QP: Poilievre tries to play prosecutor

Posted on by

The stage was set for the showdown we have been anticipating for weeks, as the prime minister was finally in the House for QP after missing it in the last sitting week, and it portended to be nasty given the tenor of the previous episodes in the week. Pierre Poilievre led off, and he stated that the prime minister had previously stated he was unaware of certain allegations, which this morning’s Global story seemed to counter. Justin Trudeau first gave some bafflegab about taking interference seriously, but on this allegation he and his National Security and Intelligence Advisor have stated they had no information about financial transfers. Poilievre insisted this couldn’t be the case, and Trudeau reiterated that he had no knowledge of transfers, and then corrected the swipe at NSICOP in stating that its reports to Parliament. Poilievre tried to be clever about the redactions in NSICOP reports before again insisting that Trudeau must have known of these transfers. Trudeau pointed to where NSICOP reports can be found. Poilievre accused the prime minister of playing word games and insisted that he knew Beijing directed funds to candidates. Trudeau stammered about the redactions before repeating again they had no information on transfers of funds. Poilievre recited from the Global story, and one more time, Trudeau stammered about national security bodies. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded an independent public inquiry. Trudeau stated that he wasn’t refusing, but he wanted recommendations from the special rapporteur. Normandin insisted that this wasn’t a partisan issue, and that they needed an inquiry, and Trudeau repeated that they needed the rapporteur to ensure they make the best moves, as some experts said an inquiry was not the right move. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he also quoted the Global story, and demanded a public inquiry, and Trudeau reiterate that they wanted the rapporteur to ensure they got the right process. Singh took a swipe at Trudeau before repeating the question in French. Trudeau repeated that there are experts who dispute that they need a public inquiry, which is why they want the rapporteur to weigh in.

Round two, and Poilievre got back up to demand to know who the alleged comprised candidates were (Trudeau: This is why we have NSICOP), he wanted to know if any members of his caucus or Cabinet were on that list (Trudeau: Bafflegab about intelligence agencies; This information can be highly sensitive which is why we created oversight mechanisms), and tried to set a trap about Han Dong’s election (Trudeau: We have processes for seeing intelligence without putting our agents at risk).

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau insisted that the existing oversight mechanisms didn’t work which is why we need an inquiry (Trudeau: We are waiting for the recommendations of the rapporteur; You are suggesting an independent expert is less capable than opposition parties).

Poilievre got back up to demand to know which staff members in his office got a brief by CSIS on concerns about candidates (Trudeau: Your MPs had lunch with far-right MEP Christine Anderson; The committee has heard from all of these top officials; Canadians wants someone who can step back and see the situation clearly which is why we have the special rapporteur).

Laurel Collins demanded more action on MMIW recommendations (Trudeau: A script about a whole-of-government approach to keeping people safe), and Lisa Marie Baron asked about hate campaigns against trans women (Trudeau: We know that trans women are facing extraordinary degrees of hate and violence, and we have taken action since 2015).

Round three saw questions on whether anyone CSIS warned about was in caucus or Cabinet (Trudeau: We have no evidence anyone received money from China; Your MPs had dinner with a far-right MEP; Ministers are appearing at committee tomorrow), why are your MPs blocking a motion to have Katie Telford testify at committee (Trudeau: We have ministerial responsibility, which is why ministers are going to committee, and here is a quote from you about that), the alleged transfer of funds from Beijing to candidates (Trudeau: We had no informing of any transfer of funds), sending allegations to NSICOP (Trudeau: We are appointing a rapporteur to evaluate if we need a public inquiry or other mechanisms), We have to assume your answer is yes so much much did your party get from Beijing (Trudeau: It’s important to protect our security agencies, so that’s why we have NSICOP so that security-cleared parliamentarians can get information; it is despicable that you would question the loyalty of any member in this House’s loyalty to Canada; Canadians need to have confidence which is why we NSICOP and the special rapporteurs), accusations of inaction on Chinese “police” stations (Trudeau: You have a selective partisan memory, where you criticised me for standing up to Xi Jinping), and demanding an inquiry that can compel the prime minister’s testimony (Trudeau: This partisanship is why we are appointing an independent expert), some bad faith bluster about C-11 as censorship (Trudeau: You are not serious about protecting institutions or our democracy), the official languages bill (Trudeau: We are proud of this bill), and “sketchy” nominations (Trudeau: We are putting forward an expert to look at the entire landscape of interference).

