QP: Crowing about the release of a “secret report” that was not secret or a report

Posted on by

With the prime minister was off at the G7 summit in Italy, and his deputy off in Montreal, most of the other leaders didn’t bother to show up either. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, claiming that the “economic vandalism” and “carbon tax cover-up” have been exposed thanks to his party’s valiant efforts, and that the government finally revealed the data set about the cost impacts of carbon pricing beyond the retail price, and lo, it takes $30 billion out of the economy (which isn’t actually true—the figures only track one particular measure and not the other costs or offsets on the economy), and how the government attacked the PBO to hide the information (again, completely not true). Steven Guilbeault said that they have already established that math is Poilievre’s strong suit, that he can’t count above six, and that the data prove that eight out of ten households get more back, and that 25 million tonnes of GHG reductions are because of the carbon price. Poilievre accused the government of trying to hide the data (not true), raised the cost to Quebeckers, took a swipe at the Bloc, and accused the government again of attacking the reputation of the PBO for telling the truth (which isn’t what happened). Guilbeault reminded him that the carbon levy doesn’t apply in Quebec, and that he can turn to his own MPs who voted for the province’s carbon pricing system when she was in the Charest Cabinet. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that the previous “hidden report” (which is not a report) costs the economy $30 billions and considered it economic vandalism. Guilbeault insisted that this is misreading the data, that most households get more back, and that the carbon pricing is responsible for half of emissions reductions. Poilievre repeated his defence of the PBO, to which Guilbeault repeated his same response. Poilievre again mischaracterised the data, and demanded that Guilbeault resign, and this time Jonathan Wilkinson got up to point to the 300 economists who explained how carbon pricing works, and that there is a cost of inaction on climate change.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and complained about the Governor General’s budget, and demanded the medal programme be cancelled. Pascale St-Onge gave a tepid defence of the medals and the monarchy. Therrien complained that the same estimate vote contains funds for Indigenous clean drinking water initiatives and demanded the money on the medals be spent elsewhere. St-Onge pointed out that they have constituents who are interested in the medals who should be respected.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and railed about the proposed “third link” project in Quebec City, and demanded that no federal money go toward it. Pablo Rodriguez said that he should direct his ire to the provincial government. Lori Idlout decried the Indigenous infrastructure gap, and Patty Hajdu agreed that the record has been poor, and that the current government has been moving on those priorities.

Round two, and Melissa Lantsman got up to read a misleading script on that carbon pricing data (Wilkinson: It’s great that you now think economists can give good advice, and you should read the letter from those 300 economists; Guilbeault: How can you look anyone in the eye and say you’re doing nothing on wildfires and floods), Leslyn Lewis read her own misleading script (Wilkinson: You want to let the planet burn; MacKinnon: The data shows eight out of ten households are better off), and Luc Berthold read the misleading script in French (MacKinnon: The minister is great and has a plan for reducing emissions; Guilbeault: Your ignorance on this issue is boundless).

Kristina Michaud worried about the CBSA’s new tariff app (O’Connell: We are going to ensure it works properly, but it was purchased and developed in 2010, under the Conservatives), and Sylvie Bérubé raised the problems with the surplus goods programme (O’Connell: The minister is working with Finance to find the appropriate solution).

Blaine Calkins, and Cheryl Gallant read yet more misleading scripts about the carbon price data (Champagne: The minister is standing up for the planet unlike you guys; MacKinnon: You just want to move on from the fiasco of voting to protect the ultra-rich; Hajdu: You want to change the channel after fighting for the rich).

Matthew Green accused the government of trampling labour rights (Sheehan: We have had the backs of workers from the get-go), and Heather McPherson demanded sanctions on Netanyahu’s war Cabinet (Joly: The violence must stop and hostages must be released).

Round three saw questions on capital gains changes (MacKinnon: You don’t stand with workers or farmers, and we have boosted the exemption for farmers; Your leader has never seen a hay baler in his life; Your leader doesn’t know how to milk a cow or protect farmers; Your plan is to put the GST back on purpose-built rental housing; Champagne: Farmers in Quebec understand fairness; Holland: The only time you have raised doctors in this House is when we moving on tax fairness while you guys are only going to bring cuts; Fragiskatos: This tax change would allow for more revenue to address housing). There were also questions on the the nuclear storage at Chalk River (Wilkinson: They have concerned that the wastewater is not radioactive and don’t pose a danger to the public), spotted owl protections (Guilbeault: We signed a historic agreement with BC First Nations and provincial government about nature protection), and unemployment in Toronto (Turnbull: We have done more to support local economies than any government in my lifetime).

Overall, most of the day was extremely repetitive, with the first two thirds being spent on the false and misleading characterizations of the carbon pricing data that they claim the PBO was “gagged” from releasing. This was also the subject of their Supply Day motion today, so they were ready to spend the day demanding the “secret report” (which is neither secret nor a report) be released, but with the government having released the data set, its was instead a lot of crowing the they “forced” this release, that they were right all along (they weren’t), and how the government was trying to hurt the PBO’s credibility (he immolated his own credibility all by himself and he needs to resign for it). It was lies all the way down, and could the government explain any of this? Of course not. It was nothing but reiterations about the eight out of ten households stat, and that the Conservatives want to let the planet burn, and nothing about the data set itself, or the proper context for it, or why they hadn’t gagged the PBO but that nobody published draft data before reports are finalized. There were so many things that they could or should have said, but didn’t, and once again, they let the discourse get dragged down.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Eric Melillo for a dark blue suit with a crisp white shirt and a burgundy tie, and to Anita Anand for a pink jacket over a black dress. Style citations go out to Marie-Claude Bibeau for a three-quarter sleeved smock top with giant rose patterns, over black slacks, and to John Williamson for a tan suit with a light blue shirt and a darker blue tie. Dishonourable mention goes out to Yvonne Jones for a bright yellow jacket over a black top and slacks, and to Jonathan Wilkinson for a black suit with an off-white shirt and a yellow tie.