SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Nov/15/22 3:45:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am confused. I am hearing Conservatives talk about democracy and say they want to have an opportunity to speak. The whole premise of this is to ensure we sit later, so they all get a chance to get up and speak on a bill. We want to work later.

52 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Nov/15/22 3:46:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is true. That is exactly what we are doing here. We are trying to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity, by sitting to midnight. We want to work hard. We came here to work. I came 11 hours to get here from my door, from a riding that has 31 communities and is three time zones away. I am willing to sit here until midnight. I am willing to get the work done. Maybe the government House leader can speak about how ludicrous it is that we would not be sitting until midnight, when we need to get business done. I came far, from Vancouver Island, to get work done here.

114 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Nov/15/22 3:46:35 p.m.
Watch

That's not true.

4 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:46:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for the sacrifices they make in their personal lives to represent their constituents. Yes, it does strike me as bizarre. In every meeting I have with the Conservatives I am told they need more speakers and do not have enough time for speakers, so we create a mechanism whereby they can have more speakers, and then it is undemocratic and they say it is terrible that we are giving them more time to have speakers. It is a terrible affront to democracy that they are being given what they asked for. It is very strange to me. What it cuts to, and what somebody who is reasonable might presume, is that the underlying issue is not how many speakers the Conservatives might have, but that we are taking away from them the ability to block every other party in the House from doing the business of this place. We are taking away their toy, which is obstruction. We are taking away their ability to not tell us how many speakers there are, and we are taking away their ability to block this House from doing its business.

199 words

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

Nov/15/22 3:47:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the House leader across the way mentioned just a couple of minutes ago the important business of the House, the important business that Canadians have asked us to be here for. This motion impacts one of those issues. I sit on the special joint committee for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. We lost multiple committee meetings in the last set before we broke for the summer because of exactly the same thing, because of night sittings. The government talks about the important work that has to be done. It seems like this is a planned process. It does not want to be accountable for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which should not have happened in the first place. By holding up our committee work, the truth never comes out. That is what the Liberal government thinks. I would like the House leader to respond to the impact it has on important committee work that Canadians are depending on the House and its elected officials to look after.

171 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:48:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that at the Board of Internal Economy it is our objective to make sure the House has every resource it needs to be able to conduct the full totality of its business, and that it is unacceptable that any committee or any procedure of the House be interrupted. That is an adjustment we are continuing to need to work at, because the number of committees has expanded greatly. However, there is a fundamental difference, which I think the hon. colleague across the way would understand. Whether we are investigating the use of the Emergencies Act or any other matter, that matter can be continued the next day and the day after that, and members can have as any meetings as they want. I encourage the member to do exactly that. Members have the opportunity to be able to conduct that business. If I could, because I think it is an important point, the difference is that when we are dealing with dental care, there are people waiting for that benefit. When we are dealing with housing, there are people waiting for that benefit. There are people who, if we delay those supports and services, are suffering. With respect to an inquiry, that can wait—

213 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 3:49:42 p.m.
Watch

We have time for a brief question. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

16 words

Secretary

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

Nov/15/22 3:49:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just so the government House leader can complete his answer in a more fulsome fashion, there is a substantial cost to the delay of legislation. I wonder if he could just expand on those costs.

37 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Nov/15/22 3:50:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is 100% right. We have to think that when we block and delay legislation, we are blocking and delaying critical support to Canadians who need it. Let us think of housing right now. When the party opposite talks about people who are struggling and need support, and then it obstructs and blocks legislation in this House that can give them support and relief, that is unacceptable. That is exactly what we saw on the bill on dental and housing, Bill C-31. Committees we can move to the next day, but support cannot wait.

99 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 3:50:52 p.m.
Watch

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 of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be adopted on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

76 words

Division

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/15/22 3:51:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 3:51:29 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Speaker

Nov/15/22 4:35:20 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

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

Nov/15/22 4:37:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling and need support. Members of Parliament should be stepping up to work harder for longer hours to make sure Canadians are getting the supports they need. That is why we support the idea of working longer and harder. We believe Canadians deserve no less. In the debate just a few short minutes ago, I heard the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, whom I have a lot of respect for and think is a good guy, raised the Conservative objection that somehow MPs working evenings is against the Canadian Constitution. I cannot make this up. He actually said that the Constitution had to be respected, so I took the opportunity while we were voting to look at the Canadian Constitution, because I am sure he would not speak out of turn, to see if there was some prohibition on MPs working evenings somewhere in it. I looked at page after page, and I am pleased to report to the Conservative caucus that, no, there is no prohibition on MPs working evenings or working overtime in the Canadian Constitution. The Conservatives should therefore absolutely embrace the idea of working longer and harder. However, I think— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

206 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Nov/15/22 4:37:36 p.m.
Watch

What is in the Constitution, which I want to point out to my Conservative colleagues, is the right of Canadians to have representation and to join labour unions and the right of those unions to strike. This is what I wanted to tell my Conservative colleagues about. Doug Ford's actions in Ontario were contrary to the Constitution. He used the notwithstanding clause when it had already been ruled out—

71 words

The Speaker

Nov/15/22 4:37:36 p.m.
Watch

Order. I understand that everyone is excited about the hon. member's speech, but I hear heckling during his debate. I can understand that it happens during question period, but it should not happen now. I want to compliment the hon. member for engaging everyone, but I want to remind everyone that we want to respect each other. Let the hon. member give his ideas and his speech, and do it in a respectful manner. I ask the hon. member to please continue.

