SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 285

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • Feb/26/24 1:39:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion. I see the Conservatives and the Bloc getting all worked up and saying that this is a terrible motion. As adults in the House, NDP members always look at what is in a bill or motion before the House. In the motion before us, there are two things we need to vote on. The first is that evening sittings can only be held with the approval of another recognized party. It is not something that can be done unilaterally. The motion must be supported by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or the NDP. The second is that the next day's sitting can be extended until midnight. That way, more work can be done in the House. I would like to come back to what was said earlier. Since the beginning of this Parliament, we have seen the Conservative Party systematically block everything, with one exception. The only time we really saw the Conservatives looking out for the national interest was for the debate on conversion therapy. All parties reached an agreement and it passed. Afterwards, Erin O'Toole, the leader of the Conservative Party, was stripped of his leadership position. Apart from that, they have blocked everything. We will therefore work harder to implement all of the things that the NDP, especially, has pushed the government to do, such as pharmacare, dental care, the federal anti-scab bill, the clean energy program, and increased consumer protections. Let us remember that, under both the Liberals and the Conservatives, major grocery chains and large corporations were able to set whatever prices they wanted, regardless of how that would impact ordinary Canadians. There is also affordable housing, the grocery rebate and more. All of these initiatives came from the NDP. That is what the NDP wants to move forward on. We need to push the government to implement these things. There are bills that are put in place to help people. The Conservatives claim that they want to help people, but they blocked all of those bills. This motion gives us the ability to sit during the evening so that more members can debate bills and so that it does not take days and days for these measures to be adopted. Obviously, no one in the House could object to a measure that makes so much sense. The Conservatives seem interested in blocking legislation, but if we work evenings, they will get more chances to speak.
421 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24
Mr. Peter Julian
  • Feb/26/24 1:52:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Sarnia—Lambton that two-thirds of Conservatives voted virtually with the app to vote against a virtual Parliament. It is unbelievable that two-thirds of Conservatives said they do not like the virtual Parliament, but voted virtually to end it. I think it is really important to raise that point. Sometimes we really have to wonder why they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents by acting that way. If Conservatives want to raise a point of order, they are welcome to do that. The second part of this motion deals with the fact that we voted all night one night. We saw how that affected the staff. We saw how that affected the interpreters, who work so hard and who had to work all night. As the member for La Prairie said earlier, the member for Salaberry—Suroît is a strong advocate for the interpreters' health and safety in the workplace. If the Bloc Québécois truly believes in that, then they should vote in favour of this motion, because requiring House employees and interpreters to work all night jeopardizes their health and safety. That is the reality. There are two aspects of the motion that should be supported. Apart from the Conservative Party, there should be a consensus among the parties in the House to vote in favour of this motion, which gives us more hours to work and more hours to debate, which is good, while also protecting employees, interpreters and everyone who is subject to the decisions made by the Conservatives, who are clearly showing a complete lack of respect for the employees of the House. The two aspects of the motion that we are talking about have to do with working harder and working evenings, but that is not something the government can impose. There has to be the support of another recognized party in the House to have the evening sessions. What evening sessions mean is more members of Parliament being able to speak out with respect to legislation. This is something that should be a no-brainer. This is something that should pass by consensus: that we believe that we need more time to debate pieces of legislation. Then the idea of having evening sessions makes a great deal of sense. Second, there is the issue of all-night voting sessions. We have had a discussion, which I know the Speaker will be bringing back to the House, about the member for Carleton's triggering votes, six of them in person and 124 of them virtual. I know we cannot question whether a member has been in the House, but the reality is that there is a caveat that says somebody can stand up—
472 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border