QP: Competing moral indignation

Posted on by

In ten years of covering Parliament Hill, I have never seen a prime minister attend Question Period four days in a row in a single week, and yet here we are today. Andrew Scheer, however, was absent. Pierre Poilievre led off, and claimed that Trudeau was pretending to be tough in NAFTA talks while giving Trump cheap oil and letting him get away with lowering taxes and taking Canadian jobs. Trudeau responded with some pabulum that they have seen high growth and record low unemployment. Poilievre went another two rounds of the same, getting more intense in his rhetoric, and Trudeau responding with greater bombast in return. John Brassard was up next, decrying that convicted murderer getting veterans’ benefits while not serving, to which Trudeau gave soaring rhetoric about veterans’ families serving with them, but not commenting on that case. Brassard demanded that benefits be stripped, and Trudeau accused them of stooping low to play politics and refusing to answer further. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, decrying the millions spent by the Infrastructure Bank while not funding projects. Trudeau responded that they were investing in communities for the long-term, and accused the NDP of choosing the Conservative path of cuts to balance the budgets. Caron went a second round, and Trudeau reiterated the great things about infrastructure. Brigitte Sansoucy went for another round two rounds of the same question, got the same answer from Trudeau both times.

Round two, and Richard Martel railed another the purchase of used Australian jets, claiming it was driving away pilots (Sajjan: We are giving our forces the equipment they need), Pierre Paul-Hus, Bob Saroya and Michelle Rempel railed about irregular border crossers (Lebouthillier: We are using evidence while you are instilling fear; Blair: The crossers with American citizenship are infants and toddlers), and Rempel returned to the question of the murderer getting veterans benefits (O’Regan: I can’t get into the case, and I’ve asked the department to give me a better understanding of how the decision was made). Romeo Saganash disputed the characterisation of the Trans Mountain consultations with First Nations (Lefebvre: We take the appeal decision seriously), and Charlie Angus railed about the legal challenge against St. Anne’s survivors (Bennett: There are cases that are difficult to settle, and the attacks on the court make this case harder). Todd Doherty and Jacques Gourde demanded Dominic LeBlanc’s resignation (Lebouthillier: You have short memories about your own ethical lapses), and Rosemarie Falk and Harold Albrect worried about carbon taxes — mischaracterising the trade-exposed industry regulations (Fraser: Even Harper’s former policy director put out a report saying Canadians will be better off). Nathan Cullen railed about faulty pipeline parts not being reported to the NEB (Lefebvre: We put in tougher rules in 2016), and Alexandre Boulerice railed about the Conservatives demanding that Energy East be resurrected (Lefebvre: Trans Canada made an operational decision).

Round three saw questions on the convicted murderer getting benefits (O’Regan: Same answer; Monsef: We have invested in preventing violence against women; Trudeau: The political torque around this incident is disgusting), arms sales to Saudi Arabia (Leslie: We are committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system), a G7 hotel not being paid (Qualtrough: I’ll look into this and get back to you), small businesses (Lametti: We have tailored measures to help them), Muskrat Falls (Lefebvre: We will work with provinces to ensure that projects move ahead), and the Kashechewan relocation (Trudeau, with script: We continue to collaborate with the community on their priorities, and the work is ongoing, and a site feasibility study is currently underway).

Overall, it was a punchy day, with some competing moral outrage from both sides. The Conservatives started with a couple of questions on the issue of the convicted murderer getting veterans benefits during the leaders’ round, but Michelle Rempel decided she could make more hay of it in the second round, and by the third round, it became the dominant issue, right to the point where they were wildly grabbing what indignation they could, up to and including trying to wedge it into a violence against women context — which is what set Trudeau off and prompted him to stand back up to denounce the questions, while Seamus O’Regan was losing his cool as well. Not that the Liberals didn’t offer their own moral indignation around the questions of irregular border crossers that have US citizenship, pointing out that they are infants and toddlers who were born in the US and Bill Blair essentially accused the Conservatives of wanting to separate children from their parents. So there’s that. I also found it particularly odd that Diane Lebouthillier was put forward as the partisan pugilist of the day, not just on French questions but English ones as well (still answering in French). It was something we don’t often see, and that she has taken on the role of bare-knuckle brawler (figuratively speaking) is exceeding curious.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Karen McCrimmon for a white collared shirt with black pinstripes and a black suit, and to Justin Trudeau for a tailored black suit with a crisp white shirt and a dark purple tie. Style citations go out to Colin Carrie for a black jacket, faded cranberry shirt, grey and maroon checked tie and faded jeans, and to Karine Trudel for a black top with bright florals across the font panel with black slacks.

One thought on “QP: Competing moral indignation”

  1. Ok I see its routine. Trudeau. I guess he had nothing else to do today and did not want to take a personal day off. I’m a new subscriber here. I life it I been observing the Hill since trudeau papa. 1965. I was 13

Comments are closed.