SoVote

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

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Jun/13/23 8:59:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being elected by the good people of Saskatoon West in 2019 and again in 2021. My focus has been on what policy changes I can make as an MP to improve the lives of people in Saskatoon. Representing voters is a big responsibility that I take very seriously. There are issues like affordability and allowing people to keep more of their paycheques by reducing taxes, like the double carbon tax scheme that will add 61¢ to every litre of fuel. There are issues like crime, and making sure violent repeat offenders are put in jail and not repeatedly given bail. Also, there is providing more focus on addictions treatment instead of handing out free drugs. There are issues like lowering inflation, building more housing, allowing newcomers to work in the field in which they have been trained. These are the policy changes I have been focused on. I did not expect to spend time on a motion like this one, providing virtual options to make the lives of MPs easier. I want to make the lives of ordinary Canadians easier. I am not worried about making my life as an MP easier, and I would argue that virtual Parliament has the potential to make it worse for MPs. Indeed, virtual Parliament was my introduction to becoming a member of Parliament, as COVID hit shortly after my first election. I did not have the prepandemic opportunity that many of my colleagues had to meet other MPs in caucus, attend committee meetings in person and make direct friendships within their party and across the aisle. Therefore, when an issue arose, the person I needed to talk to was often at home instead of in Ottawa, making it much more difficult to connect with them. For example, there was a man in Saskatoon being deported to Uganda. This was an urgent case, because the man is gay, and Uganda considers this a crime with very severe implications, including death. I had to intervene with the minister in order to keep this man in Canada. Fortunately for him, I was successful, but it involved several discussions with the minister. For issues like this, meeting face to face is always better. That is why I believe MPs are elected to serve and do the job they were elected to do to represent their voters in Ottawa. To me, it is not acceptable to “mail it in”. I am sure most people watching have no clue what Standing Orders are. Basically, they define the rules on how Parliament functions, what is allowed and not allowed, and how proceedings must be done. However, the motion before us would change the Standing Orders to permanently allow virtual options. This would affect things like voting, speaking, remote participation, how to file paperwork, etc. For example, the Standing Orders allow individual members of Parliament 60-second statements each day before question period begins. Standing Order 31 would be one of the affected Standing Orders if this virtual Parliament motion is adopted. Perhaps I should demonstrate, for those watching at home, what a member’s statement is by actually delivering one on a topic such as our upcoming national holiday: “Mr. Speaker, Canadians are coming together on July 1 to celebrate Canada Day. In Saskatoon, this means sunshine, barbeques, and fireworks. Canada Day is a day we spend with our families, our friends, our neighbours and even people we may have met just that day, to celebrate our country, our province, our city and ourselves. In Saskatoon, we are proud to be Canadians. It does not matter what one's ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual identity is; in Saskatoon, everyone is Canadian.” “Indigenous people, first nations and Métis celebrate Canada with us. Newcomers to Canada, refugees, economic immigrants, or those here for their families are all celebrating that they are in Canada. July 1 is truly a day that makes us all patriotic and all equal.” “For myself; my wife, Cheryl; and our two adult children, we know we hit the jackpot because we were lucky enough to be born and to live in Canada.” “I thank all my friends in Saskatoon West and wish them a happy Canada Day.” As members can see, the Standing Orders are a wonderful set of rules that give us, as members of Parliament, the ability to speak to issues that are important to the people who sent us here. The Standing Orders govern how debate happens in the House, and they govern how we coordinate ourselves in committees. Virtual Parliament, of course, has made it down into the committee structure. Conservative members of Parliament understood that while COVID-19 raged, it was important for MPs to keep their distance and undertake committee hearings remotely. However, now we have instance after instance of NDP and Liberal MPs using Zoom to avoid accountability, mute their microphones and look otherwise completely disengaged and bored while in the comfort of their homes during committee meetings. I am not criticizing them for taking advantage of the rules as written; I am criticizing the rules for allowing this behaviour in the first place. This is the failure of virtual Parliament. We, as opposition members, hold the government to account on committees, and yes, these changes to the Standing Orders directly affect how committees function and how they report to the House. For instance, Standing Order 66(2)(c) would also be changed by what the NDP-Liberals are doing here today. This Standing Order affects concurrence debates on committee reports. I will give a little background for those who are on the edge of their seat, wanting to know all about concurrence reports. However, first, I must admit that I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and I have participated in several of these debates since the election. In the past 18 months, I have been able to speak to concurrence debates on Bill S-245 regarding the Citizenship Act, the persecution of Uyghurs and Turkic minorities in China, and the special immigration measures for Ukrainians fleeing the war. In practical terms, what do these specific changes to how reports are concurred in mean to the people of Saskatoon West? Perhaps an illustration is in order. Last week, on June 8, I had the honour and privilege of filling in for one of my colleagues on the status of women committee while it was dealing with two very serious reports in camera. As these reports were in camera, that is to say confidential until made public, I will not comment on what I heard during our deliberations. However, I can say what the topics were, as these are publicly available on the committee website. The first was women and girls in sport and the second was human trafficking of women, girls and gender-diverse people. When these reports are adopted by the committee, they will come to this House, and any member of Parliament who is or is not a regular member of that committee, such as me, will then be able to move concurrence on the report and begin a debate on that issue in this House. This allows members who were not able to take part in these discussions at the committee level to get their thoughts on the record. In these cases, they are both very serious issues that unfortunately only get attention when they make headlines, and bad headlines at that. I do not think any of us who has children, girls or boys, wants our children subjected to any form of abuse when they play organized activities or sports. We hear what happens to young girls and teenagers on sports teams. There are horrible stories that run the gamut, from bullying to psychological abuse to physical assault to, in some cases, sexual abuse and rape. This is totally unacceptable at all levels and must be stopped for all of our children. It must be stopped in organized activities, in sports and in our schools, just as human trafficking of all people must be stopped. Women, girls, men, boys and gender-diverse people are all subject to horrible forms of human trafficking in Canada. While studying illegal border crossings at the immigration committee last fall, we saw time and time again the RCMP begging us for more money and resources to combat this problem. On November 25, I asked the acting commissioner for the RCMP, Michael Duheme, the following question about human smuggling: “How many charges have you laid for smuggling?” He said, “it's a challenge to get them to talk.... The idea is, how do you intercept them beforehand so that you can get them to talk a little more?” This is an issue I am clearly engaged in, and I will bring my expertise to a concurrence debate. I am worried that making virtual Parliament permanent would change how concurrence debates and other parliamentary processes function. Others have raised serious concerns about the workload that virtual Parliament places on interpreters and the resulting diminishing of the French language in Canada. Unfortunately, I do not think a proper study has been done on these issues, nor has proper consultation taken place. People may ask what the big deal is. Lots of people are working virtually now; why not MPs? Take my son, for example. He works in IT and has spent many hours working remotely from home. For him it works because his job mostly consists of sitting at a computer and writing code or responding to emails. My other son works in a potash mine, a physical job that requires his physical presence. The point of all this is that some jobs are better suited to virtual and others not so much. I would suggest the job of an MP is best done in person. It is a job that requires extensive personal contact for success. It also depends on unplanned interactions in the hallway, in the restaurant or here in this House of Commons. I think everybody here can recall a time when a significant moment randomly happened simply because of being present. It is this work, this significant work, that we risk losing or diminishing. Ultimately, what this debate is about is not what is best for me, for the Speaker, for the NDP-Liberal coalition or even for the Conservative Party. It is about what is best for the people of Saskatoon West. It is about how we as MPs deliver the best results for Canadians. As much as I would like to stay home and do Parliament via my computer screen, I know I cannot deliver the best results that way. Being an MP is a person-to-person, in-person job. If we want to deliver the best government possible, I believe we need to conduct our business here in person. I urge all members to vote against these NDP-Liberal measures.

