Session overview
- The dominant theme was the invocation of the Emergencies Act, with the CPC and BQ challenging the legal threshold and proportionality, while the Prime Minister defended it as a proportional, necessary and Charter-compliant response to illegal blockades.
- The BQ repeatedly pressed that Quebec and other provinces had not requested the Emergencies Act and that its application on Quebec territory lacked legitimacy; a BQ motion asking the House to mirror the Assemblée nationale du Québec's unanimous position was denied unanimous consent.
- A serious breakdown in parliamentary decorum occurred when the Prime Minister said Conservative Party members 'can stand with people who wave swastikas,' prompting Jewish members â including Ms. Lantsman and Ms. Gould â to demand an apology, which the Prime Minister declined to give; points of order and a question of privilege were raised.
- Mental health, pandemic mandates and restrictions were raised by both the CPC and the NDP; the Prime Minister announced eased international travel restrictions effective February 28 and referenced the Canada mental health transfer and wellnesstogether.ca.
- The NDP's Jagmeet Singh raised the disproportionate treatment of indigenous and racialized protesters compared with convoy participants, and sought assurances that the Emergencies Act would not be applied to legal protests; the Prime Minister committed that only illegal protests, illegal barricades and illegal blockages were the target.
- The House adopted by unanimous consent a motion condemning the Russian Duma's recognition of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics and affirming support for Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
The Prime Minister made a specific, on-the-record commitment that the Emergencies Act measures target only illegal protests, illegal barricades and illegal blockages, and that legal peaceful assembly and freedom of expression would be protected under the Charter â the clearest substantive clarification of scope offered during the session.
Rempel Garner uses the PM's own words from earlier in Question Period to construct a precise, two-part accountability question: what were the first and second measures taken, and how does their failure legally justify invoking the Emergencies Act?
Asked directly whether the science justified continued mandates and restrictions and when they would end â a health policy question â the Prime Minister responded entirely about the Emergencies Act invocation and Conservative partisanship, without addressing the question at all.
Outstanding questions
- Candice Bergen asked where specifically the serious threat of violence to Canadians for ideological purposes â the statutory threshold for the Emergencies Act â existed, given that all border blockades had been cleared; the Prime Minister never identified the specific threat.
- Leslyn Lewis asked the Prime Minister when he would make the judicial advice he received from judicial officers on the Emergencies Act available to the public; no answer was given.
- Dominique Vien asked what specifically happened between February 11 â when the Prime Minister said Ottawa police had all the resources needed â and February 14 â when he invoked the Emergencies Act â to justify the decision; the Prime Minister did not identify any specific intervening event.
- Yves-François Blanchet asked why the Prime Minister would not simply exclude provinces that do not want the Emergencies Act applied on their territory; the Prime Minister described how local police could choose not to use the tools but did not explain why a provincial opt-out was not built into the order.
- Dane Lloyd asked three times for the Prime Minister to unreservedly apologize for saying Conservative members 'can stand with people who wave swastikas'; the Prime Minister refused each time and did not retract the remark.
Bergen asks the Prime Minister to specify where the serious threat of violence to Canadians for ideological purposes existsâthe legal threshold for the Emergencies Actâgiven that all border blockades have been cleared.
Bergen cites a specific legal threshold ('serious threat of violence to Canadians for ideological purposes') and asks the PM to explain how it is met given that all border blockades have already been cleared.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister has more of a political emergency on his hands than a national emergency. The borders at Coutts, Surrey, Windsor and Emerson have all been cleared. There are no more blockades at any borders. Trucks are still here downtown in Ottawa and they need to move. In light of the rapidly changing landscape, can the Prime Minister tell us where the serious threat of violence is to Canadians for ideological purposes, which is the threshold that needs to be met for the Emergencies Act?
Trudeau says invoking the Emergencies Act was necessary to give local law enforcement tools to handle illegal blockades and restore order, without addressing the specific legal threshold.
Trudeau explains why he invoked the Act in general terms but never addresses the specific legal threshold Bergen cited or explains how it is met given the de-escalation she described.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is not something to be done lightly. It is not something to be done as a first resort or even a second resort. However, it was necessary to be done to give local law enforcement across the country the tools to handle these illegal blockades, to be able to ensure restoration of order and to make sure that Canadians, whether they are losing shifts or seeing supplies delayed on their way to the border, are able to get back to their daily lives. This is a decision we took and of course Parliament is going to have an opportunity to debate it.
Bergen asks why the Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act when experts say the legal requirements have not been met and the situation is de-escalating, suggesting it is to save his own political skin.
Bergen references expert opinion that legal criteria have not been met and the fact that things are de-escalating, but the question ends with a loaded partisan charge about political skin, diluting its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the law is clear: Any limitations to Canadians' fundamental freedoms must be justified and must meet a legal criteria. Experts across the country have said these requirements have not been met. The Prime Minister has not given Canadians a clear reason why he is invoking the Emergencies Act. In fact, things are de-escalating as we speak. Why is the Prime Minister using this hammer on Canadians? Is it not true he is doing it just to save his own political skin?
Trudeau states only that 'the threshold was met for the Emergencies Act' and that police of jurisdiction now have the necessary tools, without specifying which threshold or citing any evidence.
Trudeau asserts the threshold was met but provides no specifics on what threshold or how it was satisfied, then pivots to general statements about tools for law enforcement.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, Canadians have been suffering, whether it is because of border crossings or it is because of illegal blockades in their neighbourhood. These are some things that required extra tools, which we have put in law enforcement's hands. Of course, local law enforcement with jurisdiction can use these tools or not as they are available, but the threshold was met for the Emergencies Act and now across the country, police of jurisdiction have the tools necessary to keep people safe.
Bergen accuses the Prime Minister of dividing Canadians and acting like a dictator, asking whether he is invoking the Emergencies Act solely to save his own political career.
The exchange is almost entirely personal attack and partisan rhetoric with no factual grounding; the only implied question is whether the PM is acting to save his political career.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister calls people he disagrees with racists and misogynists. He spent the last month wedging, dividing, stigmatizing and traumatizing Canadians. I understand the Prime Minister admires basic dictatorships, but let us remind the Prime Minister this is Canada. This is not a dictatorship. The Prime Minister is actually pouring gasoline on embers. Is it not true the Prime Minister is doing this for one reason, and one reason alone? It is to save his own political career.
Oh, oh!
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of hypocrisy for first demanding action and then criticizing the Emergencies Act, and of standing with illegal blockades.
Trudeau deflects by accusing Conservatives of hypocrisy and playing politics, never engaging with any substantive question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives simply cannot have it both ways. They spent weeks complaining that we were not doing enough to restore order in this country and now when we move forward to give people the tools they needâ
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They spent the first few weeks of this challenge and illegal blockades saying that the government needed to act and take responsibility. When we finally move forward in a responsible way when the time was right to bring in the Emergencies Act, they are now complaining that we have done too much. At the same time and throughout, they continue to stand with, support and cheer on these illegal blockades. They are the ones playing politics.
Bergen asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to following the science by ending mandates and restrictions given a mental health crisis evidenced by rising substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence and child abuse.
Bergen raises real issues about mental health statistics and cites Canada's top doctors on mandates, but frames it with personal attacks on the PM and a vague ask to 'follow the science.'
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this is from the man who wore blackface more times than he can remember, who took a terrorist with him on a trip to India and who gave Omar Khadr $10 million. We are not going to stop talking to our constituents just because the Prime Minister disagrees with them. The Prime Minister says he is following science when it comes to mandates, but that is not what Canada's top doctors are saying. It is time to end the mandates and the restrictions. The Prime Minister is ignoring the science. There is a mental health crisis in this country, and continued lockdowns and mandates, keeping Canadians separated, are making it worse. Will the Prime Minister commit to Canadians that he will follow the science?
Trudeau speaks entirely about the Emergencies Act invocation being serious and proportionate, and accuses Conservatives of partisan politics, without addressing mental health or mandates.
Trudeau's answer does not address mental health or mandates at all, instead returning entirely to a defence of the Emergencies Act invocation and attacking Conservatives.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is extremely serious and we have taken it extremely seriously. It followed specific steps that were taken and this will continue in the House. It followed consultation with the premiers. It gives tools, in a proportionate and responsible way, to the officers of jurisdiction to be able to end these illegal blockades. This will be a moment that will be studied in the history books. What people will see is that the Conservatives never stopped playing personal partisan politics.
Morrice cites a rise in Waterloo-Wellington child psychiatry waitlists from 15 to 190 and asks, as called for by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, whether the PM will prioritize funding and legislation for timely mental health access.
This is a government-backbench softball setup referencing a local statistic and citing the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, designed to allow the PM to announce a policy.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the pandemic has had a devastating impact on our mental health, putting further strain on a system that already had long-standing gaps. In Waterloo-Wellington, 15 children and youth were waiting to be seen by child psychiatrists at CMHA before the pandemic. Now they have 190 on a waiting list. The fact is that mental health is health. As called for by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and others, will the Prime Minister prioritize funding and legislation to ensure that every Canadian has timely access to inclusive and accessible mental health?
Trudeau commits to the Canada mental health transfer to expand free mental health services and directs Canadians to wellnesstogether.ca and the PocketWell app for immediate support.
Trudeau announces the Canada mental health transfer, endorses mental health parity in health care, and directs Canadians to wellnesstogether.ca and the PocketWell app, offering concrete if promotional content.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree enough with the member for Kitchener Centre. Mental health is health. We must ensure it is a full and equal part of our universal health care system. It is why we are committing to establishing the Canada mental health transfer to expand the delivery of high-quality free mental health services. We want to encourage all Canadians who need support to check out wellnesstogether.ca for resources and to download the PocketWell app, available 24-7, where people can access a range of resources, including free and confidential virtual sessions with social workers, psychologists and other professionals.
Bergen asks when the Prime Minister will end mandates and restrictions, citing rising rates of alcohol and substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence and child abuse, and asserting the science supports opening up.
Bergen cites specific harmsâalcohol and substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, child abuseâand references scientific consensus on reopening, but the ask ('when will he end mandates and restrictions?') remains vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Alcohol and substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence and child abuse have all increased over the last two years. These are not just statistics. These are real Canadians who are dealing with real heartache. Unnecessary mandates and restrictions are hurting us all. Science has saved lives, and the science is clear: We can start to open up. Will the Prime Minister trust the numbers, trust the experts and tell us when he will end the mandates and the restrictions?
