SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 211

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/12/23 7:57:46 p.m.
  • Watch
We are out of time, but I will let the hon. member ask the question. The hon. member for Waterloo.
20 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Bardish Chagger
  • Jun/12/23 7:58:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know the member has had many experiences within his own benches. We have seen members of all parties be online. Does the member agree that, when it comes to those moments when an hon. member does need to use the hybrid capacity, an hon. member is responsible for those decisions, and their constituents would, at the end of the day, be the decision-makers as to whether a member takes their responsibilities seriously or not?
78 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Andrew Scheer
  • Jun/12/23 7:58:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, her main point is that this is a massive overhaul to the Standing Orders. The House of Commons has been operating pretty much the way it has been, in terms of members being physically present and how we conduct votes, through two world wars, the Great Depression, the turbulent sixties and seventies, and everything else, including a terrorist shooting here on the precinct itself. Our point is this: When we are making this level of changes and we are going to make them permanent, we have to do it by consensus. We would have agreed. We would have said that we have our reservations for hybrid participation in the House but that we would go along with it if we enacted a sunset clause, where we know that there would be time for the unintended consequences to be determined and that a future Parliament could say it would not renew them or it could amend them. We could have had that consensus. We were willing to set aside some of our reservations for the very points that some other colleagues have raised, as long as there were that safety valve of a sunset clause to make sure that something that has a negative impact on the way parliamentarians fulfill their duties does not get entrenched, making it so difficult to change back.
224 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)
  • Jun/12/23 7:59:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thought my turn would never come. I was first elected to this chamber in October 2019. Our leader kindly asked me to be the House leader of our political party. Through contact with other parties' House leaders, I quickly learned how Parliament worked. Let us just say that there was a steep learning curve. Indeed, one of the first things we had to deal with was COVID-19. In March 2020, something unprecedented was happening. Surely everyone remembers that the country was practically shut down. People could no longer work. We were facing an extremely virulent virus. At that point, the question was: What do we do? Do we stop sitting? Do we continue? If so, under what circumstances? I am very glad to have experienced that. The government House leader at the time, who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, spoke with me. He told me that it was a critical situation and that we had to rise to the occasion. We had to save the country. That was basically how we talked about it, because the country was going through a catastrophe. Despite that, we did not lose our cool. We talked and came to an agreement. We decided to pivot to a hybrid Parliament. I applaud the technicians and interpreters, who had their hands full, along with the House staff. Their outstanding work allowed us to keep sitting and bringing in legislation that would help people make it through the pandemic. We reached a consensus. This is exactly where I was heading. Despite the extremely difficult situation, we met up and came to an agreement. At the time, I clearly sensed that the government House leader was striving for consensus. Later, we went through wave after wave of the pandemic, yet we never stopped trying to reach a consensus. One of the methods we used was to present motions that included a deadline. We would negotiate terms that would apply for one year, and then revisit the matter for the following year. This allowed everyone to reach an agreement. Back then, in 2019, the Liberals were a minority government and they acted like one. They would try to come to an agreement with one party or another and, in the process, they would look for consensus. An election was held in 2021. In case anyone has forgotten, the results were as follows: the Liberal Party, 160 seats; the Conservative Party, 119 seats; the Bloc Québécois, 32 seats; the NDP, 25 seats; and the Green Party, two seats. The Liberals won 160 seats, but they needed 170 seats to achieve a majority. They became a minority government once again, as they had been from 2019 to 2021. The people of Canada gave this government a minority mandate, but the first thing that the Liberals tried to do was look for friends to help them artificially cobble together a majority government. They found New Democrat friends who fit the bill. In return, the Liberals gave them dental care insurance, presented at the time in a piece of crudely drafted legislation. In my 10 years in the parliamentary system, I have never seen more poorly drafted legislation. It could have been scribbled on the back of a napkin. In return, the New Democrats gave the Liberals the assurance of a majority. That is what happened. The Liberals showed no modesty toward Canadians and Quebeckers. As a minority government, they might have felt compelled to limit their actions accordingly. Instead, they were arrogant. The gag orders started piling up. Discussions between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois became few and far between. This motion is vitally important. It changes the ground rules of Parliament. It matters. We will be deciding the way in which Parliament is going to function. We are not talking about what colour pens we