44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/12/23 6:35:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to say that I am talking about March of 2020. At that moment in time, the whips and the House leaders for the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc all joined together to have a conversation about how we were going to do the business of this country. I thought that maybe for a moment we could put the partisan swords down and talk about what we did in the pandemic and how we came together in that dark moment, because I think it was a proud moment for Parliament. It was a moment when we set aside our differences, saw the challenge that was in front of this country, understood the need to be able to do our work as Parliament, and envisioned a way of doing that business totally differently. I am surprised at the member opposite; because he is a long-standing member, he would remember that his party absolutely agreed at that point in time that we had to work at a distance, that it was impossible to be in the chamber, and that it was not safe, unfortunately, to be in public spaces.
What ensued thereafter was a debate; there were disagreements, and there continue to be some disagreements, about the use of these provisions, and I will speak to that. However, I think it is important that the work that was done was done on the basis of unanimity and in collaboration, to find a way through that dark hour. That it is why I started my comments by rooting them in this fact. That is why I thank all parties for the work they did in that difficult moment. I think it is an important starting point, and it is important for us to remember that the provisions we are talking about today were born from that process of co-operation.
I would like to speak about a couple of the points that may have prompted the member to rise on his point of order. There are a number of points that have been made in criticism of the hybrid system, so I am going to start with those. Then I am going to talk about many of the advantages I feel it does confer.
One of the arguments made is that members of Parliament will not show up, that we are going to see Ottawa be empty. Of course, we have had these provisions for almost three years, and at the height of the public health emergency, that was true; it was impossible for members of Parliament to show up, but thereafter, we have seen the House populated as it always has been. We recognize in this place that every member is honourable, and hon. members want to be here. They want to do the work of this country, and they have done it. The hybrid provisions allow for greater flexibility, which I will speak to, but the work of Parliament has continued. Committees have met. The House has met. The work of Parliament has been conducted, and it has been conducted very well, I might add.
There are a few issues around interpretation. It is essential that the debates are held here in both official languages, and the quality of interpretation is very important.
In committee, with or without the hybrid system, interpretation is necessary. For the witnesses who appear in committee, access to the interpretation service is essential. That is why the issue of interpretation is important with or without the hybrid system. Interpretation is now available remotely, outside the House, and it is very important that we continue to ensure the quality of interpretation and the health of the interpreters.
With respect to holding the government to account, over the last three years, I do not think we could have imagined a time that has been more challenged and a country that has been seeing the rise of very unfortunate trends in the social media space that are incredibly aggressive and, sadly, sometimes amplified by the opposition, particularly by the Conservatives. We have had very vigorous debate, and that debate is appropriate. The ability of the opposition parties has been in no way curtailed by the use of hybrid provisions. Accountability has been evident and in full force. Not much has changed with the use of the hybrid system, in terms of what was lost, but I think we need to take a moment to think about what was gained and what was changed for this place in the experience we have had over these last three years. I will start, frankly, with my own errors, in looking back over my career.
I was elected nearly 20 years ago, as next year it will have been 20 years since I was given the opportunity to take my seat in Parliament for the first time. I came a bit earlier than I might have intended. When I was 29, a new riding was created in my community. It was always my dream to serve my community in Parliament; it was a dream I had held since I was 12 years old. This has been a great passion in my life. I believed I could hold those responsibilities and the responsibilities of being a father and the responsibilities of my family, and hold them intact and find balance. There are a lot of reasons why I did not get that right and that I allowed too much of my life to be taken over by this job and the priorities of it.
This is not a job in a normal sense; it is an incredible calling and privilege. We meet all the people in our constituencies and we want to serve them well. We hear wrongs that are happening in the country and we want to stand up for them. However, without any of the provisions that exist in the hybrid system, there were many moments that were extremely important in the life of my family for which I was not able to be there, which I sincerely regret. I want to make sure we do not do that again and that, in the key and most important moments in members' lives, they are able to be there for their families, for the people they love and for their friends, because those moments are essential. I will speak to that in a number of different ways, but we have to remember the most important reason that is true, which is that this is the House of common people. We are supposed to understand common people, and common people spend time with their families. Common people make space for important life events for their families. Common people take jobs that respect their families and the obligations towards their families, and it is high time that Parliament were a place that respects those values.
