44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
- Nov/14/22 1:14:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition House leader would agree with me about time being the most valuable currency we have in this place. Once we spend it, we do not get it back.
The Conservatives, on occasion, have shown a fondness during the rubric of Motions to move debate on concurrence in a committee report. Some of those we have agreed with. Others we felt could have been done in different areas of the House's time. I agree with the government House leader that we should pay special attention to committees not being disrupted. I sit on three committees, and I do not want to see my work disrupted.
If the Conservatives show a fondness for moving concurrence debates, which sometimes have interrupted some of my colleagues' speaking spots when they were awaiting their turn for a government bill, so they had to be moved to another day, then perhaps this motion before us allows a bit more flexibility in giving the Conservatives time to move debate on certain motions on committee reports while also respecting that the government needs a bit of time to have debate on its legislative agenda as well. Perhaps there is a middle ground here and we do not need to be so at each other's throats all the time.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:15:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree that time is the most important resource we have here. That was the point I was making. With NDP members, the coalition partners with the Liberals, granting this outlet for the government to ram through more of its agenda, they are basically taking away the tools they have as the opposition. They are doing it to themselves.
We talked a lot about hypocrisy and hypocritical aspects. We see messages out of the NDP, complaining about Liberal policies when they themselves have facilitated them. I saw a very hypocritical tweet from the leader of the NDP, talking about rising fuel prices. The leader of the NDP and his entire caucus support the government's plan to triple the carbon tax, so they are giving away any ability as an opposition to make their points and try to get the government to accommodate their requests by giving the government this kind of outlet.
I hope to be able to play poker against the leader of the NDP at some point in my life, because he must be a great guy to play against when he gives away all his chips at the table. Again, it is completely hypocritical to hear the NDP, which has worked hand in hand with the government to implement its inflationary agenda, massive deficit spending and the money printing that caused inflation, to then criticize or complain about it. It is the height of hypocrisy.
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:17:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the official opposition House leader for his intervention.
I just want to say that as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I am very concerned about having committee meetings cancelled. We have already witnessed this because of limited resources, and because our interpreters are often facing workplace injuries because of the virtual Parliament system that we are in. We need to make sure we keep our staff around here safe. There is important work that is addressed through committee, especially at the national defence committee, with the war in Ukraine, with the recruitment crisis that we have within the Canadian Armed Forces today, and with the need to buy new ships, fighter jets and other materiel to support our troops. If we are having committee meetings cancelled, we are losing witnesses and we are losing time to address these important issues.
My question to the House leader for the official opposition is this: We know that Conservatives, when we have to sit late, are here to work. We always have been, but we know that from the other side, often the Liberals do not participate in the debate, with the exception of the members for Kingston and the Islands and Winnipeg North, who seem to always carry the ball there, in a very caustic way. How is that going to play out in setting the right tone here during our political discourse?
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:18:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague has made a very important point that I did not make in my speech, so I welcome the opportunity to make it right now.
Part of the motion is wording that would prevent the House from asking the Speaker to see if there is quorum. Now, quorum is a fancy Latin word that basically asks if there are enough MPs to have an official sitting of the House. The Liberals specifically wrote into the motion that they do not have to keep quorum, which means they would not have to be here late in the night to work.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:19:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this debate on Motion No. 22 under Government Business. For those watching us, this motion may seem procedural and maybe even uninteresting. We are talking about procedure and rules. The public does not usually like that part and does not consider it a priority.
However, we are talking about democracy here. From what I see, and from what my entire caucus sees, the government is taking advantage of its alliance with the NDP to change the rules of the House.
Before, changing a rule required debate. There is a way to do this under the Standing Orders. Ever since the pandemic and the adoption of a hybrid Parliament, the government has not really been shy to propose changes to the Standing Orders to serve some interests more than others. Maybe we should talk about this and consider what the rules are for.
We have a good rule book that sets out the agreed-upon rules of the House that must be followed. Most importantly, these rules guarantee the exercise of a healthy democracy. In our Parliament, democracy is practised with a government in power and opposition parties that challenge it. I often say that the better the opposition, the better the bills and debates and, consequently, the better the government. A government that seeks to muzzle the opposition by changing the rules is a government that is basically depriving itself of the expertise of witnesses and parliamentarians to improve its bills.
