Treacherousness is in the eye of the beholder - Macleans.ca

Treacherousness is in the eye of the beholder

by

Last week, Peter Kent used the term “treacherous” to describe the “course of leaving the domestic debate and heading abroad to attack a legitimate Canadian resource which is being responsibly developed and regulated.” In the two days after, Conservative MPs used the phrase “anti-Canada” to describe the trip of two NDP MPs to Washington.

Today in QP, Mr. Kent returned to the adjective with the following for the NDP’s Megan Leslie.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back from her treacherous adventure abroad. I am sure Canadian workers and our resource industries will rest much more quietly now that she is back in this place.

There are at least two definitions of treacherous—”hazardous” and treasonous”—that could conceivably be applied here. This second reference by Mr. Kent seems to me to be closer to “hazardous,” if only when heard with the sarcastic tone Mr. Kent used to say it. The first reference seemed to me at the time to be closer to “treasonous” (though I was not there to hear his tone at the time). A commenter in this thread did beg to differ. Still now, I think it seems to imply treason, though I suppose it could merely be an unfortunately timed attempt at withering sarcasm. (I remain fairly confident that the implication of  the phrase “anti-Canada” is fairly clear.)

For the sake of clearing up any and all misunderstandings, I’ve sent an email to Mr. Kent’s office seeking clarification as to his exact meaning.