Following a morning dominated by a salacious tale in the Globe and Mail, Justin Trudeau was off in the GTA (where he denied the allegations in the story), but Andrew Scheer deigned to show up to get some clips of him asking angry questions about that story. And when the time for oral questions was called, Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read the allegation in French that the government was pressuring the Attorney General over SNC-Lavalin. David Lametti got up and categorically denied any pressure was applied. Scheer asked again in English, and Lametti stood up to say the allegations were false. Scheer said that wasn’t the question, and asked again, and again Lametti repeated the response. Scheer then asked if the criminal prosecution questions came up as part of SNC lobbying, and Lametti said he wasn’t party to those meetings. Scheer read that SNC lobbied the government 14 times, and Lametti repeated that no directions were given to him or his predecessor. Guy Caron was up next, stated that SNC gave illegal donations to the Liberals in 2006, and now wanted help from the government, and Lametti repeated that the allegations were false. Caron tried again, linking this to Jody Wilson-Raybould being “fired,” and Lametti again repeated the allegations were false. Nathan Cullen got up to repeat the question in English with added sanctimony, and Lametti repeated again that he or his predecessor were not subjected to pressure. Cullen tried again, throwing everything he could manage at the topic, but got the same reply.

Round two, and Scheer got back up to ask again about the lobby meetings in French (Lametti: No pressure or directives!), whether he was approached about these criminal prosecutions before he was appointed to Cabinet (Lametti: No), and he tried to press Wilson-Raybould to confirm or deny the story — never mind that it’s improper for a former minister to answer questions (Lametti: The allegations are false), and Mark Strahl gave it one attempt as well (Lametti: Same answer). Charlie Angus asked about the mould in Cat Lake First Nation (Bennett: We are in working with the leadership to deal with this and other issues), and then he directed a question directly to O’Regan and accused him of hiding under the desk, though he wasn’t there (Vandal: We are working with their leadership). Michael Cooper, Pierre Paul-Hus, and Peter Kent returned to the SNC question (Lametti: Ibid.). Brigitte Sansoucy demanded an extension to EI sick benefits (Duclos: We have enhanced all EI benefits, but there is more work to do), and Niki Ashton asked about another First Nation with mould contamination (Vandal: Work is underway at that school right now to remediate the mould and should he finished by the end of the week).

One may wonder why @Puglaas isn't fielding these questions in the House on SNC-Lavalin and what she was asked to do. Reason is the same, I think, that this story is out: She's no longer Justice Minister. #cdnpoli

— Susan (@susandelacourt) February 7, 2019

Scheer is directing questions to Wilson-Raybould, knowing that she can’t answer as she is not in the role.
Watch for her not answering be the subject of a series of shitposts later in the day. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 7, 2019

Round three saw yet more questions on the SNC allegations (Lametti: Ibid.), pharmacare (Petitpas Taylor: We want to get this right and we need plan, which is why we have an expert panel), inter-city transportation in Saskatchewan (Beech: We take this seriously which is why we offered cost-sharing), the Prime Minister’s youth council (Schiefke: They have been working hard to set up a new youth policy), the Mark Norman case (Lametti: The Public Prosecution Service is handling this and the Crown counsel is fulfilling its disclosure obligations), oil and gas subsidies (Lightbound: We have made key investments in infrastructure, science, and reducing inequality), and Quebec making permanent residents understand French (DeCourcey: We are studying the Quebec bill).

I don’t think Mark Strahl understands how the Westminster system operates. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 7, 2019

Overall, the day was so very repetitive, but there is a bit of unpacking to do here. For starters, several of the questions were directed to Wilson-Raybould herself, knowing full well that she was not in a position to answer it. But why? Well, for starters, questions are directed to the government, not to individual ministers. Secondly, ministerial responsibility means that they answer on behalf of departments, not as individuals; Wilson-Raybould is no longer in justice, therefore you can’t direct questions to her about her time as Attorney General. The opposition knows this, but they also know that they can spin the optics of her not answering, and in the age of social media and shitposting, that accelerates the media tactic of doing this. (Note that Charlie Angus also theatrically asked a question to Seamus O’Regan’s desk, knowing he wasn’t there, and accused him of “hiding under his desk,” so this is not just a Conservative thing). At the end of QP, Nathan Cullen complained that Wilson-Raybould didn’t answer when asked direct questions, and the Speaker reminded him of the rules. But let’s not forget that this was an absolute media strategy to ask the questions repetitively (so they can “demonstrate” the government won’t answer directly – even when they do), and getting a number of different faces to ask the same question (to put over different social media channels), and to Wilson-Raybould when they know she can’t answer (so they can “demonstrate” that she’s being muzzled). I would also add that try as he might, Scheer is no prosecutor, and he didn’t come close to a Mulcair-esque performance at the height of the ClusterDuff affair.

Also a rule of QP is that Opposition cannot direct a question to a particular minister, only to the Government. So PM or appropriate minister or parl secy can respond. https://t.co/KDo7AbiA19

— B. Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) February 7, 2019

The Speaker is now warning MPs about questions over the week that did not raise matters the were not pertaining to the administrative responsibility of government, or were tantamount to personal attacks.
Conservatives immediate shout “Oh come on! Partisanship!” #QP

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 7, 2019

I would also note the the Speaker’s admonition before QP, where he both warned MPs about questions that don’t relate to the administrative responsibilities of the government (as in, those questions about his trust fund), and that many of the questions have risen to the level of personal attack and he wasn’t having any more of it, and would cut off these questions if they were asked. While I would say that this is about time, we’ll see how long it lasts.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Mélanie Joly for a tailored navy suit with a white top, and to Terry Beech for a navy suit with an off-white shirt, tartan tie and pink pocket square. Style citations go out to Erin Weir for a taupe suit with a lavender shirt and dark blue tie, and to Sylvie Boucher for a red pebble-patterned blouse with a long grey jacket with a broad windowpane pattern and houndstooth cuffs. Dishonourable mention goes out to Kate Young for a black jacket and a pale yellow top.