Trudeau says the government has had Canadians' backs with vaccines, rapid tests and supports, announces a loosening of border travel restrictions, and pledges to continue following the science.
Trudeau mentions a loosening of border travel restrictions but does not address the timeline for ending mandates or the specific mental health statistics raised.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we know how difficult these past two years have been for Canadians with this pandemic, but we have also demonstrated that throughout it, Canadians have had each other's backs, just as the government has had Canadians' backs with vaccines, with rapid tests and with supports for small businesses, workers and families. We will continue to have people's backs and follow the science. That is why we were pleased to announce a loosening of the restrictions on borders as travel is more available to Canadians. We will continue to follow the science every step of the way to keep Canadians safe.
Blanchet, noting that the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously opposes the Emergencies Act and that the Quebec government, the Bloc, and Conservative Quebec MPs all oppose it, asks why the Prime Minister does not simply exclude provinces that wish to be excluded from the decrees.
Blanchet cites unanimous opposition from the National Assembly of Quebec and the Quebec government and poses a clear, specific policy question about exempting willing provinces from the decrees.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, avec le recul, et Ă la lecture des documents relatifs Ă l'application ou Ă l'Ă©vocation de la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence, on a de plus en plus l'impression qu'il s'agit d'abord d'une opĂ©ration de camouflage de l'Ă©chec du gouvernement, du premier ministre. J'ai bien hĂąte que la Chambre et l'ensemble des Ă©lus soient appelĂ©s Ă en dĂ©battre, parce que l'AssemblĂ©e nationale du QuĂ©bec, unanimement, est contre. Le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec est contre. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est contre. Les dĂ©putĂ©s conservateurs du QuĂ©bec sont contre. Pourquoi le premier ministre n'exclutâil pas simplement les provinces qui le souhaitent de l'application des dĂ©crets?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in hindsight, and after reading the documents pertaining to the use and invocation of the Emergencies Act, this feels more and more like an exercise in covering up the failures of the government and the Prime Minister above all else. I look forward to debating this matter in the House with all of my colleagues, because the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously opposes it. The Government of Quebec opposes it. The Bloc Québécois opposes it. The Conservative members from Quebec oppose it. Why will the Prime Minister not simply exclude the provinces that do not wish to enforce these orders?
Trudeau says the Emergencies Act has been invoked proportionately and in a manner that respects the Charter and allows provinces and territories that do not need it to not use it.
Trudeau says the Act is proportionate, Charter-compliant and allows provinces that do not need it to not use it, which partially addresses the question but does not explain the mechanism or respond to the democratic argument about Quebec's unanimous opposition.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, pendant environ deux semaines, le chef du Bloc québécois a imploré le gouvernement et exigé qu'il agisse de façon ferme pour contrer ces barricades illégales. Or, nous avons recours à la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence d'une façon proportionnée et responsable qui respecte tout à fait la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et qui va permettre aux provinces et aux territoires qui n'en ont pas besoin de ne pas l'utiliser. Maintenant, le chef du Bloc québécois trouve autre chose pour critiquer. C'est sa job en tant que chef de parti d'opposition. La mienne, ma job, c'est de protéger les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader has spent the last two weeks or so begging the government to take firm action against these illegal blockades and demanding that it do so. We are using the Emergencies Act in a proportionate and responsible way that fully respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provinces and territories that do not need to use it do not need to do so. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is looking for something else to criticize. That is his job as the leader of an opposition party. My job is to protect Canadians.
Blanchet argues that the Prime Minister should be conscious of Quebec's particular sensitivity to this made-over offspring of the War Measures Act and that serving Canadians must not come at Quebecers' expense.
Blanchet makes a pointed rhetorical argument about Quebec's particular sensitivity to an Act described as a made-over offspring of the War Measures Act, but does not pose a clearly answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la job du premier ministre, c'est de servir les Canadiens, et il n'est pas censĂ© desservir les QuĂ©bĂ©cois pour servir les Canadiens. Entre tous, le premier ministre actuel du Canada devrait ĂȘtre conscient qu'il y a au QuĂ©bec une sensibilitĂ© particuliĂšre Ă rĂ©fĂ©rer Ă ce rejeton maquillĂ© de la Loi sur les mesures de guerre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's job is to serve Canadians, and he is not supposed to achieve that by doing Quebeckers a disservice. Canada's current Prime Minister, of all people, should be aware that Quebeckers are particularly sensitive to any reference to this thinly disguised spawn of the War Measures Act.
Trudeau cites past federal aid to Quebec's CHSLDs through the Canadian Armed Forces and says the government will give local police the necessary tools while fully respecting Quebecers and all Canadians.
Trudeau references past federal support for Quebec during the CHSLD crisis via the Canadian Armed Forces and pledges that the Act respects Quebecers, engaging the Quebec dimension but not the specific historical sensitivity Blanchet raised.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement du Canada a toujours été présent pour les Canadiens dans le besoin, y compris pour les Québécois. Quand il y a eu des défis pour les CHSLD, le gouvernement du Canada a envoyé de l'aide par les Forces armées canadiennes. Nous avons maintenant offert de l'aide aux forces policiÚres partout au pays afin qu'elles puissent utiliser ou non les outils nécessaires en ce moment difficile. Nous respectons entiÚrement les Québécois et tous les Canadiens, mais nous allons donner les outils nécessaires pour maintenir l'ordre, la sécurité et la liberté de tous les Canadiens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always been here for Canadians in need, and that includes Quebeckers. When long-term care facilities were overwhelmed, the Government of Canada sent in the Canadian Armed Forces to help. We have now offered support to police services across the country. They can decide if they need to use these tools during this difficult time. We have total respect for Quebeckers and all Canadians, but we will provide the necessary tools to maintain order and keep all Canadians safe and free.
Singh asks what the Prime Minister will do to address the serious concern that indigenous and racialized protesters are treated disproportionately compared with convoy participants.
Singh raises a substantive accountability issue about disproportionate treatment of indigenous and racialized protesters versus convoy participants and asks what the PM will do to fix it, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in a national crisis because all levels of government have failed to acknowledge the seriousness of this crisis. On top of that, we see a glaring difference in the treatment of indigenous and racialized protesters as opposed to the way the convoy is being treated. Canadians are deeply concerned about that, so what is the Prime Minister going to do to address the serious concerns people have that there is a disproportionate treatment of racialized people and indigenous people as compared with those in the convoy? What will he do to fix that?
Trudeau says his government has recognized systemic racism and works closely with Black and indigenous communities to reduce barriers and ensure equitable treatment, particularly in moments of crisis.
Trudeau acknowledges systemic racism and mentions working with Black and indigenous communities but offers no specific measures in response to the specific disparity Singh identified.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a government for a number of years now, we have recognized systemic racism and pledged and worked toward reducing it. The reality that racialized Canadians and indigenous Canadians face worse outcomes and treatments from our justice system and police systems is one of those things we have pledged to counter. We work closely with Black and indigenous communities to make sure that we are reducing barriers and ensuring equitable treatment, particularly in moments of crisis like this one.
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to not applying the Emergencies Act in regions where it is not necessary.
Singh poses a clear, specific and answerable commitment question: will the PM commit not to apply the Emergencies Act where it is not necessary?
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous vivons une crise nationale et nous devons la rĂ©gler. Il est aussi important de s'assurer qu'on n'applique pas la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence dans les rĂ©gions oĂč on n'en a pas besoin. Le premier ministre s'engagera-t-il Ă ne pas appliquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence oĂč elle n'est pas nĂ©cessaire?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are in a national crisis and we have to deal with it. It is also important to ensure that the Emergencies Act is not used in regions where it is not needed. Will the Prime Minister promise not to apply the Emergencies Act where it is not needed?
Trudeau says the Act was invoked reasonably and proportionately to target where necessary, and that local police may use or not use the tools as they require.
Trudeau directly addresses the question by explaining that the Act gives local police optional tools they can use or not use as needed, which is a reasonably direct response to the commitment asked for.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence a Ă©tĂ© invoquĂ©e de façon raisonnable et proportionnĂ©e et de maniĂšre Ă ĂȘtre ciblĂ©e lĂ oĂč c'est nĂ©cessaire. Cela donne aux polices locales plus d'outils si elles en ont besoin. Si elles n'en ont pas besoin, elles n'auront pas Ă les utiliser. C'est comme cela que cette application raisonnable de la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence fonctionne.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act was invoked in a responsible and proportionate way. It is targeted to where it is needed. It gives local law enforcement more tools in case they need them. If not, they do not have to use them. That is how this reasonable application of the Emergencies Act works.
Vien asks what happened between February 11, when the PM said Ottawa police had all the resources needed, and February 14, when he invoked the Emergencies Act, and on what legal principles the decision was based.
Vien cites specific dates (February 11 and February 14) and a specific public statement by the PM, asking what changed between those dates and on what legal principles the decision was based.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, vendredi dernier, le 11 février, le premier ministre a dit que la police d'Ottawa avait toutes les ressources pour mettre fin à l'impasse. Le lundi 14 février, il invoque soudainement la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. Que s'est-il passé entre le 11 et le 14 février pour justifier cette décision? Sur quels principes juridiques s'est-il basé? Est-ce pour détourner l'attention de son manque flagrant de leadership?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 11, the Prime Minister said that the Ottawa police had all the resources they needed to end the impasse. On Monday, February 14, he suddenly invoked the Emergencies Act. What happened between February 11 and 14 to justify this decision? What legal principles is this decision based on? Is this an attempt to deflect attention from his serious lack of leadership?
Trudeau says the Emergencies Act is not a first or second resort and that the government had been providing resources to Ottawa police since the beginning before deciding on Monday to invoke the Act for more tools.