1845 words

S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 9:08:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not disagree with everything the member opposite had to say about the Standing Orders. However, I would like him to comment on the individuals who are present in the House on any given day during question period. All of a sudden, when question period is over and the Speaker is introducing a vote coming up or is reading what the vote is about, people on both sides of the House are exiting like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then later we will see it come up on screen that they voted virtually. They were sitting here in the House before question period ended, yet they scurried out and voted electronically. Would he like to comment on that? I think it is wrong. If a member is here, they should stay here and vote. That is just my own perspective. Whether it is the government's perspective or the opposition's perspective, I do not know, but I would like the member to comment on that particular issue.

172 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Jun/13/23 9:09:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a good one. I think there are a few things to think about here. First of all, and I think this is my point, as we open up the ability to do these things, people will do them; they will take advantage of them. As the member pointed out, it happens in all the parties. I think this is part of the danger. I heard another member speak about measuring this and encouraging members to be in the House. There is no teeth in what is being proposed here to do that, so what I believe will happen is that it will continue to go in that direction. People will just find it more convenient to be home, to not be in the House or even to be in their offices voting, and it is not right. I think the key point here is that I am not necessarily opposed to some of these measures, but what we have not done, and what I think we should be doing, is studying this more intensely to make sure we are making the right decisions. Second, there should be a sunset clause for this. It should be deferred, possibly even to the next Parliament, so it can look at this again and make its own decisions. Those are things that I think are important and that we should be doing here today.

237 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/13/23 9:11:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the member said about the disadvantages of not being able to meet in person, but I have been here long enough to have watched friends and colleagues, before the days when hybrid was allowed, drag themselves in here literally from their deathbeds to protect their work because there were no rules to allow virtual participation. In particular I remember the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Some members here tonight may recall when Mauril Bélanger, whose name I can say because he is passed away, had to protect a piece of private member's legislation. The only way under our rules to do that was to show up here physically. It was painful to watch what it cost him in his dying days to physically be here. I would say to the hon. member that there are so many advantages to hybrid Parliament. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it should not be a default option, but I desperately want to make sure we never again see colleagues suffering with cancer, near death, who feel they must physically be here to do their work.