I want us to think not just about the justice that is done to a family. Let us think also about what happens when we attend that really important moment in our family's life or in the life of somebody who is very close to us. First, when we get an opportunity to be at the graduation of a child, or when we get an opportunity to be at the bedside of somebody we love, it changes how we see issues. When we get to be there in those really critical moments, it reminds us of why we do the job, what we care about, and, frankly, how the people facing those issues are also feeling. It is just as important to have time away from the work we do as it is to be in the work we do, so we can get the context and we can remember what we are debating. So often it is said that we in Ottawa live in a bubble. If we do not have the opportunity to connect and to be with those whom we love, and be in the real world, then it is no wonder we are in a bubble.
It also reminds us of what is real and important, and I am sure we will all have had this experience. It is one of the reasons that weeks in the constituency are so important. When I take a moment to step out of this place and the debates we are having, sometimes debates that I think are really big and important, I get home to friends and family and they say, “What are you talking about? That is not on our minds. You are completely missing it.” Sometimes there is something small that we may not be seeing here or feeling in the same kind of way, but when we go home to our constituencies and are with our friends and family, they remind us how important it is.
However, there are two other things that I think are even more important than all of that. One is energy. Members can see I have a lot of vigour today. That vigour comes from a very direct place; it comes from having my needs met. Although on the weekend I had a lot of events, I also took really important time with people I love. That reinforces me. It changes the person who I am here.
This leads me to my last point about spending time in those key moments, which is that when someone has the opportunity to be there in moments that are really important and regenerative to them, they make better decisions. All the worst decisions I have ever made in my life, and I have made some bad choices, have come from a place of deprivation, from not taking care of my needs. They have come from extending myself too far and from losing that sense of what the priorities are. Therefore, taking care of those things is no minor thing.
Let us be really honest. The problem we have today in Parliament is not that MPs are taking too much time off or are going away to relax and rest. I was whip for over three years. I can tell members that this is not reflective of the life of a member of Parliament. The life of somebody who decides to serve, as every person in the House or any person who has served and is listening to this would know to be true, is one of tremendous service and sacrifice.
When we are not here serving in the House, we are asked to be in a committee. When we are not in a committee, we are asked to be at a reception or a meeting with stakeholders, or we are returning constituent calls. When we get to our ridings, we are asked to serve on behalf of our constituents at events and to represent them, meet them, hear their issues, hear the things that are bothering them and be there for their cases.
We are asked to do things for our party: to raise money, organize and make sure we are ready for the next election, that our riding associations are well taken care of and that we have called all of the volunteers and people who have been helping out at community events and stakeholder events. Heck, when we go into Shoppers Drug Mart sick at midnight, we are talking about an immigration case. That is the life of a member of Parliament. That is not a Liberal member of Parliament. That is not a Conservative member of Parliament. That is every member of Parliament.
There is always somebody somewhere, I suppose, who is not doing what their job is, but we have democracy and votes to sort that out. In my experience, they do a very effective job. However, sitting in here and pretending that hybrid is somehow shirking our responsibilities or that members of Parliament are not rising to the responsibility of serving their communities is putting a wilful blindfold over one's eyes and missing the essential work that every member is doing in the House.
I would submit that we have the opposite problem. Hybrid is an opportunity to make a cultural statement, one that I wish, in retrospect, was made to me when I entered the House in 2004. It was not to work harder. My dear God, I had no time in my calendar for anything else. It was to say no. It was to learn to create boundaries and space and make sure we were there for the most important moments in our lives.
When it all washes away, this opportunity to serve comes down to this: a name printed on a paper card that could be changed in a second. That is it. Somebody is going to say it is a prop. That is fair. That is my name. It is on a piece of paper. I can read it—
An hon. member: Prop.
