QP: Concern trolling over the Environment Commissioner’s report

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Quebec making housing announcements, while his deputy was in Winnipeg, while most of the other leaders were absent as well. Pierre Poilievre led off first in French saying that the Jewish community in Montreal is being targeted, and then switching to English to relay the recent incidents including gunfire at two different Jewish students, and decried the “theatrical words” of the prime minister and wondered what concrete action the government has taken. Karina Gould unequivocally condemned the incidents, stated there is no room for hate or antisemitism, and that they stand with Jewish Canadians, and that criminal investigations are ongoing. Poilievre returned to French to say that words don’t protect people, before he turned to the issue of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and that the president of the Fund spent $200,000 of those funds on her own business and wondered why she wasn’t fired. François-Philippe Champagne responded in English that they demanded a third-party investigation the moment they heard the allegations, and that they took action once the report was received. Poilievre returned to English to again decry that the chair of the fund directed funds to her own company and demanded that she be fired. Champagne repeated in French this time that the second they heard the allegations, they called for an investigation and the corrective measures. Poilievre then got back up to decry that the government has no real climate plan because carbon pricing “doesn’t work” and insisted that the carbon on price is just a tax plan. (Drink!) Steven Guilbeault objected to this, and pointed to emissions reductions that were achieved. Poilievre repeated his same mocking assertions, and this time Guilbeault pointed out that they haven’t missed any of their targets because their only target was for 2030.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that the government offer a tender for surveillance aircraft so that Bombardier has a chance to compete. Jean-Yves Duclos notes that they have supported the industry in Quebec throughout. Therrien decried that Bombardier doesn’t want a handout (erm…) but a chance to compete. Duclos reiterated that they have given plenty of work to Quebec, citing the Davie Shipyard as an example.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc to pat himself on the back for getting anti-scab legislation tabled, and wanted a committment to making it law as soon as possible. Seamus O’Regan took his own turn to pat himself on the back for the work that went into the bill. Peter Julian then stood up to decry that two grocery giants rejecting the voluntary code of conduct, and demanded the government support their bill. Champagne got back up to thunder that the government did the right thing in calling in the grocery CEOs, and demanded they support the government’s legislation. 

Round two, and Gérard Deltell gave his own mocking of the government’s climate plan (Guilbeault: You don’t have a plan so the public can’t trust you; We are fighting climate change with measures that are working), Michael Chong cited the Environment Commissioner’s report on the 2030 targets (Guilbeault: You campaigned on a carbon price for your leadership, and the Commissioner did say that carbon pricing was working; Champagne: You don’t have a climate plan or an economic plan), and Andrew Scheer breathily read his own mocking scripts (Guilbeault: We are on our way to meeting the targets; Wilkinson: You are factually wrong).

Gabriel Ste-Marie listed the Bloc’s demands for the Fall Economic Update (Boissonnault: Our economic basis is solid and we are getting results for Canadians; We are investing across the country to build a green economy), and Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagé repeated her usual demand to extend the CEBA repayment terms (Valdez: We did extend it and offered more flexibility).

Melissa Lantsman read her own mocking script about the climate targets (Guilbeault: The Commissioner did say that carbon pricing is working, but we’re lagging because we have to play catch-up; Wilkinson: Not only has the Commissioner said it’s working, that is also academic consensus), and Rick Perkins recited his same mocking script (Wilkinson: You are opposing a clean energy project in your province, which is the height of hypocrisy).

Rachel Blaney wanted supports for women veterans who lack documentation (Sarai: We commit to acting on what the committee recommends), and Matthew Green demanded the government call for a ceasefire (Damoff: What is unfolding is a human tragedy and all civilians must be protected, and we will support diplomatic discussions on humanitarian pauses).

Round three saw yet more mocking questions on climate targets (Ng: You are blocking the trade deal that would have environmental provisions with Ukraine; Wilkinson: It is incredibly ironic to hear a Conservative complain about the lack of a climate plan; Guilbeault: Not only is the carbon price working but we are on track to our objectives no thanks to the Conservatives). There were also questions demanding emergency assistance for media (St-Onge: We are concerned which is why she have established programmes to support the sector), the ArriveCan contracts (O’Connell: We expect all contracts to be issued following the rules and the law, and any wrongdoing will have consequences), unfulfilled Medicago contracts (Holland: We made sure to cover our bases to ensure we had vaccine options), the SDTC contracts (Champagne: This was set up under the Harper government, and we investigated as soon as allegations were raised), not making the caregiver credit refundable (Bibeau: There is a tax credit that we are making people aware of), and the 2030 emissions reduction target versus the Paris goals (Guilbeault: We do need to do more, and we have put out new measures since the report was completed).

Overall, the theme of the day was concern trolling—that the Conservatives mocked the Liberals for the Environment Commissioner’s report saying that they weren’t on track to meet their 2030 targets, so that they could complain about the carbon price. They studiously ignored, of course, the parts where he said the carbon price was working and that the government could still meet their targets if they buckle down, but of course that didn’t fit the Conservatives’ narrative, so of course it didn’t get mentioned. They also lied about pretty much everything else as part of their questions, so that was par for the course. It was just pure hypocrisy as the party who did nothing to meet the targets they set when they were in government (because they considered those targets to be “aspirational”) complaining that the actual efforts the current government is making, where the emissions curve has been bent and they are declining, isn’t doing enough. But hey, you don’t need to be ideologically consistent when you’re in opposition, or when you’re vying to be the government-in-waiting. 

Meanwhile, I have to credit Zi-Ann Lum from Politico for explaining the “Stone Age” comments coming from the Liberals as part of their responses—because in French, it’s “l’age de pierre,” so it qualifies as wordplay. I guess this is their response to “Justinflation.” Either way, it’s kind of ridiculous.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Ryan Turnbull for a dark blue suit with a white shirt and a lighter blue tie and pocket square, and to  Julie Dzerowicz for a black suit over an off-white round necked top. Style citations go out to Sonia Sidhu for a black sleeveless jacket and slacks over a dusky rose long-sleeved top, and to Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe for a tan brown jacket over a light blue shirt and a black and grey striped tie and blue jeans. Dishonourable mention goes out to Darrell Samson for a black suit with a pale yellow shirt and mustard bow tie. 

2 thoughts on “QP: Concern trolling over the Environment Commissioner’s report”

  1. I really enjoy your reporting, Dale, I wonder if, in future columns you might consider identifying speakers with a C, L, N, B, or G after their names as they do in the US Congress reporting (D, or R). It would be easier to read and discern better who is asking the question and who is answering. I know that you and frequent QP attendees will know the affiliation from the names, but most of us readers don’t. Just a suggestion. Thanks

Comments are closed.