Trudeau explains in general terms that the Act is not a first or second resort and that police resources were provided throughout, but never addresses what specifically changed between February 11 and February 14.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence n'est pas un outil Ă prendre en premier recours ni mĂȘme en deuxiĂšme recours. C'est une question de s'assurer que les ressources nĂ©cessaires sont disponibles pour que les forces de l'ordre puissent faire leur job. Or, nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ depuis le dĂ©but pour donner plus de ressources Ă la police d'Ottawa et aux services policiers partout au pays. Lundi, nous avons choisi d'invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence pour leur donner encore plus d'outils.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is not something to be done lightly. It is a matter of giving law enforcement the resources they need to do their job. We have been there from day one to provide more resources to the Ottawa police and police services across the country. On Monday, we chose to invoke the Emergencies Act to give them even more tools.
Vien asks why the whole country should face the consequences of the Emergencies Act when the situation is circumscribed to Ottawa and premier Legault has Quebec under control.
Vien makes a specific point that Quebec's premier has the situation under control and other provinces do not want the Act applied, asking why the whole country should be subject to a situation circumscribed to Ottawa.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre Legault a la situation sous contrÎle au Québec et d'autres provinces ne souhaitent pas voir la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence s'appliquer chez elles non plus. Tout ce que ce premier ministre fait est d'ajouter de l'huile sur le feu et jouer à des jeux partisans. Est-ce que le premier ministre peut nous expliquer pourquoi tout le pays devrait subir les conséquences liées à une situation circonscrite à Ottawa?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Premier Legault has the situation under control in Quebec, and other provinces do not want the Emergencies Act to apply to them either. All the Prime Minister is doing is adding fuel to the fire and playing partisan games. Will the Prime Minister explain why the whole country must suffer the consequences of a specific situation that is only happening in Ottawa?
Trudeau says the illegal blockades had consequences across the country at borders from coast to coast, justifying a national response, and reiterates that local police may use or not use the tools as needed.
Trudeau responds that illegal blockades had consequences across the country at border crossings from coast to coast, which partially addresses the geographic scope question, and reiterates the optional nature of the tools.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ces barricades illĂ©gales ont des consĂ©quences partout au pays. On a vu des blocages aux frontiĂšres d'un bout Ă l'autre de ce pays et c'est une urgence qui exige la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. Nous avons donc donnĂ© des outils aux polices locales qui peuvent ĂȘtre utilisĂ©s ou non selon leurs besoins. C'est ainsi que la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence fonctionne. D'ailleurs, cette loi va toujours respecter la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s partout oĂč elle sera en application.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, these illegal blockades are impacting the whole country. We have seen blockades at the border across the country, and it is an emergency that requires the Emergencies Act. We therefore have given local police tools they may use at their discretion. That is how the Emergencies Act works. This law will always respect the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms wherever it is implemented.
Lewis asks when the Prime Minister will make available to the public the judicial advice he received from judicial officers before invoking the Emergencies Act.
Lewis cites the legal standard ('extraordinary powers,' 'legal powers have been exhausted') and poses a specific, answerable question about when the PM will make judicial advice available to the public.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the emergency measures act is a declaration of a state of national urgency. It is a blunt force tool that should only be used under the most serious circumstances when legal powers have been exhausted. Canadians do not believe the Prime Minister has exhausted all efforts. The emergency measures act gives extraordinary powers to the government. The Prime Minister would have received judicial advice from judicial officers. When will the Prime Minister make that advice available to the public?
Trudeau accuses Conservatives of trying to have it both ways and defends the Act as providing justified, proportional, measured tools that will conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, without mentioning judicial advice.
Trudeau does not address the question about judicial advice at all, instead attacking the Conservatives for hypocrisy and defending the Act as proportional and Charter-compliant.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the members of the Conservative Party are trying to have it both ways. They spent the first few weeks complaining that the federal government was not acting while encouraging the illegal barricades, and now that the federal government has put in the hands of local police officers justified, proportional, measured tools that will absolutely conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they are complaining that we have acted. We will continue to do what is necessary to keep Canadians, their communities and our economy safe.
Lewis quotes the Prime Minister's words about 'these people taking up space' and asks when he will stop doubling down on failed leadership and admit his divisive words and mandates led to turmoil in the country.
Lewis quotes the PM's words ('What are we going to do with these people? These people are taking up space') but the overall question is a personal attack asking when the PM will admit his divisive leadership caused turmoil, with no clear accountability ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of talking points. They want real answers. The Prime Minister's own words created fear: What are we going to do with these people? These people are taking up space, he said. These are the words of a failed leader who robbed Canadians of hope and unity. That is why they took to the streets. When will the Prime Minister stop doubling down on his failed leadership and admit that it his divisive words and mandates that led to so much turmoil in this country?
Trudeau defends vaccine mandates as having saved lives and produced one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, and accuses Conservatives of supporting illegal blockades harming the economy.
Trudeau defends vaccine mandates as having saved lives and contributed to one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, which is tangentially relevant but does not address the question of divisive language or leadership failure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike what the member opposite believes, the vaccines mandates we came forward with in this country saved lives. The vaccine mandates for travellers and federal public servants contributed to one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, by Canadians. That has kept people safer, it has allowed our economy to come roaring back and it has allowed us to get through this challenging pandemic better than most. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are now supporting illegal blockades that are harming our economy. That is not whatâ
Rempel Garner, citing the PM's own earlier statement that the Emergencies Act should not be the first or second resort, asks what the first and second things he did were and how their failure legally justifies invoking the Act.
Rempel Garner uses the PM's own words from earlier in Question Period to construct a precise, two-part accountability question: what were the first and second measures taken, and how does their failure legally justify invoking the Emergencies Act?
Source text
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period the Prime Minister said that the Emergencies Act should not be the first or second thing that should be used to resolve a crisis situation. What were the first and second things the Prime Minister did? How does the failure of those actions provide legal justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Trudeau says the first steps were deploying RCMP resources to local police and working with the OPP, and that as illegal blockades became more entrenched and threatened livelihoods and well-being, more tools became necessary.
Trudeau describes deploying RCMP resources and working with the OPP as the prior steps and explains that blockades became more entrenched over time, which is partially responsive but does not address the legal justification nexus or explain how those failures meet the Act's threshold.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when we began to see illegal blockades in place, we made sure that the RCMP was there to offer resources to local police of jurisdiction and to work with the OPP to ensure that the support and planning were there for the police of local jurisdiction to take action. As time went on and these illegal blockades became more and more dug in, we saw there was a need for more tools, until it got to the point where the livelihoods and well-being of Canadians and the residents of Ottawa were being severely impacted. Threats of violence at border crossings across the countryâ
Rempel Garner argues that past crises were resolved without the Emergencies Act and demands the Prime Minister explain the legal justification for invoking it now.
Cites specific historical precedents (rail blockades of 2020, Oka crisis, Caledonia, September 11, COVIDâ19 pandemic) to challenge the legal justification for the Emergencies Act, but the ask is compound and rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem with that argument is that the illegal blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the Coutts crossings occurred prior to the Emergencies Act being involved, without federal help. The Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, the crisis at Caledonia, September 11, the COVIDâ19 pandemic or any other dispute in Canadian history. The Prime Minister has not provided any legal justification for the use of the Emergencies Act, which is a historic unfettered power grab. He needs to calmly tell Canadians why he has failed and what is different today.
Trudeau says the invocation was not taken lightly, that the new powers are circumspect and proportional, and that parliamentary debate will follow.
The Prime Minister promises future parliamentary debate and asserts the powers are circumspect and proportional but provides no specific legal rationale, which was the core of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is not something to be done lightly. On that we absolutely agree. That is why we not only laid out the rationale and explained to Canadians why and how we are doing it, but made sure that the new powers are circumspect, are proportional and are to be used only where they are needed. We are also about to have days of debate in the House on exactly these questions so that parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians, are able to see that this was necessary.
Blanchet challenges the Prime Minister to acknowledge that the federal decree gives Ottawa the choice of where to act, invokes the NDP's 1970 opposition to the War Measures Act, and criticizes comparing humanitarian military use in Quebec to the Emergencies Act.
Blanchet makes three substantive points â challenging the decree's text, invoking NDP's War Measures Act history, and criticizing the comparison of humanitarian military use with the Emergencies Act â but the question is cut off before it is completed.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, dans un premier temps, j'invite le premier ministre Ă lire son propre dĂ©cret avant de lire ses rĂ©ponses Ă des questions Ă la Chambre. Cela ne dit pas que les provinces choisissent ou pas. Cela dit que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral choisit oĂč il agit ou pas. DeuxiĂšmement, j'invite les gens du NPD Ă rĂ©flĂ©chir sĂ©rieusement compte tenu de l'histoire de leur parti, qui, courageusement, s'est opposĂ© Ă la Loi sur les mesures de guerre en 1970. TroisiĂšmement, c'est une honte de comparer l'usage humanitaire de l'armĂ©e canadienne au QuĂ©bec avec la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. RĂ©alise-t-il qu'on se dĂ©tourne de...
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I invite the Prime Minister to read his own order before reading out his answers to questions in the House. It does not say that the provinces have a choice. It says that the federal government chooses where it will or will not take action. Second, I invite members of the NDP to seriously reflect on this given the history of their party, which courageously opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. Third, it is shameful to compare the use of the Canadian army in Quebec for humanitarian purposes to the Emergencies Act. Does he realize that turning awayâ
Trudeau speaks about pandemic hardship, collective sacrifice, and frontline workers, concluding that illegal blockades across the country require emergency measures.
Trudeau's answer about pandemic solidarity and frontline workers has no connection to Blanchet's specific challenges regarding the decree's text or the historical comparisons raised.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette pandĂ©mie a Ă©tĂ© difficile pour tout le monde dans ce pays. On a perdu trop d'ĂȘtres chers. On a vu les choses que l'on tenait pour acquises ĂȘtre limitĂ©es. On a dĂ» faire face Ă des dĂ©fis dans le domaine de la santĂ© mentale et dans nos communautĂ©s, mais Ă chaque Ă©tape on a vu les Canadiens ĂȘtre lĂ les uns pour les autres. Que ce soit les travailleurs de premiĂšre ligne au QuĂ©bec, les services d'urgence en Colombie-Britannique ou des gens qui sont lĂ pour leurs voisins, on a vu ce qu'il y a de meilleur chez les Canadiens. Maintenant, avec ces barricades illĂ©gales un peu partout au pays, nous devons ĂȘtre lĂ avec les mesures d'urgence.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this pandemic has been hard on all Canadians. We have lost too many loved ones. We have had restrictions on all kinds of things we took for granted. We have had to deal with mental health challenges in our communities, but we have also seen Canadians be there for one another. This has brought out the best in Canadians, from frontline workers in Quebec to emergency services in British Columbia to the neighbours helping neighbours. Canadians now need us to implement emergency measures to deal with these illegal blockades across the country.
