Session overview
- Vaccine procurement and the third wave dominated Question Period, with CPC and NDP members repeatedly pressing the Prime Minister to admit that inadequate vaccine supply in January and February caused the third wave; the Prime Minister denied any failure and cited delivery of 9.5 million doses in the first quarter, surpassing the six-million-dose target.
- The BQ pressed the Prime Minister on health transfers, citing a unanimous Assemblée nationale resolution demanding an increase to 35% of health-care costs; the Prime Minister reaffirmed a December commitment to long-term transfer increases after the pandemic, and cited $4 billion in the budget and $19 billion for recovery.
- The NDP called on the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act to address the Ontario health-care crisis and to improve access to paid sick leave; the Prime Minister rejected the Emergencies Act call, citing collaboration with provinces, and pointed to expanded paid sick leave of up to four weeks.
- The BQ raised the court ruling on loi 21, noting it removes part of Quebec from the authority of the Assemblée nationale, and asked whether the Prime Minister recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction and will not fund opponents; the Prime Minister gave only brief answers saying he would let the judicial process follow its course.
- Budget 2021 child-care commitments were highlighted, with the Prime Minister confirming up to $30 billion over five years for a Canada-wide child-care system aiming for an average of $10-a-day day care in five years; the BQ pressed for confirmation that Quebec's share would come without conditions, receiving only a partial response about an asymmetric deal.
- Budget 2021 measures for seniors were announced, including a 10% increase to Old Age Security for Canadians aged 75 and over and a one-time payment of $500 in August; the NDP questioned the planned reduction of pandemic benefits from $500 to $300 over the summer.
Jagmeet Singh asked directly whether the Prime Minister commits to increasing health transfers, and the Prime Minister answered 'oui' and confirmed his December commitment to long-term health transfer increases after the pandemic, providing the clearest specific commitment of the session.
Cites a specific source (the Globe and Mail), a specific commitment (long-term health transfer increases), notes its absence in the multi-year budget figures, and asks two precise questions: whether increases are for now and whether they will cover 35% of costs.
Rather than addressing the opposition's claims about vaccine procurement and border measures, the Prime Minister pivoted entirely to speculating that the Conservatives must support the budget because they were not asking questions about it, making no substantive response to the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Yves-François Blanchet asked twice whether the Prime Minister will commit to not funding opponents of loi 21 and whether he recognizes the competence of Quebec's AssemblĂ©e nationale in such matters â neither question received any substantive answer.
- Gabriel Ste-Marie asked specifically whether the asymmetric deal on child-care funding for Quebec will come with or without conditions â the Prime Minister described past positive arrangements but never directly answered 'with' or 'without conditions.'
- Multiple CPC members, including Erin O'Toole, Raquel Dancho, Michelle Rempel Garner, and Pierre Poilievre, asked why Canada had no or insufficient vaccine supply in January and February â the Prime Minister consistently cited overall first-quarter totals without explaining the specific delivery gaps those months.
- Jagmeet Singh asked why the government is proposing to reduce pandemic benefits from $500 to $300 over the summer while the third wave is ongoing â the Prime Minister offered only a general optimism about summer economic reopening without directly justifying the reduction.
- Michael Barrett asked why the Prime Minister pursued a deal with the Chinese-owned CanSino rather than focusing on securing vaccines for January and February â the Prime Minister's answer made no reference to CanSino at all.
O'Toole cites the Public Health Agency of Canada's figure that vaccine rollout is operating at 58% capacity due to supply shortages and asks why the Prime Minister thinks that is good enough for Canadians.
Cites a specific Public Health Agency of Canada figure (58% capacity) and asks a pointed accountability question about whether the Prime Minister considers that sufficient.
Source text
Fifty-eight per cent capacity, Mr. Speaker: that is what the Public Health Agency of Canada says the vaccine rollout is operating at because we do not have the supply to do more. It was operating at close to zero when the third wave started building in January and February. Why does the Prime Minister think that 58% is good enough for Canadians?
Trudeau states that 13.6 million doses have been sent to provinces and territories and outlines upcoming supply volumes in May and June, without addressing the 58% capacity figure.
Provides some vaccine delivery numbers (13.6 million sent, May and June projections) but does not address the 58% capacity figure or explain why that level is acceptable.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with the provinces and territories to support them in their responsibility of administering vaccines. We have sent more than 13.6 million vaccines to the provinces and territories, with millions more arriving in the weeks and months to come. We know that in the month of May there are at least two million Pfizer vaccines and more others coming in every single week. In the month of June, there will be tens of millions coming in. That is why it is important that the provinces be ready, as they are, for the ramp-up as we move forward on getting everybody vaccinated.
O'Toole argues Canada is losing the race against variants because of vaccine shortfalls in January and February and asks why the Prime Minister is not restricting flights from COVID hot spots.
Combines a factual claim about vaccine gaps in January and February with a rhetorical accusation about border failures, making the ask somewhat compound and imprecise.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, more will be coming when the countries that had a plan are finished vaccinating their populations. We are in a race against variants in this third wave, and we are losing because we did not have the vaccines needed in January and in February. In fact, we still do not. However, the Prime Minister is now not even restricting flights from COVID hot spots to stop the entry of new dangerous variants. The Prime Minister failed at the border last year. Why is he failing again?
Trudeau repeats the 13.6 million dose figure, claims Canada exceeded its six-million-dose target by about 50%, and says border measures are among the strongest in the world while acknowledging border importation is a fraction of cases.
Partially addresses border measures by calling them 'some of the strongest measures in the world' and noting importation is a fraction of cases, but does not address the specific allegation of failing to restrict flights from COVID hot spots.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have delivered more than 13.6 million doses of vaccines to provinces and territories. We actually passed, by about 50%, our target of delivering six million vaccines by the end of March, and we will continue to deliver more vaccines to get Canadians through this. At the borders we have some of the strongest measures in the world, but we will also continue to look at other ways based on science and data to keep Canadians safe. Importation from the border is a fraction of the cases that are coming in, but we will still make sure that we are doing everything necessary to keep Canadians safe.
O'Toole accuses the Prime Minister of celebrating targets achieved by taking vaccines from developing countries and asks what it will take for Canadians to see action on COVID.
Largely rhetorical, relying on emotive framing ('stealing vaccines from the developing world', 'sad day') with a vague compound ask that is unanswerable in specific terms.
Source text
It is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, when a Canadian Prime Minister celebrates making his targets by stealing vaccines from the developing world. Having no vaccines in January or in February means we are having a third wave in April. No border measures immediately means that the third wave could last until June. The Americans have introduced new border measures against Canada because of the lack of control of variants by this Prime Minister. What is it going to take for Canadians to finally see action on COVID from this Prime Minister?
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of peddling falsehoods about vaccine supply in January and February and pivots to noting that Conservatives have not asked about the budget, implying they support it.
Deflects entirely by accusing Conservatives of 'peddling falsehoods,' pivoting to the budget and suggesting the Conservatives support it, with no substantive address of the question.
Source text
First of all, Mr. Speaker, once again we see Conservatives pedalling falsehoods when they say âno vaccines in January or Februaryâ. That is simply not true. We have continued to deliver. We have continued to increase our vaccine supplies and we actually went well beyond the predicted targets. At the same time, we see once again that the Conservatives are not asking any questions about the budget. Why? It is because they must support it. They must think that it is excellent, and they recognize how targeted it is for Canadians, how it is going to get us through this COVID recession and how it is going to build us back better. I thank the Conservatives for their support.
O'Toole notes that the Prime Minister promised to increase long-term health transfers to provinces but the budget provides no such increase now, when provinces need help during the pandemic, and asks why the Prime Minister is letting them down again.
Identifies a specific tension between the Prime Minister's reported promise in the Globe and Mail to increase long-term health transfers and its absence from the budget, with a clear ask about timing and whether transfers will cover provincial needs now.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, j'ai une question au sujet du budget. La troisiÚme vague et les variants sont hors de contrÎle: c'est un fait. Les Canadiens sont fatigués: c'est la réalité. Le premier ministre promet d'augmenter les transferts en santé aux provinces, mais aprÚs la pandémie. Il envoie de l'eau, mais aprÚs le feu. Pourquoi le premier ministre laisse-t-il tomber les provinces encore une fois alors qu'elles ont besoin d'aide maintenant?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the budget. The third wave and the variants are out of control. That is a fact. Canadians are tired. That is the reality. The Prime Minister is promising to increase health transfers to the provinces, but not until after the pandemic. He is sending water after the fire has been put out. Why is the Prime Minister abandoning the provinces yet again when they need help right now?
Trudeau says billions have already been transferred to provinces during the pandemic and the budget adds $4 billion more, while accusing Conservatives of saying the government spends too much.
Trudeau acknowledges the timing issue and references $4 billion in the budget for health transfers, but does not address whether this covers 35% of costs or explain the discrepancy between the Globe and Mail promise and the budget.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est intĂ©ressant de voir que le chef conservateur ne pose des questions sur le budget qu'en français. Il y a quelque chose Ă conclure Ă ce sujet, mais passons Ă autre chose. Ensuite, il continue Ă dire n'importe quoi. Nous avons transfĂ©rĂ© des milliards de dollars pour aider les provinces et leur systĂšme de santĂ© pendant cette pandĂ©mie. Avec ce budget, nous verserons 4 milliards de dollars de plus. Nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour les Canadiens, malgrĂ© le fait que les conservateurs disent que nous dĂ©pensons trop, que nous devrions dĂ©penser moins et que nous devrions ĂȘtre moins lĂ pour les Canadiens. C'est faux. Nous allons toujours ĂȘtre lĂ pour appuyer les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the Conservative leader asks questions about the budget only in French. I am sure there is something to that, but let us move on to something else. Then he just keeps talking nonsense. We have transferred billions of dollars to help the provinces and their health care systems during this pandemic. With this budget, we are providing an additional $4 billion. We have been there for Canadians despite the fact that the Conservatives say that we are spending too much, that we should spend less and that we should not be there for Canadians so much. That is not right. We will always be there to support Canadians.
