SoVote

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

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/12/23 9:29:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have spent a lot of time trying to get young women to enter this place and get involved in politics, and often they have a lot of questions about a lot of things, like the toxicity of social media, the time requirements, their ability to take care of their kids and the work-life balance. One of the things I tell them about, which I have to say is unfortunate because hybrid is not confirmed, is what hybrid has allowed a lot of women to do in the House to do this job. It is an incredibly important voice that women bring to this place. It is not just women, but all people of different equity-seeking groups. Could the member talk more about that and how hybrid can help?

133 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Jun/12/23 9:30:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that was one of the points I brought up in my speech. Hybrid allows for some of that flexibility, and we do need to get more women and more people from equity-seeking groups here in this place. Right now, for the first time ever, we have 100 women represented here. We need to find ways to encourage more people to be here, and if some of these issues are preventing that, we need to have an honest look at it, because when we do that we improve our democracy and get those important voices heard in this place.

102 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jun/12/23 9:31:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour to rise in this House, but I do so today on Government Business No. 26 with some degree of disappointment. There is disappointment because we are debating a motion that does not have the consensus of this House of Commons. It does not have the consensus of the recognized parties. The government and the government alone is trying to unilaterally change the accepted rules of this place without the consensus of all parties. When provisions for hybrid Parliament were first introduced in this place, they were done so as a temporary measure so that members could participate in the proceedings of Parliament at a time when travelling and gathering in large groups were not permitted due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were never considered a long-term change to how we conduct business as a House of Commons. The proposed changes being debated today are not in the interests of Canada's Parliament. I am reminded of the words of a great Nova Scotian, one of the great parliamentarians of his generation, the Right Hon. Bob Stanfield, from Truro, Nova Scotia. I know the Speaker is a proud Nova Scotian. Bob Stanfield, in a memo to his caucus, focused on the importance of certain institutions, certain principles among parliamentarians, that we ought to hold dear. He wrote, “Not only is it unnecessary for political parties to disagree about everything, but some acceptance of common ground among the major parties is essential to an effective and stable democracy. For example, it is important to stability that all major parties agree on such matters as parliamentary responsible government and major aspects of our Constitution.” In the past, that has been accepted. It has been accepted among all political parties and different political parties that when major changes are made to how we operate as a Parliament, as a House of Commons, it is done with a common understanding among parliamentarians. Indeed, during the Harper majority government, a process like this was led by then parliamentary secretary Tom Lukiwski, who ensured that the multiple major changes made to our Standing Orders were made with the consensus of all political parties at that time. That is the process that worked then, and that is the process that ought to work going forward. I want to quote my friend and geographic neighbour, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The member was recently at a parliamentary committee testifying on a different matter, but the point he made applies to this place. He said: In Canada, there is only one federal electoral process, and that is the process whereby Canadians get one vote for their local member of Parliament. Everyone else in our system is appointed. The Senate is appointed. The Prime Minister is appointed.... The cabinet is appointed. Everyone else is appointed. The only electoral process federally in our system is for the House of Commons. It's the only part of our system that has an electoral process. It's the only part of our system that is democratic. It's the only part of our system where Canadians get a vote, and that is for the House of Commons. The changes the Liberal government is proposing would give even more power to the whips and party leaders, and take away the rights and privileges of individually duly elected parliamentarians. It is a fundamental principle in this place that the Standing Orders ought to be respected, and up until now, the changes ought to require consensus. It is clear from the debate thus far that the government does not have that consensus. I want to draw members' attention to some history in this place. On May 18, 2016, the then leader of the government in the House of Commons, now the minister of democratic institutions, introduced government Motion No. 6. Back then, when the NDP was still operating as an opposition party and holding true to its principles, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby raised a question of privilege in which he called the motion “a motion that rewrites our Standing Orders in more than 17 different ways so that the executive has unilateral control over all of the procedural tools in the House.” That was when the member for New Westminster—Burnaby had principles and held the government to account. Unfortunately, now the New Democrats have joined the Liberal coalition and are no longer using the tools at their disposal. Motion No. 6 was eventually withdrawn, but only after the united concerted efforts of the opposition parties to make it clear that changes ought only occur with a consensus. Then in our walk down memory lane, we move to 2017, when the then leader of the government in the House of Commons, now the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, instructed the Liberal members on that same committee to introduce a motion that would have given the government the ability to change the Standing Orders