QP: Sophistry on the carbon levy

Posted on by

Fresh from his trip to Philadelphia, the prime minister was present for QP today, while his deputy was off to Toronto. All of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and blamed the prime minister and the Bloc for debt, taxes and inflation, and raise a Food Banks of Canada report that cites half of people saying they are in worse situations than before, with more use by young people, and blamed the prime minister of feeding the “obese government” when people can’t feed themselves. Justin Trudeau said Poilievre’s outrage would be more credible if he didn’t oppose things like their school food programme, and praised dental care. Poilievre said that the school food programme has created zero meals and only created red tape. Trudeau said that the Conservatives are trying to score points on the backs of the challenges Canadians are facing, and patted himself on the back some more for their programmes. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his food bank report/“obese government” lines, and Trudeau repeated that Poilievre lacked credibility for voting against school food and things like dental care. Poilievre wondered aloud if the government’s programmes were working, why so many people we lined up at food banks. Trudeau said that he vote on the school food programme was coming up after QP, and Poilievre would have a chance to show his support. Poilievre wondered why all of those government programmes were showing for naught, and Trudeau sang the praises of dental care and seniors getting the help they need.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, worried about the decline of French in Western Canada, and turned this into another swipe at Francis Drouin and his outburst at committee. Trudeau said that the Bloc don’t really care about francophones outside of Quebec, and disputed that the only way to protect French is with separation, but by investing. Blanchet railed that he wasn’t allowed to talk about French outside of Quebec during the last English debate in the election, and Trudeau shot back that he always defends the French fact in Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and railed about greedy CEOs, and how the government hasn’t lowered prices (which is not what anyone promised), to which Trudeau cited the StatsCan data showing cellphone fees decreasing, and praised their bill empowering the Competition Bureau. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response. 

Round two, and Poilievre got back up, and took some shots at Singh before falsely claiming the  carbon levy was responsible for higher food prices (Trudeau: The PBO said most people get back more than they pay), claimed Trudeau was prepared to hand over power to “carbon tax Carney” (Trudeau: The PBO report), Poilievre recited his falsehoods about farm fuels raising prices (Trudeau: Farm fuels are 95 percent exempt as you well know), Poilievre disputed this fact before engaging in sophistry about the carbon price and forest fires (Trudeau: We have a plan for the environment), Poilievre insisted that the carbon levy was just  about collecting money (Trudeau: You know it’s revenue neutral), and Poilievre disputed this before engaging in more sophistry about the price not preventing forest fires (Trudeau: An explanation of the relationship between carbon and droughts/extreme weather).

Blanchet got back up to worry about French as a working language for scientists (Trudeau: We have worked to invest in French), and demanded Quebec get official language powers for federal workplaces because he disagrees with protections for the anglophone minority in the province (Trudeau: The official languages act protects all linguistic minorities).

Poilievre raised the PBO report on homelessness (Trudeau: We invested to help, particularly as the pandemic happened), wondered why greater investments made more people homeless (Trudeau: You only want austerity), repeated the question in French (Trudeau: It takes investments in programmes and data, but you only want cuts), and he returned to English to blame Trudeau for homelessness (Trudeau: Same answer).

Heather McPherson demanded the government immediately recognise the state of Palestine (Trudeau: We will recognise it at the right time), and Lori Idlout worried about a Nunavut child care centre losing funding (Trudeau: We have worked with provinces and territories to pass alongs, and I will follow up on this case).

Round three saw questions on Poilievre worried about people in Quebec not being able to find a new home this summer (Trudeau: Here is a list of things we are doing), needled the Bloc about supporting government spending (Trudeau: You are ignoring facts, and that global inflation hit Canada less; People remember your cuts to culture in Quebec, and while the Bloc say they defend Quebeckers, they do it less well than we do), demanding the government accept his gas tax holiday plan (Trudeau: We will invest in families), drug decriminalisation (Trudeau: We will work with jurisdictions on a science and evidence-based plan; we invested billions in the healthcare system), a rise in extortion (Trudeau: Your plans keep getting struck down by the courts, while you keep voting to weaken gun laws; Your plan to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause is not responsible). There were also questions on closed fisheries (Trudeau: We understand the challenges, and we will be there to support fishers while we protect international markets; protecting endangered species is a complex issue), not paying Windsor for the “convoy” blockade (Trudeau: We paid back a significant amount, and there is a dispute around legal fees that is still being discussed), and the International Criminal Court arrest warrants (Trudeau: We are closely monitoring the ICC, and we respect their independence). 

Overall, there were no fireworks or really any noteworthy exchanges, when usually we do get something of a reasonable back-and-forth going between Trudeau and Poilievre. Instead, we got a bunch of attempts to equate correlation and causation, and sophistry on the effect of the carbon levy on things like food prices and whether or not it’s supposed to stop forest fires (because honest to Zeus, nobody has actually said “if you pay the carbon levy we won’t have forest fires any longer” and if you believe that’s what the message is, you probably need to to back to school for some remedial logic and critical thinking skills). Trudeau did give an explanation about carbon and climate change and extreme events, and he did, to his credit, push back on some of Poilievre’s outright lies, but again, because this is Poilievre, he employs sophistry to dispute the corrections of those lies. This government is really, really terrible at countering sophistry, and they really need to figure out how to respond to it better.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Justin Trudeau for a tailored medium grey suit with a crisp white shirt and a purple patterned tie, and to Patty Hajdu for a black jacket and (I believe) skirt over a white v-necked top. Style citations go out to Marilyn Gladu for a sleeveless black dress with blue and white florals, and to Taylor Bachrach for a salmon pink jacket over a white shirt and black tie. Dishonourable mention goes out to Anna Roberts for a black jacket and slacks over a bright yellow top.

One thought on “QP: Sophistry on the carbon levy”

  1. Routine Proceedings should be required reading for every Canadian of voting age.

Comments are closed.