are going to use in the House. This is extremely important. In the past, we always required a consensus to change the rules governing the parliamentary system. I will come back to that again later and I will give specific examples. In the past, we sought consensus. The government is presenting a permanent motion. That is the first thing. The Liberals are permanently changing the way Parliament operates. This is the first time they have done that. They came up with this motion and are telling us how things are going to work. A few months ago, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told me that I could send him suggestions and that we would discuss them. We prepared suggestions, but he never asked us for them. Instead, the Liberals turned around and shoved this motion down our throats. The whip can attest to that. They decided how things were going to work. That is how much respect the Liberals have for the opposition parties. They are changing the rules without a consensus. What does that mean? Of course, they think they are doing the right think and doing it with a smile; they are showing others how things should be done. The Liberals are the masters of giving lessons on democracy. We can forget about Socrates: They are the great democrats. Now the Liberals are changing the rules permanently. This means that they are setting a precedent. I do not read tea leaves or crystal balls, but I can say that, at some point, they will not be in government. I predict that this will happen sometime in the next 100 years. At some point, the Conservative Party will form the government. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the Bloc Québécois will never be in power, but it is likely that the Conservatives will come to power. Let us say that the Conservatives form a majority government. They might get up one morning and announce that they have decided on new rules. The Liberals, who will be in opposition with their NDP friends, will not be able to say that the Conservatives have not achieved a consensus, because the Conservatives will say that they are following the example set by the Liberals, who should be a little more humble. That is what they will say. What I am saying is that this creates a precedent. That is what is dangerous about this. Now, what does it mean? It means that we will continue with a partially hybrid Parliament. Earlier, I heard an NDP member say that she had had COVID-19 and that it was terrible, but that she still wanted to work. I think that is the right attitude. However, every time I spoke with the government about it, I said that virtual should be the exception, not the rule. We in the Bloc Québécois are not saying that virtual activities should never be allowed, but we think this practice should be used sparingly, in exceptional cases. We should not have 30 members participating in debates virtually. That does not work. Having a bit of a runny nose or having a bad hair day is not a good enough reason to not show up in person. Members must have valid reasons. We need to find a way to ensure that people participating in the debates virtually are doing so for the right reasons. That is the bottom line, and that should be the rule. We were willing to work collaboratively. I did not barge in like a matador, saying that it had to be my way or the highway. No, we were collaborating, we wanted to work together, and we wanted to come up with solutions. We were in solution mode. We did not hear the same thing in return. I heard the government House leader's speech and I must say that it made me feel uneasy. I could go on about that at length, but I will not. I was listening to him and I thought, yes, an MP's life is difficult, but no one ever found out only after becoming an MP that they had to go to Ottawa. Give me a break. Of course MPs have to go to Ottawa, that is where we sit. That is how it works and how it has been for 155 years. Yes, MPs have to go to Ottawa. Those who have a family have to do what they can, but there is no surprise there and that is how it works. Our whip keeps saying that we need to be compassionate and try to listen to people who have children and give them some latitude to have a family life that is not too damaged by the parliamentarian experience. It has been this way for 156 years. Some might say that I am being too harsh with families. No, people can find a way to organize their schedules. We can make arrangements with Parliament to make work easier for people with children. There is a way we can sit down and talk about it and try to deal with the situation. At the time, we may not have had this problem, but now we have to consider work-life balance. We could sit down with everyone and discuss this. Conversely, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is saying, here is what I have noticed and this is my solution. He thinks very highly of himself. Could he sit down with people and come up with a solution? I am sure that talking to the Conservatives, to the NDP, to the Liberals and to us would make it possible to come up with solutions to achieve work-life balance. At the Bloc, we also have young mothers and they tell us what they are going through. It is extraordinary what they manage to do in this situation. We could listen to them and ask them what solutions might be possible. Could there be virtual sessions on occasion? Could we be told about this before we are forced to participate virtually? This is not even a case of take it or leave it. We are being told we have to take it; we have no choice. There is no real room to try and negotiate and make improvements. That does not seem to be a possibility. With regard to electronic voting, if asked, we will say that we agree with it. Do we still agree with electronic voting? If it is a vote of confidence, I think voting should take place in person. In a situation where the government could be brought down, I think decency dictates that people should be here, voting in person. With respect to