With the Olympics now over, and MPs giving glowing statements about our medal winners, and the Liberals revved up after their weekend convention, one could almost hope for a punchy QP. Sadly, with a large number of empty seats in the chamber and only one major leader present, it wasn’t going to really be an exiting day. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking for an update on the Ukrainian situation, to which Chris Alexander read a pro-forma statement. Mulcair segued to the elections bill, and demanded to know why Senate committees could hold consultative hearings across the country, but not the committee charged with the bill. Pierre Poilievre insisted that they were listening to Canadians and that the NDP didn’t bother to read the bill. Mulcair and Poilievre had a couple of back-and-forths , after which Speaker Scheer cautioned Mulcair to stop using the word “cheating.” Mulcair stood up and declared that the Conservatives were trying to pre-cheat the next election, and sat down, no question. Scheer said nothing, and moved on. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals and asked about that report on the foundering middle class and noted the ways in which the government raised taxes. Kevin Sorensen insisted rather vigorously that his government had cut taxes, and wouldn’t be dissuaded otherwise. Marc Garneau asked the same in French, not that Sorensen’s answer changed.

Round two, and Craig Scott asked about the ID requirements in the elections bill (Poilievre: You didn’t read it before condemning it), Chris Charlton once again asked about the committee hearings (Poilevre: Let’s move forward with this like Canadians want), Nycole Turmel asked the same in French (Poilievre: There are 39 other piece of ID accepted to vote), Guy Caron and Peggy Nash decried the decline off the middle class (Sorensen: You would just have us spend, spend, spend), and Annick Papillon and Glen Thibeault asked about their affordability plans (Sorensen: Why do you oppose such a praised budget?) Judy Sgro asked about the broken promise on diesel prices (Sorensen: Look at all of the taxes we’ve cut!), and John McCallum asked about the broken promise on income splitting (Sorensen: Only we can be trusted to lower taxes for families). Jean Crowder and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain asked about the Feathers of Hope roadmap for First Nations youth (Valcourt: We met with the authors and will review the report), and Alexander Boulerice and Irene Mathyssen asked about the loss of home mail delivery (Watson: Canada Post is encountering dramatic deficits and this is their plan).

Round three saw questions on First Nations housing, delayed action on climate change, the spread of the PED pig virus to Quebec, the Ukrainian situation, the pyrrhotite crisis in Quebec, infrastructure funding, the lack of compensation for potential losses to Quebec dairy farmers under trade agreements, and the use of DOT-111A tanker cars.

Overall, the issue of the Speaker’s decision to ban the word “cheating” with regards to the elections bill is somewhat problematic, but one can understand that he wanted to limit the ascribing of dishonourable motives on the part of members. In an era of hyperbolic rhetoric and a complete lack of wit in debate, it’s not unsurprising that what we’re reduced to is a bellowing of “serial cheaters,” and “Unfair Elections Act,” in that signature grade two style. Of course, Scheer also has little consistency in his rulings, which doesn’t help matters. The fact that Mulcair was able to get up and mouth back to the Speaker with virtually no penalty (they did lose a question) does bode ill for the state of decorum in our parliament, however, since it shows a blatant disregard for the Speaker’s rulings. Granted, if Scheer had booted him from the chamber, Mulcair would have run right to a microphone in the foyer and had his moment in the sun, thus negating the actual penalty of it – not that Mulcair didn’t immediately head to a microphone after QP to announce that “If I can’t say ‘cheat’ in there, I’m gonna sure as hell say it out here,” and then proceeded to use it repeatedly  – like a kid in grade two. Perhaps Scheer should instead stop recognising members who continue to use the word as an ascribed motivation – not to mention being more consistent with his rulings.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Jonathan Genest-Jourdain for a tailored dark grey suit with a light blue shirt and a dark blue tie, and to Alexandrine Latendresse for a blue mottled top with a grey jacket with a ruffled lapel. Style citations go out to Christine Moore for a mottled blue, gold and white dress with a blue tied scarf, and to Jean Rousseau for a chocolate suit with a cherry red shirt and a plaid tie. Dishonourable mentions go out to Hélène LeBlanc for a black suit with a bright yellow collared shirt.