Blanchet questions whether the Prime Minister understands that health is a Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, challenges his pandemic performance, and asks why energy is being diverted to a security problem that should never have occurred on his watch.
Blanchet asks a series of pointed questions about federal responsibility for health (a provincial jurisdiction), the government's failures during the pandemic, and the diversion of energy from pandemic management to a security crisis the Prime Minister allowed to develop.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je ne suis pas convaincu que le premier ministre sache vraiment ce que c'est, une situation difficile pour le vrai monde. Est-ce qu'il réalise, d'abord, que la santé relÚve du Québec et des provinces? Est-ce qu'il réalise qu'il avait peu à faire à cet égard? Est-ce qu'il réalise qu'il a réussi à se « planter »? Est-ce qu'il réalise que l'énergie que l'on devrait mettre à lutter contre la pandémie est mise à lutter contre un problÚme de sécurité qui n'aurait jamais dû se produire pendant sa veille?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Prime Minister actually understands how truly difficult things are for ordinary people. Does he realize that health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? Does he realize how little he had to do in that regard? Does he realize how much he has messed things up? Does he realize that the energy that should be put towards combatting the pandemic is now being spent on fighting a security problem that should have never happened under his watch?
Trudeau cites $63 billion sent to provinces and territories for health spending and notes that eight dollars out of ten spent to support Canadians came from the federal government.
Trudeau cites specific figures ($63 billion in federal health transfers, eight dollars out of ten in Canadian support from the federal government) that are relevant to the jurisdiction question but does not address the security-crisis management failure.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 63 milliards de dollars, c'est ce que le fĂ©dĂ©ral a envoyĂ© aux provinces et aux territoires en dĂ©penses de santĂ©, pour aider tous les Canadiens Ă surmonter cette pandĂ©mie. Huit dollars sur dix de l'argent dĂ©pensĂ© pour appuyer les Canadiens sont venus directement du fĂ©dĂ©ral. Nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les gens. Je comprends que le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois a horreur de l'idĂ©e que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral puisse ĂȘtre lĂ pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, mais nous l'avons Ă©tĂ© et nous allons continuer de l'ĂȘtre pendant aussi longtemps que ce sera nĂ©cessaire.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the federal government sent $63 billion in health care funding to the provinces and territories to help all Canadians through this pandemic. The federal government has directly contributed eight dollars out of every $10 in support for Canadians. We have been there for people. I know it terrifies the Bloc Québécois to think that the federal government could be there for Quebeckers, but we have been there and we will continue to be there for as long as necessary.
Lantsman contrasts the Prime Minister's 2015 words about trust and optimism with his later characterizations of protesters as 'misogynistic,' 'racist,' and a 'fringe,' asking when he lost his way.
Lantsman quotes the Prime Minister's own 2015 words and contrasts them with his recent inflammatory language about protesters, creating a coherent accountability comparison, but the final ask ('When did the Prime Minister lose his way?') is rhetorical rather than specific.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, âa positive, optimistic, hopeful vision of public life isnât a naive dream; it can be a powerful force for changeâ and âif Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadiansâ. Those are the words of the Prime Minister in 2015. âVery often misogynisticâ, âracistâ, âwomen hatersâ, âscience deniersâ, âthe fringeâ: these words were said by the same Prime Minister six years later as he fanned the flames of an unjustified national emergency. When did the Prime Minister lose his way? When did it happen?
Trudeau says Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas and the Confederate flag, while his government will stand with Canadians who need to get to their jobs.
Trudeau accuses Conservative members of standing with people who wave swastikas and the Confederate flag rather than addressing any aspect of the question about his own language or rhetoric.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas. They can stand with people who wave the Confederate flag. We will choose to stand with Canadians who deserve to be able to get to their jobs, to be able to get their lives back. These illegal protests need to stop, and they will.
Lantsman asks when the Prime Minister will admit he has lost control of the situation, the country, his caucus, and his leadership, noting 48 hours have passed without parliamentary justification for the Emergencies Act.
Lantsman notes the 48-hour timeline from inaction to a national emergency and the absence of parliamentary justification, but the compound ask about whether the Prime Minister has lost control of the situation, country, caucus, and leadership is too broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is unbecoming as a Prime Minister. It has been 48 hours that the government went from doing nothing to a national emergency, 48 hours into using the measures, 48 hours without providing Parliament with a justification, so my question is simple. When will the Prime Minister admit that he has lost control of the situation, that he has lost control of his country, that he has lost control of his caucus and that he has lost control of his leadership?
Trudeau quotes three named Conservative MPs who he says supported or downplayed the illegal blockades, and says the Conservatives must choose between being for the blockades or for communities and the economy.
Trudeau pivots entirely to quoting specific Conservative MPs (member for Provencher, member for Grande PrairieâMackenzie, member for SarniaâLambton) to attack their support for blockades rather than addressing whether parliamentary justification has been provided or the 48-hour framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the question of caucus support for these blockades, the Conservative politicians need to make a choice. Are they for the blockades or are they for communities, our economy and regular Canadians? The member for Provencher pointed out that with the illegal blockades, he has never seen such a patriotic display in Canada. There is nothing patriotic about hurting fellow Canadians. The member for Grande PrairieâMackenzie claims that the economy is not being held hostage. All the while, hundreds of millions of dollars were being lost in trade due to blockades. The member for SarniaâLambton does not believe her constituents need guaranteed access now to the Blue Water Bridge. We stand with Canadians.
Scheer contrasts the government's 2020 practice of sending a delegation to meet with anti-energy protesters blocking transportation with its current use of the Emergencies Act, and asks whether the Prime Minister is using the Act to crack down on dissent.
Scheer draws a specific contrast between the government's response to anti-energy protesters blocking transportation in 2020 (meeting with them) and its current response to the convoy, and asks whether this is about cracking down on dissent, but the China dictatorship reference undercuts the factual grounding.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, in 2020, when anti-energy protesters were blocking vital transportation, ships were backed up in ports and trains were stopped, the Prime Minister did not stop them. In fact, he actually sent a government delegation to meet with them, but now that the protests are about something that he disagrees with, the Prime Minister uses inflammatory language, hurls personal attacks and makes a massive power grab. We know that the PM finds democracy inconvenient and that he admires China's dictatorship, so will the Prime Minister admit that this is all just a move to crack down on dissent?
Oh, oh!
Oh, oh!
Trudeau contrasts Conservative rhetoric on indigenous protests, Black Lives Matter, and marginalized people with their current stance on illegal blockades, and mentions talk of overthrowing a duly elected government.
Trudeau begins by warning Scheer about his line of questioning, then pivots to contrasting Conservative statements on indigenous protests, Black Lives Matter, and marginalized people with their current position, without addressing the 2020 government delegation comparison.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member to be careful in that line of questioning before people actually look into what he and his fellow Conservative Party members saidâ
Mr. Speaker, people across the country have noticed the difference between the words and the rhetoric of the Conservative Party of Canada in regard to indigenous protests, in regard to Black Lives Matter protests and in regard to marginalized people asking for their rights, versus what we are seeing here with illegal blockades that are hurting regular Canadians. They even talked about the potential overthrow of a duly elected government. That is not what is responsible for the Conservativeâ
Scheer argues that Conservatives denounced blockades of vital transportation routes in both 2020 and now, and that the Prime Minister applied different standards by offering a settlement to anti-energy protesters while invoking unprecedented powers against the current protesters, asking whether this is about cracking down on dissent.
Scheer makes a specific comparative argument â Conservatives denounced blockades in both 2020 and now, and the only change is the Prime Minister offering a settlement to anti-energy protesters while granting himself unprecedented powers for the current protesters â but 'cracking down on dissent' is a rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives denounced the blockades of vital transportation routes in 2020, and we have denounced the same blockades this time. The only thing that has changed is the Prime Minister's reaction. When he agreed with the anti-energy protesters, he let them continue for weeks and even offered a settlement. This time, he grants himself unprecedented powers to attack those he disagrees with. Canadians do not want to live in a country where the Prime Minister gets to personally decide which protests are legitimate. Once again, is this not all just about cracking down on dissent?
Trudeau says the government has always stood for the right to peaceful protests and freedom of assembly and expression, but that the current illegal blockades are hurting Canadians and their livelihoods.
Trudeau affirms support for peaceful protest but does not engage with Scheer's specific factual claim about the 2020 settlement, instead noting that many Conservative members encouraged the illegal blockades to continue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as a government we have always stood up for the right to peaceful protests. We have always stood up for the right to freedom of assembly or freedom of expression. These illegal blockades are hurting Canadians and their livelihoods and are hurting and endangering the well-being of people in communities across this country. The former leader of the Conservative Party points out that his party has stood against the blockades. Unfortunately, many members of his party have stood with these illegal blockades and even encouraged them to continue blockading their fellow citizens.
Singh asks what the Prime Minister will do to respond to the legitimate frustrations of Canadians who cannot afford housing or food while billionaires and millionaires have increased their wealth.
Singh links the national crisis to systemic frustrations about billionaires and millionaires increasing wealth while working-class families struggle, but the ask â what the Prime Minister will do â is very broad without identifying specific policy measures.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a national crisis, and this national crisis has exposed some real frustrations Canadians feel. Canadians who have gotten vaccinated and followed the public health guidelines are looking at a rigged system in which billionaires and millionaires make out like bandits and increase their wealth, while working-class families are struggling to get by. What is the Prime Minister going to do to respond to the frustrations of Canadians who cannot put a roof over their heads and who are having struggles to put food on the table? What is he doing to respond to that real, legitimate frustration?
Trudeau lists pandemic supports including health system investments, wage subsidies, rent subsidies, and direct support for seniors, youth, working families, and mothers, and mentions continued investment in housing and immigration.