accountability, we saw that some ministers were not around very often during the pandemic. That was acceptable during the pandemic; however, at some point we were no longer in a pandemic, yet some ministers seemed to think it was okay to attend virtually. I think that ministers and others who answer questions in the House or in committee must be accountable by being present to answer questions. Earlier, a colleague mentioned that being in the House allows us to do a better job because it is easy to meet with ministers. Ministers are approachable. When we go see them, they seem pleased to speak with us. They are human beings. We are polite with them, they are polite with us. It is possible to cross the House and to speak with them in under 30 seconds, depending on how quickly a member walks. With his long legs, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean can get there in two strides, but in any case, we walk over to see them and we can talk to them. Earlier, some colleagues were laughing and saying that we could just call them. We could call them, but that is more difficult. I find it harder to speak to a minister on the phone than to cross the floor and go see them. I can say that because I have done it several times. I am not saying that ministers do not answer the phone; that is not what I am saying. It is much easier for everyone to be in the House. To be present in the House is to do our job properly. I would like to share something about what happens when members work remotely. Kathy Brock, a professor and senior fellow at Queen's University, appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and said that when members participate virtually in hybrid proceedings, a certain power dynamic is enforced, meaning that ministers and shadow ministers tend to be at the forefront while the backbenchers feel a bit left out. Some experts are saying that it can be harder for members to do their work virtually. Members meet not only with ministers, but also with other members who sit on the same committees. We see that a lot. There is some degree of collegiality among us. We talk about the motions we are going to move, about what happened recently in the House. My colleague who chairs the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs often meets with our critic to chat and find out what she thinks about a particular subject. The objective is to make the work easier. That is the objective of being present in the House. In fact, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled a report that suggested that ministers should be present in the House for the purposes of accountability. The committee said that ministers must be present, but the government did not take that into consideration, even though it promised to abide by the committee's report. That is a problem. My colleague will speak in more detail later about interpretation, but the evidence shows that the use of French in debates decreased dramatically with COVID-19 and a virtual Parliament. That pushed witnesses and others to speak more in English. We often hear the Liberals and just about everyone saying that Canada's two official languages are English and French, but I have some bad news: The virtual Parliament has been detrimental to the use of French. The numbers do not lie. This behaviour will be damaging to democracy. Obviously, I am thinking about foreign interference, which is a full-scale attack on democracy. I was laughing earlier because the opposition House leader was saying that for the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc to all get along, the subject must be fairly uncontroversial, since our views are so different. There are some points we agree on, but there are others we disagree on. All three parties are saying that an inquiry is needed to protect democracy, but the government says it knows what it is required and that it is not necessarily an inquiry. I hope the Liberals will change their tune given what happened with Mr. Johnston. However, this type of behaviour is problematic in everything this government does. It does not always seem to take democracy seriously. I am weighing my words carefully. I do not want to upset anyone or make anyone's ears burn, but that is what I am noticing more and more. Add to that the situation of the current hybrid Parliament, where we are really creating a precedent. Democracy is being undeniably harmed by this type of cowboy behaviour. What is more, the opposition will be disadvantaged, but that is part of what the Liberal government wants. It wants a government that is easier to run. The surprising thing, although nothing surprises me anymore, is that the NDP, which is part of the opposition, is taking powers away from the opposition. This could cause problems in the near future. I will be moving an amendment to the amendment. In closing, the government is setting a precedent. The government is paving the way for a future that may be difficult with exceptionally rare and exceptionally questionable behaviour. We cannot allow this to happen. I am appealing to the goodwill of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I know him. I am sure that after listening to today's comments, he will change tack and accept our help to try to reach a consensus that will benefit our parliamentary life. This is coming from a separatist. That goes to show how important the institutions are: I must respect them and I do respect them. I hope others will do the same. My amendment to the amendment provides that the amendment to Standing Order 45 be amended by adding the following: 45(13) Notwithstanding section 12 of this Standing Order, members are required to participate in person during the taking of recorded divisions on any question of confidence when explicitly stated by the government or to concur in interim supply, to pass estimates, budgetary policy and the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
2837 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/12/23 8:21:07 p.m.