The motion that we are talking about today essentially seeks to extend sitting hours late into the night. However, 10 days of intensive sitting days are already set out on the parliamentary calendar, depending on the needs of the government. When the government manages its legislative agenda properly, Standing Order 27(1) proposes a calendar that is negotiated among the leaders of each recognized party in the House at the beginning of the Parliament. The leaders agree on a calender and establish the ground rules at the beginning of the Parliament. This standing order about the calendar was established in 1982, so the House agreed a long time ago that it would decide on a calendar in order to have more transparency and to exercise a healthy democracy. This means that we are well aware of the times when the government can intervene to extend the sitting hours.
I remember the government House leader lecturing the Bloc Québécois last June. Quebec's national holiday falls on June 24, but we begin our celebrations on June 23 and end them the evening of June 24. The Bloc Québécois had asked that we rise earlier, on June 23, so that members could return to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday. This elicited a strong reaction from the government House leader. He told us that it was ridiculous for the Bloc to dispute something that had been agreed to unanimously by all parties. He criticized us for revisiting a unanimous decision made by all parties. I could repeat that my colleague, the government House leader, stated that we needed to be reasonable.
Today, I consider that the original calendar proposed at the beginning of the Parliament was the reasonable outcome of discussions, and it was adopted. Now, the government itself is brazenly revisiting it and is seizing the opportunity to change it, not just until Christmas but until June 23, 2023. We do not understand this. We are wondering what is happening. Why amend the calender up to June 23, 2023?
This motion circumvents Standing Order 26. According to the Standing Orders, if the government wants to extend sittings in addition to what is already provided for, it can move a motion. However, if five opposition members rise to object to the motion, that is one way for the opposition to play the parliamentary game and object to a government motion.
Today's motion circumvents that. It will no longer be possible for opposition members to rise and object to an extension of sitting hours.
I am sorry to have to say this, but I am surprised to see my NDP colleagues support this motion, insinuating that we will have more hours for debate, and then wonder why we oppose the motion. They also say it will not cause problems for parliamentary debate, which is totally false, and they know it.
Standing Order 106(4) enables members who sign a written request addressed to a parliamentary committee to discuss and debate a priority matter in committee.
At the beginning of this Parliament, we unanimously agreed that the opposition could not play around with this standing order. Everyone agreed, reasonably, that a request to call a committee meeting should be signed by different parties. In other words, if the official opposition wanted to call a committee meeting, it would need help from the NDP or the Bloc Québécois in order for the matter to be considered a priority in committee.
However, today's motion gets rid of that idea. It takes only one other House leader to extend the sitting hours. It seems to me that it would have been more transparent, beneficial or democratic to say that two leaders are required to change the sitting hours. Instead, only one leader is required. What is the motive behind all this? Again, I have a hard time understanding how my NDP colleagues could get on board.
By putting forward this motion, the government is seeking to limit, but not ban, the use of gag orders. There have been a lot of gag orders in the past year. I am guessing that the government is starting to get a bit embarrassed about needing to use gag orders to manage its agenda. The government has decided to bypass a few Standing Orders and do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
Let us be honest. Even if this motion is adopted, it will not stop the government from using closure motions, with the NDP's support.
What is motivating the government to table such a motion? We think the House and the committees are working very well. In the last year, 29 debatable bills have been introduced in the House. The House has passed 18 bills, 15 bills have received royal assent, six bills are currently in committee and five bills are at second reading. When I hear someone say that Parliament is not working, that sounds like nonsense to me.
On the face of it, the government would have us believe that Parliament is not working, when that is completely false. As I said, many bills have passed in the House and are either in the Senate or have received royal assent.
I did a little research. In 2015, the majority Liberal government passed 13 of the 37 bills it introduced in its first year in office. Clearly, the current minority government is performing better than the majority Liberal government did in its first year in office.
What is more, on October 5, the House adopted a motion by unanimous consent to extend the debate in order to pass Bill C‑31. This was possible because we negotiated, discussed and concluded ad hoc agreements. This allowed us to avoid a “supermotion”, which would effectively bulldoze the democratic process and would not be the fruit of the parliamentary discussions we should be having.
This leads us to question why the government wants to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons when in fact it is reducing parliamentary debate. I think my colleagues are aware that the work done in committee and the studies they do, on bills and other issues, are very important to me. We know that the parliamentary work suffering the repercussions of the hybrid Parliament is the work done in parliamentary committee. I will give some examples.