Trudeau lists a range of past supports (wage subsidies, rent subsidies, direct support for seniors, youth, working families, and mothers) and mentions housing and immigration measures, but does not address the wealth inequality framing or commit to specific new actions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, every step of the way through this crisis, from the beginning of the pandemic, we have had Canadians' backs with unprecedented supports for health systems so that people could get tests, vaccines and health supports, so that people could get wage subsidies and rent subsidies to keep small businesses going and to keep people in their jobs. There was direct support for seniors, for youth, for working families and for mothers. These are things we have moved forward to have Canadians' backs, and we will continue to be investing in housing, in immigration measures and in the measures that are going to be supporting Canadians into theâ
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to measures to address the frustrations of ordinary people facing rising costs of living and a lack of affordable housing while billionaires record profits.
Singh asks whether the Prime Minister will commit to concrete measures addressing the rising cost of living and affordable housing, framing it in terms of systemic inequality, but the ask remains broad without identifying specific policies.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cette crise nationale a exposĂ© des injustices dans notre systĂšme. M. et Mme Tout-le-Monde voient les milliardaires faire des profits records alors qu'il est de plus en plus difficile de trouver du logement abordable et de joindre les deux bouts. Est-ce que le premier ministre est prĂȘt Ă s'engager Ă rĂ©pondre aux frustrations des gens, Ă offrir des mesures pour rĂ©pondre aux besoins des gens et Ă rĂ©gler le problĂšme de l'augmentation du coĂ»t de la vie et la difficultĂ© de trouver des logements abordables?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this national crisis has exposed inequities in the system. Billionaires are making record profits while ordinary Canadians are having a harder and harder time finding affordable housing and making ends meet. Will the Prime Minister commit to responding to people's frustrations, implementing measures to meet their needs, and addressing the increased cost of living and lack of affordable housing?
Trudeau cites affordable childcare as a concrete measure saving families hundreds of dollars per month in provinces like Alberta and Manitoba, and expresses hope that Ontario will soon sign on.
Trudeau references childcare savings of hundreds of dollars per month for families in Alberta, Manitoba, and elsewhere as a concrete example of improving living conditions, and mentions Ontario has not yet signed on, which is partially responsive but does not address housing affordability directly.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, dans ma derniÚre réponse, j'ai parlé un petit peu de tout ce que nous avons fait depuis les débuts de cette pandémie. Nous savons également que nous devons en faire plus pour aller de l'avant. Par contre, je soulignerais qu'il y a des familles partout au pays dans des endroits comme en Alberta, au Manitoba et ailleurs qui sont en train d'économiser des centaines de dollars par mois avec des places en garderie moins chÚres et plus abordables. Nous avons directement amélioré les conditions de vie des familles de partout au pays avec des garderies abordables et nous espérons que l'Ontario va bientÎt signer et faire aussi partie de cette solution.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer, I talked a little bit about everything we have done since the beginning of this pandemic. We also know that we need to do more going forward. However, I would like to point out that there are families across the country, in places like Alberta and Manitoba, who are saving hundreds of dollars a month with less expensive and more affordable child care spaces. We have directly improved the living conditions of families across the country with affordable day care, and we hope that Ontario will sign soon and also become part of this solution.
Longfield asks the Prime Minister to comment on the importance of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in addressing the climate crisis and protecting lakes, rivers, and streams.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the Prime Minister to comment on the importance of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was introduced in the Senate last week for senators' study and comment. As a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I look forward to reviewing this legislation when it comes to this place. Could the Prime Minister comment on the importance of this legislation in helping us to address the climate crisis as well as in recovering clean lakes, rivers and streams and providing ongoing protection for our environment?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Guelph for his important question and his tireless advocacy on behalf of the environment. This bill is a big step towards strengthening the protection of Canadians' health and the protection of our lakes, rivers, lands and forests from harmful chemicals and other toxic pollutants. This legislation can help us all become better stewards of our environment, making Canada a better place for us and for the generations that follow. I encourage all parliamentarians to work together to pass this bill as soon as possible.
Trudeau says the bill is a big step toward strengthening protection of Canadians' health and protection of lakes, rivers, lands, and forests from harmful chemicals and other toxic pollutants, and encourages all parliamentarians to pass it.
Trudeau describes the bill as strengthening protection of Canadians' health and protection of lakes, rivers, lands, and forests from harmful chemicals and toxic pollutants, and calls on all parliamentarians to pass it, providing some substantive content about the legislation's purpose.
Calkins notes that two-thirds of Canadians want COVID restrictions and mandates lifted and that Canada has among the highest vaccination rates in the world, and asks why 90% vaccination is not enough to lift mandates after the NDP and Liberals blocked a Conservative motion calling for a plan.
Calkins cites a specific statistic (two-thirds of Canadians wanting restrictions lifted, Canada among highest vaccination rates in the world) and references the defeated Conservative motion, but the ask ('why is 90% not good enough to lift mandates?') conflates vaccination rates with mandate removal in a rhetorical way.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Canadians want to see COVID restrictions and mandates lifted. We have among the highest vaccination rates in the world, but Canadians are still living under restrictions that many other less vaccinated countries have lifted. Canadians want a plan for ending restrictions, and they are incredibly disappointed that the NDP and Liberals blocked our Conservative motion asking for one. If 32% of the vote is good enough for the Liberals to form government, why is 90% not good enough to lift mandates?
Trudeau says the government has followed the science throughout the pandemic and was pleased to announce the lifting of a number of restrictions around international travel, and will continue to monitor the situation carefully.
Trudeau references the lifting of some international travel restrictions as a concrete step but does not address the defeated Conservative motion or explain what specific benchmarks must be met before mandates are lifted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for two years Canadians have been there for each other, and all of us together have followed the science. We made sure that people got vaccinated, we made sure that people have access to rapid tests, and every step of the way, we will be ensuring that we are doing exactly what is necessary, both to keep people safe from COVID and also to get back to the things we love as quickly as possible. This week I was pleased to see the lifting of a number of restrictions around international travel. We are going to continue to monitor the situation carefully and ensure that we follow the science as we keep Canadians safe.
Block accuses the Prime Minister of politicizing the pandemic and dividing Canadians, and asks when he will follow the lead of provincial premiers who are lifting restrictions and rebuilding trust.
Block's question is largely rhetorical, accusing the Prime Minister of politicizing the pandemic and dividing Canadians, with a vague ask about following the lead of provincial premiers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the only thing this Prime Minister has made sure of is that he has politicized this pandemic and divided Canadians at a time when we should be working together and supporting one another. His lack of leadership has divided, stigmatized and traumatized Canadians. Provincial premiers are leading the way, giving hope and confidence and rebuilding trust in leadership. When will the Prime Minister follow their lead?
Trudeau says the 90% vaccination rate shows Canadians have never been more united, and acknowledges that while some people have harassed frontline workers or joined illegal blockades, the vast majority of Canadians continue to support one another.
Trudeau cites the 90% vaccination rate as evidence of national unity rather than division, and acknowledges harassment of frontline workers and illegal blockades, but does not address the specific claim about provincial premiers leading on restrictions.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the 90% vaccination rate in Canada shows that Canadians have actually never been more united. The stories we saw throughout this pandemic of people being there for their neighbours, people being there to support frontline workers and people being there to support their communities demonstrate the ability of Canadians to step up to be there for one another. Yes, there have been people who have been harassing and intimidating frontline workers, and yes, there are people involved in illegal blockades, but the vast majority of Canadians continue to stand alongside each other and support one another.
Stubbs cites security experts calling the Emergencies Act 'absolutely unprecedented' and excessive overreach, notes that half the provinces oppose it, and asks whether the Prime Minister is using it as a sledgehammer against Canadians he considers unacceptable.
Stubbs cites a specific claim that security experts call the Emergencies Act 'absolutely unprecedented' and excessive overreach, and notes that half the provinces oppose it, but characterizes the Act as 'nukes' and frames the question as whether the Prime Minister is taking a sledgehammer to unacceptable Canadians, which is largely rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Canadians are united because they want an end to mandates and lockdowns, but the Prime Minister said they are âracistsâ and âmisogynistsâ, a fringe who take up space, and he said they shouldn't be tolerated. Security experts say that the Emergencies Act is âabsolutely unprecedentedâ and excessive overreach, and half the provinces oppose it. This PM's pattern is failure and top-down division. He has gone from name calling to nukes. Is this not really about the Prime Minister taking a sledgehammer to Canadians that he thinks are unacceptable?
Trudeau says it is actually 100% of Canadians who are tired of the COVID pandemic and its restrictions, and that the way through it is following the science and keeping each other safe, not engaging in illegal blockades.
Trudeau corrects Stubbs's framing by saying it is 100% rather than two-thirds of Canadians who are tired of COVID, but does not address the security experts' characterization of the Act as excessive overreach or the provincial opposition to it.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite misspoke. I think it is actually 100% of Canadians who are tired of this COVID pandemic, tired of having to be restricted and tired of being impacted by this pandemic around the country and around the globe. We all want to get through it. However, the way to get through it is by following science, by keeping each other safe, by being there for each other. The way through this pandemic is not to engage in illegal blockades that are harming their fellow Canadians.
Martel notes that the Quebec government announced the lifting of the vaccine passport and a precise deconfinement plan with clear objectives, and asks when the Prime Minister will lift all health measures at the federal level.
Martel cites the Quebec government's specific announcement of lifting the vaccine passport and a precise deconfinement plan with clear objectives, and asks why the federal government cannot do the same, with a concrete reference to a Liberal MP voting for the Conservative motion.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, le gouvernement du QuĂ©bec a annoncĂ© la levĂ©e du passeport vaccinal et un plan de dĂ©confinement prĂ©cis avec des objectifs clairs. Comment se fait-il que le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral ne soit pas capable de faire la mĂȘme chose? MĂȘme le dĂ©putĂ© de Louis-HĂ©bert a votĂ© en faveur de notre motion qui demandait la levĂ©e des mesures. Le premier ministre utilise vraiment la pandĂ©mie Ă des fins partisanes et Ă©lectorales pour sauver son job. Quand va-t-il enlever toutes les mesures sanitaires au pays?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government announced yesterday that it is lifting vaccine passport requirements and that it has a detailed reopening plan with clear objectives. Why can the federal government not do the same? Even the member for Louis-HĂ©bert voted in favour of our motion to lift measures. The Prime Minister is really using the pandemic for partisan, electioneering purposes to save his job. When will he lift all health measures in Canada?
