QP: More Meilleur, more problems

Posted on by

While the PM was back in town, he chose to meet the civil service summer students instead of attending QP, meaning that Andrew Scheer’s big face-off was going to have to wait for next week. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and read some condemnation about the government not voting in favour of an autism partnership. Jane Philpott noted that this was largely a provincial matter and then listed billions of dollars that were spent on programs. Scheer then moved onto a consular issue with a Canadian couple detained in China, and Chrystia Freeland noted her own concern with the case, and assured him that she has raised it at a high level and would meet with their daughter later today. Scheer switched to French to list some condemnation about Madeleine Meilleur’s nomination, including accusations that two of Joly’s staffers used to work for Meilleur. Joly reminded him that those in her office had no part in the selection process. Scheer switched to English to ask it again, and Joly reiterated her answer. Scheer tried again, and got the same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, tried to poke holes in the story that Meilleur did not have conversations about the appointment with Butts and Telford. Joly said that they did not have that conversation. Mulcair insisted then that Meilleur lied to Parliament, and demanded to know if Joly’s staff were consulted, and Joly reiterated that they were not part of the team. Mulcair returned to the supposed involvement of Butts and Telford, and Joly reiterated her previous answers. Mulcair’s final question spun up the torque on Butts’ supposed involvement, and Joly responded by listing Meilleur’s qualifications.

Round two, and Sylvie Boucher, John Nater, and John Brassard carried on trying to make a case of the thin gruel of Joly’s staffers (Joly: Same responses). Tracey Ramsey and Karine Trudel wanted guarantees on softwood industry supports (Carr: We announced $867 million in aid). Kevin Sorenon and Jacques Gourde concern trolled about the Ethics Commissioner appointment (Chagger: We have an open, transparent and merit-based process), and Candice Bergen accused the head of ACOA of being a Liberal partisan (Bains: He’s well-respected and has extensive experience). Randall Garrison demanded an investigation of military cooperation with Iraq (Rioux: Investigations are constantly being done to ensure international regulations are followed), and Matthew Dubé asked about fixes to the no-fly list (Holland: The committee just table their recommendations).

Round three saw questions on the interim Super Hornet purchase (or not), that particular Chinese consular case, the use of French in the federal public service, the parliamentary security service labour dispute, softwood lumber, judicial vacancies, the autism partnership vote, calls to reopen the constitution for Quebec, and how terribly hard done by Quebec is.

Overall, it was a terrible dull and repetitive day, and the line of questioning just kept going and going without any real sense of reality to them. Why? Because it all seemed to be based a lot on extrapolation and disingenuous readings of quotes rather than actual substantive concerns. Is it a problem that Meilleur is a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister? To an extent, yes, but mostly because her time there was quite recent. Did she meet with Gerald Butts and Katie Telford? Yes, but that was all she’s quoted as having done, not about the substance of those discussions, and nothing that Mélanie Joly has said actually contradicts this, despite the fact that both opposition parties think that this is some kind of gotcha or misleading or parliament. Add to that, trying to make a case of the thin gruel that was the Globe and Mail story that said that those two staffers in Joly’s office didn’t actually take part in the selection process is again stretching things out an awful lot. In other words, there isn’t even circumstantial evidence about abuse of process here, and that’s not even getting to the very tired and wrong-headed questions about the Ethics Commissioner appointment process because the legislated criteria for that job is that it’s a former judge they’re looking for. Trying to insinuate that there are all that many former judges who are top Liberal donors is beyond absurd. I get that QP is supposed to be performative, but this strains the bounds of credulity and my patience. And sadly, it’s only going to get worse the closer it gets to the summer break.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Julie Dzerowicz for a white button-up top with a tailored dark grey jacket and black skirt, and to James Bezan for a black suit with a white shirt with a subtle grid pattern and a purple tartan tie and solid purple pocket square. Style citations go out to Frank Baylis for a light grey suit with a lemon yellow shirt and tie, and to Ginette Petitpas Taylor for that short-sleeved peach pebble-patterned top with the black continental tie that she needs to burn.

3 thoughts on “QP: More Meilleur, more problems”

  1. Upon further reflection and some research I have come to the conclusion that Canadians couldn’t care less about what the opposition says in QP. It is an act for those in the Ottawa bubble and grist for political junkies. Looking back on the ten years of the Harper follies, they weren’t turfed because of anything said in QP. They spent money like flowing flood water and caused their downfall because of their lack of policy. Nice outfits for CSPAN TV though and we will soon get sick of that perpetual grin.

  2. I always enjoy reading your column on QP though I realize most CDNs don’t have a clue what is happening in Parliament. The questions from the Opposition sound more and more ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Ottawa could be on Mars from where I sit in PEI.

Comments are closed.