in a way that was only approved by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons. This resulted in what was then known as the Standing Orders standoff, in which the 55th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs lasted from March 21 to May 2, 2017, when the Liberal government eventually backed down. That was certainly a challenging time, but when I look back at it, I do so with pride, because it was a time when Conservative, New Democrat, Bloc and Green members were all united against the unilateral Liberal government actions. I remember at the time the outrage so eloquently expressed by the NDP member David Christopherson. In one of his 303 interventions in that meeting, he said, “I don't understand how the government thinks they're going to win on this, or how they think that ramming through changes to our Standing Orders is going to make the House work any better.” More than six years later, here we are again, with the Liberals trying to ram through changes, having not learned a single thing. Unfortunately, this time the NDP is driving the getaway car. It reminds me of another quotation. In a speech to the Empire Club, an individual said this: It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will. The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules. Who said that? It was the late great Stanley Knowles, one of the great NDP parliamentarians in this place, who, even after he left office, continued to have a seat at the clerk's table until he passed away. That is how dedicated he was to this place and to parliamentary democracy. Sadly, the NDP is no longer living up to the great expectations set by the late great Stanley Knowles. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the provisions for hybrid were brought in as temporary measures during the lockdowns of COVID-19. They were only there as a matter of necessity and should not be a permanent change so that members of Parliament can avoid this place. Frankly, I remember that in April 2020, when we first started looking at temporary changes to the Standing Orders, it was done with a clear understanding that they were temporary. When the procedure and House affairs committee made its recommendations at that time, it included phrases such as “during the current pandemic” and “during exceptional circumstances”. This was never thought to be a part of the normalized operation of this place. In fact, the committee heard from former acting clerk Marc Bosc, co-editor of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the person who quite literally wrote the book on procedure in this place. On June 4, 2020, he said: ...I would say that I agree with Mr. Blaikie that the changes made so far relate to a pandemic situation. I think that has to be the lens through which you look at this particular exercise. The speed with which the hybrid model for the committee has been adopted, to me, is not a particular concern, but as Mr. Blaikie pointed out, if the tendency or the temptation is to make these changes permanent, that's a whole other issue. As clearly shown at the time, these changes were never contemplated to be wholesale changes but rather temporary measures for a temporary situation. We, as parliamentarians, especially opposition parliamentarians, hold a fundamental purpose in holding the government and the executive branch to account. What is often forgotten by Liberal backbenchers is that they share the same responsibility. Liberal backbenchers are not members of the government. They are members of the government party, but they are not members of the executive branch, and they ought to share the same concerns as opposition members in their role of holding government to account. Unfortunately, hybrid Parliament makes it easier for Liberal ministers to avoid accountability in this place and at committee. What is more, as much as we may not always like what our friends in the media may write or say about us or our party, the media, too, holds a fundamental role within our parliamentary democracy. However, when a minister of the Crown participates virtually, either in committee or in the House, they avoid the interaction with our friends in the media and thereby avoid that effective way of accountability. When ministers participate in committee virtually, it takes more time and eats up more of the opportunity for opposition members to ask questions and have an effective restraint on the actions of government. As I have raised a couple of times in questions and comments, the challenge of committees is very clear in a hybrid setting. I had the great honour and privilege to serve for nearly a year on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. At the time, we were undertaking some very important studies, one of them on the absolutely horrendous state of affairs at Hockey Canada. I might add that is now ongoing with many other sports, which frankly, has not been adequately addressed. Sport Canada, as an organization, should be ashamed of itself in view of those allegations against Hockey Canada back in June 2018. It did nothing for four years, but I digress. At committee, we were also studying Bill C-11 and we were undertaking clause-by-clause. In both of these situations, having a chair who was entirely virtual led to a gong show of a committee. The committee was unable to function because the chair could not see the room. The chair could not understand what was happening in the room. Quite frankly, the chair was constantly saying that she did not know what was happening in the room because she was not in the room. That is one of the major failings of the hybrid system, particularly as it relates to committees. Now, I do recognize that, in these provisions, the presiding officer must preside in person, and perhaps we could call that the Hedy Fry rule, but that is what is happening—

1922 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:44:48 p.m.
Watch

On a point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

14 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/12/23 9:44:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we cannot say members' names, and that would be a inappropriate name under that rule anyway.

18 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:44:57 p.m.
Watch

Obviously, the hon. member realizes that he mentioned the name in error. I am sure he will ensure that the rest of his speech does not include the name of a parliamentarian who presently sits in the House.

