QP: Admitting to an insincere oath

Posted on by

While the prime minister was present today, his deputy was not, for what that’s worth. Pierre Poilievre started off in French, where he blamed the federal government for causing inflation with deficit spending (false) and he misquoted Mark Carney about the nature of that inflation, and asked whom people should believe—the current leader or the future one. Justin Trudeau listed some of the global causes for inflation (not mentioning that food price inflation is largely climate-driven), but turned this into a pitch for their dental care and rental supports. Poilievre switched to English to give his facile understanding of how the war in Ukraine affects inflation in Canada, misquoted Carney, and wanted the government to take responsibility for inflation in Canada. Trudeau reiterated that the Conservatives don’t want to help with dental care or rental supports. Poilievre doubled down on his misquote of Carney, calling him the future Liberal leader, and Trudeau repeated his same response. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was the one who bid up inflation by giving people too much access to easy cash to inflate the housing market (erm…), and Trudeau trotted out his tired “we had Canadians’ backs” line (which really, really needs to be retired) and pointed out that this brought our economy back sooner, and then demanded support for dental and rental. Poilievre then listed a bunch of non sequiturs to blame the deficits on, and Trudeau said that the lesson from the pandemic was that Canadians support one another and we came out ahead as a result, and pitched dental and rental supports one last time.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and trolled for support on his Supply Day motion about severing ties with the “British” Crown (which Canada hasn’t been under since 1931). Trudeau said that of all topics the Bloc could have chosen, they decided to try and open the the Constitution. Blanchet tried to call it a choice between a British monarch and the people or democracy, and Trudeau pointed out that Blanchet swore an oath “to the British Crown” (No! He swore an oath to the Canadian Crown!), and reiterated that there are more important things to talk about.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP and in French, blamed the prime minister for deaths in hospitals for lack of resources (never mind this is the fault entirely of the premiers). Trudeau reminded him that they increased transfers above the usual ones during the pandemic, and they are working with premiers when it comes to future transfers. Singh switched to English to demand that GST be removed from home heating (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy), and Trudeau stated that they have other supports for people and that the climate rebates give more money back to most households.

Round two, and Jasraj Hallan did not believe Freeland’s newfound fiscal disciple (Bendayan: Our deficit is practically zero, and we are disciplined; Your leader’s statement that out trading partners are led by “dumb governments” risks our relationships), Shannon Stubbs demanded the carbon price be removed from home heating (Guilbeault: Did you even look at the communities ravaged by Hurricane Fiona? We need to protect them from climate change; You can on a carbon price, and were you lying then or are you lying now?), and Pierre Paul-Hus accused the Liberals of having friction in their Cabinet because of Freeland’s recent directive (Bendayan: We have been fiscally responsible throughout) and demanded no increase in carbon prices (Guilbeault: The federal price does not apply in Quebec because they have cap-and-trade).

Blanchet got back up to say that his oath was not sincere, because is was compelled, and that his only allegiance is to the people of Quebec (Rodriguez: If your oath was insincere, how many other things have you said that are insincere), Jean-Denis Garon complained that Quebec doesn’t get as much from the dental benefit—because they already have an existing provincial benefit (Duclos: There will be additional support for preventative care).

Stephen Ellis tried to gin up the (bogus) accusations of interference in the investigation in the Nova Scotia mass shooting (Blair: There was no interference), and Raquel Dancho and Gérard Deltell tried the same (Blair: You are free to engage in any speculation or fabrication you like).

Lori Idlout demanded home care in Nunavut (Vandal: This is one of many priorities and are working on with the territorial government and Inuit rights-holders), and Don Davies again blamed the federal government for the failures of provincial governments on healthcare (Duclos: We are working with the premiers).

Round three saw questions on government spending (Bendayan: We proposed affordability measures for Canadians that you opposed; Champagne: We will take no advice from the Conservatives, who advocated investing in crypto; Gould: We have been supporting Canadians; Supports like CERB and wage supports meant people could get back to work faster; Duclos: We had an exceptional supply of vaccines that saved 400,000 lives), seasonal workers in regions getting EI (Kusmierczyk: Regular benefits are still available while the new system is on the way), carbon prices (Guilbeault: You guys ran on a carbon price; Rodriguez: You unanimously supported COVID programmes), climate-related disasters and resilient infrastructure (Guilbeault: We are investing twice as much in clean tech and green energy than we are in oil and gas), and delays for student visas (Fraser: We have processed the number of study permits this year than any year previous, and have lifted the cap on the number of hours they work).

Overall, it was another day of really dumb responses to bad faith questions, and once again, there is little to no effort to countering the misinformation and disinformation that is freely being spouted by opposition parties. Hell, the prime minister even fell into the Bloc’s rhetorical trap about calling the Crown “British” when it’s been wholly Canadian since 1931. The third round saw the Conservatives trying to construct questions full of non-sequiturs about government spending that were without context or even reason, which turned into an opportunity for a line-up of Liberal ministers and parliamentary secretaries to just recite their usual pabulum talking points, which is just so tiresome. As well, the Conservatives have been testing a new walking point about “trusting the arsonist to put out the fire,” which may be clever the first time, but by the third or fourth repetition over several days is not clever, but just a poor applause line.

Meanwhile, Yves-François Blanchet has created a problem for himself by proclaiming that his oath to the Queen—which is required under the federal constitution—was insincere, and claiming he was “compelled” to swear it. This could mean that Blanchet may no longer be able to take his seat, because he is in breach of his constitutional obligations. While the Speaker said precedent is that he is not the one to determine the sincerity of the oath, it was pointed out that he admitted it was insincere—there is nothing for the Speaker to determine. It’s on the record. With that in mind, Rota says he will look into the matter. It would be a very big misstep for Blanchet if he finds himself in breach and no longer able to sit because he cited to engage in a big stunt about our constitutional monarchy. Actions have consequences.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Christine Normandin for a tailored black dress with three-quarter sleeves, and to Blake Richards for a tailored dark grey suit with a light blue shirt and a maroon tie. Style citations go out to Yves-François Blanchet for a blue jacket with a subtle check pattern over a pink shirt, grey slacks, a purple tie and a red pocket square, and to Lisa Hepfner for a black collared top with white and red florals over a black skirt.

2 thoughts on “QP: Admitting to an insincere oath”

  1. The PM is not terribly well educated, we know that from his own admission. So he mixes things up and he cannot be bothered to answer properly. Sad fact.

  2. Larry, it is not Trudeau who is not well educated but the whole “gods damned” works of them. I recall the parry and thrust of lively debate in the HOC. Those being long gone, we are left with inarticulate boors who for the sake of a transitory “point” lie and totally misrepresent every issue. Where have the members with the glibness of a cutting repost gone?
    If one of them read this, they would have to ask what a cutting repost was?
    Also every day in QP jurisdictions are mangled to suit the ignorant or could it be a studied practice of “my truth, your truthism.” Whatever is occurring in that place it doesn’t shine any good light on the institution or it minions.
    A pox upon them, I say!

Comments are closed.