Opposition Motions
Our first Opposition Motion this week is from Luc Berthold (Conservative, Quebec, Mégantic—L’Érable):
Given that:
- The first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41 cents to a litre of gas
- The second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20 cents to a litre of gas
- The combination of carbon tax one and carbon tax two will mean that Canadians pay an extra 61 cents for each litre of gas
- Making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is
- The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live
the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two (the “Clean Fuel Regulations”).
Lots to unpack here.
First, the price the first carbon tax adds to the price of gas will (after sales tax) be around 41 cents in 2030. It’s currently only 14 cents/litre. Also worth noting once again that this tax only applies in provinces/territories that don’t have their own system in place, so right now only Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Yukon, and Nunavut are affected.
Second, “carbon tax two” only applies to companies that fail to meet targets for reducing emissions. So it’ll only be an overall price increase if nobody reduces their emissions.
Finally we’re going to look at the $4,000 price tag of the two taxes. This is a bit misleading as Luc is using the PBO’s cost estimates for 2030. It also doesn’t consider the rebate on the first carbon tax, which the PBO determined would balance out the expense for low- to mid-income Canadians. The PBO does say the new tax (CFR) will impact lower-income households more than high-income ones though. Their estimated average cost to each household by province in 2030 is highest in Alberta ($1,157) and lowest in British Columbia ($384). Also note that these estimates are based on the impact to the provincial GDP, it isn’t a direct expense to each household.
The Motion failed with 115 voting in favour and 209 voting against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 150 | 1 |
| Conservative | 114 | 0 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 31 | 1 |
| NDP | 0 | 24 | 0 |
| Green Party | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Independent | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Budget Filibuster
So we saw an attempt to filibuster the budget last week.
For anyone not familiar with the term, filibustering is basically an attempt to grind Parliament to a halt so nothing can get done. In this case The House goes on summer break on June 23, so if we don’t pass C-47 before then (two weeks) the government won’t come back to it until mid-September, and in the meantime no government business will proceed.
Jasraj Singh Hallan (Conservative, Alberta, Calgary Forest Lawn) proposed 904 Motions regarding C-47 (the budget bill). Each one of these would be expected to get time for debate as well as be voted on, which would obviously take up an absurd amount of time and prevent the government from doing anything. Note that every time a vote occurs 20 minutes are given to debate on the vote, as well as 10 minutes for questions and answers. That means we’re looking at about 452 hours of debate to clear through these Motions.
Now we do have some systems in place to help keep things moving in situations like this. First up, The Speaker is responsible for checking everything that comes up to make sure it’s appropriate for the House. Two Motions were scrapped because they should have been presented to the committee. (Last week C-47 had just returned from committee) Another 227 Motions were scrapped for being repetitive and for being something that should have been presented to the committee.
The Speaker also has the ability to group Motions based on similarity so debates and votes can be done on an entire range all at once. Every one of the amendments proposed by Jasraj would delete a single clause from C-47, so rather than debate every line of the Bill the Speaker grouped them based on what would be deleted and they would be debated and voted on as groups. For example, part of C-47 includes expanding the national dental care program. Rather than debate which lines of that part need to be removed, it’s easier to just debate if the entire section should be removed.
Time Allocation Motion
A Motion was proposed by the Liberals to limit the amount of time left to debate and vote on the proposed amendments to C-47, as well as for its Third Reading. At the end of each of these time periods everything else the House might be working on will be put on hold to finish pushing through these debates and votes.
The Motion passed, 175 in favour and 145 against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 148 | 0 | 0 |
| Conservative | 0 | 111 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 31 | 0 |
| NDP | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Green Party | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Independent | 1 | 2 | 0 |
The Motions were then split into nine groups and each group was voted on. I’m not going to bother getting into the details on this one as every group is still “Delete a chunk of C-47” and in every case the Conservatives were the only ones to vote in favour of the amendments. The only person other than the Conservatives to support these amendments is Kevin Vuong (Independent, Ontario, Spadina—Fort York). C-47 then passed its Third Reading with the same votes.
Bill Updates
C-35 – Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act
A time allocation motion was proposed for C-35 to prevent delays on it passing. The Motion passed with 173 in favour and 147 against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 149 | 0 | 0 |
| Conservative | 0 | 113 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 31 | 0 |
| NDP | 23 | 0 | 0 |
| Green Party | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Independent | 0 | 2 | 0 |
C-284 – The National Strategy for Eye Care Act
C-284 went up for its Second Reading vote and passed with everyone voting in favour of it.
S-202 – The Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)
S-202 went up for its Second Reading vote and passed with 209 in favour and 114 against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 149 | 0 | 1 |
| Conservative | 0 | 114 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 31 | 0 | 1 |
| NDP | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Green Party | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Independent | 3 | 0 | 0 |
The Conservatives have concerns about the estimated $100,000 the new position will cost. The other parties support S-202 but have slightly different hopes about what it will accomplish.
C-281 – International Human Rights Act
C-281 went up for its Third Reading vote and passed with everyone voting in favour. It will now be sent to the Senate.
Closing Fun
And that’s all for the week! Have a quote!
Mr. Speaker, as Tupac once said, “All I’m trying to do is survive and make good out of the dirty, nasty, unbelievable lifestyle that they gave me.”
Source
Discover more from Commons Sense
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.