Debates of Feb. 28th, 2024

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I cannot believe we are getting into this discussion once again of underlining who is here and who is not. I will say that, when we bring up who voted, when they voted, whether they were here or whether they were not, we are not supposed to say that part. How members voted and what is on the public record are full game.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

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.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his excellent summary of what this motion would accomplish. It would, simply put, allow more time for debate.

Every time we have discussions among parties, it is often stressed, from parties in any corner of the House, that we require more time to debate bills. Sometimes that is constructive, but sometimes it is obstructive. Sometimes members across the way simply talk things out that they know perfectly well would be good for Canadians and would impact positively on Canadians' lives in an immediate fashion, but they still persist in blocking and obstructing. Therefore, we are looking to give them more opportunities to speak and we will see whether they can, in fact, bring some constructive elements to the debate.

As to the health break, as with long-haul truckers, nurses and hard-working Canadians, and with the advances of the past few years in working conditions, no Canadian is expected to work 30 hours around the clock, much less to vote on billions of dollars of public expenditures. If we want to talk about irresponsibility with public expenditures, that would be the Conservatives asking 338 members of Parliament to opine on important matters at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. That is not a reasonable proposition. No Canadian expects that. It is unhealthy, and it is unhealthy for the people who are forced to be in the chamber or around the parliamentary precinct to protect and support us as we do our work. Therefore, it is important that we move from this very toxic, obstructive environment to one that is healthier for all members in the House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from New Westminster—Burnaby for his really heartfelt concern for my health.

I did have a hemorrhagic stroke after working, straight, seven days a week, for 51 days. For May and June, we were sitting until midnight. I can remember well when a different Speaker would say, “It now being 1:15 in the morning, the question is that the House do now adjourn. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.” He did not stop for a breath because I was doing adjournment proceedings.

I think that, if we are going to work those long hours, and everyone knows that I am not afraid of hard work, I want a nurse's station in the foyer. I want some health care professionals checking the blood pressure of members of Parliament, checking to see if their health needs attention. This would also be very important, as the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has said, for the workers in this place, who are not elected and who do not have the fantastic salaries we have to do this work.

I also believe if that, if we were to use the rules that exist, for instance, against reading a speech, as they do in the Parliament of Westminster, we could more expeditiously schedule our work so that we would have meaningful debate, as opposed to what sometimes, although I hate it to say it and I should not say it, resembles bad high school theatre.

I think we really do need to focus on debates and take our time to do it right. It is not about being afraid of hard work, but about not being forced into late night sessions, which are inevitably bad for everyone's health.

I thank all of my friends across all party benches who let me know that they prayed for me. I am miraculously healed.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her observations. I know all of us are happy that she is back, hale and hearty, and that she is participating in this debate.

I would also say that, like so many other members on this side of the House, the member is not afraid of hard work and, more importantly, of putting in the preparation and study required to bring constructive ideas to the House and positive contributions to debate. Way too often, we fall into the trap of what we call dilatory motions. Those are things such as proceedings to consider committee reports from six months ago. They are designed just to block and obstruct, and obstruct what? They are designed to obstruct positive things, such as child care.

We are on the cusp of adopting a national child care plan for Canadians. Conservatives even voted for the bill in previous iterations, yet they will refuse to allow these things to come to a vote. Moms and dads out there watching need to know that the people standing in the way of putting a national child care program into law are Conservatives.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just to reiterate to the hon. member opposite speaking about child care, that is already in place. There does not need—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate.

The hon. government House leader.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we will all note that, once again, the member is standing up and refusing to allow a debate on child care and a vote on child care to occur in this chamber.

I want to finish my remarks and my thanking the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her many contributions and for her eternal concern for the respect of the rules of this place, as well as for the health and well-being of the people who inhabit this place from all parties and those who support us here. I think that her contributions have been very positive.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the opposition day designated for Thursday, February 29 has been undesignated and will now take place on Friday, March 1.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of the motion relating to the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Barrie—Innisfil talking about the Prime Minister's committing to doing things differently in Parliament. Perhaps the Prime Minister was giving too much credit to the Conservatives when he was making those comments, but they rely on the assumption that everybody, all 338 of us, comes here to do the job we were elected to do. The problem is that Conservatives have come here and think that their job is to obstruct absolutely everything.

The House leader has already mentioned that Conservatives, even if they agree with the bill, obstruct at every possible opportunity. The member for Peterborough—Kawartha was just going on about the child care bill, a bill that she routinely got up to criticize the government on. Time after time, Conservatives would get up to criticize the bill. Then what did they do at the end of it? They voted in favour of it.

The same thing can be said regarding the scab legislation. They spoke against it and put up all the roadblocks to prevent it from being actually voted on, then when it came time to vote, they just really quietly yesterday stood up and started voting in favour of it. I am wondering whether the House leader can provide some insight as to why Conservatives are so genuinely interested in just obstructing absolutely everything.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not reject the premise of that question. I cannot speak to their motivations, but I can speak to the phenomenon we see. We see it south of the border. We see it in some parts of Europe. We see it in the populist right wing that seeks to toxify our democratic institution, that seeks to conflate minor things and that seeks to make so toxic and so negative the proceedings of places like this, the most solemn of our democratic chambers in this country, so that Canadians turn away in anger or in sorrow from the debates we have in this place and tune out the very important things we discuss here. That is because the Conservatives think that if they make it toxic and negative, throw in enough vitriol, Canadians will turn away.

