SoVote

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

Jun/12/23 8:55:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member a great deal, but I beg to disagree on this. The reality is, and the NDP, I think, has proven this, both with having the highest attendance rate in the virtual Parliament and the highest rate of in-person voting—

47 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 8:55:24 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

15 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Jun/12/23 8:55:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this motion was forced through committee to come to the House. Quorum is required. I do not see quorum. Should we ring bells for quorum? Would you consider that, Mr. Speaker?

37 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 8:55:43 p.m.
Watch

A call is in order. We will do a quick count here. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum. The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

32 words

Mr. Peter Fonseca

Jun/12/23 8:56:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we cannot be doing points of order after 6:30 p.m.

14 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 8:56:09 p.m.
Watch

Okay. I was just checking. I guess the parliamentary secretary and I missed that as well. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I said that. The Deputy Speaker: Did you? I did not hear you. Hon. Bardish Chagger: Nobody ever hears him. The Deputy Speaker: Speak up so that people can hear you, which is hard to believe in this House. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby had the floor.

69 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/12/23 8:56:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the member, as I mentioned, the NDP has the highest attendance rate in terms of virtual Parliament and the highest rate of in-person voting, or tied with the Conservatives there, and so we believe that we can do both things. The way the NDP functions, which is free advice that I will pass on to other parties, is that the whip has to agree to any virtual voting and to virtual participation, as I am back in British Columbia. So, there is already a measure that is in place which ensures that folks have to have legitimate reasons in order to do this. However, the reality is that without virtual Parliament, we do not have those choices. If there is an emergency in our riding, we cannot go to it and ensure that we are representing our constituents. If there is a family crisis or we are sick, it means that our constituents would no longer have the right to representation. We cannot speak out on their behalf and we cannot vote on their behalf if there is no hybrid Parliament—

188 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 8:57:31 p.m.
Watch

We have another point of order. The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

13 words

Simcoe
York

Mr. Scot Davidson

Jun/12/23 8:57:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am confused about the member who is online. If he has the highest attendance virtually, does that mean he has the worst attendance in Parliament?

33 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 8:57:49 p.m.
Watch

That is considered debate. How about this? We will just go on to the next question. The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

25 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jun/12/23 8:57:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make something clear to the leader of the third opposition party: The Bloc Québécois is not against using the app for voting virtually. On the contrary, we even said as much at the Board of Internal Economy. We are not against hybrid Parliament. We are against the fact that hybrid Parliament was not regulated, that it was not done properly, in consultation with all the parties. That is what irks us. For me, it is not a question of feelings. Since the beginning of the debate, we have been talking about work-life balance, emotions, our riding. However, it is also a question of the Standing Orders. My question is for a leader. I am surprised that the NDP fully supports the government's motion, given that it would permanently change several rules to make them more restrictive for the opposition and less restrictive for the government. For example, for opposition motions that require 25, 15 or 10 members to block a government motion, in-person attendance is mandatory. In that case, the opposition needs to rise, but on the other hand, calling for quorum, which is the government's responsibility, can be done virtually. I am surprised that the NDP leader agrees with that. There are rules that clearly give the government a leg up. I remember one time when the NDP was really upset and taken aback by a motion adopted with 25 members. We should perhaps remember the Mulcair incident. Under the proposed Standing Orders, which would become permanent, the government does not have to work hard to win confidence votes. It just has to tell people to log on and the confidence vote is in the bag. Can my colleague explain why an opposition party such as his would accept these permanent amendments to the Standing Orders?

311 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/12/23 9:00:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois whip. I am pleased that Bloc members are now in favour of virtual voting. As I underscored in my speech, the Bloc uses virtual voting more than any other party. The figure for June 2023 is 80%. That is far more than for the other parties. It seems fairly logical, now that she clarified things. Honestly, I was not reading the motion in the same way as my colleague. I do think there are a lot of safeguards in place. I should point out that the motion for a public inquiry to fight foreign interference came from the NDP. The other parties, the Bloc and the Conservative Party, supported it. The NDP continues to carry out its work as an opposition party very effectively.

