SoVote

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

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

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/13/23 7:39:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, those of us in opposition have very few weapons to use against the government, which has all kinds of ways to control what happens in the House. Some of those weapons are time management, filibustering and opportunities to oppose all kinds of motions. In this case, the government is sneakily taking many of those tools away from the opposition in this bill. Does my colleague think that this is a mistake on the part of the government, or is it a deliberate tactic to weaken the opposition?

89 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/13/23 7:40:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there appears to be some asymmetry in the measures that the motion sets out for the changes they want to make to the rules of procedure. The in-person attendance obligations for the government side are being watered down. In contrast, the opposition side is facing the exact same prepandemic obligations when it comes to being able to thwart certain government motions. For that reason alone, I get the impression that this is indeed somewhat deliberate.

85 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Jun/13/23 7:41:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join the debate today on amendments to the Standing Orders. I am very pleased to represent the people of Edmonton West. I am actually the ninth MP representing the riding called Edmonton West since the First World War, in 1917. At that time, Edmonton West actually took up one-third of the entire province of Alberta. Now, West Edmonton Mall actually takes up about one-third of the size of Alberta. The area has been served by various distinguished MPs over the years. In 1917, the MP's last name was Griesbach, and one of our ridings is named after him right now. William Griesbach was an MP for Edmonton West. We had MP James MacKinnon, who served as MP during the Second World War. Unfortunately, he died in office, which is hopefully a precedent I will not repeat. Marcel Lambert, who served after the war, was the longest-serving MP in Edmonton West. He served about 28 years. He was a World War II veteran; he landed at Dieppe, was captured there and spent three and a half years in a prisoner of war camp before liberation. He ended up being elected and served as Speaker of the House. We can see his painting in the hallway, the gallery of speakers' portraits. He was the minister of veterans affairs. As well, serving the area was the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who served as our party leader for a while. Also serving part of Edmonton West, but at the time it overlapped what is now Edmonton West, was a friend of mine, Laurie Hawn, who was an MP for 10 years. Laurie was the very first Royal Canadian Air Force pilot to fly the CF-18, and then he served here for 10 years. Before I ran, he always provided lots of advice for me, but he told me that the best part of being an MP is serving people, and the worst part is the travel. Both are right. I am blessed in that I inherited Laurie Hawn's staff, Oula Sanduga and Linda Lo, who still work with me today. They are amazing ladies, who have incredible empathy and who know everything about helping people. On my very first day in our office, we were able to help a new Canadian who had to have some paperwork finalized that day; otherwise, he would have lost out on his planned surgery the next day. It was a young boy getting cleft palate surgery. Our office was able to help him. Laurie was right: The best part is helping other people, and the worst part is the travel. I bring that up because it relates to what I am going to get into about the Standing Order changes, and the main part, which is the hybrid Parliament. We have all heard about, and we have all experienced, the horrors of airline travel in Canada, especially recently. There has been lost luggage. We have all had missed flights. I have had missed flights and delays; I have gotten stuck in the wrong cities. I thank Air Canada and West Jet. Part of the problem is that we have a near-duopoly, and that allows Air Canada and West Jet to treat Canadians the way they do, which is not very well. The thing is that I knew about this in advance. The huge majority of us knew about that before we got into this role. We knew that travel was bad. We knew it was part of the job. We accepted that when we ran. Just as we knew that helping people would be the high of the job, we knew that travel would be the low of the job. It is funny to sit here in the House and hear members talk about how the travel is bad now. It has always been a bad part of the job. To claim that, all of a sudden, it is bad, but it was not bad in 2015, 2019 or 2020 before COVID, strikes me as a bit dishonest, to be blunt. It is almost as if some members showed up here and were shocked to find out that coming to Ottawa 26 weeks a year is part of the job; therefore, they want to mail it in through a hybrid process. It was bad before, but it was worse for poor Mr. Griesbach, who had to come out by train in 1917. It has been proven that it is still bad now. What has changed, of course, is the access to Zoom. Zoom is very convenient, I admit, but just because Zoom is available and convenient for members of Parliament does not mean it is something we should switch to as a matter of hand. I do not think it is good for democracy or for the health of this place. My preference would obviously be to not have a permanent hybrid process, as the government and the NDP enablers are suggesting. In 2015, we heard from the government, and we heard earlier today, that we want to make it family-friendly. I always find in this place that whenever the government talks about reforming Parliament to make it family-friendly, it is a code word that means, “We're going to take away accountability. We're going to take away powers to hold us to account from the opposition.” I want to talk about the main problem that I see with a hybrid Parliament, which is the accountability issue. Many