SoVote

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

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

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

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/12/23 9:15:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, if we are not working with the times, then we are stagnant. I really think that change for the sake of change is not always positive, but change to make sure that our constituents, Canadians, are well represented is the best way we could work together and ensure that our country is moving forward. Industry leads; government sets the example. By doing this, by ensuring that hybrid Parliament is a functioning system for our democracy, we are setting an example not only for industry, for the gig economy, but also across the world for emerging democracies.

100 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 9:16:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in the House to join the debate on Government Business No. 26, which seeks to make permanent the changes to the Standing Orders to allow members of Parliament to participate virtually in the work we do in this place. This motion is an important step forward in the evolution of our democracy, to make sure we are keeping with the times. I am part of the class of 2019, as I was elected in October of that year. For me, Parliament was in session for only about six weeks before the pandemic hit, so I was just getting the sense of how the business in this place operates when that hit. Then the COVID pandemic threw everything for a loop. We had to learn how to do the business of this place but be able to respect the public health guidelines we were given, which prevented us from travelling across the country and prevented us from gathering in large groups. Therefore, at that time, we embarked on a new innovation that allowed us to participate virtually by creating a special version of Zoom. It would allow us to participate in a way that respected those public health guidelines but still do our important work where we would be able to deliver speeches by Zoom, participate as members of committees, and have witnesses in our committees participate by Zoom as well. We also were able to vote on important pieces of legislation. What we originally developed was actually not very efficient. We each had to say on Zoom what our vote was, but eventually we actually developed an application which utilizes facial recognition so that we are now able to vote anywhere in our country in sometimes 10 seconds or less. This is a very important innovation, to my mind. The experience has shown that virtual Parliament worked. We were able to get very important work done over the course of the pandemic to deliver help to Canadians in some of the most dire straits. We were rapidly learning what the impacts of COVID were, and we were making an iterative response to make sure the programs we were rolling out were fit for purpose. Since the public health guidelines have changed and we have been able return en masse to this place, we have kept these provisions as an addition to the work we do in this place, and that is very important to add here because there are very clear benefits to our being able to participate virtually when we need to. For instance, if there is an emergency, particularly a family emergency, members are able to be there with some of their loved ones in some of their most difficult states. Multiple members of Parliament have given birth just in the last year, and this has allowed them to continue to do their work as MPs while being at home with their newborn child. In addition, something that was very much highlighted during the pandemic is that those who are in poor health or are sick do not need to travel to be here. It means that they are not potentially exposing other people if they are contagious, or putting themselves in a very risky position. I have heard a number of the previous speakers mention some names of members of Parliament here, and I do want to just mention our late colleague, the Hon. Jim Carr, who, with a terminal condition, was able to participate virtually, right up until the end of his life. That bears mentioning because he brought so much wisdom to this place and I learned a lot from him personally. Another benefit I would mention about this system is that it allows members to be in their constituencies more and to do more constituency work. A very important part of our job as parliamentarians is to make sure we can be there and listen to the concerns people have and be able to advocate for their priorities. To be able to do that, it is important to actually connect with people in our constituency so that when we come to this place, we are able to advance those priorities. Many of us in this place have ridings with large populations. For me, it is 131,000 people, and there are many other members of Parliament who have even more constituents and represent large areas that are sometimes very difficult to get to. It is important that we be able to connect with folks so we do not get too caught up in the Ottawa bubble here and become detached from the realities people are facing. That work as a constituency member of Parliament is very important, as is just being there at events, so people can feel close to their government and so members are able to be more responsive. There are significant costs to the pre-existing system we have, where everybody is here in person. A number of members previously have talked about how the size of our country, the largest democracy in the world and the second-largest country in the world, presents some major challenges. Just the time to get here from our constituencies can be immense. At the best of times, it takes me eight hours, point to point, to get here. In the last two weeks I have missed connections, which meant I had to stay overnight in places along the way. Some other members have talked about it taking 24 hours to get here, so time is a cost. There is also a monetary cost every time we travel here; it can be in the thousands of dollars for a round trip for folks to get here. There are health issues, particularly for some of our more vulnerable colleagues, when we are doing 26 round trips a year, particularly if we have a time zone change. For me, it is a three-hour time difference, which does take its toll as well. There are also the environmental impacts. I calculated that, for every round trip I do to Ottawa, there are 1.2 tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted, so I think we all need to be mindful of that. Then, of course, there are the opportunity costs when we are not able to be in our community as well. One thing that I do not think has been mentioned so far in the debate today is the cost it has on families. I have seen some statistics that have shown that members of Parliament have a divorce rate of 85%. It is not hard to see why. With so many of my colleagues I have talked to, I have seen the stress it puts on relationships when they are not able to be with their family for half of the year. I think this is something we also need to take into account, because it discourages many people from getting involved in this kind of work, particularly for young families or young couples expecting to have a family. The challenge of the amount of time we need to be here, which is sometimes 130 days of the year, is a huge challenge in getting more of the people involved in this type of work whom we really need to get involved. I do not want to say I am advocating for all virtual, because there are very real benefits to people's being here. As the government House leader for the Conservative Party mentioned, being able to talk to a minister and get something solved is much easier when one is able to walk to their desk and have that conversation. We are not, if all virtual, able to develop the informal relationships that are so key to making this work effectively, whether with other members of Parliament from other parties, with senators, bureaucrats or other stakeholders. It is really important that, when we are giving speeches, we be in this place, because the impact when we are able to see how it is landing with somebody is very different than reading something on the screen, so I think there should be guidelines for the use of the system. I think it is a very important tool we have. All members should seek to be here far more in person than virtually, and the experience to date has shown that the vast majority of MPs are doing just that. The questions and answers in question period should be done in person. I know a few other members have brought this up previously, but the experience has been that ministers are here answering questions, which is very key for accountability. I very much support this motion, which creates the conditions for us to be more effective MPs and better people, more energetic in the work we do as well. It has very clear benefits when it is done in a judicious way, and the experience to date has shown that it has been used in just that way.

1511 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jun/12/23 9:26:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country a similar question to the one I asked the previous speaker. These provisions provide that a chair must preside in person. Does the member agree that the chair of a committee ought to preside in person, and is that a reflection on the absolute gong shows that we have seen at some committees where members have not presided in person?

78 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Jun/12/23 9:26:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think being there in person can make the job of a committee chair a lot easier. It is not impossible to do it virtually, but they do need to have help on the ground to see how people are motioning and whether there is agreement in the room. I do not think it is absolutely necessary, but I have seen some chairs who are able to do it very well and some not as well. I think that, ideally, we would have chairs in person. My experience has been that it makes it a much smoother process.

100 words