SoVote

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above.

8 words

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

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 8:35:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members who are so eager to debate the new rules to learn the old rules first, about how questions and comments work. I have a serious question to the Parliamentary secretary. How does he get around this significant problem, in terms of resources, and the fact that it makes committees, which are supposed to be masters of their own domains, now subject to resource decisions that are made external to those committees?

77 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:35:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on his first point, a lot of people would say that bringing cameras into this place in the seventies was a bad move because of the theatre it created. A lot of people would say that putting video online so that people could clip it in real time was a bad move. I think that hindsight is 20/20. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I listened to the member, and I am going to answer his questions, if he does not want to talk to me back and forth through the middle of it. I think that it is important to reflect on the fact that maybe decades from now they will look back and say that it was a bad idea, but I can tell members that from my perspective right now, it looks like it is going to allow more people to engage, just based on the participation from Conservatives. On the member's second point about the resources, we should not spare any expense at making sure our democracy functions in the way it should. If we need to put more resources into that by building out the structure of resources we have, then we absolutely must do it. To that point, I do not disagree with him that I share similar concerns, but I do not think that needs to be the reason we cannot proceed. What it says to me is that we need to be investing more in the interpretation services and more in the resources, so that we can continue to function like this.

266 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/13/23 8:37:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, gaining and retaining power by any means necessary is in the DNA of that member and the Liberal Party. It is called Machiavellianism. This member completely misled the public by deliberately confusing electronic voting with the hybrid Parliament. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of electronic voting. The hybrid Parliament is another story. Why is the Liberal Party in favour of a hybrid Parliament? It is simply because it has an alliance with the NDP, and the hybrid Parliament benefits the NDP. The NDP members are mainly from western Canada, and we know that all of that travel is difficult. However, it comes with the job. Next, I would like to talk a little bit about the respect that this member and the Liberal Party should have for those who provide simultaneous interpretation. Our interpreters are working their tails off, experiencing hearing problems and burning out because there is a shortage of staff. Obviously, the hybrid Parliament is directly related to that burnout. If we did not have a hybrid Parliament, our interpreters would be in better shape and more available. They would be able to cover the schedule without any problems. I care about the human side of things. Let us put our interpreters ahead of such purely political justifications.

217 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:39:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, this certainly is not about me trying to get control or seize power. We are using this system right now, and this system will be here for the foreseeable future. The member says that I am conflating electronic voting with the use of Zoom. I am talking about the two of them. I have made it very clear which I am talking about. If the Bloc's position is it supports the app but does not support Zoom, I have yet to hear that in this House. I have yet to hear the Bloc suggest anything otherwise, and it could be that I did not hear that part of the debate so far, but that is the reality. When it comes to the interpretation services, I agree, and this goes back to my answer to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, that we should not spare any expense in ensuring that the right resources are in place to provide the right supports, not just to our interpreters, but to all the support staff we have here. If that means investing more in their well-being and providing more resources, then we should do that. I do not think it should be an impediment to the democratic process we have set up in this place, so that we can bring more people from diverse backgrounds, and in particular more women, into this chamber. An hon. member: You don't care about them.

249 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:40:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member has a point of order.

8 words

Point

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:40:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can respect the fact the Bloc member and I disagree, but when he shouted out afterward that I do not care about them, it is categorically false. I am giving my position on this.

37 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:40:52 p.m.
Watch

I remind all the members to respect each other as much as possible. We are in the chamber, so we want to remember that. Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

35 words

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

Jun/13/23 8:41:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. We all agree the interpreters are really the foundation of Parliament, and we have to work harder to ensure they have a safe working environment and that we bring new interpreters along so we can really have them contribute in that most valuable way to the life of our Parliament. We all agree on that. I think where some parties might disagree is that having close proximity to ministers means they are more accountable. I lived through the Harper regime and it was terrible. For nearly a decade, and there were some exceptions like Jim Flaherty, generally speaking there was no accountability by Conservative ministers. We saw that each and every day. They would not answer questions. They would not meet with members of Parliament. That is a red herring raised by the Conservatives. My colleague pointed out that the Bloc Québécois uses the voting app more than any other party. The Conservatives use hybrid Parliament about as much as any other party. The NDP and the Conservatives are equal in that. The Liberals use it a bit more. The reality is Conservatives voted against and tried to block hybrid Parliament during the height of the pandemic. At the end of 2021 and in June of 2022 when COVID was still raging, they voted against it and tried to block it. We needed to use procedural motions to get the hybrid Parliament back in place to protect everybody. Why does my colleague think Conservatives have been so adamantly opposed to a hybrid Parliament but use it so extensively?