This morning, a committee meeting with veterans was cancelled because a motion had been moved under Standing Order 106(4) at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The meeting with veterans was cancelled so that discussions and debates could be held at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We had to do this because we do not have enough interpreters or technical support staff to go around. This means the whips must agree on which committee will cancel its meeting.
As a whip, it was heartbreaking today to have to cancel a meeting with veterans, two days after the Remembrance Day celebrations, to give priority to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Every time a minister rises to ask for extended sitting hours, the whips will have to agree on which committee will have to be cancelled. It will not be just one committee because when we sit until midnight, we usually cancel two committees. Those two committees will not do their work, will not move forward and will have to cancel on witnesses they invited.
It seems as though this government has just accepted that it is now normal for committee meetings to be cancelled because of the limitations of the hybrid Parliament. I do not mind sitting until midnight. I do not see any problem with that, as long as no committee meetings are cancelled. However, I do not want anyone calling me lazy for not wanting to sit until midnight when I just want to make sure that committee meetings are held. Right now, the NDP and the government are consciously working to cancel committee meetings and limit their important work.
I would say that partisanship has trumped common sense. One cannot call for a better democracy and extended debates in the House while limiting important debate in committee without anyone noticing. On Thursday, we may sit late and we will have to determine which committee will be cancelled. The Board of Internal Economy is sitting one afternoon, and we will have to cancel yet another committee meeting. No one from the government or the NDP is talking about that situation.
I kept a close eye on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs' work on the subject of hybrid proceedings, and I was quite touched by all the talk of work-life balance. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons' very personal testimony about the importance of avoiding burnout, participating in family life and finding balance was moving. Now, however, he is an ardent proponent of extending sittings until midnight or 12:30 in the morning. Can someone explain to me how that squares with the importance of work-life balance? The NDP, despite its support for a hybrid Parliament, is doing the same thing. One of the main reasons the NDP is in favour of a hybrid Parliament is that it makes work-life balance possible, or so it says.
If I have kids and I work until 12:30 in the morning a few nights a week, I might find it challenging to collaborate and get work done. Obviously that will have repercussions on my family life.
What should be normal is having a climate of collaboration and discussion in the House, a climate that allows us to prioritize bills and agree on a legislative process. That process should focus on seeking a consensus or a majority, rather than having the agenda dictated by a government that will simply seek an alliance with the NDP. I do not understand my colleagues' lack of sensitivity on such a fundamental issue, and that goes for both the government members and the NDP.
What is more, we have yet to talk about the interpreters. As we know, there is a shortage of interpreters. Many were injured during the pandemic. Even now, interpreters are still being injured by acoustic shocks. We know that there is a shortage of interpreters, yet the government, with the complicity of the NDP, has decided to make the interpreters work until 12:30 a.m. under conditions that could lead to burnout.
I do not understand the position of the government and the NDP in this regard. They are not in such a hurry to move a motion that would make it mandatory for witnesses and MPs to wear headsets and require committee chairs to attend meetings in person. They are in less of a hurry to protect the health and safety of our interpreters than they are to muzzle the opposition in order to advance their legislative agenda.
Honestly, I am completely dumbfounded. Normally, I would say “appalled” because that word reflects my sadness at the government and NDP members' lack of sincerity and authenticity in the context in which we are debating, namely a hybrid Parliament with a shortage of interpreters and technical limitations. The Board of Internal Economy, of which I am a member, has spent countless hours talking about this dangerous situation for our interpreters, and yet I still feel as though, today, the government and the NPD are abandoning them and their health and safety. The government and the NDP are saying loud and clear that parliamentary committees do not play an important role in our overall work. That is sad.
Members will realize from the comments I have made that we will be voting against this motion. We are doing so not because we are not willing to work hard or sit until midnight, but because we object to the government's refusal to discuss or agree on a calendar with the opposition parties. The government is acting as though it has a majority. Quebeckers and Canadians voted in a minority government, and that requires that it work with the opposition.
Therefore, I am moving this amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle: that the amendment be amended, in paragraph (a), by adding, after the words “provided that”, the following: the House leader of a recognized party that supports the government's request also rise from their seat to orally and formally indicate their support to the House.
My amendment to the amendment demonstrates that transparency is important to the Bloc Québécois.
2380 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:38:46 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:38:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that once an amendment has been moved, it is your obligation as the Chair to read the amendment, and the individual who is speaking no longer has the floor.