38 words

Speech
Error

Mr. John Nater

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, I did mean to say the member for Vancouver Centre, but it does reinforce the point that a member presiding over a committee or over the affairs of the House ought to be in person to ensure that a committee can function well. Indeed, the member just raised a point of order. In a hybrid setting, where the chair is not personally there and present, it is much more difficult for a member to raise a point of order and catch the eye of the chair. I want to talk a little now about how I believe hybrid Parliament has actually created a more toxic House of Commons. I was elected in 2015 and served here for about four and a half years prior to hybrid Parliament being introduced. In the three years since hybrid Parliament has been used, I have noticed a deep decline in decorum in this place and in committees. Recently, in his final remarks to the House just earlier today, the member for Durham spoke about that growing division we have seen. I believe that a lot of this is a result of having more virtual and fewer in-person sittings of this place and committee. It is far easier to be nasty to someone when one sees them only on a screen and one does not see them in the elevator, in the cafeteria, sharing flights and having private conversations. That understanding of in-person content and in-person conversations is what is important, and it is not always discussing Parliament. It could be discussing sports teams, the weather, our families and other things that colleagues talk about on a daily basis. It allows people to be seen as people and respected, rather than as adversaries who need to be defeated. It has been spoken about in this place fairly often that this ought to be a measure to make things more family friendly. I do not disagree that Parliament is not the most family friendly place in the world. I think we all recognize that, when we are elected, there are many sacrifices each member makes for their family. I have three young children, who are almost nine, seven and five, and I do miss events in their lives. I know that many members, especially members who are women, find real challenges because of the commute back and forth. There is no getting around that, but frankly, hybrid Parliament will not be the solution. In fact, hybrid Parliament requires that certain members ought to vote and participate even when they are unwell, caring for a loved one or caring for a new child. There is a new expectation that, when they are undertaking those important life milestones and important life situations, they are now expected to be voting and to be participating, rather than dealing with the important things that ought to be dealt with at that time. It is not just Conservatives who have concerns with hybrid Parliament. Wayne Easter, a former long-time Liberal member of Parliament, an individual who served in this place from 1993 to 2021, recently expressed his concerns about hybrid Parliament. He said, “Let me put it this way: If you don’t want to work in Ottawa during the parliamentary sessions — don’t run to be an MP. A hybrid Parliament made sense during Covid but it should never be permanent. I strongly oppose govt's move to make it permanent. He also said, “MPs being present at Committees is critical to do their work properly so they can build relationships across Party lines, chat with guests on the sidelines and feel the emotions of witnesses and Members.” He then said, “MPs present build alliances within the caucus, with Members of other parties and speak directly to Ministers behind the curtains on issues of concern.” Mr. Easter goes on to further elaborate on many of those concerns, but suffice it to say, this is a member who served in that Liberal caucus for decades who is now criticizing this effort by the unilateral Liberal government to make changes. At the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, we heard from another distinguished parliamentarian from the provincial level, the Hon. Ted Arnott, the Speaker for the Ontario legislature, who has served the Ontario legislature for over 33 years. He said: It's hugely valuable for elected members to be able to interact in the chamber, outside of the chamber, in the corridors and in the lobbies. Having those face-to-face conversations can be very helpful in terms of ensuring that members are informed and that they're able to share best practices and ideas, as well as for members to be able to represent their constituents. Throughout my time as a member, when I was advocating for my constituency, in many cases I would approach ministers, whether I was on the government side or whether I was on the opposition benches, and speak to them privately. That was a very important way of advancing an issue on behalf of constituents. There is an importance in having these opportunities in the House. As a wrap-up, I want to focus on a couple of paths forward. First of all, I want to note that the PROC dissenting report opened the door to co-operation with the government. We said very clearly in the Conservative dissenting report that we would agree to extend the provisions of hybrid Parliament to one year after the next election, so that when we came back after the election, there would not be that standoff in the first week. We would allow for the provision of the Standing Orders to continue for approximately one year and then have a vote on whether new members, and all members at the time, wish to see that continue. We made that offer. We had that opening, but the government failed to take it. It is unfortunate because we have seen the concerns that have happened. I want to point out that, since March 2020, there were 90 disabling injuries recorded by interpreters in the House. We are quite literally causing damage to our interpreters, who are already in a lower number than they were prepandemic. If we want to truly be a bilingual Parliament, truly be a bilingual place, we need to ensure that interpreters are available in this place and for all committees. I do want to say that we have opened the door to compromise. It is entirely inappropriate that the Liberals fail to seek that consensus where all recognized parties could have found a solution going forward.