O'Toole notes that the U.S. introduced new border measures against Canada because of this government's slowness in stopping variants and asks what the Prime Minister is waiting for to act on flights from hot spots.
References a specific action by the United States (new border measures against Canada) and asks a pointed question about delayed action on flights from hot spots, though the framing includes rhetorical flourish.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les provinces ont besoin d'un leader, pas d'un papa. L'annĂ©e passĂ©e, le premier ministre a Ă©chouĂ© quant Ă la fermeture des frontiĂšres puisqu'il n'avait pas de plan pour ralentir le virus. Hier, les Ătats-Unis ont pris de nouvelles mesures concernant notre frontiĂšre, Ă cause de la lenteur de ce gouvernement Ă arrĂȘter les variants. Nous sommes en pleine troisiĂšme vague, et le premier ministre est toujours lent Ă arrĂȘter les vols provenant des endroits chauds. Qu'attend-il pour agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the provinces need a leader, not a father. Last year, the Prime Minister failed to close the border because he had no plan to slow the spread of the virus. Yesterday, the United States introduced new measures for our border because this government is slow to take action to stop the variants. We are in the third wave, and the Prime Minister is still slow to stop flights from the hot spots. When will he take action?
Trudeau accuses O'Toole of fabricating facts and says the U.S. has expressed concerns about Canada and many other countries since November, not as a new development, without addressing the question about hot-spot flights.
Trudeau disputes the factual premise by claiming the U.S. concern about Canada has existed since November rather than being a new development, but does not address the question about restricting flights from hot spots, making it largely a deflection.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui, le chef de l'opposition a posĂ© cinq questions et dans chaque question il a inventĂ© des faits. Je comprends que les parlementaires ont la responsabilitĂ© de dĂ©battre ici, mais quand il dit des choses comme les Ătats-Unis viennent de changer leur position concernant le Canada, c'est tout simplement faux. Ăa fait depuis le mois de novembre que les Ătats-Unis expriment des prĂ©occupations Ă l'Ă©gard d'Ă©normĂ©ment de pays, dont le Canada, et ça continue. Les conservateurs doivent avancer des faussetĂ©s pour jouer au jeu de la politique. Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça devrait se passer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, today, the Leader of the Opposition asked five questions and invented facts for each one. I understand that parliamentarians have a responsibility to debate in this place, but when he says, for instance, that the United States has just changed their position on Canada, that is simply not true. The United States has expressed concerns about many countries, including Canada, since November and continues to do so. The Conservatives feel the need to spout falsehoods to play politics. That is not the way it should be.
Blanchet cites a Globe and Mail report of the Prime Minister's promise to approve long-term health transfer increases but notes this does not appear anywhere in the multi-year budget figures, asking whether the increase is for now and whether it will cover 35% of costs.
Cites a specific source (the Globe and Mail), a specific commitment (long-term health transfer increases), notes its absence in the multi-year budget figures, and asks two precise questions: whether increases are for now and whether they will cover 35% of costs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans le Globe and Mail, en anglais, le premier ministre du Canada a promis d'approuver des hausses de transferts en santé à long terme pour les provinces. C'est bon, ça, sauf que le budget, c'est maintenant. Quand on regarde sur plusieurs années dans le budget, ça n'y apparaßt nulle part. C'est une drÎle d'histoire. Ma question est bien simple: est-ce que c'est pour maintenant, la hausse des transferts en santé? Est-ce que cela va couvrir 35 % des coûts?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to The Globe and Mail, Canada's Prime Minister promised to approve long-term provincial health transfer increases. That is all well and good, but the budget is here and now. That does not show up in any of the next few years in this budget. How strange. My question is very simple: Are these health transfer increases happening now? Will they cover 35% of costs?
Trudeau says he told premiers in December that long-term health transfer increases would come after the pandemic, and references $19 billion for recovery and $4 billion now in the budget for health transfers.
Trudeau references $19 billion for recovery and $4 billion in the budget for health transfers but does not directly confirm whether transfers will cover 35% of costs or explain why the long-term increase promised is not reflected in the multi-year budget.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le chef du Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois l'a de toute Ă©vidence oubliĂ©, mais, au mois de dĂ©cembre, nous avons eu une rencontre avec tous les premiers ministres des provinces et des territoires. J'ai dit trĂšs clairement Ă ce moment-lĂ que, oui, nous allons ĂȘtre lĂ pour augmenter les transferts en santĂ© Ă long terme, mais seulement une fois qu'on sera passĂ© Ă travers cette pandĂ©mie et que, pendant la pandĂ©mie, nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ avec des milliards de dollars pour appuyer les provinces. Ce sont 19 milliards de dollars pour la relance, 4 milliards de dollars maintenant, dans ce budget, pour les transferts en santĂ© et toute l'aide dont les provinces ont besoin maintenant.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois appears to have forgotten that, in December, we met with all the provincial and territorial premiers. I stated very clearly at that time that, yes, we will be there to increase health transfers for the long term, but not until we have gotten through the pandemic. I also said that we will continue to be there throughout the pandemic with billions of dollars in support for the provinces. We are allocating $19 billion for the recovery, $4 billion of it now, in this budget, for health transfers and all the help the provinces need now.
Blanchet reads a unanimous Assemblée nationale resolution reiterating the demand for health transfers covering 35% of network costs and deploring its absence from the federal budget, implicitly asking why the Prime Minister is ignoring this unanimous Quebec position.
Reads a unanimous Assemblée nationale resolution demanding 35% health transfer coverage and denouncing federal interference in CHSLDs, giving a concrete and documented basis for the accountability challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je comprends que, dans la tĂȘte du premier ministre, la pandĂ©mie va durer encore davantage que cinq ans. Je me permets de lire quelque chose qu'on a entendu tout Ă l'heure. Ăa vient de l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec et c'est unanime: Qu'elle rĂ©itĂšre sa rĂ©solution du 2 dĂ©cembre 2020, qui dĂ©nonçait la volontĂ© d'Ottawa d'imposer des normes canadiennes dans les CHSLD et les centres d'hĂ©bergement pour aĂźnĂ©s, et demandait l'augmentation des transferts en santĂ© Ă hauteur de 35 % des coĂ»ts du rĂ©seau; Qu'elle dĂ©plore l'absence de ce dernier enjeu dans le budget canadien; Il n'y a pas juste moi qui ne l'avais pas entendu. Au QuĂ©bec, le premier ministre fait l'unanimitĂ© contre lui.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I realize that, in the Prime Minister's mind, the pandemic is going to last even longer than five years. I would like to repeat something we heard earlier today. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following: That it reiterate its resolution of 2 December 2020 that denounced Ottawa's desire to impose Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly, and that requested that health transfer payments be increased to the equivalent of 35% of healthcare network costs; That it deplore the fact that this issue was not addressed in the Canadian budget; I am not the only one who missed it. Quebec has voted unanimously against the Prime Minister.
Trudeau says all Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about seniors and that the government is working with provinces to ensure seniors are protected in CHSLDs, without addressing the 35% demand or the unanimous resolution.
Trudeau speaks in general terms about supporting seniors' dignity and working with provinces on CHSLDs but does not address the specific 35% demand, the unanimous resolution, or the accusation of imposing Canadian standards on CHSLDs.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, tous les Québécois et tous les Canadiens sont préoccupés par le sort de nos aßnés dans tout le pays. Ils reconnaissent que tous les aßnés partout au pays ont besoin de vivre une retraite dans la dignité et la sécurité. C'est exactement pour ça que nous sommes en train de travailler avec les provinces et les territoires pour nous assurer que nos aßnés ont une retraite sécuritaire et qu'ils sont bien protégés dans les CHSLD. Nous reconnaissons et nous respectons les compétences des provinces, mais nous allons injecter l'argent pour les aider à s'assurer que tous les aßnés sont protégés.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, all Quebeckers and all Canadians are concerned about what happens to seniors across the country. They recognize that all seniors across the country must be able to retire with dignity and security. That is precisely why we are working with the provinces and territories to ensure that our seniors have a secure retirement and are properly protected in long-term care homes. We recognize and respect provincial jurisdictions, but we will provide funding to help the provinces ensure that all seniors are protected.
Singh cites a doctor's letter to the Prime Minister urging invocation of the Emergencies Act due to overwhelmed Ontario hospitals, and asks whether the Prime Minister will declare a public welfare emergency to get vaccines to those who need them most.
Cites a specific letter from a doctor urging invocation of the Emergencies Act and uses a concrete scenario (heart attack patient with no ICU bed) to ground the question, with a clear ask about declaring a public welfare emergency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a doctor in Ontario wrote to the Prime Minister, urging the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act and to step in and help. She writes of how the situation in Ontario is so bad that not only COVID-19 patients, but all patients seeking health care, are limited in the health care they can receive. Specifically, she wrote, âHow angry would you be, if your loved one had a heart attack and there was no hospital or ICU bed for them?â Will the Prime Minister declare a public welfare emergency and immediately get the help that people need to get vaccines to those who need it most?
Trudeau says the federal government is ready to support Ontario with Red Cross, more vaccine doses, and health care investments, but declines to invoke the Emergencies Act, comparing the NDP request unfavourably to Tommy Douglas's criticism of Pierre Trudeau's use of a similar act.
Trudeau lists general federal supports (Red Cross, vaccine doses, health care investments) but does not address the specific ask about invoking the Emergencies Act, instead pivoting to a historical reference about Tommy Douglas and the October Crisis.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the federal government is here to help all Canadians. We have their backs. That is why we have indicated to the Government of Ontario that we are there to provide more supports. Whether it is through Red Cross, more vaccine doses or investments in health care, we will continue to be there to support Canadians right across the country. I find it interesting, however, that the NDP is now calling on us to invoke the Emergencies Act, when Tommy Douglas famously criticized my father for doing the same thing. We believe in working with the provinces and delivering concretely. That is what we will continue to do.
Singh shares the story of Radhika, who lost her father to COVID-19 after 26 years working in a factory in the greater Toronto area, and asks the Prime Minister to improve access to paid sick leave to protect workers.
