SoVote

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

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jun/12/23 11:05:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure at this late hour to rise and debate this motion. Quite frankly, the fact that the government has planned changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons without even initiating any discussions or approaching all the opposition parties shows a certain degree of arrogance. It even shows a lack of respect and consideration for the work of the opposition parties and their leaders. Some very important rules are being modified, and in a way, this reform is aimed at permanently establishing Parliament 2.0. I think the government could have sought consensus. Only then could they say that the other parties firmly oppose it, that there is no openness to discussion or the possibility of agreeing on one, two, three or perhaps four standing orders. We could have discussed this. Instead the government is refusing to listen. I was even a bit insulted by the way this was presented. I read in the paper that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was saying how things were going to work and that Parliament was not going to close its doors until the motion was adopted. I do not see any openness on his part, and I no longer recognize him. He has not demonstrated the same openness and respect for the work of the opposition as he did when he was whip. The bottom line is that the Bloc Québécois is against the principle of a permanent full hybrid Parliament. We are not against all the rules of the hybrid Parliament or all the ways of running it. I am pleased to see in this motion that the government listened to one thing that I really care about, and that is the fact that committee chairs are not allowed to chair meetings virtually. I am very happy about that, because it is awful when a chair tries to fulfill their duties remotely. When a chair is sick, they need to take care of themselves and let a vice-chair take their place. I agree with that. However, when it comes to some of the other rules, I cannot understand why we were not given the time, the opportunity or the pleasure of discussing them with the government House leader. Many of the rules are interesting because it is true that they favour work-life balance, especially the electronic vote. However, it made me laugh earlier to hear some of the NPD members say that we were against electronic voting. It is quite the opposite. From day one, the Bloc Québécois and I, as the whip, have actively participated in implementing electronic voting. We have never hidden the fact that remote voting was a good way to promote work-life balance. What we are saying is that if we bring in permanent rules, then we might need to restore the importance of the confidence vote. I was elected from 2006 to 2011 and I went through some confidence votes. When a confidence vote is coming up, for example, a motion to pass the budget or the throne speech, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the confidence vote is done properly. We experience these great moments in democracy by being here in person. In the Bloc Québécois, we agree with allowing members to vote electronically. However, we would have liked to propose an amendment to give more value to confidence votes by ensuring that they are held in person. We also believe that it is important to ensure that a virtual Parliament does not weaken accountability by allowing ministers to be absent during question period. I am not the only one who has said this; I heard similar comments during an NDP question. I think ministers should be here in person to answer questions put to them in committee or in the House. That is important, because it is not the same dynamic. As we have seen, when ministers are present or not, the dynamic changes, and I think that they should be here in order to testify, to express themselves or to answer questions put to them. Of course, the other reason we have slight misgivings about a hybrid Parliament with no conditions and no framework is the whole issue of protecting the health and safety of our interpreters. We need to ensure to take a fairly structured approach to conducting reviews to address the health and safety of our interpreters. In the motion before us today, there is no consideration for these employees, who follow us every day in our committees or in the House of Commons to ensure that the work is done in both official languages. It contains no measures, apart from the mandatory headset that complies with the ISO quality standard. Other than that, there is nothing else for them. Although I was embarrassed to say so in the past, I am no longer embarrassed to say that I am a unilingual francophone. The interpreters are my ears. I need them. I believe that I quite frequently have interesting things to say, and when I speak I also want unilingual anglophones to hear me. They have to be able to hear me. We know, and it has been documented, that the reality of the hybrid Parliament has a greater impact on francophone members, because it is often when Bloc Québécois members or witnesses are speaking in French that there are technical, interpretation, sound or connectivity problems. Basically, what the government is telling us, with complete disregard for the interpreters, is that it would be great if everyone spoke in English so there would be fewer problems. No, the work must be done in both official languages. Unfortunately, with a hybrid Parliament that has no conditions and no oversight, it is the francophone members and our francophone witnesses who are most affected. I can say that some of the francophone witnesses we invite prefer to give evidence in English because they know that they are less likely to be interrupted, either by technical problems or by problems related to interpretation. I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and member for Ajax. Honestly, I have not heard him talk about that reality, and I do not get the impression that he or his government is particularly concerned about it. I would say the same thing about the NDP, since I have not heard them mention this concern for the reality of francophone members or for the health and safety of our interpreters. I was surprised to hear him say in his speech that there was interpretation before the pandemic and that it makes no difference if we meet in person or virtually. No. There has been a lot of talk tonight about impressions, emotions and how we feel. Everyone is sharing a bit of their personal lives. The interpreters' issues are very well documented. A hybrid Parliament requires many more hours of work from the interpreters than a full in-person Parliament. That has been documented; it is not just an impression. There is data to back it up. What really surprises me is that they are acting as if this data does not exist. I know that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader of the New Democratic Party are aware of the data, because we sit together on the Board of Internal Economy. We have spent two years talking about the problem of sound quality, difficulty recruiting interpreters, the shortage of interpreters and interpreter injuries. This has all been well documented. I have not heard the government members talk about it this evening. I would not go so far as to say they have not mentioned it at all, because I may have missed a few speeches, but I did not hear it or notice them talking about it. I have worked hard and diligently to document the use of the hybrid Parliament. It is rare for me to make assertions that are not supported by data. The fact is that the hybrid Parliament is not working very well. When I hear that it has been running smoothly for three years, that we are okay and everything is fine, my response is no, not at all. It is the complete opposite. I can say that the data I have show that things are not going so well. Every day, there are technical problems in committees. Every day, there are problems with interpretation. Committees are being cancelled because of a lack of resources. The Translation Bureau even told