QP: Belligerent framing around incompetence or dishonesty

Posted on by

While both the prime minister and his deputy were in town, neither were present for QP today—very unusually for a Wednesday, where Trudeau normally is present and takes all questions if he’s in town. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and said that two years ago, CSIS prepared the briefing about threats to Michael Chong, but the prime minister said he wasn’t made aware, though a former head of CSIS said that it should have been, and wondered how the prime minister couldn’t have known. Marco Mendicino said that Poilievre knows full well that the government takes threats to MPs seriously, and that they offered a briefing when they were made aware. Poilievre said that it was impossible to believe that the PM wouldn’t have received this kind of information, and said that he either didn’t know and is incompetent, or he did and is dishonest. Mendicino insisted that the government has been taking the protection of MPs seriously. Poilievre switched to English and tried calling Mendicino incompetent—and got a warning from the Speaker—and railed that Trudeau didn’t answer when Trudeau wasn’t there (but that’s the point—to get a clip for a future shitpost). Mendicino responded that partisan rhetoric doesn’t help Chong. Poilievre repeated his insistence that Trudeau must be either incompetent in not knowing about the allegations or dishonest in saying he didn’t, to which Mendicino repeated that Chong was briefed, and that they have issued fresh instructions to CSIS about this matter. Poilievre then railed that the diplomat named by the Globe and Mail story had not yet been expelled, and Mendicino accused Poilievre of making up laws around diplomatic immunity while the government has provided new powers to intelligence agencies to disrupt interference, before patting himself on the back for the creation of NSICOP and NSIRA.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and accused the prime minister of maligning CSIS, and trie to ask whether more people knew of these allegations including Morris Rosenberg and David Johnston. Mendicino recited the pabulum about how anointing Johnston was necessary for fighting foreign interference. Blanchet went on a wandering path about the prime minister’s brother and it somehow disqualifying him from appointing a public inquiry. Mark Holland insisted that the Foundation is independent and gives scholarships, and any questions should be directed to them.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, asked when he knew about the threats against Chong. Mendicino recited that they rely on independent civil servants and have taken measures. Singh switched to English and insisted that wasn’t really his question, and said that he wrote a letter to the prime minister about calling party leaders together in order to discuss the challenge. Mendicino said that the threat landscape has changed and they are taking steps to deal with it.

Round two, and Michael Chong challenged whether that briefing never made it out of CSIS (Mendicino: We rely on our intelligence services), Michael Barrett made his own challenge of the date the minister’s office knew (Mendicino: Your absurd suggestions don’t advance the debate), and Luc Berthold tried again in French and accused the government of not doing anything because it affected a Conservative (Oliphant: That suggestion is beneath the dignity of this Chamber, and we have said that if we have credible evidence of a diplomate acting against the Vienna Convention, we will expel them).

René Villemure insisted that the prime minister must have known and done nothing and demanded an apology (Mendicino: I share the concerns, which is why CSIS offered a briefing to Chong), demanded to know if other MPs are under threat and if they had been informed (Mendicino: We are taking measures such as creating the new foreign agent registry).

Michael Cooper demanded to know when the minister’s office was made aware (Mendicino: We are taking measures to fight interference), and Gérard Deltell quoted the Vienna Convention and demanded that Chinese diplomat be expelled (Mendicino: All options are on the table).

Lori Idlout demanded to know why the mercury treatment centre hasn’t been built in Grassy Narrows (Hajdu: We have worked with them to build the centre, but we have to prevent these tragedies in the future, and I am meeting with the chief this afternoon), and why PMPRB hasn’t been able to lower drug prices (van Koeverden: The Minister cannot issue directives to the Board).

Round three saw questions on the RCMP not shutting down the Chinese “police stations” around Montreal (Mendicino: We don’t direct their operations), accusing the prime minister of keeping foreign interference secrecy (Mendicino: Hooray David Johnston), the coronation of the King (Champagne: We are focused on Canadians while the Bloc is focused on the monarchy), not expelling that Chinese diplomat (Mendicino: Your party was asleep at the switch when you did nothing about foreign interference for ten years; Oliphant: China is a disruptive power, and we are fighting it, but we have been clear to our Chinese counterparts that we will deal with interference), Poilievre got up to spin a conspiracy theory about the Trudeau Foundation and Chinese interfere (Holland: He has no ties to the Foundation, and they grant scholarships; Mendicino: We are doing the work while you are engage in chicanery), flood waters in Quebec (Blair: We express condolences to the fire fighters who lost their lives, and we have deployed Canadian Forces aircraft to conduct a search and have offered federal assistance), and asking for more amendments to Bill S-5 (Guilbeault: We introduced strong amendments to the legislation, and it’s time to pass the bill).

Overall, it was a more raucous day today, with little to show for it. After the prime minister did clarify this morning that he wasn’t made aware of the briefing until Monday’s Globe and Mail because CSIS didn’t think it merited alerting the political level, and that he instructed CSIS that this should be brought up the chain earlier—something he should have said in QP yesterday—the insinuations needed to change so that now he is not to be believed. From this we got Poilievre’s “incompetent or dishonest” lines and the likes, which again, the government should have had better answers to than simply patting themselves on the back for arranging briefings with Michael Chong, or for creating NSICOP. It’s tiresome, and they need to come up with better responses.

Otherwise, the Liberals tried their own stunt today with asking the chair of the Procedure and House Affairs committee about last night’s meeting cancellation, which was skirting the lines about what is allowed—asking a question of a committee chair should relate to the issues of the agenda—but the Conservatives have abused this far more often than the Liberals have, so nobody has clean hands here, and for the Conservatives to howl that the Liberals were doing something similar smacks entirely of “rules for thee but not for me,” or perhaps that it’s fine if they break the rules because they’re bad faith operators but if the Liberals do, it’s scandalous. Either way, it it’s childish behaviour all around, and yet again, we are reminded that ours is no longer a serious Parliament.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Eric Melillo for a tailored light navy suit over a crisp white shirt and a maroon tie, and to Shelby Kramp-Neuman for a short-sleeved dark grey dress with a v-neck. Style citations go out to Marie-Claude Bibeau for a dusky rose jacket with gold florals over a cream turtleneck, and to Alain Therrien for a dark blue jacket over a white shirt, darker blue tie and faded blue jeans.

One thought on “QP: Belligerent framing around incompetence or dishonesty”

  1. If the Bloc is so opposed to colonial symbols and cutting the apron strings, why not drop all the fleur-de-lis? Lilies barely grow in the province and just in the most southern region. It’s a symbol of French and even in France considered a symbol of royalism and the Republicans rejection of the fleur-de-lis and history changed over restoration to the national flag during Second Republic and the Count of Chambord refusing to take over the throne without it.

Comments are closed.