194 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Jun/13/23 9:12:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and that is why I believe the right approach here is a more thoughtful study of this subject and a sunset clause. As the member mentioned, there may be instances, very specific instances, where this makes sense, but as the previous member mentioned, it would just get taken advantage of. That is why I think that with the way this motion is laid out, it has not been studied enough. There are other options and alternatives we could do to allow people, in very limited circumstances, the ability to do certain things, but there should be an onus and some mechanisms to ensure that, when able, people are here in this House, which is where they should be. We should all be here doing our work.

130 words

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

Jun/13/23 9:13:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech; it could have passed for a Bloc speech. I feel like the Liberal government put one over on us during COVID‑19. We got hoodwinked because it asked for our co-operation and then forced its hybrid Parliament model on us. It is overreaching, and that disturbs me a lot. This government does whatever it wants. This motion is super important. It should have required more than a 50% plus one vote—maybe even unanimity. This is a big deal because it is an attack on the rules of Parliament. It changes fundamental things. It changes MPs' contract with the people. This is a major issue for me, and it cannot go through like this. The fluidity of member-to-member contact here in the House, when we see each other face to face, is a big deal. It is important for resolving conflicts and problems with our constituents and government departments. I would just like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what I just said.

178 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Jun/13/23 9:14:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%, and I think that really points out the core issue, which is that there was not proper consultation. Certain decisions can be made by a simple majority, but other decisions, like the way we run this place, organization and institution, need to be made by more than a simple majority. They need to be made through agreement by all parties because of the significance and importance of those decisions. I fully agree with the member's comments, and that is why I believe we should have had more consultation and should have arrived at a unanimous agreement among all the parties.

