SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23

Jun/12/23 7:34:35 p.m.
Watch

I will remind folks that the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has the floor.

16 words

Jun/12/23 7:34:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point is that there is a lot of important work that gets done in the parliamentary precinct outside of the official proceedings of a committee or the House of Commons. This work is lost when ministers are able to literally phone in, when they are able to stay in their ridings and not be here. It is a lot easier for them to put up gatekeepers of staff and departmental officials to prevent members of Parliament from literally getting right in front of them to say, “Take a look at this. It is an important problem with what you are doing or something you have overlooked.” That is not nothing. Those are not just small peripheral issues. A great deal of what members of Parliament do is advocate for their constituents outside of debate and outside of giving speeches in the chamber. We need to be able to have access to government ministers, and not just through the phone or through intermediaries like staff. We also propose for committees, while we would have supported hybrid committee meetings, that when ministers come with their officials, they should testify in person for similar reasons. At this point, I will move on to what our proposed solution is, which is to make a series of amendments to what the government has proposed. These are common sense proposals that would alleviate the concerns that we have while still addressing some of the benefits of having a little bit of flexibility around the parliamentary routine. I move, seconded by the member for King—Vaughan, that the motion be amended by (a) deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following—

282 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:39:12 p.m.
Watch

There was no interpretation, but it is back now. I apologize to the hon. House leader and would ask that he start over.

23 words

Interpretation

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:40:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for La Prairie is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/12/23 7:40:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the opposition House leader. I am sure that what he is reading is important and interesting. However, the interpreter is saying that he is speaking too quickly, so she is unable to provide the interpretation. He needs to slow down a little for everyone to be able to follow along, because we are interested in what he has to say.

65 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:40:31 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

8 words

Intervention

Hon. Bardish Chagger

Jun/12/23 7:40:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the procedure and House affairs committee we have been trying to make the systems better in this place. Sometimes when something is drafted, it is easier to share it with the interpreters. Then they have an easier go at providing it in both official languages. That is just a friendly suggestion to the opposition House leader.

66 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/12/23 7:40:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. That has been done. The interpreters do have a copy of the amendment the hon. House leader of the opposition is speaking to.

33 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

Jun/12/23 7:41:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I did notice that you motioned for the members at the far end of the chamber to quiet down, but the former government House leader should know that decorum is expected in the House and that respect for the person with the floor should be shown. I am only halfway in between, and I cannot hear what the member is saying over the kibitzing going on between the NDP and Liberal government members at the opposite end of the chamber.

90 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:41:44 p.m.
Watch

That is entering into debate, but I will remind folks to keep the chatter to a minimum, especially while there is an amendment being read in, so we are able to hear it to make sure it is in order.

40 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/12/23 7:42:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will continue, and I do appreciate the reminder from my colleague. Sometimes when I am reading a lengthy technical document I tend to speed up to get through it quickly, but I can appreciate that this would pose an extra challenge to the interpreters. As my colleague indicated, the text of this was prepared. The Table did have some changes at the last minute to make sure it was procedurally proper, so that may be why the interpreters might not have a working copy of what I am reading. I will just slow it right down. I move: That the motion be amended: (a) by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following: “(a) the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the table on June 8, 2023 (Sessional Paper No. 8525-441-30) be adopted on a provisional basis, with the following changes: (i) that the proposed amendments to Standing Orders 11(1)(b), 16(4), 17, 26(2), 31, 43(2)(b), 52(3), 53(4), 56.1(3), 56.2(2), 57, 62, 74(2)(b); 78(1), 2(a) and 3(a), 83(2), 95(1) and (2), 98(3)(a), and 106(4) be deleted, (ii) that the proposed new Standing Order 15.1 be amended by deleting the words “the House and its”, (iii) that the proposed new Standing Order 32(2), be amended: (A) by adding the words “, in his or her place in the House,” after the word “may”, and (B) by replacing the words “for members participating remotely, the document is” with the words “documents presented in electronic format shall be”, (iv) that the proposed new Standing Order 35(1) be amended by adding the words “standing in their places,” after the words “made by members”, (v) that the proposed new Standing Order 36(6) be amended by adding the words “, in his or her place in the House,” after the words “present a petition”, (vi) that the proposed amendment to Standing Order 45 be amended, (A) by replacing the words “That Standing Order 45 be replaced with the following” with the word “that Standing Orders 45(3) to (8) be replaced with the following”, (B) by deleting the proposed new Standing Orders 45(1) and (2), (C) by deleting, in the proposed new Standing Order 45(11), the words “whether participating in person or remotely”, (D) by deleting the proposed new Standing Order 45(12)(d), and (E) in the proposed new Standing Order 45(12)(e), by deleting all the words after the words “using the electronic voting system”, and substituting the following “the Speaker shall determine whether the member's visual identity sufficiently confirmed”, (vii) that the proposed new Standing Order 122.1 be amended by adding the words “, provided that members of Parliament and officials of government departments or agencies or the House of Commons Administration appearing as witnesses appear in person”, and (viii) that the proposed amendment to paragraph 56(2)(c) of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members be amended by replacing the words “debate has collapsed” with the words “no member rises to speak”, and the said standing orders shall come into force on June 24, 2023, or upon the adoption of this order, whichever is later, and shall expire one year after the opening of the 45th Parliament; and (b) the provisional changes made to Standing Orders 104, 108 and 114, adopted on December 2, 2021, as well as the following amendment to Standing Order 106(4), shall remain in effect for the duration of the 44th Parliament: “That Standing Order 106(4) be replaced with the following: “(4) Within five days of the receipt, by the clerk of a standing committee, of a request filed by any four members of the said committee representing at least two recognized political parties, the Chair of the said committee shall convene such a meeting provided that 48 hours' notice is given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.”; and (b) by adding the following new paragraph: “(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to report, no later than on Friday, December 8, 2023, on recommendations for (i) a new Standing Order concerning remote participants' audio standards, along the lines it proposed in Recommendation 5 of its 20th report, presented to the House on Monday, January 30, 2023, (ii) amendments to Standing Order 45 concerning members voting remotely who experience technical difficulties with the remote voting application.”.

