques bĂątissent des ponts entre les peuples et les nations et mĂ©ritent notre soutien lorsqu'ils participent Ă des compĂ©titions internationales. Nous allons continuer de travailler aux cĂŽtĂ©s des comitĂ©s olympique et paralympique canadiens et de toutes les organisations sportives pour soutenir les athlĂštes canadiens jusqu'aux prochains Jeux. Nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour dĂ©fendre nos valeurs et nos principes en ce qui a trait Ă la dĂ©fense des droits de la personne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to stand firm and resolved as we defend our principles and interests abroad. Our Olympic athletes build bridges between peoples and nations, and they deserve our support when they participate in international competitions. We will continue to work with the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees and all sports organizations to support Canadian athletes between now and the next games. We will continue to stand up for our values and principles when it comes to defending human rights.
Genuis challenges the Prime Minister's excuse that another on-the-ground investigation is needed by citing satellite imagery, survivor testimony, expert reports, the Biden administration's recognition, the all-party Subcommittee on International Human Rights statement, and Liberal MP support, asking why there is continuing denial.
Genuis cites specific evidentiary sources (satellite imagery, survivor testimony, expert reports, Biden administration recognition, the unanimous statement of the all-party Subcommittee on International Human Rights, and public support of numerous Liberal MPs) to challenge the Prime Minister's stated rationale for not recognizing the genocide, making for a well-grounded question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, specifically on the issue of genocide, the Prime Minister's excuse is that he says there needs to be another on-the-ground investigation. However, if the Prime Minister could see a violent crime through his neighbour's window, I do not think he would just knock at the door and ask to be invited in to investigate. We already have satellite imagery, survivor testimony, numerous expert reports, recognition by the Biden administration, the unanimous statement of the all-party Subcommittee on International Human Rights, and the public support of numerous Liberal MPs. The victims have spoken. The Prime Minister should believe them. Why is there continuing denial?
Trudeau says Canada is deeply concerned by reports of human rights violations against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities, and notes that Canada joined 39 other countries at the UN in October to express grave concerns about Xinjiang, while calling for an international investigation.
Trudeau acknowledges concern about human rights violations and Canada's co-signing a UN statement with 39 other countries, and calls for an international investigation, but does not address why the specific evidence cited by Genuis is insufficient for recognition.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we will always advocate and stand up for human rights around the world. Canada is deeply concerned by reports of human rights violations in China against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. In October, Canada, along with 39 other countries of the UN, expressed its grave concerns regarding the situation in Xinjiang. This is why we have repeatedly called for an international investigation in response to allegations of genocide.
O'Toole notes the Prime Minister called 'genocide' a loaded term while two secretaries of state, Irwin Cotler, and many Liberal MPs used it anyway, and cites a 105-page report filed with the U.K. court describing enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilization and persecution, asking what more evidence the Prime Minister needs.
O'Toole directly quotes the Prime Minister's prior statement calling 'genocide' a loaded term, names specific individuals (two secretaries of state, Irwin Cotler) who used the term anyway, and cites a 105-page report filed with the U.K. court describing specific acts, making a well-grounded accountability challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the word âgenocideâ was a loaded term. Two secretaries of state knew that and they said it anyway. Irwin Cotler knew that and he said it anyway. Many Liberal MPs know that and say it anyway. A 105-page report filed with the U.K. court describes in detail a campaign of enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilization and persecution. If that is not a genocide, what more evidence does the Prime Minister need?
Trudeau says Canada is deeply concerned, notes they have continued working with the international community, acknowledges many partners have identified this as a genocide, and says Canada will continue working with them moving forward.
Trudeau repeats that Canada is deeply concerned by reports of human rights violations and that Canada recognizes partners who have identified this as a genocide and will continue working with them, but does not explain what additional evidence would be required or why the cited 105-page report is insufficient.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canada is deeply concerned by reports of human rights violations in China against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. We have continued to work with the international community on pushing for better answers, on following up on these reports and on making determinations around the seriousness of these acts. We recognize that we have many partners who have already identified this as a genocide. We will continue to work with them and others as we move forward in the right way for Canadians and, indeed, for people around the world.
Petitpas Taylor asks the Prime Minister for an update on the government's vaccination procurement efforts.
This is a government-backbench softball asking for an update on vaccination procurement, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has stepped up and has taken concrete action to help support and protect Canadians since the very beginning of this pandemic. Canadians are worried about the second wave and the new variants and want to see their loved ones vaccinated as soon as possible. Could the Prime Minister provide an update to the House on our vaccination procurement efforts?
Mr. Speaker, last week, I was happy to announce that we were now on track to receive 84 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna by the end of September, enough doses to ensure that every Canadian who wants to get vaccinated has the opportunity to do so. This week, we are on schedule to receive our single largest Pfizer shipment to date. We promised a total of six million vaccines by the end of March. That is exactly what we will be delivering.