106 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/13/23 9:15:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so honoured, as always, to speak in the House and to speak to the nature of our democracy. I have been here for 19 years. I think I always took our democracy for granted, but I realize that our democracy is under threat. Democracies around the world are under threat, and I think we have to frame the fragility of democracy within the debates we have here. Our obligation in taking on government and in taking on legislation cannot be about undermining the fundamental principles of what Parliament has done and what Parliament stands for. I mention that because I was here in 2014 at the time of the horrific killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. I was here during the shootings on Parliament Hill. I remember the lockdown and I remember the trauma. I remember, early the next morning, feeling that I needed to go to the War Memorial just to be there and seeing people from all over the city of Ottawa who felt the need to be there at the site of that horrific killing. I have to say how shocked I was that I was told Parliament was going to meet that day, after the shooting, after the trauma. People were grieving and nobody had slept that night. I remember asking our whip why we were holding Parliament that day. He said to me that we had to show nothing would stop Parliament from working. We went there that day, and that was a really profound moment, one of the most profound moments I have had as a parliamentarian. In March 2020, we were hit by COVID. I remember sitting in the seats as we were starting to learn about COVID and the fear of COVID and not knowing what was going to happen. Suddenly there was a global shutdown. What did it mean when we all had to go back to our communities? The fact that the technical teams of Parliament put together a hybrid Parliament that made it possible to vote and meet so that we met every single day throughout that time, to me, was a really profound moment. I think that all of us as parliamentarians need to say that this was one of the highlights of what we are as a democracy, that even though we were facing the biggest medical crisis in 100 years and people could not be together, democracy was going to keep going. That was a game-changer for me. Out of the hybrid Parliament that we created, incredible tools were fashioned that made it possible to vote and made it possible to hold hearings, things that we did not think we could possibly do just three or four months before or even a month before. The fact that our civil service rose up and managed to get CERB together was an unprecedented victory. I know many civil servants who worked through that Easter weekend in 2020 to make that a reality so that people did not lose their incomes, did not lose their homes. Regardless of our political battles with the government, as parliamentarians we need to say that at times of national crisis, we come together. At times of insurmountable odds, we rise above them. Then we can go back to throwing rocks at each other and kicking sand in each other's faces. However, there are moments when we need to say there are fundamental things that we accomplish. We accomplished the ability, in a country as vast as ours, to hold democracy together. Do we sell that at the side of the road along with a bunch of old hubcaps and old Elvis paintings and say that we are going to have a yard sale, or do we ask how we keep this going? I have been here long enough to remember what it was like when I was first elected. There was a real bravado and machismo culture. We always talk about Parliament being family friendly. It is not family friendly. There is nothing about it that has ever been family friendly. We always said that we wanted to be more inclusive. There was nothing inclusive about it. When I was elected, the stories I heard were about marriage breakups and alcoholism, because people left their homes and people were never back in their communities. When my sister died, I was on the road the next day doing my parliamentary work. I never got to grieve because that was just the way it was. We sucked it up and we did that. What we learned out of COVID was that we all had to see the world in a different light. I want to really stress that what we are discussing tonight is not about us. I know my Conservative colleagues keep talking about people being able to phone it in and sitting at home on their computer. We are talking about the fundamental change that happened after March 2020 and the way all of us had to relate to the world. All of us began to reassess relationships and what we do. From Lucretius, the Roman philosopher, we have what is called the “Lucretius problem”, which is that no one could ever imagine a river larger than what one had seen. None of us could imagine COVID. I remember talking to my staff when COVID hit, saying that we could not keep the office closed for a week, that it was impossible. We never thought we would be two years into it and doing work virtually. We adapted. In that adaptation, in my office, the staff rule was that we keep those phones running no matter what happens. If people called, we would answer them. We were there for them. I remember saying to my staff many times, if they were feeling burned out, to just take the day, go for a drive, do anything, but that we were there to help people. Out of that reality that we lived through, we began to see life in a different way. Many of us realized that some people were way more effective working the phones than having people in the office all the time. This hybrid model was something people got used to. People began to think about their families, about the life they had not had, and said they were not willing to go back to the old way of commuting, sitting in traffic for hours and sitting in their little cubicles. People were demanding an alternate way of doing things to be more effective. I certainly see that with the offices I run. I have a riding that is bigger than the United Kingdom, and I have been noticing how some of my staff have been way more effective with this hybrid model of being able to do some of their intense case work at home and some days going into the office, and that people have also changed how we deal with that. In terms of what we do politically, I think the issue of accountability is hugely important. The ability of an MP to talk to a minister without having to worry about staff is a fundamental of how we do our job. It was really difficult during COVID to be able to resolve issues, because we could not go over and just sit and talk, and do those one-on-one negotiations. It was really difficult at times to do committee work when we could not talk to each other, but we can do that now. At the same time, that does not preclude the ability of people to do their job in a region and a nation where it is 5,000 kilometres for some people to get here to go to work. There is the ability of people to be in their ridings during the fires and emergencies and still be able to vote. The ability of people dealing with loved ones who are sick and dying to be there with them and still be parliamentarians is a profound advancement on the notion of democracy. Democracy is not about a bunch of older white guys like me saying that we roughed it back in the day and so should new members. Democracy is about asking how we can make it possible for other voices and more inclusive voices to participate. That is one of the things the hybrid model has given us. It means that we will be here the vast majority of the time, where we should be, but it also means there is the possibility that if there is something essential for members to be at in their riding, or sometimes essential to be at with their family, they can do that. That, to me, is what we should be talking about. This is not about us failing to do our job. This is about us recognizing the reality that Canadians are also facing. They want to be able to work more effectively in the wake of COVID, and to do it in a way that is inclusive and respectful and also recognizes the life balance that is needed. None of us were able to think about what COVID would do to us, and I do not think that any of us are the same after COVID. I know I certainly am not. COVID changed me. It changed how I saw the world. It also changed my voters. We now deal with issues that we never dealt with before. In my office, in the space of two days, I had to call the OPP. That never would have happened before. Our staff deal with pressures that they never dealt with before in terms of threats, in terms of just the social crisis that we are facing and the mental health pressures. Maybe this is all a bad hangover from COVID, but all of our staff are having to look at this. When I am dealing with the staff who represent me in my offices, I am very much thinking about how I can maintain the service to community, the service to people, while also making sure the protection of my staff is intact. I am really interested in how we actually came together through the hearings on the hybrid Parliament and how we came through the notion of an incredible technological revolution that happened in democracy. It is funny. I have talked to my provincial colleagues, and some of my provincial colleagues are Conservatives. The first thing Doug Ford did was to kill all of that and go back to the old school, the old way of doing it because they wanted to look like they were showing up for work. They were like, “Oh my God, you guys actually get to do that. Do you actually have a functioning hybrid Parliament that works?” Yes, we do. It is about respect for the vast regions of this country, because not all of us can get on a single flight and get to Ottawa. Not all of us can be there all the time. If we are going to have an accountable democracy, we need to be looking at ways of doing this that respect and understand difference, diversity and the immense geographic distances. For me, this is not an issue of praising or blaming government. This is about us as parliamentarians coming together and saying that our larger function is to democracy itself, and to be accountable to democracy means that we have to make sure that people can participate in that democracy. In Canada, that has not always been that easy. As I have said, there was an old school world that I came from and I was very much in that old school world. If someone had said to me that we would have a hybrid Parliament before COVID, I would have said, “Not on my watch. No way. We will stay up and we will vote every night, all night, as long as it takes.” That is what we did against the Harper government, and I was proud to do that, but it is also not something that is sustainable. The fact is that people can do this. I myself, right now, am back home in northern Ontario. I will be heading to Ottawa again next week. I get in the car tomorrow, but we have been through brutal fires in our region and we have had a number of issues. There are issues that have to be attended to by us as parliamentarians. The ability to vote and have the voice of the people I represent heard is, I think, showing that we respect democracy at its most fundamental level, which is that we are just the representatives of democracy for our people. We are there for a time for our people, until our people decide to choose someone else to go in our place, but the ultimate focus of democracy, at the end of the day, is their voices and their ability to know that someone from their region was able to vote, no matter what the circumstances. The hybrid Parliament has worked. We have to give huge thanks again to the translators, who have worked under extremely difficult situations. It has also taught parliamentarians that they are not really the kings of the planet. They have to also be part of a system that recognizes that our translators can burn out and our staff can burn out. Democracy is about that balance. I think we have managed to do that with this. I think this is something that we can all take credit for. At the end of the day, when I go to a committee meeting and the minister is not there and he or she is there virtually, I am not happy. I will say that. I expect them to be there in person. I expect that the government does not exploit this. I think that if we are going to make these House orders permanent, we have to always hold government to account. They do need to show up and they do need to be there in person as much as possible, but it is valuable for us to have this space where people can at times participate virtually from their regions or while they are on the road as parliamentarians, such as for committee work, to know that they can do hearings. Just last week, I had to find myself a library in downtown Toronto to participate in hearings, and it was really exciting to be able to do that, to know that I was still able to participate and I was not cut off from the democratic process, because I had a responsibility to do the work that I was doing while I was travelling, but I also had that responsibility to the people of Canada. I am very pleased that we have moved in this direction. I think Canada could be a model to the world. I will urge my colleagues to really reflect on this. Democracy is in a fragile moment. Democracy is undermined. It does none of us any good to burn the house to the ground to score a point. Sometimes we need to say we can actually all work together. Some days we can do better, and then we can go back to kicking the crap out of the government as per our job as opposition. Let us make sure the system that we built around us is something that is sustainable for the long term, that is inclusive, and that will bring in more people and more voices into a much more diverse Canada. That is the Canada that I want to be a part of.

