After the revelries of the weekend, most everyone was present, except Thomas Mulcair. As he so colourfully put it at the Gallery Dinner, he really doesn’t care anymore. Rona Ambrose led off, and immediately laid into the referendum question. Justin Trudeau reminded her that the majority of Canadians voted for parties that wanted change, and that he looked forward to the strong voices that would be heard on the committee. Ambrose raised the issue that Stéphane Dion said in 2012 that a referendum would be necessary on electoral reform, and Trudeau said that they needed committee consultation on such a complex question. Asking again in English, Trudeau gave a more impassioned defence of a robust consultative process. Alain Reyes made the demand for a referendum again in French, and got much the same response. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP and raised the Liberal Senate leader who did not agree with C-14, and would the government listen to him. Trudeau pointed out that there was no greater endorsement of their reforms to the Senate than the NDP endorsing senators’ work, and then basically admitted that the bill would come back to the Commons with amendments. On a follow-up in French, Trudeau again said that they would look forward to amendments. Murray Rankin took over, raising more objections to the bill, and Trudeau kept saying that they consulted widely and looked forward to the bill coming back.

Trudeau just admitted that C-14 will come back to the Commons, saying he looks forward to seeing it "when it comes back." #QP

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 6, 2016

Round two, and Scott Reid, Blake Richards and Shannon Stubbs returned to baying for a referendum (Monsef: We won’t move forward with any reforms without broad support). Brigitte Sansoucy returned to the issue of C-14 (Wilson-Raybould: We’ve sought to find a balance with this legislation). James Bezan and Pierre Paul-Hus asked about the reports that the government would buy the Super Hornets (McKay: We committed to a well-equipped Air Force and there is a capability gap developing). Christine Moore and Randall Garrison asked the same question, demanding an open process (McKay: The CF-18 decision has been pending for years).

Round three saw questions on language training for Syrian refugees, the relationship with China, diafiltered milk, cultural products under the TPP, small business taxes, signing the TPP, the new Windsor-Detroit bridge, First Nations fiscal transparency, Quebec vs BC on softwood lumber, Mirabel airport expropriations, and combatting desertification.

Overall, the lack of clapping from the Liberal benches largely carried forward, and it seems to have cooled the tone of the Chamber a little more, as there was far less heckling/baying at the moon when Maryam Monsef spoke, which made for a much more serious tone. Speaking of Monsef, she also got a bit more pointed in her responses around the referendum question, opening the door to one even further in her answer on the third step of the “three-step process.” Also of note was that the government didn’t actually deny that they were going ahead with the Super Hornet purchase, and spoke only about the justification for doing so, being the capability gap that the previous government “created” by not moving ahead with a credible procurement process. That this didn’t get mentioned until halfway through QP is again a problem considering the single-minded focus on the referendum issue, where eleven questions a day elicit the very same answer. I should also add that the Conservatives cried foul when Elizabeth May’s question on desertification came with a prepared answer from the PM. She has made a practice of tipping the government’s hand as to her questions since she was first elected, not being a fan of “gotcha” questions, and hoping that she’ll get a more robust response. While it’s admirable in sentiment, the fact that it elicited a blatantly prepared response is a bit off-putting, and one hopes that so long as the government accepts these questions in good faith, they could at least not be so obvious that they are answering with a script.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michel Picard for a dark grey three-piece suit with a crisp white shirt and a lavender tie and pocket square, and to Maryam Monsef for a purple jacket with a white collared shirt and black trousers. Style citations go out to Joyce Murray for a church lady white floral dress with a white jacket, and to Joël Godin for a taupe suit with a white shirt with blue stripes, and a brown and grey striped tie. Dishonourable mention goes out to Salma Zaria for a bright yellow jacket with a black top and trousers.