2167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:31:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important issue. I will give a little history lesson in a moment, but first I would like to build on some of the things we have already established about the hybrid Parliament.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was quite right a few minutes ago when he said that, on March 13, 2020, all the parties came together and agreed to suspend Parliament. We knew that the pandemic was coming and that we could not have all 338 members in the same room, with COVID‑19 having begun to wreak havoc across the country. On March 13, 2020, we unanimously decided to suspend Parliament and set up what has since become the virtual Parliament we know today. It has set an example for the whole world. Other parliaments have permanently adopted rules for a virtual or hybrid assembly. Today, we are discussing the next steps we might take.
In Parliament, we are not supposed to mention absences. However, at the beginning of the pandemic, we had the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the House of Commons gave the rate of participation this one rare time. It was reported in the June 23, 2020, edition of The Globe and Mail. In the COVID‑19 committee of this virtual Parliament, the NDP had the highest participation rate with 85%.
The Liberals were second with 76%, as The Globe and Mail reported in June 2020. The Bloc Québécois was at 73% at that time, in 2020. The Conservative Party had the lowest participation rate with only 47%. That caused a bit of a stir.
This was in June 2020. Today, three years later, we have beaten COVID-19 in most respects, but we must remain prudent and take measures to protect our health. The same applies to virtual voting. In June 2023, we see it once again.
The lowest rate of virtual voting translates into the highest attendance in the House, and the NDP wins again, albeit tied with the Conservatives, at 58%. The Liberals are at 65%, and the Bloc Québécois uses virtual voting 80% of the time. This gives an idea of how the NDP uses both virtual Parliament and virtual voting. The NDP has the highest participation rate in both of those categories.
Some people wonder whether the hybrid Parliament means that we will be working less actively. That is certainly not the case for the NDP, as the NDP members have proven. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, has repeatedly pointed out that we are still working, but that there are some exceptions. I will come back to these exceptions later.
Given that the NDP has the highest attendance record in terms of virtual Parliament, the voting application and in the House, we have to look at, historically, how we have come to a point where the New Democrats support the idea of moving ahead with a hybrid Parliament that has been tested over the course of the last three years.
I know the Speaker is well aware of this, but historically we have changed the Standing Orders to reflect new technology and new trends. We just have to look at how Parliament functioned prior to the development of commercial air travel in this country. For somebody like me living 5,000 kilometres from Ottawa, the commute, even with air travel, sometimes takes 24 hours. When we think of the commute for northern members of Parliament and rural members of Parliament in British Columbia, at both ends of the country, we are talking about commutes that are sometimes extremely demanding.
If we went back 100 years, the member of Parliament for New Westminster at that time would have taken a slow train to travel across the country in mid-fall and basically set up lodgings in Ottawa. They would not have gone back to their ridings. They would not have gone back to British Columbia. They would spend the winter in Ottawa doing the work that we now do, in a contemporary sense, and they would have done it for four, five or six months. Then in the spring, they would have taken that slow train back to see their constituents.
Obviously, at that time, for members of Parliament to actively engage with their constituents and be effective for their constituents was hard to do if they had not been in the constituency for six months. With the development of commercial air travel, we changed the development of the parliamentary calendar. We no longer have that six month block where members are in Ottawa to the exclusion of their constituencies. In fact, now we have constituency breaks, and because of those constituency breaks, we can be back in our ridings meeting with constituents, who are fundamentally our bosses, a lot more often.
In other words, with the development of commercial air travel, we understood that the important role of a member of Parliament was to be serving constituents. We therefore changed the Standing Orders. We changed the calendar. We developed a new system to respond to the ability of a member of Parliament, even from New Westminster—Burnaby in British Columbia, to fly out and fly back, to see their constituents and to still do their work in Ottawa.
COVID has allowed us to innovate yet again. We have seen the technologies that have allowed other parliaments to meet in a hybrid way, with some members in person and other members participating online. As a result of that, they have become more effective and more efficient. There is no doubt that a member of Parliament who is in their constituency is going to be a lot better at responding to the needs of constituents.
I want to give a shout-out to my staff team. They do tremendous work. We have helped thousands of constituents over the course of the last few years. The fact is that we work together to help constituents with a wide variety of cases before the federal government, even consumer cases, and with other things they need vital help with. This is a key part of the job. It is as important to me and my constituents for me to be working in my riding as it is to do that valuable work in Ottawa. There is a balance that has to be maintained, and with the idea of a hybrid Parliament, what we have found over the last three years is that we can do that work more effectively.