83 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 4:38:11 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Nov/15/22 4:38:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of relevance. What does Doug Ford's use of the Constitution Act have to do with anything?

24 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/15/22 4:38:23 p.m.
Watch

The member well knows that there is some latitude during the discussion. I am sure the hon. member will bring his conversation around to the debate before the House. I want to remind members that when they are in debate, they should be debating the issue before the House. I can remind members what that is, but I am sure the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who happens to be the House leader for the New Democratic Party, is well aware of it. I would remind members to be mindful and not rise on a point of order when they know there is some latitude allowed within a speech. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

119 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Nov/15/22 4:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my point is this. If the Conservatives were really concerned about the Canadian Constitution, they should have stood up against Doug Ford. They should have stood up against what was happening in Ontario. However, to stand up on constitutional grounds for MPs working evenings is a bit rich. I did a little more research as well. I wanted to see why the Conservatives were objecting to us working longer, harder hours. Certainly, this is something we should be doing at a time of crisis when Canadians need supports. This should be something that is pretty fundamental in nature. I went back to the times of the Harper government. We will recall how dismal that decade was of the Harper government, where we saw environmental protections shut down and social supports ripped apart. Unfortunately, there were things like the cutting of health care spending, which tragically the Liberals have continued. The Liberals should have known better and the Liberals should have removed themselves from the legacy of the Harper government. Instead, they have chosen in many areas to continue on, except of course when the NDP pushes them to do things like dental care, rental supports and doubling the GST credit. There is a whole host of other areas where the NDP has made a difference in this Parliament, and we will continue to do that as the worker bees of this Parliament. The Harper government actually put in place evening sessions. I was, as part of the NDP caucus, present and speaking on behalf of my constituents in those evening sessions. What was curious during that period of evening sessions is that Conservative MPs did not show up. There is a turn for each member of Parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents. It turned out Conservatives missed not 10, not 20, not 50, not 100, not 150, not 200, but more than 220 times the Conservatives failed to show up to work. They failed to show up for their turn to speak on behalf of their constituents. They did not show up to work 220 times. Imagine what would happen in a hospital if nurses and doctors failed to show up 220 times. Imagine what would happen in a factory or a small business if people just did not show up 220 times. The reality is Canadians show up. They show up for our hospitals, they show up for our schools and they should up for our factories. That is why Canada is the place it is, because people show up for duty. They show up for work. Conservatives should learn a lesson from that. They should actually listen to Canadians and they should show up to work. It is not just back in the Harper government days. With the crisis of COVID, we had an opportunity to establish a House of Commons. Unfortunately, we normally do not take attendance, which is too bad, because when we do, we see the importance of actually showing up to work. The Globe and Mail saw the tracking as we had the COVID committee after COVID hit on March 13 and we had to rise as the House of Commons and establish new guidelines and new frameworks. The Globe and Mail reported on June 23 on what happened in terms of attendance over that period. This is a time of profound crisis as COVID struck right across our nation. Canadians were looking for leadership. They were looking for parliamentarians to show up for duty. The Globe and Mail reported on June 23: The Conservatives have the worst attendance record of all five political parties at the House of Commons COVID-19 committee meetings. This is shocking but it is important to put on the public record: 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. At that time, the Bloc Québécois had a 73% attendance rate. The Liberals showed up three-quarters of the time, at 76%. The top, of course, among the recognized parties, was the NDP, at 85% attendance. The NDP, playing our role, as always, as the worker bees of Parliament, we show up to work. Canadians show up to work and the NDP shows up to work. The Conservatives continue with that legacy of holding the worst attendance record in the House of Commons. We do not take that careful attendance now the way we did during that period; it is not something that is part of our Standing Orders. However, it does raise the question as to why Conservatives are so opposed to working evenings, why Conservatives are so opposed to working overtime. The track record is that this has been chronic with the Conservatives for more than a decade. We saw this during the Harper government where they failed 220 times to show up for their speaking slots, for their opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents. It is unbelievable. We saw this in the 47% attendance rate during COVID, a time when the country was in crisis and Canadians were looking for all parliamentarians to show leadership, to show up to work and to fight hard on behalf of their constituents. The Conservatives did not show up more than half of the time, contrasting with the NDP at 85%. I think that when we look at this, this is the real reason that Conservatives have taken such objection. They are even throwing out the Constitution when it is not applicable at all. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits MPs from working overtime. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Canadians from working evenings. What I think is really the crux of the matter is that they want to do a short working day. If they want to speak and, of course, they have the right to speak on behalf of their constituents, they want it to be during standard office hours. They do not want to be working evenings. I disagree profoundly with the idea that somehow MPs should only be working a short day, and not be working evenings and not be working these other times. We are in a critical time for Canadians. We have seen food bank lineups increase. They are worse now than they were even during the Harper government. We have seen the housing crisis that has hit. The member for Carleton likes to say that housing prices have doubled, but what he leaves out is that housing prices doubled over the Harper dismal decade as well. We saw that the Conservatives put in place policies that clearly failed. The reality is that with Canadians struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head, now we have the opportunity to put in place new policies that would actually benefit Canadians. That is why the entire NDP caucus, including the members for Burnaby South, Vancouver Kingsway, Edmonton Strathcona and Hamilton Centre step up. We show up to work, because we believe that our role in the House is to force change, to bring in dental care, to ensure that we have housing—

1212 words

All Topics