Category Archives: Question Period

Recaps from Question Period in the House of Commons

QP: Deliberately conflating PCO with PMO

Posted on by

The prime minister was busy entertaining the German president, while his deputy was in southwestern Ontario talking about electric busses. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he repeated his line from last week about the “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the size of the civil service while still allowing a strike to happen, and lamented especially the soldiers suffering from heating plant shutdowns and new delays for passports. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants and stated the commitment to reach a negotiated solution, but that PSAC’s demands are unaffordable. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and Fortier gave the same response, before Poilievre changed topics to the news story about Trudeau foundation members meeting at PCO. Mark Holland noted that this was a meeting between public servants in a government building and not PMO, and this was just an attempt at being partisan. Poilievre tried to insist that there was a whole strange series of coincidence  that the prime minister didn’t know about it, and insisting this wasn’t credible. Holland started off on a response about Poilievre plugging cryptocurrency, but after heckles and the Speaker calming things down, Holland insisted that Poilievre was delivering a confusing mess that was full of things that weren’t true. Poilievre tried again in French, and Holland reiterated there has been no link between the prime minster and the Foundation for a decade.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too tried to link the prime minister to that 2016 meeting between the Foundation and five deputy ministers, and Holland repeated that the prime minister was not involved and the implication is ridiculous. Therrien insisted that the Foundation was giving preferential access to the prime minister (never mind that senior officials are not the PM), and demanded a public inquiry. Holland repeated yet again that the prime minster has not had any ties to the Foundation for a decade.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he thundered about the civil service strike and demanded the government capitulate to the union. Fortier read that of the 570 demands from the union, only a few are remaining. Rachel Blaney repeated the same in English, and Fortier repeated her same response.

Continue reading →

QP: A special kind of incompetence to read the same script over and over

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy was present today, but neither were any of the other leaders, so that didn’t necessarily bode well from the start. Pierre Paul-His got things started in French, and he repeated Pierre Poilievre’s lead talking points from yesterday—that the prime minister has a “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the cost of the bureaucracy while still allowing them to go on strike, and demanded he fix what was broken. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants, and that they continue to bargain in good faith for a fair agreement. Paul-Hus demanded to know why the prime minister wasn’t answering, speculating that it was because he was too busy planning his next vacation, to which Mark Holland somewhat crankily responded that for the third day, yes the prime minister took a vacation with his family, and they stayed at the home of a family friend. Jasraj Hallan took over in English, and repeated the same “special kind of incompetence” talking points with an angrier tone, and Fortier repeated her same points about praise and good-faith negotiations. Hallan then insisted that the only people getting ahead are “crony insiders,” blamed the government for inflation, and turned this into a rant about the “scam” of the carbon price. Holland noted a lot of hypocrisy in the question, then listed the ways in which the leader of the opposition avails himself of government funding—house, car, office, staff—before he talks on the phone with American billionaires to try and destroy the CBC, and wondered if Poilievre should have a Twitter label that notes he’s 99 percent government-funded. Hallan got indignant, and said that nobody believes the government, before he completely mischaracterised the PBO’s report on carbon prices, and Holland needled back and wondered how the Conservatives are trading in conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he tried to insist that appointing people who have connections to the Trudeau Foundation could mean that the prime minister has nothing to do with it. Holland got up and recited that Trudeau has not been associated with the Foundation for ten years. Therrien went on a tear about Beijing-backed donations and demanded a public inquiry. Holland insisted that foreign interference is concerning for everyone in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and ranted about contracts to consultants rather than giving civil servants a good deal. Helena Jaczek stated that there is a need for flexibility but they are keeping an eye on contracts. Gord Johns repeated the same accusation in English, and Jaczek stated that the budget had plans to reduce that kind of consultant spending.

Continue reading →

QP: That big, imaginary IOU

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, for the second day in a row, and all of the other leaders were as well, all eager to get their clips for their respective socials. Pierre Poilievre led off in English, unusually, and he chided the government for allowing the public service to go on strike, questioning his competence, and demanded to know how the prime minister would “fix the government he broke.” Justin Trudeau said that unlike the Conservatives, they respect unions, which is why they are making progress at the bargaining table. Poilievre switched to French, and repeated the same accusation of incompetence, and Trudeau reiterated his same response. In English, Poilievre moved onto the subject of the prime minister’s vacation and asserted that the stay at this resort comes with a “big IOU,” because those Trudeau Foundation donors would obviously expect something in return, and demanded that the prime minister pay back the “$80,000 gift.” Trudeau insisted that these were family friends, that he has stayed at this place many times since he was a year-old, and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure the rules were followed. Poilievre insisted that they didn’t begrudge vacations, and that he took one at the same time on a Sunwing package that he paid for himself—which earned him sycophantic applause from his caucus—and demanded again to repay the cost of accommodation so that he “doesn’t owe anyone anything.” Trudeau once again reiterated that these are family friends for 50 years, and he has been to that resort many times with his family, and made mention of the security requirements. Poilievre repeated that this was about wealthy donors who expect IOUs and would have “inordinate influence” on him (so family friends wouldn’t have the same influence without the stay at their resort? Really?) to which Trudeau hit back about Poilievre running to billionaire tech giant fiends to attack local news, which Canadians should be concerned about.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised the Chinese donations to McGill and the Trudeau Foundation, citing it as being too close to Trudeau, so they needed a public inquiry. Trudeau insisted that they were after the wrong Trudeau, he is not his father, and has not had anything to do with the Foundation for a decade. Blanchet insisted that Trudeau must have known about the Green Family donation to the Foundation, and Trudeau insisted that because he doesn’t deal with the Foundation, he wasn’t aware.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, lamented that the civil service unions have gone on strike, took some jabs at the government and demanded that they negotiate a solution and not impose back-to-work legislation. Trudeau insisted that they continue to bargain in good faith. Singh repeated his demand in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Interminable questions about Trudeau’s Xmas vacation

