QP: Why won’t you take the briefing?

Posted on by

The prime minster, his deputy, and all of the other leaders were present today, which was a nice change of pace. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that nobody believes that the prime minister’s “chalet buddy” David Johnston has to say, accuse him of covering up foreign interference, and demanded the prime minister fire his “Trudeau Foundation Buddy” and call a public inquiry. Justin Trudeau pointed out that Poilievre claims to want the facts but he has refused briefing in order to know them. Poilievre insisted that a briefing was a trap to silence him, to which Trudeau suggested that it was why he didn’t do anything about foreign interference when he was minster of democratic reform. Poilievre gave a tortured recitation about secrets, and suggested Trudeau was so enamoured with Chinese dictatorship that he wants to silence his critics. Trudeau repeated that Poilievre would rather hide behind a veil of ignorance so he that he can carry on making baseless personal attacks. Poilievre insisted that he would have been subject to silencing measures, and Trudeau noted that as a former minister of the Crown, he was already subject to oaths of secrecy and he could handle those, but now he prefers ignorance in order to make personal attacks. Poilievre returned to French to again link Johnston to the Trudeau Foundation and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said that this was a clear demonstration that Poilievre has no understanding of how security and intelligence works, and that he is manufacturing reasons to remain in ignorance.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc and listed people calling for a public inquiry, and wondered if Trudeau would listen to David a Johnston or Morris Rosenberg. Trudeau recounted Johnston’s calculation as to why he chose not to recommend one. Blanchet insisted that Johnston and therefore the report had no legitimacy, and Trudeau pointed out that Blanchet was also refusing briefings in order to maintain partisan attacks.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, claimed an “overwhelming perception of bias” and demanded that Johnston stand aside and call a public inquiry. Trudeau sang Johnston’s praise, and that it was too bad the opposition was too busy playing politics. Singh switched to French to demand support for his Supply Day motion on a public inquiry, and Trudeau insisted they took the allegations seriously, which is why they have instituted a number of mechanisms to combat it.

Round two, and Melissa Lantsman declared a cover-up and demanded a public inquiry (Mendicino: The only cover-up is Poilievre covering his eyes rather than getting a briefing), Tim Uppal tried to bring in the Trudeau Foundation to this narrative (Mendicino: When will your leader take the briefing?), and Luc Berthold insisted made the same bogus connection in French (LeBlanc: The lack of credibility on the part of Poilievre is clear to everyone).

René Villemure demanded a public inquiry (Mendicino: We created bodies like NSICOP which can also do the work), and Marie-Hélène Gaudreau tried to equate the Arar Inquiry with the public inquiry they’re demanding (LeBlanc: We have taken threats seriously, and have created a series of non-partisan measures to respond to them).

Leslyn Lewis worried about the false reading of the clean fuel standard (Duguid: You never want to talk about the costs of climate change, and 600 fires are burning from coast to coast), Pat Kelly made his own version of the same misleading points (Fraser: My riding is on fire right now), and Terry Dowdall gave more of the same (Wilkinson: Most people recognise the reality of climate change, which is why we have affordability measures, and you are repudiating your own platform policies).

Rachel Blaney made her own demand for a public inquiry (Mendicino: Johnston laid out a path forward, but at least you guys are taking the briefing), and Jenny Kwan followed suit (Mendicino: We have taken concrete steps to combat it).

Round three saw questions on the misleading read of the clean fuel standard (Fraser: Both of our provinces are on fire right now; Gould: You talk about guilt trips because you feel guilty about not doing anything about climate change; Freeland: We have affordability measures for families; Were you telling the truth in your campaign platform or now?; Champagne: We listened to Canadians, which is why we have the grocery rebate, higher health transfers, and are investing in the economy of the future; St-Onge: We reduced pollution while helping Canadians in needs; Bibeau: We are supporting farmers, who are the first ones affected by climate change), Mario Simard demanded documents from the No campaign from the 1995 referendum (Rodriguez: Typical Bloc going back 35 years to pick fights with the federal government), a repeat offender (Lametti: Our bill targets violent repeat offenders and is Charter compliant), a demand for pharmacare (Duclos: We are working together on increasing accessibility and affordability), speech pathology under Jordan’s Principle (Hajdu: There is a dedicated person in the department taking care of these invoices).

Overall, it was just a ridiculous exercise all around, whether it was Poilievre’s transparently gratuitous smears, or his once again broadcasting the bogus reasons he has for not reading the intelligence documents, which is so that he can continue to make false claims rather than be a grown-up and hold the government to account for their actual failures. The prime minister was doing a better job today of pointing this out, for what good it did. As for the NDP, they have spent the whole of the day playacting this exaggerated version of toughness with their (non-binding) Supply Day motion to call on Johnston to step aside and for the prime minister to call an inquiry, while at the same time saying they won’t bring the government down until confidence is restored in the electoral system. It’s so tactically stupid that I can barely even handle it. There are no grown-ups here.

Meanwhile, the government continues to refuse to actually call out the rank disinformation that the Conservatives are spreading about the clean fuel standard (though they will point to the fact that the Conservatives ran on implementing the very same thing), because they too have decided to take this as an opportunity to harvest clips of their own for their own social channels, which is why they have a different minister answer each time. It’s just as stupid as opposition parties getting different MPs to each ask the same question so that they can get their own clips, and it’s killing our debate just as much when the government side does it as when the opposition does. Knock it off.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Christine Normandin for a black half-sleeved top with a white pattern over black slacks, and to Peter Fragiskatos for a dark grey three-piece suit over a crisp white shirt with a matching pocket square and a light purple tie. Style citations go out to René Villemure for a blue jacket with a subtle orange windowpane pattern over a coral orange shirt with a blue floral patterned tie, a brown pocket square and black slacks, and to Marilyn Gladu for a black sleeveless dress with bright red florals. Dishonourable mention goes out to Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné for a bright yellow jacket over a black top and slacks, and to Julie Vigneault for a black jacket with white stripes over a yellow top.