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:40:09 p.m.
- Watch
Once the hon. member has presented her amendment, there is no action to be taken on her comments. Furthermore, following consultation with the clerks, it is deemed that the subamendment is not in order because it falls outside the scope of the amendment.
Chapter 12 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following:
Most of what applies to amendments applies equally to subamendments. Each subamendment must be strictly relevant to, and not at variance with the sense of, the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment and not the original question.
I hope that answers your question. We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. secretary to the government House leader.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:41:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the concern from this side of the House does not stem from the fact that debate wants to be had. The member said that we are trying to silence members. On the contrary, we are trying to open up more time to allow for more discussion to take place.
I would ask her for her thoughts on Bill S-5, which came before the House. Bill S-5 is about environmental protections. I realize that members of the House have passions about different issues. Some people really want to talk about the environment and some people want to talk about certain social programs. However, let me just recap Bill S-5.
Six Liberals got up to speak, four NDP members got up to speak, five Bloc members got up to speak and one Green member got up to speak. Do members know how many Conservatives got up to speak to Bill S-5? It was 27. If members listened to the debate on Bill S-5, which I did, they know that none of the Conservative speeches even talked about environmental protections. Then at the end, the Conservatives voted in favour of it anyway.
It has become very clear to me that the objective of the Conservatives in the House is not about scrutiny and oversight, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talks about. It is about obstructing at every possible impasse the ability to do anything for Canadians.
Could the member from the Bloc reflect on whether she thinks it is peculiar that 27 Conservatives spoke to Bill S-5, which they voted in favour of, while the rest of the parties only had four or five speakers?
283 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:42:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, five Bloc Québécois members participated in the debate on Bill S‑5, as did 27 Conservatives. That works out to about the same proportion for both parties.
I cannot complain or criticize if members want to speak to a bill. I find my colleague's argument rather weak. The government has passed all its priority bills. In has checked a lot of items off its legislative to-do list.
As we see things, it does not need this motion to pursue its legislative agenda. Empirically, it has done well for itself so far. Just because more MPs spoke to one bill than to another it does not mean Parliament is at a standstill. On the contrary, I think the government should be proud to have garnered this much support and to have moved this many bills all the way to royal assent given the minority context.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:44:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the speech that my colleague gave today, especially the part about committees and her concern for veterans affairs. I share that concern given the fact that we have had two meetings cancelled at a time when we want the minister and the deputy minister to return to give a clearer understanding of their testimony versus what came forward from our veterans. It is very disconcerting that this is happening.
I would like the member to speak momentarily about the fact that, as I am hearing, the Liberals are upset that we on this side of the House want to speak. They are now giving us more time to speak, but they are removing themselves from that equation with the opportunity to not have to meet quorum. How does she feel about that?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:44:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I am not sure if it is a coincidence, but we know that the NPD whip is also a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. This morning she was also at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The idea is to determine whether committees are being cancelled out of expediency. The Standing committee on Veterans Affairs is an important committee. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said that there is a major problem adversely affecting the integrity of francophone veterans who are not getting the services they are entitled to. It annoys me to hear the minister and his officials justify this situation and demand that they correct it.
Slowing the work of committees stops the opposition, witnesses and experts from documenting a problem and finding solutions. Every day, as soon as we start sitting later, one or two committees will be cancelled. How can we justify this?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:46:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the Bloc Québécois whip.
However, I sense a contradiction between what she said about work-life balance and the fact that the Bloc Québécois has not made any suggestions for improving work-life balance. I am thinking especially of our hybrid Parliament, which has made a huge difference, especially for members from the Pacific coast and the Far North. The Bloc Québécois opposed the hybrid Parliament, which is hard to understand given the importance of work-life balance.
What the Bloc Québécois whip said about interpreters is complete misinformation. This is a serious issue that must be addressed, and my colleague knows very well that the NDP has raised it as much as the Bloc Québécois. This situation, in terms of occupational health and safety, must be improved. We all have a responsibility to improve the situation.
I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I disagree with her on this. Is she prepared to work with the other parties so that we can come up with solutions to ensure that our interpreters are working in conditions that meet occupational health and safety standards at all times?
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:47:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are not debating the hybrid Parliament today. However, since the question was asked, I will provide a quick answer.
The hybrid Parliament was created for use during the pandemic, but now it is being changed with a view to perhaps making it permanent in order to foster work-life balance, among other things.