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present, together, for the first time in probably two months, which should have been notable, but ended up not being as a result of today’s news cycle. Pierre Poilieve led off in French, cited a poll that said many Canadians had to cancel summer vacation plans, and then raised that CBC story about the prime minister’s Christmas vacation where he stayed at the villa of someone who donated to the Trudeau Foundation. (Note that this link is entirely specious), and asked if the prime minister paid for his lodgings at the villa. Justin Trudeau noted that he has been friends with that family for 50 years and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all rules were followed, and if Poilievre was really preoccupied by the cost of living, he would support the budget. Poilievre switched to English to reiterate the question, with some added smarm, and Trudeau repeated his response with a couple of added attempted jabs. Poilievre insisted that nothing was free and demanded to know who much was paid for the accommodation, to which Trudeau noted that Poilievre seems to have struggle with the concept of friendship, and that this family friendship goes back fifty years, before he pivoted to Poilievre running to American billionaires in order to attack the local news that Canadians rely on. Poilievre insisted that this was about power and influence, and took a swipe at the Aga Khan, before Trudeau hit back that there were security considerations before chiding Poilievre for not voting to support Canadians. Poilievre took more swipes, including at the Queen’s funeral (which he termed “a vacation”) before deploying his tired “this prime minister is out of touch while Canadians are out of money” line. Trudeau said that if Poilievre cared about Canadians as he did about partisan attacks, he would support their plans for things like child care and dental care.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he took his own swing at the vacation story, and Trudeau insisted that the Ethics Commissioner cleared everything. Blanchet tried to pivot to that dubious Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and Trudeau stated bluntly he hasn’t had anything to do with the Foundation for ten years.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded help for workers instead of CEOs. Trudeau recited his lines from a script about the grocery rebate and the help they are delivering. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response extemporaneously.

Continue reading →

QP: Useless responses to bad faith questions on carbon prices

Posted on by

While the prime minster was in town earlier in the morning, he headed off to Montreal for private business instead of attending QP, while his deputy continued her weeks-long absence from QP. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and accused Trudeau’s brother of accepting the dubious Chinese-funded donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and wanted him summoned to committee. Mark Holland insisted the prime minister had no relationship with the Foundation. Poilievre repeated the same in English with some added flourish, and Holland repeated his same response. Poilievre then moved onto the GHG emissions inventory, noted that it did increase in 2021—without noting that the curve has been bent and emissions are falling overall, to which Terry Duguid recited a script about the rebates. Poilievre cherry-picked figures from the PBO’s report that distorted what it claims, insisting the carbon price was useless and costly, and Duguid proved his own uselessness in repeating another good news talking point. Poilievre then demanded the government cut taxes and their “inflationary deficits,” to which François-Philippe Champagne listed priorities that Canadians told them they held, and that the government was acting on them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and spun a narrative about David Johnston and the Trudeau Foundation, and demanded a public inquiry at once. Dominic LeBlanc disputed that the government has done nothing, and listed some of their actions. Therrien then raised Katie Telford’s testimony at committee and complained about it, to which LeBlanc praised the work that Johnston is undertaking.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded the government “get serious” in negotiating a “fair contract” with public sector workers. Mona Fortier read a script about a good offer on the table and that they expect both parties to act in good faith. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same scripted response.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

