SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/23 6:50:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am a bit naive. When I first got here, I naively thought that we would be debating. I thought that democracy was the bedrock of ideas, that we would put forward ideas, that the opposition parties would put forward other ideas, that the government would also put forward ideas, that we would debate them all, and that this would lead to amazing bills. People would look at us and say how incredible we are. I thought that was democracy. As I have said many times here, that is not the case. I have lost count of the number of gag orders this government has imposed. Now we have a fundamental proposal that will change how we debate things for the next 10, 15, 20 or 100 years. We hope to be long gone by then, because Quebec will have become independent. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that this proposal is going to be adopted, changing all the rules of the game with the wave of a magic wand. We have just a few hours to debate huge changes to how we conduct debates here. I think that is totally unacceptable.

196 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Jun/13/23 6:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent presentation. I think he has a brilliant way of expressing himself. It is not that we are proposing new measures. Our situation has been evolving for some time now, in line with the measures that have been brought in to deal with the pandemic and to respond to the crises we are currently facing. We are simply saying that the world has changed, things have changed, and we all have to adapt to those changes.

84 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/13/23 6:52:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate, and I have enormous respect for the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I do agree with him that we work better when we are here in person. However, last October, I had a very severe bout of COVID and I had to stay at home. I was not allowed to fly. I was a danger to other people. I could not have participated without virtual Parliament. I know there are others who have had similar experiences. People say that the pandemic is over, but we just had an outbreak of COVID in a child care centre in my riding. It has been very severe. Tons of kids and their parents now have COVID again. Does the member for London West agree that we are not really out of the woods on these pandemics, that we may need these measures and that we should keep them in place in the interim?

159 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Jun/13/23 6:52:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making those really important comments that actually prove we are not out of the woods. When the World Health Organization said that we are not out of the woods with pandemics, it meant it. As he said, there was just an outbreak in his community. People are still catching COVID. People are still catching diseases through super spreaders. It is not just important to make sure we have those accommodations for people who are not able to be here in person because they are going to infect their colleagues. It is also important to think about other reasons we need the hybrid model so members can continue their work. Many colleagues in this room have children; one of my colleagues mentioned that earlier. It is important we build a system that is inclusive for all families and that we make Parliament family friendly.