Uses a named constituent's story (Radhika, whose father worked 26 years in a factory before dying of COVID-19) to ground a specific policy ask about improving access to paid sick leave.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that is a completely different act. The Prime Minister also knows that having someone's back means actually stepping in and helping, not standing back and watching. Radhika, from the greater Toronto area, lost her father to COVID-19. Her father worked for 26 years in the same factory in the greater Toronto area before getting COVID-19, getting sick and then dying. She says that the way forward is to make sure people have paid sick leave. Will the Prime Minister, if he believes he can have people's backs, improve access to paid sick leave and protect workers?
Trudeau says the government moved forward with paid sick leave so workers don't face the impossible choice between going to work and putting food on the table, and commits to continuing to do more.
Trudeau says the government moved forward with paid sick leave to prevent workers from facing an impossible choice, but gives no specifics about what was done or what more will be done, making the answer partial.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the tragedies faced by far too many Canadian families over these past many months have been heartbreaking. Every step of the way, governments have been there to support people. We have been working hand in glove with provincial and territorial governments. We have been delivering direct supports to families, and we know that there continues to be more to do. We moved forward with paid sick leave to make sure that people did not have to face the impossible choice between going to work and putting food on the table, and we will continue to work to do more. We know that people need us to continue to have their backs, and we will.
Deltell claims Canada experienced a 10-day blackout in vaccine deliveries in January and February and asks why the Prime Minister told Canadians not to travel while preparing to travel to the United Kingdom himself.
References a specific factual claim (a 10-day blackout in vaccine deliveries in January and February) but then pivots to an unrelated question about the Prime Minister's travel to the United Kingdom, making the ask somewhat disjointed.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en janvier et en février derniers, le Canada a connu un trou noir de 10 jours sans aucune livraison de vaccins, mais les résultats sont aujourd'hui. En raison du trou noir créé par le premier ministre, la troisiÚme vague est beaucoup plus forte au Canada qu'ailleurs, ce qui fait que les Canadiens ont des mesures de confinement trÚs sévÚres. Entre autres, on leur dit de ne pas voyager. Or, il n'y a pas longtemps, le premier ministre a dit qu'il se préparait à voyager en Grande-Bretagne cet été. Pourquoi le premier ministre dit-il une chose, mais fait le contraire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there was a 10-day period in January and February when Canada did not receive any vaccines and we are seeing the results of that now. As a result of that gap created by the Prime Minister, the third wave is much worse in Canada than anywhere else, resulting in very strict lockdown measures being imposed on Canadians. They are being told not to travel. Not so long ago, however, the Prime Minister said he was getting ready to travel to Great Britain this summer. Why does the Prime Minister say one thing and do another?
Trudeau confirms he hopes to attend the G7 leaders' meeting in person in June but says it will depend on the situation at the time, and that he stated this clearly.
Trudeau directly addresses the travel question, confirming he hopes to attend the G7 in person in June and that it depends on the situation at the time, which is a clear and specific response to the actual question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on voit que les conservateurs doivent aller loin pour aller chercher des propos et des attaques politiques. Effectivement, j'espĂšre pouvoir ĂȘtre prĂ©sent Ă la rĂ©union des chefs de gouvernement, le G7, en personne, au mois de juin. Ăvidemment, cela dĂ©pendra Ă©normĂ©ment de la situation dans laquelle on se trouvera. C'est exactement ce que j'ai dit. Nous allons ĂȘtre responsables et nous allons continuer de travailler avec nos homologues de partout au monde pour traverser cette crise mondiale et, aussi, nous engager dans la reprise Ă©conomique si importante pour tout le monde.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservative Party will go to make political comments and attacks. I was hoping to attend the heads of government meeting, the G7, in person in June. Obviously that will very much depend on the situation when the time comes. That is exactly what I said. We will be responsible and we will continue to work with our counterparts around the world to get through this global crisis and work on the vitally important global economic recovery.
Deltell cites CNN calling the Prime Minister's government's handling a 'véritable échec' and a spokesperson for Boris Johnson criticizing the Prime Minister's false claim about Britain's problems, asking whether the Prime Minister can at least acknowledge his vaccine failures in January and February.
Cites external sources (CNN and a spokesperson for Boris Johnson) criticizing the Prime Minister's vaccine management, but the askâwhether the Prime Minister can acknowledge the problemâis more rhetorical than specific.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je suis d'accord. Allons loin pour trouver des exemples. Allons Ă l'Ă©tranger et parlons de CNN. Il n'y a pas si longtemps, CNN a dit qu'il s'agissait d'un vĂ©ritable Ă©chec du gouvernement du premier ministre et que les Canadiens mĂ©ritaient mieux. C'est le bilan que l'Ă©tranger porte Ă l'endroit de la gestion du premier ministre. La mĂȘme chose vient Ă©galement du porte-parole du premier ministre britannique Boris Johnson. Il a fait la leçon au premier ministre parce que, lui, avait dit, contrairement Ă la vĂ©ritĂ©, que la Grande-Bretagne avait de graves problĂšmes. Le Canada a de graves problĂšmes parce que le premier ministre ne s'est pas occupĂ© correctement des vaccins en janvier et fĂ©vrier. Est-il capable de reconnaĂźtre cela, au moins?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not need to go to great lengths to find examples. In fact, let us look to another country and talk about CNN. Not long ago, CNN said that this was a real failure by the Prime Minister's government and that Canadians deserve better. That is what other countries think about the Prime Minister's management. The spokesperson for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the same thing. He chided the Prime Minister for saying that Great Britain was having serious problems, which was not true. Canada is the one having serious problems, because the Prime Minister did not do a good job with the vaccines in January and February. Can he at least recognize that?
Trudeau recalls that the Conservative health critic predicted vaccination might not happen until 2030, notes Canada has now passed 25% of Canadians vaccinated, and says more than 2 million doses per week will arrive in May.
Trudeau deflects by citing a Conservative health critic's prediction about 2030 vaccinations and pivoting to Canada's current vaccination progress (25% of Canadians vaccinated, 2 million doses per week in May), without engaging the specific CNN or Boris Johnson's spokesperson criticisms.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le porte-parole en matiĂšre de santĂ© du Parti conservateur a annoncĂ© aux Canadiens que ce serait peut-ĂȘtre en 2030 que les gens recevraient leurs doses de vaccin. Nous avons livrĂ© des doses de vaccin en 2020, et mĂȘme avant la nouvelle annĂ©e. En mĂȘme temps, nous reconnaissons qu'il y a encore du travail Ă faire. Nous venons de franchir le cap des 25 % des Canadiens vaccinĂ©s, mais nous savons que nous devons en faire plus. C'est pour cela que, dans une semaine et demie, au mois de mai, nous allons recevoir plus de 2 millions de vaccins par semaine. Nous allons continuer d'augmenter le dĂ©bit. Nous travaillons fort sur cela tous les jours.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party health critic told Canadians that they might not get vaccinated until 2030. We got people vaccinated in 2020, even before the new year. At the same time, we recognize that there is still work to be done. We have now passed the threshold of having vaccinated 25% of Canadians, but we know that we need to do more. That is why, in a week and a half, in May, we are going to to start getting more than two million vaccines per week, and those numbers are going to keep going up. We are working hard on this every day.
Deltell asks the Prime Minister to acknowledge that the 10-day vaccine delivery gap in January and February created the conditions for the stronger third wave currently afflicting Canadians.
Focuses the question on the specific claim of a 10-day vaccine delivery gap in January and February and asks directly whether the Prime Minister will acknowledge failing at vaccine delivery during that period.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, bien sûr que les Canadiens se souviennent que, en décembre 2020, on a reçu des vaccins. Le premier ministre était tout fier de faire son show de boucane, mais les Canadiens se souviennent aussi que, en janvier et en février, pendant 10 jours, il n'y a eu aucun vaccin. Quel est le résultat? Aujourd'hui, la troisiÚme vague est beaucoup plus forte au Canada qu'ailleurs, parce que le premier ministre a créé les conditions perdantes pour cette troisiÚme vague qui fait souffrir les Canadiens. Le premier ministre peut-il reconnaßtre que, en matiÚre de livraison de vaccins, il a failli à la tùche en janvier et en février?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians remember that we received vaccines in December 2020. The Prime Minister put on a dog and pony show, but Canadians also remember that there were no vaccines for 10 days in January and February. Today, the consequence is that the third wave is hitting harder in Canada than elsewhere because the Prime Minister created unfavourable conditions for this third wave, which has caused Canadians to suffer. Can the Prime Minister acknowledge his failure to deliver vaccines in January and February?
Trudeau says Canada promised six million doses in the first three months of 2020, exceeded that by 50% with more than 9 million vaccines, and acknowledges there is still much work to do.
Trudeau disputes the premise by citing the six-million-dose target exceeded by 50% (more than 9 million vaccines in the first three months), providing a concrete counter-fact, but does not address the specific 10-day gap claim.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est important de s'ancrer dans les faits. Nous avions promis aux Canadiens que nous allions recevoir six millions de doses de vaccin dans les trois premiers mois de 2020. Nous avons dépassé cela de 50 %, avec plus de 9 millions de vaccins. Nous sommes en train de dépasser nos prévisions, mais nous reconnaissons qu'il y a encore beaucoup de travail à faire. Nous allons continuer à travailler jour et nuit pour livrer de plus en plus de vaccins, pour que l'on puisse traverser cette pandémie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is important to stick to the facts. We promised Canadians that we would receive six million doses of vaccines in the first three months of 2020. We exceeded that by 50% and received nine million doses. We are exceeding our projections, but we do acknowledge that there is much more work to be done. We will continue to work day and night to deliver more and more vaccines so we can get through this pandemic.
Dancho highlights that 4,000 Manitoba essential workers will be fully vaccinated months earlier than planned thanks to North Dakota, and asks the Prime Minister to admit that his vaccine shortages caused the third wave and forced premiers to go cap in hand to the governor of North Dakota.
