So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Jun/3/24 8:10:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we will have an election when the member's constituents are voting on whether or not to axe the dental care that thousands of his constituents are now accessing, the pharmacare for diabetes and contraception medications that thousands of his constituents would be getting or the affordable housing that is being built. We will have an election, but the election will be on what Conservatives want to axe and whether Canadians want to go down that road. I am quite confident his constituents will say no to axing all of those services and programs that are helping people.

100 words

May/30/24 6:29:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could you clarify that the result of these Conservative motions would be to delete the entire bill at a cost of voting of about a quarter of a million dollars?

32 words

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

Feb/28/24 7:24:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying when I was interrupted a couple of days ago, the motion is absolutely essential to doing two things. The first is for us to work harder on behalf of our constituents, allowing more time for debate in the evenings, which is something the NDP has always called for. Also, we believe absolutely fundamentally that we need to be respectful of our employees and staff who run the bastion of democracy here in the House of Commons and who have been forced into 30-hour voting marathons by the member for Carleton. I will just remind you, Madam Speaker, that the member for Carleton, after voting six times in person, basically bolted from this place and ran away. The kind of boss that one sees—

131 words

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

Feb/28/24 5:29:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a rhetorical question for my colleague, which is simply this: What boss would force their employees, the interpreters, administrative assistants, clerks and parliamentary security staff, to work 30 hours straight, but would run off after one hour of voting? I am not pointing fingers at anybody in particular, like the member for Carleton, but it does seem to me that is an abusive boss.

68 words

Feb/28/24 5:06:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the member for Carleton voted six times in person and the rest of the time voted, I guess, online. The reality is that we need to ensure that the employees of the House of Commons, who are really the bastion of this democracy, are not forced to work overnight for 25 or 30 hours straight. The nine-hour health break would actually make a big difference in ensuring the health and safety of the employees who work here, as well as members of Parliament. What happened to my colleague and good friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, last June has to be a wake-up call for all of us. As a result, I would simply ask my colleague across the way why the Conservatives have been blocking a motion that would basically do two things. It would allow more members of Parliament to speak in evening sessions, and it would stop toxic overnight voting, which the member for Carleton always seems to run away from.

171 words

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

Feb/28/24 5:05:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, which is the Conservatives, who have systematically blocked every piece of legislation. Now, if the Conservatives read the motion, and I am not sure that my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil actually read what is before the House, they would see that there are two aspects to it. First, of course, is the fact that we would be working into the evening, which would allow more time for debate in the evenings and more time for members of Parliament to be heard. Second, and this is perhaps the most important aspect, is that it would eliminate the toxic overnight voting, which has been propelled by the member for Carleton, who did not even show up last time. During 30 hours of votes, he showed up for an hour. This just shows—

164 words

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

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

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

Feb/26/24 1:13:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the voting record speaks for itself. I want to come back to my colleague and the idea that we would force employees and all members to be in the House over a 30-hour period with all the health impacts that we know to be true. Does the member actually oppose the idea that we could have a health break so that when we go through those marathon votes, employees are respected and all members are respected, and that we could do the business of the House in a way that does not have a negative health impact? In the end, why is the member opposing a motion that makes good sense, that makes us work harder and that is also smart?

124 words

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

Feb/26/24 12:40:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party MPs come to the House of Commons to work, as you have seen, for pharmacare, for dental care, for anti-scab legislation, for the grocery rebates and fighting back against food price gouging with enhancements to the Competition Act, for supports for clean energy and for affordable housing. All of those things have come through the NDP's being the effective opposition in the House and pushing the government to simply put in place programs that will actually help people. As we know, Conservatives have done the opposite of that and voted instead to gut health care funding, housing and even things like CBSA, prisons and correctional services. They have voted to cut all of those things. What this motion represents is working smarter and working harder, having evening sessions that the NDP has long been a proponent of, but stopping the all-night voting marathons that have led to health issues with a number of members of Parliament and with staff. The NDP will be supporting this motion. Why have the Conservatives been so obstructionist during the course of this Parliament?

187 words

Jun/12/23 9:00:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois whip. I am pleased that Bloc members are now in favour of virtual voting. As I underscored in my speech, the Bloc uses virtual voting more than any other party. The figure for June 2023 is 80%. That is far more than for the other parties. It seems fairly logical, now that she clarified things. Honestly, I was not reading the motion in the same way as my colleague. I do think there are a lot of safeguards in place. I should point out that the motion for a public inquiry to fight foreign interference came from the NDP. The other parties, the Bloc and the Conservative Party, supported it. The NDP continues to carry out its work as an opposition party very effectively.

135 words

Jun/12/23 8:56:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the member, as I mentioned, the NDP has the highest attendance rate in terms of virtual Parliament and the highest rate of in-person voting, or tied with the Conservatives there, and so we believe that we can do both things. The way the NDP functions, which is free advice that I will pass on to other parties, is that the whip has to agree to any virtual voting and to virtual participation, as I am back in British Columbia. So, there is already a measure that is in place which ensures that folks have to have legitimate reasons in order to do this. However, the reality is that without virtual Parliament, we do not have those choices. If there is an emergency in our riding, we cannot go to it and ensure that we are representing our constituents. If there is a family crisis or we are sick, it means that our constituents would no longer have the right to representation. We cannot speak out on their behalf and we cannot vote on their behalf if there is no hybrid Parliament—

188 words

Jun/12/23 8:55:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member a great deal, but I beg to disagree on this. The reality is, and the NDP, I think, has proven this, both with having the highest attendance rate in the virtual Parliament and the highest rate of in-person voting—

47 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Jun/12/23 8:26:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I differ on two points. First, I was here for years under the Harper regime, and the presence of ministers in the House did not make a bit of difference. Of course, there were some exceptions, like Jim Flaherty. However, in general, the ministers did not want to answer members' questions. Second, there is the matter of virtual voting. I want to point out that members of the Bloc Québécois use virtual voting more than members from any other party. I therefore find it rather contradictory that the Bloc Québécois members use virtual voting more than members of other parties and yet they do not seem to want us to use the virtual Parliament. Could my esteemed colleague explain that contradiction?

135 words

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

Jun/2/23 1:38:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would urge you, in light of the circus that just transpired, to fully investigate this vote. We have functioned for three years on an honour system around virtual voting and virtual Parliament, and Conservatives have actually used the virtual Parliament more than any other party. I find it difficult to accept that today that there is some mystery virus that has impacted only Conservatives and has not impacted members of the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals or the Greens. The fact that we have had repeated disruptions is equivalent, in the virtual world, to a member in this House throwing their chair across the House and setting fire to their desk. If there was some mystery virus that hit only Conservatives— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

135 words

Virus
Voting

Context: House Hansard - 72 - May/16/22

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