135 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 9:01:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. That is quite a fantastic riding name. I was first elected in 2015. I was a young woman in this House. I was not really sure what parliamentary procedure was, how we function together and how we represent our communities while also working here in Ottawa on the important work we do here as legislators. I then watched the late former member of Parliament, Mauril Bélanger, who had to come into the House in a very late stage of ALS just so that he could put forward his private member's bill to change the wording of the national anthem to make it more inclusive. I do not think there was a dry eye in the House when he did that. Later in the day, I watched him being taken away in an ambulance. It really got me thinking about how we do things here. I am sure that 100 years ago we did not have cameras in this place and that 50 years ago we did not have a televised broadcast of what happens in this House. These TV screens that are here are also very new. All of the changes and progress in this House are to enable us to better serve our communities and to enable people who are in a situation of the kind the late Mauril Bélanger was in to be able to put forward what they are passionate about and to show their commitment to Canadians while also taking care of themselves. Members may also be stuck in a situation such that they cannot physically be in the House. I watched the late Arnold Chan struggle to travel to Ottawa during the very difficult illness that he passed from. I watched his family drive him up here on a regular basis because he could not fly. During the pandemic, when we were working on the fly to make sure that this House still functioned and that we were able to provide support to Canadians at the time they needed it most, as the chair of the women's caucus, I was able to lead a take-note debate on the femicide that is happening in our country. We were able to do that virtually, even as the pandemic was raging. We were not able to physically collect here in the House to have that debate. It was a very important debate. It went until midnight, and we got to hear from a lot of members of Parliament on that very important topic. We would not have been able to do so if we had not improvised and had not got with the program of what our reality was looking like. Change is inevitable. Change for the sake of change should not happen, but change for a purpose is absolutely necessary. If we do not change for a purpose, then we are not progressing together. The world is changing around us. I have had conversations with members of Parliament from across the commonwealth as to how our hybrid system is working for us. Canada's geographic state is very different from countries in the rest of the world. We are thousands and thousands of kilometres apart from each other. We gather here in Ottawa. We sacrifice a lot of time that we could have spent with constituents and family and at community events. We come here to debate legislation. If we are able to do that in a hybrid format, then why not do it? I genuinely believe that the majority of members in this House are in this House to serve their communities and to make sure that their communities are well represented in this House. Would it not be great if we were able to represent our constituents and be here in person for our constituents, or be here in person in Ottawa and still be able to communicate with our ridings more effectively? I am now able to take Zoom meetings with my constituents when I am in Ottawa. I was not able to do that before. Vice versa, if there is an emergency in my riding, I am able to go to my riding and attend to what needs to be attended to while making sure that I do not miss important debates like this in the House. I was the chair of the Liberal women's caucus for over three years. The number one issue that we talked about on a regular basis was how we could make sure that there is equity in this House, that there is equality of representation and that this chamber looks like what our country looks like. Removing those barriers is paramount to make sure that we get to that space that we need to get to and make sure that we are able to effectively represent our constituents in the best way possible. Part of that conversation is to have diversity and inclusion in this place. Although I do not have children of my own, I know there are members who struggle on a regular basis to ensure that they are not only being good parents but also being good parliamentarians. Having the hybrid option gives them the opportunity to do that. Having the hybrid option gives a person like me the ability to attend the funeral of a loved one, a constituent in my riding. It gives me the opportunity to have more town halls, to have more access to this place. I am sure that 100 years ago, when we did not have emails, our constituents would have written to us by snail mail. That letter would have arrived in Ottawa at some point. It would have been opened at some point and then it would have been responded to. We can expect that it would have taken months for a constituent to be able to communicate with their member of Parliament to raise the issue that is being debated currently in this House. Technology has changed a lot of that. It has made us, as members of Parliament, more accessible to our constituents, and I think that is a good thing. This hybrid system is not perfect, but I think that taking those small steps further toward progress is a good thing. It is a wonderful thing for us to be able to be more accessible for our constituents who elected us, who sent us here in this place. It is also paramount that we make sure this place is inclusive, that the people who are running for office are able to do so and are able to effectively represent their constituents. Part of that equation is having this hybrid Parliament. I know that privately a lot of the members in this House agree that we need to have this hybrid option. I know that there are no votes waiting for us in our ridings as a result of this motion that we are debating today, but it needs to get done for the sake of progress. This is a long-term game here, and I really encourage our colleagues to come at this issue not just with the open mind that I am sure everybody in this place has, but also with a mindset about how we can do democracy better. Other countries are looking at our system, are taking lessons from our system, and I think we should take this system very seriously as well and ensure that we are working further toward progress, not just creating partisan games, which is what the future looks like now. With that, I encourage members again to be open-minded about this motion to ensure we are working together. This is not a partisan issue; this is literally about how we can better serve our constituents in our ridings while also having the availability to be collectively here in this chamber to make sure that we are looking after one another and our constituents and making that a priority. I look forward to questions and comments from members.

