QP: Rocketing up the repetitive talking points

Posted on by

Not only were the prime minister and his deputy present, so were all of the other leaders, and the benches were full. This while we had astronauts—the crew of Artemis II—in the Gallery to watch proceedings, along with the head of NASA, the US Ambassador to Canada, the head of the Canadian Space Agency, and other handlers. Even though MPs aren’t supposed to call attention to people in the Gallery, the final Members’ Statement of the day did praise said astronauts, and they got much applause, and the Speaker let this breach of the rules slide.

Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, comparing that the costs of the bureaucracy are “rocketing up,” and then lamented the civil service strike, wondering how much it would cost to end it. Justin Trudeau said that they believe in the importance of the bargaining table, which is why they are negotiating to reach an agreement that is good for civil servants and fair to taxpayers. Poilievre repeated the question in French, minus the pun, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Poilievre returned to English, and listed a serious of events that he incredulously wondered how anyone he could believe Trudeau was not involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, directly or indirectly for ten years. Poilievre focused on that meeting with the Foundation members and deputy ministers, and Trudeau recited his too-worn line that while the opposition focuses on him, he is focusing on Canadians. Poilievre quipped that nobody focuses more on the Trudeau than Trudeau himself, and that he seemed to think people were too dumb to see the links with the Foundation. Trudeau said that it was amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservatives would go to avoid talking about the budget, and listed about how great it was.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, recounted a storybook character that reminded him of Trudeau, and went after that PCO meeting again. Trudeau shrugged off the attack and said that he was focusing on helping Canadians. Blanchet insisted that there was all kinds of coordination in an office to have five deputy ministers hold a meeting os he must have known it was taking place, and Trudeau again listed the measures in the budget that was helping people.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the prime minister “show leadership” and capitulate to the public sector union demands. Trudeau praised the work of civil servants but said that taxpayers also need to be respected, which is why they were at the negotiating table. Singh repeated the question in English with added emphasis, and Trudeau gave a more robust and melodramatic version of the same response. 

Round two, and Leslyn Lewis gave the “incompetence” talking points around the strike (Fortier: Yesterday I published an open letter to let people know where we stand, which is why we are still at the bargaining table), Stephanie Kusie added some bad melodrama to the same talking points (Fortier: Same response; Gould: Unlike the Conservatives, we believe in collective bargaining, and we respect Canadians), and Jacques Gould repeated the talking points in French (Lebouthillier: This is the best tax season we’ve had for online filings).

René Villemure read out a conspiracy theory about the Trudeau Foundation (Holland: I was a former executive director of a foundation, and the rules are very strict to ensure independence; Rodriguez: The news story stated they were in the building but didn’t meet with the prime minister), and Marie-Hélène Gaudreau quoted someone who fled the Foundation who insisted it wasn’t non-partisan (Holland: All foundations have rules to protect independence, and this Foundation grants scholarships, and it’s unacceptable to attack them).

Pierre Paul-Hus worried about passport delays because of the strike (Gould: Under the law, this is not an essential service under a strike), Kevin Waugh, Todd Doherty, and Alex Ruff read more strike talking points (Gould: I am being straight and honest with Canadians; O’Regan: You keep saying you’re for workers, except when they get together to fight for their rights; Freeland:  Let me pat myself on the back for my budget).

Jenny Kwan raised Sudan in regards to the strike (Joly: Consular services are essential, so we are in contact with them), and Leah Gazan demanded that funds for shelters be extended (Ien: We topped them up during the pandemic, and we have a national action plan to work with provinces to ensure they are safe).

Round three saw questions on Trudeau Foundation conspiracy theories (Holland: It was in the same building not the same office; I don’t know how much you spend on subreddits and 4chan; I reject in totality the notion that this government would allow itself to be influenced by a foreign power), irreversible melting glaciers and oil drilling in the Arctic (Guilbeault: We are reducing emissions), the Environment Commissioner’s reports (Guilbeault: He didn’t have the latest data, which came out too late for his purposes), carbon prices (Gould: Look at our record on reducing poverty; Wilkinson: You ran on carbon pricing in last election; Freeland: You keep talking down the economy, but we just had our Aaa credit rating reaffirmed), cellphone bills (Champagne: Let me take the opportunity to praise our auto investments), someone who couldn’t get a French speaker on 911 (Champagne: It is unacceptable and we will look into this matter), sanctions on the Russian crab market (Ng: We have raised this issue with Japan, and we will continue to stand up for Ukraine), air traveller protections (Alghabra: I was proud to table our new bill, and we are standing up for Canadians), provinces under-funding nurses (Duclos: We have sent additional dollars to provinces to support public delivery).

Overall, it wasn’t a terribly special or noteworthy day—mostly just rerunning the same talking points from the past few days over and over again. We did see Chrystia Freeland finally get up to answer questions for the first time in a couple of months, but in both cases, they weren’t questions really directed to her, but ones in which she volunteered to answer, and to mostly just pat herself on the back for her budget and for maintaining the country’s credit rating.

This all having been said, as I was leaving the Chamber, I was behind the astronauts and their American handlers, and I overheard some of their conversations talking about the exercise they had just witnessed, and they seemed to have enjoyed it and seen value in both sides being able to put their points forward and have that back-and-forth in a way that doesn’t really happen in their system. (I also heard one of them grousing that they can’t seem to get a president under the age of 60). Suffice to say, while I would say that QP is probably at its worst in all the years I’ve been covering it, it’s still nice to see outsiders come in with an appreciation for what we have (even if it’s still a debased version of what it should be).

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michael Chong for a navy suit with a crisp white shirt and a dark purple tie, and to Shelby Kramp-Neuman for a navy three-quarter sleeved jacket over a dark grey dress. Style citations go out to Marci Ien for a bile yellow jacket over a white collared shirt with blue and green florals and black slacks, and to Steven Guilbeault for a dark blue jacket over a white shirt, maroon tie and light grey slacks. Dishonourable mention goes out to Jagmeet Singh for a black suit and tie with a white shirt and yellow turban, and to Filomena Tassi for a bright yellow jacket over a black dress with white piping. Special mention goes out to Martin Shields for his his blue tie with Alberta emblems down its length.

2 thoughts on “QP: Rocketing up the repetitive talking points”

  1. It is beyond obvious that MPs need immediate training on jurisdiction.
    How tiring to see them blame the Federal Government and Trudeau in particular for every problem imaginable…but of course because the electorate is so generally stupid they get away with this shitposting all the time. One should never forget that our MP’s are selected to run for office out of the same ignorant populace and ultimately elected by the same bunch.

    • Some of this is deliberate and deeply cynical—they want it to look like the PM can do something and simply won’t, so they present a false narrative in the hopes that it will draw disappointed voters to them (so that they can disappoint them on their own).

Comments are closed.