QP: An unequivocal clarification

While everyone’s attention was on the election south of the border, things got underway in the House of Commons for our own (superior) system of democracy. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern and quoted Pierre Elliott Trudeau about the importance of free speech, to which Justin Trudeau rebutted that Canada always stands up for freedom of expression. O’Toole demanded to know if the PM stands up for freedom of speech, and Trudeau responded that nothing justifies violence or terrorism. O’Toole tried again, and Trudeau was even more forceful in his defence of free speech than the previous two times, without any of the equivocation that was being called out after this comments last week. O’Toole switched to French and recounted how the French president called the Quebec premier, and chided Trudeau on not getting a similar call, to which Trudeau repeated that they always stand up for free speech and will stand against terrorism and violence. O’Toole again brought up Trudeau’s father, and Trudeau reiterated for the fifth time that they unequivocally defend free expression and denounce terrorism. Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc and he carried on with the same question, accusing Trudeau of twisting himself into knots over it, to which Trudeau again reiterated that they will always defend freedom of expression.  Blanchet was not mollified, and they went for another round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next and in French, asked about flu vaccine supplies — orders for which is once again a provincial responsibility. Trudeau responded that they ordered more than usual, and it was good that more people were getting it. Singh tried again in English, to which Trudeau reiterated that they preordered more than usual, and that they would work with the provinces to get more.

Round two, and Pat Kelly worried about restaurant failures (Ng: Nothing is more important for us to get supports out to businesses, so support our bill; Fraser: I can arrange a briefing for you), Philip Lawrence worried about small businesses facing audits for supports (Lebouthillier: We acted quickly to help Canadians, and CRA launched the programme to audit to ensure compliance; Fraser: Benefits are important), and Pierre Poilievre railed about the unemployment rate without putting it in any context (Fraser: Our recovery from job losses has been faster than comparator countries and you are cherry-picking data). Rhéal Fortin returned to the issue of judicial appointments (Lametti: We came up with a clear and transparent system to get qualified candidates; My recommendations have never been blocked by PMO). Bernard Généroux complained a company in his riding can’t get the wage subsidy because it changed hands on the wrong date (Joly: We can come up with a solution if you want to bring it up with me), Joël Godin worried about restaurants (Joly: We have programmes to help), Karen Vecchio worried about the same (Fraser: We stepped up with support programmes more than any government in the past), and women entrepreneurs (Monsef: No other country has taken an intersectional gender-based analysis to our supports). Heather McPherson worried about Facebook lobbying (Guilbeault: Who would want to work for Facebook when you would work for the ministry of heritage?), and Alexandre Boulerice complained about the new Broadcasting Act changes (Guilbeault: Francophone organisations welcomed this bill because it forces web giants to invest in Canadian productions).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1323726408875585536

Round three saw questions on judicial appointments (Lametti: We get the best candidates and the most diverse bench), a tweet from Veterans Affairs with errors in French grammar (MacAulay: I will evaluate this situation), the flag not being half-masted for one of the terror victims in France (Champagne: Don’t politicise this), grocery oligopolies (Bibeau: We are following the situation but we have to work with the provinces on this), the trucking industry (Garneau: We have reached out to support them during this pandemic), Communist China (Champagne: We have been stepping up with our allies to stand up for rights and freedoms), disengaging from work because of the pandemic (Tassi: We have worked hard with labour to ensure safe workplaces and access to benefits), transportation of dangerous goods (Garneau: We are making progress but we still have more to do), disability benefits (Qualtrough: It took too long but we are committed it won’t happen again), Bill Morneau being rich (Champagne: It’s important to have Canadians leading international organisations), and the commercial rent subsidy (Fraser: It’ll help businesses stay afloat).

Overall, it was a fairly mediocre day, and it was good to see that Trudeau was a bit more unequivocal in his defence of freedom of expression today, and not get caught up in trying to straddle a fence on the issue. We got more questions on the judicial appointments file, but they were slightly less hysterical than they were yesterday, for what it matters. Singh’s question on shortages of flu vaccine should largely be directed to the provinces, where it is acknowledged that some of them – most especially the Ford government in Ontario – didn’t order enough, and Trudeau was a bit cagey in his talk of “working with the provinces” rather than outright pointing fingers, which is a habit I find annoying because it means that those premiers tend to avoid accountability. I would also like to once again register my annoyance with Pierre Poilievre constantly bringing up the unemployment rate as if it were a useful comparative metric with other countries, except it’s not because each country’s statistical agency measures it differently. StatsCan often notes that if American methodology were applied to the Canadian rate, it would be lower than how they report it, which makes Poilievre’s assertions all the more disingenuous. I will note that Sean Fraser did call him out for cherry-picking the data, which doesn’t happen nearly enough, and that usually the response is to pivot to happy-clappy good news talking points instead. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and it’s good to see that every now and again the government is willing to do so, however rare that may be.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Blake Richards for a blue suit with a lighter blue shirt and dark purple tie, and to Joyce Murray for a tailored white jacket with a black v-necked dress. Style citations go out to Claude DeBellefeuille for a black thick-strapped dress with bright florals over a brown sweater, and to Alex Ruff for a taupe jacket with dark brown slacks, a pale pink shirt and a grey striped tie.

2 thoughts on “QP: An unequivocal clarification

  1. That’s too bad. I don’t think freedom of expression should be unequivocal. Hate speech needs to be punished more vigorously than it is in Canada. Angela Merkel made the same statement more or less and was lauded for it. But then, Germany is acutely aware of what happens when the worst bad faith actors are given an unlimited leash to spew hatred in the name of “the marketplace of ideas.” O’Toole and Blanchet jumping on this issue like bosom buddies is a sickening reminder of the white supremacy that Canada has yet to confront. Shame on them both for again pouncing on Pierre to shame the son.

  2. Maybe I missed it, but I’m surprised that there has been nothing in “Routine Proceedings” about David Pugliese’s 02 Nov 2020 story in the Ottawa Citizen, “Canadian military wants to establish new organization to use propaganda, other techniques to influence Canadians.” This new piece from Pugliese is a big advance on his reporting in July about the military’s pandemic propaganda plans, to which CDS Vance put a stop. The Canadian Forces’ bigger plan is, unfortunately, still proceeding, as the Citizen reports.

    iPolitics had this useful summary: “The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that the Canadian Forces wants to establish a new organization that will use propaganda and other techniques to try to influence Canadians. The new Defence Strategic Communication group will advance ‘national interests by using defence activities to influence the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of audiences,’ according to a document dated October 2020 that the newspaper obtained. The document is the end result of what Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance has called the ‘weaponization’ of the military’s public affairs branch.”

    In a liberal democracy, such actions by the military against citizens of its own country should be ringing alarm bells. I’d like to think that Canadians care, but maybe we have been so anesthetized by the appalling state of affairs in Trump’s America that we think it can’t happen here.

Comments are closed.