times, we have seen elected officials, bureaucrats, show up only by Zoom in committee. A couple of months ago, on the public accounts committee, which I am also a member of, we had 13 witnesses from the public service. Every single one of them was based in Ottawa. Every single one of them decided it was too much to come in person to the public accounts meeting; it was too much to show Canadians respect by showing up in person. Every single one of them Zoomed in. We heard them with delays because of problems with mikes, computers not working and bad sound. Here we had a very important public accounts committee trying to seek answers on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, and we had 13 public servants who did not show up. We have had committees where ministers would only attend by Zoom. We see Liberal MPs showing up in committees, and I recognize their backdrop, because they are in the Confederation Building. However, they cannot come to West Block downstairs to join the committee. The reality is that the opposition members, including the Bloc and the NDP, are here to hold the government to account. The Liberal members who are not in the cabinet and are not in the government are here to represent their constituents. That is why we are here. To switch to a hybrid Parliament takes away that accountability for us to hold the government to account; it takes away the accountability of the Liberal members when it comes to serving their constituents here in Ottawa. Canadians deserve more than just having a minister Zoom in their appearance to committee. They deserve more, they need more, than just having public service bureaucrats, officials, Zoom in to committees. They should be there in person. We have a hybrid-driven lack of resources in this place right now. Yes, we are sitting late, but even before we started sitting late, we were running out of resources. We are losing committees because of burnout of our translators. We do not have enough translators, and we do not have enough people to run the committees so we can operate. In the operations and estimates committee, also known as OGGO, or as I call it, “the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters”, since May 3, we have had three committees cancelled. In just a month and a half, three committees have been cancelled because of a lack of resources. On May 3, we had the President of the Treasury Board set to appear to defend the main estimates. A lot of people at home, all five of them watching on CPAC and all five of them in the House right now, are probably unaware, but the estimates are why Parliament exists. It goes back to 1295 and the model parliament, where Edward said, “What touches all should be approved by all”. That is the basis of what our Parliament is: the approval of spending, raising taxes and spending them, which is the estimates process. However, here we have the President of the Treasury Board, representing the government's billions of dollars of spending, and we have to cancel the meeting that she was to attend. The Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and even Liberal members were deprived of the opportunity to question the President of the Treasury Board on the main estimates. What touches all should be approved by all, unless one is in a hybrid Parliament in Canada. In that case, things get cancelled, and the money just gets approved without oversight. On May 10, also on the estimates process, we were to have two departments come in, but the meeting was cancelled because of a lack of resources, and this lack was driven by the demands of hybrid Parliament. There were two departments. We had Defence Construction Canada, a small side department that does not get in the news much. However, it is the only department I have ever seen noted by the Auditor General as specifically at risk for fraud. I have done public accounts for years, off and on, and I have done the operations estimates for eight years. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is at risk. The Auditor General notes that it is at risk of fraud, and the meeting was cancelled. MPs were not able to question the departments on what they are doing to address the Auditor General's concerns, because of a lack of resources driven by hybrid. At the same meeting, the Transportation Safety Board was supposed to come before OGGO to explain its estimates request. The Transportation Safety Board is as it sounds. It is the safety board that ensures the safety of air, marine and pipelines, and it reports publicly. If Canadians want to freak out, they should google the watch-lists for the Transportation Safety Board. The Transportation Safety Board was supposed to come before us, and it has several times. We always ask if Transport Canada is responding to its concerns, and the answer is always, “No.” I challenge members to look it up on the website. They will see that this goes back through eight years of incompetence by the government and the Minister of Transport, the same one who is leaving Pearson Airport a mess and leaving other airports a mess. We can take a look at the watch-list. There are a couple of items from the watch-list here. Keep in mind that we were deprived of our ability, on behalf of Canadians, to address this issue. This is from the watch-list, just the air watch-list: “Runway overruns continue to pose a risk to people, property, and the environment.” That is wonderful. The next one is, “Runway incursions lead to an ongoing risk of aircraft colliding with vehicles or other aircraft.” Runway incursions have doubled since the current government took power. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. Members can remember Air Canada at Los Angeles, LAX. A couple of years ago, due to an error, an Air Canada flight almost landed on and collided with another plane. The loss of life would have been in the hundreds and hundreds. That is what a runway incursion is. They have doubled in the last eight years. We were deprived of our opportunity to question them to make sure they have enough resources to do their work. Also on the watch-list is, “Some transportation operators in the air, marine, and rail sectors are not managing their safety risks effectively.” Does the Transportation Safety Board have enough resources and people to follow up? We are not going to get a chance to question them and perhaps adjust the estimates for that. Another issue is, “Crews often work long and irregular schedules, which poses a significant risk.” What Canadian out there wants to read this and know we could not ask questions about it, examine it or look at the departmental plans on how they are going to address this, because we have a lack of resources because of hybrid? The TSB also wrote, “Regulatory surveillance has not always proven effective at verifying whether operators are, or have become, compliant with regulations and able to manage...safety”. If I go to its web page and actually read through the watch-list for marine as well, I would not be looking to fly in Canada. I think most of us in this place would be hiding in our basements, Zooming in like the Liberal government is, if we read what is going on. I joke about that a bit, but this is a serious thing. This is a result of our not having the resources to examine this and make sure the Transportation Safety Board has resources or that its departmental plans reflect the ability to address that. The next meeting that was cancelled was on June 7. Again, it was the operations and estimates committee. We had departmental officials called to explain why they were refusing an order of Parliament to produce documents. It is right in our rules and procedures that committees can order any document they wish. In fact, the Speaker, who is with us right now, ruled on this about a year ago, regarding the Winnipeg lab, that the committees have the power to order any documents they wish. The government cannot withhold them for privacy reasons or for any reasons. We have the ultimate power. OGGO, with the support of the governing party, requested documents from McKinsey & Company. We asked McKinsey and we asked the 19 departments that had done business with McKinsey. Guess what? McKinsey approached us and said it would give us everything unredacted, but the government had asked it to redact some stuff. It asked if it could redact that, and we said, “No. The order is for unredacted.” It provided that. However, of the government departments we ordered documents from, 19 out of 19 refused to hand over redacted documents The Liberal government blocked all ability to report it to the House, so we invited the departments in to explain why they were refusing an order of Parliament. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We did not have the chance to talk to them, because of a lack of resources. Here we have bureaucrats deciding what laws they will follow, what rules they will follow, not based on what Parliament decides, not based on what the Canadians who elected us decide, and not based on what Canadians want. We have bureaucrats deciding what they will hand over. We had departments saying that the access to information law trumps Parliament, trumps what this very Speaker said our powers were. We had departments saying that the Constitution forbade Parliament from asking for these documents. We had one department actually claim that releasing the documents it had, that McKinsey had already provided us, would cause people's pensions to be at risk, even though McKinsey said it would hand them over. We would have liked to ask the departments why they were blocking Parliament, but we never got to that, because of the lack of resources. We like to say that Canada is a country of rules, and that the Constitution sets out the powers of Parliament and gives us the ability to make laws for peace, order and the good government of Canada. That is generally the case, unless the bureaucrats do not want that, in which case we cannot hold them accountable because we do not have the resources, because the virtual Parliament is burning out our translators, depriving us of this. One of the more interesting ones that could not be brought before us was ESDC. It actually tabled redacted documents, despite the order, but it did not provide them in French. It was about 1,000 pages in English and 600 pages in French. We all know that, generally, if there are 10 words in English, it is about 12 or 13 in French. It tabled it, despite our Official Languages Act, despite issues that we have in this country, despite it being stated that we have problems with virtual Parliament drowning out French in this place. The government department did not table it in French. “Do not worry,” they said, “We will get back to you with it again in a week.” The next week, they retabled it with English mixed in with the French, once again violating our rules. I would sure like to bring them before us, but of course we cannot. We asked the Liberals if we could perhaps bring this to the House, to talk about why the department was violating the privileges of parliamentarians to have the documents in French. Liberals, with the help of the NDP cohort, blocked that as well. I had the privilege of serving on PROC as well when we were studying some of the issues, and we heard from some of the translation bureau folks. They were telling us that it was like having popcorn going off in their ears when there were bad connections. We are still seeing, to this day, committee members showing up, Liberal committee members showing up without headsets. We have translators who are going on sick leave. Again, think about that, the sound of popcorn going off in one's ears. That is with regular headsets. We have a problem with this. I understand that there are some needs from time to time, when parliamentarians cannot get here. I accept that. I accept, perhaps, in the House, that there should be ways around it, so that we can ensure that our translators are protected, while also ensuring that we have accountability, that we can hold the departments accountable, that we can hold the government accountable, that we can do our jobs. With how it is proposed right now, under the extension of the hybrid, I do not think we are getting that. I do not think Canadians are getting what they want out of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians are not getting what they want out of this system.

