SoVote

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

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

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/12/23 11:51:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I talked about that in my speech. I said that I am actually personally open to exceptions, such as babies being born, illness, death, etc. However, my point is the accountability aspect. That is what bothers me. It is about ministers of the Crown and parliamentary secretaries being here, being present and being able to be held to account, because they are the ones who have that privilege of being in government. The job for all the rest of us as members of Parliament, even the backbenchers in the Liberal caucus, is to make sure all aspects for Canadians are being represented.

104 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/12/23 11:51:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand up and represent the people of Battle River—Crowfoot in this place. I want to emphasize something very significant that my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, talked about earlier. It was a statement that bears repeating because of its significance. It is the fact that MPs should be representing their constituents in Ottawa, not Ottawa to their constituents. It is that attitude that I endeavour to bring each and every day that I come to this chamber. Let me talk for a moment about this chamber, because it bears emphasis in light of what we are debating here this evening, which are changes to the Standing Orders, and specifically the very reasonable amendment that was brought forward by the opposition House leader to see a sunset on the changes that the government is, I would dare to say, ramming through this place with little consultation. Certainly a great concern has been brought up by many as to what the implications of these things might be. To speak specifically about this place, for more than eight centuries there has been a parliamentary process that has evolved and has been developing to get us to the point where we are today, from the fields of Runnymede through some pivotal moments in the foundations of responsible government. Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine, I believe in Montreal, brought about the foundation of what was called “responsible government” to the point when we had our first parliamentary elections and the appointment of Sir John A. Macdonald as our first prime minister, the times when Canada became a nation and when we saw a burning down of our parliamentary building. We saw less disruption when our Parliament Buildings literally burned to the ground in the beginning of the 20th century than we did when the COVID-19 pandemic took place. Democracy matters. Democracy is worth fighting for, and democracy is something that each and every one of us needs to be diligent and focused on protecting when we see the sort of antics and behaviours that we see from the current Liberal government. It seems to have very little respect for our democratic process, very little respect for democracy and very little respect for anybody who does not agree with them and their ideas of how the country should be run. Although Conservatives did actually receive more votes in the last election than the Liberals, that is something that they like to conveniently forget. The Liberals specifically said that they would not join a coalition with the NDP, which we found out was categorically untrue only months after the last election. It places upon all of us the responsibility to defend democracy and to make sure that the long-standing traditions of this place are preserved. We saw a host of challenges that came about because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although I did not think I would have to spend a number of my first months as a member of Parliament fighting to even be able to do my job to make sure that I was able to represent my constituents in this place, we eventually got to a place where we could ensure that those voices from coast to coast and from sea to sea to sea in this country were heard. It took time and it took effort, and we did get to a point where a hybrid system was able to ensure those voices could be heard in the midst of some of those challenging circumstances. We proved that it was possible, but that does not mean that it should be continued in that manner, especially when there are those who would abuse it. I would like to make a specific point to emphasize that very thing. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw that instead of ensuring that they brought the country together, one of the Liberals' first proposals was quite something. What the Liberals proposed was not pandemic supports. It was not helping Canadians at a time when it was absolutely necessary. No, they wanted to grant themselves unlimited taxation and spending authority. That was the Liberals' response to a crisis. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, they said. They were going to give themselves unlimited taxation and spending authority without parliamentary approval; spitting in the face of eight centuries of responsible government. It is not without extreme caution that I enter into this debate to say we should be very careful in how we approach the seriousness of ensuring we preserve our democratic institutions. I speak specifically to the amendment that has been brought forward. Let us make sure we study it. Let us make sure we have a sunset on it. Let us make sure we can carefully evaluate how these dramatic changes to the way Parliament works can be studied in a fulsome manner to ensure we can do what is best ultimately for our constituents and for Canadians. There is only one place, one room in this country that ensures that every square inch and every person has a voice, and it is this place. There is no question there is a wide variety of perspectives, personalities, professions and political parties, but it is in this place where we are able to accomplish dialogue and debate, which are so fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. When it comes to standing up for that, it should be not only be the first and primary responsibility of a first minister, prime minister, a government represented through the cabinet, members of every political party and every MP here, but also very much the focus of all of those who have the honour of being able to be a temporary tenant of these green seats in Canada's House of Commons. The unfortunate trend is that the government prefers obedience as opposed to opposition. Let me use another example. I think that a very significant example has to do with the coalition partners over there at the far end of the House, the fourth party. The NDP are not much of an opposition party. The debate we are having here is is a great example of that. I do not think there is a lot of support from the members of the NDP for this sort of thing because it is contrary to the ideals they purport to have, which go beyond their parliamentary functions in the context of the so-called confidence and supply arrangement. I think that this is more about either incompetence or laziness, and sometimes it is difficult to tell between the two which it is because, when a fourth party gives a blank cheque to a government that was elected as a minority, it is unacceptable that they would do so with so little recognition for the impact that has on how our country operates. I do not know if the leader of the NDP is more focused on video games than he is worrying about the interests of his party, but I know I have spoken to a number of members. It may surprise some members of the NDP, but there are a few of them in my constituency. I have heard from a surprising number of them over the last number of months and the last year or so, where there are these—

