All of the leaders were present today, for what promised to be a lot of back and forth over the libel suit. Andrew Scheer led off, and he dared Justin Trudeau to go ahead with the suit. Trudeau picked up a script to say that this was the party of Stephen Harper, that they backed down when threatened over statements about Navdeep Bains, and this was more misleading by the Conservatives. Scheer repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Trudeau but in French. Scheer demanded court proceedings commence, and Trudeau first said that Scheer wouldn’t denounce white supremacists, and raised Senator Housakos’ comments in committee saying he didn’t think it was a problem. Scheer dismissed this as a smear tactic, and stated that he always denounced white supremacists (possibly saying those actual words for the first time). From there, Trudeau went on a tear about Scheer misleading Canadians and pivoted to the environment, to which Scheer demanded Trudeau go on the record in court, and Trudeau kept on about the Conservatives’ lack of a plan. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and said that the OECD was watching Canada on the SNC-Lavalin file and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau reminded him that the justice committee was master of its own destiny and he ensured everything was public. Singh tried again in French, got the same answer, and then Singh railed in French about Loblaws getting climate funds. Trudeau reminded him that the private sector has a role to play in fighting climate change and the government would partner with them, and when Singh tried again in English, and Trudeau said the problem with the NDP was that they were all talk, while they were taking action.
Playing politics with racism, which impacts people on a daily basis is, disgusting and wrong. What just happened in the @OurCommons is shameful.
— Celina Caesar (like the salad)-Chavannes (sh-van) (@iamcelinacc) April 10, 2019
Round two, and Scheer got back up to taunt Trudeau about the libel suit, insinuating that Trudeau would perjure himself on the stand (Trudeau: You have a history of falsehoods, like not telling Canadians about climate rebate; You keep desperately avoid talking about the economy; We will never apologise for fighting for jobs; investing in jobs and people is better than the austerity of the Conservatives). Tracey Ramsey demanded a public inquiry again (Trudeau: The Justice Committe heard all kinds of testimony thanks to my waiving confidences). Lisa Raitt and Alain Rayes demanded Trudeau’s statement of claim for the libel suit (Trudeau: The leader of the opposition has doubled down on his misleading statements while he avoids talking about the issues of Canadians). Georgina Jolibois demanded changes to the Indian Act that discriminated against First Nations women (Trudeau: We have taken tangible strides forward, but this is done in partnership with Indigenous communities, and we need to many any changes based on their input, not impose our own), and Brigitte Sansoucy railed about the Loblaws partnership (Trudeau: The fight against climate change means private sectors needs to do its part, which is why we have programs available for them).
Scheer keeps insisting that Trudeau will set the court date for the libel case.
That’s not how it works. #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 10, 2019
On a backbench suck-up question on the budget provision around beer and alcohol sales, the Conservatives get up and applaud Dan Albas. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 10, 2019
Round three saw questions on Loblaws (Trudeau: You mentioned transportation, so here’s what we’re doing), some unctuous sanctimony (Trudeau: We lowered taxes on the middle class, gave the Canada Child Benefit, and you voted against those measures), the vacation with the Aga Khan (Trudeau: We respect the independence of the RCMP and don’t comment on their security measures; This is a desperate reach because you have no plan on the economy or the environment), extending the Mali mission for several months (Trudeau: We’re proud of our troops on the mission, but there will always be gaps in missions), a border crossing with an unsafe ferry (Trudeau: I will follow up on this issue), if the RCMP has asked him about the Double-Hyphen Affair (Trudeau: No), the annexation of Palestinian Territories by Israel (Trudeau: These settlements are illegitimate and we want to help find a two-state solution), and Quebec’s “secularism” law (Trudeau: We should never discriminate against any citizen based on religion and we have to defend the rights of all Canadians).
Apparently the CEO of SNC-Lavalin is a “personal friend” of the PM, so says Rachael Harder.
That’s news to the rest of us. #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 10, 2019
Overall, it was not as bad as yesterday, and I had previously assumed that we’d see the whole QP taken up by Scheer looking tough, but that was not the case. Part of the calculation was probably the news story out this morning about the RCMP planning around the prime minister’s vacation with the Aga Khan, since they wanted to bring that back to the fore, but there was no actual substance to it. As well, the Loblaws questions were a bit much, but Trudeau could have done a much better job of explaining the programme than he did (though, to his credit, it wasn’t entirely platitude pabulum as he so often delivers). He did get Scheer to actually name white supremacists in his denunciation, possibly for the first time ever, but yeah, this is but a preview of the kinds of things he plans to fight the election on. This having been said, I was expecting Trudeau to say something about going ahead with the statement of claim in the libel suit, but then again, that may simply be a question of his lawyer’s logistics (why bill the hours to write it if the expectation was that Scheer would back down and apologise rather than double down and spout a bunch of nonsense about parliamentary privilege?) I’m sure we’ll see some developments in the days ahead, not that there will be any real action on this before the election.
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Navdeep Bains for a navy suit, white shirt and orange turban and tie, and to Chrystia Freeland for a short-sleeved fuchsia dress. Style citations go out to Karina Gould for a grey dress under a brown knit poncho with a pink scarf, and to Angelo Iacono for a a light grey jacket with black slacks, a shite shirt, and a dark blue tie. Dishonourable mention goes out to Martin Shields for a black suit and shirt with a yellow tie and pocket square. Special mention goes out to Stephanie Kusie for a leopard print dress.
Typo: “…was THE party of Stephen Harper…”
Spelling: “…Trudeau would purger himself on the stand…” It’s “perjure”, though your version has some interesting associated imagery.
Thanks for catching these.
NP. But it’s perjure.
Serious question: I tried to find previous columns on the Reform Act, but nothing came up. What makes you feel it is garbage? Isn’t it at least a step in the direction of providing more power to MPs?
Here’s one column I wrote on it at the time:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/dale-smith-chongs-reform-act-is-actively-toxic-to-canadian-democracy
It doesn’t actually provide more power to MPs, because they already have all the power they need. All this does is limit that power under the guise of strengthening it, and further insulates leaders under the guise of making them more accountable. It’s a complete sham, a garbage bill that got passed out of sentimentality.