Cites a specific example (4,000 Manitoba essential workers being vaccinated via North Dakota) to make a pointed accountability ask about whether vaccine shortages caused the third wave and forced premiers to seek help elsewhere.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 4,000 Manitoba essential workers will be fully vaccinated months earlier than the Prime Minister planned, thanks to the kindness and generosity of the North Dakota people. While transporting goods within the United States, Manitoba truckers will receive both recommended doses, two doses, within a short six-week period. Full credit goes to Manitoba's premier for his visionary leadership on this. Will the Prime Minister admit that it is in fact his vaccine shortages that caused the third wave of the pandemic and encouraged multiple premiers to go cap in hand to the governor of North Dakota?
Trudeau says provinces are free to make their own decisions on vaccination priorities, welcomes Manitoba's prioritization of essential workers like truckers, and repeats that every Canadian who wants to be will be fully vaccinated by September.
Trudeau welcomes Manitoba's prioritization of truckers and repeats the September fully vaccinated commitment, but does not address whether vaccine shortages caused the third wave or explain why premiers needed to go to North Dakota.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would do well to pay a little more attention to science rather than grounding everything in their partisan attacks. I would like to remind the hon. member that we have worked every step of the way with the provinces and territories throughout this pandemic, including on procuring and supplying them with vaccines. Provinces are free to make their own decisions on who should be prioritized for vaccination. We are happy to see the Province of Manitoba making essential workers such as truckers a priority. As I have said many times, every Canadian who wants to be will be fully vaccinated by September.
Dancho cites dual citizens crossing the U.S. border to get vaccinated and contrasts U.S. and U.K. reopening success with Canada taking vaccines from developing nations, asking the Prime Minister to admit his failure to deliver enough vaccines in January and February led to the third wave.
Makes a pointed accountability ask about whether the Prime Minister will admit that vaccine failures in January and February led to the third wave, but embeds it in partisan rhetoric about mediocrity and international embarrassment, weakening its specificity.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would do well to remember that the third wave is raging in Canada, and Canadians are tired of waiting for vaccines. We are seeing dual citizens in Ontario crossing the U.S. border to get vaccinated. Many Canadians know snowbirds who have done the same. Everyone but the Prime Minister can see that success in the U.S. and the U.K. has allowed them to begin reopening, yet Canada has resorted to taking vaccines from developing nations, which is an international embarrassment. Canadians deserve far better than the Prime Minister's mediocrity. Will he admit that his failure to deliver enough vaccines in January and February led to the third wave of the pandemic in Canada?
Trudeau says Canada is now third in the G20 and third in the G7 for vaccinations, behind the U.S. and the U.K. but ahead of many European counterparts, and commits to bringing in even more vaccines.
Trudeau provides a concrete comparator (Canada is third in the G20 and third in the G7 for vaccinations) to push back on the mediocrity charge, which partially addresses the credibility of the premise, though he does not address the January-February failure claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, instead of talking down the hard-working Canadians across the country, in the provinces, the territories and the federal government, who have been working unbelievably hard to get people vaccinated, they should respect and reflect on the fact that Canada is now third in the G20, in terms of people who have been vaccinated. In terms of the G7, we are also third, behind the U.S. and the U.K., indeed, but ahead of many of our European counterparts. We will continue to do even better. We will continue to bring in even more vaccines because we know that vaccination and science is the way through this pandemic.
Dancho describes overwhelmed ICUs, field hospitals being built in Ontario, and a Vancouver nurse's account of patients as young as 20 in ICU, asking the Prime Minister to show humility and acknowledge that his failure to get vaccines to Canada adequately in January and February led to the third wave and is costing Canadian lives.
Uses vivid ground-level details (a Vancouver nurse's account of patients as young as 20 in ICU, field hospitals in Ontario) but the ask for the Prime Minister to 'show humility' and acknowledge failure is more rhetorical than a specific policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is serious. People are getting sicker, and they are dying. Provinces are heading back into the third wave of the pandemic with lockdowns. ICUs are overwhelmed, and field hospitals are being built in Ontario. A Vancouver nurse is asking for prayers because the situation is worse than she has ever seen. She is seeing people as young as 20 years old in her ICU. Canadians are frustrated, and they are tired. It is costing more Canadian lives and livelihoods. This is the COVID-19 legacy of the Prime Minister. Will he show humility for once and acknowledge that his failure to get vaccines to Canada adequately in January and February led to the third wave of the pandemic and is costing Canadian lives?
Trudeau agrees Canadians are tired of the COVID pandemic and frustrated by restrictions, says the government is working day and night to bring in more vaccines, and notes that federal measures allowed premiers to make tough economic decisions knowing workers and small businesses would be supported.
Trudeau agrees that Canadians are tired and frustrated, outlines some federal supports for workers and small businesses, but does not address the specific ask about acknowledging that vaccine failures in January and February caused the third wave.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on this we can agree. Canadians are tired of this COVID pandemic. People are frustrated about the restrictions that continue, but we need to get through this as quickly and as best as possible. That is why we are working day and night to bring in even more vaccine doses, so we can end this pandemic. In the meantime, we are going to need to continue to follow local public health guidelines. We actually, as a federal government, brought in measures so that premiers across the country could make tough decisions around closing down various sectors of the economy, knowing that the federal government would be there to support workers and small businesses, and to have Canadians' backs.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction over such matters and commits to not funding those who oppose loi 21.
Cites a specific court ruling on loi 21, identifies the jurisdictional issue clearly, and poses two distinct but direct asks to the Prime Minister.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un jugement a finalement été rendu concernant la loi 21. Le jugement en question reconnaßt la viabilité et la légitimité de l'Assemblée nationale en de telles matiÚres, mais il soustrait une partie du Québec à l'autorité de l'Assemblée nationale. Québec interjettera évidemment appel. Est-ce que le premier ministre reconnaßt la compétence du Québec en de telles matiÚres? S'engage-t-il à ne pas financer ceux qui s'y opposent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a ruling on Bill 21 has finally been handed down. The justice recognized that the Quebec National Assembly has viable and legitimate authority over such matters, but ruled that the National Assembly does not have authority over one aspect. Quebec will obviously be appealing. Does the Prime Minister recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over such matters? Will he commit to not funding its opponents?
Trudeau says the government is aware of the ruling and will let the judicial process follow its course.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the ruling but refuses to address either ask â recognition of Quebec's competence or the funding commitment â offering only a vague wait-and-see response.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes évidemment au courant de la décision. Nous allons laisser le processus judiciaire suivre son cours et nous continuons à suivre la situation de prÚs.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are of course aware of the ruling. We will let the legal process take its course and will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Blanchet reads a unanimous National Assembly motion affirming Quebec's right to establish its own rules of living together and asks whether the Prime Minister will respect Quebecers.
Blanchet quotes verbatim from a unanimous National Assembly motion to ground his question, but the closing ask â 'will the Prime Minister respect Quebecers?' â is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pour avoir un peu de détails de la part du premier ministre, je reprends ma lecture. Que l'Assemblée nationale rappelle que la nation québécoise n'a jamais consenti à l'ordre constitutionnel imposé en 1982 par le gouvernement canadien; Qu'elle affirme que la nation québécoise peut légitimement établir ses rÚgles de vivre-ensemble dans le respect de son histoire, de sa culture et de ses institutions; Qu'elle réitÚre que tous les Québécois sont égaux devant la loi et qu'elle s'applique à tous; Qu'elle rappelle que les lois adoptées par l'Assemblée nationale s'appliquent sur tout le territoire du Québec. Encore une fois, il s'agit d'une motion adoptée à l'unanimité par 100 % des députés du Québec. Est-ce que le premier ministre va respecter les Québécois?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I want to read something out, to get some more details from the Prime Minister. That the National Assembly recall that the Québec nation has never consented to the constitutional order imposed in 1982 by the Government of Canada; That it affirm that the Québec nation can legitimately establish its own rules for living together, in accordance with its own history, culture and institutions; That it reiterate that all Québécois are equal before the law and that the law applies to all; That it recall that the laws passed by the National Assembly apply across the entire territory of Québec. This was a motion unanimously adopted by every single member of the Quebec National Assembly. Will the Prime Minister respect Quebeckers?
Trudeau repeats that the government is aware of the ruling and will follow the judicial process closely.
The Prime Minister gives an identical non-answer to Exchange 16, making no reference to the motion quoted and ignoring the substantive ask entirely.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous sommes évidemment au courant du jugement de la cour. Nous allons laisser le processus judiciaire suivre son cours et nous allons suivre avec attention ce processus.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are of course aware of the ruling. We will let the legal process take its course and will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Rempel Garner criticizes the Prime Minister for speculating about international travel while only 5% of Canadians had received their first shot by end of February, and begins to ask whether he would admit to a procurement failure.
Rempel Garner cites the statistic that only 5% of Canadians had received their first shot by end of February but cuts herself off mid-question, diluting its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over this. The Prime Minister is standing in question period today while millions of Ontarians are under lockdown again. The third wave is raging and he is speculating about his own international travel. It is not the time for international travel unless it is FOMO for the Prime Minister missing out on a cocktail party or some sort of photo op. The reality is that by the end of February, only 5% of Canadians had received even their first shot. That is unconscionable. Will the Prime Minister admit that if he hadâ
Trudeau states 25% of Canadians have received at least one dose and that over two million vaccines per week are coming, and defends his intention to attend the G7 summit.
Trudeau provides a current vaccination figure (25%) and a forward-looking supply projection, but addresses the G7 travel topic more than the vaccine procurement failure she was raising.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the reality is 25% of Canadians have received at least their first shot of the vaccine. In the coming weeks we are going to start getting more than two million vaccines every single week and those numbers are going to keep going up. We know how important this is. On the issue of international travel, it is amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservative Party will go to make attacks. I highlighted that I was hoping to attend the G7 heads of government meeting in June in Cornwall to work on the global recovery, but the Conservatives certainly cannot have any of that.
Rempel Garner asks whether the Prime Minister will admit that his failure to procure sufficient vaccines in January and February caused the third wave.
