SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Nov/15/22 3:16:39 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

Nov/15/22 3:17:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, given that, first, the mental health of Canadians has been negatively impacted by the COVID–19 pandemic; second, the toxic drug crisis has worsened during the COVID–19 pandemic and continues to have a tragic impact on communities; third, too many Canadians are unable to access mental health or substance use supports in a timely manner and economic conditions are exacerbating financial barriers; and fourth, lack of timely access to community-based mental health and substance use services is adding to the immense strain facing our hospitals and primary care providers; the House call on the government to take the necessary steps to bring a comprehensive range of mental health and substance use services beyond physician and hospital settings into our universal public health care system.

158 words

The Speaker

Nov/15/22 3:18:12 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. An hon. member: Nay.

19 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/15/22 3:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 22, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.

21 words

The Speaker

Nov/15/22 3:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for questions and comments.

63 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/15/22 3:20:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are being treated to an eloquent demonstration by the Liberal government, which, with the NDP coalition, has chosen to limit the ability of members from across the country to speak freely on issues that interest them. Not only are they trying to get a motion passed in the House, with the support of the NDP, that will give the Liberals even greater control over how the House works, but now they want to avoid debating the motion. This is totally inappropriate and unacceptable. I wonder why the Liberals, who for months have been touting transparency, openness and consensus, are once again limiting debate in the House today, with the tacit support of the NDP. That is the reality. The Conservatives want to collaborate and contribute, while the Liberals want to impose their will. Why is that?

141 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this seems so strange to me, because this motion is about extending the time for debate. The member opposite says that the government's objective is to prevent the opposition from speaking. Maybe the opposition member has not had a chance to read the text, because it actually provides the opportunity to speak more. The problem here is the Conservative Party's obstructionist tactics, which it continues to use to block other parties from passing legislation at this critical time. As for speaking freely, if there are more hours to speak, there are more opportunities for members on the other side to explain their position and have more debate. That is why the member's question seems very strange to me.

123 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/15/22 3:23:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from the party across the way. A recent meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am a member, was cancelled due to a lack of resources. That is the impact of the hybrid Parliament. That is the impact of extending sitting hours. This committee is unable to meet to deal with major issues that have consequences for women and girls. As a mother, I am sincerely asking my colleagues if that is the message they want to be sending. I do not want to hear a single person across the way tell me that I am lazy. I was able to work. That is not the issue. Can we send a message to women that having debates until midnight does not make sense? If we want Parliament to be more representative and more diverse, then we need to use a bit more common sense. We can debate during the day. There is no need to schedule debates until midnight until the end of the session.

178 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:23:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's question covers two issues. First, there is the issue of committees. That is the reason we can talk about the legislative agenda for Parliament and also for the committees. I am very aware of that. The 31 committees study some very important issues. There is also the legislative agenda here in Parliament, and it is vital that we have time for both. Concerning the situation for mothers, I hope that the member opposite will support the hybrid system because it is a good solution, not just for mothers, but for anyone. There are solutions. We must continue to talk.

104 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/15/22 3:24:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine any member of Parliament objecting to working longer hours, particularly when we look at what Canadians are facing right now. Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables and to keep a roof over their heads. We have an obligation as parliamentarians to work longer hours and to work harder to make sure that Canadians are supported. I want to ask my colleague, the government House leader, what the real reason may be for the Conservative objection. Looking back two years ago, the Globe and Mail reported that Conservatives held the worst attendance record at the House of Commons COVID-19 committee, with only a 47% attendance rate. We can contrast that with the Bloc at 73%, Liberals at 76% and the NDP at 85%, with the NDP once again being the worker bees of Parliament. Is that not the real reason Conservatives are opposing extending hours and working harder on behalf of Canadians?

162 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:25:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is 100% right that the times we are in right now demand that we put shoulder to wheel and do more. I do have to say that I cannot speak for the motivations of anybody else, but let me be very clear of the motivation we are coming to the table with and that, I believe, the hon. member is coming to the table with as well in asking his question, which is that every time we ask how many speakers there are going to be or how much time the party opposite needs in order to be able to adjudicate their arguments with respect to legislation, we are frustrated in that and given no answers. Even on the bills they support, the Conservatives will not tell us how many speakers they have. It is a never-ending cascade of obstruction. Canadians do not expect for Parliament to have one party stand in the way of all the other parties being able to do their work when there is essential legislation that we must pass.

180 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/15/22 3:26:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have just a small note, given the last statement by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, but the worker bees of Parliament are quite often the Greens. To the hon. government House leader, as Greens, we do not have access to the House leaders meetings. I know that cannot be discussed as they are in camera. However, I am at a loss to know why a procedural motion to allow this work to proceed was not able to be agreed upon without time allocation. What also comes to mind, after an amendment was put forward and also after hearing the hon. member for Shefford from the Bloc, who spoke moments ago, is if there is an issue here that is a real issue or if this is gamesmanship. The real issue is whether the House can do its work and whether every committee can be properly staffed if we move in the direction of the motion before us.