267 words

Harper

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:42:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I just want to point out that a member from literally the other side of the country, and I am assuming he is in his riding, is participating in this debate right now. I am so lucky I am an hour and 45-minute drive from this place. If I leave right now, I can be home in two hours, which will happen tomorrow evening sometime. Think of the commute this member has to do in order to participate here. I am not saying he does not want to come here, but I am just saying there are times when it makes sense for him to participate in this manner because he can still participate from his riding. Something that has perhaps been lost in this discussion is the equal opportunity for members to physically get to Ottawa because our capital happens to be located here. Having said that, why do I think Conservatives have been against this before and against this now? I do not think individually any of them are against it. Collectively they have decided this is the best narrative. They decided they can sow the narrative within the public that the NDP and the Liberals do not want to work and want to just work from home and sit behind their computers at home in their pyjamas and participate in the House of Commons. That is the narrative they ultimately want to sell. We will have to wait for the fundraising videos to come out later on to find out.

261 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 8:44:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see many of my esteemed hon. colleagues participating in this debate. I will be splitting my time with someone who I have had a number of conversations with, the member for Saskatoon West. It is a pleasure. I come tonight to this debate with a few thoughts on where things are at with regard to hybrid sittings and the importance of continuing that option for members and making some of these changes permanent in the Standing Orders. I was fortunate enough to have been elected in 2015 in the wonderful riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge by the most entrepreneurial and generous residents across this country and to again be re-elected in 2019 and again in 2021. With that I have the perspective, like many of my colleagues, of having been in Parliament pre-COVID, having participated fully in that session of Parliament, and then post-COVID with the introduction of technology that has improved many aspects of Parliament. I do attend. I am here in Parliament as often as I can be. I do think it is important for members to participate in person as often as they can, but I do think the permanent changes to the Standing Orders provide a certain amount of flexibility that reflects where we are in society, which makes our democracy more inclusive. My riding is the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is about an hour plane ride from here to Toronto and a 50-minute drive home, but I have the perspective of having grown up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is represented by one of the New Democratic members. If I were its representative, I could understand fully, being that far away, the enhanced flexibility of remaining in my riding for a few days for personal reasons, for reasons to tend to in the riding. I think that is very important. It is not lost upon me. I am a little bit of a traditionalist in many ways. I care about institutions, I care about our structures and maintaining those institutions. For me to say that these Standing Orders changes should be done is in the right direction, because it reflects where we are in modern-day society. Here are a few remarks that I have in front of me. it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion to permanently implement hybrid sittings in the House of Commons. As members know, it has been a subject of debate since the early days of the pandemic, and I am pleased to speak in support of the motion. I would like to focus my comments today on how hybrid sittings can be beneficial not only to those of us who currently share the privilege of serving our constituents in this place, but for future members of Parliament. The subject of my remarks will focus on how hybrid proceedings of the House will benefit under-represented groups contemplating a life of politics and hopefully how the hybrid sittings can help to make our House a more diverse and inclusive place that better represents the communities we serve. I would like to start my remarks by quoting a September 5, 2021 article entitled, "Why diversity matters in our politics - and what can be done to support it". The author states that, “politicians today are finding themselves representing increasingly diverse communities that are composed of many smaller communities with unique needs. Having diversity among elected officials is a definite way to ensure these unique needs are identified and brought to the forefront.” He goes on to say that “No race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sex, gender or sexual orientation has a monopoly on talent. The best and the brightest people who care about improving their community do not all come from one particular group” and that there are “barriers that de-motivate female, racialized, Indigenous, LGBTQ and differently abled people from entering politics”. I believe that we can extend this argument to the barriers to participation in the proceedings of this place as a de-motivator for those groups who are under-represented in this chamber. In fact, flexible models of how we conduct parliamentary business would help level the playing field for racialized minorities, and current and future members of Parliament from rural, remote and northern regions. Allow me to provide an example. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conducted a study on hybrid sittings last fall, entitled “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”, which was tabled in January 2023. During the study, the committee heard from several current and former members who testified in support of making hybrid proceedings permanent. These witnesses raised a number of examples of life situations where a hybrid model would be beneficial, including health issues, pregnancy, parenthood, transportation and bereavement. In fact, our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Victoria, appeared before the committee on October 4, 2022, and stated that the impact of the hybrid model on her day-to-day life was “transformational”. As per the report, the member provided the committee with four examples of how hybrid proceedings gave her the opportunity to keep working when it otherwise would have been impossible: pregnancy, maternity, illness and bereavement. The member for Victoria told the committee that she was advised not to travel during her pregnancy. Without the hybrid sittings, she would not have been able to continue her work into her ninth month of pregnancy, nor would she have been able to work when child care issues arose with her newborn. Furthermore, the hybrid situation allowed the member to continue working when she contracted COVID-19 and when she flew home to see her father prior to his passing. The PROC report says, “[The member for Victoria] stated that more women need to be encouraged to run for office and that, in her experience, it was ‘incredibly hard’ to convince them to do so.” The member stated that she is certain that women's political participation would increase in Parliament if Parliament were made more family friendly, which is what the hybrid solution allows. The report also says, “[The member stated] that the hybrid model opened up the possibility for people with disabilities to run for office even though their health or disability might have prevented them from doing so in the past. She considered it to be critical to work towards a more equitable and accessible Parliament.” This is a concrete example of how hybrid sittings can reduce the barriers for women in the House of Commons and also reduce barriers for those contemplating running for elected office in the future. I will now turn back to PROC's 20th report to highlight testimony provided by the Samara Centre for Democracy. Sabreena Delhon, executive director of Samara, recommended the House of Commons maintain hybrid proceedings for both the chamber and committees. The PROC report includes Ms. Delhon's testimony, which states: ...a variety of minority communities are currently under-represented in the House of Commons. These groups include women, people from [the] LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous people, and visible minority communities. Samara’s research has shown that members of the House from under-represented groups often [feel] alienated in Ottawa. Ms. Delhon stated that if these members had more opportunities to work from and within their communities, it would reduce the feeling of alienation that they may experience in the House. She also noted that, in the long term, offering the option of hybrid participation could encourage [Canadians] from under-represented groups to not only enter into politics, but [to also remain members]. Ms. Delhon's testimony suggested that hybrid sittings allow the House, “to be more inclusive and representative” and to demonstrate to those contemplating a career in politics “that Parliament is a flexible, responsive, contemporary work environment that is committed to attracting, retaining and supporting top talent”. The report also states that, furthermore, “Samara’s research has shown that constant travel takes a mental and physical toll on members”, particularly those whose constituencies are far from Ottawa and are perhaps located in rural or remote areas that are difficult to access. Reducing the frequency of travel would improve physical and mental health outcomes. This would, in turn, help people to continue functioning at a high and effective level for the constituents whom they represent. I commented, at the beginning of my remarks, on the use of the app in being able to vote and the use of Zoom for MPs who, for whatever particular reason, are unable to physically be in attendance here in Parliament. Some of my colleagues travel from the interior of B.C. or rural Alberta or northern Ontario. Particularly when they have the option and are thinking that they have been in Ottawa for two or three weeks in a row, and the next week there are some family or personal obligations and things they need to take care of in their riding, they can work from the riding. That reflects modern-date society, and it is one of a few reasons that the permanent changes to the Standing Orders should go forward. Again, I say this with a great deal of thought and empathy, because I very much, personally, enjoy being here in Parliament. I very much aim to be here when the House is sitting. I do try to go home on Fridays, so I can see my children earlier than usual. The changes we have put in place for the hybrid Parliament are allowing me to do my committee work on a Friday morning from my office, effectively as usual, much like all MPs. However, it has allowed me that flexibility to quickly go home and help my wife with duties, including picking up one of my children from day care and the others from elementary school. That flexibility is what we need to incorporate into the House, but always with guard rails such that we ensure that members try their utmost to be in the House when they need to be in order to vote in person, to be at committee in person, and so forth. It is great to see so many of my colleagues this evening.

