SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24

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

Feb/28/24 5:05:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, which is the Conservatives, who have systematically blocked every piece of legislation. Now, if the Conservatives read the motion, and I am not sure that my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil actually read what is before the House, they would see that there are two aspects to it. First, of course, is the fact that we would be working into the evening, which would allow more time for debate in the evenings and more time for members of Parliament to be heard. Second, and this is perhaps the most important aspect, is that it would eliminate the toxic overnight voting, which has been propelled by the member for Carleton, who did not even show up last time. During 30 hours of votes, he showed up for an hour. This just shows—

164 words

Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/28/24 5:06:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the member for Carleton voted six times in person and the rest of the time voted, I guess, online. The reality is that we need to ensure that the employees of the House of Commons, who are really the bastion of this democracy, are not forced to work overnight for 25 or 30 hours straight. The nine-hour health break would actually make a big difference in ensuring the health and safety of the employees who work here, as well as members of Parliament. What happened to my colleague and good friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, last June has to be a wake-up call for all of us. As a result, I would simply ask my colleague across the way why the Conservatives have been blocking a motion that would basically do two things. It would allow more members of Parliament to speak in evening sessions, and it would stop toxic overnight voting, which the member for Carleton always seems to run away from.

171 words

Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 5:25:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I look at what is being proposed by the government, one thing is the response to the need to have additional debate time on government legislation. That is really what this is all about, in addition to not having to sit or vote for 30 hours straight, including between midnight and 9 a.m. This would be to enable members to address and debate more on government legislation. I would think that having more time would be a good thing that members opposite would want to support, because I often see them on the other side crying and saying they want more time. We would be giving them more time, and I would think they would support the motion to extend the time. Many Canadians from coast to coast to coast work into the evenings. There is nothing wrong with members of Parliament having to work a few extra hours in the evening to allow for more debate. Could I get the government House leader's thoughts on that?

172 words

Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 7:29:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question I have for my colleague across the way is on recognizing that there is a finite amount of time that is available for debate on government bills and that the motion we are actually debating would greatly enhance the amount of time for members of Parliament to debate. This way, with respect to government legislation and budgetary matters that come before the chamber, members on all sides of the House would be provided a lot more time. Given that many Canadians work well past six or seven o'clock in the evening, does he see anything wrong with extending the hours to allow for more debate time and being reasonable by saying that it is not going to go past midnight? I see that as a positive win for democracy. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

142 words