Trudeau notes that the vast majority of health measures are applied by provinces, and that the federal government has recently announced changes to border rules to make it easier for vaccinated Canadians to work or travel abroad.
Trudeau correctly distinguishes federal from provincial health jurisdiction, cites specific changes to the federal border policy for vaccinated Canadians, and acknowledges the question's core point about provincial leadership on restrictions.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le dĂ©putĂ© sait trĂšs bien que la grande majoritĂ© des mesures sanitaires au pays sont appliquĂ©es par les provinces. En ce qui concerne les frontiĂšres, le fĂ©dĂ©ral en a la responsabilitĂ©. Je suis trĂšs content de pouvoir souligner que, depuis quelques jours, nous avons annoncĂ© un changement dans notre position en ce qui a trait Ă la frontiĂšre. Nous allons rendre plus facile le fait de travailler ou de voyager outreâmer pour les Canadiens vaccinĂ©s. C'est une bonne chose pour les Canadiens, et nous allons continuer de suivre la science pour allĂ©ger les restrictions. C'est ce que les Canadiens veulent, et c'est ce dont nous avons tous besoin.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the vast majority of health measures in Canada are imposed by the provinces. Borders, on the other hand, are a federal responsibility, and I am very pleased to point out that we just recently announced changes to border restrictions. We are making it easier for vaccinated Canadians to work or travel overseas. This is good news for Canadians, and we will continue to follow the science when it comes to easing restrictions. That is what Canadians want and what we all need.
Blanchet reminds the Prime Minister that federal pandemic investments were borrowed money â a debt left to Quebecers and Canadians â argues for much larger unconditional health transfers, and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes that Quebec does not need the Emergencies Act to contain its crisis.
Blanchet makes a substantive point that federal pandemic spending was deficit-financed debt left to Quebecers and Canadians, links it to the absence of larger unconditional health transfers, and asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes that Quebec does not need the Emergencies Act to contain its crisis, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre rĂ©fĂ©rait aux investissements faits par le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral dans le cadre de la pandĂ©mie. Je me permets de lui rappeler que ce sont des investissements faits Ă crĂ©dit. C'est l'argent des QuĂ©bĂ©cois et des Canadiens. C'est une dette qu'il laissera aux QuĂ©bĂ©cois et aux Canadiens et qu'il aurait dĂ» mettre en place sans essayer d'imposer des conditions avant de faire des transferts en santĂ© beaucoup plus importants que les erreurs des derniers jours. Il rappelle d'ailleurs, sans honte, des Ă©vĂ©nements parmi les plus sombres de l'histoire rĂ©cente de son pays. Le premier ministre estâil conscient qu'on nâa pas besoin de lui pour aller Ă la banque et qu'on n'a pas besoin de la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence pour contenir la crise au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to the investments made by the federal government during the pandemic. I would remind him that these investments are being made with borrowed money, money that belongs to Quebeckers and Canadians. He is leaving a debt to Quebeckers and Canadians, and he should have incurred it without trying to impose conditions before making much larger health transfers and the mistakes of the past few days. He showed no shame in also referring to some of the darkest moments in the recent history of his country. Does the Prime Minister realize that we do not need him to go to the bank and that we do not need the Emergencies Act to contain the crisis in Quebec?
Trudeau says the federal government was there for Canadians at every step with free vaccines, investments for businesses, workers, families, and seniors, including for Quebecers, which he says disappoints the Bloc québécois.
Trudeau lists pandemic supports (free vaccines, investments for businesses, workers, families, seniors) but does not address the debt-financing argument, the demand for larger health transfers, or the specific question of whether the Emergencies Act is needed in Quebec.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les Canadiens d'un bout Ă l'autre de ce pays ont vĂ©cu deux annĂ©es extrĂȘmement difficiles, avec des pertes tragiques, avec des sacrifices personnels et collectifs que nous avons tous eus Ă faire. Ă chaque Ă©tape, le gouvernement a Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour les gens. Il a Ă©tĂ© lĂ avec des vaccins gratuits pour tout le monde. Il a Ă©tĂ© lĂ avec des investissements pour aider les petites et les grandes entreprises, les travailleurs, les familles et les aĂźnĂ©s. Ă chaque Ă©tape, le gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©ral a Ă©tĂ© lĂ , y compris pour les QuĂ©bĂ©cois, et c'est ce qui déçoit le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country have lived through two extremely difficult years, suffered tragic losses, made personal and collective sacrifices that we have all had to make. At every step of the way, the government was there for them. It was there with free vaccines for everyone. It was there with investments to help small and large businesses, workers, families and seniors. At every step of the way, the federal government was there for everyone, including Quebeckers, and that is why the Bloc Québécois is disappointed.
Blanchet asks whether the Prime Minister recognizes that a law as important as the Loi sur les mesures d'urgence requires consensus in the House, and that he lacks the legitimacy to impose it on Quebec.
The question raises a legitimate constitutional point about consensus and legitimacy but frames it with rhetorical flourish and the ask about 'légitimité' is more political than answerable.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le constat que le premier ministre prĂ©sente est, dans une certaine mesure, le constat de son propre Ă©chec. Estâil conscient qu'une loi aussi importante que la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence devrait commander un certain consensus Ă l'intĂ©rieur de la Chambre? L'opposition officielle est contre. Le Bloc quĂ©bĂ©cois est contre. J'invite de nouveau le NPD Ă rĂ©flĂ©chir prudemment Ă ce sujet. Le premier ministre reconnaĂźtâil qu'il y aurait eu d'autres moyens d'agir et qu'il n'a pas la lĂ©gitimitĂ© d'imposer cette loi au QuĂ©bec?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that summary the Prime Minister just delivered is, in a way, a summary of his own failure. Is he aware that an act as important as the Emergencies Act requires some consensus in the House? The official opposition is against it. The Bloc Québécois is against it. Once again, I urge the NDP to give this matter some careful thought. Does the Prime Minister realize there are other ways to handle this and that he lacks the legitimacy to impose this act on Quebec?
Trudeau argues that the Loi sur les mesures d'urgence is written clearly, that its measures are subject to the Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, and that they will only be used as needed by local police.
Trudeau speaks to how the Loi sur les mesures d'urgence is structured and its relationship to the Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, but does not address the specific question of whether other means existed or Quebec's legitimacy concern.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est extrĂȘmement important que tout le monde sache que la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence est Ă©crite et structurĂ©e d'une façon extrĂȘmement claire et que nous suivons Ă la lettre les instructions pour son application. Nous avons, dĂšs le dĂ©but, reconnu que nous devions cibler ces mesuresâlĂ , qu'elles devaient toujours ĂȘtre assujetties aux protections pour les citoyens dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertĂ©s, et qu'elles n'allaient ĂȘtre utilisĂ©es qu'en cas de besoin par la police locale. C'est ça, cette loi sur les mesures d'urgence.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important for everyone to understand that the Emergencies Act is written and structured in an extremely clear way and that we are following the instructions for applying it to the letter. From day one, we recognized that we need to target these measures, that they must always be subject to the individual protections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that they will be used only if needed by local police. That is how the Emergencies Act works.
Lloyd calls on the Prime Minister to unreservedly apologize for accusing any colleague in the House of standing with the swastika, citing his own family's sacrifice and Conservative colleagues who are descendants of victims of the Holocaust.
Lloyd makes a specific, personal, and pointed demand for an unreserved apology tied to a concrete prior remark by the Prime Minister, grounded in his family's history, giving it accountability value, though it is more a demand than a policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such shameful and dishonourable remarks coming from the Prime Minister. My great-grandfather flew more than 30 missions over Nazi Germany. My great-great-uncle's body lies at the bottom of the English Channel. Members of the Conservative caucus are descendants of victims of the Holocaust. For the Prime Minister to accuse any colleague in the House of standing with the swastika is shameful. I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity. I am calling on him to unreservedly apologize for this shameful remark.
Oh, oh!
Trudeau says the measures in the Emergencies Act are proportional, responsible and completely folded within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making no reference to the apology demand.
Trudeau does not address the demand for an apology at all, instead pivoting to the Emergencies Act measures and describing them as proportional, responsible and folded within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve their freedoms back. These illegal blockades have continued to interfere with people's livelihoods, their daily livesâ
Mr. Speaker, the measures put forward in the Emergencies Act are proportional, responsible and, quite frankly, completely folded within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The steps we are taking are important and measured to restore order for and freedoms to Canadians in this country. That is exactly what we are doing.
Lloyd gives the Prime Minister one more chance to apologize to all members of the House for accusing an hon. member of standing with a swastika, noting that colleagues are descendants of victims of the Holocaust.
Lloyd gives the Prime Minister a second explicit opportunity to apologize for a specific remark, which is a clear and answerable ask, though repetition reduces its analytical novelty.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the lack of an apology from that Prime Minister speaks volumes. I have given the Prime Minister an opportunity to retract a shameful remark, where he would accuse any hon. member of this House to stand with a swastika. As I said before, we have colleagues who are descendants of victims of the Holocaust. I am giving the Prime Minister one more chance. Will he apologize to all members of the House?
Trudeau accuses Conservative politicians of standing with and encouraging these illegal blockades and says the government will stand on the side of Canadians who deserve their lives back.
Trudeau does not acknowledge or address the apology request, instead asserting that Conservative politicians stood with and encouraged these illegal blockades.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, even as the members of the Conservative Party were calling on us to take more action on this over the past two weeks, they continued to stand with and encourage these illegal blockades. Canadians are watching carefully, and they see exactly where the Conservative politicians who stood with the blockades are standing. We will stand on the side of Canadians who deserve their lives back and who deserve their livelihoods back.
Lloyd calls on all Liberal caucus members to denounce the Prime Minister and demands an apology for accusing hon. members of standing with a swastika, noting this is the Prime Minister's third refusal.
