QP: Escalating histrionics about the two fired scientists

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Thunder Bay, and his deputy otherwise absent as well, leaving only one other party leader present. Michael Chong led off in French, and he went on a tear about the Winnipeg Lab documents, and the lack of responsibility for it. Mark Holland said that the health agency is independent, and the government created a process to release the information, and that there was an RCMP investigation. Chong switched to English to insist that the Canada-China committee could have done the work of the ad hoc process (erm, not really), and demanded an end to any collaboration between the Lab and China. Holland said that any foreign interference was unacceptable, and that this was about two Canadian citizens who lied, and they faced the consequences. Chong went on a tear about sensitive information being sent to China and biological weapons, and Holland disputed this characterisation of this, and that this was an example of the government going beyond usual transparency requirements. Stephen Ellis repeated the biological weapons accusation and gave a swipe about the prime minster admiring China. Holland said that there was plenty of legitimate collaboration around Ebola at the time, and that they shouldn’t weaponise national security for partisan purposes. Ellis read an even more fictional version of cover-ups, to which Holland reminded him that the government shouldn’t be redacting the documents of an independent health agency. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded that the federal government stay out of any Supreme Court of Canada appeal of Quebec’s “secularism” law. Arif Virani said that he is still reading the decision, but the federal government will stand up for Charter rights before the courts. Normandin repeated her demand, and Virani repeated that they will defend the Charter.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and tried to needle the government about how one of the ArriveCan consultants was actually a civil servant. Bill Blair said that as soon as they found out the contractor was a DND employee, they suspended the employee and the contracts. Singh switched to French to raise the plight of a family who lost their housing in Montreal, and Soraya Martinez Ferrada noted that they doubled funding for communities to fight against homelessness.

Round two, and James Bezan red some hyperbolic nonsense about the Winnipeg Lab document and called the scientist in question spies—testing the limits of parliamentary privilege (Holland: We immediately gave the documents to NSICOP and when you complained, we set up the ad hoc process; The fact that these scientists lied was reprehensible), Pierre Paul-Hus accused the prime minster in French of not protecting Canadians with the Lab (Holland: We have measures now to ensure that public safety is not compromise; Champagne: National security is not a partisan issue and we have done the most to protect science in this country; We published a list of entities who are protected).

Martin Champoux repeated the demand that the federal government not intervene in a Supreme Court of Canada appeal of Law 21 (Virani: We are committed to protecting Charter rights, and we have concerns with the pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause), and Rhéal Fortin made his own demand (Virani: Same answer).

Michael Cooper delivered his own hysterical script about the Winnipeg Lab documents (Holland: You are just trying to make partisan points and if you work together we can get things like pharmacare; PHAC is entirely responsible for its operations, and they fired those scientists after they lied about their activities), and Shelby Kramp-Neuman read another iteration of the same script (Holland: You are being partisan but if we work together we get things like dental care).

Lisa Marie Barron worried about funding cuts for housing in her riding (Fragiskatos: Let’s talk after QP), and Heather McPherson believed she was in the Alberta legislature around pharmacare (Holland: Access to medication for diabetes is about saving lives, and I have constructive conversations with the province’s health minister).

Round three saw yet more hysterically misleading questions on the Winnipeg Lab (Champagne: We have taken national security seriously with research; We are working with our allies to protect science and intellectual property; Holland: We did release the documents to NSICOP and you didn’t want to see them, so we needed a different process). It also saw questions on the demand for strings on those new health transfers (Holland: You are just trying to pick fights, and we are working with the province), Quebec opting out of pharmacare (Holland: Hooray for our plan!), some slogans about the carbon price (Fragiskatos: Yours is a party of austerity; MacKinnon: Here is some good economic news), the ArriveCan contractor being a civil servant (Blair: We suspended him when we learned he was an employee), a demand for a national wildfire-fighting force—which is provincial jurisdiction (Sajjan: We have devoted resources to the local levels, and are reviewing the impact on the national level), and Palestinians in Gaza being shot and killed and reinstating UNRWA funding (Joly: The stories coming out of Gaza are a nightmare scenario, and both sides need to respect the ICJ ruling and civilians must be protected).

Overall, it was quite the day for overwrought performances and escalating histrionics around supposed national security breaches, spies, and bioweapons in relation to those two fired scientists from the Winnipeg Lab—none of which was actually true. Nor was the assertion that they were “expelled from Canada,” erm, seeing as they’re Canadian citizens. And there were some statements made about them that would probably cross the threshold of slander if they weren’t made under the cover of parliamentary privilege. There were also the overwrought accusations that the government was trying to cover this up, which is curious when the government immediately turned over the unredacted documents to NISCOP and it was the Conservatives who threw a tantrum and refused to see them, boycotted NSICOP, and made the bizarre demand that the House of Commons’ law clerk to any redactions, in spite of having no national security training. In other words, there was a great deal of fiction being espoused about this.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Dominique Vien for a navy suit over a crisp white collared shirt, and to Larry Brock for a dark blue suit with a medium pink shirt and a dark pink patterned tie. Style citations go out to Paul Chiang for a brownish-maroon jacket over a cranberry shirt with a black tie, and to Brenda Shanahan for a gold and black floral jacket over a black turtleneck and slacks. Dishonourable mention goes out to Andréanne Larouche for a bright yellow blouse and black slacks. 

2 thoughts on “QP: Escalating histrionics about the two fired scientists”

  1. Routine Proceedings [Feb 29, 2024]: “There were also the overwrought accusations that the government was trying to cover this up….”

    I’ve never understood the reason for the extraordinary attempts that have been made for years now by Routine Proceedings to defend the Trudeau goverment’s efforts to cover up this issue.

    Just so the record is clear, there was a cover-up, as noted in The New York Times of February 29, 2024:

    “The release of the documents was the subject of a prolonged debate in Parliament that began before the last federal election, in September 2021. Opposition parties asked to see the records at least four times and found the Liberal government to be in contempt of Parliament in 2021. The government filed a lawsuit in an attempt to keep the records hidden, but dropped it when the vote was called.”

    • That was a procedural dispute. They released the documents to NSICOP right way, but the Conservatives didn’t like that. There was absolutely no good reason for the Conservatives to insist that the Law Clerk, who has no national security training, do the redactions of the documents, and then go to war to insist on that point (while the other two opposition parties played along).

Comments are closed.