QP: Launching a new, unconstitutional talking point

Posted on by

It was a surprise that the prime minister was present when he wasn’t initially planning to be, though most of the other leaders weren’t. Pierre Poilievre led in French, demanding to know if the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall in the coming budget. Justin Trudeau responded that he knew everyone was on tenterhooks waiting to hear what is in the budget, but reiterated what their priorities are. Poilievre changed to English, listed the number of violent deaths in the past few days and demanded the prime ministers reverse the policies that made this happen. Trudeau said that while they are concerned, they have invested in public safety while the Conservatives cut funding to them. Poilievre insisted that in Vancouver, 40 repeat offenders were arrested 6000 times in a year, and demanded the prime minster “replace bail with jail.” (That is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Trudeau said that if the Conservatives were concerned, they would support their gun control bill. Poilievre insisted that the government was letting violent criminals go free, and Trudeau accused the Conservatives of distracting away from their opposition to gun control bill. Poilievre made a number of specious correlations, pretended there was causation, called it “evidence,” and Trudeau said that the Conservatives loosened gun control which caused the spike in violent crime. (Erm, not sure that’s true either).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, raised the allegations against Han Dong, and accused the government of being asleep at the switch. Trudeau cautioned Therrien of being sure of his facts so that he doesn’t mislead the House, and stated that the government took actions where necessary. Therrien wondered if Trudeau was naïve or incompetent and demanded an immediate public inquiry. Trudeau said this was just the Bloc trying to score points rather than getting to the bottom of things, which is why we should count on David Johnston.

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP, and noted that Ukrainians in Canada on visitor visas can access training programmes, to which Trudeau noted that he did sit down with union leaders, gave some bland statements about supporting Ukrainians while growing the economy. Lisa Marie Barron worried about seniors who can’t make ends meet, and that single seniors pay more in taxes than their coupled counterparts, and Trudeau insisted that they did increased the GIS for single seniors, which the NDP voted against.

Continue reading →

QP: Harvesting clips demanding no new taxes

Posted on by

In between Biden’s visit and tomorrow’s budget, the prime minister was present for a somewhat rare Monday appearance, not not every other leader was. Pierre Poilievre led of in French, and he decried a supposed “war on work” that punishes people with taxes, which is a risible talking point. Justin Trudeau had a script in front of him as he noted how many hundreds of thousand of children they lifted out of poverty thanks to the Child Benefit, plus their child care and dental care programmes that the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre repeated it in English, and got largely the same response from Trudeau, this time without script, and with added mentions of clean energy jobs and the Canada Worker Benefit. Poilievre insisted that the  government was constantly raising taxes—factually wrong—and demanded no new taxes in the new budget. Trudeau pointed out they lowered small business taxes and created more supports for workers and families that delivered growth, taking a shot at trickle down economics. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was the only one believing in trickle down as he scoops up all the money, insisted that he was right about deficits causing inflation (he’s not), and again demanded no new taxes. Trudeau insisted that they were “laser-focused” on growing the economy for Canadians. Poilievre segued this to doubling housing prices and demanded “serious penalties” in the budget for “gatekeepers,” to which Trudeau recited housing measures the government was taking.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry for allegations of foreign interference. Trudeau, with a script, read that they have tasked the “unimpeachable” David Johnston with determining next steps while NSICOP and NSIRA conducted their own investigations. Therrien then took swipes at Jean Chrétien’s comments that he wasn’t concerned about the problem, and Trudeau insisted that this was the Bloc trying to make partisan attacks over a serious issue.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he cited a CBC article that says that millennials are at higher rates of insolvency and demanded measures to help youth in the budget. Trudeau, again with a script, listed measures they are taking for housing. Singh switched to French to ask if the government was putting a “grocery rebate” in the budget as reported, and Trudeau told him to wait for tomorrow like everyone else.

Continue reading →

QP: Declarations of guilt versus more flailing and backpatting

Posted on by

In the wake of MP Han Dong’s exit from the Liberal caucus following anonymous allegations in the media, and in advance of US president Joe Biden’s arrival, Question Period got underway without either the prime minister or his deputy present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he started immediately with the ordeal of the two Michaels, and raised the allegations made against Dong and his allegedly advising the Chinese government to not release them as doing so would some how benefit the Conservatives (and no, none of these allegations make any actual sense). Poilievre demanded to know when the PMO knew of these allegations, and Mélanie Joly insisted that the release of the Michaels was the priority of the government and everyone in the House. Poilievre repeated the same again in English, and Joly repeated that releasing the Michaels was everyone’s priority, and thinking otherwise was false. Poilievre again demanded to know a third time when the prime minister was made aware of these allegations, and Joly praised the date that the Michaels were returned to Canada, and that their priority was always to stand up against arbitrary detention. Poilievre insisted the non-answer was “troubling,” and re-asked a fourth time. This time, Joly praised the friends and allies who helped to advocate the case of the Michaels. Poilievre insisted that the prime minister must have known that Dong was working to keep the Michaels in China, and Joly again insisted that the prime minster ensured that everyone was standing up to China to get the Michaels home.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and took a swipe at a David Johnston before demanding an public inquiry immediately, and Dominic LeBlanc insisted that Johnston’s appointment was part of the suite of measures to strengthen the response to foreign interference. Therrien took up the concern about the report about Dong, and Joly got back up to praise the efforts to bring the two Michaels home.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too insisted that the prime minister must have known about the allegations about Dong, and demanded the government vote for their motion on a public inquiry, and LeBlanc said that while he appreciates the concerns about not stigmatising communities, they have been taking foreign interference seriously. Singh repeated the demand in French, and LeBlanc repeated his same response.

Continue reading →