3126 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 8:01:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was having a little trouble following some of the discussion around the resources, but one thing that was sticking with me was the image of a person coming to Parliament in 1916 by train. When I made a decision to run, my wife and I made this decision together based on our kids being through college and being in that stage of life where I could devote more time to community service. Similar to the person in 1916, there were a lot of white middle-aged males in the House, similar to the way I look. Now we have young families and people of colour and people of diversity. This tool allows people to make decisions based on any type of stage of life or any type of economic background they are coming from. This tool is opening up Parliament to all Canadians. Could the hon. member maybe talk about how the positive part of this is to involve the potential of any Canadian to serve in Parliament regardless of their background or stage of life?

179 words

Serve
1916

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:02:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my colleague had so much difficulty following regular straightforward stuff. The reality is Canadians from all walks of life can be elected as parliamentarians. It is offensive for this gentleman to state that perhaps a person of colour cannot fly to Ottawa like anyone else. That is outright offensive. As to regular Canadians being part of Parliament, this place is full of regular Canadians. If the government had suggested perhaps a system of the House being hybrid but committees being in person, committee chairs needing to meet in person and witnesses having to be in person, certainly I would be open to look at some solutions. A straightforward hybrid for everyone if they wish, including ministers at committee, any time they want does not work for accountability, it does not work for Canadians and I do not think works for parliamentarians.

146 words

Ottawa

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/13/23 8:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of a 16-month-old daughter, I am following these debates very closely. I know that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes work-life balance. Having tested out the hybrid model with my daughter in my arms, it is not the model I prefer. The issue of quality time, of separating the time I spend with her from the time I spend here in the House, is crucial. I am worried about that. I also think we should be talking more about what we are doing right now, holding debates until midnight during this entire period until we rise. The House's hours need to be reviewed. That, for me, would do more for work-life balance. Last year, I took part in debates with my infant daughter, who was just a few weeks old, until midnight. I think that is far more unacceptable. Personally, because I need some separation and need to spend quality time with my daughter, I see major disadvantages to a hybrid Parliament. It may not be everyone's cure-all for work-life balance. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

197 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:05:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been over year, but I congratulate her on the birth of her child. There are ways we can deal with this. Certainly we can make adjustments for those who are sick and those who have babies, etc. We can certainly work around that, but we should look toward consulting members about how we can address that. We should look at all sides, and not just at what we are seeing from the government, which is a blanket hybrid for all. If it was simply on the honour system and everyone showed up in committee when they were in town but we had the hybrid for other reasons as a backup, as the colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke explained with his situation, I would be fine with that, but we do not see that. In the committee I chair, I see often one member of the government there and I see the faces on the screen of the others sitting in their offices on Wellington or in Confed, or I see ministers Zooming in, or officials. If the system is set up to ensure we can have accountability and those who could be here are here, I would be supportive of that, but this system as it is, without consultation from all the parties and without a real sincere attempt to try to address very valid issues about accountability or caring for families, has not been seen, so I cannot support what the government has proposed.