us that it does not know what it will do next September because there are no solutions to the shortage of interpreters. We in the House are debating this issue together. It is great that we can be at home and we can be close to our children and spouses. However, the government is not saying much about the possibility that proceedings will not be conducted in both languages, that committees will be cancelled and that we may not have full and complete debates. The first victims of the hybrid Parliament are the interpreters. The unions say that since the adoption of the hybrid mode in March 2020, more than 300 dangerous incidents have been reported by the interpreters, including about 100 since 2022, and 30 disabling injuries have required interpreters to stop working. Every month, about a dozen interpreters are assigned to other duties for medical reasons because of injuries sustained during hybrid or virtual meetings. One interpreter even suffered a serious acoustic shock and had to be taken away in an ambulance. The International Association of Conference Interpreters Canada represents freelance interpreters who work for Parliament. Approximately half of the interpreters who work on the Hill are members of this association, which surveyed its members last winter in light of the interpreters' increased workload during hybrid Parliament. In all honesty, the survey results show a trend that is not pleasant to hear. Eight out of 10 interpreters, or 81%, stated that they are unlikely to make themselves more available to work on Parliament Hill. Due to the working conditions, the interpreters said that unless things change, they would look for work elsewhere. There is no shortage of work for interpreters. Two-thirds of interpreters, or 65%, say that they will probably reduce their availability to work to Parliament Hill. Seven out of 10 interpreters stated that they are unlikely to maintain their current availability to work on Parliament Hill. Finally, 87% of freelance interpreters who had never worked for Parliament but who planned to do so were going to change their minds. What I am saying is nothing new. The government House leader knows it, the NDP leader knows it, and all the members of the Board of Internal Economy know it. What is more, it says it on the association's web site. What shocks me and makes me feel a bit emotional is that the government is ignoring this reality. The Translation Bureau is unable to project forward. We asked the bureau how many interpreters we will have in September when the House resumes. They told us that it would be amazing if they could hold on to the number of interpreters they have right now. They do not think they will be able to add any more, even with a pilot project they are currently experimenting with. It is not like there is an abundance of interpreters who are looking to get injured at work, to have permanent hearing damage and to kiss their job goodbye. Interpreters are taking their well-deserved retirement but there are few graduates coming out of universities. The House is struggling to recruit and retain interpreters, and there is no solution to rectify the situation. That is the harsh reality: There is no solution. The only answer is for more of the people who work here, by which I mean both elected representatives and witnesses, whether in the House or in committee, to return in person. This is the best solution to guarantee the health and safety of our interpreters. I have said this several times. We are not taking care of our interpreters when we work virtually. We need to return to in-person sittings as much as possible. I will not rule out the possibility of sometimes participating virtually, with a hybrid model. As whip, I allowed my MPs to work virtually if they were in more difficult situations or needed to be present in their constituency. However, this needs to be used only in exceptional circumstances. We also need to reduce the number of daily hybrid meetings that are interpreted, and insist that remote participants use the correct equipment. Again recently, committee chairs asked for unanimous consent for a witness to speak without a headset, despite everything we know today. There is resistance everywhere, in all the committees and in every party. There is resistance to using what we have at our disposal, which is not regulated, but makes the work safer for the interpreters. For that reason, I challenge the premise that the government has listened to the opposition parties, listened to the data that currently documents the problems and listened to the interpreters' requests. It seems to me that things could not be any clearer than what I just said. A number of measures have been taken in recent years. I mean, we worked hard. Personally, I have put a lot of effort into making all my colleagues aware of what we can do, what is within our power to do and does not cost a lot of money. I asked for a dashboard to see how things were going in committee. The interpretation problems related to the hybrid Parliament are being documented. Members of the Board of Internal Economy, including the leader, the government whip and the NDP leader, have had that information since November 26, 2020. They cannot say that everything is fine and that the hybrid Parliament is not affecting our valued interpreters. Since 2020, members of the Bloc Québécois have been on the attack. This is no joke. The Bloc Québécois has been forced to agree to actively work to change the routine motions in committee so that every committee conducts pre-tests. That came from us, the Bloc Québécois. We put this initiative in place to protect the health and safety of the interpreters, while, at the same time, guaranteeing the quality of the French interpretation. Members of the Bloc Québécois were given instructions. If the interpretation is not good, if the interpreters indicate that the sound is not good, then Bloc members need to interrupt the committee proceedings. I participated in questions of privilege and many points of order on the use of House-approved headsets. Even Employment and Social Development Canada's labour program ruled in favour of the parliamentary interpreters. The chair is required to take that into account. This could have been done a long time ago. Members are complacent or resistant to using the proper equipment for all sorts of reasons that I do not understand. Still today, there are members who are voting from their cars, who are participating in committee meetings from their cars without the appropriate equipment. That is still being done today, and it is unacceptable. There is one measure that makes me say that political will is lacking on the government side because without rules and without permanent changes to the rules, everything I am saying could have been put in place with political will. The chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was able to create an atmosphere of respect. She was proactive. It is a fine example. I mention it often. Her colleagues should have followed her example more. The fact that we are short on interpreters means that we have fewer committee meetings. We are cancelling committee meetings where democratic work is done, where we improve bills, where we conduct studies to document problems. Essentially, our work is falling by the wayside. I think that somehow it must suit the government that the committees cannot sit or improve its own bills. Maybe it prefers it that way because many committee meetings are cancelled every time Parliament extends its sittings. Just today, the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was cancelled. The work of the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship was cut short. This is a serious state of affairs. We have spoken a great deal about work-life balance. I have a lot to say about that. I would like people to ask me questions about that because I did not have the time to address it in my speech as I had much to say. Today is a sad day. I hope that the government will seize the opportunity. Our leader reached out asking it to amend its own motion out of respect for its consultations with many leaders.

