SoVote

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/28/24 4:17:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 4:17:21 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:01:10 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Taxation; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Public Safety.

62 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 5:01:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 35, I move: That debate be not further adjourned.

22 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:02:14 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 or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

61 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/28/24 5:03:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a tangled web we weave and how cynical the government has become over the years. I recall, in 2015, when the Prime Minister, with hand over heart, said that better was possible and things were going to be different. In the 2015 election, one of the things Liberals talked about was making Parliament more functional and allowing the opposition parties to be the voices of their constituents, yet here we are again with this motion, which is effectively controlling this place, just as the Prime Minister has had a propensity to do in the past. Does the government House leader not understand the significance of his actions for future Parliaments and what this could mean for the future of this place? In this place, things, as they relate to the Standing Orders, are built on consensus. This is anything but. This is the government strong-arming itself over the will of Parliament.

155 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/28/24 5:04:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I reject the premise of the member's question. I fail to see how a motion that expands the time available for members to debate bills, budgets and motions in this chamber is somehow undemocratic. In fact, we would be giving the opposition more opportunity to do so. However, as the member well knows because he attends caucus meetings, the word from on high, from the Leader of the Opposition, is to block everything and not allow any progress on any bill. It does not matter if it is child care. It is does not matter if it is for supports for Canadians. It does not matter if it is dental care. It does not matter if these things are positive and could positively impact Canadians' lives. They are to obstruct all the time. We would be allowing members of the opposition to debate these things for a longer period of time, and I fail to see how that creates anything but a healthy precedent of the hours we spend in this chamber.

178 words

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

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:06:14 p.m.
Watch

I cannot believe we are getting into this discussion once again of underlining who is here and who is not. I will say that, when we bring up who voted, when they voted, whether they were here or whether they were not, we are not supposed to say that part. How members voted and what is on the public record are full game. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

71 words

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

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

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

Feb/28/24 5:09:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from New Westminster—Burnaby for his really heartfelt concern for my health. I did have a hemorrhagic stroke after working, straight, seven days a week, for 51 days. For May and June, we were sitting until midnight. I can remember well when a different Speaker would say, “It now being 1:15 in the morning, the question is that the House do now adjourn. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.” He did not stop for a breath because I was doing adjournment proceedings. I think that, if we are going to work those long hours, and everyone knows that I am not afraid of hard work, I want a nurse's station in the foyer. I want some health care professionals checking the blood pressure of members of Parliament, checking to see if their health needs attention. This would also be very important, as the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has said, for the workers in this place, who are not elected and who do not have the fantastic salaries we have to do this work. I also believe if that, if we were to use the rules that exist, for instance, against reading a speech, as they do in the Parliament of Westminster, we could more expeditiously schedule our work so that we would have meaningful debate, as opposed to what sometimes, although I hate it to say it and I should not say it, resembles bad high school theatre. I think we really do need to focus on debates and take our time to do it right. It is not about being afraid of hard work, but about not being forced into late night sessions, which are inevitably bad for everyone's health. I thank all of my friends across all party benches who let me know that they prayed for me. I am miraculously healed.

322 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/28/24 5:11:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her observations. I know all of us are happy that she is back, hale and hearty, and that she is participating in this debate. I would also say that, like so many other members on this side of the House, the member is not afraid of hard work and, more importantly, of putting in the preparation and study required to bring constructive ideas to the House and positive contributions to debate. Way too often, we fall into the trap of what we call dilatory motions. Those are things such as proceedings to consider committee reports from six months ago. They are designed just to block and obstruct, and obstruct what? They are designed to obstruct positive things, such as child care. We are on the cusp of adopting a national child care plan for Canadians. Conservatives even voted for the bill in previous iterations, yet they will refuse to allow these things to come to a vote. Moms and dads out there watching need to know that the people standing in the way of putting a national child care program into law are Conservatives.

197 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/28/24 5:13:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just to reiterate to the hon. member opposite speaking about child care, that is already in place. There does not need—

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:13:14 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. The hon. government House leader.

8 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/28/24 5:13:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think we will all note that, once again, the member is standing up and refusing to allow a debate on child care and a vote on child care to occur in this chamber. I want to finish my remarks and my thanking the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her many contributions and for her eternal concern for the respect of the rules of this place, as well as for the health and well-being of the people who inhabit this place from all parties and those who support us here. I think that her contributions have been very positive.

105 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 5:14:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the opposition day designated for Thursday, February 29 has been undesignated and will now take place on Friday, March 1.

33 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 5:14:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of the motion relating to the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

60 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 5:14:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Barrie—Innisfil talking about the Prime Minister's committing to doing things differently in Parliament. Perhaps the Prime Minister was giving too much credit to the Conservatives when he was making those comments, but they rely on the assumption that everybody, all 338 of us, comes here to do the job we were elected to do. The problem is that Conservatives have come here and think that their job is to obstruct absolutely everything. The House leader has already mentioned that Conservatives, even if they agree with the bill, obstruct at every possible opportunity. The member for Peterborough—Kawartha was just going on about the child care bill, a bill that she routinely got up to criticize the government on. Time after time, Conservatives would get up to criticize the bill. Then what did they do at the end of it? They voted in favour of it. The same thing can be said regarding the scab legislation. They spoke against it and put up all the roadblocks to prevent it from being actually voted on, then when it came time to vote, they just really quietly yesterday stood up and started voting in favour of it. I am wondering whether the House leader can provide some insight as to why Conservatives are so genuinely interested in just obstructing absolutely everything.

230 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 5:16:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not reject the premise of that question. I cannot speak to their motivations, but I can speak to the phenomenon we see. We see it south of the border. We see it in some parts of Europe. We see it in the populist right wing that seeks to toxify our democratic institution, that seeks to conflate minor things and that seeks to make so toxic and so negative the proceedings of places like this, the most solemn of our democratic chambers in this country, so that Canadians turn away in anger or in sorrow from the debates we have in this place and tune out the very important things we discuss here. That is because the Conservatives think that if they make it toxic and negative, throw in enough vitriol, Canadians will turn away. That is why we want to give more space for debate in this place. That is why we want to make sure members come to work healthy and prepared to seriously debate the issues, as many members choose to do in this chamber. However, on the right, we see more and more unfortunate efforts to toxify our politics, to make it negative and to make Canadians turn away and recoil in horror from the very important democratic debates we have in the chamber.

221 words