251 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/13/23 8:06:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the speech by the member for Edmonton West this evening, and I feel as though I have an entire speech of questions I would like to pose, so I am going to try to narrow it down. The first thing that comes to mind is accountability. I really think that, when we are holding fellow members of Parliament accountable in the House, we have to do some self-reflection with respect to our own parties. Just the other day, I watched as Conservative members decided they wanted to circumvent a vote. They went on the other side of the wall here to cast their votes through the hybrid voting system. They did not have the appropriate headsets on, which put the interpreters at risk. Therefore, I think we need to look at ourselves. Currently, the representation of women in Parliament is only at 30%. We can do better to ensure we have representation in this party. To say that everybody has equal access to being members of Parliament and serving here is completely out of touch and unrealistic. Quite frankly, those remarks show an element of privilege. My question for the member is this: Why does he not believe in the tools necessary to have equitable representation within the chamber?

217 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:08:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague keeping it to two questions and not going on for a full 10 minutes, as she had commented. To the first issue, I would say that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I sit on the operations committee, and I watched the NDP join the government in a filibuster to block our ability to bring a privilege motion to the House. Our rights and responsibilities had been taken away by bureaucrats who refused an order of the House, and we had the NDP filibuster it. Therefore, I can understand the member's frustration with voting, but it is no different than filibustering to prevent members of Parliament from exerting their privilege. With respect to the comment on privilege, Canadians do have equal access to be able to run. People are in different stages of their life and in different circumstances. Certainly, we should encourage everyone we can to run. I agree that, if there are ways we can improve access, that is wonderful, but it should be decided among the parties, not just the by the government, with its enablers in the NDP, forcing these changes down our throats. It used to be tradition that changes to the Standing Orders were done through a consensus in the House. If one person said no, the government would back away. We are not seeing that. At the operations committee, we saw the government try to change the process with the estimates to allow it to have access to I think it was $7 billion of spending on vote 40. When Scott Brison was the president of the Treasury Board, he tried to change the Standing Orders on the main estimates, which is the reason Parliament exists, to suit himself and the government. Again, it is moving away from consensus to deciding and ramming it down the throats of others, and I do not think that is right.

323 words

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

Jun/13/23 8:10:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his well-argued presentation in the House just now. We have also experienced the same problem at the national defence committee, where we have had meetings cancelled because of a lack of resources. I want to ask the member for Edmonton West if he would really get down to it, especially as he talked about how this virtual Parliament is impacting the health of our interpreters and how the government is not here with a full cabinet to defend its record. Is that happening because the government wants to avoid accountability; has a lack of respect for members of Parliament; lacks compassion for those who work in the House of Commons, such as the interpreters; or is it all of the above?

134 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:11:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above.

8 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:11:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa June 13, 2023 Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, Christine MacIntyre, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13th day of June, 2023, at 6:09 p.m. Yours sincerely, Ryan McAdam Director, Office of the Secretary to the Governor General The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