153 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:53:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on the motion to make permanent the hybrid proceedings in this House. I thank the hon. member for London West for sharing her time with me. In the short amount of time she has been in the House, she has already made a tremendous impact, and it is wonderful to be working alongside her on this and on other issues. We know these measures were implemented on a provisional basis nearly three years ago. We also know that these provisions have allowed the House to carry on its business during the pandemic. Over time, many members have spoken in public, and some privately, of the benefits of the hybrid model, and there are many benefits. During the most recent study of the hybrid model by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or PROC, as it is known, Dr. Jonathan Malloy, Bell chair in parliamentary democracy at Carleton, testified that a hybrid system goes beyond the objective of making Parliament more efficient. He stated that it speaks directly to the purpose that this institution serves, representing the diverse views of Canadians in every region of the country and ensuring that the interests of all Canadians are fairly represented in the political choices and outcomes of this chamber. I submit many members will acknowledge that this question of hybrid proceedings is not just about flexible work arrangements and technological advancements but is also at the core of how we might change the way we participate in our proceedings to ensure a greater diversity of voices in this place. The more this place reflects the diversity of the Canadian population, the more Canadians will trust our parliamentary institutions. Let us consider the impact and the benefits of virtual participation in the House and in committee. July 2020, of course, was the first hybrid sitting that allowed members to participate in debate in the House both in person and remotely. Additional corresponding temporary changes to the Standing Orders were made to accommodate these sittings. These included allowing members participating virtually to be counted for the purpose of constituting quorum, lowering the threshold of the number of members for certain procedural motions, changing the procedure for requesting and granting unanimous consent and allowing members to speak and vote from any seat. In listening to this debate, I heard other members speak to the tremendous flexibility hybrid sittings have afforded to members of this chamber. It is not for everybody to be using hybrid all the time, but it is available as a tool we can use so that we can continue to participate in the debate. We used the voting application in 2022 and 2023. Yes, 2023 is the year when we are agreeing that we are at the back end of the crisis stage of COVID, although it still exists, and the original purpose of hybrid sittings has been set aside. The member for London West mentioned the effects of asthma on our ability to speak in times when the air quality is not good. The air quality is very much better today than it was last week, but when things turn and one is not able to participate, we can use these advancements because we all are benefiting from the flexibility that these technological changes are affording us. It is like having a better opening for doors going into grocery stores. They were there originally to help people with accessibility challenges, but everybody benefits when the doors open more easily for all of us, and this tool allows that to happen in Parliament. It is opening the doors of Parliament for people across the country who are in different situations, such as people who just had a baby, as was mentioned earlier. I had a medical operation a few years ago and I voted from the hospital. The nurses were not nuts about that. They did not think it was a great idea, but I showed them that it could be done and that I could continue to fulfill my duties to the people of Guelph even as I was under medical care. Dr. Jonathan Malloy talked about parliamentary reform and democratic reform and how they are inextricably linked. How much extra time has this new way of working provided to spend in our ridings and meet with our constituents? How many more witnesses can access and provide evidence at committee through new video conferencing technology? In the environment committee, we were able to talk to first nations witnesses across the country. It sometimes takes two days for them to get to Ottawa, not to mention all the time they are away from their communities. The convenience is really improving democracy. It is a tremendous opportunity for us to improve our connections and engagement with the Canadians we in this chamber represent. Despite the additional flexibility provided to members through hybrid sittings, members continue to participate in proceedings of the House and committees in person. The claim of some members that hybrid proceedings would turn all parliamentary work into a virtual environment is simply not borne out by the facts. If I understand correctly, the current numbers are that about 70% of members continue to participate in person. As was noted by the hon. member across the way, the conversations we have in person are much different and much richer, so this is not to abolish in-person sittings but to complement them by providing additional tools for those who, for various reasons, cannot be in the House for in-person sittings. The second most significant change brought about through the use of hybrid sittings is the ability to vote electronically. While this place holds debates on all forms of parliamentary proceedings, it all comes down to the vote and being available to make that decision after all the debates have ended. Many members will no doubt remember that in the early days of the pandemic, each recorded division took up to 45 minutes, because members had to weigh in and state their vote. Now that we have the voting application, we are averaging about 10 to12 minutes, which is on par with the quickest recorded divisions before the pandemic. Not only that: With the advantage of the electronic voting application, the House has seen greater democratic participation in voting in the House, which makes sense. If members are available to vote remotely because they cannot be in Parliament, more people will vote, and more people are voting. Having more members vote can be seen as making the House more transparent, more participatory, and definitely more accountable to the people whom we are elected to serve. Another improvement that hybrid sittings has brought about is the ability to table documents electronically, provided they are allowed to be tabled pursuant to the Standing Orders or a statute. That includes annual reports, government responses, petitions and Order Paper questions. It really helps us with efficiency in tabling documents in the House. This is not the first time that the House and committees have considered implementing technology to assist our proceedings. During the recent PROC study, we heard from Mr. Léo Duguay, the former MP for St. Boniface from 1984 to 1988. He is the president of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. In fact, he was my member of Parliament when I was living in St. Boniface during that period. Mr. Duguay was a member of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and he told the committee that electronic voting in the House of Commons was an innovation that members had advocated for over 40 years. He indicated that an “overwhelming majority” of members believed that hybrid proceedings in their day would have had the effect of increasing their parliamentary participation in debates and the voting process, and Mr. Duguay was right: We are seeing it happen in real time. Also, the member for Labrador was here today. She has returned to the House after successfully fighting cancer. While she was in Labrador, she was able to continue her service to her community through the use of hybrid sittings. I suspect that some people will want to go back to the good old days, the days when we did not have technology, the days when a riding was really the distance one could ride on a horse to cover one's territory. We have gone past that. At this point, I think we need to urge all Canadians to embrace this technology and consider running for Parliament if it has not been accessible to them in the past. I will conclude by noting that I really support hybrid sittings and I hope we are able to continue them. I will turn to answering any questions the members might have.

1480 words

Hybrid

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 7:03:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits very close to me, for his wonderful speech this evening. I believe the hybrid Parliament is a good thing, but I am not in favour of its being abused by members here in the House. It should be available, yes, for somebody who needs it. As the member said, he had surgery earlier this year and was able to vote on the app. I had surgery as well, on February 14, actually, and shovelled snow two days later. However, it is a privilege and an honour to be able sit and stand in this House as one of 338 people. I spend time here even when I am not on House duty. I love sitting in the House and having people sit around me instead of being in the office in my constituency with nobody. Does the member agree that it is a good policy to have, but it should not be allowed to be abused? People who can be here should be here.

