QP: Sanctimony and escalators

Posted on by

With none of the leaders were present, Denis Lebel led off, railing about the non-existent negotiations for an extradition treaty with China. Harjit Sajjan responded that it was a high-level security and rule-of-law dialogue, which included talk of extradition. Lebel asked again in English, got the same response, then moved on to the moving expenses of one of Dion’s staff. Bardish Chagger noted that they were committed to changing the rules. Candice Bergen got up to deliver some unctuous sanctimony about moving expenses, but Chagger stuck to her prepared lines. Brigitte Sansoucy was up for the NDP, decrying the fact that the government won’t increase the healthcare transfer escalator. Jane Philpott said that they would be making investments in priority areas like home care and mental health care. Sansoucy went another round, got the same answer, before Don Davies went up to ask the same again in English. Philpott chided him that the NDP platform would have been hard pressed to use the old escalators and still balance the budget, then they went one more round of the same.

Round two, and Luc Berthold, Karen Vecchio and Blaine Calkins caterwauled about moving expenses (Chagger: We can do better and we will do better!) Cheryl Hardcastle and Hélène Laverdière demanded to know about the extradition treaty with China (Goldsmith-Jones: It’s not a treaty, it’s a dialogue). Rob Nicolson railed about the lack Atlantic representation on the Supreme Court (Brison: My comments were about your government’s poor appointments to the lower courts; Casey: There are Atlantic Canadians being considered), and Micheal Cooper railed about the Supreme Court appointment process while harping on the fact that there was no regional development minister from the region (Bains: I am happy to stand beside my 32 Atlantic colleagues; Casey: The old process was opaque). Guy Caron worried about CRA not going after tax cheats (Lebouthillier: CRA is has identified 85 files that need closer scrutiny from the Panama Papers), and Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked about the lack of new funding for First Nations reserves (Bennett: We have agreements coming into place, and CMHC has thousands more units coming on as well).

Round three saw questions on extradition with China, bilingualism of RCMP officers on the Hill, the wall around the Westin Hotel lobby while the Chinese premier stayed there, the lack of financial transparency on First Nations bands, houses affected by pyrrhotite, expenses regarding a trip to Thailand, and healthcare transfers.

Overall, it was not an illuminating day, with the unctuous sanctimony around relocation expenses, and then the lamentations about a non-existent extradition treaty (when the government has said repeatedly that these are discussions and not negotiations, and yes, there is a difference). That said, if it was possible, Bardish Chagger’s responses got even more hollow and tone-deaf as she retreated further into party lines (such as “Better is always possible” or the old standbys about the middle class) rather than hitting back with substance. She hasn’t been and it’s getting fairly tiresome at this point. Also, the moaning about the “privacy wall” erected at the Westin hotel while the Chinese premier was ridiculous, considering that it happens every time a Chinese leader is in town, and certainly was the case when the Conservatives were in power, so for them to moan that it was somehow about Trudeau pandering to dictators was egregious nonsense.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michel Picard for a black suit with a crisp white shirt and a dark pink tie and pocket square, and to Maryam Monsef for a fitted chocolate brown dress with three-quarter sleeves. Style citations go out to Diane Finley for a fuchsia top with a bright fluorescent floral jacket, and to Luc Berthold for a taupe suit with a solid blue shirt and a grey and brown checked tie. Dishonourable mention goes out to Yvonne Jones for a lemon yellow top with a black skirt and a grey sweater with black polka dots.