The Bloc Québécois does a lot to promote work-life balance and, as whip, I approve many requests on that subject. The hybrid Parliament is not the only solution. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. My colleague, the NDP House leader, and I both sit on the Board of Internal Economy. He knows very well that I have proposed concrete solutions. I proposed that we all agree to require witnesses and MPs to wear a headset that meets the safety standards and to require chairs to attend in person. I proposed concrete solutions on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.
I condemned the fact that no one seemed to be in much of a hurry to turn the suggestions I had made on multiple occasions into a motion that we could adopt unanimously to guarantee occupational health and safety for interpreters.
Today we are debating a motion to extend sitting hours, which will have an impact on the health and safety of our interpreters and cause burnout among mothers and young fathers in every party. Although I respect my colleague, I do not think I have anything to learn from him on this subject.
258 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:49:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the whip, for her excellent speech. I was listening to her in the House, and I could not help but rise to ask her a question.
To respond to my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, I am sorry he did not hear my testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. I clearly demonstrated that the hybrid Parliament is not always the solution for all mothers.
However, as a young mother, I am concerned to learn that the hours will be extended. I have just returned a meeting from Kigali. Other countries' parliaments realize that they may need to set schedules that are more conducive to work-life balance. It is not because women are lazy and do not want to work.
When we work to the point where we are debating until midnight, what message does that send to young women interested in a career in politics? They will see this and realize that the schedules are crazy and detrimental to work-life balance. We ought to try to work harder during regular hours so we do not have to extend our sittings until midnight indefinitely.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:50:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague's testimony says it all.
Today, the government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly: dictate to the opposition how work is to proceed.
I think that, given all his personal and professional qualities, the government House leader could have made more of an effort to try to secure the co-operation of all House leaders. If he had accepted to negotiate one-on-one, he would have been able to better demonstrate the importance he places on democracy, discussion, negotiation and parliamentary politics.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:51:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the NDP supports this motion, as we have always supported the idea of working harder for our fellow citizens across the country. This is a tradition for the NDP. People often say that we are like worker bees in the House, and that is true. We are prepared to work until midnight. We are prepared to do this because we think it is important.
In recent months, we have seen the results of initiatives introduced in Parliament by our leader, the hon. member for Burnaby South, and by our caucus: dental benefits, benefits for renters across the country and the doubling of the GST credit to put hundreds of dollars more into Canadians' pockets. These are all initiatives that the NDP, in a Parliament where no party has the majority, has been able to introduce to help Canadians. Up to 12 million Canadians benefit from the NDP's initiatives.
Of course, we want to work even harder to make sure that families having a hard time right now can benefit. There is no other way to say it: People are having a hard time. They are having a hard time putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head. Canadian families are having a really hard time with all these challenges they are currently facing. In our opinion, the solution is clear and simple: We need to work harder to help people more during these difficult times.
That is why we are supporting this motion. We believe that at a time when so many Canadians, such as seniors, people with disabilities, students and families, are struggling to put food on the table and struggling to keep a roof over their heads, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to step up and work harder than ever before. The reality is that Canadians need supports from the federal government and need supports from federal Parliament. We need to make sure that we get those supports to people.
The NDP and the member for Burnaby South have already proven our worth in this minority Parliament by the things we have fought for and obtained, such as dental care, supports for renters and ensuring that the GST credit is doubled so people can get immediate support, with hundreds of dollars in many cases. Up to 12 million Canadians get those supports because the NDP has fought for them.
In a minority Parliament, it is the responsibility of all members to fight hard and make sure that Canadians are benefiting from supports at this difficult time. However, sometimes the only way to do that and ensure that people are able to speak on behalf of their constituents is to work longer hours. That is something we have always supported in the House. The NDP has always believed that we have a responsibility to work harder and longer on behalf of our constituents, particularly in troubling and difficult times. It is important for parliamentarians to step up.
Our bosses are our constituents in our ridings across the country. I have great bosses in New Westminster—Burnaby, bosses who are struggling to make ends meet. We have this responsibility to our bosses to work harder than ever before at times like these that are troubled, when people are looking for supports and when people need those supports.
For us, it is not a question. There is no doubt at all that we have to step up and have extended hours. Some members of Parliament have raised questions about committees, and we certainly believe that is an important consideration. It is an important consideration for the government and all parties in the House of Commons.
621 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:55:37 p.m.