Rempel Garner makes a specific causal argument linking low vaccine delivery in January and February to the third wave and asks the Prime Minister to admit his procurement failure caused it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of Canadians who want to travel to go to funerals, to visit ailing loved ones, but they are not having any of that, and that is because the Prime Minister only delivered enough for 5% of Canadians to get their first dose of vaccine within the first two months of the year, that critical time when we could have stopped the third wave. He spent last summer covering up the WE scandal and shutting down Parliament instead of negotiating contracts that could have gotten us those vaccines. Will he admit that his failure to procure vaccines in January and February led to the third wave?
Trudeau repeats that 25% of Canadians are now vaccinated and defends attending the G7 wherever it is held.
Trudeau repeats the 25% vaccination figure and returns to the G7 travel topic without addressing the January-February procurement timeline or the causal claim.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, we have now passed the threshold of having vaccinated 25% of Canadians. We need to continue to do more, and that is something we are going to continue to do. In terms of opportunities for the global community to come together, particularly the leaders of the seven largest economies, as I said, it is not certain, but I am hopeful to be able to sit with them in person. I would do it wherever it was. Whether it was in Cornwall, whether it was held in Oklahoma, I would be there for the G7.
Rempel Garner asks why only 2% of Canadians are fully vaccinated and why Canada is administering first doses off-label at a four-month interval due to insufficient vaccine supply.
Rempel Garner cites the specific statistic that only 2% of Canadians are fully vaccinated and invokes the off-label administration of first doses to sharpen her accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can mock his international travel against people who need to travel to see ailing loved ones who are separated from their families, but that is not going to cut it. He cites statistics, but one statistic is fact: only 2% of Canadians have been fully vaccinated. That is abysmal. That is not going to stop the third wave. There is not enough supply. We are having to administer first shots of vaccines off-label for four months because he did not produce enough vaccines. We could have stopped the first wave if he had gotten us vaccines in January and February, but he did not. Why?
Trudeau says the National Advisory Council on Immunization recommended a one-dose strategy grounded in science and calls on the Conservative health critic to recognize that.
Trudeau invokes the National Advisory Council on Immunization's recommendation on one-dose strategy but does not address the January-February supply question or the 2% fully vaccinated figure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives demonstrate that they will never let the facts get in the way of a good political partisan attack. The reality is that we have been working diligently. Indeed, experts on the National Advisory Council on Immunization made a recommendation that Canada follow a one-dose strategy with a larger stretch point between the two doses so that we could ensure more Canadians are protected. Those decisions are grounded in science and even the Conservative health critic has to recognize that rather than make partisan attacks.
Rempel Garner repeats that only 2% of Canadians are fully vaccinated and that no other country separates doses by four months, and demands to know why Canada did not have enough vaccines in January and February.
Rempel Garner repeats specific statistics (2% fully vaccinated, 5% by end of January) and the off-label dose-interval point, but the question devolves into rhetorical declarations rather than a sharply focused ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is just ridiculous. It is off-label. No other country is separating doses by four months, only Canada because he did not get us enough vaccines. Fact, only 2% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. Fact, only 5% were fully vaccinated by the end of January. That is his partisan fault. Enough with the partisan games. He did not get us these vaccines and now we are in the third wave. Now ICUs are overflowing and it is because he did not negotiate these contracts. Why did we not have enough vaccines in January and February? For shame.
Trudeau states the U.K. was actually the first country to adopt the four-month spread strategy and reiterates that 25% of Canadians are now vaccinated with more vaccines coming.
Trudeau offers a factual rebuttal â noting the U.K. pioneered the four-month spread strategy â and restates the 25% figure, partially engaging the off-label claim but not the January-February supply failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I do not want to tell the health critic for the Conservative Party how to do her job, but if she looked around, the U.K. was actually the first country to expand that four-month spread strategy. It is a way of getting more people protected as quickly as possible. That is the strategy that Canadian scientists and experts have recommended and that is what we are continuing to do. We have now passed the threshold of 25% of Canadians vaccinated, we have millions more vaccines coming in the coming weeks and months and we look forward to getting through this pandemic by working together.
Singh asks what it will take for the Prime Minister to improve access to paid sick leave, noting the Ontario Science Table agrees it saves lives.
Singh cites the Ontario Science Table's endorsement of paid sick leave and identifies the Prime Minister's refusal as the specific accountability target, though the ask is somewhat general.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, sadly, people are still faced with the impossible choice of going into work sick or staying at home and not getting paid because the Prime Minister refuses to fix the paid sick leave. The Ontario Science Table agrees paid sick leave saves lives, yet the Prime Minister continues to refuse to improve access to paid sick leave. He is not listening to the scientists, he is not listening to workers and he is not listening to families who have lost loved ones. What will it take for the Prime Minister to improve access to paid sick leave and save workers?
Trudeau says the federal government expanded paid sick leave from two to four weeks and notes that eight dollars out of every ten dollars to support Canadians came from the federal government.
Trudeau references the two-week and later four-week paid sick leave expansion and invokes the federal-provincial cost-sharing ratio, partially engaging the question but not addressing the specific inadequacy Singh raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this pandemic, we have had Canadians' backs with unprecedented supports for workers, for families, for small businesses, for seniors and for young people, and we have continued to do that. In discussions with the provinces and territories at the end of last summer, we moved forward with two weeks of paid sick leave, knowing it would make a big difference across the country and we continue to work on that. We expanded it to four weeks. We also recognize the provinces themselves have a role to play, and I hope a number of them will continue to step up on paid sick leave. There is work for all of us to do, but eight dollars out of every 10 dollars to support Canadians came from the federal government.
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister commits to increasing health transfers to provinces and territories, yes or no.
Singh asks a clear yes-or-no question about whether the Prime Minister commits to increasing health transfers, grounding it in provincial and territorial demands during a health crisis.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre a finalement présenté un budget qui répond à des préoccupations et à des demandes emblématiques du NPD. Je le félicite, mais le premier ministre a oublié une demande urgente des provinces et des territoires: l'augmentation des transferts en santé. Nous vivons une crise sanitaire et notre systÚme de santé doit répondre aux besoins des gens. Le premier ministre s'engage-t-il à augmenter les transferts en santé, oui ou non?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally tabled a budget that responds to the NDP's concerns and signature demands. I congratulate him, but the Prime Minister forgot to address an urgent demand from the provinces and territories to increase health transfers. We are in the middle of a health crisis, and our health care system has to meet the needs of the people. Will the Prime Minister promise to increase health transfers, yes or no?
Trudeau says yes, referencing a commitment made in December with provincial and territorial premiers and noting billions already transferred, with a post-pandemic discussion planned.
Trudeau directly says yes, references his December commitment made with premiers, cites billions already transferred during the pandemic, and outlines a post-pandemic process for long-term increases.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, oui, je me suis engagé à cela en décembre dernier, lors de conversations et de rencontres avec les premiers ministres des provinces et territoires. J'ai aussi reconnu que, dans l'immédiat, il y a des besoins criants dans nos systÚmes de santé. C'est pour cela que nous avons transféré des milliards de dollars de plus aux provinces et aux territoires pour pouvoir surmonter cette pandémie. Une fois cette crise terminée, nous allons nous asseoir et déterminer comment nous allons continuer d'augmenter les transferts en santé pour le long terme. Oui, c'est ce que nous allons faire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yes, I promised that last December during conversations and meetings with the provincial and territorial premiers. I also acknowledged that our health care system has urgent needs in the short term. That is why we transferred billions of dollars more to the provinces and territories to get through this pandemic. Once this crisis is behind us, we will sit down together and figure out how we will continue to increase health transfers for the long term. That is what we will do.
Zann asks the Prime Minister how much the government is investing in a national child care program and why it is important for parents and women.
This is a government-backbench softball that simply invites the Prime Minister to announce the child care investment, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the global pandemic has been tough on all Canadians, but particularly on women, who tend to be the family caregivers, especially during a crisis. Research shows many women have had to exit the workforce, risking decades of women's hard-fought gains in the workplace. We know this often due to a lack of affordable, accessible and quality early learning and child care. Can the Prime Minister please tell us how much we are investing in a national child care program, why it is so important for parents now and how this will support women right across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for CumberlandâColchester for raising this important issue. Child care should not be a luxury, it should be something everyone can afford. That is why budget 2021 commits up to $30 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide child care system. This plan aims to cut fees by 50% by the end of next year, and in five years, we aim to reach an average of $10-a-day day care right across the country. We look forward to working with all the provinces and territories to ensure all Canadians have access to early learning and child care.
Trudeau announces up to $30 billion over five years, a 50% fee reduction by end of next year, and an average of $10-a-day day care across the country within five years.
Trudeau provides specific figures â up to $30 billion over five years, 50% fee reduction by end of next year, and $10-a-day average in five years â making it an informationally substantive answer.
Poilievre asks why Canada is faring so poorly relative to international allies like the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S. in controlling the pandemic.
Poilievre draws a comparative international picture â citing the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S. â to ground his question but the ask is broad rather than pointed at a specific government decision.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au Royaume-Uni, les restaurants commencent Ă rouvrir. La Nouvelle-ZĂ©lande et l'Australie acceptent les passagers internationaux sans quarantaine. Aux Ătats-Unis, de grands rassemblements sportifs et musicaux commencent Ă rouvrir de façon sĂ©curitaire. Ici, au Canada, on a une Ă©norme troisiĂšme vague. Pourquoi le Canada est-il dans une si mauvaise position par rapport Ă nos autres alliĂ©s internationaux?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in the United Kingdom, restaurants are beginning to reopen. New Zealand and Australia are accepting international passengers without a quarantine. In the United States, major sports and music venues are beginning to reopen safely. Here in Canada, we are dealing with a huge third wave. Why is Canada faring so poorly compared to some of our international allies?
Trudeau acknowledges Canadians are struggling with the third wave but highlights Atlantic provinces and the North as examples where federal collaboration has produced better outcomes.