814 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:45:35 p.m.
Watch

The motion is in order. With questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 7:46:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to give a bit of a different perspective. As a parliamentarian for about 30 years now, the vast majority of those years were in opposition. I am very much aware of the importance of opposition tools and how important it is to ensure that those tools are protected. I have had the opportunity to go through this, as I know the member opposite has. There is nothing within the motion the government is proposing, which is supported by the Bloc, the NDP and, I assume, Green members, that would in any way prevent an opposition from being able to use tools to hammer home whatever their point might be. One could speculate on a few things, sure, but from an opposition's point of view, in my 20-plus years' experience being in opposition, I do not quite understand what it is within this motion that the member opposite believes, or the Conservatives believe, would prevent the opposition members from being able to do their job specifically. Can the member give a clear indication of what specific issue would prevent an opposition from being able to do its job?

193 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/12/23 7:47:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should point out that I was expecting a question from the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee because she had a lot to say while I was speaking. Now she did not rise to seek the floor for a question. However, I believe I covered that. I talked about how any time the Liberals are messing with the Standing Orders, we have to have our guard up because they have used it before. They have tried to take rules away. We absolutely do not trust the Liberals' motives from day one, especially when they are not going to do it with consensus and when they are going to unilaterally impose it because they have a partner in the costly coalition with the NDP. I talked about committees. How many committees have been cancelled? We are in the middle of investigating Liberal corruption and mismanagement, and suddenly the committee will get cancelled because resources have to be reallocated. Now, when the government wants to have its committee meetings continue, the Liberals always find a way to have resources for their priorities. Committees that are investigating Liberal mismanagement get cancelled. Committee meetings for continuing debate to ram through clause-by-clause consideration or to quickly move legislation out of the committee back to the chamber magically have resources available to them. That is the most important point. The third point that I made was that using remote options and hybrid really does limit the ability of members of Parliament to interact personally with ministers. That is an important part of being a member of Parliament. Debate is important, and bills are important, but it is important that I am able to sit down with the minister to say that I have been asking their officials for weeks why a constituent was denied access or was rejected from an application and their officials have not been able to get back to me with anything. On a weekly basis, I do that, whether it is immigration, Canada Post or any number of issues. If ministers are constantly using remote options and hybrid, members are going to lose that ability. An hon member: It is like a speech. He is not cutting him off.

377 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:49:20 p.m.
Watch

I do not shut people off, and I never have. I let people speak out. If people do not like the way I do it, then maybe they should talk to me. I can cut everybody off at one minute, or I can let people get their thoughts out. That goes for the questions and the answers. We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for La Prairie.

70 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/12/23 7:49:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in the House. In the past, whenever changes were made to the Standing Orders, a consensus would be sought. I did not see the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons trying to build a consensus.

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:49:55 p.m.
Watch

A number of conversations are taking place in all areas of the chamber. Let us try to keep the conversations down so that we can have a serious conversation about what is happening here on the floor of the House of Commons. The hon. member for La Prairie may continue.

50 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/12/23 7:50:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, thank you. Usually, consensus is sought. I would say that the government House leader did not really seek to build a consensus. Does the opposition House leader feel that the government House leader sought a consensus with Conservatives? Did he reach out to their party?

47 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/12/23 7:50:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can answer very simply no. I really appreciate my colleague's perspective on this. We have a lot of differences between our two parties and there is a lot we disagree on, but we both recognize that, when a government is going to come in to change the rules of the game, we really do need consensus. Members can imagine a scenario in a sports league where one team has an advantage and then tries to get the lead commissioner to change the nature of the sport or the action to benefit one team over the rest of the teams. That is analogous to what is being done here. Right from the get-go, this was presented as a fait accompli. The government had already secured what it wanted with the NDP, and it is a take-it-or-leave-it type of proposal. We were told right upfront that, if we were trying to take away any of the things around remote participation in the chamber or other ancillary aspects, it was going to go ahead with it anyway. That is not the way to bring parties together for the betterment of this institution.

198 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/12/23 7:51:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, and I find it a bit rich for the member to say that hybrid is problematic because of the issues around interpretation. I noted last week that, when we were doing votes in the House, many of the Conservative members were out in the lobby, just steps away from the chamber. Instead of coming in to do the vote, they were doing it through hybrid. Worse still, they were not using the proper headsets, hindering the ability of the interpreters to do interpretation. Even though the Speaker repeatedly told them to either give a thumbs up or thumbs down for their votes, they refused to listen and talked anyway without the proper headsets. Now they are saying that it is not working. The member talked about resources. I sit on the immigration committee. If we want to talk about wasting resources, do members know what the Conservatives did? They wasted 30 hours debating Bill S-245, on lost Canadians. so we could not get on with business. Talk about wasting resources. On the question of hybrid, I have to say this. One would think, the way the Conservatives are talking, that the only mechanism is to use Zoom to do our business, and that is not—

217 words