2882 words

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 11:25:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague must be proud to speak in French in the House. I have also decided to speak French in my committees. My colleague mentioned a number of statistics related to the situation facing interpreters, so my questions are along those same lines. I would like to see her source indicating that some witnesses prefer to speak English because of interpretation issues. Since 2015, I have not heard anyone mention those statistics. However, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the interpreters for their exceptional work. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me about the measures the Conservatives are taking, such as filibustering committees, and the partisan games they play in the House during votes, such as when they vote from the lobby, with or without their device, making it look like the system is faulty. Are those situations harmful for interpreters? I am hoping she can talk to us about that.

162 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/12/23 11:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Yes, Madam Speaker, it feels good to speak French. I think I was one of the first to deliver a speech entirely in French in the House. To answer his specific question, filibustering is part of parliamentary politics. Sometimes it is misused, as the Conservatives did during the last few votes to retaliate against the government for its behaviour and arrogance. It takes two to tango, however. A government that is defiant and irritating, one that refuses to compromise or negotiate and instead ignores the opposition is bound to face some bumps in the road. I do not agree with the Conservative Party's misuse of the voting app, but I can understand that sometimes there are no tools left to respond to an arrogant government that ignores the opposition parties.

131 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/12/23 11:27:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize for not trying to use a bit of my French tonight. It is getting late, and I do not want to butcher it too much. I have more of a comment than a question, because the member really emphasized the impact on the interpreters, and therefore, the impact on committees. I just want to share that it is bigger than even the committees. I have the privilege to sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and we have a challenge to just have enough interpreters with the right security classifications for that committee. We have been impacted directly by the injuries to interpreters because of the hybrid Parliament as well, which then makes it more difficult for us to meet. If it were not for the graciousness of the Bloc Québécois member of that committee to attend committee and sometimes only participate in English, we would not be able to play our very important role, considering everything we are studying. I just wanted to get that on the record.