The member for Vancouver East raised a question half an hour or 45 minutes ago about when she became sick with COVID. The reality is that many members of Parliament, during the COVID pandemic, became sick and were unable to come here. In fact, we did not want them in the House of Commons. We did not want them spreading the virus. We did not want the House of Commons to become a vector for the virus.
The reality is, she was able, through hybrid Parliament, even while sick and this is the same case for every one of those members of Parliament who found themselves in a similar situation, to vote and to make her voice heard in the halls of power in the House of Commons, even while being sick with COVID, and we know that COVID cases often last for weeks.
That is also the case when we are talking about serious issues that come up in our ridings in emergencies. We are seeing now, because of climate change, an increasing in floods and forest fires. We are seeing, tragically, right across this country an outbreak of fires that we have not seen the likes of before. I know with climate change as well, the heat dome fell over the Lower Mainland. It killed dozens of my constituents and killed over 600 British Columbians. It is another example of the tragic catastrophes that are happening increasingly because of climate change. Atmospheric rivers have cut British Columbia off from the rest of the country. Therefore, the catastrophic impacts of climate change are felt more and more often. A member of Parliament then has to choose between serving their constituents and being able to advocate for their constituents. Whether it is a forest fire ravaging and threatening some of the major towns or villages in their riding or a heat dome that has settled over the city that is killing many of their constituents or the floods that have hit so many parts of this country, members of Parliament need to be able to intervene on behalf of their constituents. It is a much more effective intervention if they can do it on the ground as they are with their constituents and they see the needs that are there.
The government House leader also mentioned another element, and this I understand from first-hand experience. That is family crises that we all live through as members of Parliament. We are trying to get the job done on behalf of our constituents. We are trying to serve the country and build a country that really reflects the values that most of us share, but when family emergencies happen, up until COVID there were incredibly stark choices presented to people. A member of Parliament who had a dying relative would have to choose whether they needed to be with that relative or they needed to serve their constituents. We know that our constituents' needs are significant and we need to be at all times trying to advocate for them.
When my mother fell sick for the final time last year, I was able to participate through virtual Parliament. I was able to hold her hand when she passed away and it was a heartbreaking and terrible time for my family. It was unbelievably difficult, but I could still do the work, while being at her bedside.
These are the things that a make a hybrid Parliament something that opens the door for far more Canadians, if they do not have to make those stark choices. If they are sick, they will serve their constituents. If there are emergencies in their riding, they can still serve their constituents. In fact they can advocate for their constituents from that constituency while talking to their constituents. In the event of family tragedies that we all struggle to get through, we still can do the work that is so important and be with our family members and help them.
This is the world's largest democracy. It is a 5,000-kilometre commute from my riding. When we talk about members of Parliament from northern British Columbia and northern Canada and from Vancouver Island, they have an even farther commute. With air travel these days and the difficulty we are having with some of the air travel networks, increasingly it is challenging to get from the constituency to Ottawa.
Given all of those elements, there is no doubt that a hybrid Parliament makes the most sense.
A number of issues have been raised through this debate thus far. One issue that has been raised is the question of accessibility to ministers. My experience under the Harper regime, which I lived through first-hand, with a majority government, was that while there were exceptions like Jim Flaherty, who was always available to talk, quite frankly most of the ministers were not, even though we were in physical proximity, even though we were a few feet away, even though we approached them. In so many cases, there was a complete unwillingness to engage with members of the opposition. That argument, that somehow ministers will be more accessible if one is in physical proximity with them, has certainly not been my experience.
It was not my experience during those years and, quite frankly, if a minister wants to be accessible, they will be accessible whether we are three feet away or 3,000 kilometres away. They will take one's call. That has been my experience.
Secondly, as to the issue of whether this should be permanent or subject to a sunset clause, quite frankly, Parliaments make their decisions. There is no doubt about that. The reality is that we have had three years to test this system. We know that there are still some improvements to make but we know, as well, that the system works, that members of Parliament can participate. They can vote and it is done effectively.