Trudeau pivots to highlighting Atlantic provinces and the territories as Canadian success stories rather than addressing the comparative international position asked about.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous reconnaissons qu'il y a bien des Canadiens qui sont en train de passer des moments extrĂȘmement difficiles Ă cause de cette troisiĂšme vague. Nous reconnaissons aussi qu'il y a des endroits au Canada qui sont Ă©pargnĂ©s par cette troisiĂšme vague, que ce soit les provinces de l'Atlantique, oĂč le travail que le fĂ©dĂ©ral a rĂ©alisĂ© avec ces provinces a permis une diffĂ©rente rĂ©alitĂ© pandĂ©mique, ou dans le Grand Nord, oĂč le travail du fĂ©dĂ©ral avec les premiers ministres des territoires a menĂ© Ă un parcours diffĂ©rent de la pandĂ©mie. Nous reconnaissons qu'il y a des endroits qui ont besoin de plus d'aide, et le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral va ĂȘtre lĂ pour l'Ontario et pour les autres endroits qui ont besoin de cette aide.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that many Canadians are going through extremely tough times because of this third wave. We also recognize that there are places in Canada that have been spared this third wave, including the Atlantic provinces, where the federal government's work with those provinces has led to a different pandemic reality, and the far north, where the federal government's work with the territorial premiers has led to a different pandemic outcome. We recognize that there are places that need more help, and the federal government is going to be there for Ontario and any other places needing that assistance.
Poilievre asks why the rest of the world had access to vaccines in January and February while Canada did not, noting U.S. and U.K. vaccination rates are twice Canada's.
Poilievre cites that vaccination rates in the U.S. and U.K. are twice those in Canada and asks specifically why Canada did not have vaccine access in January and February.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what they needed is vaccines. That was the one job he had at this point in the crisis. Now he tries to throw on a cape and say he is the hero who is going to solve the problem that he caused. The reality is, the rest of the world was being vaccinated in January and February. Vaccination rates in the U.S. and U.K. are twice what they are here in Canada. The rest of the world is reopening while we are being confined to our basements because of the wave of variants that the Prime Minister allowed. Why did the rest of the world have access to vaccines in January and February while we did not?
Trudeau states Canada did receive vaccines in January and February, that Canada surpassed its target of six million vaccines reaching almost 9.5 million total, and that Canada is now third in the G20 for at least one dose.
Trudeau provides a specific counter-claim â that Canada surpassed its six-million vaccine target by reaching almost 9.5 million vaccines in January through March â and cites Canada's G20 ranking, partially engaging the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again, it should come as no surprise that that particular member has a way of inventing facts. The reality is, we did get vaccines in January and February, unlike what the member is saying. Indeed, we need to continue to increase it. Although, for January, February and March, we actually surpassed our target of six million vaccines by almost 9.5 million vaccines total. The reality is, we will continue to deliver vaccines to Canadians as quickly as possible. We are now third in the G20 in terms of the number of citizens vaccinated with at least one dose. We will continue to accelerate our vaccination.
Poilievre cites The Independent of London reporting that the Prime Minister claimed the U.K. was facing a very serious third wave despite lower case counts than Canada, and asks again why Canadians were not vaccinated in January and February.
Poilievre cites a specific article from The Independent of London quoting the Prime Minister on the U.K.'s third wave, giving the question factual grounding, but the ask remains the same repeated vaccine question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, inventing facts? This from the Prime Minister who has been embarrassed, again, on the international stage for stating falsehoods. The Independent of London stated that the Canadian Prime Minister: ...has bizarrely claimed that the UK is facing a âvery serious third waveâ of Covid-19, despite cases in Britain currently being much lower than in Canada. He spreads misinformation here at home and embarrasses us abroad, when he should be apologizing for his colossal failure to deliver vaccines. Why were Canadians not vaccinated in January and February, like everyone else?
Trudeau says he has already answered the question and spends his response challenging the member for Carleton to ask questions about the federal budget instead.
Trudeau dismisses the question, pivots entirely to taunting the member about the budget and inviting him to debate the jobs and growth plan, making no reference to the vaccine procurement question or the cited article.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question. It is fascinating to me that the former finance critic for the Conservative Party, the now critic for jobs and growth, has absolutely nothing to say about our federal budget. We just put forward an ambitious plan for jobs and growth. I am quite aware that the Conservatives have taken issue with it, but they are choosing to not use this opportunity for debate and for discussion in this House of Commons. I know the member for Carleton never shies away from debate, but why is he not asking any questions about our plan to grow the economy? Is it because it is that good?
Poilievre contrasts U.S. universal vaccine eligibility with Canada's under-30-per-100-people rate and asks again why Canadians were not vaccinated in January and February like everyone else.
Poilievre cites the President of the United States making every adult eligible for vaccines as a comparator and references 300,000 missing jobs, but the repeated ask has become formulaic by this exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is because I looked through it, and there was no plan for jobs or for growth to debate. All the Prime Minister has done is lock down the businesses that provide the jobs and growth. He has locked them down through his failure, and his failure alone, to deliver the vaccines that are opening up economies around the world. The President of the United States said every single adult in America is now eligible for vaccines. Here in Canada, we have not even had 30 vaccines for 100 people. That is the contrast. If the Prime Minister wants to know why we have 300,000 missing jobs and so many people seeing the end of their lives as a result of COVID-19, it is because of his failure. Why did we not get vaccinated in January and February, like everyone else?
Trudeau lists budget 2021 measures including extending emergency supports, extending EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks, a $1-billion tourism investment, a $15 minimum wage, and the Black entrepreneurship program.
Trudeau lists specific budget measures â extending emergency supports, extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks, $1-billion tourism investment, $15 minimum wage â but none of these address the vaccine procurement question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I now understand why the hon. member for Carleton is not asking questions about the budget; he has not actually read the budget. Let me inform him that in this budget, we are extending emergency supports to bridge Canadians and Canadian businesses through to recovery. We are extending employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. We are revitalizing Canada's tourism sector with a $1-billion investment. We are funding to enhance initiatives, like the Black entrepreneurship program and the women entrepreneurship strategy. We are establishing a $15 minimum wage, enriching the Canada workers benefit, and investing in our small businesses and the transformation of supports they are going to need for the future. This is a jobs and growth budget, and we are all, apparently, very proud of it in this House.
Ste-Marie asks whether Quebec will receive its fair share of child care funding without conditions, given that the federal plan is modelled on Quebec's own system.
Ste-Marie asks a specific yes-or-no question about whether Quebec will receive its share of child care funding without conditions, grounding it in Quebec's historical role as pioneer of the CPE model.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, un des engagements phares du premier ministre dans le budget concerne les services de garde universels. Il s'inspire du Québec, qui est devenu un pionnier mondial dans ce domaine lorsque Pauline Marois du Parti québécois a créé les centres de la petite enfance en 1997. Puisque le premier ministre se base sur le Québec, il serait naturel qu'il ne cherche pas à dicter au Québec quoi faire avec sa part de l'argent qui lui est dû. On dit que l'élÚve ne corrige pas la copie du maßtre. Le premier ministre peut-il confirmer que le Québec va recevoir sa juste part du financement sans condition? Sans condition, là est la question.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, one of the Prime Minister's marquee commitments in this budget is for a universal child care system inspired by Quebec, which became a global pioneer when Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois created early learning centres in 1997. The Prime Minister is following Quebec's lead, so of course he would not presume to tell Quebec what to do with its share of the money. As they say, students do not correct the teacher's work. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Quebec will get its fair share of the funding, no strings attached? Will it be unconditional?
Trudeau confirms that budget 2021 proposes an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec that will allow it to make further improvements to its system.
Trudeau confirms an asymmetrical agreement will be negotiated with Quebec but does not directly answer the 'sans condition' question, leaving the conditionality issue unresolved.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela fait longtemps que le QuĂ©bec et les QuĂ©bĂ©cois montrent la voie Ă suivre en matiĂšre de services de garde. Nous savons que ce n'est pas seulement la bonne chose Ă faire, mais que c'est Ă©galement la chose intelligente Ă faire pour l'Ă©conomie, pour l'Ă©galitĂ©, pour les perspectives et pour la croissance Ă©conomique. C'est exactement pourquoi nous allons mettre en Ćuvre partout au pays ce que nous avons tous appris du QuĂ©bec. Cependant, je peux assurer Ă la Chambre que le budget de 2021 propose de conclure une entente asymĂ©trique avec le QuĂ©bec, ce qui lui permettra d'apporter d'autres Ă©lĂ©ments d'amĂ©lioration Ă son systĂšme.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Quebeckers have been child care trailblazers for some time now. We know it is not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do for the economy, for equality, for opportunity and for economic growth. That is exactly why we are going to take what we have learned from Quebec and apply it across the country. However, I can assure the House that budget 2021 includes an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec that will allow for further improvements to its system.
Ste-Marie asks whether the asymmetrical child care agreement with Quebec will come with or without conditions.
Ste-Marie presses directly on the unanswered conditionality point from Exchange 29, asking a clean binary question â with or without conditions â making this a sharply focused follow-up.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous voulons savoir si cette entente asymétrique sera avec ou sans condition. Le Québec demande qu'il n'y ait pas de condition. Nous voulons avoir une confirmation. Viendra-t-elle avec ou sans condition?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we want to know whether there are any strings attached to this asymmetrical agreement. Quebec wants it to be unconditional. We want confirmation of that. Will the agreement be unconditional or not?
Trudeau says past child care investments with Quebec were always agreed upon positively and expresses certainty that the funds sent to Quebec will allow it to invest in the right way, without addressing the conditionality question.
Trudeau refers to past positive agreements with Quebec on child care funding and expresses confidence that an agreement will be reached but never directly answers whether it will be with or without conditions.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis plusieurs années, nous investissons des dizaines de milliards de dollars partout au pays pour améliorer le systÚme de garderies. Chaque fois, nous avons pu nous entendre de façon trÚs positive avec le Québec pour lui envoyer de l'argent afin qu'il puisse investir dans les familles et les enfants. Nous sommes certains que le travail que nous accomplirons ensemble, avec le Québec, pourra répondre aux besoins des familles partout au pays, et que les investissements que nous allons envoyer au Québec lui permettront d'investir de la bonne façon. Nous sommes trÚs contents de pouvoir nous entendre avec le Québec, et je suis sûr que ce sera fait.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, for several years, we have been investing tens of billions of dollars across the country to improve the child care system. Every time, we have been able to come to a very positive agreement with Quebec in order to send the province money so that it can invest in families and children. We are confident that the work that we will do together, with Quebec, will meet the needs of families across the country and that the funding that we will send to Quebec will be invested properly. We are happy to be coming to an agreement with Quebec, and I am sure that it will happen.
