SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 287

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24
Hon. Steven MacKinnon
  • Feb/28/24 5:07:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his excellent summary of what this motion would accomplish. It would, simply put, allow more time for debate. Every time we have discussions among parties, it is often stressed, from parties in any corner of the House, that we require more time to debate bills. Sometimes that is constructive, but sometimes it is obstructive. Sometimes members across the way simply talk things out that they know perfectly well would be good for Canadians and would impact positively on Canadians' lives in an immediate fashion, but they still persist in blocking and obstructing. Therefore, we are looking to give them more opportunities to speak and we will see whether they can, in fact, bring some constructive elements to the debate. As to the health break, as with long-haul truckers, nurses and hard-working Canadians, and with the advances of the past few years in working conditions, no Canadian is expected to work 30 hours around the clock, much less to vote on billions of dollars of public expenditures. If we want to talk about irresponsibility with public expenditures, that would be the Conservatives asking 338 members of Parliament to opine on important matters at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. That is not a reasonable proposition. No Canadian expects that. It is unhealthy, and it is unhealthy for the people who are forced to be in the chamber or around the parliamentary precinct to protect and support us as we do our work. Therefore, it is important that we move from this very toxic, obstructive environment to one that is healthier for all members in the House.
278 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important. Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system. The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill. What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around. When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass. Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing. The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it. Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—
696 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border