- Watch
I think my colleagues will be particularly interested in the statistics I am going to give after the shift to the COVID committee of the House of Commons. I will give those shortly before 2 p.m. I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House will be interested in hearing those figures in a couple of minutes' time.
The reality is that the responsibility to work hard on behalf of our constituents is something we take seriously. That is why we in the NDP caucus and the member for Burnaby South have pushed for all these improvements, to make sure people are taken care of at this difficult time. Those things I mentioned earlier, such as dental care, rental supplements and supports, and the doubling of the GST credit for 12 million Canadians, are all important initiatives, but there is so much left to do. That is why having these extended hours gives us the opportunity to speak to and on behalf of our constituents with respect to this important legislation and at the same time get things out the door and to the finish line. We have the opportunity to speak on this legislation. We then take a vote and Parliament makes a decision about where that legislation goes, whether it stops or whether it moves forward to committee or the Senate, which is that careful balance that is so important.
The issue of the interpreters and how that has had an impact at committee is something we all need to work on. It is not an issue of whether or not we are having evening sessions, but whether we are providing the supports and the resources to have the number of interpreters necessary to ensure we can continue with committee work at the same time as we continue with the important work in the House of Commons and move things along. Canadians expect no less.
I mentioned earlier the issue of attendance at sittings. I think it is important to note this. I am going to quote from a news article in The Globe and Mail by Marieke Walsh, published on June 23, 2020. As the House knows, there was a key decision point a couple of years ago around having a continuing Parliament and committee hearings. This article referenced the following:
The Conservatives have the worst attendance record of all five political parties at the House of Commons COVID-19 committee meetings.
Of the 21 special sessions in which all MPs could participate, records show the Tories averaged a 47-percent attendance rate, placing them well behind the other parties.
The article went on to say that the low turnout was “prompting charges of hypocrisy from the NDP, whom the Conservatives criticized for agreeing...to [have those] sittings”.
Before the Speaker shuts down the first half of my speech, the following figures are important. The Conservatives had a 47% attendance rate. The Bloc was better, at 73%. The Liberals were at 76%. The highest attendance among the recognized parties was the NDP, no doubt the worker bees, at 85% attendance.
That is important to note. We do not just talk the game; we do not just talk about extending sessions; we do not just talk about working until midnight. We actually get the work done. Therefore, when Canadians elect NDP MPs, they are going to work harder and longer than MPs from other parties. We believe that our responsibility in the House of Commons is to show up, to speak out on behalf of our constituents and to get things done. I will have more opportunity in the second half of my speech to speak more to those issues and the history of all the recognized parties in the House of Commons.
My final point is this. At times when Canadians are struggling so much to make ends meet, all members of Parliament have a responsibility to get together to work harder, to work longer and to work better on behalf of our constituents. I hope this motion will pass unanimously, because Canadians deserve no less than parliamentarians who are willing to work until midnight every night on their behalf.
698 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 2:00:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to do something we have not been able to do for quite some time. That is to wish Team Canada the greatest success as they compete in the FIFA World Cup. For the first time since 1986, Canada will be sending a team to compete in the most prestigious association football tournament in the world.
It is an historic year as Qatar becomes the first Middle Eastern country to host the tournament. It will welcome an expected 1.7 million fans and transform Doha into an outdoor exhibition to demonstration its artwork, shows and vibrant Arab culture.
As a soccer mom, I see this as an exciting moment. Sport is so much more than competition. It is an opportunity to connect with the global community over our shared love of our game.
Congratulations to all the players, and to head coach John Herdman for leading the team to this moment. We truly are a football country. On the 23rd, let us all cheer extra loud for Canada.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 2:01:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this past week I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from the Prairie Sky, Rosetown and Humboldt chambers of commerce. While our conversations covered a wide range of topics, a common theme was how difficult the past two and a half years have been for local businesses, especially independent retailers. Lockdowns drove customers to larger retailers and online shopping sites like Amazon.
The impact of inflation was top of mind for most, whether they were business owners or municipal representatives. With rising prices, not only is inflation cutting into the bottom line of their customers; it is also increasing costs for businesses and making it difficult for them to survive, let alone thrive. Additionally, one mayor told me that inflation is causing municipal projects to run 25% to 40% over budget, forcing municipalities to make cuts and raise taxes.
Small and medium-sized business owners need a Conservative government that will put an end to the Prime Minister's—
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
