QP: Deliberately obtuse demands

Posted on by

On a rainy Thursday in the Nation’s Capital, the Prime Minister was away, but the rest of the leaders were present. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and raised the Ethics Commissioner’s statement that “less than five” ministers had indirectly-held assets. Bill Morneau rose, accused Scheer of having trouble with numbers, and assured him that they had engaged with the Commissioner. Scheer again demanded names, and Morneau noted that he is aware that the attacks aren’t personal but just a game, which the finances of the country are not. Scheer insisted that this wasn’t a game, but Morneau insisted that Scheer was wrong and knew he was wrong — before he listed how many children got benefits in Scheer’s riding. Scheer demanded to know how he was wrong, and listed disingenuous accusations, to which Morneau said that Scheer was wrong because he disclosed all of his assets. Scheer said that couldn’t be the case if Morneau was fined $200, and Morneau reiterated that Scheer was wrong, and the fine was related to an administrative error while he disclosed his assets. For the NDP, Guy Caron led off by raising the flaws in the Access to Information amendment bill that the Information Commissioner identified. Scott Brison took this one, accusing the NDP of opposing proactive disclosure. Nathan Cullen was up next to demand changes to the bill in his usual sanctimonious tone, and Brison said that he would support and amendment that would require departments to get clearance from the Information Commissioner before refusing any requests related to Indigenous peoples. Cullen got back up with a rambling screed about upholding ethics standards, to which Morneau stood up to reiterate that they work with the Ethics Commissioner. Caron got back up, and repeated the list of alleged ethical failings of the government in French, not that Morneau’s answer changed.

Round two, and Alain Rayes, Lisa Raitt, and Peter Kent returned to the Morneau disclosures and the “up to five” other ministers (Morneau: We worked with the Commissioner, we’ve stated that there were two that were fully disclosed, and we are taking families in Canada seriously). Hélène Laverdière demanded amendments to the small arms trade bill in both official languages (Freeland: Like all regulations, Canadians will be consulted in their development). John Brassard, Sylvie Boucher, and Pierre Poilievre returned to Morneau’s disclosures (Morneau: Canadians are seeing the good work we’re doing on the economy). Anne Quach railed that there was less spending on youth programs (Schiefke: We are proud of our investments like historic sums in summer jobs and bursaries), and Charlie Angus demanded increased First Nations child welfare funding (Philpott: We are meeting with all partners to solve this crisis).

Round three saw questions on Access to Information reform (Brison: We are giving the Commissioner order-making powers), Morneau’s disclosures, outdoor marijuana growers (Blair: Health Canada administers the program), coastal debris legislation, affordable housing (Vaughan: We have committed to a 10-year national housing strategy), Parks Canada collecting artefacts not currently on display (Wilkinson: Much of the collection currently under threat for lack of proper storage), taxing marijuana, and a possible challenge of Quebec’s Bill 62.

Overall, there was a bit of promise as there almost, almost, looked to be some genuine back-and-forth between Andrew Scheer and Bill Morneau, before it all devolved to howling inanities. On the one hand, there was some actual back-and-forth that managed to do away with the scripts, not only in some of how Scheer was able to formulate his supplemental questions to feed off of Morneau’s responses, and Morneau himself was varying his answers enough that it was a little more than bland pabulum, offering direct counters to several of the questions. In the later rounds, they pulled the scripts from other backbenchers and gave Pierre Poilievre free reign to go after Morneau for his previous responses, more or less off-the-cuff, and that was encouraging. But the less encouraging aspect was the fact that it was still this same deliberate obtuseness with the line of questioning, where answers had already been given by the Prime Ministers earlier in the week. Trying to focus in on Mary Dawson’s office saying that “less than five” ministers held assets indirectly in an attempt not to name names, there was an attempt to paint the government as being secretive and hiding assets when Trudeau himself stated that it referred to Morneau and Jody Wilson-Raybould, who had already divested those shares. But no, the Conservatives kept at it. And it’s so, so tiresome. Add to that, when Morneau tried to hit back and accuse them of being unable to count, the Conservatives then started to whine that he was saying that female MPs can’t do math, which is not what he said, and which is just frustrating for anyone watching. This whole issue is beyond exhausted, but torquing facts and presenting them in a wholly disingenuous matter to try and take out the finance minister is the uglier side of politics. Real issues continue to be ignored while this farce plays out, and I would hope that this whole issue can be put to bed.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Shannon Stubbs for a dark blue dress with a black jacket, and to Pablo Rodriguez for a dark three three-piece suit with a white shirt and dark purple tie. Style citations go out to Ken McDonald for a medium blue jacket with a pink shirt and a cream and black striped tie, and to Anju Dhillon for a black floral top with a magenta jacket.