Debates of Feb. 26th, 2024

Government Orders No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my colleague for supporting my initiative because he did not, but I thank him for at least asking a question that is very easy to answer.

He spoke of the official opposition, which we are not. He refers to our neighbours in the official opposition, who engage in filibustering. I would say that, most of the time, gag orders are imposed after very few hours of debate. Based on my limited experience, there was nothing here to justify that. I do not have my colleague's experience. I have been here for four and a half years. I have rarely seen a situation where the opposition party caused the Liberal government to lose control of its legislative agenda. I have not seen that happen very often. Most of the time, it is because the Liberals poorly manage their legislative agenda. They should look in the mirror.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Liberal government House leader on how the Liberals believe that they are so righteous, yet they continue to vote against common-sense bills and common-sense motions. One example was the private member's bill, the end the revolving door act, which is aimed at getting mental health supports, and addiction treatment and recovery. It was actually something the Bloc voted for, yet most of the Liberals and NDP voted against.

When the Liberals talk about being so righteous and wanting to vote for good legislation, there are so many examples where, in fact, they do not. The member spoke about how the NDP members continually rise in this place and outside of this place, speaking against the government, yet the NDP members continue to support it.

Can the member comment on how what the government is saying is the opposite of what it is doing? It is being supported by the NDP members, who continue to support it regardless of what it does.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not think that this government will go down in history for how well it manages the House. Consider the strategy it used to create an artificial majority government and how it manages its legislative agenda. I honestly do not think it deserves a medal. It should focus more on how to effectively manage its legislative agenda than on ways of muzzling Parliament. That would be better for everyone.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I enjoyed the speech by my friend and colleague from La Prairie.

My colleague wondered what he would say to his constituents if he were a member of the NDP. I think that what he should be wondering is what he would say to his constituents if he were an NDP MP.

Of course, he would tell his constituents in La Prairie that it was the NDP that proposed the pharmacare plan. It is a better plan than the one currently in force in Quebec, since there are holes in Quebec's plan. It was also the NDP that proposed a dental care plan, and it is thanks to the NDP that the extremely important anti-scab bill was introduced. There are also the legislative measures to crack down on grocery chains' price gouging. My colleague would be proud to tell his constituents about all of these measures. The fact is that the NDP is an effective opposition party and has made far more gains than any other opposition party in the House of Commons since our country was founded.

My colleague also mentioned the issue of time allocation motions. The member for La Prairie was not here during the Harper regime, so I would simply like to remind him that the Conservatives imposed more than 100 gag orders in Parliament from 2011 to 2015. They did it more than a hundred times. The Liberal government has done it eight times. Compare that to the Conservative number and it is clear that Parliament can work when an opposition party is willing to do its job in Parliament.

I would now like to ask my friend a very simple question. There are two aspects to this motion. On the one hand, we are going to work in the evening, a principle that the NDP has always supported, but on the other hand, this motion aims to put an end to the possibility of working all night, like the time we voted for 30 hours. We experienced that in December. The Leader of the Opposition was not actually here, but we voted for 30 hours straight. Interpreters and House employees are then forced to work for 30 consecutive hours.

I would just like to know why the Bloc is not standing up for interpreters, House employees and all those people who are subject to the disrespect shown by the Conservatives when they impose votes for 30 hours to make cuts to all government programs.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his many questions. I will answer a few of them, but first I want to point out that the member for Salaberry—Suroît is certainly the biggest champion in this place for the interpreters. I think any interpreter, if asked, would say that the person who works the hardest to protect the health of interpreters is the member for Salaberry—Suroît, a Bloc Québécois member.

If I tell my constituents that we are going to have dental coverage, someone will stand up and point out that we already have it. My constituents are not stupid. I will reply that, thanks to the NDP, they will have two dental insurance plans, but with the same service, and they will pay twice as much.

If I tell them that we are going to have pharmacare, someone will stand up and say that we already have it. I will reply that we may end up having to pay for Canadians to get it, without getting any more for ourselves.

If I tell them that we are going to have anti-scab legislation, someone will ask me when it is going to come into force. I will reply that it will take a year and a half to get any confirmation, but since we see the Conservatives closing in, the anti-scab legislation might never see the light of day.

This means that the folks back home might not vote for the NDP.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that we have a minority government, but that is not true. We have a majority government since the NDP and the Liberals got hitched.

The Liberals keep trying to change the rules in the House. This is not the first time. They tried to do it in 2015, at the time of the infamous “elbowgate” incident. Now they are trying again.

