QP: That big, imaginary IOU

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, for the second day in a row, and all of the other leaders were as well, all eager to get their clips for their respective socials. Pierre Poilievre led off in English, unusually, and he chided the government for allowing the public service to go on strike, questioning his competence, and demanded to know how the prime minister would “fix the government he broke.” Justin Trudeau said that unlike the Conservatives, they respect unions, which is why they are making progress at the bargaining table. Poilievre switched to French, and repeated the same accusation of incompetence, and Trudeau reiterated his same response. In English, Poilievre moved onto the subject of the prime minister’s vacation and asserted that the stay at this resort comes with a “big IOU,” because those Trudeau Foundation donors would obviously expect something in return, and demanded that the prime minister pay back the “$80,000 gift.” Trudeau insisted that these were family friends, that he has stayed at this place many times since he was a year-old, and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure the rules were followed. Poilievre insisted that they didn’t begrudge vacations, and that he took one at the same time on a Sunwing package that he paid for himself—which earned him sycophantic applause from his caucus—and demanded again to repay the cost of accommodation so that he “doesn’t owe anyone anything.” Trudeau once again reiterated that these are family friends for 50 years, and he has been to that resort many times with his family, and made mention of the security requirements. Poilievre repeated that this was about wealthy donors who expect IOUs and would have “inordinate influence” on him (so family friends wouldn’t have the same influence without the stay at their resort? Really?) to which Trudeau hit back about Poilievre running to billionaire tech giant fiends to attack local news, which Canadians should be concerned about.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised the Chinese donations to McGill and the Trudeau Foundation, citing it as being too close to Trudeau, so they needed a public inquiry. Trudeau insisted that they were after the wrong Trudeau, he is not his father, and has not had anything to do with the Foundation for a decade. Blanchet insisted that Trudeau must have known about the Green Family donation to the Foundation, and Trudeau insisted that because he doesn’t deal with the Foundation, he wasn’t aware.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, lamented that the civil service unions have gone on strike, took some jabs at the government and demanded that they negotiate a solution and not impose back-to-work legislation. Trudeau insisted that they continue to bargain in good faith. Singh repeated his demand in French, and got much the same response.

Round two, and Poilievre got back up, and raised the allegation that Trudeau’s brother signed off on the Foundation donation from the Chinese billionaire (Trudeau: I have not had anything to do with the Foundation, directly or indirectly, for a decade), but you’re listed in their Annual a report as an inactive member (Trudeau: Look up what inactive means), spinning a bunch of specious and spurious connections to the Foundations (Trudeau: You’re focusing on me while we are working for Canadians), we’re only asking you to pay for your own vacation (Trudeau: Same answer), and will you have your brother come before committee (Trudeau: I don’t know why you can’t accept that no means no).

Blanchet got back up to also raise that Trudeau’s brother accepted the donation for the Foundation (Trudeau: I haven’t had any engagement with the Foundation for a decade, and I don’t discuss it with my brother), and questions about the Foundation that were raised in 2016 (Trudeau: We did have to ask about the coverage in 2016 because I’m not involved).

Melissa Lantsman demanded he pay back the cost of accommodations on the vacation (Trudeau: These are family friends and I’ve been there dozens of times over the decades, and you don’t want to talk about the budget), and Pierre Paul-Hus made the same demand in French (Trudeau: We ensured all the rules were followed).

Alexandre Boulerice insisted the government was about to impose back-to-work legislation on civil servants (Trudeau: We are bargaining in good faith), and Lindsay Mathyssen demanded a commitment not to impose back-to-work legislation (Trudeau: How dare you say we have Conservative colours).

Round three saw questions on the Trudeau Foundation (Trudeau: You are putting forward conspiracy theories, and I have not been involved for ten years), how many times have you been to see these friends since you’ve been PM (Trudeau: This is the first time since becoming PM, but I may have once as an MP before becoming PM), some unctuous sanctimony about that vacation (Trudeau: Will you vote to speed up the grocery rebates), how could you not have reached an agreement with the civil service union by now (Trudeau: We know what the Conservative play book would be in this situation), let Parliament choose someone to lead an independent public inquiry (Trudeau: If you want us to get back to our work, then vote for the budget tonight), the carbon price (Trudeau: We have been there for Canadians while you’ve been there for yourself; You can’t have a plan for the economy without a plan to fight climate change; We really hope you will vote to accelerate our grocery rebate; Talk to members of your caucus who are dealing with flooding or wildfires about the costs of climate change), and not imposing back-to-work legislation (Trudeau: We are negotiating in good faith).

Overall, it was another clown show of a day, with yet more risible and over-the-top conspiratorial questions about Trudeau’s vacation that seemed to have little basis in reality. You wouldn’t know that the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation was a scholarship programme from the questions being asked, but rather, it was being cast as some kind of private slush fund for members of the Trudeau family, which is ridiculous in the extreme. But truth isn’t really on display when you’re trying to rage farm. Meanwhile, Trudeau once again didn’t do himself any favours as he continued to be evasive about the accommodations rather than bluntly shutting down the questions, and during the questions about the carbon price, kept stumbling over himself over what should have been an easy take-down of their cherry-picked and out-of-context numbers from the PBO report. This shouldn’t be rocket science, and yet here we are.

Otherwise, it was somewhat hilarious to watch the Conservatives—Poilievre and Stephanie Kusie in particular—tutting the government for allowing a public service strike to happen, while the NDP were being over-the-top ridiculous in saying that the Liberals were just like Conservatives when it comes to strikes, and demanded over and over again that the government not introduce back-to-work legislation. It was all performance art, and not very good performance art at that.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Karina Gould for a navy suit over a white top, and to Brendan Hanley for a dark grey suit over a black shirt and a blue and pink patterned tie. Style citations go out to Fraser Tolmie for a taupe windowpane patterned suit over a light blue shirt and a light brown tie, and to Julie Dabrusin for a peach-toned ruffled top with pink florals over black slacks.