SoVote

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

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Feb/28/24 5:32:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, first of all it is not “these people”— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

23 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:32:35 p.m.
Watch

That is descending into debate. Maybe just to finish up the thought, the hon. government House leader.

17 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/28/24 5:32:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, those members are good with the fake outrage, but they are also very good at blocking needed supports for the people they profess to care about, but do not. They are very good at obstructing all of the things that this government proposes that will help those very people.

51 words

Mr. Scot Davidson

Feb/28/24 5:33:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government is so concerned about this, yet have not asked for a body break. We should have a body break.

30 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:33:20 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order, but I appreciate the thought. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

23 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Feb/28/24 5:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members of this House, many of whom, including the member for Courtenay—Alberni, were not here when I first learned about all-night voting. That was back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the NDP moved hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments to a piece of legislation to discuss Canada Post and forced all-night voting. As a matter of fact, if the record is checked, I believe that voting went on for in excess of 24 hours. I even believe the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has moved a number of motions and amendments that created long-term marathon voting as well. I just want to remind everybody that this is where we are actually at. The issue that the government House leader does not understand is that it is the agenda that it is trying to get passed that is actually causing the frustration in the House. The government can monkey around with all of the Standing Orders that they want, but it actually has to be an agenda that Canadians want. Canadians are rejecting the government's agenda right now. The polling numbers clearly indicate that the government and its coalition partners do not have the support of the Canadian public so everything it is doing is actually against where the Canadian public is at. If the government would just change its agenda, it would actually have the support of this House and the support of the Canadian public. If it has the support of the public, it will have the support in the House. It does not have the support of the House because the public does not support its agenda. The government can monkey with the Standing Orders all they want, but it is not going to change the fact that the government has bad ideas. That is why those ideas are not getting through the House.

323 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/28/24 5:35:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my former counterpart, who was the chief opposition whip. I know of his very legitimate concerns for members and I thank him for pointing out that perhaps he too objects to all-night voting. I know that, in an honest moment, that member would probably agree that it is a very bad idea. I will say this, though. I do reject the premise that giving that member and his colleagues more time to present their constructive ideas to Canadians is somehow a danger for the rules of this place. We are allowing time for more debate and allowing that member more time to put his ideas across.

113 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/28/24 5:35:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I raise this as a technical concern in this place. A vote took place, and the timer associated with the app was not accurate. Those members may think it is user error. For those who do not understand the concept of blockchain technology, that is really rich. Before we proceed to another vote, the timing issue on the app is of the utmost concern. I did vote early in the process to ensure that I would have time to verify my vote. The 10-minute voting period does indicate an allowance for votes to be cast later in that process. When I did look back at the app, there was 30 seconds left on the screen in the lobby, but three and a half minutes left on the voting app. To further emphasize the seriousness of this technical concern, it was about 20 minutes after the vote finished that I got the confirmation email that said my vote was, in fact, nay. I raise serious concerns about the ability of members to fulfill their constitutional parliamentary functions in this place, especially on an issue as important as the future of our democracy, which the Liberals are certainly putting at—

209 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:37:19 p.m.
Watch

I think that is enough on the point of order. I understand the concern. I am going to talk to the desk for a moment. I appreciate the input. We will look closely at what transpired. There were 100 or so votes cast in a proper manner. We are going to go back and look at the system while the bells are ringing so that we can make sure the system works as well as possible for the members voting online. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

89 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/28/24 5:38:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to ensure the table has the information that emphasizes some of the technical challenges, including the email that arrived late, I would ask for unanimous consent to table the particular email and therefore indicate—

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:38:46 p.m.
Watch

I am already hearing a number of noes. I will ask the hon. member to come up to the desk, when the bells are ringing, so he can share that information and we can make sure this does not happen to other members. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

117 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/28/24 5:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for, in the preservation of democracy, a recorded vote.

14 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:39:46 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:23:13 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 6:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 61st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence on Tuesday, February 13, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

78 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:24:15 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) the report is deemed adopted.

12 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:24:31 p.m.
Watch

There being no motion at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Feb/28/24 6:25:04 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:25:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-318

Before the House proceeds to Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to statements made on Thursday, May 4, 2023, and Monday, February 26, a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, since the bill would appropriate part of the public revenue. Accordingly, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the question on the motion for third reading will be put only if a royal recommendation is produced at the appropriate time.