172 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 7:05:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss this an in open setting. Usually our conversations are between ourselves sitting beside each other in the seats. The abuse piece is one that is critical. We as hon. members need to follow the same principles as if we were here in person. That also means voting. I said that we are averaging 10 to 12 minutes per vote. Last week, we saw that the Conservatives were saying that their electronics were not working or that their connections were bad. That has since proven to be false, but it made our votes last 25 minutes. We need to continue to operate as hon. members, using the tool to the advantage that it is giving us.

128 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/13/23 7:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues across the way, they might want to see the flexibility that hybrid brings, but in reality, as they just pointed out, it can be abused as well. The sense of honour of being in this chamber has always been to protect the individual member and to ensure that changes to the rules were done through consensus of every member of this House. I have been here for 19 years and I have actually seen, when changes to the Standing Orders were attempted, one member deny that change. We went for unanimous consent, and it was not there. In light of the fact that these changes to the Standing Orders, the way our Parliament functions, have nothing to do with party affiliation, they should be done through consensus and not through this hammer-fisted unilateral move that we are seeing right now from the Liberals and the NDP.

156 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 7:07:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member posed the question earlier as well. The provisions for a hybrid Parliament are winding down at the end of June, so it is incumbent on us to give a path forward so that we know how we will be operating in the fall, and it is up to us to operate honourably. Whether we are on social media or we are speaking in the House, it is up to us to follow the rules of honour by which we are elected to serve the people and represent them honourably.

94 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/23 7:07:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will calm down now. In fact, I am a bit of a rookie in the House, a rookie in that it has been four years. I was here in 2019, but the pandemic hit soon after. We went back home and sat via Zoom. We returned roughly a year ago. Honestly, when we are here in the House, that is when I resolve problems the most, by talking directly to the Minister of Immigration, among others. In Longueuil, there is a lot of immigration and we have very difficult and complex cases. Sometimes it is in talking to the Minister of Immigration, and offloading files to him, that we settle some things. I had cases involving Haitians who arrived in the past few weeks and months. If I had not spoken to the Minister of Immigration, I am pretty sure things would not have worked out so quickly. There is also an airport in my riding. On that issue there is a lot of work to be done with the Minister of Transport. If I did not meet him in person, this would never get resolved. I do not understand why people are insisting on sitting virtually when we do our best work, in my opinion, when we are here in person.

215 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 7:08:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way. I always value his contributions in the House. The technology we have is a tool. It is not the solution to every problem, but it is a solution to being present in the House when one is not physically present and still wishes to participate. As the member points out, democracy has to continue to function using this as a tool, but also, behind the scenes, the work has to be done on the desks of the Canadians who are here to help us serve.

95 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/13/23 7:09:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am not an unreserved fan of the virtual Parliament. One of the things I would like to see is eliminating the chairing of committees by someone virtually. We have vice-chairs, and there is no real need to have virtual chairing for committee meetings. That said, I think there is something to be said for our making Parliament more family friendly, to accommodate all kinds of families. I know we lose some things with a virtual Parliament, and I know some things are inconvenient, but for me, that is outweighed by the factor of making Parliament more family friendly. I wonder if the hon. member shares my concern that we make sure all kinds of families can serve here in Parliament.

128 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 7:10:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to disagree with the member when he makes such a compelling argument. Also, I would say that committees should continue to be chaired by people in person, which is a provision in the bill that we have before us.

