44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 15, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, many aspects of the member's speech somewhat contradict the way he will be voting.
Let me give an example. He talks about housing being important, and it is important. If we look at what is being proposed, we have the doubling of the first-time home buyers' tax credit, the multigenerational home renovation tax credit and the 1% annual tax on underused housing being put into place. These are some of the initiatives taking place, yet the member says Ottawa needs to do more on housing.
We are taking actions that deal with some of the things the member is talking about, yet he is voting against it. That is consistent with the Conservatives. They say they want to see this, but when they see it happen, they end up voting against it.
Does the member not recognize that many would see that as a sign of hypocrisy?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 4:55:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a hybrid Parliament and remote voting are two initiatives that the NDP has been pushing for and that are vastly improving the lives of fathers and mothers. I was a single dad, so it is extremely important to me that we provide that access.
I simply cannot understand why the Bloc Québécois members opposed those two measures, which are so important to work-life balance.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 6:43:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I think she made some excellent points.
I wonder if the member would agree with this. The bottom line here is that because the government's coalition partner does not like voting for time allocation or closure, this is the draconian measure the New Democrats are left with, and that they are doing it under the guise of giving members more time to speak. Would she agree with that assessment?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:22:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member does not need to be suspicious. The motion is very straightforward. The question the member has to ask himself is whether he believes there might be a need for additional debate time on a wide spectrum of potential issues. If he believes the answer is yes and if a majority of MPs in the House of Commons today agree, then there will be additional time for members to debate.
That is what this motion does. Whether the member supports that, it is really not that much more complicated than what I just finished stating. If the member supports additional potential time for members to debate legislation, he should be supporting this motion.
Whatever the House leadership team of his political party is telling him, I can assure him that this is, in fact, the essence of what we are voting on.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:23:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. When we look at the hybrid system, are there things we could do to modernize our Parliament that would, in fact, make it a better and friendlier environment, particularly for our constituents? If there are ways in which we could allow members of Parliament to serve their constituents, whether they are in British Columbia, Nova Scotia or my home province of Manitoba, by, for example, giving a speech through a hybrid system or being able to vote while they are in their constituency, I see that as a positive thing. I am very much open to that.
I anxiously await the report that is going to be coming from the procedure and House affairs committee, which is chaired by a very dear friend of mine. I am hoping that we will see certain aspects of what we have been able to put into place over the last couple of years put into our Standing Orders permanently, such as voting applications, which are wonderful things. There are other things we could look at.
I anxiously await the report coming from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 7:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a good question. Let me give a very specific answer.
Bill S-5 had many hours of debate. If this motion had passed before we sent Bill S-5 to committee, we would have been able to say to the Conservative opposition or to any other political party, “Let us have an extra sitting in the evening so that more members are able to participate in the debate.”
All that this motion does, if there is a desire from a majority of members in the House, is facilitate additional hours so that more debate can be had on a piece of legislation or another item that might be before the House. It is to accommodate more contributions.
It takes nothing away from a member's ability to contribute. That is why, as I say, it is something that every member of the House should be voting in favour of.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