  • Watch
The amendment to the amendment is out of order. An amendment to an amendment must be strictly relevant to the corresponding amendment, not to the main text of the motion. Questions and comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence.
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)
  • Jun/12/23 8:21:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech. I agree with him on several points, but not all of them. Speaking of being in agreement, there's nothing I love more than being in the House to deliver my speeches. As my colleague just demonstrated this evening, it is certainly much more exciting when we can add emotions to our words to express our feelings and our concerns. It certainly makes for a better debate. There is no doubt about that. I could not agree more. Like him, I really enjoy being here in the House. I would like to admit one thing, and I would like my colleague to think about it over the course of the evening, for he may come back with a different opinion tomorrow. I want to be honest with my colleagues. The opposition members' arguments differ from mine on a very important point. I arrived in the House in 2015. Between 2015 and 2019, ours was a majority government. Peter Stoffer, my predecessor, was well known for standing up for veterans. I was told that I had not attended a certain dinner, that I had not attended a certain event with veterans while this person or that person had attended. I was told that I did not represent them as he had. I could not be there because there could have been a vote in the House and our government could have fallen. When you are in opposition, as my predecessor was, it is easy. He could stay home for a day, attend activities and return to the House. Being in the House at all times helps me to be more effective. I am here 99% of the time. When I am not here, I am either at an event or I am sick. It is because something has happened. I just spent three days at the dentist's office. I am so excited that I am having difficulty speaking. I would like my colleague to tell me whether it would not be more effective to have access to the hybrid option, but to use it only on an exceptional basis, as he stated. That is why we have whips. They tell their MPs to be present. If MPs have a good reason for not being there, the whips believe in them and support them.
397 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/12/23 8:23:58 p.m.
  • Watch
I do not want to interrupt members when they have good things to say. However, we must respect others and the fact that other people want to ask questions. Let us please make sure to keep our questions and comments as reasonable as possible so that I do not cut members off. I do not want to do that.
59 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alain Therrien
  • Jun/12/23 8:24:28 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am very fond of this member. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak. I commend him, and thank him for his question. We are very nearly on the same wavelength. What the Bloc is saying is that there needs to be an exceptional situation. What is more, there needs to be a vote of confidence to require MPs to be in the House. I have to say that there are not that many confidence votes. I want to tell my valiant colleague that we are close. We need to determine what the exceptions are. That is what we want to work on, but with whom? We have to have someone opposite us to talk to; otherwise, we will simply come across as rambling or schizophrenic, which is not the case. That is why I am saying that we are close. Perhaps, at some point, we will take our leave, content in the knowledge that we created the Parliament we wanted. This will allow people to spend more time with my colleague, and they would be very lucky, because he is quite pleasant.
191 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • Jun/12/23 8:25:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really like him. He works hard and I find he always speaks very eloquently in the House, but there are two things—
30 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/12/23 8:25:42 p.m.
  • Watch
I must interrupt the hon. member because the sound quality is poor. I would ask him to check his microphone. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
28 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Peter Julian
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alain Therrien
  • Jun/12/23 8:27:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my colleague, the House leader of the New Democratic Party. However, I do not understand the question, because in my speech I said that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of virtual voting. The government leader knows that. I cannot explain an opinion that I do not have. I said that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of virtual voting. We agree.