180 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/12/23 11:28:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I think it is a good thing to speak more than one language. It is good to speak English, French and Spanish. I believe we should speak several languages. That is fine. The idea is that we must try to be accepting of the other person's language. I thank the member. It gives me the opportunity to say, in this evening's debate, that we do not talk much about the interpreters' situation, but it is truly alarming. In September, more than 57 working events for our parliamentarians will no longer take place. This means that the hybrid Parliament eats up a lot of the interpreters' time. I really want the government to be aware of this issue. We must find concrete solutions.

132 words

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

Jun/12/23 11:29:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and especially for what she said about the interpreters. I give her full credit, because I know that she did a lot to defend the workplace health and safety of the interpreters before the Board of Internal Economy. However, she neglected to mention that the NDP was also there and that we also lobbied hard for the interpreters. We think it is extremely important to resolve this issue. I spoke about it in my speech. What she said is not 100% accurate. On the contrary, the NDP has always fought for the interpreters to have good working conditions. We will continue to do that, and we hope to be able to work with her in that regard. The member said that she thinks it is important that the Conservatives agree. However, the problem is that the Conservatives voted against the hybrid Parliament, even during the pandemic. For all of those reasons—

161 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 11:30:29 p.m.
Watch

I am trying to ensure that everybody gets enough time. The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

19 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/12/23 11:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the principles I live my life by is that, when I believe in something, I defend it, and I defend it at all times. I noticed that my friend and colleague on the Board of Internal Economy was defending the interpreters at the Board of Internal Economy, but that is not what I am seeing this evening. When it comes to forming an alliance, he agrees to support a motion in its entirety, without amendments that would ensure that the hybrid Parliament is well structured and that interpreters are protected. As I like to say, people need to walk the talk.

106 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Jun/12/23 11:31:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which stands out from the other speeches that were all about lofty theories and the broad principles of modernization. She showed us what real democracy is. It means taking care of one another above all else. That is what she was doing when she was talking about the interpreters. I know that work-life balance is very important to her as a mother and grandmother. As a mother myself, I would like to get her perspective.

89 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/12/23 11:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am indeed very concerned about the issue of work-life balance. I think that when a person is sick, they need to take care of themselves. Sometimes a member needs to take leave to take care of themselves. As whip, I accept that. I would not want that member to connect to the hybrid Parliament. I would want them to take care of themselves. If a member of my caucus is taking care of a sick family member, then I accept that they are providing this care and that they will not be participating virtually because they need to focus on the person they are helping. In 2010, I was the deputy whip and my mother attempted suicide. Does anyone really think that I wanted to participate virtually? Of course not. I wanted some time off to be completely focused on my family member. In closing, I sincerely believe that there are plenty of things that the government could do to show that it really cares about work-life balance. For example, committee meetings should not be held on Fridays. That is hard for families. Now, with the hybrid format, we are obligated to hold those meetings. The government could review the parliamentary schedule. That would have a very tangible effect on the lives of families and those who live farther from Parliament Hill.

227 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 11:33:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and the relevant information she shared during her 20 minutes. First, I want to say that the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has done an outstanding job. I have been to the committee a few times, and I have been very impressed. She is not biased. She is very open to discussion. I wanted to note that, as well. I want to mention that things are easier for the opposition than for the government. I understand that you are not in government and never will be, because of the party you represent. I say that with all due respect. I remember that, from 2015 to 2019, the MP who was here before me—

130 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 11:34:29 p.m.
Watch

I apologize, but the hon. member has already spoken for more than a minute. I also want to remind him that he must address the Chair. There are only 43 seconds left. I will ask the hon. member to reply.

42 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jun/12/23 11:34:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I knew Peter Stoffer. It is true that he was not in the House much. He was often in his riding. It was the whip's decision to permit those absences back then. I will not interfere in the whips' work in their own caucuses. That is a choice. However, as a member of the opposition, I expect to get some consideration. The role of the opposition is to improve the government's work, the bills and regulations that are presented. At present, we do not have a government that is interested in having the opposition improve its bills or motions. Instead, I see a government that is closed off and anxious to stop the work of Parliament because it has had enough of being implicated in files that are a little too hot for it to handle.