For this, I pay tribute to the House of Commons administration, our IT staff and the interpreting staff, who do such a remarkable job each and every day. The reality is that they created a system out of nothing, at a time when it was critical to put in place provisions for a temporary virtual Parliament and then a hybrid Parliament. They put in the long hours to make sure that everything was functioning.
Although we still have a lot of work to do to ensure the health and safety of interpreters, who do a remarkable job, without whom our Parliament simply could not function, and we still have improvements to make, the reality is that the system is working very effectively.
If Parliament reflects the country, what we are trying to do is open the doors to people who have families, people who come from communities that are not represented or are under-represented in the House of Commons. We need to make provisions like a hybrid Parliament. It is not only more effective for the constituents, it is also effective in attracting people to political life, which is very demanding. We work seven days a week. We sometimes work 20 hours a day. We need to make sure that more Canadians from diverse origins have access to our political system.
The way to do that is to have tools in place so that those new members, those upcoming members and those future members can really advocate on behalf of their constituents in the most effective way possible.
Living in a country as vast and as diverse as ours, where a 5,000-kilometre commute is sometimes necessary, we need to ensure that we put in place all of these measures. We know that they have worked. They have worked very effectively. They were established by consensus, unanimously, and, as a result of that, we are the better for it.
As far as the New Democrats are concerned, we believe that this is an important innovation that should be continued. That is why we will be voting yes on this motion and putting in place a virtual Parliament that can really serve the interests of all Canadians.
2472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He has never referred to anything I have said as “wonderful” before, and I appreciate that. We generally tend to disagree, but on this I think we do agree.
The reality is that, over the last few years, my team and I have helped over 20,000 people in our riding with federal issues, yes, but also with consumer issues and a wide variety of issues that are not, strictly speaking, related to the federal government. However, by being on the ground, by having such an active constituency office where we are constantly doing outreach and by understanding what the needs of my community are, I am better able to advocate for them. Being at home is really the most important part of ensuring that I am fighting for good representation. When we talk about confidence in supply, dental care, affordable housing and the grocery rebate, it all comes from understanding what my constituents' needs are and fighting for them in Ottawa.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 8:53:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about family issues that may arise for members who sit in the House. I was listening attentively to that portion. However, the member must realize that in a hybrid Parliament, should this continue on, and I hoping that every single backbencher in all parties is aware of this, that eventually we will have no constituency weeks. We have constituency weeks so that we can go to back into our ridings and hear from constituents and work on individual files and then come back here, but in a hybrid Parliament, why would we have constituency weeks?
As someone who has three young kids, I have to sit here in evening sittings, which is something that was agreed to by the other parties, and so I cannot give them a call on FaceTime and cannot talk to them tonight. However, there are issues that will continue with hybrid parliaments. We will continue getting more and more invites to events in the riding, and people in the ridings will expect us to do both works at the exact same time: do our legislative work in the House and do all of our constituency events at the same time. In fact, I see hybrid Parliament as going after whatever family time we have left right now as parliamentarians. I would like the member to comment on that.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:48:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to stand up and speak since one of the member's colleagues brought up time allocation. Therefore, I want to make the point that, when the Conservatives were in power, they used time allocation 115 times. In fact, they made a cake to celebrate the 100th time. I just wanted to make that clear.
However, the member talked about a lot of hypothetical situations that I do not think any of us can address. He also talked about the fact that there is no difference between constituency and parliamentary weeks, saying that our constituents would expect us to be around all the time. I think that is the case for many of us. What I do not understand, though, is how taking Zoom away from Parliament would take Zoom away from parliamentarians. It would not. Our constituents would still be able to reach us through Zoom, and they would still expect that to happen. Therefore, that argument does not actually make a lot of sense. Could the member comment on that?
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:49:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify, because I do not think the member quite understood what I was getting at.
What I am saying is that, in the future, what will happen is that constituency weeks will simply disappear. This may be two, three, four, five or six years from now. There will be an expectation that we do sessional weeks half of the year or more, and members will pick which weeks they will be in their constituencies. However, there will be this constant tension from our constituents and local organizations that a member must appear at all local events while doing all their work. I can even imagine a situation where members have committee business that they will have to conduct from their car while going to, say, a Legion hall for events related to veterans.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
