QP: Concerns about the scope of the inquiry

Despite the fact that he gave a press conference outside of the Chamber minutes before QP, the prime minister was not present, nor were any of the other leaders. Luc Berthold led off, and in French, he accused the government of writing the Emergencies Act inquiry’s findings before it even began. Chrystia Freeland slowly read some talking points about the blockades and occupation, and said they look forward to the inquiry report. Berthold again accused the government of fixing the report in their favour, and Freeland read that the measures were targeted and limited, and that they had a duty to protect Canadians and the economy, which they met. Berthold then switched to the torqued story on the RCMP memo and demanded a new investigation, which Freeland slowly and patiently read that the opposition was bringing up a six-year-old matter that has been settled. James Bezan took over in English to demand a new RCMP investigation, and Freeland again slowly read the same talking points in English. Bezan selectively quoted the RCMP memo, without quoting that they concluded there was no evidence, and Freeland responded that Canadians are instead demanding action on climate change, to build more house, and to support Ukraine.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that a new committee was being set up to deal with the Winnipeg Lab documents without the consent of two opposition parties, and Freeland read that they came up with a reasonable solution, and that they would move ahead with this committee. Therrien repeated his complaint, and Freeland repeated her answer.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and said that Quebeckers demand universal pharmacare—erm, which would be an issue of provincial jurisdiction—and demanded a federal solution. Freeland read that they announced an agreement with PEI last August as a first step, but they were continuing the work. Matthew Green raised the plan to lift the federal sickness benefit and demanded the enactment of ten paid sick days (in federally-regulated workplaces, surely). Freeland praised working with unions and their legislation to make those sick days happen.

Round two, and Dane Lloyd demanded to know of the existence of evidence of the need for the Emergencies Act (Mendicino: Did you not see what happened in January and February? We acted on police advice), Pierre Paul-Hus insisted the emergency measures were unnecessary and that they didn’t listen to provinces who opposed them (Mendicino: We listened to police advice, and it worked), Glen Motz falsely accused the government of stripping away Charter rights without justification (Mendicino: We heard from Canadians who were affected by the illegal occupation), and Larry Brock demanded that the prime minister admit he’s not above the law (Lamoureux: This is political theatre and the Conservatives are solely focused on character assassination).

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay demanded compensation for businesses affected by sanctions on Russia (Virani: Everyone agrees with the need for these sanctions and we are looking into the issue of fertiliser), Yves Perron demanded that imports ordered before the invasion not be subject to the tariffs (Bibeau: We are studying our options; Virani: We need to maintain tariffs on the Russian government to stand with Ukraine).

Stephanie Kusie delivered a one-woman play on the post-facto trade data showed that there wasn’t any particular damage from the border blockade (Mendicino: There is a difference between statistics and the effect of people on the ground at the time), Melissa Lantsman drew a comparison between the use of the Emergencies Act for the occupations and blockades but not on Indigenous protesters who blockaded railways (Mendicino: Your party has your heads in the sand when it comes to the effect of these occupations).

Heather McPherson noted that a Russian oligarch was able to get his money out of Canada because the government was too slow on sanctions (Joly: We are using sanctions to put pressure on the Russian regime, and we are proposing new measures to seize and forfeit their assets), and Daniel Blaikie complained that oil companies were getting government dollars (Guilbeault: Emissions are going down, and fossil fuel subsidies are ending).

Round three saw questions on the housing savings account (Hussen: You should talk with your colleagues who have a myriad of other beliefs on housing policies), inflation hitting the poorest  Canadians (Freeland: One might think the Conservatives are criticising a fictional budget as opposed to the one in front of them), diesel costs (Freeland: Same answer), inflation and interest rates (Freeland: Federal benefits are indexed to inflation), Service Canada allegedly abandoning victims of fraud (Gould: We are working to make sure everyone gets their benefits when they need it, and to fight fraud), support for Canadian energy workers (O’Regan: We will not move without the support of oil and gas workers in this country), the environment commissioner’s report on carbon pricing (Guilbeault: Eight out of ten families get more back than they spend and we are working with provinces to recycle the rest of the revenues), government spending on social media influencers (Bittle: We will ask online platforms to contribute to Canadian culture), a passport office failure (Gould: We are experiencing an unprecedented surge of volumes and we are working around the clock to meet the need), a cut in shrimp quotas (Murray: We need viable and abundant stocks, and some zones remain critical), the MSM blood donation deferral period not going far enough (Duclos: We are grateful to activists and scientists, and we will work together going forward), and the delays in processing immigration files (Fraser: We have allocated $85 million to invest in processing and the backlog is shrinking).

Overall, the day was kind of all over the place, both in terms of the attacks, and the inability to land an answer either. Chrystia Freeland’s particular style of answering questions today was a very strange slow and deliberate style, in both French and English, which was a little unusual considering how often MPs on both sides tend to rush through their allotted 35 seconds. And as usual, there wasn’t a lot of actual detail in any of the responses or even effective counters. You might think that a member of the government actually note that the RCMP memo said there was no evidence to pursue a criminal charge and that the Conservatives are just selectively reading it, but no, they couldn’t do that, apparently. They could also point out that the Conservatives seem to be demanding wage and price controls when it comes to inflation, but they haven’t done that either.

I also have to give a particular note of curiosity when it comes to the complaints that Canadians are being impacted by the sanctions against Russia. The thing with sanctions is that they hurt both sides—that’s the point, and how you know they’re going to be effective. Yes, it’s a problem for our farmers, but asking the government to lift tariffs just because the fertilizer was ordered before Russia invaded Ukraine doesn’t change the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine and is committing crimes against humanity. It’s particular tone deaf to pretend otherwise, and perhaps the government needs to make this point more forcefully when responding to these questions.

Sartorial speaking, snaps go out to Greg Fergus for a light blue suit with a white shirt and a navy bow-tie, and to Stephanie Kusie for a short-sleeved navy dress. Style citations go out to Lisa Hepfner for a white blouse with black, gold and red florals, and to Kevin Waugh for a chocolate brown jacket with a white shirt, black slacks, and a maroon and black striped tie.

One thought on “QP: Concerns about the scope of the inquiry

  1. The Liberals for some unknown reason will just never step up to the plate and really call out the Cons who have it seems free reign to promulgate their lies and innuendos because they know they will never get pushback. This pussywillow stuff has got to end. Doesn’t anybody in the Lib ranks bring this up? It drives me and many Liberals crazy. The Housing Minister puts some bite in his rejoinders. Can’t really say anyone else does. As for Ms Freeland, I’ve had quite enough of her reticence to give hell to those ignorant Cons who don’t know their jurisdictions and are sops to their vile interim leader, who, if I look at her prissy face again I will surely hurl.

Comments are closed.