163 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:27:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's question gets to the core of a matter in front of us, which is that, if we are direct with each other, tell each other exactly how many speakers there are going to be and how much time is needed on a particular bill, then maybe we will need additional hours or maybe we will not. I will be very direct. Oftentimes, it has only been the Conservative Party from which I have not been able to get straight or clear answers on how much time is needed. What does that mean? Let us look at Bill C-9, which was a technical bill that was supported by all parties, and for days we ended up debating this bill, with no clarity on when it was going to end. Then, when we had an issue with interpretation and lost 20 minutes, we asked for that 20 minutes back and the Conservatives said no, meaning that we had an entire other day of House business that was wasted. Every day of House business is critical, and it needs to be used for real issues. We are saying we should focus on the real priorities that we have and, if and when we have unanimity, we do not need to chew up enormous House time.

218 words

All Topics

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)

Nov/15/22 3:28:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the NDP and Liberals signed the coalition agreement, the two parties have voted together over 90% of the time. In that period, Conservatives brought eight motions to the House calling for tax relief, and the coalition defeated all of them. The NDP is 60 for 60 on votes supporting government legislation. This is the 14th closure motion supported by the NDP to shut down debate, even though it used to call these motions undemocratic. Tonight, the hapless NDP is even prepared to vote for a motion that will further limit the resources of parliamentary committees doing very important business for Canadians. Is there anything the NDP will not do for the Prime Minister?

116 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:29:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again I find it incredibly strange that the argument from the other side is that a motion to extend sitting hours and expand speaking time is somehow limiting debate. An hon. member: There are committees. Hon. Mark Holland: Madam Speaker, I hear people yelling “committees”. The reality is that committees do incredibly important work and there are 31 of them, but the idea that the House, the legislature, should take a back seat to 31 other committees when there is essential legislation for us to deal with makes no sense. We need to look at what is on the agenda of those 31 committees and make sure that, where there is critical work, it is getting done. As the Speaker and all members know, a lot of what the members on the other side are talking about is not looking into the issues facing Canadians or how they can make life more affordable. They are on a hunt that is partisan, trolling for things that they can put in newspaper headlines. That is not something that the House should be taking a back seat to. That is not something that the House should sit back and let them play partisan games on committees being a priority when there is essential legislation that needs to be adopted to help Canadians.

223 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/15/22 3:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I reflect on the games that are being played in the House, the first thing that pops into my mind is with respect to Bill S-5. Bill S-5, ultimately, was unanimously adopted in the House, and in the process of getting to the point where we could finally vote on it, there were six Liberal members, four NDP members, five Bloc members and one Green member who spoke to the bill. How many Conservatives spoke to it? There were 27 Conservatives. The best part about it for those who were in the House listening to what they were talking about on that legislation regarding environmental protection was that none of them even spoke to the bill. It was clear that what they were doing, on something they ultimately supported, was just to slow down the government agenda. Would the House leader not agree with me that the sole objective of the Conservatives is to slow down everything at any cost? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

170 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 3:32:01 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to the government House leader, I want to remind members of the opposition to hold onto their thoughts. The hon. parliamentary secretary does not have a low voice, and I had a hard time hearing him, so I would ask members to please hold onto their thoughts until they are recognized. The hon. government House leader.

59 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:32:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member, my colleague and friend, is 100% right. In fact, I can recall in the last session, when we had a bill that was being voted on unanimously, the Conservatives directly said to me that there was no way they were going to let it go through, and they were moving motions to hear themselves so they could force votes in the middle of the night. That meant that people who were trying to testify at the MAID committee about medical assistance in dying, who had flown from all over the country to speak and tell their stories, were displaced so they could play a game. The reality is that, in each and every instance, they have a smirk on their face when they refuse to tell us how many speakers they have. They continue to tell us they have a bill, but that is the first number I have ever heard. They finally have one, and maybe that is proof that this motion is working. Maybe it is proof that now they will actually give us numbers because this is the first time I am hearing them and the House can adjudicate its business and do it. They do not have the ability, as a single party in this place, to interrupt the business of everyone else and try to do obstruction by stealth, which is what they are doing. They are upset because they have been called on it. Now they have an opportunity. If they have speakers, they can go on into the night and talk. That does not limit debate. It expands it. They can make their points and they can do their speeches, and that means the House can still do its business.

292 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/15/22 3:33:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very serious question. I believe our colleague across the way is an hon. member of the House. It is a very serious question, and I would like a serious answer. It has to do with the Constitution of Canada, and I know the Liberals get very upset when they see other levels of government tinkering around the edges of the Constitution, yet the motion before us would take away the constitutionally required law that there be 20 members in the House at all times. Why is the Liberal government so cavalier about simply ignoring the Constitution when it is convenient for them, but so adamant that it is a terrible thing when other orders of government see it the same way?

126 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:34:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the member has had an opportunity to consider the application of constitutional law on this matter, but I can certainly say that the House is in absolutely no way, in its normal conduct of business, being interfered with. As is the normal procedure when we are talking about after 6:30 p.m., this motion would mean that there cannot be the opportunity to play all sorts of different procedural games. The motion would allow, after 6:30 p.m., and after the normal conduct of business, for debate to continue and for that debate not to be interrupted with procedural tricks. I understand the Conservatives are disappointed about that. I understand they would like the opportunity to be able, in the wee hours of the night, to play games and do different things because it is not their objective to actually give speeches or to have speakers put up. Their objective is to block legislation and block the other parties from being able to do the critical work that the government, and not just the government but also the House and every party in it, needs to do, which is to focus on the priorities of Canadians and make sure we adopt legislation.

211 words