QP: Blaming Trudeau for sectarian violence

Posted on by

While the election was happening south of the border, the prime minister was present for Question Period, as were all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and led off with a bit of an exaggeration about the softwood lumber agreement that Harper signed with the U.S. (which the industry objected to), as his way of demanding an election. Justin Trudeau noted that the Conservatives advocated capitulating to the Americans in previous trade disputes while his government stood up to Trump and won. Poilievre then made the false claim that the government is “impoverishing” Canadians, to which Trudeau dismissed this as more of Poilievre’s false “broken” narrative. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question and its false assertions about softwood lumber. Trudeau noted that he has already answered this in French, and took the opportunity to denounce the violence seen at Sikh and Hindu temples. Poilievre ignored that entirely and repeated his false narratives around the GDP per capita, and Trudeau noted Poilievre’s silence on the violence in the South Asian community, and used that to wedge in his condemnation that Poilievre wouldn’t get his security clearance. Poilievre said this was a distraction from the economy and blamed Trudeau personally for the sectarian violence, rise in hate crimes and division in the country. Trudeau said that while Poilievre is so assured that he knows the causes of these problems, he won’t get his clearance to get proper briefings.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and wondered why the emissions cap was being done by regulation and not statute, but Trudeau didn’t explain the difference, but went on a soliloquy about the oil and gas sector doing their fair share. Blanchet demanded tougher standards to take to the electorate, and Trudeau stated that no sector should be allowed to pollute without limit, and that they should re-invest their record profits into lowering their emissions.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and complained that a Loblaws-owned company is charging for families doctors. Trudeau noted that this is provincial responsibility, but their latest transfers included earmarks for hiring doctors and mental health services. Singh gave a scripted retort before repeating the question in French and got the same answer in French.

Round two, and Jasraj Hallan invoked “woke” to complain about the GDP (Champagne: Why won’t your leader get his clearance?; Khera: You will only cut programmes people need), Michael Chong spouted some utter nonsense about the economy (Bendayan: Our deficit is lower than the U.S., we have been responsible with our balance sheet; Gould: Your leader needs to get his clearance), and Pierre Paul-Hus and gave the same economics nonsense in French (Champagne: Look at the record investments being made in our economy; Duclos: We have invested in affordable housing in your very riding while your leader wants to cut those programmes, and he needs to get his security clearance).

Yves Perron worried that New NAFTA renegotiation would imperil Supply Management if their bill isn’t passed (Bibeau: Senators are independent, and while you don’t have the power to protect the system, we do; We are calling on the Senate to pass the bill; Duclos: You won’t protect it by getting in cahoots with the Conservatives).

Bob Zimmer, Jake Stewart, Randy Hoback, and Richard Martel all repeated the nonsense about the previous softwood lumber agreement before demanding an election (Ng: We are working on a deal, and we stood up to defend workers; Wilkinson: We have worked hard in the interests of the forestry sector, and your leader needs his clearance; Gould: We stood up against Trump when you told us to capitulate and your leader needs to get his clearance; Champagne: We have stood up for the sector but why won’t your leader get his clearance?)

Lisa Marie Barron worried about women veterans not being represented at the national ceremony (Petitpas Taylor: We want Canadians to attend ceremonies to thank men and women who have served), and Lindsay Mathyssen wanted more powers for the veterans ombuds (Petitpas Taylor: We have invested more that $11.5 billion since 2016 and we will always be there for veterans).

Round three saw questions on the GST cut on new housing plan (Fragiskatos: More and more of your MPs want funds from the programmes your leader wants to cut; Your caucus mate cause a filibuster in committee to distract from saying that poor people are criminals; Your leader uses vulnerable people for props; Martinez Ferrada: Your leader built six affordable units while we are building 8000 with these programmes; your own riding is getting 80 of these units, and your leader needs his security clearance), delayed reforms to EI (Boissonnault: We have made major changes, and this is a priority), tough on crime (Blair: There are 700 fewer police in Toronto than when I was chief thanks to conservative mayors), the condo purchase in New York (Joly: I was just at committee asking about this, and you are just engaging in character assassination), Windsor suing the federal to recoup for Convoy damages (LeBlanc: While Conservatives supported the blockades, we have been open to working with Windsor), and federal funding for certain employment programming (Boissonnault: We transfer billions to provinces and territories, then we need to get the provinces to recognise foreign credentials).

Overall, it was another day where I was about to lose my mind. I can somewhat understand Trudeau wanting to make the statement about the violent protests at the Hindu and Sikh temples, but trying to call out Poilievre on it and tying it to his lack of a security clearance was clearly across the line, and for Poilievre to shout back that Trudeau is personally responsible for sectarian violence, a rise in hate crimes and division in the country is, quite frankly, beyond the pale. This didn’t get escalated, however, as it was a the end of Poilievre’s leader’s round, but it may get picked again tomorrow, which see another explosive QP (or not).

Otherwise, the fact that most of the government responses included a mention of Poilievre’s security clearance is, quite frankly, a problem because we are getting to the place where this is now just a sham process where each side gets their clips, regardless of the question being asked, or the response being given. The non sequiturs are bad enough at the best of times, but solidifying this into a strategy is not only abusing Parliament and its processes, but is frankly spitting in the face of democracy. It doesn’t need to be this way, and if the Liberals want to look like they’re the grown-ups and aren’t ceding the rational high ground to the Conservatives (which is a tactic Poilievre is now attempting with his quiet questions and saying that any response with a raised voice is “hollering and flailing”), then they don’t need to behave this way. This parliament continues to spiral down to ever-worse depths, and it’s very, very bad for democracy and the future of this country. Knock it off, everyone.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Anita Anand for a long medium-blue jacket over a black top and slacks, and to Mark Miller for a tailored dark grey suit with a crisp white shirt and a hot pink tie. Style citations go out to Damien Kurek for a black jacket with a dark grey shirt, a blue-toned pebble-patterned tie and dark blue jeans, and to Mary Ng for a short-sleeved dark green dress that looked like an oversized t-shirt with a black bow on the front. 

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.