2639 words

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

Jun/13/23 9:31:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member's intervention today, I was thinking about how, over the last couple of weeks, he has been spending a lot of time in his riding, particularly given the circumstances with the fires that we have seen over the last several weeks throughout Canada. I know his area of northern Ontario was heavily affected. An example for using hybrid Parliament could not be more importantly illustrated than with this member. He was able, from his riding, to be there with his constituents and to be the support they needed, but still deliver their message to this Parliament. Can he share that experience of how he was able to be with his constituents and represent them, but at the same time be functioning in this Parliament? Does he see the benefit of that, having had that opportunity?

143 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/13/23 9:32:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we are representing our people, there are days when it just does not make sense to them that we are not there. There were so many times in my previous life, before COVID, when I was not there for major issues that happened in my region. People did not understand that there was a vote on a private member's bill that I had to be at. How do I tell them that? I am still kicking myself for not being at the funeral of Grand Chief Stan Louttit. He was such an important voice in our region, but I was not there because my whip said there was a vote on a private member's bill. I do not even know what we voted on, but I remember I was not there. These are the impossible situations we are put in, in a democracy. We are there to represent our people. We are there for the tough times and we are there for the good times, but we are there to vote. There are times when maybe we can do both and represent a better level of democracy.

192 words

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

Jun/13/23 9:34:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I will say that, as a father of a young family and as someone representing a riding in western Canada, I see personally, from a lifestyle perspective, the advantages of the current provisions, although I have concerns about their impact on this institution. I do support the voting app, because I do not think voting is the same as giving a speech. I want to put to him a question I put to a government member. The biggest problem I have with how things are working right now is the way the resource crunch associated with hybrid has totally undermined the ability of parliamentary committees to be masters of their own domain. Parliamentary committees used to be able to sit when they thought it was necessary for them to sit to do the business of that committee. It meant that if the industry committee was dealing with a crisis related to industry, that committee could decide to sit, fundamentally, whenever it wanted in order to do its work. Now, it is some kind of process involving party whips that determines who gets resources and when. It is not the committees, it is not the members of the committee, and there is not the same ability to actually pursue the work that is required. The parliamentary secretary acknowledged this problem and said we can figure it out at some point. The concern I have is that we have not figured it out. We have had this problem persisting for years. I think it is a fundamental enough problem for democracy, ensuring that parliamentary committees can do their job, that we need to actually consider that when considering how to vote on these provisions. Does the member have concerns about the way parliamentary committees have been constrained by resources and the way they are effectively controlled in their ability to sit by those outside of those committees? Does he think this is a fundamental enough issue to say that we need to fix that problem before we move forward in any way with the rest of these provisions?

355 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/13/23 9:35:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I guess if I were going to speak to the problem, I would say the problem, certainly to some degree, is the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who just loves to filibuster a committee to stop questions on women's rights and would use up every possible parliamentary tool to block the work of committees. The work of committees is about getting answers; it is not about a Conservative member filibustering endlessly because of his opposition to women's rights to their own bodies. I think we are probably in a better position now, in that the member cannot go all night, all week and all month to do a stunt. As for whether it is a very important issue, as in the case of the one that he mentioned the industry dealt with, I would certainly be willing to look at that as a reason to make sure that we had resources for him, but I certainly would not spend any more resources so that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan can run his endless filibusters against women's rights.