137 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/13/23 8:14:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41 Bill C-35 Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of government business on the hybrid system we have adopted and have been using in the House over the last number of years. In some of the last discourse, we heard from Conservative members in an exchange that came from a question from the NDP about members not using the technology and tools we have in place for the right purpose. This is given that we witnessed just days ago the abuse of hybrid Parliament, whether it was on Zoom or with the voting application, and the manner that was was utilized by Conservatives to delay the vote and use it as a procedural tool. We saw Conservatives who were voting and coming online through Zoom, and it was obvious they were sitting in the opposition lobby or perhaps had the beautiful stonework behind them from this place. They were doing this intentionally for the purpose of delaying the House. Why was that so obvious? The only members who seemed to have problems from a technical perspective at the time were Conservatives, so it was pretty clear there was an abuse of the system. Therefore, I would tend to agree with Conservatives when they say that we need to ensure that the system and the tools we have are not abused. I think that we saw a lot of that on those two particular days. I think it was a Friday and a Monday when we saw that happening. Nonetheless, I reflect on just some of the most recent votes. On Monday, June 12, which was just yesterday, we had a vote that was related to Bill C-33, where 70% of my Bloc colleagues and 66% of my Conservative colleagues used the voting app, according to the records that we have. When Conservatives talk about having consensus to use the hybrid Parliament, I would suggest to them that consensus comes through their basic agreement with and use of the technology. Also on Monday, we had a number of other motions. We had the Bloc opposition motion, and 50% of the Bloc members, on their own motion, used the app to vote when we voted on that yesterday. Clearly the Bloc members favour using this technology that we have, given the fact that half of them, one out of every two Bloc members, used the app to vote on their own motion just yesterday, while 36% of Conservatives used it. When we had Bill C-35 at report stage, 74% of Bloc members, almost three out of every four of them, used the voting application that we have adopted. Therefore, when the Bloc members get up, as I have heard them do both yesterday and today, to say we should be doing things based on consensus, I think that we have consensus is pretty darn clear when they are using the technology to the fullest of its ability. We should be concerned that Bloc members might not be in the House, but it even gets worse than that. By the third reading and adoption of Bill C-41, 80% of Bloc members used the voting app. That is four out of every five of them. I do not think that we need consensus from the Bloc members that this is a good tool. They seem to be using it in great earnest. It goes on. The Conservatives, although their percentages are much better, have been using the application and the tools just as much as everybody else. I am reminded of just very recently when a Conservative member, a new mother who had just given birth days before, was participating in a House of Commons debate while holding her newborn. I remember it very well because she was speaking softly, and I remember that feeling of having a newborn, especially when they are sleeping, and wanting to let them sleep because we know what it is like when they are not sleeping. The member was speaking softly while sitting in her kitchen. The lights were dimmed, and she did not want to wake the baby. She was giving a passionate speech. I thought to myself, “Wow, look how far we have come in the short period of time since we started bringing on these new provisions.” We have a new mother who is able to participate in a House of Commons debate literally days after giving birth. Let us imagine trying to convince people in this place 100 years ago that this would one day be the reality, or even 10 years ago, or even just five years ago. The idea would have been foreign. As a society and as a country, we go through experiences. We went through a horrible experience in the pandemic. A lot of people suffered. There was a lot of financial hardship. There were a lot of people who, emotionally and from a mental health perspective, really struggled, but I think that we also have to realize that we discovered things and perhaps came across opportunities during the pandemic that could improve the quality of life for people who wish to be part of this process. This House is not what it was decades ago. This is not a House filled just with male lawyers. Let us be honest: When this House was first established, it was lawyers and it was men, and that was it. Over the years, we have seen that evolve. My predecessor was a scientist, Ted Hsu, who came to this place. We have seen other people come here who were activists or people who were really passionate about certain fields of work and who did not particularly fall into that mould of what a parliamentarian used to be. As my NDP colleague pointed out in a question that she asked about the under-representation of women in this place, she is absolutely correct. I am trusting that her number of only 30% of the members in this place are women is accurate. How do we get that to a better place? It is funny. I had dinner this evening with a senator, and we had a really interesting conversation. He was commenting to me that he believes the Senate has changed so much because half of the senators are women. He said it brings a certain decorum to the place, and that the decorum might be from the fact that those who are not being more collegial and using decorum are highlighted. I would be the first to point out, as already happened today, that I am not by any means putting myself in the category of those who always demonstrate great decorum. I do not want to get off the very important point here. The point is that we need to create a place that does not just represent Canadians. I know the former answer to a question from a Conservative was that this place does represent Canadians. Well, it might represent Canadians in the sense that there is a mix of different backgrounds, but I do not know if it genuinely represents Canadians in terms of gender parity. I think that in particular there is an impediment to many women who have to make the decision of whether they want to get into this line of work, given that it requires so much time in Ottawa. When we look at the tools that we have been able to develop, test and rely on confidently during the pandemic, why would we not take those tools, if we see them as a way to make this place more suitable, to better represent Canadians, including and in particular as it relates to a gender balance in this House? I have heard some of the arguments against this. I have been listening and following the debate. I think I have addressed the Bloc's concern over consensus. I hear the concern that comes quite a bit from my Conservative colleagues. I heard the Conservative House leader say that they would be in support of all of this if there was a sunset clause. The way he described it was that one year after the next election, we would have to review and then make a decision on whether or not to move forward. He is trying to phrase it so that rather than making a decision about getting rid of it, we would have to make the decision about keeping it. I would say that is a nuance. Whether the government of the day wants to bring forward a new