SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 221

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2023 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 221 - Sep/20/23
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)
  • Sep/20/23 3:48:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, this week is Gender Equality Week, and the fight continues for women's rights. Whether it is for political freedom or equal access to health care and reproductive rights, equity has still not been achieved. Today, I table a petition related to state-funded paid leave for people who suffer from painful periods. Women, and all people who menstruate, continue to manage any pain during their menstrual cycle while having minimal accommodations at work. For those who experience painful periods, this has a negative effect on their health and the ability to have equity at work. The undersigned petitioners are supportive of designated time off, three to five days a month, to manage period pain. This is not only a matter of compassion but also an equitable workplace strategy. By recognizing this, governments and employers can create a more inclusive and fair work environment.
146 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 221 - Sep/20/23
Ms. Raquel Dancho
  • Sep/20/23 4:47:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I believe it is up to members to decide what they keep in their speeches. We have about 10 minutes. There is a lot to talk about. I can talk at length about the importance of getting tough on sex offenders and crime in general. What I would say is that the Conservative Party, more than any other party, has the clearest track record of supporting victims' rights. We have brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights in the Senate. Out of all the parties, we put forward first the rights of victims, not the rights of criminals, unlike the other parties in this chamber.
111 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 221 - Sep/20/23
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin
  • Sep/20/23 5:29:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have also worked with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and have always appreciated his interventions. We do not always share the same point of view, but there is always respect there, and that is very helpful. That said, to answer his question, I have to say that I do not understand either. My answer to these groups is that there are really only two ways to interpret this way of doing things. It may be that the government considers that the national sex offender registry is not important, as was the case the day before yesterday with Bill C-48, when the bail provisions did not seem important. Indeed, that is how it is with many other bills: just not important. Since it is not important, bills keep getting pushed back and dealt with when it suits them. If it never suits them, it is no big deal. If it is not because the subject is not important, then it is because the procedural rules are not important. They think the opposition members are not that bright. They know the opposition will say yes to anything, so, at the eleventh hour, they tell us the bill has to be passed. Then the opposition says, oh, the national sex offender registry is so important that we have to set aside the House's procedural rules. That is what the government hopes. Let us call that option B. Here is my question for the government. Is it A, the government does not give a fig, or is it B, the government does not give a fig about parliamentary rules?
284 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border