1374 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/12/23 9:10:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that I had with the hybrid Parliament is the idea that the government would not necessarily send ministers and have people on the front bench here to answer the questions of parliamentarians. That, of course, is very important. That is how we as parliamentarians hold the government to account. I know that this process has certainly improved over the last several months. I wonder if the member could talk about what could be put in place that could ensure that the government is here taking questions from the opposition and doing its job as the government so that the opposition can do its job as the opposition.

113 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/12/23 9:11:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that question. The member is absolutely right; we do need to make sure that all of us, together, are available to each other, whether it is by virtual means or in person. I really appreciate that, over the past number of months, I have seen that no minister has responded to questions virtually. Ministers have been present here in the House, as their duties allow. There is a lot of good faith in what we are doing collectively and in a non-partisan way. The member, in the validity of her question, has the right to ask that. I know for a fact that the Liberal government will ensure that ministers are available for all members in the House.

124 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Jun/12/23 9:12:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks a great deal about partisanship. However, this is the first time that a party has tried to change a fundamental aspect of House operations without the unanimous consent of the House. Other changes were started and then stopped due to a lack of unanimous consent in the House. Why do the Liberals want to impose such a major change this time, without even coming to discuss it with our House leader?

76 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/12/23 9:13:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my role as the chair of the women's caucus, I can tell the House that this conversation has been ongoing for many years. The government has tried very hard to ensure that all parties come to the table on this. It is really unfortunate that this issue is being used as partisan politics. I am looking forward to everybody's collaboration to ensure that this Parliament is open and accessible to our constituents, to all Canadians, while ensuring that we are able to work effectively as members of Parliament.

93 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jun/12/23 9:13:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions in the proposed Standing Orders is that committee chairs must be in person to preside over committee meetings. My question to the member is as follows: Is this a vote of non-confidence in the member for Vancouver Centre and her ability to chair the heritage committee?

53 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/12/23 9:14:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange question. It reminds me of the time, a couple of years ago, when the Liberal government was trying to present our budget bill. Members of that party started to bang on their desks, in a very loud way, and then marched right out the door after making some kind of deal with the Speaker to which I am not privy. It is about good faith. It is about ensuring that we are here for our constituents and that we are doing the work that Canadians expect us to do without being full of drama about it. I encourage the party opposite to reduce its drama.

112 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 9:14:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for taking us through some of the tougher memories since 2015. The member spoke about change with purpose. I think about 2015, when our government was elected and we had gender parity at the cabinet table. It really did allow others to look within their organizations and businesses to say that they needed to actually think about gender. A lot of the steps we take within these institutions actually do encourage the rest of our country to progress as well. I would like to hear the member's comments as to whether she sees this as an opportunity for the government to lead, and for all of us to work together to lead, so that others could also understand it. In the riding of Waterloo, we are the hub of innovation; we will always embrace technology, but the House of Commons has not always been that place.

158 words