44 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/13/23 7:10:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by letting you know that I will not be sharing my time with any of my colleagues. I therefore apologize profusely because you are going to have to listen to my voice for about 20 to 30 minutes. I will try to make it as pleasant as possible. Today we are talking about making a hybrid Parliament a permanent thing for centuries and centuries to come. As people often say, nothing is more permanent than that which is temporary. That is exactly what is happening today. We have had important discussions about setting up a hybrid Parliament in the past. We were in the middle of a pandemic, so it made sense, and the parties had the ability to make those changes happen at the time. Now people are acting as if we were still in a pandemic or as if more pandemics will happen over the coming centuries. They are ignoring the fact that we do know how to talk to each other when there really is an emergency. At the time, there was an urgent need to set up a hybrid Parliament so we could work. Despite the fact that we could not be physically here, members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs took the time to hold meetings during the summer to analyze how to put in place some sort of hybrid Parliament. We consulted experts from other countries. We looked at what was being done in other parliaments. I remember it very well. In the summer of 2020, I was among those who asked experts several questions to learn about the pros and cons and what we should study to establish a hybrid Parliament. As I said, there was an urgent need for action back then. Despite the urgency, we still took our time. I see no urgency at the moment. There is no emergency that would require immediate and permanent changes to the way the House works. Still, even though there is no emergency, and even though it will completely upend our way of operating in the House, the motion is being presented to us as if there is an emergency. There is no emergency, yet we are being forced to accept permanent changes to the way we work. All of this landed on us out of the blue on June 8, when the government announced a motion that would have to be voted on before the House rose for the summer. In fact, the government practically threatened to stop us from leaving for our ridings this summer until this system is adopted, despite the fact that, as I mentioned already, there is no emergency. Before I get to the substance of the motion, I am going to say a bit more about this approach because I still cannot get over the way things were done. The parties were not consulted. Aside from the government talking to the NDP, no discussion was had and no letter sent. We were not told that the government wanted to table a notice of motion containing these elements. The motion before us is no small thing, however. It is 42 pages long. The government introduced it in the form of a motion that will not be debated at any time other than the few hours we spend on it now. It completely changes how Parliament works with a mere two, three or four hours of debate and, subsequently, a vote without any real opportunity to amend it, discuss it or hear from external parties, experts or people from other parliaments to see how they do things. This is a complex issue that should not be dealt with by way of a simple motion, especially considering that it is, as I said, 42 pages long. I would like to come back to the question asked by my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who said that he was not an unreserved fan of everything in this motion. If this motion does not even please the people who plan to vote in favour of it, if they do not even have the opportunity to debate it, to amend it, to improve it, to see how we could be more effective in the future, this is further proof that the modus operandi behind this amendment is inadequate, to say the least. The parties would also have liked to have input on how things should be done, because when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deliberated on the hybrid Parliament last fall, eight recommendations were made. Some work has been done on this. Two dissenting opinions were presented by the Bloc and the Conservatives. The parties did have something to say on this. Despite that, the government refused to listen to any input on this motion and completely ignored the work that had been done in the past. A report was tabled in December 2022 as a result of the committee's work. The committee chair at the time said that the government supported the recommendations set out in the report and intended to table a proposal in the House of Commons to make permanent changes to the Standing Orders, as recommended by the committee. Despite that, the government still decided to ignore the recommendations. At the time, we suggested it be a best practice for members of cabinet to be present in person in the House to answer questions. That was the first suggestion that was rejected. These days, cabinet members do typically come to the House to answer questions rather than doing it virtually. It was an internal directive that was basically imposed by the government whip, for one. However, the government decided against having the motion include this requirement for cabinet members to be in the House to answer questions, despite the fact that it was a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is more, the committee chair, speaking on behalf of the government, had said that this recommendation would be included in any motion or other form of amendment aimed at overhauling the way Parliament works. The government has already gone back on its word. As I was saying, we had the right to expect discussions among the parties. It is customary for us to operate by consensus for these types of changes to House procedures. Many other members spoke at length about that, particularly on the Conservative side. There is a tradition in that regard. However, the government is not operating by consensus. It is not trying to debate the motion, to improve it or to try to figure out how we could be as effective as possible. It