74 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)
  • Jun/12/23 8:27:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, the House leader of the official opposition referred back to a time where, to make a change, there had to be consensus in the House. I will share a little story. Between 2015 and 2018, the government, which had a real majority—it was not a fake majority—wanted to have the House sit from Monday to Thursday. Only 10 Bloc MPs agreed with the majority government. For the NDP, we all needed to be here five days a week, it was important. It was the same thing for the Conservatives. In the end, the government did not implement that change because the House did not reach a consensus. What changed between 2015 and 2019, during my first term, and now?
129 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alain Therrien
  • Jun/12/23 8:28:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct and it happened many times. I could have mentioned a similar situation from 2000. The government of the day proposed changes to the Standing Orders affecting Parliament. Several times, when no consensus was reached, the government preferred to withdraw its request because it considered a consensus necessary. To do otherwise would only open a Pandora's box for everyone to take advantage of. We were running the risk of getting to a point where the parliamentary system could no longer function at all, as they wanted it to at the time, and where a majority government would have all the power. It is ludicrous. Anyone who looks at the history of Parliament can see that this is not a unique occurrence. Many times, when the government failed to achieve a consensus, it would throw in the towel and cancel the proposed changes out of respect for consensus. What changed? I do not know.
160 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)
  • Jun/12/23 8:29:41 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, even though he is wearing jeans today. I do not think that is very professional attire, but I will ask my question anyway. I agree that we should strive to reach a consensus, but sometimes that is impossible. How does the member think that we can work together to find a solution that will accommodate as many members as possible? I think that we agree that the voting application works. We want a hybrid system, but we want it to be used in a way that works for everyone. How can we work together better to make that happen?
110 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alain Therrien
  • Jun/12/23 8:30:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's question, even though she is not wearing shoes. There is nothing written on my jeans, by the way. I like her a lot anyway. The solution is simple. We need to discuss things and show respect for one another. We need to talk to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. He knows that I am there anytime he wants to talk to me. The Bloc Québécois is constructive. We are ready to be reasonable, to discuss things and to reach agreements. He sometimes talks about the House leader of the Bloc Québécois in the media, and the first thing he always says is that the House leader of the Bloc Québécois is reasonable. However, he did not even come and see me. He did not even come to see someone he describes as reasonable. He is giving me the silent treatment. I cannot negotiate with someone who is not talking to me. I am waiting on him and offering to help.
185 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • Jun/12/23 8:31:43 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important issue. I will give a little history lesson in a moment, but first I would like to build on some of the things we have already established about the hybrid Parliament. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was quite right a few minutes ago when he said that, on March 13, 2020, all the parties came together and agreed to suspend Parliament. We knew that the pandemic was coming and that we could not have all 338 members in the same room, with COVID‑19 having begun to wreak havoc across the country. On March 13, 2020, we unanimously decided to suspend Parliament and set up what has since become the virtual Parliament we know today. It has set an example for the whole world. Other parliaments have permanently adopted rules for a virtual or hybrid assembly. Today, we are discussing the next steps we might take. In Parliament, we are not supposed to mention absences. However, at the beginning of the pandemic, we had the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the House of Commons gave the rate of participation this one rare time. It was reported in the June 23, 2020, edition of The Globe and Mail. In the COVID‑19 committee of this virtual Parliament, the NDP had the highest participation rate with 85%. The Liberals were second with 76%, as The Globe and Mail reported in June 2020. The Bloc Québécois was at 73% at that time, in 2020. The Conservative Party had the lowest participation rate with only 47%. That caused a bit of a stir. This was in June 2020. Today, three years later, we have beaten COVID-19 in most respects, but we must remain prudent and take measures to protect our health. The same applies to virtual voting. In June 2023, we see it once again. The lowest rate of virtual voting translates into the highest attendance in the House, and the NDP wins again, albeit tied with the Conservatives, at 58%. The Liberals are at 65%, and the Bloc Québécois uses virtual voting 80% of the time. This gives an idea of how the NDP uses both virtual Parliament and virtual voting. The NDP has the highest participation rate in both of those categories. Some people wonder whether the hybrid Parliament means that we will be working less actively. That is certainly not the case for the NDP, as the NDP members have proven. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, has repeatedly pointed out that we are still working, but that there are some exceptions. I will come back to these exceptions later. Given that the NDP has the highest attendance record in terms of virtual Parliament, the voting application and in the House, we have to look at, historically, how we have come to a point where the New Democrats support the idea of moving ahead with a hybrid Parliament that has been tested over the course of the last three years. I know the Speaker is well aware of this, but historically we have changed the Standing Orders to reflect new technology and new trends. We just have to look at how Parliament functioned prior to the development of commercial air travel in this country. For somebody like me living 5,000 kilometres from Ottawa, the commute, even with air travel, sometimes takes 24 hours. When we think of the commute for northern members of Parliament and rural members of Parliament in British Columbia, at both ends of the country, we are talking about commutes that are sometimes extremely demanding. If we went back 100 years, the member of Parliament for New Westminster at that time would have taken a slow train to travel across the country in mid-fall and basically set up lodgings in Ottawa. They would not have gone back to their ridings. They would not have gone back to British Columbia. They would spend the winter in Ottawa doing the work that we now do, in a contemporary sense, and they would have done it for four, five or six months. Then in the spring, they would have taken that slow train back to see their constituents. Obviously, at that time, for members of Parliament to actively engage with their constituents and be effective for their constituents was hard to do if they had not been in the constituency for six months. With the development of commercial air travel, we changed the development of the parliamentary calendar. We no longer have that six month block where members are in Ottawa to the exclusion of their constituencies. In fact, now we have constituency breaks, and because of those constituency breaks, we can be back in our ridings meeting with constituents, who are fundamentally our bosses, a lot more often. In other words, with the development of commercial air travel, we understood that the important role of a member of Parliament was to be serving constituents. We therefore changed the Standing Orders. We changed the calendar. We developed a new system to respond to the ability of a member of Parliament, even from New Westminster—Burnaby in British Columbia, to fly out and fly back, to see their constituents and to still do their work in Ottawa. COVID has allowed us to innovate yet again. We have seen the technologies that have allowed other parliaments to meet in a hybrid way, with some members in person and other members participating online. As a result of that, they have become more effective and more efficient. There is no doubt that a member of Parliament who is in their constituency is going to be a lot better at responding to the needs of constituents. I want to give a shout-out to my staff team. They do tremendous work. We have helped thousands of constituents over the course of the last few years. The fact is that we work together to help constituents with a wide variety of cases before the federal government, even consumer cases, and with other things they need vital help with. This is a key part of the job. It is as important to me and my constituents for me to be working in my riding as it is to do that valuable work in Ottawa. There is a balance that has to be maintained, and with the idea of a hybrid Parliament, what we have found over the last three years is that we can do that work more effectively. The member for Vancouver East raised a question half an hour or 45 minutes ago about when she became sick with COVID. The reality is that many members of Parliament, during the COVID pandemic, became sick and were unable to come here. In fact, we did not want them in the House of Commons. We did not want them spreading the virus. We did not want the House of Commons to become a vector for the virus. The reality is, she was able, through hybrid Parliament, even while sick and this is the same case for every one of those members of Parliament who found themselves in a similar situation, to vote and to make her voice heard in the halls of power in the House of Commons, even while being sick with COVID, and we know that COVID cases often last for weeks. That is also the case when we are talking about serious issues that come up in our ridings in emergencies. We are seeing now, because of climate change, an increasing in floods and forest fires. We are seeing, tragically, right across this country an outbreak of fires that we have not seen the likes of before. I know with climate change as well, the heat dome fell over the Lower Mainland. It killed dozens of my constituents and killed over 600 British Columbians. It is another example of the tragic catastrophes that are happening increasingly because of climate change. Atmospheric rivers have cut British Columbia off from the rest of the country. Therefore, the catastrophic impacts of climate change are felt more and more often. A member of Parliament then has to choose between serving their constituents and being able to advocate for their constituents. Whether it is a forest fire ravaging and threatening some of the major towns or villages in their riding or a heat dome that has settled over the city that is killing many of their constituents or the floods that have hit so many parts of this country, members of Parliament need to be able to