That is why we want to give more space for debate in this place. That is why we want to make sure members come to work healthy and prepared to seriously debate the issues, as many members choose to do in this chamber. However, on the right, we see more and more unfortunate efforts to toxify our politics, to make it negative and to make Canadians turn away and recoil in horror from the very important democratic debates we have in the chamber.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member is the government House leader or whether the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is the government House leader; I have not had that clarified. However, I have listened to his comment.

Our job is to be the opposition. With all due respect to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I listened to her saying we need a doctor and we need a nurse, but these are the very things we are in the House of Commons fighting for. The people in York—Simcoe cannot even ask for that. They do not have a doctor. They do not have a nurse. It is the very government across the aisle that is shutting down debate.

In my riding, we are sitting there fighting, wanting to talk about getting the rural top-up on the carbon tax. Here we are, and the current government is classifying my first nations, our first nations in York—Simcoe, as urban and part of Toronto. These are the debates we want to have, and again we see the government shutting down debate.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member ridiculed the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very appropriate concern for the well-being of all members of the House. Let me point out to him once again a very ironic fact—

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I have to clarify that. With all due respect, I did not ridicule the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Even though that is a point of debate, I appreciate the clarification.

The hon. government House leader has the floor.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, however, for his concern for health care. I would really have appreciated it if he had been concerned enough about health care to go to his leader, on the eve of the estimates we just finished voting on before Christmas, to tell him to not vote against the 3.1 billion additional dollars we have provided for doctors, nurses and personal care workers in the member's home province of Ontario. This makes the point so eloquently.

He talks about health care; we have addressed health care. Who else thinks we have addressed it in Ontario? Doug Ford does. He was at the hospital with the Prime Minister, signing for the $3.1 billion that the member, who professes to care about doctors and personal care workers, voted against. That is shameful. It is obstructive. It is toxic. It is cynical, and it does not help the people in York—Simcoe or the people anywhere in this country.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it comical when I come in here and hear my Conservative colleague talk about people working hard, like my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, for whom it takes 12 and a half hours, as it does for me, and three flights, on average, to get here. Members know we will be here tonight in late Adjournment Proceedings, dragging the Speaker and the government here. It is not a question of working hard. It takes some Conservative colleagues two hours to get here, and they are complaining about how hard we work.

The Conservative member talked about health care. Conservatives cut funding to health care. Ask people who live in Ontario, where Doug Ford lives, or people where Danielle Smith of the UCP lives. They do not stand up for workers. What we are talking about here is ensuring that workers are not working 30 hours, or from midnight to 9 a.m.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about ensuring health supports for somebody. We cannot wait until somebody dies of a heart attack. “It is not worth the cost” is what the Conservatives keep talking about. Someone losing their life here by working from midnight until nine in the morning is not standing up for workers' rights. It is not being responsible and is not showing leadership.

If we listen to experts, a medical doctor or a mental health doctor, they would say this is not sustainable and is not appropriate. If we are going to show leadership in this country, it is time we stop sitting all night, from midnight until nine in the morning. I want to be here until midnight. I want to work; I came here to work, but we have to take responsibility and show leadership. This is the right decision and long overdue.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni, because it is time to actually address this in a very serious manner.

There are 338 members of the chamber. It is not healthy for any single one of us to be forced to vote on billion-dollar items for 30 straight hours. It is not healthy for anyone, and there are members of the House with health conditions, issues that quite predictably make their families, friends and constituents anxious because they should not be here voting for 30 consecutive hours, forced by the Leader of the Opposition and an obstructive, toxic force across the way. That is not okay. Someone could be seriously harmed by that.

I used to be the chief government whip, and the welfare of the members was very important to me, as it is to our current chief government whip and, I am sure, to all whips. The fact is that we cannot make sure the resources such as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was calling for, or any of the other supports that are required, are here so we can be certain all members are safe. We need members to be safe. No one sends us here to be unsafe and to enjoy unsafe working conditions. Those are unsafe working conditions. Who knew they were unsafe? The Leader of the Opposition did. He did six votes from his seat and 124 of them from a McDonald's franchise and a Conservative fundraiser.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member was a lobbyist for numerous multinational corporations, and has since been in the House for a long time and knows he cannot refer to whether a member is or is not in the House.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is of public record how a member voted, whether in person or on the app. All the House leader did was reference that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think I have said on many occasions in the last few days that the record is fair game. If it is on the books, it is actually on the public record, but we just cannot say whether somebody is in the chamber or not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at what is being proposed by the government, one thing is the response to the need to have additional debate time on government legislation. That is really what this is all about, in addition to not having to sit or vote for 30 hours straight, including between midnight and 9 a.m.

This would be to enable members to address and debate more on government legislation. I would think that having more time would be a good thing that members opposite would want to support, because I often see them on the other side crying and saying they want more time. We would be giving them more time, and I would think they would support the motion to extend the time. Many Canadians from coast to coast to coast work into the evenings. There is nothing wrong with members of Parliament having to work a few extra hours in the evening to allow for more debate.

Could I get the government House leader's thoughts on that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is of course exactly why we reject the premise that this in any way would undermine the rights of parliamentarians; in fact, it would expand them. It would allow members more time and more opportunity, potentially, to debate bills that are contentious.

We hope the time available and afforded to the members of the official opposition would allow them to participate in debate a little more constructively rather than obstructively and putting up all of the fake roadblocks and obstacles they like to put up to toxify the environment here and have Canadians turn away from the proceedings of this institution and disengage from the public life of our country. We do not want that. We want members of the opposition to make positive, constructive interventions in the debate, and we would be allowing them the time to do that.