QP: Re-litigating the hotel room

Posted on by

While the PM and his deputy were on their way back from Hazel McCallion’s funeral in Mississauga, most of the other leaders were also absent from the Chamber for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, like a flashback, and after a preamble of nonsense about inflation, he demanded to know why the prime minister billed taxpayers for a “$7000” hotel room (that number has been inflated) which he neglected to mention was for the funeral of the Queen. Ahmed Hussen got up and listed housing measures that the government put in place that the Conservatives voted against. Scheer tried again, this time comparing the cost of that hotel room to mortgage payments. Hussen repeated his same response. Scheer then raised the National Post story about trying to stifle disclosure of that information, and this time Rob Oliphant raised that this was for the Queen’s funeral, and that the delegation was appropriate for that occasion. Dominique Vien took over in French, and the cost of the hotel room was back to $6000 and demanded the government cap spending. Pascale St-Onge got up to say that the spending was targeted to those who need it most, while the Conservatives seek to cut that help. Vien and St-Onge went another round of the same with little difference.

Alain Therrien led for Bloc, and he thundered about health transfers, saying that provinces don’t really agree and accused the federal government of chronic underfunding, which is not exactly true. Adam van Koeverden read a statement about how pleased they are with the “agreement.” Therrien demanded over and over about “35 percent!” This time Pablo Rodriguez wondered where Therrien was with all of the newspaper headlines talking about an “agreement.”

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and cited a StatsCan figure about people struggling, and turned this into a demand that the government stop the Rogers-Shaw merger. François-Philippe Champagne said that he wanted more competition in the sector. Singh wondered if that meant that he would oppose the merger today, then switched to French to repeat his question. Champagne repeated his enthusiasm for competition.

Round two, and Jasraj Hallan gave some outraged word salad about LNG exports and high home heating bills, with some “triple, triple, triple” thrown in (Guilbeault: Your party keeps flip-flopping on carbon pricing), Tracy Gray recited some talking points about carbon pricing (Wilkinson: It’s important in this House that we not mislead Canadians, and you need a climate plan), and Tim Uppal mouthed the “triple, triple, triple” nonsense (Boissonnault: The hypocrisy of the other side is astounding, because they keep voting against our supports for people who need it the most; Guilbeault: Here are the billions of dollars in costs for recent climate-related events).

Rhéal Fortin insisted that the Notwithstanding Clause is the smallest bit of autonomy that Quebec is afforded under the constitution (Lametti: We have been clear about our concerns with the pre-emptive use of the this clause that does away with important dialogue between the courts and legislatures), and accused the government of not allowing Quebec to be different (Rodriguez: The Bloc’s problem is that they are too focused on the constitution that people’s needs).

Matt Jeneroux blamed the carbon price for rising prices for a small business (Ng: We are helping small businesses by getting them through the pandemic and are getting them e-business; Boissonnault: Did you see the January jobs numbers?), and Marc Dalton read some condemnation of the carbon price in his province (Wilkinson: You should bring that up with your premier).

Don Davies complained about private clinics that allow people to queue-jump (van Koeverden: We will always stand up for the public system), and Bonita Zarrillo complained the Infrastructure Bank is not delivering climate-resilient projects (O’Connell: This is an innovative way to address gaps, and here are a couple of projects).

Round three saw questions on a cultural mechanism for consultations with Quebec under Bill C-11 (Rodriguez: The one party who turned its back our creators is the Conservatives; This just another attempt to filibuster), the increase in irregular border crossings (Lalonde: To say that asylum seekers are profiting from the system is unacceptable), reviewing improper COVID payments (Fonseca: The verification work is ongoing), McKinsey contracts (Holland: Contracts are done at arm’s length by the public service, and you seem to be demanding political interference), Mary Ng’s campaign chair’s alleged ties to China (Holland: The idea that anyone would tolerate foreign interference is inaccurate), transitioning Nunavut communities off diesel (Vandal: We are committed to the transition, and have invested hundreds of millions of dollars), and praise for Joe Biden’s policies with a demand the government follow suit (Wilkinson: We have a plan and the Conservatives don’t).

Overall, it was yet another day devoid of meaningful exchanges or substance. The fact that the top questions from the Official Opposition was an attempt to re-litigate the price of the hotel room during the Queen’s funeral (which they always neglect to mention as the context, especially as it was a time when the city was literally full of mourners and world leaders coming to pay their respects, where I believe the hotels may have been assigned by security services) just betrays how utterly unserious this all is, even before you factor in the constant use of talking points Mad Libs. There were plenty of other stories on the radar, including the fact that the prime minister’s parliamentary secretary was the subject of an ethics report on his improperly writing a letter of support to a quasi-judicial tribunal, but nope. Hotel room. Because it’s in the National Post again. (Who says newspapers don’t still set the political agenda?)

Otherwise, I did note how very close the Conservatives were getting into libellous territory around the questions of Mary Ng’s relationship with former the Ontario Cabinet minister who is allegedly on CSIS’ watchlist, and I am surprised that they weren’t invited to repeat those allegations outside the Chamber where they are not benefiting from parliamentary privilege. And I doubt they would repeat the accusations, which goes to show what kinds of cowards they tend to be when it comes to talking a big game when it’s someone elsewhere reputation on the line.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Adam Chambers for a tailored dark grey suit with a white shirt and a dark purple tie, and to Stephanie Kusie for a three-quarter sleeved white dress with a keyhole neckline. Style citations go out to Michelle Ferreri for a pink pantsuit with a black top, and to a Corey Torchor for a boxy light grey jacket over a white shirt, black slacks, and multi-hued grey tie.