1112 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/12/23 9:52:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like the member and enjoyed working with him at Canadian heritage. He did a great job as vice-chair. I am prefacing my remarks in praising the member, but I have got to say his memory is faulty. I lived through the Harper regime, and I saw how the Conservatives ran roughshod over parliamentary rights. Through the entire majority mandate of its last four years, it was absolutely appalling and atrocious. Therefore, for the member to somehow cite the Harper government as an example to follow, I strongly disagree. However, the member talked about this being before the House now, but where did this come from? The member will recall that, as a House, we referred it to procedure and House affairs. Procedure and House affairs had as its first recommendation reporting back to the House of Commons: “That hybrid Parliament, including the voting application, be continued and that all necessary changes to the Standing Orders be made to allow for its use, and that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs must review these measures within the first year of the 45th Parliament.” Therefore, the procedure and House affairs committee recommendation before us now is to be voted on by Parliament, so I simply disagree with the member's interpretation of the facts. Procedure and House affairs—

225 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:53:26 p.m.
Watch

I will allow the hon. member to answer because I do have other individuals who want to ask questions.

19 words

Ask

Mr. John Nater

Jun/12/23 9:53:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, when he is citing the Harper record, that his party, the New Democratic Party, so far has supported time allocation 37 times in this Parliament, so it is awfully rich for the NDP members to be claiming it is an opposition party when they are supporting time allocation here in the House of Commons. Ms. Heather McPherson: You did it 115 times. Mr. John Nater: I would remind the member for Edmonton Strathcona—

88 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:54:00 p.m.
Watch

Order. I think there are other individuals who are trying to have their say here, but it is not time. I have not recognized them. Before I go to the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, I want to remind hon. members who are online that I will not recognize them unless they have their headsets on.

57 words

Mr. John Nater

Jun/12/23 9:54:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Edmonton Strathcona, 37 times her party has supported time allocation to ram through the Liberal government's agenda. The New Democrats used to be an opposition party to hold the government to account, and now the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and others are raising this issue. They talked about the Harper regime. There was a cake at that time. We were going to bake a cake for the NDP to celebrate—

82 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:54:48 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

9 words

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 9:54:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, excuse my voice. I have asthma, and I am suffering from the pollution syndrome right now. I just want to say that there was some misinformation that went on in this House, and I want to correct it.

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:55:10 p.m.
Watch

The member's mike is not working properly. I will ask her to unhook it and hook it in again. In the meantime, I will go to the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, and I will make sure that the hon. member's mike is plugged in properly to go back to her.

56 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jun/12/23 9:55:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for the member who just gave his speech. All evening we have been talking about work-life balance, how nice it would be if we could all be in our constituencies with our husbands, wives and children and perhaps have a more balanced life. Of course, I think that every working person in the world would like to have a job where they work at home with their family close by. However, that is not possible. My question is quite specific. There are a number of things the government can do, but is not doing, to make it easier to have work-life balance. I have the parliamentary committee schedule in front of me. Before the pandemic, I think even in the winter and spring of 2020, parliamentary committee meetings were not held on Fridays. Since we have started sitting in a hybrid Parliament, committees sit from Monday to Friday, full time. Do you not think, sir, that this measure is getting in the way of work-life balance, yet it is tolerated in a hybrid Parliament?

186 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:56:39 p.m.
Watch

I must remind the hon. member to address her comments to the Chair and not directly to members.

18 words

Remind

Mr. John Nater

Jun/12/23 9:56:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government is doing a number of things that are not good for families. Tonight, tomorrow night and the night after that, we are sitting until midnight. That is not good for families, but that is what the government is doing. I want to say to the member for Vancouver Centre that we have been doing Parliament virtually now for three years, and we have to plug in our headsets in order to participate.

76 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 9:57:18 p.m.
Watch

Yes, I want to remind members that, if they want to participate, they should make sure their headsets are on and plugged in. Let us try that again. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

37 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Jun/12/23 9:57:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to watch when someone is trying to be personal and nasty. People can make assumptions. My headset was plugged in. It just did not work for that moment. I just wanted to say that there was a great deal of misinformation and, may I say, disinformation that went on with the hon. member's speech. If the hon. member will recall, the hon. member mentioned the clause-by-clause discussion of one of the very contentious bills on his committee. The committee did not work, and we had problems; we had to come back to the House to ask the House to set time limits for how we dealt with clause-by-clause. The reason for this was that his party filibustered every second clause. There was filibustering going on, and that was what created a dysfunctional committee, not my being hybrid, not my being there. I had everything in front of me. It was working extremely well. Let us not be nasty and mean to people who have problems and sometimes could be ill.

181 words