Trudeau announces Canada is on track to receive 84 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna by end of September, with the single largest Pfizer shipment arriving that week, and confirms a total of six million vaccines will be delivered by end of March as promised.
Trudeau provides specific figures (84 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna by end of September, six million vaccines by end of March, the single largest Pfizer shipment to date that week) with a concrete delivery commitment.
McPherson asks when the Liberals will fix the wage subsidy program so it cannot be used to hire scab labour during a lockout, citing the specific case of CESSCO workers in Edmonton Strathcona who have been locked out since June while their employer received federal dollars through the wage subsidy, and noting she wrote to the Minister of Finance over a month ago with no reply.
McPherson identifies a specific company (CESSCO) and riding (Edmonton Strathcona), a specific situation (lockout since June, scab labour funded by the wage subsidy program, workers locked out in -40 weather), and notes she wrote to the Minister of Finance over a month ago without reply, making a precise, well-grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the workers at CESSCO, a company in Edmonton Strathcona, have been locked out by their employer since June. Instead of negotiating, that same employer was able to access federal dollars through the wage subsidy program to hire scab labour. Last week, those workers were locked out in -40 weather while scabs collected their paycheques, paid for by the government. I wrote to the Minister of Finance over a month ago and I have heard nothing back. When will the Liberals fix the wage subsidy program to ensure workers are not the ones left out in the cold?
Trudeau speaks in generalities about the government's rapid delivery of the CERB and wage subsidy program and its commitment to refine and improve the system, without addressing CESSCO, scab labour, or the unanswered letter.
Trudeau does not address the CESSCO situation, the use of the wage subsidy to hire scab labour, or the unanswered letter to the Minister of Finance, instead offering generic boilerplate about the CERB and wage subsidy program.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning we knew that we needed to step up to be there for Canadians and that is exactly what we did. Within weeks we delivered the CERB and a few weeks later the wage subsidy program to support Canadians right across the country. We did that because all parties worked together to get this legislation through in exceptional circumstances and to be there for Canadians who needed it. Since that moment, we have continued to refine and improve the system to make sure that no Canadians are falling through the cracks. We continue to know that there are many Canadians across the country who continue to need support. We will be there for them. As I said from the beginning, we will be there for Canadians as long as it takes, whatever it takes.
Three unanimous consent motions were proposed during points of order: Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) moved that the House express concern for interpreter health and safety and urge Public Services and Procurement Canada and the House administration to take a precautionary approach to sound exposure levels from videoconferencing platforms such as Zoom; Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (BQ) moved that the House congratulate Montreal engineer Farah Alibay for coordinating operations of the Ingenuity helicopter on the Mars 2020 â Perseverance mission; and Mr. Martin Champoux moved that the House recognize the inequity between Web giants and Canadian media in advertising revenues and urge the government to implement a regulatory system ensuring fair sharing of advertising revenues from the use of content and intellectual property of Quebec and Canadian media â this last motion did not receive unanimous consent. Additionally, Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Lib) asked the Speaker to strike from the record a S. O. 31 statement made by the member for Brampton Centre, saying it impinged on the reputation of members and was inflammatory.
- NDP Mr. Alexandre Boulerice
- BQ Mr. Yves-François Blanchet
- Mr. Martin Champoux
- Some hon. members
- Lib Mr. Gary Anandasangaree
Source text
Monsieur le Président, aprÚs consultation avec les partis, je pense que vous trouverez que la Chambre accordera son consentement unanime à l'adoption de la motion suivante: Que, étant donné que les conditions de travail des interprÚtes se sont détériorées depuis le début de la pandémie, affectant leur capacité à fournir un service de qualité dans les deux langues officielles, un service essentiel au travail des parlementaires, la Chambre exprime sa préoccupation pour la santé et la sécurité de tous ses interprÚtes et demande instamment à Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada et l'administration de la Chambre de prendre une approche de précaution pour fixer les niveaux d'exposition aux sons potentiellement dangereux émis par les plateformes de vidéoconférence comme Zoom.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, following consultation with the parties, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, given that working conditions of interpreters have deteriorated since the beginning of the pandemic affecting their ability to provide quality service in both official languages, a service that is essential to the work of parliamentarians, the House express its concern for the health and safety of all its interpreters and urges Public Services and Procurement Canada and the House Administration to take a precautionary approach to setting levels of exposure to the potentially harmful audio delivered by video conferencing platforms like ZOOM.
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a eu consultation entre les partis et je pense que vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime Ă l'Ă©gard de la motion suivante: Que la Chambre fĂ©licite l'ingĂ©nieure montrĂ©alaise Farah Alibay qui coordonnera les opĂ©rations de l'hĂ©licoptĂšre Ingenuity de la mission Mars 2020 â « Perseverance », qui atterrira sur Mars demain et qui a comme mission de trouver des traces de vie microbiennes. Que la Chambre lui souhaite la meilleure des chances dans cette aventure qui marquera l'histoire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House congratulate Montreal engineer Farah Alibay, who will be coordinating the operations of the helicopter Ingenuity landing on Mars tomorrow as part of the âPerseveranceâ Mars 2020 mission to find traces of microbial life, and wish her the best of luck in this historic adventure.
