SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/23 3:42:04 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that if they want to have a debate, they do not have the floor. If they want to have a conversation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order on both sides of the House. It is not helpful when members are trying to have debates on issues that are not currently before the House. If they want to have discussions on that, they should take them out. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/13/23 3:51:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for her speech on the important bill we are debating, Bill S-8. Of course, I agree with her that we must try to raise the level of debate and move away from partisanship, particularly when it comes to important bills. Where I tend to disagree with her is on the moralizing we hear from the New Democratic Party. Today they are telling us that we should stop playing games. I would remind people and parliamentarians present in the House that the NDP helped the Liberals pass 26 time allocation motions to shorten the debates. This shows a lack of consideration and respect for democracy and for the parliamentarians who are elected to do that work. Our job is to come and talk and debate bills. My question for my colleague is simple: Does she think democracy is a game?

149 words

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/23 6:50:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am a bit naive. When I first got here, I naively thought that we would be debating. I thought that democracy was the bedrock of ideas, that we would put forward ideas, that the opposition parties would put forward other ideas, that the government would also put forward ideas, that we would debate them all, and that this would lead to amazing bills. People would look at us and say how incredible we are. I thought that was democracy. As I have said many times here, that is not the case. I have lost count of the number of gag orders this government has imposed. Now we have a fundamental proposal that will change how we debate things for the next 10, 15, 20 or 100 years. We hope to be long gone by then, because Quebec will have become independent. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that this proposal is going to be adopted, changing all the rules of the game with the wave of a magic wand. We have just a few hours to debate huge changes to how we conduct debates here. I think that is totally unacceptable.

196 words

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/13/23 8:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of a 16-month-old daughter, I am following these debates very closely. I know that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes work-life balance. Having tested out the hybrid model with my daughter in my arms, it is not the model I prefer. The issue of quality time, of separating the time I spend with her from the time I spend here in the House, is crucial. I am worried about that. I also think we should be talking more about what we are doing right now, holding debates until midnight during this entire period until we rise. The House's hours need to be reviewed. That, for me, would do more for work-life balance. Last year, I took part in debates with my infant daughter, who was just a few weeks old, until midnight. I think that is far more unacceptable. Personally, because I need some separation and need to spend quality time with my daughter, I see major disadvantages to a hybrid Parliament. It may not be everyone's cure-all for work-life balance. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

197 words