SoVote

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

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

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:53:09 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Essex.

12 words

Essex

Mr. Chris Lewis

Jun/12/23 7:53:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just spoke about where Conservatives were for a vote. I thought we were not allowed to say where people are or are not when they do a vote. Could you please clarify that for the hon. member?

42 words

Clarify

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:53:31 p.m.
Watch

I think it was on the video. People were voting online, so that is okay. I am going to remind the hon. member for Vancouver East to wrap up so we can maybe get a couple of other questions in.

40 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Jun/12/23 7:53:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the question of hybrid, the way in which the member was speaking was almost as though the only option is for members of Parliament to not show up in the chamber here to do the work. That is not the case. Hybrid is meant to allow for people to have an option. For example, I got COVID and had to be quarantined. What did I do? I used hybrid because it was important work that had to be done, both in the House and at committee. That is the whole purpose here, to facilitate the process so that people can use that option. Why are the Conservatives opposed to allowing people to use different options to fully participate in the House?

124 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/12/23 7:54:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what caused so many members to have challenges with the voting app. I would point out to the hon. member that whatever concerns she may have about people clarifying their vote through a hybrid mechanism would not be required if we did not have hybrid. If members had to be here physically, then obviously that would not happen, so if she was vexed by the amount of time that may have taken, not proceeding with hybrid preservation would probably solve that problem.

89 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:55:00 p.m.
Watch

Because I have been waiting for it, and we have not heard from her, the hon. member for Waterloo will continue with questions and comments.

25 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 7:55:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, you are not the only one who has been waiting for it. I do want to say that I have always appreciated working with the opposition House leader. I remember that when I became the House leader, it was maybe the next day that he shared that he would no longer be the House leader. I did take it personally. I think my being the chair of PROC and his being the opposition House leader provides us an opportunity to work together. At the procedure and House affairs committee, the way the House functions is a matter we have taken really seriously. We have also really pondered how to make sure interpreters can do their work. We have tried to provide some good suggestions for Standing Orders, and the list goes on. Right now, at the procedure and House affairs committee, we are seized with a really important question of privilege. As much as we would like to see a response to that question of privilege, unfortunately the lists of witnesses that come from Conservative members continue to grow. Today, in question period, the member rose and wanted a response to his question of privilege. I believe every question deserves an answer, so I would like to see a response provided. However, he really should be talking to his fellow Conservative colleagues, because most members would like to see that response happen. The point I am making— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that they talk about heckling, yet they do it so well. I have been watching the House for so many years on the TV screen, and watching Conservatives heckle. Maybe that is why I have learned a trick or two. I now hear the member for Perth—Wellington doing such a good job chirping at me. It is not just in the House that he does that. I welcome it. I will continue on my point. Many stories have been shared regarding when members might use hybrid. I have been very lucky, because I have been able to be in the House every single time I needed to be in the House. Every single time committee was called or a 106(4) was called, I was able to change my schedule, oftentimes saying no to my own constituents to ensure that I took those responsibilities seriously. However, we have heard some stories in which that is just not always the case. It might be because someone got sick. It might be because there was a wildfire in someone's community. It might be because there was a flood and people lost their homes and everything they knew. It might have been a mass shooting in a mosque, a place of worship, where someone thought they would go to offer a simple prayer, probably not for themselves but for those around them, and they did not come home—

492 words