QP: Careful hewing to prepared lines about national security

Posted on by

The prime minister was in the Chamber for his usual Wednesday spot of proto-Prime Minister’s Questions, as were all of the other leaders, which hasn’t happened for a few weeks. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he once again returned to the Global News report that China had funnelled money to federal candidates in 2019, and wanted to know if the prime minister had gone back to CSIS to ask if there was any evidence to support such an allegation. Justin Trudeau said that he has to be very careful in answering questions about national security, and with a script in front of him, recited that Canada and its allies are regularly targeted by foreign states like China, including during election campaigns, and that his government had more steps than any other including creating an independent panel tasked with assessing the risk coming from foreign countries, and those panels confirmed that the electoral integrity was not compromised, and concluded with yes, he receives regular briefings. Poilievre switched to English, said it was interesting that he said he did get briefings, and repeated to know if he got one post Global News report on the allegations. Trudeau repeated his same response in English, word-for-word, but added at the end that all parties are briefed about elections. Poilievre said that wasn’t the question, and wanted a yes-or-no answer on a post-Global News briefing. Trudeau very slowly enunciated that in all of the briefings he received, there has never been any mention of candidates receiving money from China in either 2019 or 2021, and praised the panels once again. Poilievre wanted a yes-or-no answer on whether Trudeau asked for briefings after the Global News story, but Trudeau went on about how Poilievre, a former minister, knows the importance of respecting national security guidelines and that because Poilievre was the former minister for elevations integrity, he knows this, but also added that when Poilievre was minister, he did nothing about adding security against interference while the current government did. Poilievre was incredulous by the notion that Trudeau didn’t demand a briefing on the story, but moved on to ask if there was any electoral interference at all. Trudeau reminded him that Canada is regularly subject to some level of foreign interference, including from China, including during elections, which Poilievre would know when he was minister of elections, and noted that the two previous leaders did get briefings before, during and after the elections on foreign interference.

Yves-François Blanchet wondered at what point the interference goes from a little to a lot, and wondered about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding was interference or influence. Trudeau stated that rather than allowing partisan accusations to muddy the waters, they created a panel to precisely look at those issues in an objective and non-partisan manner. Blanchet was more specific about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding at a time a bank was trying to get approval, and Trudeau said that while the Bloc was trying to cast doubt on the integrity of our institutions, he could assure them they were not affected.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, worried about an overloaded hospital in Quebec, and accused the prime minister of sitting on his hands, and demanded the government do more like they did in the pandemic. Trudeau reminded him that they have been working with the provinces. Singh switched to English to worry about Danielle Smith’s “Sovereignty Act” and that she would use it to undermine the Canada Health Act, which proves he doesn’t know what he was talking about because the whole gods damned point of the Act is to put conditions on federal dollars. Trudeau noted that he could understand why people were concerned, but he was going to focus on getting good results for Albertans.

Round two, and Poilievre got up to misquote both Tiff Macklem and the PBO to rail about so-called “inflationary deficits” (Trudeau: You voted against supports for Canadians who need it; What he just demonstrated is a focus on austerity), he cherry-picked violent crime statistics and accused the government of trying to ban “grandpa Joe’s hunting rival” (Trudeau: We have not banned shotguns or rifles, but you are misleading Canadians), and pointed to a “fowl gun” on the list being banned (Trudeau: The Conservatives are deep in the pockets of the American gun lobby; Supposedly tough-on-crime legislation gets struck down by the courts and doesn’t make people safer, so we are being smarter on crime which doesn’t mean targeting farmers), and tried again in French (Trudeau: You keep trying to bring assault weapons back into our communities).

Blanchet tried to insist he wasn’t questioning the integrity of Canadian institutions, but the Liberal Party, raised the Uyghur genocide, and accused them of taking Chinese money (Trudeau: You are trying to undermine institutions), and tried again (Trudeau: You like to hear yourself speak, but we are subject to interference all the time, and we have taken steps to ensure the integrity of our elections).

Pierre Paul-Hus returns to the topic of hunting rifles (Trudeau: We are not targeting hunting rifles, but assault weapons; Our bill also makes investments into safety and the border), and Raquel Dancho asked the same again in English (Trudeau: Same answer; Your party’s supposed tough-on-crime measures kept getting struck down).

Singh got back up to rail about Loblaws as the cause of inflation (Trudeau: We increased corporate income taxes and have a dividend on the most profitable companies and turns that into supports), and raised the Auditor General’s report on homelessness and demanded a timeline of an Indigenous-led urban, rural and northern housing strategy (Trudeau: We are moving forward in partnership with Indigenous people on an urban Indigenous housing strategy in a comprehensive way).

Round three saw questions on interference by Beijing about any candidates or riding associations (Trudeau: I am regularly briefed about attempted interference by a number of countries, and all parties get briefings during elections), inflation (Trudeau: You voted against supports for people who need it; While you focus on attacking me, I am focused on helping Canadians), and the carbon price (Trudeau: We have a pricing system that gives most families more back than they pay; We need to protect the future while you have no plan), whether Trudeau’s riding received funds from China (Trudeau: We set up mechanisms to prevent interference and we have strong rules around funding), World AIDS Day (Trudeau: We will continue to make investments), and a global biodiversity framework (Trudeau: We will be pushing for results at the summit in Montreal).

Overall, the day felt a lot like a repeat of yesterday, with Poilievre taking up a lot more slots to keep asking the same thing over and over again, and Trudeau hewing to very careful talking points, under the rubric that he has to be careful when it comes to national security. It could mean that he has received the briefing, that he knows more about the allegations of the eleven candidates, and that CSIS and the RCMP have asked him not to say anything because it might compromise an ongoing investigation—or he might have simply been told that an investigation is ongoing and left it at that. Hard to say, but Trudeau has all-but said he won’t answer those specific questions, so Poilievre constantly asking and trying to make an issue out of it is tiresome to watch. Then again, as we’ve seen, Poilievre thinks he’s Matlock and that he’s going to get some kind of witness box confession, so that’s why he behaves the way he does.

Otherwise, Blanchet took all of the Bloc slots today, and Singh took all but one of the NDP spots (oh so generously giving Blake Desjarlais their final slot to raise a question on World AIDS Day happening tomorrow), but I will once again note that the point of these proto-PMQs is for backbenchers to ask the PM questions, not just give leaders even more opportunities than they already have. Blanchet’s insinuations don’t seem to make any particular sense given how financing laws work federally, but he and his party have been trying to make the case to restore the per-vote subsidy (because they have traditionally had a difficult time fundraising as a party), so casting as many aspersions as possible in order to present the per-vote subsidy as the only good or safe option is really a choice.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to  Dominique Vien for a black collared long top that was belted, over black slacks, with a black patterned scarf, and to Justin Trudeau for a tailored navy suit and matching tie over a crisp white shirt. Style citations go out to Chad Collins for a tan jacket with a windowpane pattern over a brown sweater, white shirt, gold-brown tie, and blue jeans, and to Marilyn Gladu for a long-sleeved shapeless forest green dress. Dishonourable mention goes out to Luc Desilets for a black suit and tie over a yellow-orange shirt.