Why did the Prime Minister fail to deliver vaccines to Canadians in January and February, as was expected, contributing to the third wave and Quebec curfew?
The question cites a concrete statistic (8,000 new cases per day) and asks a specific temporal question about vaccine delivery in January and February, but is heavily wrapped in partisan blame rhetoric linking the PM to the third wave and curfew.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, on doit faire preuve de transparence et d'humilitĂ©. Ce premier ministre, depuis le dĂ©but de la pĂ©riode des questions orales, continue de prĂ©tendre qu'il n'a fait aucune erreur quant Ă l'approvisionnement en vaccins pour les Canadiens. Malheureusement, c'est lui qui est responsable de la troisiĂšme vague que l'on subit prĂ©sentement au Canada. Il y a en moyenne 8 000 nouveaux cas par jour. Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois font face Ă un couvre-feu qui restreint leur libertĂ© de dĂ©placement et qui les empĂȘche de voir leur famille. Si le premier ministre avait fait sa job, nous n'en serions pas lĂ . Pourquoi n'a-t-il pas fourni les vaccins aux Canadiens en janvier et en fĂ©vrier, comme il devait le faire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, some transparency and humility would be in order. Since the beginning of question period, the Prime Minister has continued to claim that he did not make any mistakes with regard to the procurement of vaccines for Canadians. Unfortunately, he is the one responsible for the third wave that Canada is currently experiencing. We are seeing an average of 8,000 new cases per day. Quebeckers are dealing with a curfew that restricts their ability to leave their homes and prevents them from seeing their families. If the Prime Minister had done his job properly, this would not be happening. Why did he not provide vaccines to Canadians in January and February as he should have?
Trudeau stated that in the first months of the year the government promised 6 million doses and delivered 9.5 million, and that more work remains to be done.
Trudeau responds with a specific factual counter-claim â 9.5 million doses delivered versus 6 million promised â which partially engages the January/February delivery question, though it does not directly address that specific time window.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, appuyons-nous sur les faits. Dans les premiers mois de l'année, nous avions promis aux Canadiens de livrer 6 millions de doses du vaccin; nous en avons livré 9 millions et demi. Nous sommes en train de respecter notre engagement, mais nous reconnaissons qu'il faut en faire plus. C'est pour cela que nous travaillons avec acharnement tous les jours afin de livrer encore plus de doses de vaccins partout au pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, let us look at the facts. During the first few months of the year, we promised Canadians that we would deliver six million doses of the vaccine. We delivered 9.5 million doses. We are keeping our word, but we recognize that we need to do more. That is why we are working hard every day to deliver even more doses of the vaccine across the country.
Who set the vaccine procurement targets and where are the contracts to prove those targets are grounded in something concrete, given that businesses like La Bourgade in his riding have been forced to close?
The question raises a legitimate accountability point about the undisclosed contracts underpinning vaccine delivery targets, and uses a local business example, but the core ask about contracts is buried in rhetorical framing and a repeated January/February question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis le dĂ©but de la pĂ©riode des questions orales, le premier ministre nous parle de ses objectifs pour l'approvisionnement en vaccins. Qui a Ă©tabli ces objectifs? C'est lui-mĂȘme. OĂč sont les contrats qui nous dĂ©montrent que ces objectifs sont basĂ©s sur quelque chose? Nous n'avons pas le droit de les voir. Qui ne croit pas le premier ministre? Ce sont les Canadiens, mais aussi les restaurateurs. Chez nous, dans ma circonscription, le restaurant La Bourgade a Ă©tĂ© obligĂ© de fermer aprĂšs avoir jetĂ© tout ce qu'il avait achetĂ© pour PĂąques. Les enfants sont privĂ©s de leur vie sociale, car ils ont dĂ» reprendre l'Ă©cole par Zoom. Pourquoi n'a-t-il pas fait son travail aux mois de janvier et de fĂ©vrier?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, from the start of oral question period, the Prime Minister has been telling us about his vaccine supply targets. Who set those targets? He did. Where are the contracts showing that the targets are based on something? We are not allowed to see them. Who does not believe the Prime Minister? Canadians, including restaurant owners. In my riding, the restaurant La Bourgade was forced to close after throwing out all the inventory it had purchased for Easter. Children cannot have a social life because they have had to go back to school on Zoom. Why did he not do his job in January and February?
Trudeau spoke about unprecedented federal support for small and medium businesses and stated that $8 out of every $10 of pandemic support came from the federal government, without addressing the contracts or January/February delivery.
Trudeau's answer pivots entirely to pandemic support spending ($8 of every $10 from the federal government) and does not address the question about vaccine contracts or January/February delivery at all.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les propriĂ©taires de petites et moyennes entreprises d'un bout Ă l'autre du pays ont bĂ©nĂ©ficiĂ© des appuis sans prĂ©cĂ©dent que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral leur a fournis. En ce qui concerne l'aide apportĂ©e durant cette pandĂ©mie, 8 $ dĂ©pensĂ©s pour chaque tranche de 10 $ l'ont Ă©tĂ© par le fĂ©dĂ©ral. Nous sommes lĂ pour les familles, nous sommes lĂ pour les Ă©tudiants, nous sommes lĂ pour les propriĂ©taires de petites entreprises, et nous allons continuer d'ĂȘtre lĂ , mĂȘme pendant qu'arrivent les vaccins...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, small and medium-sized businesses across the country have received unprecedented support from the federal government. With regard to support during the pandemic, $8 of every $10 spent has been spent by the federal government. We are there for families, we are there for students, we are there for small business owners, and we will continue to be there even as vaccines arriveâ
Why was the Prime Minister unable to deliver vaccines in January and February to avoid the third wave, especially compared to the United States where 200 million Americans were vaccinated in 100 days?
The question cites a concrete comparative statistic (26% of Americans with two doses, 200 million vaccinated in 100 days) and asks a specific causal question, though it repeats the same January/February frame from prior exchanges.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si on avait eu des vaccins, on ne serait pas obligĂ© de continuer Ă donner des prĂȘts Ă des petites entreprises qui vont devoir rembourser ces sommes-lĂ dans six mois, dans un an ou dans deux ans. Si on avait eu des vaccins, le QuĂ©bec n'aurait pas de couvre-feu empĂȘchant les familles de se voir et les enfants d'aller Ă l'Ă©cole. Si on avait eu des vaccins, comme les Ătats-Unis en ont donnĂ© Ă leurs citoyens, au moins 26 % de la population aurait dĂ©jĂ reçu les deux doses. Aujourd'hui, le prĂ©sident amĂ©ricain Ă©tait fier de dire que 200 millions d'AmĂ©ricains avaient Ă©tĂ© vaccinĂ©s en seulement 100 jours. Ăa, c'est quelque chose. Pourquoi le premier ministre n'a-t-il pas Ă©tĂ© capable de livrer les vaccins aux Canadiens aux mois de janvier et de fĂ©vrier, afin d'Ă©viter la troisiĂšme vague dans laquelle nous sommes actuellement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if we had gotten vaccines, we would not still be providing loans to small businesses that will have to pay these loans back in six months, a year or two years. If we had gotten vaccines, Quebec would not have had a curfew preventing families from getting together and children from going to school. If we had been able to vaccinate at the same rate as the United States, at least 26% of Canadians would have already gotten both doses. Today, the U.S. President was proud to announce that 200 million Americans had been vaccinated in just 100 days. Now, that is something. Why was the Prime Minister not able to get vaccines to Canadians in January and February, to prevent the third wave we are in right now?
Trudeau stated that vaccine deliveries are increasing each week, that over two million doses per week will arrive soon, that close to 50 million doses will be in Canada by end of June, and that everyone will be vaccinated before end of September.
Trudeau offers forward-looking vaccine timeline commitments (two million doses per week, everyone vaccinated before end of September, first doses for most by start of summer) but does not directly address the January/February delivery failure that was asked about.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le début de cette pandémie, nous travaillons pour aider les Canadiens, pour appuyer les petites entreprises et les familles, ainsi que pour établir une stratégie visant à vacciner le plus de Canadiens possible, le plus rapidement possible. En effet, nous continuons d'augmenter chaque semaine le débit des vaccins arrivant au Canada. Tout le monde sera vacciné avant la fin de septembre. Nombreuses sont les provinces qui pourront vacciner, avec une premiÚre dose, la grande majorité des Canadiens avant le début de l'été. Nous allons continuer. Il va falloir encore tenir bon durant cette troisiÚme vague.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been working to help Canadians, small businesses and families from the beginning of this pandemic. We have been developing a strategy to vaccinate as many Canadians as possible as quickly as possible. Every week more and more vaccines are arriving in Canada. Everyone will be vaccinated by the end of September. Many provinces will be able to get the vast majority of Canadians their first dose before the beginning of the summer. We will keep going. We need to hold on through this third wave.
What is the government doing to make life more affordable for aging Canadians, particularly those over 75 who face increased vulnerability?
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to explain what the government is doing for seniors over 75, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à mesure que les aßnés vieillissent, ils font face à une vulnérabilité financiÚre accrue, surtout les femmes. Nous savons que les aßnés de plus de 75 ans sont souvent incapables de travailler, qu'ils ont des handicaps et davantage de besoins en matiÚre de santé. Avec des dépenses plus élevées et des revenus plus faibles, les aßnés de plus de 75 ans ont besoin d'un soutien supplémentaire. Le premier ministre peut-il expliquer ce que fait notre gouvernement pour rendre la vie plus abordable pour les Canadiens qui vieillissent?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the older seniors get, the more financially vulnerable they become, especially women. We know that seniors over 75 are often unable to work, that they have disabilities and greater health needs. The combination of higher expenses and lower income means that seniors over 75 need additional support. Can the Prime Minister explain what our government is doing to make life more affordable for aging Canadians?