I think that the government wants total control. What does the member think?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. Her French is excellent. I tip my hat to her.

This comes back to what I was saying earlier. They created a majority government by combining two parties. Their marriage is so tight, they are not even bickering. They get along very well. It is unheard of.

The government is acting like a majority government because it has a partner that allows it to do that. I think that is a shame because Quebeckers and Canadians did not vote for that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very wary in doing this. I do not think I have ever made a point of order while interrupting a colleague's speech, whose speech is very important, but it is important to raise my concern. This is about a motion instructing the House to be able to get legislation finished, particularly Bill C-50, which has seen a lot of obstruction.

In the previous exchange between the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Liberal member, the Liberal member accused him of getting his children's private school funding covered by the Conservative Party, which I do not think is part of the motion, but I—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I need to know what the point of order is and what standing order it is under.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member then made personal attacks against the Prime Minister. We need to focus on the motion at hand—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That falls into debate.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. He was elected a few hours before me. We are like twins as we were both elected the same year. The member won first and I won a few hours later. I always appreciate hearing from him with his experience in the House, and I thank him for that.

There are two aspects to the motion. First of all, we are going to work harder and work evenings. I get fed up when I hear the objections from the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois on the other aspect, on the House sitting for a series of recorded divisions.

We saw how the Conservatives voted to block and cut funding from a whole range of items having to do with food security, like ensuring that we have a good food system and that inspections get done. The Conservatives wanted to cut back on these things, on affordable housing, and on the whole air transportation safety system.

We saw the Conservatives vote against each of these items, one after another. It took 30 hours. The Leader of the Opposition was there for one hour of those 30 hours. We had 30 hours of votes, and the leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, was only present for one of the 30 hours. He made—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will do my best.

It is possible to go on the Internet and see how everyone voted in the House. However, it is not possible to check whether a member stayed in the House for an hour, 30 hours or not at all. This gives us an idea of whether or not someone is in the House. The hon. member can make comments on the number of votes he did or did not cast, but he cannot say who was in the House or not.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for you.

You are saying that the fact that he voted only six times in person and 124 times virtually shows—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member knows for sure that it does not show online whether one voted virtually or voted in the chamber. That is another issue: we need to find the line on whether we are underlining who is here and who is not here, so it does not show.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the quality of his French. I hear him using typically Quebec expressions such as “j'ai mon voyage”. It proves that the member has spent time in Quebec.

On the substance of the issue, he is totally wrong. We do not have the right to make a distinction between a vote in the House and a virtual vote. A vote is a vote, period.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I said exactly the same thing.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an observation: When folks are tuned into ParlVU, it is very clear who is voting here and who shows up as a little picture. However, I am seeking advice and direction. It is already public and broadcasting; does that then not make it fair play for us to reference things that are already made available to the public in that space?

We certainly look to you and to the Table for wisdom, but given the hybrid nature of the way in which we engage with the voting, I should state for the record that it is very clear that indeed people can see who rises from their seat and who is presented as a little profile picture on the television.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, and it is a point I have also raised on a couple of occasions, if the app is a representation of the chamber, and if a vote is a vote, as the member has just stated, then it is interesting that on the virtual app we have the choice of voting for or against, yes or no, or abstaining. However, in the House a person would not have the option of abstaining, because they would either rise to vote for or they would rise to vote against, but they would not get to abstain. Therefore I think it might be important to look at how we do make sure that the app actually reflects how the chamber operates, and then maybe there would be more of a—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I am being chirped at. I am just trying to raise a part of the same point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the input.

The app was designed so as to show a yea or a nay, but the abstention issue was built in for the lobby so they can understand who has voted or not. Of course here in the chamber if a member wants to abstain from something, they just do not show up or do not rise when the time comes.

The official record does not distinguish between whether a member voted in the chamber or via the app. If members are saying that we should actually underline that, then I would suggest they bring it back to PROC, which can make that determination when the time comes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

It was the current government that put into place the virtual application and voted with the NDP to keep it. Is it trying to create two classes of citizens, those who voted electronically and those who voted in person? I do not think that is appropriate; both are valid and we should not be calling out the difference.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order to add to the conversation on procedure, I think there are some instances where MPs do in fact want to be shown on the record as abstaining. Some people may not have the information to make one decision or the other.

I have seen anecdotal information that on the government side a few of its mavericks every now and again, 0.5% of the time, rather than taking the parliamentary walk or having the flu, will go ahead and click “abstain” officially. Therefore I wonder whether abstention is not an official position within the Standing Orders, the rules of the House.