makes me think of a quote from Woody Allen, who said, “The dictatorship is 'shut up', democracy is 'always concerned'.” The government is giving us a few hours to talk and letting us say that we disagree, but then it is going to force us to vote, and this measure will be adopted without any real discussion or debate and without us coming up with something that is really the product of a consensus. As I was saying, this is kind of a breach of tradition. In the past, amendments to the Standing Orders concerning procedure were made by consensus. In 2022, the House published a list of parliamentary changes to procedure. With one exception, all were made by consensus. For example, in 2017, the Liberal government attempted to reform Parliament by instituting electronic voting, similar to what we have at present. It also wanted to abolish the half sittings on Fridays. It wanted to establish what it referred to at the time as parliamentary programming, which would have been a type of process requiring the parties to agree beforehand on the amount of time allocated for debate of a bill. The government would not have had the last word unless the parties could not agree. At the time, the opposition parties, including the NDP, rejected these proposals. Despite the fact that the government had a majority and that it could have pushed an amendment to procedure through the House on its own, it decided not to move forward because it did not have the approval of all parties in the House for something as important as the reform of parliamentary procedure. This is part of the tradition that has always been followed in the House, with one exception, specifically when the government, under former prime minister Trudeau, created the time allocation motion. The irony is that he used a closure motion to get his amendment adopted. This shows that it was an exceptional way of proceeding at the time that has since been adopted by this Parliament. What could have been done to change the procedure? I am still talking about the procedure. I have not yet even gotten to the substance of the motion. There are many other ways the Standing Orders of the House could have been amended. For example, we could have used a unanimous consent motion. That is what we did when the pandemic hit. We temporarily changed the procedure by unanimous consent among the parties. If an agreement had been reached, it would have been done quickly. The leaders could have discussed it, and then a motion would have been moved. If that did not work, the government could have used the usual method of deliberation in the House. For example, it could have introduced a bill and had a vote on how to proceed, as we did at the very beginning of the pandemic. We could have referred that bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government could have sent its proposal to that committee and asked it to assess it, make recommendations and produce a report. Then, we could have responded the report. In the end, the government decided to go with a last-minute motion without informing anyone and to force us to vote on that motion before Parliament rises for the summer. There are several things that have not been considered in all this. We have talked about this many times. I know that my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît talked about it extensively yesterday, so I will not go into all the details. However, I must mention the interpreters. They were the first victims of the hybrid Parliament, and they are still being victimized. From the outset, those on the other side who are in favour of the change have said that operating in hybrid mode has numerous advantages. We can be in our constituency more often. It is a positive if we have children because it facilitates work-life balance. It makes it easier for us to be everywhere all at once. We talk in the first person but tend to forget that there are people behind the scenes, not just the interpreters. There is a whole group of people who are connected with Parliament who are burdened with additional work. As far as the interpreters are concerned, it is even worse, because they are being physically harmed by a hybrid Parliament. We know that because of differences in the volume and audio quality when people are participating virtually instead of in person, there is a much higher risk of acoustic shock and toxic sound. We know that the interruptions in the sound chain during hybrid proceedings create dangerous situations for the interpreters. The statistics speak for themselves. Technical difficulties were to blame for 30% of the incidents reported by the interpreters during hybrid sittings from 2020 to 2022. That number may be on the low side, because 45% of interpreters on the Hill are contract employees and may not be reporting the injuries they sustain. Thirty per cent of injuries are reported by only 55% of the people. The number of injuries among interpreters is very likely much higher. Other aspects affected by the hybrid Parliament were already anticipated even before the pandemic. In 2018, a study was done on the different e-parliament models used around the world. The Inter-Parliamentary Union stated that the e-parliament “transforms both processes and relationships, both inside parliament and with outside actors.” These new processes “increase, decrease or alter how well a parliament legislates and deliberates, holds government to account and represents its citizens.” These four things are excluded from this debate, but I would like to address them. I am going to talk about a matter that concerns the representation of our constituents. Kathy Brock, associate professor at Queen's University, told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that when members participate in hybrid proceedings virtually, a kind of power dynamic settles in that puts ministers and opposition critics in the foreground, while backbenchers somehow fade into the background. This means that members without a title have a harder time in making their voices heard and representing their constituents effectively. The hybrid format does not put everyone on an equal footing because of a dynamic that establishes itself and is harder to undo in virtual mode than in person, in the House. I have to mention the spirit of collegiality and the informal discussions we are able to have when we are here in person. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert talked about that. When we are physically present at a committee meeting, we talk with our colleagues. While still half listening, we can go and get a coffee with a colleague at the back of the room in order to talk about a certain proposal or one of their recommendations that we want to tweak to make it work. That is something that we cannot do when working remotely. There is only one channel for the sound and we cannot listen to two discussions at once. We cannot have informal discussions, and democracy pays the price. As my colleague mentioned, it is all well and good to have the right to choose to attend in person so that we can have that latitude and human interaction, but it does not make much difference if no one from the other parties has to be here because they have the option of working remotely. At that point, it becomes rather futile to be present in the House in person because none of the members opposite will be there with us to have those discussions with. Accountability is also an issue. Let us talk about the fourth estate: journalists. They complained during the pandemic that ministers were not on site and so they could not catch them as they were coming out of the House to ask them questions. There is a problem with accountability in that regard. It does pose a problem when a minister, for example, is not in the House to answer for their policies or the spending committed or being considered. One thing we see in the government's proposal for a hybrid Parliament is that there is some sort of imbalance or asymmetry in the proposed amendments. On the one hand, ministers are no longer required to be physically present in the House to give notices of motions, such as closure motions, time allocation motions, ways and means motions and notices of the designation of another day for a budget presentation. Ministers will be able to do so remotely. On the other hand, with respect to the number of people that must be physically present in the house to oppose something, we are going back to what was in place before the pandemic. For example, opposing a notice of motion to extend a session in the preceding hour requires the presence of 15 members in the House. During the pandemic, we decided that five members were required to oppose something remotely; now it is 15 in the House. We are returning to the practices that existed before the pandemic. We are lightening the government's burden to present notices, but we are keeping pressure on the opposition for members to be physically present in the House. It is the same for opposing an urgent motion from a minister that would allow the government to suspend the Standing Orders at its convenience. For that, there must be 10 people physically present in the House rather than five MPs participating remotely, as was the case during the pandemic. For motions during routine proceedings, 25 members need to physically rise in the House to oppose a motion moved by the government during routine proceedings. There seems to be an imbalance that works in the government's favour when implementing this hybrid parliament. This is basically in line with the sort of overall imbalance that we see with the government side gaining more advantages when implementing a hybrid parliament. To use the expression about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we would have liked to debate the details of setting up a hybrid Parliament. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. There were some good technological breakthroughs during the pandemic, and it would be foolish to completely discard them. However, we should have been able to debate about what we want to keep to ensure that there is a consensus and that the aspects that are ultimately maintained will serve Parliament well. The Bloc Québécois is not entirely against the idea of continuing to use electronic voting. However, we would have liked to be able to set some parameters around the use of electronic voting, such as making it mandatory for confidence votes to be held in person in the House. There has been a lot of talk about work-life balance being one of the benefits of hybrid Parliament. We agree, but could we not have provided a better framework? I will echo the words of the Speaker who is returning to the chair right now. He mentioned in committee that work-life balance should have been an exception. It should be allowed, but only as an exception and with parameters to ensure that this option is not abused. Should we completely abolish the use of Zoom for the House? Not necessarily, but we should have been more precise about it instead of applying a very broad measure that may benefit people who may abuse it. For example, a member involved in a scandal would be able to stay home and not be held accountable here in the House when journalists might want to ask questions. These should be exceptional circumstances, such as a death in the family, illness or urgent personal circumstances. A framework could have been developed for this. The use of hybrid Parliament is not all bad. It is bad insofar as it is not balanced. In short, there are many things the Bloc Québécois would have liked to discuss. That is our main complaint, specifically, the fact that a bunch of measures are ultimately being imposed on us with no real opportunity to make changes, improve the proposal or take advantage of the good that might come out of the pandemic. It is being imposed on us at a time when our work is winding down, when, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there is no immediate urgency because the pandemic is largely behind us. If the government was going to make changes that will affect Parliament in the long term, the least it could have done was to seek a consensus among the parties, as was customary in the House. This is a letdown that, unfortunately, we have to focus on as the session nears its end. I am now ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