187 words

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

Jun/13/23 9:37:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed an unfortunate exchange. There was a good question, but things took a turn and sank into partisanship. That would have just as easily happened in a hybrid Parliament as a normal Parliament but, unfortunately, my colleague's question did not get answered. No one in the Bloc Québécois is opposed to a new form of hybrid Parliament. We have never said that. I repeat. Voting with the app makes things move faster. If someone is on Parliament Hill, they do not have to be in the House. Therefore, we can speed up the process since committees start earlier. There are advantages to a hybrid Parliament, but the format of this hybrid Parliament has not been discussed with all the opposition parties. My colleague talked about democracy, the importance of democracy and the respect we must have for democracy, specifically in relation to a hybrid Parliament. Meanwhile, the other opposition parties have no say. I find that unfortunate. There are people who will have to travel to their riding because of forest fires, for example. I know about that because that is relevant to me in my riding. My colleague is also affected in his riding. Of course we need to be there. There are people who will get sick. We have the technology so, of course, they can rely on the hybrid Parliament. All of that is true. Now, the government's proposed changes to the rules require an opposition party to have 25 members rise in person to block a motion, under Standing Order 56.1(3). That is the entire NDP caucus. We know that the NDP already got a taste of this standing order when Thomas Mulcair was called to testify in committee on the use of satellite offices. The opposition has to give everything and the government does not even have to require its ministers to be in the House. I am asking my colleague why we would accept such a motion without any discussion, when we could all provide our two cents' worth and come up with something quite a bit better than this motion. It is important. It is about the work of Parliament. Parliament is the ultimate representation of Canadian democracy—and that is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. That is not nothing. I am just asking my colleague if we can take the time to discuss this between us and come up with something much better than what is on the table today.

422 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/13/23 9:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I actually thought we were discussing that. I do not know what the Bloc's problem is. Their members did get the chance. However, I was fascinated by what was said by the member of the Bloc who spoke previously. He said the Bloc opposed “50% plus one”. I thought that was fantastic. It is like the Bloc members oppose “50% plus one” when it is about their privileges as members of Parliament, so I am more than willing to discuss their opposition to “50% plus one”. I think the hybrid Parliament would help the Bloc. I certainly think we would hear more from the Bloc leader in the House, but I rarely hear from him anyway. If the Bloc members are serious about this, they would not be using the voting app 80% of the time. Nobody uses the hybrid Parliament more than the Bloc does. I think we are bending over backwards to make it possible to participate. I really appreciate hearing from the Bloc members and I would love to talk to them more about “50% plus one”.

191 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/13/23 9:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have had a chance to amend the proposed Standing Orders with one change, and I would like the member's thoughts on it, although I do not think we would get a chance in this place unless the government makes the change. If we go with the proposed new Standing Order 15.1, the only condition for participating virtually is that the members participating remotely be in Canada. I would love to add “and have submitted to the Speaker of the House the reasons that participation by video conference is preferable”. It is not a tough condition, but there would be greater accountability for constituents if they knew why their members were participating in video form.

124 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/13/23 9:41:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what the question is, but I know that if we were making it possible to participate from outside of Canada, the Senate, which lives in Mexico for most of the year, would love it and would probably have most of the Senate hearings on the Mexican Riviera. That is the best I can answer, but I cannot speak for the Senate.