motion to change the Standing Orders back to the way they were or whether the government of the day brings forward a motion to keep the Standing Orders as they are, the point is irrelevant. It is going to be exactly the same debate that takes place. People's positions on things would be pretty much the same. I do not think they would particularly change. The important thing is that I do not think it should be a deal breaker for anybody that would make them just say they cannot support this because they really wanted a sunset clause. This is my personal opinion. I preface it by saying that it is my opinion. I certainly do not know this to be fact. I would say probably the majority of Conservatives like the tools that we have. They certainly use them a lot, as do my Bloc colleagues. I think this is a bit of partisanship. I think this is about positioning oneself and positioning a particular party to try to put a narrative in place that people are not working, to say that when they go back home, they are not really working and doing their work. From listening to the speech from the House leader for the government yesterday, we know that anybody who is in this job is working 24-7. When members walk into a store in their riding, how often does somebody bump into them and want to talk to them? Then they are working. That happens all the time. This is not a nine-to-five job. We will be here until at least 1:00 a.m. tonight, and that is fine. That is part of the job. I think we all accept that, and I certainly accept it. If we can put tools in place to make it even more inclusive, I think we should be doing that. In preparation for this speech, I was looking back at some references in Hansard for this Parliament. I reflect back to March 28, when my Conservative colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, was giving his speech. If I have this correct, it was from a city council chamber in his riding. He was commuting to the airport to come here, presumably. He wanted to give his speech and was able to set up a temporary spot to give his speech from a city council chamber. He said: As we know as members of Parliament, things can change and develop quickly in this job. This has led me to be making a speech from a bit of a unique location. Having seemingly come down with the flu over the weekend, I was delayed in my return to our nation's capital. As a result, I was not able to get on my Sunday afternoon flight, which is my normal commute. Therefore, if you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I am in a unique location that I would like to highlight. I am giving my speech from another chamber, actually: the town council chambers of the community of Drumheller. This is the second-largest community in Battle River—Crowfoot in this beautiful area of east central Alberta, and I am proud to represent it. He goes on after that. I am not saying this in any way to say, “See, I told you so. You love hybrid Parliament and you are using it.” I am bringing it to everyone's attention because I think it is unique and important that the member was able to participate. He clearly could not come to Ottawa because of an illness. When he got better, he was on his way here, but he really wanted to participate in debate and made other accommodations to be able to do that. As much as this motion about adopting a hybrid Parliament might be able helping a newborn's mother participate, it is also about helping people who have come down with an illness, who are on the mend and who might be on their way to Ottawa, as was the case with this individual. On Friday of last week, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave a virtual speech on Bill C-41. He is another Conservative colleague of mine. What I am trying to point out is that we are all using this technology. We all see the benefit in the technology, and it is genuinely allowing us to participate in debate when we otherwise may have been limited. Most of us in this chamber, especially those elected in 2015 and after 2019, know what it was like to not be able to do that. This has given much more opportunity for people to participate by providing another way to participate. We do not have to physically be here. I think it is worth keeping in that regard. I heard a criticism from a Conservative who spoke before me. It was specifically about accountability, and I heard his comments about accountability in two regards. In the first regard, he spoke about accountability in terms of ministers answering questions. I know I heard him say that he was speaking specifically about accountability as it related to ministers speaking on Zoom to a committee. However, I do not think that is appropriate, and I can tell members that on this side of the House, and it should be quite obvious from question period every day, no minister answers a question on the screen. No minister answers a question virtually. If a minister cannot be present here in question period, a parliamentary secretary or another minister answers the question. That is not a rule established anywhere, but it is certainly a rule that the leadership on this side of the House has put in place in order to preserve that accountability. Question period is probably the part of the proceedings here that the public watches the most, and certainly that is the time that there has to actually be a physical presence in the House. The other area of accountability the member mentioned is accountability in terms of individuals who are participating by Zoom in a committee and whether or not they are accountable. Well, we are accountable: We are accountable to the individuals who send us here. If the individuals determine that we are not doing an effective job, they will stop sending us here. We are accountable because we will go into an election at least once every four years. No two MPs, in my opinion, approach this job in exactly the same way. Everybody develops their approach to the job in how they deal with constituents, how they deal with casework, how they deal with the House proceedings and with committee, how they deal with everything in the spectrum. If our electorate decides “Hey, you have not done a good job in terms of how you are handling your participation and how you are representing us”, it is up to them to hold us accountable. It is up to them to decide if they want us or somebody else. In that regard, I certainly believe that we are accountable. I think we will always have that accountability to people. We are not like the Senate; senators are appointed, and they are appointed for a set period of time. We have to go back to our electorate on a regular basis and ask for their continued support. That is really, in my opinion, the most important thing. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I think this is a good motion. I do not believe that putting a sunset clause on this motion can be a deal breaker. It is just as easy for a future government, after the next election, to say that it does not want this and that this is how it should be done. I also do not believe that the Bloc is against this motion, based on the fact that there is no consensus. Its members have by far, as a percentage of the political parties, used the voting application the most. They clearly enjoy using it, and I think that if the motion does not pass, many of them would probably be upset that we were not going to continue using it. I will certainly be supporting this motion. I think it is a way to get so many more people interested in this place and to get so many more people to put their names forward. It is a way to continue to build on the diversity in this House, and particularly, in my opinion, to build on the kind of diversity that will bring us closer to a gender balance.