140 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 11:35:35 p.m.
Watch

It has happened a few times tonight, so I want to remind members that questions and comments are questions and comments and should be within the one-minute timeline, or 30 seconds if I say that it is a quick question. It is not for making speeches. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

59 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/12/23 11:35:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, “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.” Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Hon. Wayne Easter, the former Liberal minister and MP for Malpeque for almost 28 years in this House. I note that the statement Mr. Easter made earlier today was shared on social media by former Liberal minister Jane Philpott. Before I forget, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I am going to talk a bit about some of the advantages of hybrid sittings, because they have been brought up, to be fair, in some of the speeches. We talk about the sacrifice members make in the service of Canada to be members of Parliament. I would say first and foremost it is a privilege to be here. It is an absolute privilege and an honour. However, to be frank, part of the reason I decided to run for office was to have a better work-life balance, because compared to my previous life in the military, this is way more flexible. It is way easier to manage my work-life balance than it was in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have people serving our country who do not have the privileges and options we have, and I would argue there are lots of Canadians out there, because of the dire state of our economic situation, who are working two jobs. They do not have the privilege of virtually attending their work and trying to balance everything. I am not trying to take away from any of this. I am just saying that it is a privilege to be here and we need to treat it as such. We have had these rules, and I have used them when I have had to. I am a single dad half the time, and as a single dad of a nine-year-old, it is very difficult to try to balance all of this. My daughter has been here up in the gallery or in the lobby. When I was the deputy whip for my party, she even got to call the MPs into the House a couple times as we came in for a vote. I have utilized the voting app as well, and I fully acknowledge that there are dire circumstances or situations, whether they be medical, a death in the family or a baby being born, for which we should not take away the right of a member to vote. I can see some legitimate uses for the voting app, as an example, but I note that we have had existing tools kicking around Parliament for a long time. We can pair members of Parliament. That is a good way to start, because there are members who face challenges on a regular basis. One of the arguments we hear, which the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader has used, is the fact that we have used this, as if it is some sort of reason for us not to vote against it. I would note, though, that we can use the analogy of a sports team. Let us use hockey, for example. If we go back to the start of the NHL, a hundred-and-some-odd years back, players could not pass the puck forward. It would be dumb for opposition parties not to utilize the rules that have been forced upon us under this hybrid Parliament. We use the rules we are forced to use and we play the game. I do not even like using that term. This is not a principled issue about fiscal mismanagement or some issue of conscience. This is about procedural rules. We would be dumb not to use them. I want to give another quote. It is from an article that came out of The Globe and Mail by Campbell Clark: ...governments...have wanted to find a way to get under-fire cabinet ministers into the Commons without having them walk past the press. Now they don't even have to sneak out the back. There is real accountability lost if ministers don't have to walk past MPs in their caucus and stand up across from the opposition. This point was brought up by a previous speaker. The press is another tool for holding the government to account; it is not just us in opposition. Specifically, when ministers of the Crown do not have to be in this House, it is a way for them to avoid tough questions, because, again, those in government have to make tough decisions. I know you have been doing a good job, Madam Speaker, of recognizing the member for New Westminster—Burnaby virtually, but I know I have been on virtually plenty of times trying to get attention, I am sitting there waving my hands on the screen, and it is hard to get recognized. It is a lot easier here in the House. The real point I want to focus on about hybrid that really scares me is the partisanship. This place is already divisive enough. Partisanship ebbs and flows in a parliamentary session. However, I would argue to take the pandemic out of it. There is an inability to build relationships in this House, which is what actually gets things done. I can speak to numerous examples from my short time here since 2019. Shortly after the pandemic broke out, the government introduced the Canada emergency business account. I asked a question in question period. I got talking points from the minister. That was in June 2020. I brought it up in the summer when we were doing those special COVID committee sessions. Again, I got talking points. September rolled around and I asked again, but this time when I did not get the answer that I desired, I basically cornered the minister in the hallway. There were no cameras, there was no worrying about being misunderstood and getting it reported incorrectly in the media. I was able to actually explain why small businesses that do not have business bank accounts really needed to qualify for this. There are many farmers and small businesses in my riding that were failing to meet it. I was not the only MP bringing up this issue to the minister, but I swear I saw the lightbulb go on. It kind of took that for her to understand the challenges and the issue. Shortly after that, to give the government credit, it actually made the changes and announced the changes to the program, and things got done. This happens almost every day with opposition MPs and the government ministers. We walk across the way, we talk to them face to face. We do not have to worry about going through staff. I have had that relationship with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Immigration in dealing with security clearances, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This is not new. I will quote the press gallery reporter, Dale Smith. I do not think he is real friendly to the Conservative Party. He has quoted an article from about a year ago, I believe. He warns that this hybrid Parliament could “further erode the relationship building that better helps Parliament function”. He points to research from the Samara Institute that was pulled from exit interviews from former MPs. Smith indicated that “over time the House of Commons has become a less-friendly place to foster that dynamic. In the Chamber, it’s harder for backbenchers and opposition MPs to catch ministers—who can now leave to vote on their phones—for constituent files that require ministerial intervention.” There are other people I can quote. John Milloy is a professor of political science and public ethics at Wilfrid Laurier University who served as the Liberal MPP in Ontario and in former prime minister Jean Chrétien's office. He said, “Just those hours of being able to talk to each other, and dare I say, talk to the opposition,” are so important. Mr. Milloy talks about, in his references, about the voting opportunities should we use them, but we have to justify them. I think the people who should never use hybrid Parliament are the actual ministers themselves. I started my speech saying it is a privilege for all of us to be here as members of Parliament. However, it is an even a greater honour and privilege to be a minister of the Crown, and with that comes sacrifice. I think the ministers and parliamentary secretaries should have to participate in debate in this chamber. Conservatives have put forward some reasonable amendments that would allow consensus to occur around this motion and keep hybrid in place for the remainder of this Parliament. However, I cannot emphasize enough the risk to partisanship if we keep hybrid going into the future.