Monsieur le Président, il y a eu consultation entre les partis et je pense que vous allez constater qu'il y a consentement unanime pour l'adoption de la motion suivante: que la Chambre souligne que l'apport de nos médias d'information et le travail acharné de nos journalistes contribuent à la vitalité du débat démocratique; qu'elle reconnaisse l'iniquité entre les géants du Web et nos médias dans les revenus publicitaires tirés du partage du travail de nos créateurs de contenu sur les diverses plateformes numériques; et qu'elle demande au gouvernement d'intervenir avec toute l'urgence que la situation requiert afin de mettre en place un systÚme réglementaire assurant un partage juste et équitable des revenus publicitaires obtenus grùce à l'usage des contenus et de la propriété intellectuelle des médias québécois et canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House recognize that our news media and our hard-working journalists help strengthen democratic debate; that it recognize that web giants receive an unequal share of advertising revenue from sharing the work of our content creators on the various digital platforms; and that it call on the government to take urgent action and implement a regulatory framework that would fairly and equitably allocate the advertising revenue generated from content and intellectual property created by Quebec and Canadian media.
non.
Hansard translation: Nay.
Mr. Speaker, I brought up this point of order right after the S. O. 31 made by the member for Brampton Centre. At that point you indicated it was not the appropriate time. Therefore, I would like to raise that point of order again and ask that the S. O. 31 statement be stricken from the records, because it impinged on the reputation of many of our members and it was rather inflammatory. I know this is a place of debate, but the statement surpassed any acceptable decorum in a House like this. It directly affected the morale of many members and, frankly, it is language that should never be accepted in the House. You may not need to rule on it now, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask that you take it under consideration and come back to the House. I ask that you do strike from the record the S. O. 31 that was delivered by the member for Brampton Centre.
Mr. GĂ©rard Deltell (CPC) argued in response to the previous point of order that it is the Speaker's sole prerogative to rule on whether a member's S. O. 31 statement is out of order, not that of individual members, and that the member for Brampton Centre was within his rights to express his views. Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Lib) encouraged the Speaker to reflect on the matter and return with a ruling, and argued that it is indeed the responsibility of members to raise points of order when they believe a procedural error has been made.
- CPC Mr. GĂ©rard Deltell
- Lib Mr. Mark Gerretsen
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is not the part of the member to decide what is right or what is wrong. You have the right to say that what someone is saying is not correct. This is your power, not the power of each and every member individually. Nous avons assisté aujourd'hui à la déclaration d'un député en vertu de l'article 31 du RÚglement, lequel permet à un député de prendre la parole pendant une minute pour exprimer un point de vue sur un sujet particulier. Il n'y a strictement rien dans le RÚglement qui prévoit qu'un député ne peut pas porter d'accusation ou tenir de propos qui ne soient pas conséquents avec la politique gouvernementale. Nous sommes libres de nos paroles et nous devons préserver ce droit. à mon point de vue, l'intervention du secrétaire parlementaire est nulle et non avenue. Le député qui s'est exprimé conformément à l'article 31 a tenu des propos trÚs durs, nous le reconnaissons. Cependant, c'est son droit. Si, par malheur, il était allé trop loin, il était de votre devoir de le rappeler à l'ordre, monsieur le Président. Ce devoir n'incombe à aucun autre député, quel qu'il soit. Sinon, plus personne ne pourrait parler à la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas au député de décider de ce qui est bien ou mal. Vous avez le droit de dire que ce qu'un député affirme n'est pas correct. C'est votre privilÚge, et non celui des députés. Today, we heard a member give an S. O. 31 statement, which is an opportunity for a member to rise for one minute to express an opinion on a specific subject. There is absolutely nothing in the Standing Orders that says that a member cannot make accusations or say things that are not in keeping with government policy. We are free to speak our minds, and we need to preserve that right. In my opinion, the parliamentary secretary's comments are unjustified. We recognize that the member who gave the S. O. 31 statement made some harsh comments, but that is his right. If, unfortunately, he went too far, it was your duty to call him to order, Mr. Speaker. It is not up to any other member to do that, or else no one would ever be able to speak in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you to take the opportunity to reflect on this, in particular some of the comments raised by the opposition House leader. There are indeed rules that are set out with regard to S. O. 31s. I know that at times some of those rules have been stretched. Perhaps this is an opportunity for you to go back, reflect on this and come back with a ruling to the House. In regard to the member's comment about other members not having the ability to raise these points of order, that is absolutely false. It is actually the responsibility of members, when they believe that a procedural error has been made, to call that to the attention of the Chair. That is exactly what we saw happen today.