QP: Yet another day of misleading about CPP and EI

Posted on by

While the PM was off to see the damage of Hurricane Fiona for himself, his deputy was in the Chamber in his seat. Pierre Poilievre led off, worrying that the current prime minister has fuelled inflation through deficits and debt, then decried EI and CPP as “tax hikes,” even though we have established that they are no such thing. Chrystia Freeland thanked the Conservatives for belatedly supporting the GST rebate, and said it wasn’t too late to support their other measures. Poilievre gave a grossly misleading accounting of EI and how it works, and Freeland reminded him that EI premiums are lower now than they were when Poilievre was the minister. Poilievre continued to falsely insist that EI wasn’t going to payouts but to government funds, and Freeland again repeated that premiums remain lower than when the Conservatives were in charge. Poilievre then concern trolled about the carbon price increasing, neglecting to mention that the rebates will also increase, and Freeland accused the Conservatives of planning to eviscerate pensions. Poilievre disputed this characterisation and tried again on the carbon price, to which Freeland said that he didn’t have a credible climate plan which means he doesn’t have a credible economic plan.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and accused the government of turning Roxham Road into a permanent facility, saying that the government wants it to last, and Freeland read a script about believing in the strength of the asylum system and working with the Americans on issues relate to the common border. Therrien accused this of being a racket benefitting Liberal donors, and Freeland insisted that they need to work together on immigration. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded that the federal government force telecommunications companies to build robust infrastructure that won’t be cut off after a hurricane. (Really?) Freeland gave some assurances that they will help the Atlantic provinces rebuild, and they are working to help these companies restore cell service. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Freeland in French.

Round two, and Stephen Ellis worried about a vineyard in his riding hit by the hurricane and wanted to know what supports they could get (LeBlanc: I have he constructive conversations with the premiers, and will work with them), and he too worried about cell service (Lauzon: We are working with the provinces), Rick Perkins accused the government being too slow to repair wharfs damaged by the hurricane (Murray: DFO has inspected 80 small craft harbours and they are on the ground), and Jake Stewart demanded help to replace fishing gear and to extend the season (Murray: Our people are on the ground and I am in touch with the provincial ministers, and are considering extensions), and Bernard Généroux wanted similar help for the Magdelaine Islands in Quebec who were also affected (LeBlanc! 

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe returns to the accusations that the government was making Roxham Road permanent to the joy of human smugglers (Mendicino: We are working with the Americans on border issues; We shouldn’t suppose that each person entering at Roxham Road is a criminal), and accused this of going to Liberal donors (Jaczek: There was an open and fair process).

Leslyn Lewis decried government “tax increases” which aren’t taxes (Freeland: We have a plan to support Canadians, and you can support all of measures; Your leader pushed Bitcoin while we have the lowest debt and deficit in the G7), and Jamie Schmale and Dominique Vien asked more of the same misleading questions (Freeland: CPP and EI are safety nets).

Laurel Collins worried that the government was waiting for Big Oil to do the right thing (Duguid: Energy companies are doing well and they need to invest in reducing pollution, and we have other tools like the clean fuel standard and phasing out subsidies ahead of schedule), while Alexandre Boulerice yelled about the greed of grocery CEOs (Freeland: We are ensuring everyone pays their fair share in taxes).

Round three saw questions on carbon prices (Holland: As we watch another disaster caused by climate change, you are being disingenuous about climate action), so-called tax increases (Freeland: You are misleading as these are not taxes; You seem to think that Canadians aren’t smart but they see right through you), increasing health transfers to the provinces (Duclos: We are working with the provinces), farmers paying carbon prices (Drouin: On-farm fuels are exempt, and they have rebates), Roxham Road rentals (Jaczek: There was a fair process at market value because locations are limited; Lalonde: Our system for asylum seekers must be strong and there is no magic solution, and we are working with the United States to modernise the Safe Third Country Agreement), fixing Nutrition North (Vandal: We recently announced an expansion to the programme and are moving beyond a subsidy and are expanding access to country foods), demanding a by-Indigenous for-Indigenous housing programme (Hussen: We are committed to such a strategy and dedicated $300 million in this year’s budget as a first instalment).

Overall, I did find it a bit curious that even though Pierre Poilievre’s lead question was in French, no other French questions were asked until well into the middle of round two, which is both unusual and makes it look like they’re not even really trying. As well, in spite of the fact that the usual business of the Commons today is a Supply Day for which the Conservatives are debating a motion to scrap the carbon price, there were no questions structured as “Will the government support our motion,” which is a small mercy, I suppose, given how most of the rest of their questions were the misleading talking point about how people are now spending more of their paycheques on taxes than essentials to rail about CPP and EI increases, even though neither are taxes, and the narrative supposes that tax dollars are simply lit on fire and the people don’t benefit from them, even though they get healthcare, infrastructure, government services, and the like. It’s unreconstructed 1980s talking points, and it’s tiresome to hear the same framing repeated over and over again, because yes, this is simply about generating clips for social media shitposts.

There was also a very curious—if I can use that word—construction of Bloc and Conservative questions around the Roxham Road crossing, and the allegation that the Liberals somehow are hoping to benefit from irregular crossings. The notion that those who got rental contracts for the CBSA establishments are somehow benefitting Liberal donors is a bit ridiculous given that donation limits are so low that there would be no real qui pro quo (and the fact that you are limited places for CBSA to put infrastructure near the border). Yes, there are questions to be asked about suspending or amending the Safe Third Country Agreement, but accusing the Liberals of somehow benefitting from the status quo is nonsense.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Pascale St-Onge for a dark grey jacket over a turquoise too and black slacks, and to Maninder Sidhu for a tailored black suit with a crisp white shirt and a taupe tie. Style citations go out to Darren Fisher for his terrible brown corduroy jacket over a light blue shirt with no tie, and to Rosemarie Falk for a black dress with three-quarter sleeves and silver florals. Dishonourable mentions go out to Rachel Bendayan for a bright yellow jacket over a black top and skirt, to Kristina Michaud for a pale yellow jacket over a black top and slacks, and to Marie-Hélène Gaudreau for an orange-toned yellow jacket of a black top and slacks.

2 thoughts on “QP: Yet another day of misleading about CPP and EI”

  1. At last!! “Canadians see right through you” a refrain that must be heard everyday in QP.
    The Cons have always treated Canadians like ignoramus”
    as we have seen, all those election defeats.

  2. What a waste of an opposition-day motion. The whole party contributes nothing constructive, just playground taunts, obstructionist game-playing, and pathological lying. I’m reminded of a *Doonesbury* cartoon that saw Rick Perry promising to repeal the law of gravity on grounds that it was unconstitutional. Same vibe coming from Skippy because he’s just another Republican BS artist with the same broken-record talking points.

Comments are closed.