So last week we had some Business of Supply days. Business of Supply is the procedure where the House decides to allocate the funds needed for the various needs of the government. On these days Opposition Motions can be proposed, and they take priority over any government motions or business. The idea is that it gives the Opposition the ability to make a case against the government spending, though these Motions can be about pretty much anything they want. Because of the broad nature of these Motions and the fact that this is a great opportunity to waste time and stall on government business, I’m going to be fairly critical of these Motions. I’m going to avoid getting into whether or not the point of the Motion is good or not, I’m going to be looking at whether or not the Motion is well written and is being used to actually move forward on a matter or if it’s just being used as a chance to get some sound bites and make MPs look bad.
Opposition Motions
Our first Opposition Motion is from Raquel Dancho (Conservative, Manitoba, Kildonan—St. Paul).
Given that, after eight years of this government’s soft on crime policies,
- violent crime has increased by 32%
- gang-related homicides have increased by 92%
- violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily
- increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk
- five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year
The House call on the government to enact policies that prioritize the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens, namely:
- fix Canada’s broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C-75 which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend
- strengthen Canada’s bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail
- ensure that Canada’s justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders
So this is a bad Motion. I’m not going to get into the issue with the term “soft on crime” today, but the entire Motion was built to be misleading. The stats listed at the beginning are accurate, crime has been increasing over the last 8 years as have violent offences. But the Motion has nothing to do with violent offences, it focuses on making it more difficult to get bail. C-75 changed the bail laws to allow judges more options when setting bail conditions, it doesn’t ‘force’ them to do anything. The other big misleading part with this Motion is that there are no statistics available showing the frequency that people break their bail conditions. There is absolutely no evidence that making it harder to obtain bail will do anything to change the numbers Raquel uses.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 150 | 0 |
| Conservative | 114 | 0 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 30 | 0 |
| NDP | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| Green Party | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Independent | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Our next Opposition Motion comes from Pierre Poilievre (Conservative, Ontario, Carleton)
Given that,
- the Bank of Canada governor has admitted that the carbon tax contributes to inflation
- the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that households will pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back
- the government plans to triple the carbon tax, which will increase the price of gas, groceries, and home heating
the House call on the government to immediately cancel the carbon tax.
So there’s some things to clarify here. First, the PBO report and the reference to tripling the Carbon Tax are both talking about where it’ll be in 2030. This isn’t something that’s happening this year. It’s also worth noting that at the moment the Carbon Tax only applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Manitoba. The other provinces have put together their own plan.
The other thing to note is that the PBO says the direct impact to households will still be a net gain, with lower-income households getting back more from the rebates and the top income households more or less breaking even. It isn’t until you include the economic impacts of the carbon tax that households are projected to lose money. The economic impacts they’re looking at are basically that if a company is paying more taxes it’ll have less investment income and less money for payroll, so households will end up losing out. Also even including the economic impacts low-income households are affected less than high-income households.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 149 | 0 |
| Conservative | 112 | 0 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 29 | 0 |
| NDP | 0 | 24 | 0 |
| Green Party | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Independent | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Bills
C-293 – Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act – went up for its second reading vote. C-293 would set up a committee to review the federal response to COVID and see what needs to be fixed for the future. It passed 176 in favour and 142 against, and will now go to committee.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 148 | 0 | 0 |
| Conservative | 0 | 112 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 30 | 0 |
| NDP | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Green Party | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Independent | 2 | 0 | 0 |
The Conservatives are against C-293 because of its potential impacts to agriculture. It calls out phasing out commercial activities that involve “high-risk species” but doesn’t mention what those species are, and are also worried that it’ll limit land use.
The Bloc Quebecois would rather see a national public inquiry into the COVID response.