92 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/28/24 6:26:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-318

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. She said: Mr. Speaker, as all parents know, the arrival of a new child is life-changing. It comes with great joys and excitement. It is a precious time of bonding and many firsts, but it also comes with added expenses, time constraints and new challenges. While we all know that Canada’s employment insurance program helps to ease some of those pressures, we must confront the fact that not all families are treated equally. It is not a fair program, and it does not reflect the diversity of families here in Canada. Families formed through adoption and surrogacy continue to be entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave, and this is a disadvantage that must be rectified. My private member’s bill, Bill C-318, does that through the creation of a new 15-week time-to-attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also adjusts entitlement leave accordingly in the Canada Labour Code. It is a common-sense bill; addressing the inequity in our EI system should truly be a non-partisan issue. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has instead chosen to politicize it. While it claims to support equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents, the Liberal government’s actions suggest otherwise. At second reading, the member for Winnipeg North indicated that this was not a priority for the Liberal government when he said, “We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic”. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that this bill would not get a royal recommendation because his own bill did not get one. Of course, this was followed by all but a handful of Liberal members of Parliament voting against the bill at second reading. Following the committee’s consideration of this bill, the Liberal government challenged amendments that sought to remove any ambiguity around parental benefits for indigenous peoples. The opposition to this from the Liberals raises concerns about their intentions around achieving equal access to EI benefits for indigenous families with customary care arrangements. Now, at third reading, this bill risks being dropped from the Order Paper altogether if a royal recommendation is not provided by the Liberal government. By all indications, unfortunately, this does not seem to be forthcoming. The Liberal government’s decision to include a benefit for adoptive and intended parents in Bill C-59 was a clear declaration that it does not intend to collaborate on this issue and that it is more focused on political games than rectifying the discrimination in our EI system in a timely manner. Bill C-59 is an omnibus budget bill that would not course correct the harmful policies of the NDP-Liberal government, which are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country. The Liberal government not only tied its proposed benefit to a costly and convoluted omnibus bill but also did not even make this legislation a priority. It is the Liberal government that sets the agenda in this place, and it has not brought Bill C-59 up for debate since January. Frankly, it has just not been a priority for the Liberals. In fact, they have never made it a priority to address the discrimination in our EI system. They have been promising this to adoptive parents since 2019; they extended this promise to intended parents last year, after I introduced Bill C-318. Providing equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents should not be a complicated problem to solve, especially with the agreement of all opposition parties. However, the Liberal government has voted against Bill C-318, failed to provide the royal recommendation needed, refused to work collaboratively and failed to exercise the political will necessary to just get the dang job done. Shamefully, the Liberal government’s broken promises, delays and political games are happening at the expense of families. These families are hopeful and anxiously waiting to know if they will get the time they need and deserve with their child. The children who do not get the time they need with their parents are the greatest victims. Adoptive and intended parents are not less deserving, and they certainly do not need less time with their children. It is often the case that these families face additional challenges in bonding and attachment. Access to equal leave can go a long way to support them. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard compelling testimony from adoptive parents and adoptees about the challenges they experienced attaching. We heard repeatedly how meaningful additional time to form strong and secure attachments would have been for their families and how 35 weeks was not enough time. We need to listen to those voices and act in a timely manner. Cassaundra Eisner, an adoptee herself, shared with the human resources committee: “Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year old little girl.” Shelley Rottenberg, also an adoptee, shared that, if there had been more time early on, her mother would not have had “to worry about going to work and leaving me with someone else” and that it “would have sped up that process of growing and building that trust and the bond to have a more secure attachment.” Cathy Murphy shared that it took three and a half years for her son to call her mama instead of “Hey, lady.” Julie Despaties shared that she ultimately did not return to work after her leave, because she needed more time to support her three adopted children. Erin Clow wrote that, near the end of her leave, she felt “a weight which is difficult to articulate, laden with the emotions of sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach.” There are many more examples. Providing adoptive families with an extra 15 weeks of leave is not only fair but will also help improve their long-term outcomes and help set these children up for success. I have also heard from a lot of intended parents who are growing their families through surrogacy. These parents need to make a decision about their leave options in the immediate term; many are expecting their child and are hopeful that they will have access to an additional 15 weeks of leave. I have also heard from parents who have made the decision to take the extended parental leave, at a significant financial disadvantage. Often it is not because they want to take a two-year leave, but rather because they want the same opportunity to be home with their child in the first year of their life. Canadians growing their families via surrogacy face a lot of added costs, and the disparity in benefits add to those financial pressures. Child care is another consideration. It is more costly to get child care for an infant under a year old, and the reality across the country is that there are limited infant child care spaces. These added costs are made even worse given the growing affordability crisis. Baden Colt shared with the human resources committee: “Having a child through surrogacy poses challenges that are not faced by most new parents, and these financial obstacles are compounded by the inability to access the same 15 weeks of maternity leave that most new parents get.” She said that children like her daughter “deserve every opportunity that her peers have in life and that begins with having the same amount of time to bond with her parents as any other Canadian child.” Her daughter does deserve the same time with her parents that is afforded to other children. The Liberal government needs to set aside the partisanship and the political games that are costing families across this country the time to attach and bond with their children. It is well past time that all families, including adoptive and intended parents, get the time they need and deserve with their child.

1390 words