1738 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/13/23 8:54:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech. I noted that he articulated a number of conveniences and a number of combinations of duties that a member of Parliament can undertake through a hybrid setting. Would he acknowledge there are downsides and some risks to the traditions? Those traditions have come about for certain reasons. Would he acknowledge there is a diminishment of accountability with a hybrid system?

76 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/13/23 8:55:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington for his question. We have many mutual friends in the area. I know the hon. member is a long-time farmer in the agriculture sector. I have a great deal of respect for everyone in the agriculture industry across this beautiful country and for what they do for us. The permanent changes to the Standing Orders have provided a balance to ensure that members' asking questions, accountability and transparency and being there for our constituents are maintained. We always need to ensure that our democracy is robust. Our democracy is there for Canadians to participate in. The permanent changes to the Standing Orders in Government Business No. 26 reflect modern-day society but also reflect maintaining accountability and transparency that every Canadian from coast to coast to coast demands.

141 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/13/23 8:56:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He seemed quite calm when talking about this evening's debate. It is good to tone down the debate a little. Before being elected, I worked in a pulp and paper mill. I followed the three-two-two-three model. I will explain. I worked three day shifts, had two days off, worked two night shifts, had three days off, worked three night shifts, had two days off, worked two day shifts and then had three days off. I worked weekends, nights and days. I worked at least 12 hours a day and sometimes 16. Before that I worked on film sets. I worked all summer, 20 hours a day, on American sets. It never stopped. I am probably one of the few politicians here who sees more of his family after being elected. I must be one of the few, because I go home every weekend. This motion is poorly drafted. The government did not come to see us. When considering changing the way Parliament works, the government must discuss it with all elected members. We are not necessarily against the hybrid model, but we were not consulted. Here is my question: Why is it that, when they want to make such a big change to the way we do things and how Parliament works, they do not come to all the elected members of the House to discuss it and come up with proposals everyone can be okay with?

249 words