Lloyd's third iteration of the same apology demand becomes more of a rhetorical escalation calling on Liberal caucus members to denounce the Prime Minister rather than a new factual or policy question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how any member of the government caucus could stand by the Prime Minister when he accuses hon. members of this House of standing with a swastika. I am calling on all members of the Liberal caucus to denounce the Prime Minister. I have given him two chances to apologize. He has refused to apologize. Mr. Prime Minister, apologize.
Trudeau describes how illegal blockades have gone on in Ottawa for 20 days, disrupting daily lives and work, and says the government is moving forward with responsible measures to allow local police of jurisdiction to do their jobs.
Trudeau does not address the apology demand, instead describing the impact of illegal blockades in Ottawa and southern Ontario and framing the government's response as responsible.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, these illegal blockades have been going on in Ottawa for 20 days now. People have been interrupted in their daily lives. They have been made to feel fearful. They have been made to miss shifts from their work across southern Ontario. These are things that cannot be stood for, which is why we are moving forward with a responsible set of measures to allow the local police of jurisdiction to do their jobs. We continue to defend freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as long as it is peaceful and legal.
Scarpaleggia asks the Prime Minister to elaborate on the easing of health measures at airports for vaccinated travellers.
This is a government-backbench softball question from Scarpaleggia inviting the Prime Minister to announce a pre-arranged policy on airport health measures.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les secteurs du tourisme et du voyage ont Ă©tĂ© durement touchĂ©s par la pandĂ©mie. Les entreprises et organisations Ćuvrant dans ces domaines sont excitĂ©es et ont hĂąte de pouvoir accueillir et faire dĂ©placer davantage des gens vaccinĂ©s. Le premier ministre peut-il nous en dire plus sur l'assouplissement des mesures sanitaires aux aĂ©roports?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the tourism and travel sectors have been hard hit by the pandemic. Businesses and organizations in these sectors are excited and look forward to being able to welcome and move even more vaccinated people. Can the Prime Minister tell us more about the easing of health measures at the airports?
Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député de tout le travail qu'il accomplit pour sa circonscription, Lac-Saint-Louis. Nos mesures pour les voyageurs évoluent au fur et à mesure de l'évolution de la pandémie et des recommandations de la santé publique. C'est pour cela que, à compter du 28 février, nous allons lever l'interdiction des vols vers tous les aéroports qui reçoivent normalement des vols internationaux. Cela va aider à soutenir le tourisme local et contribuer à la création de bons emplois et à la croissance de notre économie.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all the work he does for his riding, Lac-Saint-Louis. Our measures for travellers change as the pandemic and public health recommendations change. That is why, starting on February 28, we will lift the ban on flights to all airports that usually receive international flights. This will help support local tourism and contribute to creating good jobs and growing our economy.
Trudeau announces that starting 28 février the government will lift the interdiction des vols vers tous les aéroports qui reçoivent normalement des vols internationaux to support local tourism and job creation.
Trudeau provides a specific dateâ28 fĂ©vrierâand a concrete policy announcement lifting the interdiction des vols vers tous les aĂ©roports qui reçoivent normalement des vols internationaux, which directly responds to the setup.
Berthold accuses the Prime Minister of lacking leadership and creating the crisis himself, and asks why he puts his own interests ahead of those of the nation.
Berthold's question is dominated by partisan characterizationsâdescribing the Prime Minister as the leader with le moins de leadership de l'histoire du Canadaâwith only a vague ask about why personal interests are put ahead of the nation's.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, aujourd'hui, le premier ministre a fait la dĂ©monstration claire qu'il n'est intĂ©ressĂ© que par une seule chose: se sortir de la crise qu'il a lui-mĂȘme crĂ©Ă©e. Son manque de leadership est le seul responsable de cette crise. Il a citĂ© les livres d'histoire tout Ă l'heure. Il passera Ă l'histoire comme Ă©tant le premier ministre ayant eu le moins de leadership de l'histoire du Canada. Il n'a pratiquement rĂ©pondu Ă aucune question de l'opposition sur la justification rĂ©elle du recours Ă la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence. Ce qu'on a vu, c'est que le premier ministre est lui-mĂȘme en crise dans les sondages, son parti et son propre caucus. Pourquoi met-il ses propres intĂ©rĂȘts devant ceux de la nation?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has proven today that all he cares about is getting out of the crisis that he, himself, created. His lack of leadership is the direct cause of this crisis. He mentioned the history books earlier. He will go down in history as the Prime Minister most lacking in leadership in the history of Canada. He has barely answered any questions from the opposition on the real reason he invoked the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister is struggling in the polls, in his party and in his own caucus. Why is the Prime Minister putting his own interests ahead of the interests of the country?
Trudeau says the government has supported local police from the start and progressively provided additional tools through a responsible and measured approach.
Trudeau speaks generally about supporting local police and giving them outils supplémentaires but does not engage with the specific accusation or question about his motivations, instead attacking the Conservatives for encouraging blocages illégaux.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis le dĂ©but de ces blocages illĂ©gaux, nous avons Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour appuyer les polices locales dans le but de rĂ©gler la situation. Nous avons progressivement vu que nous avions besoin de leur donner des outils supplĂ©mentaires, ce que nous avons fait de façon responsable et mesurĂ©e lundi soir. Nous sommes en train d'ĂȘtre lĂ pour aider lĂ oĂč c'est nĂ©cessaire. C'est ce Ă quoi les Canadiens s'attendent. Pendant que les conservateurs continuent d'encourager ces blocages illĂ©gaux, nous, nous agissons pour aider les polices locales Ă les Ă©liminer.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have been there from the beginning to support the local police in their handling of these illegal blockades. As things progressed, we saw that we needed to give them additional resources, and we took responsible, measured action to do just that on Monday evening. We are here to help where needed. That is what Canadians expect. While the Conservatives continue to encourage these illegal blockades, we are working to help local police remove them.
Berthold asks rhetorically why the Prime Minister is always late to do what is right but always ready when his own reputation is at stake, and implies he is not listening to discontent across the country and in his own party.
Berthold's question is largely rhetorical, invoking grogne dans nos circonscriptions and grogne dans tout le pays, with only an implicit ask directed at unnamed others rather than a specific answerable question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre aura beau insulter tous les Canadiens, ce n'est pas cela, faire preuve de leadership. Jamais le Canada n'a Ă©tĂ© aussi divisĂ© qu'aujourdâhui. C'est ce qui arrive quand un premier ministre choisit de jouer le grand politicien plutĂŽt que le chef d'Ătat. Il n'entend pas la grogne dans nos circonscriptions ni celle dans son parti et son caucus. Il n'entend pas la grogne dans tout le pays. VoilĂ ce qu'est la rĂ©alitĂ©. Est-ce que quelqu'un peut nous dire pourquoi ce premier ministre est toujours en retard pour faire ce qui est juste, mais toujours prĂȘt quand sa propre rĂ©putation est en jeu?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, insulting Canadians, as the Prime Minister has done, is not what we would call leadership. Canada has never been as divided as it is today. That is what happens when a Prime Minister chooses to play at being a master politician rather than act like a head of state. He is not seeing the discontent in our ridings or in his party and caucus. He is not seeing the discontent across the country. That is the reality. Can someone tell us why the Prime Minister always takes too long to do the right thing but is quick to take action when his own reputation is on the line?
Trudeau says he understands that people are tired of the pandemic and necessary measures, but argues the way to end the pandemic is by following science, vaccinating, and not through manifestations illégales.
Trudeau acknowledges pandemic fatigue but pivots to arguing that the solution is science, vaccination, and responsible progression of health measures rather than manifestations illégales, which is tangential to the question asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je comprends tout Ă fait et nous entendons tous Ă quel point les gens sont tannĂ©s de cette pandĂ©mie et sont tannĂ©s des mesures nĂ©cessaires pour se protĂ©ger les uns les autres. On veut en finir, mais je rappelle au dĂ©putĂ© du Parti conservateur que la façon dâen finir avec la pandĂ©mie, ce nâest pas avec des manifestations illĂ©gales, mais en suivant la science, en faisant de façon responsable une progression dans les mesures de santĂ© et en se faisant vacciner. Câest ce que les Canadiens ont fait. D'ailleurs, lâunitĂ© du pays face Ă la vaccination dĂ©montre Ă quel point on va toujours rester lĂ les uns pour les autres.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I completely understand, and we all agree that everyone is fed up with this pandemic and with the measures that need to be taken to protect each other. We want this whole thing to be over, but I would remind the Conservative member that illegal protests are not the way to end this pandemic. We need to follow the science, gradually adjust public health measures in a responsible way and get vaccinated. That is what Canadians have done. Canada's unified response to vaccination shows that we will always be there for one another.
Berthold accuses the Prime Minister of politicizing the crisis by calling an election during the pandemic, imposing a vaccine mandate on truckers sans aucune preuve scientifique, and demonizing citizens, and asks when he will apologize to Canadians.
Berthold lists specific actionsâdĂ©clencher des Ă©lections en pleine pandĂ©mie, imposer un vaccin aux camionneurs sans aucune preuve scientifique, and hiding instead of facing the situationâand asks for an apology, giving it modest factual grounding despite heavy partisan framing.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, voyons ce qu'il a fait, lui. Quand il a eu lâoccasion dâagir en chef dâĂtat devant la COVIDâ19, il a choisi de faire de la politique. Il a dĂ©clenchĂ© des Ă©lections en pleine pandĂ©mie, ce qui lui a permis de diviser les Canadiens et de stigmatiser ceux et celles qui ne pensent pas comme lui. Il a imposĂ© un vaccin aux camionneurs sans aucune preuve scientifique. Il a dĂ©monisĂ© et ridiculisĂ© une partie de ses propres citoyens, au lieu dâĂ©couter ce quâils avaient Ă dire. Il sâest cachĂ© au lieu de faire face, puis il a accusĂ© les autres de ne pas faire leur travail. Câest assez. Quand le premier ministre va-t-il sâexcuser aux Canadiens dâavoir politisĂ© cette crise?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what he did. When he had the opportunity as the head of government to take action to deal with COVIDâ19, he chose to play politics. He called an election in the middle of a pandemic, which allowed him to divide Canadians and stigmatize those who do not think like him. He imposed a vaccine on truckers without any scientific evidence. He demonized and ridiculed some of his citizens instead of listening to what they had to say. He stayed in hiding instead of facing this situation and then he accused others of not doing their job. Enough is enough. When will the Prime Minister apologize to Canadians for politicizing this crisis?