68 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Jun/13/23 9:42:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since I have 20 minutes of speaking time, I would like to tell my colleague that when I saw the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, I did not actually see her. I will say from the outset that I will be voting against Government Motion No. 26, as are all my Bloc Québécois colleagues. We talked about it and reached an agreement. We are going to vote against the motion in order to uphold the conclusion of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I attended for weeks. I was there for the testimony, the deliberations, all the work. The Bloc Québécois's position takes into account our ongoing concerns, which have arisen from our parliamentary experience since the beginning of the pandemic. The hybrid Parliament was put in place because it was necessary; it allowed us to continue our work. Otherwise, everyone was simply staying home. How did we manage to make this happen? There was a quick, friendly and consensual consultation to hammer out a plan to work together. As the old saying goes, nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. I have no desire to live that way. There is no doubt in my mind that the government is making changes to the Standing Orders unilaterally, without even initiating a dialogue. There has been no attempt at dialogue or discussion with the opposition parties. No one was consulted. Where is the good faith? Frankly, I find it hard to understand why anyone would do such a thing, given everything we have been through at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We managed to adopt a report, although the Bloc Québécois tabled a dissenting report. The report contained several potential options. Mr. Speaker, ultimately, much of the report's contents came from certain witnesses, including yourself. Your suggestions were extremely valuable. Thanks to the agreement with the NDP, the government can pull a fast one on the opposition parties. I look forward to seeing the Liberals when they are in opposition, perhaps under the Conservatives. That is what I am predicting. That might come back to haunt me. Will this motion still be in effect? We will have to see. The fact is, the government should have sought a consensus. We are trying to work together. I can be honest, because the Bloc Québécois is not looking to be in power. We are seeking freedom for our country, Quebec, so I can say that. When people talk to me about partisanship, nonsense and bickering, I can deflect the blame. This motion is going to drastically change the rules of the House of Commons and cause dramatic shifts in the dynamics of the work of parliamentarians. Without informing or consulting all of the other parties about the content of the motion, except, of course, the NDP, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to unilaterally announce on June 8 how the representation of constituents and the debates on the issues that affect them would work here in Canada from now on. Come on. That is a major change. I can see what is happening with our allies, and I think that it would be in everyone's best interest to discuss this together. It requires a lot more respect, but the government is doing this just a few days before we rise for the summer. We finished our study in January. There was plenty of time to discuss it. We would have even had a few weeks before the end of the session. This 42-page proposal will change the way of doing politics in Ottawa and, obviously, reduce the accountability of government members in their roles. I fear for our democracy. It must be protected. It is a hot topic these days. Just today at the procedure and House affairs committee, we spent another five hours talking about foreign interference to save our democracy. I will give some examples. When question period ends and members leave West Block, that is when journalists have access to them. This is important for the people who are watching. If members are in their offices, just a few metres from Parliament, that is a great way for them to hide. Some will say there are other ways. Accessibility and journalistic rights will be violated. I have proof of that, and all the witnesses reiterated it. Would a healthy democracy just allow this? Is this really the direction Canada wants to take? Honestly, I am certain that it is not. As my colleague said earlier, it is a Bloc member who is fighting to defend Canada's democracy. It is unbelievable. As I said at the outset, the government House leader brought this to us a few days before we rise for the summer, with no consultation and no notice. The fact is, he is doing it at the eleventh hour. There comes a point where enough is enough. I am not going to rant and rave this evening. I already did that the other night, but the government could stop taking us for fools. Right now, we are talking about defending and respecting democracy. As I was saying, we have been talking about foreign interference in our elections for weeks. We have been asking the government to protect democracy for weeks. Is the government aware that it needs to restore people's confidence in our system? I would hope so. What has it done? We are trying to figure that out. This is a collective responsibility that we all have as members. We know what we are getting into. I want to see real action. I want to see the government treat members of the House with respect. I am saying “I want to see” because I do not want to say “I would like”. Even though I am feeling a little less positive right now, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, I believe that we can work together. Yesterday, we heard the speech given by the government House leader. He was being melodramatic and telling us stories to raise our awareness. It is impossible to be indifferent to that, but I will repeat that he is not going about this the right away. That is what the Liberals need to understand. I was pretty disappointed to see that the procedure and House affairs committee did not accept the most respectable recommendations regarding the hybrid Parliament. I cannot get over it. With the government and NDP votes, the procedure and House affairs committee rejected a lot of parameters that would have made us more efficient. They were reasonable parameters for establishing and maintaining a healthy parliamentary democracy. The motion had not even been drafted and moved before the government threatened to not suspend the work of the House for the summer until this and at least a dozen other motions were adopted. We must add to that several other things, such as sittings lasting until midnight on several nights, though not all, and the excessive use of closure, more than I have ever seen before, to pass bills. Furthermore, forgotten bills are being put on the Order Paper, the bills that are considered a priority by the government are constantly changing, and briefings are held only for journalists before MPs are informed of the content of government bills and private members' bills. The government also refused to listen to the will of the House when we called for David Johnston to recuse himself from the study of the need for a public inquiry into foreign interference. I could give other examples. After all that, we are told that this is to further democracy. I doubt that is the real reason. When it comes to respecting the legislative process, the government members are truly arrogant. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a number of witnesses said that the hybrid format affects spontaneous connections between members from different parties. As an aside, I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for our colleague, the member for Labrador, who has received a lot of praise, three times now in the House. She was applauded and encouraged. I would love to know how these things are done virtually. This is tangible and real. This is changing the relationships between elected members. The fact that I can bump into a minister in the hallway and talk to him or her about an important issue facing the people of my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, is just as important as oral question period. The informal relationships that we all build with one another help us better serve our constituents. Is that not our job? We know the answer. We all have to be present to do our jobs properly and to serve our constituents. We must never forget that. I am not talking about reforming, reflecting or perfecting. I am talking about coming to an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. I am disgusted by what we are seeing here. The thing that irks me about this debate, as I was saying earlier, is the method the government is using. I am against permanently having a fully hybrid Parliament, but we are not against every idea. There are several that are very good and deserve to be looked at. We should do that by consulting, negotiating and talking, not by having deliberations when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Some are arguing for better work-life balance. There are several good ideas that deserve to be studied to provide more flexibility to members in exceptional circumstances, like those who live in provinces affected by the forest fires. We want in-person voting. Let me say it again, just to be safe. We want in-person attendance to be mandatory during all votes that the government has explicitly stated are confidence motions and during all votes on appropriations. I think that is common sense. We have yet to get a response to that suggestion, but that is because there has not been any dialogue. It should be the same for parliamentary committee chairs. How can the chair sense what is happening in committee, understand and preside over debates if they are not there in person? Imagine the chair of the committee attending virtually while everyone else is attending in person. It has happened before. It makes no sense. I agree that exceptional measures are appropriate, but certainly not in the format we have seen in recent months. Even the Speaker of the House of Commons came to meet with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He told the committee that we had to find the best way of doing things, not just something developed in a rush. We had a few weeks to prepare, because the report was tabled in January. That is not what I am seeing tonight, however. I would like to remind members that, although the summer adjournment is only a few days away, we still have time to sit down together and discuss this. The Speaker also said that there were issues to resolve regarding decorum, the dress code and connectivity. We do not all have access to the same quality of Internet services yet. However, there is nothing about any of that in the motion. We want to ensure that a virtual Parliament will not weaken government accountability by allowing ministers to be absent when things get too hot for them to handle. That is one of our concerns. At one point along the way, most of the ministers were attending remotely. That is why we want to limit remote attendance. The witnesses and commissioners absolutely need to be present for committee meetings, as we saw today. That changes everything. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs just finished meeting. When witnesses appear in person, it is completely different. However, we still ran into some problems. Since the NDP whip was participating remotely, she was unable to see that a motion had just been tabled in person. Those are real-life examples that we cannot ignore. In our opinion, the hybrid parliamentary model has not proven to be the effective parliamentary system that was expected in a country like Canada, which claims to be a model of democracy. The hybrid Parliament, in the form proposed by the government in its amendments document, could jeopardize the parliamentary mechanisms of government oversight set out to protect our democratic institutions. Our allies in other international legislatures told us that they went back to participation in person as soon as possible. I am thinking about the people who are watching us this evening. We are in the House until 12:30 a.m. and parliamentary business is winding down. I implore us to be constructive. Let us prove it. I implore us to work together constructively. The House leaders of each party need to be consulted. A reform of this scope needs to be made without partisanship. When I think about the people who are watching us, I feel like we are giving them a very bad performance. We need to show we can collaborate, show that we are able to work together. I will close by saying that the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and member for Waterloo tabled the committee's report a few months ago, but the government is only now reacting. Why is this being rushed through? Let me put it this way: It is because the Liberals procrastinated. As with so many files, they have been dragging their feet, and now they are in a hurry because everything has to wrap up on June 23. It is doing this at the last minute. This cannot happen again.