2891 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/13/23 8:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reflections on this issue. I think an important distinction should be made between whether the rules are being used and whether the rules are good for the institution. I can say that for me personally, these hybrid rules have made my life a lot more comfortable. They have been convenient for me personally, and I have used them from time to time, but I also think they diminish the institution. While they are in place, I will use the voting app, but I think this place would be better off if some of the hybrid provisions were not in effect, which is an important distinction between whether members are using it today versus whether members view these rules as being good for the institution in general. The biggest problem I have with a hybrid Parliament is the strain it has created on our resources. Before these rules were in place, parliamentary committees could sit basically when they wanted to sit. They could sit into the evening. We have a situation now in the public accounts committee, where Liberals are filibustering a motion, and the committee cannot move forward because it is stuck in these limited time slots. I will acknowledge that other parties engage in filibusters as well and that it is not just one party, but if committees have work they need to get done or if there is an urgent issue, they should be able to sit more. When I was a staff member, the industry committee sat in the evening for five hours at a time for three nights in a row because there was an issue that justified it. These rules no longer allow committees to be masters of their own domain. They make committees subject to determinations by the whips in the House about those resources—

311 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:34:54 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Guelph is rising on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 8:34:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether we are listening to another a speech or if there a question that is going to be asked. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

29 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:35:07 p.m.
Watch

Rather than let the members talk to each other, I will just clarify that it is “questions and comments”, so it could be a question, but it could be a comment as well. I will let the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan continue.

48 words