QP: Having confidence in the Ethics Commissioner

Posted on by

While Bill Morneau was off in New Brunswick to talk tax changes, Justin Trudeau was present for the first time this week, so it was guaranteed to be a gong show. After a moment of silence, Andrew Scheer, led off, mini-lectern on desk, lamenting that Morneau still “controlled” millions of dollars of his own wealth (which I’m not sure is an accurate portrayal of the situation). Trudeau reminded him that Morneau had followed the Ethics Commissioner’s advice, and had additionally just sent her a letter to see if there was anything he could do to go above and beyond her request. After another round of the same in French, Scheer read a portion of Morneau’s mandate letter and demanded to know when Trudeau knew that he was in a conflict of interest. Trudeau reiterated his previous response, calling it the kind of integrity that Canadians expect. Scheer accused Morneau of attacking small businesses while protecting his own wealth. Trudeau returned to questions of tax fairness, and when Scheer pressed, Trudeau produced a copy of the Liberal campaign platform and read that it was a promise made then that they kept. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, and he too pressed on Morneau’s shares, and Trudeau reiterated that Morneau worked with the Ethics Commissioner. Caron proffered the latest conspiracy theory that Morneau tabled Bill C-27 for the sole benefit of his old company, and Trudeau reiterated the Commissioner talking points. Nathan Cullen reiterated the claims in English, and Trudeau tripped up in referring to the Commissioner as the “Conflict of Ethics Commissioner,” to great uproar. Cullen tried again, and got the same answer — including the same slip-up.

Round two, and Alain Rayes, Lisa Raitt, and Candice Bergen returned to the various Morneau Shepell conspiracy theories (Trudeau: I’ve already answered this). Ruth Ellen Brosseau and Charlie Angus returned to the Bill C-27/Morneau Shepell conspiracy theory (Trudeau: We have confidence in the Ethics Commissioner). Pierre Poilievre kept going after Morneau’s shares (Trudeau: ibid.; Look how great the economy is doing). Anne Quach and Wayne Steski worried that Morneau Shepell has been given a role with the Sears bankruptcy (Trudeau: I expected this cynicism from the Conservatives but not from you; Sears pensions are held in trust, and Service Canada is working with them).

Round three saw questions on the various Morneau Shepell conspiracy theories, Supply Management (Trudeau: We value it more than some Conservatives), the conduct at the MMIW inquiry (Trudeau: We have moved forward on this process), the C Series sale (Trudeau: We expect repayment of the loans, and we expect jobs will be protected until 2041 or beyond), forthcoming accessibility legislation (Trudeau: Economic challenges will be part of the legislation), and Bill 62 in Quebec (Trudeau: We will defend the Charter).

Overall, it was as much of a gong show as was anticipate, with the usual pattern of repeating the very same question ad nauseam in order to try and make a point, while Trudeau gave as direct an answer as he could under the circumstances – that they engaged the Ethics Commissioner from the very beginning and followed her advice – before he started to get just a bit punchy from time to time. Where Andrew Scheer did yesterday, it was Peter Kent’s turn to get cute about Morneau not being present to answer questions without him actually saying that he wasn’t there, and perhaps the Speaker needs to remind them yet again that they cannot do indirectly what they can’t do directly. Because seriously – it’s ridiculous. And if the repetition wasn’t enough, it was the sanctimony coming from the likes of Nathan Cullen that started to get pretty tiresome. We heard almost no actual issues being debated, barring one or two in the final round, and which is incredibly disappointing. Every week that this happens, I am further reminded of why this quasi-PMQ idea of Trudeau’s of taking all of the questions one day a week is just bad all around. If they’re not going to debate properly, then giving them space for shenanigans is just making the cheap theatre even worse.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Peter Schiefke for a tailored navy suit with a pale pink shirt and dark pink tie, and to Jenny Kwan for a black top and jacket with a grey skirt. Style citations go out to Bardish Chagger for a boxy dusky rose double-breasted jacket with half-sleeves and a black skirt, and to Robert-Falcon Ouellette for a medium blue suit with a white shirt and a purple striped tie.