2325 words

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

Jun/13/23 10:01:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is a bit rich to say we have been taking our time. That member knows that the challenges of getting anything through the House primarily come from colleagues next to the Bloc, the Conservatives, and the games they play to delay anything getting through the House. That is why this has taken so long. Nonetheless, I heard her explanation of what happened with hybrid Parliament. She says we need to discuss and talk about it, but she sits on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we did talk about it at great length at that committee. Not only that, we have the incredible advantage of having had a three-year pilot project. Since when do we bring forward ideas, legislation or policy where we have had such an incredible opportunity to experience something in real time? That is what we have had here. I am confused about the Bloc's position on this. Her colleagues with her in the House right now were very critical when I was talking about the number of times the Bloc has used the application. On Monday, in one vote, 60% of the Bloc members used the application to vote. They took great offence to that and said that they are not against the voting application, but they are just against the hybrid stuff, yet yesterday the Bloc brought forward an amendment, which was ruled out of order, that talked about certain times when one has to vote in person. Now, I am hearing that member talk about the voting application as though it were something that should not happen at all. What is the Bloc's position? Do those member support the app to vote and not the Zoom capabilities, or do they support none of it at all?

301 words

Hybrid
Bloc

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/13/23 10:02:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will answer all three questions even though they were asked by only one person. First, in my mind, a pilot project must be evaluated for results that can be applied permanently. We had three years of practice. We met with experts. We have a result and that is the report. What I heard from my colleague is that they will not be using all the work we did. It has been shelved. He said that there were discussions. Unless my dear leader slept all through these last few days, there was no communication about what would be tabled, in this case Motion No. 26. I would like someone to show me the proof and I will apologize for my comments. Otherwise, I did not see the leaders consulting and discussing the report or having any constructive consultations. Finally, with regard to the voting application, I will slowly repeat my remarks. Sometimes I definitely speak too quickly for the interpreters. We agree on the application. We used it a great deal. When I talk about in-person accountability, I am referring to confidence votes, which do not happen every week, and supply votes. We intend to use the application for everything else. Are we going to have to say it 50 times? It seems clear enough to me.

222 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Jun/13/23 10:04:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is on the procedure and House affairs committee with me. I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois, although it is funny for me as an Albertan to be saying this, considering what I usually hear from the Bloc Québécois. However, in the matter of foreign interference, which we are studying at the procedure and House affairs committee, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for doing more to defend Canada than the current Liberal-NDP coalition has been doing. Notwithstanding that issue, the issue before the House right now is hybrid Parliament. Just as a note, we have had to struggle to get resources because the procedure and House affairs committee is so busy. We have now learned that we actually have resources for next Tuesday night's meeting, but it has come at the expense of the declaration of emergencies committee because of the lack of resources. We have seen the complete and utter catastrophe, as the procedure and House affairs committee has gone through the study on foreign interference in our elections, because a small group of people in the House, a small majority, the Liberals supported by the NDP— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Blaine Calkins: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the heckling from the member, we have seen the disaster that came from a unilateral decision of members of the House in the appointment of David Johnston as a special rapporteur. Had the Liberals consulted and gotten agreement from all parties, perhaps we would not have the calamity the government now has at its feet. Does my colleague think that, when it comes to hybrid, we should have agreement amongst all parties in the House, rather than just a couple of parties?

304 words