Trudeau argues that in the last electionâwhich the Conservatives did not winâCanadians voted for vaccination mandates, and that a vaccination rate of approximately 90% shows Canadians are united.
Trudeau engages partially by referencing the election result and the 90% vaccination rate as evidence that Canadians supported mandats de vaccination, but does not address the claim about aucune preuve scientifique or offer any apology.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, au contraire, dans ces derniĂšres Ă©lections, que le Parti conservateur nâa pas gagnĂ©es, les Canadiens ont Ă©tĂ© consultĂ©s sur lâenjeu des mandats de vaccination et sur la vaccination. Les Canadiens ont votĂ© majoritairement pour des dĂ©putĂ©s qui appuyaient une vaccination obligatoire pour les travailleurs de la fonction publique et pour les voyages en avion et en train. Ce sont les Canadiens eux-mĂȘmes qui ont choisi. Dâailleurs, avec un taux de vaccination de 90 % environ, on a vu que les Canadiens sont unis et d'accord et vont rester lĂ les uns pour les autres.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, in the last election, which the Conservative Party did not win, Canadians were consulted on the issue of vaccine mandates and vaccination. The majority of Canadians voted for candidates who supported mandatory vaccination for public servants and for air and rail travel. Canadians themselves chose this. What is more, with a vaccination rate of roughly 90%, we have seen that Canadians are united, that they are in agreement and that they will continue to be there for one another.
Yip asks the Prime Minister to update the House on the government's plan to welcome more newcomers in the coming years, citing Canada's record of welcoming over 401,000 immigrants last year.
This is a government-backbench softball question from Yip inviting the Prime Minister to announce the immigration levels plan, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, immigrants from coast to coast to coast have significantly contributed to the prosperity of this country and my riding of ScarboroughâAgincourt. Last year we exceeded our goal of welcoming over 401,000 immigrants who will make Canada their home. This was a historical record that will help shape Canadaâs growth. Can the Prime Minister update the House on our governmentâs plan to welcome more newcomers in the coming years?
Mr. Speaker, immigration is and has always been essential to Canada's success. This pandemic has highlighted the contributions of newcomers to the well-being of our communities and across all sectors of the economy. That is why we have tabled our most ambitious immigration levels plan yet. This plan will welcome more newcomers in the coming year and will continue to help key sectors of our economy. It will help staff almost a million unfilled positions across all sectors. It will also help with filling in the five million Canadians set to retire by 2030.
Trudeau says the government has tabled its most ambitious immigration levels plan yet, which will help fill almost a million unfilled positions and address the five million Canadians set to retire by 2030.
Trudeau provides substantive figuresâover 401,000 immigrants welcomed last year as a historical record, almost a million unfilled positions, and five million Canadians set to retire by 2030âmaking it an informative answer to the setup.
Singh asks what assurances the Prime Minister will provide that legal protests will not be impacted by the invocation of the Emergencies Act, citing examples of counterprotesters being arrested instead of the actual convoy.
Singh raises a specific and legitimate civil liberties concern with a concrete exampleâcounterprotesters arrested by policeâand asks for assurances that legal protests will not be impacted by the invocation of the Emergencies Act, making it a reasonably specific accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are raising serious concerns that the Emergencies Act should not apply to legal protests. We know that there have been many counterprotesters standing up to the convoy, and we have seen some of those counterprotesters arrested by police, instead of the actual convoy, so Canadians have raised this question. What assurances will the Prime Minister provide that legal protests will not be impacted by the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Trudeau says the measures target illegal protests, illegal barricades and illegal blockages specifically, and that the government will always defend freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression under the charter.
Trudeau engages directly with the concern and distinguishes illegal protests, illegal barricades and illegal blockages from legal protest, and affirms charter rights and freedom of peaceful assembly, but does not address the specific case of counterprotesters being arrested.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question and one we are also very much preoccupied with, which is why, in the measure set forth, we have been very clearly indicating that illegal protests, illegal barricades and illegal blockages are the ones that we are giving extra tools for the police to respond to. Of course, we will always stand up for Canadians' charter rights. We will always stand up for freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. That is extremely important, but we also know that it is the police of jurisdiction who need to do their jobs, and not Canadians taking things into their own hands to end these illegal protests. That is what we are ensuring with this measure.
Ms. Lantsman (CPC), identifying herself as a strong Jewish woman and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, rose on a point of order to demand an apology from the Prime Minister for accusing her of standing with swastikas; the Prime Minister did not respond. Separately, Ms. Michaud sought unanimous consent for a motion, mirroring a unanimous motion of the Assemblée nationale du Québec, requesting that the government not apply the Emergencies Act on Quebec territory; consent was denied.
- CPC Ms. Melissa Lantsman
- Some hon. members
- Ms. Kristina Michaud
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a strong Jewish woman, a member of the House and a descendant of Holocaust survivors. This has never been singled out and I have never been made to feel less, except for today, when the Prime Minister accused me of standing with swastikas. I think he owes me an apology. I would like an apology, and I think he owes an apology to all members of the House.
Oh, oh!
Monsieur le Président, il y a eu consultation entre les partis et je pense que vous constaterez qu'il y a consentement unanime à l'égard de la motion suivante: Que la Chambre, à l'instar de la motion unanime de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec, s'inquiÚte des perturbations actuelles en Ontario et autour de certains postes frontaliers fédéraux; affirme qu'aucune situation d'urgence ne justifie actuellement l'utilisation au Québec de mesures législatives spéciales; demande au gouvernement canadien de ne pas appliquer la Loi sur les mesures d'urgence sur le territoire québécois; et que la Chambre réitÚre l'importance d'une collaboration étroite entre le gouvernement fédéral et le gouvernement du Québec, notamment pour assurer la quiétude et la sécurité des citoyens de l'Outaouais qui subissent les contrecoups des manifestations en cours à Ottawa et qui pourraient faire les frais de toute dégradation de la situation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House, in conjunction with a unanimous motion from the Quebec National Assembly, express concerns about the current disruptions in Ontario and around certain federal border crossings; that it affirm that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Quebec; that it ask the Canadian government not to enforce the Emergencies Act in Quebec; and that it reiterate the importance of working closely with the Government of Quebec, in particular to ensure peace of mind and safety for residents in the Outaouais region who are affected by the ongoing demonstrations in Ottawa and who could suffer from any further deterioration of the situation.
Non.
Hansard translation: Nay.
Baker reads a unanimous consent motion asking the House to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, condemn the Russian Duma's vote recognizing the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, and call on the international community to oppose further Russian aggression.
This is a unanimous consent motion on Ukraine read by Baker, not a Question Period exchange with a question and answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you fill find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House: a) stand firm in supporting sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in the face of growing Russian aggression in and around Ukraine; b) strongly condemns the Russian Duma's vote recognizing the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, which would be a clear violation of the Minsk agreements, and a threat to the security and stability of the region; and c) call on the international community to stand together in opposition to any further Russian aggression and support Ukraine and its people in the face of these growing threats.
null
There is no ministerial answer to score; the exchange is a motion-reading procedure.
Mr. Scheer (CPC) rose on a point of order arguing that the Prime Minister's comments accusing a Jewish member of the House of standing with swastikas were unparliamentary and reprehensible, and asked the Speaker to rule that the matter rises to the level of a question of privilege. Minister Gould (Lib), identifying herself as a proud Jewish woman and descendant of Holocaust survivors, responded by calling on all members to use their words judiciously and not to stand with those who support white supremacy or Nazi views, without offering an apology on behalf of the Prime Minister. Mrs. Wagantall (CPC) also rose on the same point of order.
- CPC Andrew Scheer
- Lib Karina Gould
- Mrs. Cathay Wagantall
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on with the point that was made by my colleague from Thornhill. When comments made in the House are injurious, insulting and unparliamentary, they rise to the level of a question of privilege. As you know, you have the ability to rule on that immediately. I will not even go into the hypocrisy of a man who did blackface so often that he cannot remember it accusing somebody else of doing anything remotely racist. However, his comments made to a Jewish member of the House are beyond unparliamentary. They are reprehensible. I ask that you rule that this rises to the level of a question of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Speaker, emotions are obviously running very high right now, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to take a step back and reflect on the values of the House. I am also a proud Jewish woman who is the descendant of Holocaust survivors. My family found refuge, support and a life in this country. We must listen to each other and must ensure that no one in the House is standing with those who support white supremacy, who support Nazi views or who look to contribute to and enable racist views. I ask that all of us in the House use our words judiciously, including the member opposite, who just yelled out something completely inappropriate. All of us have reason to be here. I call on the members opposite not to stand with those who are sharing those views. How does it feel, as a person in the House, to see colleagues taking pictures with people who are looking to overthrow the government? That is what I ask those colleagues to think about.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. I understand that we are all fairly agitated at this moment. Can we imagine how what happened in the House today is impacting Canadians who are very awareâ
Mr. Reid (CPC), noting his own Jewish ancestry and the fate of Jewish residents of Bialystok during World War II, rose on a point of order to call on the Prime Minister himself to retract his words and apologize, rather than leaving it to other members to respond. Mrs. Wagantall (CPC) also rose to urge the Prime Minister to apologize for his statement, and to acknowledge the Canadian flags flown by protesters over the past weeks.
- CPC Mr. Scott Reid
- CPC Mrs. Cathay Wagantall
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should engage in an exercise of comparative victimhood credentials. I will observe that I too have Jewish ancestors. My grandmother was born in Bialystok. Fortunately, she came here before the Holocaust occurred, but of the 10,000 Jewish residents of Bialystok when she left, only 500 survived World War II. It is not for the member opposite, although I know she spoke sincerely, to speak out on this. It is for the Prime Minister to come back and retract his words. The Prime Minister is very good at apologizing for acts that took place before he was born by people he was not involved with, and it is time for him to take responsibility for his own words and apologize for what he said.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my perspective on this. It is really important that the Prime Minister do the right thing and apologize for the statement he made today, especially in reference to the House, but also because this statement has been abused and used against Canadians, and he has not recognized in any way the thousands and millions of Canadian flags that have flown over the past two or three weeks.