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de Marc-AurĂšle-Fortin de son travail acharnĂ© au nom des aĂźnĂ©s. Les aĂźnĂ©s sont plus susceptibles d'Ă©puiser leurs Ă©conomies, d'avoir des handicaps et d'ĂȘtre veufs, alors que leurs besoins en soins de santĂ© augmentent. Dans le budget de 2021, nous avons respectĂ© notre promesse en augmentant de 10 % la SĂ©curitĂ© de la vieillesse pour les Canadiens ĂągĂ©s de 75 ans et plus. Nous les soutiendrons Ă©galement dans l'immĂ©diat avec un paiement unique de 500 $ en aoĂ»t. Les aĂźnĂ©s ont bĂąti le Canada, et ils peuvent ĂȘtre assurĂ©s que nous serons toujours lĂ pour eux.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Marc-AurĂšle-Fortin for his hard work on behalf of seniors. Seniors are more likely to deplete their savings, have disabilities and be widowed at a time when their health needs are on the rise. In budget 2021, we kept our promise to increase old age security by 10% for Canadians 75 and up. We will also support them in the short term with a one-time payment of $500 in August. Seniors built our country and they can rest assured that we will be there for them.
Trudeau announced a 10% increase to Old Age Security for Canadians aged 75 and over as part of budget 2021, along with a one-time payment of $500 in August.
Trudeau provides specific, substantive information: a 10% increase to Old Age Security for Canadians 75 and over as promised in budget 2021, plus a one-time payment of $500 in August.
Will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is in its third wave because he failed to deliver enough vaccines in January and February, and correct his claim that the UK used the same four-month dosing interval when in fact they used three months?
The question makes a specific factual claim about the UK using a three-month dosing interval (not four-month) to challenge the PM's prior justification, and asks him to admit a specific failure, though the framing is combative and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when confronted with facts, the Prime Minister screams out that it is fake news, but he justifies Canada going off label on the vaccines with a four-month dosing by saying that the Brits did the same, when in fact they used a three-month dosing interval. Instead of spreading misinformation, can the Prime Minister stand up and admit that Canada is in its third wave of lockdowns because he failed to deliver enough vaccines for Canadians to get both doses in January and February?
Trudeau spoke about Canada's procurement strategy of signing deals with seven vaccine makers, upcoming delivery of more than two million doses per week, and close to 50 million doses by end of June.
Trudeau does not address the off-label dosing interval claim or the UK comparison at all, instead pivoting to the procurement strategy of signing deals with seven vaccine makers and forward-looking delivery numbers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, there was no COVID-19 vaccine. Now there are many. Canada, because of our procurement strategy, was able to sign deals with seven different potential vaccine makers, many of which are now able to deliver vaccines, including to Canada. We continue to increase the pace of vaccine doses arriving in Canada. Indeed, in about a week and a half, we will switch to more than two million doses of vaccines arriving every single week. We will have close to 50 million vaccine doses by the end of June here in Canada. We are on track to get through this pandemic.
Why did the Prime Minister make a deal with the Chinese-owned CanSino instead of focusing on getting vaccines for Canadians in January and February, as Americans in New York state can now be vaccinated at will at age 16?
The question cites a specific concrete comparison (New York state vaccinating anyone 16 and older at will) and raises the specific CanSino deal as an alternative procurement choice, making it more grounded than pure rhetoric, though still heavily partisan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame that the Prime Minister says that with only 2.5% of Canadians fully vaccinated we are on track. This third wave is his failure. Residents in my riding can look across the border and see Americans in New York state who can get vaccinated at 16 years of age, at their will, because they have availability of supply. This is the third wave of COVID and the third wave of lockdowns, because the Prime Minister failed to get enough vaccines for Canadians. Instead of making deals with the Chinese-owned CanSino, why did the Prime Minister not focus on doing what was best for Canadians and getting vaccines for January and February?
Trudeau stated that hundreds of thousands of doses were delivered in January and February, that 9.5 million total doses were delivered by end of Q1 surpassing the scheduled 6 million, and that over 25% of Canadians have received at least one dose.
Trudeau directly addresses the January/February delivery question with a specific factual counter-claim â hundreds of thousands of doses delivered in those months, 9.5 million by end of Q1 versus 6 million promised, and 25% of Canadians with at least one dose â but does not address the CanSino question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is important that in this House we base our debate in facts. In January and February, we did deliver hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses to Canadians and, indeed, by the end of March, by the end of the first quarter, we had surpassed our scheduled deliveries of six million vaccines, for a total of 9.5 million vaccines. We recognize there is much more to do, but as of right now, over 25% of Canadians have received at least one dose of the vaccine, and we are on our way to getting through this pandemic.
Why did the Prime Minister shut down Parliament during a pandemic and have his members filibuster the health, defence, ethics, and procedure committees instead of pursuing a team Canada approach to vaccination, leaving only 2.5% of Canadians fully vaccinated?
The question raises several distinct accusations â prorogation, filibustering four committees, and 2.5% fully vaccinated â but the ask ('why did the Prime Minister let us down') is vague and compound, making it more of a rhetorical attack than a specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I guess the Prime Minister hopes that Canadians will accept that he will under-promise and over-deliver up to 2.5% of Canadians being fully vaccinated. I can tell the Prime Minister that is not good enough. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament during a pandemic and had his members filibuster the health committee, the defence committee, the ethics committee and the procedure and House affairs committee, instead of working together in a team Canada approach to vaccinate Canadians. This third wave is a failure of the Prime Minister, and 25% of Canadians getting their first dose is not enough to stop the third wave. Why did the Prime Minister let us down?
Trudeau praised the level of collaboration across political parties and orders of government, cited the $8 out of every $10 of support from the federal government, and called for continued working together rather than partisan attacks.
Trudeau deflects to praising cross-party collaboration and repeating the $8 out of every $10 spending figure, pivoting away from the specific committee filibuster allegations and the 2.5% fully vaccinated figure entirely.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, throughout this pandemic, one thing that has been strong and remarkable is the level of collaboration we have seen across political parties and, indeed, across orders of government. That is what Canadians have wanted to see, people working together. The federal government has consistently been there to support the provinces and territories as we make it through the various waves and as we face far too many tragedies. That is why $8 out of every $10 of support for families through this pandemic came from the federal government. We have continued to step up every step of the way, and we will continue to. We know we need to continue to work together. Nobody wants to see the partisan attacks that are being demonstrated now. They want to see us all working together, which we will.
Could the Prime Minister update the House on how budget 2021 will support all Canadians during the third wave and beyond?
This is a pure government-backbench softball asking the Prime Minister to update the House on how budget 2021 will support Canadians, with no accountability dimension whatsoever.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of this third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadians need support now, and they need reassurance that the economy will be strong and jobs will be created once we are through this pandemic. Could the Prime Minister update the House on how budget 2021 will support all Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Niagara Centre for his important question. This budget is about finishing the fight against COVID-19 and it is about creating prosperity for Canadians. Budget 2021 is a historic investment to address the wounds of COVID-19, put people first, create jobs, set businesses on a track for growth, and ensure that Canada's future will be more equitable, greener and more prosperous.
Trudeau described budget 2021 as a historic investment to finish the fight against COVID-19, put people first, create jobs, set businesses on a track for growth, and ensure a more equitable, greener and more prosperous future.
Trudeau's answer is largely boilerplate and rhetorical â describing budget 2021 as a historic investment to address the wounds of COVID-19 â without providing specific measures, numbers, or commitments.
Why is the Liberal government proposing to reduce aid from $500 to $300 this summer when people are still in lockdown during the third wave of COVID-19 and risk losing their jobs?
The question cites a specific budget measure â a reduction in aid from $500 to $300 â and asks a direct causal question about why the government is cutting support during an ongoing third wave when people are still in lockdown, making it specific and factually grounded.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre propose dans son budget de réduire cet été l'aide donnée aux gens. Pourquoi? On est dans la troisiÚme vague de la COVID-19, les gens sont toujours confinés et le risque que certains perdent leur emploi est bien réel. Pourquoi le gouvernement libéral et le premier ministre proposent-ils de réduire l'aide aux gens cet été, de 500 $ à 300 $? Pourquoi?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in his budget, the Prime Minister is proposing to cut support payments this summer. Why? We are in the third wave of COVID-19, people are still in lockdown, and many are very much at risk of losing their jobs. Why do the Liberal government and the Prime Minister want to cut back support payments from $500 to $300 this summer? Why?
Trudeau said the government has been there for Canadians at every step and expressed hope that by summer there will be fewer restrictions and more economic activity, pointing to an employer hiring incentive, without directly confirming or explaining the $500 to $300 reduction.
Trudeau does not confirm or dispute the $500 to $300 reduction specifically, instead expressing hope that summer will bring fewer restrictions and more economic activity, and mentioning an employer hiring incentive, offering only a tangential rationale rather than directly addressing the cut.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, Ă chaque Ă©tape, nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les Canadiens. Nous avons promis d'ĂȘtre lĂ aussi longtemps que cela prendrait, avec toute l'aide nĂ©cessaire. Nous sommes lĂ et nous continuons d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour appuyer les familles, les entreprises, les travailleurs et tous les Canadiens. Nous avons tous grand espoir que, rendus Ă l'Ă©tĂ©, nous allons pouvoir avoir moins de restrictions et encore plus d'activitĂ© Ă©conomique. Nous savons que les employeurs vont vouloir embaucher bien des gens. C'est pour cela que nous avons investi dans un incitatif pour les employeurs afin qu'ils embauchent plus de gens. Nous allons toujours regarder attentivement les choses pour nous assurer que nous sommes lĂ pour aider les Canadiens autant qu'ils en ont besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been there for Canadians every step of the way. We promised to be there for as long as it takes with all the help they need. We are there, and we will continue to be there to support families, businesses, workers and all Canadians. We are all very hopeful that, by summer, we will be able to relax restrictions and step up economic activity. We know that employers will want to hire lots of people. That is why we invested in a hiring incentive for employers. We will always look closely at things to be sure we are doing what it takes to give Canadians all the help they need.