QP: A lid on the anger

Posted on by

After last night’s insanity and this morning’s third apology, Justin Trudeau was nowhere to be found. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and lamented the arrogance of the government while demanding that Motion 6 be withdrawn. Dominic LeBlanc stood up to assure her that they withdrew it. Ambrose wanted to ensure that every MP who wanted to speak on Bill C-14 would be allowed to, and LeBlanc said that they were trying to find a mechanism to extend the hours while keeping the deadline in mind. Ambrose demanded that the government show that they respect MPs, and LeBlanc repeated that they respect parliament but they also respect the deadline. Denis Lebel took over to ask, in French, why the PM lost his temper, and Jane Philpott took this one, reminding them of the sincere apology of the PM and that they wanted to get to work on C-14 deadline. Lebel returned to the question of MPs getting the chance to speak, and LeBlanc repeated his answer about finding a balance. Peter Julian got up for the NDP, and demanded the end of use of time allocation. Dominic LeBlanc said that they were trying to work cooperatively. Julian demanded timetables for legislation, and LeBlanc reminded him of the deadline on bills. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet cranked up the partisan complaining about time allocation in both official languages, and got much the same answer from LeBlanc.

Round two, and Andrew Scheer demanded a referendum (Monsef: We need to work together to find common ground), Gérard Deltell returned to the demand that all MPs can speak on C-14 (LeBlanc: Remember there is a deadline),and Jason Kenney returned to demands for a referendum (Monsef: Let’s move beyond these repetitive questions to a productive discussion). Brigitte Sansoucy and Murray Rankin worried that C-14 would face a court challenge (Philpott: It’s important that a framework be put into place). Blake Richards and Alain Rayes returned to demands for a referendum (Monsef: We don’t have a system in mind). Pierre Nantel demanded answers on the sale of the Radio-Canada building in Montreal (Joly: We will have a new board appointment process in weeks) and François Choquette railed about Energy East documents only being in English (Joly: The official languages law will be respected).

Round three saw questions on an electoral referendum, Parks Canada funding and accessibility, lawsuits against veterans, Syrian refugees, the problems with the federal pay system, rail grain interswitching, a rail bypass for Lac-Mégantic, and amendments to C-14.

Overall, there was a simmering anger that was very loudly being constrained, and the civility was very forced. And with only a couple of exceptions, tempers remained largely cool. So that was good, right? Well, maybe. Some MPs were left scrambling with their questions given that Dominic LeBlanc deflated most of their anger around Motion 6 with his first response, and that meant throwing out a lot of scripts, but they shifted to demanding further procedural concessions, which I doubt will actually happen – after all, the government does need to have some procedural tools to keep timelines. Meanwhile, the referendum call/Monsef saccharine remained largely untouched because Conservative MPs continued to refuse to punch holes in her logic. Alas.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Catherine McKenna for a black dress with a white pattern across it and a black sweater, and to Blake Richards for a tailored dark grey suit with a crisp white shirt and a blue patterned tie. Style citations go out to Michel Picard for a violet jacket with a light purple shirt and pocket square and dark purple paisley tie, and to Patty Hajdu for a long grey overcoat with pink florals.