Overall, it was a very odd day. The Chamber was mostly silent, and instead of what I expected to be an escalating series of nasty exchanges, Pierre Poilievre instead tried to play prosecutor with short and sharp questions, taking every single spot his party was allowed. Of course, he doesn’t have the gravitas or the ability to project his voice while speaking, so it came off far less effectively than he’d hoped. But then again, this is also the guy who spent his career trying to play Matlock on the floor of the Commons, hoping to get a witness box confession in the whodunit of the week, and it’s never worked for him because he’s usually too busy playing to his backbenches. He didn’t play to them today, but the prosecutorial style was not really yielding any dividends other than giving Justin Trudeau the opportunity to be his own worst enemy. That is, until things started devolving at the very end, when Poilievre started in on the buffoonish questions, questioning Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada.

And Trudeau? Yeah, that as an incredibly terrible performance. His stammering deflections and recited talking points about national security agencies didn’t actually address any of the simple issues being put to him about what he did or did not know. He didn’t properly push back about the need for secrecy with national security issues, he didn’t properly point out that the special rapporteur would ensure that a possible public inquiry had proper terms of reference. He could articulate any of his points among the pabulum, and then, to make it even worse, he pulled out the Christine Anderson card, which is just waving the red flag of deflection. This was entirely amateurish, and he had an opportunity to look like a mature statesman in the face of the questions, and he would’t or couldn’t take it. This is entirely emblematic of this government’s inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and in being their own worst enemies.

I will also note that for International Women’s Day, parties often usually give most or all of their questions to women in their caucus. That was not the case today—Poilievre took all of the Conservative spots, and Jagmeet Singh still took his own leaders’ round spot before turning it over to women MPs, and the Bloc were solely women asking. But even with the Liberals’ backbench suck-up questions? Giving the first one to Taleeb Noormohamed to talk abut IWD makes no sense. It’s like someone in the House Leader’s office was asleep at the switch. Finally, we had a Zoom failure today where proceedings had to be suspended for several minutes because a computer needed to be rebooted. Ridiculous. End hybrid sittings right now.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Christine Normandin for a half-sleeved black top with white patterns over a black leather skirt, and to Terry Beech for a tailored navy suit over a white shirt and a red patterned tie and cranberry pocket square. Style citations go out to Bernard Généroux for a navy jacket, light blue-grey shirt, blue and white striped tie and brown corduroy slacks, and to Anna Roberts for a long white smock with black paint-effect patterns over a black top and slacks. Dishonourable mention goes out to Julie Vigneault for a mustard yellow turtleneck under a black jacket and slacks.

2 thoughts on “QP: Poilievre tries to play prosecutor”

  2. Can we put a limit on the use of “comms problems” in punditry? Does “comms problems” effect a real person? Losing my job or high bills are caused by “comms problems” and “comms problems” seem like journos letting themselves off the hook for wild speculation or torquing stories. Accuracy is burden for both and “comms problems” had been used so much my journos it’s lost all meaning. It’s bad enough with Susan Delacourt saying this story is eating the Government as if journos have no choice is what they do or don’t cover. We just had a major inquiry and journos barely toke note of the condemnation of the Ford government at Queens Park so spare us the “keeping the government accountable” stuff.

    NATFAgate was all about the Harper government trying to interfere in a foreign election and didn’t get half the attention. Mr. Fife’s reporting from unnamed CSIS sources literally put an innocent man in jail for year and the Government had to pay millions n compensation so Judy Miller and Bob Novak ear your heart out. Bob Fadden was called out for publicly accusing elected official of being “comprised” or “disloyal” without any proof so unsure why it’s now given so much weight because it’s anonymous.

Comments are closed.