1552 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 11:46:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I regret the fact that I did not get to listen to my colleague's French accent. He speaks very well in French, and I encourage him to continue to do so; that is very important. I appreciated the fact that he listed a number of advantages, as well as underlining some of the disadvantages, of hybrid. I have to say that, when I replaced the previous member of Parliament, who was an NDP opposition member for 18 years, that former member was able to stay back and do events on a certain night or certain day, activities with veterans, that I was not able to do between 2015 and 2019. I could not stay back one day to go to an event with the member. I felt that I was not able to be as representative as I would have liked to be. Now, I am here all the time. I have maybe missed five in the last year, for specific reasons, such as dental work last week. I am able to do my duties at home and represent my constituency. Does the member think we could be even more effective by having hybrid, but using it only on an exceptional basis?

205 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/12/23 11:47:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are elected to be here and to be the voice of the people in Ottawa, not the voice of Ottawa back in our constituencies. I feel that our job is to listen. That is why we have constituency weeks. I actually think we should sit longer. We sit less than most Parliaments in western democracies in the world do. We should not be breaking next week. We should be going into July; we should be back at the start of September. We should start back in January. I believe that our job is to work together to make the best legislation that works for all Canadians, not just the Canadians that the government is privileged to represent.

120 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/12/23 11:48:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He focused on one important point, which is that it is a great privilege to be here in the House. We should act accordingly and with dignity. We should always seek the common good and strive for balance and consensus as much as possible. This evening, we are watching the Liberal government use its fake majority to make permanent something that was obtained through consensus. This profoundly debases that decision. That is what is so shocking. Now we are debating the possibility of being with our family, but we know full well that in a non-hybrid Parliament, it is possible to ask for permission. We know that every member of the House is open to compromise. The problem is that there is no discussion. The difference between a decision by consensus and a decision by vote is that, with a consensus, no one is dissatisfied. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

165 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/12/23 11:49:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a number of members and our House leader, as well as the member for Perth—Wellington, highlighted that this is really the purpose of our amendment to the motion. I think that is technically what we are supposed to be debating right now. It is about saying that we should keep this in place. There are parts that we do not like, but we can accept that. However, let us not make it permanent. Let us force the government to come back and work with all parties. I think the consensus is that, if we just put the sunset clause on this bill, it would be acceptable to all members here in the House. That is key. Traditionally, for the last 100-plus years, changing Standing Orders has always been done through consensus, not unilaterally by the majority of MPs.

143 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/12/23 11:50:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have worked very well with my colleague, both in and out of the House. We have had meetings together on Zoom. We have been very effective that way, too. Even today, we were able to talk in the lobby together about some of the work that we are doing to push the government to bring Afghan MPs to safety in Canada. What I want to say to the hon. member is that it is hybrid Parliament right now, and we did that. We were in the lobby working together. That was happening. There are people in this House debating right now, but there are also people who were able to stay in their communities because they have other things that they are doing. We have an NDP member of Parliament who is going to be having a baby in the next few days. A member of the Conservative caucus just had a baby. There are reasons why hybrid is very important, and we can still do the work that we do. We did it today.

178 words