Motions
Our first Opposition Motion comes from Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Leader, Ontario, Carleton) and reads:
Given that:
- After eight years of this Liberal government, this prime minister has added more to the national debt than all previous prime minister’s combined
- A half-trillion dollars of inflationary deficits has directly led to 40-year inflation highs
- Prior to budget 2023, the Minister of Finance said, “What Canadians want right now is for inflation to come down and for interest rates to fall […] and that is one of our primary goals in this year’s budget: not to pour fuel on the fire of inflation,” and then proceed to usher in $60 billion in new spending
- In order to combat inflation, the Bank of Canada has been forced to increase interest rates 10 times in just 19 months
- Interest rate increases have increased mortgage payments, and since this prime minister took office, monthly mortgage payments have increased 150% and now cost $3,500 on a typical family home
- The Liberal-NDP government must exercise fiscal discipline, end their inflation driving deficits so that interest rates can be lowered
in order to avoid a mortgage default crisis, as warned by the International Monetary Fund, and to ensure Canadians do not lose their homes, the House call on the government to introduce a fiscal plan that includes a pathway back to balanced budgets, in order to decrease inflation and interest rates, and to introduce this in the House of Commons prior to the Bank of Canada’s next policy interest rate decision on October 25, 2023.
Main thing I’m going to mention here is regarding the “$60 billion in new spending”. As always when people talk about spending it’s good to look at the details, as politicians love to talk about big numbers to make themselves look good or their opponents look bad. From what I can see at least $43 billion of that money is being spent over 6 years, so it’s actually closer to $7 billion per year. He also doesn’t mention the $2 billion in new revenue or the $15 billion in spending cuts, so the big spending number isn’t as bad as it looks. Always remember that “New Spending” is talking about new programs and doesn’t include any income or spending outside of those.
It’s also worth noting that this Motion went up for a vote on Oct 18, which would have left the government a week to put together a new fiscal policy. I definitely wouldn’t trust any policy covering a government’s budget hammered out over the course of a week.
The Motion failed with 148 votes in favour and 181 votes against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 154 | 2 |
| Conservative | 116 | 0 | 0 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 30 | 0 | 1 |
| NDP | 0 | 24 | 0 |
| Green | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Independent | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Bill Updates
C-319 – An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)
C-319 went up for its Second Reading vote and passed with 173 in favour and 155 against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 154 | 2 |
| Conservative | 115 | 0 | 1 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 30 | 0 | 1 |
| NDP | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Green | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Independent | 2 | 1 | 0 |
The Liberals voted against this for… reasons. They spent a lot of time talking about what they’ve already done for seniors, including lowering the retirement age back down from 67 to 65 and increasing the guaranteed income supplement by almost $1,000/year. They then went on to declare that everyone needs to work together and that the Conservatives and Bloc voted against both of those measures. Worth noting both of those happened in a Budget Bill, so there’s plenty of other reasons they may have voted against it.
The Conservatives voted in favour of it because they feel seniors need more money to help with the cost of living, which they promptly blamed on government spending. Bit of an interesting position to take that the government needs to spend more money to offset the fact that it’s spending more money, but there you go.
The NDP voted in favour of it again because the cost of living continues to go up, and argues that it isn’t enough. They then go on to argue about the Conservatives trying to pick apart the CPP, the Bloc fighting against a plan for dental care for seniors, and the Liberals failing to do anything about the housing crisis.
Note that C-319 still needs a Royal Recommendation before it goes up for its Third Reading or it will automatically fail. If this is something you support contact your MP and let them know! Make sure to contact each of the party leaders as well.
C-314 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
C-314 went up for its Second Reading vote and was defeated, 150 in favour and 167 against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 8 | 136 | 2 |
| Conservative | 115 | 0 | 1 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 0 | 30 | 1 |
| NDP | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Green | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Independent | 1 | 1 | 0 |
The Conservatives think that MAiD has expanded too quickly, and support C-314 to make the current exclusion of mental illness from qualifying for MAiD permanent. It’s worth noting that part of their argument includes the following:
I would remind the minister and his government that the issue is also profoundly simple; that is, the principle that all life, all human life is precious and worthy of defence and protection, especially for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves and have no one to speak for them.
