QP: An apology, but apparently not the right apology

Posted on by

The prime minister gave the media a warning that he would be offering a public apology in the House of Commons for Friday’s incident, as had been demanded over the past several days, as this was his first day back in the Chamber since it happened. Deputy Speaker Chris d’Entrement was back in the big chair, and he started off with a mild admonishment about some of the charged language used yesterday, but didn’t demand an apology for it. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that it was the prime minister’s personal responsibility for inviting Zelenskyy to Parliament, and insisted that his office should have vetted everyone in the Chamber—which is absolutely absurd. Trudeau got up and read that he apologised sincerely for what happened on Friday, and that it was terrible that the person received applauses in the Chamber. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same misleading question, and Trudeau read the English version of the same apology script, but when he read that he apologised on behalf of everyone in the House, the Conservative benches objected to it not being on his behalf alone. Poilievre demanded to know if everyone was vetted by his office that day, and Trudeau rightfully stated that doing so would be a grievous violation of Parliament’s sacred privileges. Poilievre played outrage that this was some apparent violation, conflating security and political risk. Trudeau insisted that the facts were well known, and that this was entirely the outgoing Speaker’s responsibility, and that the opposition is misleading to score points. Poilievre again repeated the falsehood that PMO should have vetted everyone, and accused Trudeau of “hiding in his cottage” for three days. Trudeau stated that Poilievre has defended Parliament’s privileges before, and how he’s pretending that PMO should have some kind of oversight over the Speaker.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and asked if he has called Zelenskyy and if he has a strategy to combat Russian propaganda. Trudeau mouthed some pabulum about propaganda and defending Ukraine, but didn’t really answer the question. Blanchet took from the answer that he hadn’t called Zelenskyy and repeated the question. Trudeau said that they had sent several direct messages, before condemning Russia’s invasion.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he declared that “real damage” had been done by the incident on Friday, and wanted “concrete action” on cleaning up the mess. Trudeau recited that they stand with Ukraine, for as long as it takes. Singh repeated his same question in French, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Round two, and Melissa Lantsman read angry condemnation of Trudeau, and blamed him instead of the Speaker (Trudeau: The principle of the independence of Parliament from the government of the day is well established, and we will defend Ukraine and the rights and privileges of Parliament; People are watching and also watching show is trying to take partisan gain from this terrible mistake), Marty Morantz demanded personal responsibility and a personal apology (Trudeau: The Speaker took responsibility and resigned, and this reaffirms the need to invest in Holocaust education, which we do), and Pierre Paul-Hus insisted that it was “impossible” that the individual was not vetted by anyone else (Trudeau: You know that the Speaker is independent and it would be inappropriate for government to veto the choices of opposition members or the Speaker).

Blanchet was back up, and again demanded to know if he apologised to Zelenskyy (Trudeau: We did through diplomatic channels), and if he has reached out to the Jewish community (Trudeau: We will defend Ukraine and support the Jewish community facing a rise in antisemitism).

James Bezan repeated the same demand for personal responsibility (Trudeau: If you want advice on vetting, such as when your members go to lunch with far-right politicians, we are here for you), and Poilievre got back up to deliberate confuse parliamentary security with political vetting (Trudeau: For someone who used to be minister of democratic reform to not understand the basics of our system is quite something).

Singh got back up to demand support for his bill on grocery prices (Trudeau, with script: We called in the grocery CEOs and have legislation to improve competition), and demanded a plan to reduce emissions and energy prices (Trudeau: That is exactly what we are doing with the rebates on our climate price). 

Round three saw questions on vetting (Poilievre: Security services do their work, but you cannot be serious that the government vet who your bring into the building; I still haven’t heard an apology from you for your MPs having lunch with far-right politicians; ), the fact that he has not personally called Zelenskyy or a meeting with the Jewish community (Trudeau: We needed to give the former Speaker time and space to apologise and resign), demanded a campaign to counter Russian propaganda (Trudeau: We are working on this), an accusation that Trudeau never takes any responsibility (Trudeau: You can focus personal attacks on me while we focus on Canadians), a laundry list of what is wrong with the country (Trudeau: We called in grocery CEOs and removing GST on rental buildings is already showing dividends), extending the forgiveness portion of the CEBA loans for another year (Trudeau: We have always supported small businesses), and running interference for Rota (Trudeau: We respect the independence of the Speaker).

Overall, it was a quieter day, and a little more sedate than it has been over the past week or so, but it was no less mendacious, and the questions were still being asked in bad faith about what kinds of vetting took place on Friday. Insisting that the prime minister needed to take personal responsibility and offer a personal apology for what happened was not only disingenuous, but it was a grievous misrepresentation of how government and Parliament work in this country. There was yet more conflation between security screening and political vetting, but at one point, Poilievre insisted that the government should also have been responsible for politically vetting everyone on the Hill that day, which is both ludicrous, and absolutely outrageous for the independence of Parliament for the government. He also took absolutely jaw-dropping leaps, such as calling the RCMP the “prime minister’s police force,” which is again, a shocking misrepresentation of how they operate. The absolute obliteration of the independence of institutions in order to ensure that Trudeau personally wears the blame for what happened is galling, and gives the impression that Poilievre either covets Emperor-like powers, or that the micromanagement in the Harper government was so acute that they trampled over the independence at all instances, which is also alarming.

As for Trudeau, it was nice to see him push back and stand up for parliamentary independence and supremacy, much more than Karina Gould managed to over the past two days. His digs about Conservative MPs doing with far-right politicians may hit well for his followers, but it can also make him look like he is desperate or flailing, and it’s a fine balance, and I’m not sure which side that came down on today. I do think it was good that he spelled out that he waited on his apology in order to give space to former Speaker Anthony Rota to offer his own apology and resignation (which came too late, possibly because he wasn’t getting enough pressure from the right people to do the right thing), but he only said it the once and needed to make that clearer on more occasions—and it should be stated that if the prime minister apologised before Rota resigned it would have given him cover and he would have used it to convince himself that he didn’t need to resign, which would have been a Very Bad Thing, and we would have wound up needing to have him removed, which would have been even worse overall. Trudeau should have had better responses about speaking to Zelenskyy personally and meeting with the Jewish community, but he indicated that things were in the works, so hopefully that happens sooner than later.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Anna Gainey for a black wrap dress with jacket-like lapels, and to Peter Fragiskatos for a tailored navy suit with a light purple shirt and pocket square and dark purple tie. Style citations go out to Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe for an brown jacket over a white shirt, black tie and faded blue jeans, and to Marie-Claude Bibeau for a pale pink jacket ofer a black top with pink florals. Dishonourable mentions goes out to both Ginette Petitpas Taylor and Anna Roberts for each wearing dark yellow jackets over black tops and slacks. 

One thought on “QP: An apology, but apparently not the right apology”

  1. Do you think there will be any formal reckoning from the Canadian military which has been heavily involved in the training of the Azov Battalion, the self proclaimed heirs of the 14th SS Galacians. It’s one thing to stand up and applaud a 98 year-old relic who’s been trotted out. It’s quite another to train and equip a current day crop of Nazis who make no secret about it despite the ongoing attempts of the western media to whitewash them.

Comments are closed.