intervene on behalf of their constituents. It is a much more effective intervention if they can do it on the ground as they are with their constituents and they see the needs that are there. The government House leader also mentioned another element, and this I understand from first-hand experience. That is family crises that we all live through as members of Parliament. We are trying to get the job done on behalf of our constituents. We are trying to serve the country and build a country that really reflects the values that most of us share, but when family emergencies happen, up until COVID there were incredibly stark choices presented to people. A member of Parliament who had a dying relative would have to choose whether they needed to be with that relative or they needed to serve their constituents. We know that our constituents' needs are significant and we need to be at all times trying to advocate for them. When my mother fell sick for the final time last year, I was able to participate through virtual Parliament. I was able to hold her hand when she passed away and it was a heartbreaking and terrible time for my family. It was unbelievably difficult, but I could still do the work, while being at her bedside. These are the things that a make a hybrid Parliament something that opens the door for far more Canadians, if they do not have to make those stark choices. If they are sick, they will serve their constituents. If there are emergencies in their riding, they can still serve their constituents. In fact they can advocate for their constituents from that constituency while talking to their constituents. In the event of family tragedies that we all struggle to get through, we still can do the work that is so important and be with our family members and help them. This is the world's largest democracy. It is a 5,000-kilometre commute from my riding. When we talk about members of Parliament from northern British Columbia and northern Canada and from Vancouver Island, they have an even farther commute. With air travel these days and the difficulty we are having with some of the air travel networks, increasingly it is challenging to get from the constituency to Ottawa. Given all of those elements, there is no doubt that a hybrid Parliament makes the most sense. A number of issues have been raised through this debate thus far. One issue that has been raised is the question of accessibility to ministers. My experience under the Harper regime, which I lived through first-hand, with a majority government, was that while there were exceptions like Jim Flaherty, who was always available to talk, quite frankly most of the ministers were not, even though we were in physical proximity, even though we were a few feet away, even though we approached them. In so many cases, there was a complete unwillingness to engage with members of the opposition. That argument, that somehow ministers will be more accessible if one is in physical proximity with them, has certainly not been my experience. It was not my experience during those years and, quite frankly, if a minister wants to be accessible, they will be accessible whether we are three feet away or 3,000 kilometres away. They will take one's call. That has been my experience. Secondly, as to the issue of whether this should be permanent or subject to a sunset clause, quite frankly, Parliaments make their decisions. There is no doubt about that. The reality is that we have had three years to test this system. We know that there are still some improvements to make but we know, as well, that the system works, that members of Parliament can participate. They can vote and it is done effectively. For this, I pay tribute to the House of Commons administration, our IT staff and the interpreting staff, who do such a remarkable job each and every day. The reality is that they created a system out of nothing, at a time when it was critical to put in place provisions for a temporary virtual Parliament and then a hybrid Parliament. They put in the long hours to make sure that everything was functioning. Although we still have a lot of work to do to ensure the health and safety of interpreters, who do a remarkable job, without whom our Parliament simply could not function, and we still have improvements to make, the reality is that the system is working very effectively. If Parliament reflects the country, what we are trying to do is open the doors to people who have families, people who come from communities that are not represented or are under-represented in the House of Commons. We need to make provisions like a hybrid Parliament. It is not only more effective for the constituents, it is also effective in attracting people to political life, which is very demanding. We work seven days a week. We sometimes work 20 hours a day. We need to make sure that more Canadians from diverse origins have access to our political system. The way to do that is to have tools in place so that those new members, those upcoming members and those future members can really advocate on behalf of their constituents in the most effective way possible. Living in a country as vast and as diverse as ours, where a 5,000-kilometre commute is sometimes necessary, we need to ensure that we put in place all of these measures. We know that they have worked. They have worked very effectively. They were established by consensus, unanimously, and, as a result of that, we are the better for it. As far as the New Democrats are concerned, we believe that this is an important innovation that should be continued. That is why we will be voting yes on this motion and putting in place a virtual Parliament that can really serve the interests of all Canadians.
2472 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border