1251 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/23 12:00:06 a.m.
Watch

I am so sorry. The hon. member's time is up.

11 words

Sorry
Time

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/13/23 12:00:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today because of a question I asked some time ago in the House of Commons, which went unanswered in many respects. We talked about, at that point in time, the inflation and the toll it was taking on Canada's businesses, both in their ability to borrow and with respect to the bankruptcies that were happening across Canada. That is on the rise as well. When I asked that question, it was just before the budget came out on March 28. I asked the Prime Minister and I asked the government to ensure there were no new taxes coming forward in the budget so there would not be more burden felt by Canadians, and by Canadian businesses in particular, from the rising cost of CPI, the Consumer Price Index in Canada. This is something that continues to haunt Canadians, and it has haunted us more again, as we have seen in the last little while. There was a point when it looked like the Bank of Canada was actually getting inflation under control. When I say “under control”, I mean back down to about the 4% level, or about double where it needs to be in order for the economy to manage to the point where it is deemed to be stable, which is between 1% and 3%. Usually, we say about 2%. That is not happening anymore. On June 7, the Bank of Canada raised the bank rate again because the CPI was continuing to increase. Why did the CPI increase after April? What happened after the budget? The government imposed an increase in the carbon tax, a new tax, 30% of which was felt directly by consumers. The government will tell consumers that they get all their money back, yet it has been proven time and time again by objective officers of Parliament that it is in fact an in-and-out scheme, where Canadians are being fooled about how much they are getting back. On top of that, the government is designing a new tax from July 1, which is going to double the effect of the clean fuel regulations, which is going to take a total now of 61¢ on average per litre of gasoline out of the pockets of Canadians. One cannot sit there and impose more taxes and more costs on Canadians without it having an effect on everything they buy, and that in itself creates inflation. These things all flow all the way through the value chain. When one increases the cost of things, one increases inflation. When one increases inflation, one increases the cost of debt and devalues the work people do, because everything costs more. Therefore, what they used to take home does not buy as much. It is not worth as much to them as it was before the inflation was created. We have more inflation and we are on a spiral. The government continues to create more inflation. We must think about everything it is doing here. It is over-budget on everything it is doing. A $41-billion deficit plan for this year is already out of date. Three months into when that budget was planned, we are already well past that. We have all kinds of industrial commitments for which the government never foresaw, for some strange reason, that it would have to pay the bill at the end of the day. In addition, interest rates go up, and interest rates are going up again. They go up not just for Canadians; they go up also for the Canadian government. The Canadian government is going to pay more in interest this year because the bank rate just went up, and that causes more interest to be paid by the government, which causes more interest to be paid by Canadians. This is a vicious cycle. The government needs to get over it. Will it please commit to looking at inflation and stop the increase in costs upon Canadians?

667 words