This sounds a bit like an attempt to equate MAiD with certain other topics that end up being controversial.
The Liberals argue that the mental illness exclusion was always intended to be temporary, and that when the current exemption ends next year they believe medical professionals will be prepared to make the proper decision on if someone suffering from mental illness should qualify for MAiD. They also argue that changing “mental illness” to “mental disorder” can cause a lot of confusion as the Criminal Code has a very specific definition of “mental disorder” and no new definitions are applied to it for C-314. Under the Criminal Code you’ll see “mental disorder” show up a lot with “not criminally responsible”, so there’s a long history behind that term.
The Bloc Quebecois don’t believe the government should be allowed to make decisions on someone’s suffering and as such oppose the Bill. If someone feels they’re in a bad enough position that MAiD is the only option and medical professionals agree, they should qualify for it. They also point out that consultations and studies have determined that someone who’s experiencing suicidal thoughts wouldn’t qualify for MAiD, and disagree with comparing MAiD to suicide.
The NDP agree with the Liberals that we’re now in a better position to ensure MAiD is only given to people who really need it, but still voted in favour of C-314.
Worth noting is that the following Liberal MPs voted in favour of C-314:
- Chad Collins (Ontario, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
- Julie Dzerowicz (Ontario, Davenport)
- Emmanuella Lambropoulos (Quebec, Saint-Laurent)
- Joël Lightbound (Quebec, Louis-Hébert)
- Wayne Long (New Brunswick, Saint John—Rothesay)
- John McKay (Ontario, Scarborough—Guildwood)
- Marcus Powlowski (Ontario, Thunder Bay—Rainy River)
- Ken McDonald (Newfoundland and Labrador, Avalon)
C-244 – An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance, and repair)
C-244 went up for its Third Reading and passed with everyone voting in favour. It will now be sent off to the Senate.
C-325 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act (conditions of release and conditional sentences)
C-325 went up for its Second Reading and failed with 147 voting in favour of it and 181 voting against.
| Party | For | Against | Paired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal | 0 | 154 | 2 |
| Conservative | 115 | 0 | 1 |
| Bloc Quebecois | 30 | 0 | 1 |
| NDP | 0 | 24 | 0 |
| Green | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Independent | 0 | 2 | 0 |
The Liberals don’t support C-325 as they don’t want to restrict a judge’s ability to choose an appropriate punishment for a crime. They mention that this would just put more people in prison, and that this is a step back towards strict minimum sentencing which was deemed unconstitutional.
The Bloc Quebecois feel that C-325 fills in some gaps that are being taken advantage of, especially by people accused of sex crimes.
The NDP agree that this will just put more people in prison and doesn’t improve the conditional release system in any way. They also point out that conditional release doesn’t mean a sentence is over, the offender is just allowed to serve the rest of their sentence in the community under supervision instead of in prison.
C-320 – An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)
C-320 went up for its Second Reading and passed with everyone voting in favour. It will now be sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Closing Fun
And that’s all for the week!
There’s one quick thing of note that wasn’t covered today but will be next week (votes on it are happening today, which means it just missed the cutoff) is a Motion from Daniel Blaikie (NDP, Manitoba, Elmwood—Transcona). Turns out the rules around Confidence matters (things where a vote against the government will trigger an election) are pretty loose. Daniel’s Motion will codify the rules around Confidence matters to make them clear and more difficult to abuse. This includes things like making it so anyone can propose a Motion of No Confidence, making it so if the government is prorogued while a Confidence Vote is coming up that a Confidence Motion will be the first thing that happens when the government comes back, and making it so at the opening of every session (this would include after proroguing) the government needs to pass a Confidence Motion to show that it still has the support of the House.
I’ll get into more detail on that next week, along with the votes and pending amendments to it as well. See you all then!