3290 words

Hybrid

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 7:30:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member drew an interesting comparison with Pierre Elliott Trudeau passing a standing order change without having the full consensus of the House. It was on time allocation. If we look at that today, it has proven to be very successful. We have had different political parties in government support it. We have even had opposition parties, the Bloc included, support time allocation. Every party of the House, with the possible exception of the Greens, has supported the use of time allocation. At times, when we cannot achieve a consensus, we do need to take advantage of the things that have taken place over the last couple of years. It is called the modernization of Parliament. I would like to think that, years from now, people will look back and try to imagine 338 people coming to the House to vote in person for 400 votes, staying overnight for over 24 hours to vote. They will look back and see this as a positive change. I suspect, if we listen to what the Conservatives have suggested, a sunset clause would enable the Conservatives to support everything. There seems to be a fairly good consensus already.

197 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/13/23 7:32:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Winnipeg North had been paying attention to my speech, he would know that I talked about the Trudeau senior government's passage of time allocation in the part of my speech about how things are being done, not the part about the substance of the motion. We can agree on the merits of time allocation. Perhaps discussions with the parties could have resulted in an agreement rather than the use of a closure motion on the decision to create time allocation. That is the thing I have a problem with. There could have been discussions about the creation of a hybrid Parliament with minor amendments that might have garnered the government the support of all the parties, or at least a significant majority. At the very least, we could have arrived at something that looks a lot more like a consensus. Once again, I would like to point out that there is absolutely no urgent need at this time to introduce permanent changes to the way the House of Commons operates by adopting a hybrid system, especially based on the small number of hours that we will get to talk in the House to a government that refuses to listen anyway. It has already made up its mind, with total disregard for a tradition that has been consistently followed, with one exception, that involves finding a consensus with parliamentarians when it comes to changing the rules of procedure of the House.

247 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Jun/13/23 7:33:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her heartfelt speech. I think we agree on a number of points. Yes, we need to be open to making some changes. However, as she so rightly said, it is important to take the time to do it right. The pandemic is over, and I think that the existing rules should be reviewed. She talked about several subjects in her speech, including accountability. Ministers need to be present in the House so that we can ask them questions. I came here in 2019, and I worked here in person until March 2020. Then, I started working remotely. I have not really had much of a chance to get to know how things work around here. Over the past few months, I have noticed that it is much more convenient and important to be here in person. As my colleague from Saint-Jean rightly pointed out that, when we go get a coffee outside the chamber, we can take the time to talk with our colleagues opposite and share our opinions. I think that is important. We are talking about accountability and discussions among parliamentarians. The work that we do in our ridings is important. For me, the work that I do in my riding is very important. I go back to my riding every weekend to meet with my constituents. However, the work that we do here with the other parliamentarians is also very important. The opportunity to talk to those we are asking questions of is important. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

268 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/13/23 7:35:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of elements in that question. It makes me think of things I wanted to say, but did not. There are other things that could have been considered for the balance between the work we do in the House and the work we do in our ridings. One example that readily comes to mind is the parliamentary calendar. We sit 26 weeks a year. Is it necessary during this time of year to have a constituency week followed by four weeks in a row in the House, where we sit until midnight to boot? That is no way to achieve work-life balance, and it is not the most efficient formula, either. In the meantime, after the holidays, the House is shut down from mid-December and we do not return until the end of January or early February. Could we not add some of the final weeks in June to this period so as not to have this six-week gap during which we cannot hold the government responsible for things it could have chosen to put in place during the final weeks in December? We would have the same amount of time in the House, but we would make better use of it and we do not even have to think about the hybrid model to get there. Many options could have been considered for improving work-life balance and increasing the amount of time we spend in our ridings. There are currently many activities taking place, but we are missing them. Why? It is because we are in the House. Why are we in the House? Do we really need to be in the House nine out of 10 weeks at present? A simple change to the parliamentary calendar might have been much more beneficial than the creation of a hybrid Parliament to achieve that goal.

314 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/13/23 7:37:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a small correction to the record. The member for Saint-Jean implied that I had said I did not support everything in the motion but was in favour of virtual Parliament. What I said was that I am a strong supporter of virtual Parliament on the basis of its ability to be more family-friendly, to make Parliament more diverse and to include people when they have physical and health challenges. I did say that I have some concerns about practices that evolved during virtual Parliament. I was happy to hear the member raise the condition of the health and safety of interpreters. They are essential to the operation of the House, no matter whether one is an English speaker or a French speaker. What measures does she think we should be taking now to improve the working conditions for those very important interpreters?

152 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/13/23 7:38:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I am sorry that I misquoted him. He has become a member of the big club of misquoted members. I believe we are all unwilling members of that club. On the issue of protecting interpreters, if it had not been urgent and if we had had this discussion about the substance and form, we could probably have put in place more mechanisms to protect the interpreters. One that comes to mind is the communication of complaints concerning the misuse of electronic equipment by parliamentarians. When there is feedback, do we really have a good way of ensuring that the interpreters let us know so we can fix it? Even worse, the Bloc Québécois made a recommendation at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It recommended that rigorous measures to protect the health and safety of interpreters be implemented as follows: by improving working conditions to prevent injuries, by providing good equipment, by having a rigorous protocol for the use of technology, by having a better process for reporting technical difficulties. That recommendation was not even put to a vote in committee, let alone included in the motion before us today. They could have taken the time to ensure better protection for interpreters. As I said, there was no need to rush this motion. Doing so will hurt the people who help us do our job well every day. That is absolutely deplorable.

250 words