SoVote

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

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

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/13/23 10:06:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a lot to say about that. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we do indeed work in a collegial manner. As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois lead with our conscience. We analyze whether something is good for Quebec, for our values. If it is, we vote in favour. If it is not, we vote against it. That is what happened at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We voted for what is happening right now, which is the real defence of democracy. We are talking about the hybrid Parliament, and democracy means consultation. We used resources to consult experts and obtain results in order to establish a possible hybrid Parliament with rules. That is being trampled on. With just a few days to go before we rise for the summer, all of a sudden a motion is being rushed through, without any real consultation. Once again, consistent with the list I provided earlier, I am unfortunately very disappointed in the government.

183 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/13/23 10:08:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize very much to my colleague that I am not speaking French, but it is late in the House tonight, and my French is not up to the task. However, I work very well with the member on the ALS caucus, and I appreciate the work she does in the House very much. Obviously, I do not agree with some of the things that the member has brought forward, but one of the things I am worried about is the health of our interpreters and the health of the people who are working to support us. It is a challenge for me and something that I struggle with, because I do not understand how the Parliament of Canada cannot adequately resource the committees for the work that we need to do. This is something that we need to get to the bottom of, and I think that there are solutions there. I strongly believe in a hybrid Parliament, because I strongly believe that it makes it easier for women and others for whom it may not be as easy to be in this place. It makes it easier for them to be represented here. I think that is one of the most important things that we can do as parliamentarians. I wonder if the member could talk about the fact that we do not have the resources necessary. Quebec is a lot closer to Ottawa than Alberta is. Certainly, for me, having a hybrid Parliament is really important. Is there a way for us to come up with the resources necessary to make sure that a hybrid Parliament could work?

273 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/13/23 10:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, I am very concerned about our resources. When we visit other Parliaments, it is clear that their staffing requirements are different, given that we have two official languages. In fact, what worries me is all the damage that has occurred with the use of Zoom and the resulting acoustic bursts. All the partners who met with us said that the education system needs to be involved upstream, to ensure there are sufficient resources. What is more, when people are working in hybrid mode, they work differently. The equipment is not the same. Honestly, to go one step further, if our official languages are important, if French is important, if we want quality discussions without interruptions, that is another reason to use the hybrid mode sparingly.

129 words

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

Jun/13/23 10:10:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the wise member for Mégantic—L'Érable. This is a job like no other, as I am sure all members in this House can attest. There really is nobody who understands what we do other than those of us who have had the good fortune and the humble honour of serving here. It is, in and of itself, an enigma. The role of an MP is, by proxy, a social one. Not only do we engage with our constituents, but so too do we engage with each other in this House, in its committees and even outside of this chamber. The uniqueness of our institution is reflected in its rules, which are the Standing Orders. The government is proposing to change 50 of them. This would make the temporary changes to our Parliament regarding hybrid proceedings, brought on by the COVID–19 pandemic, permanent. This is no small matter, as it is one of the largest overhauls of the rules governing the House of Commons in our history. With respect to our position, Conservatives are advocating for the return to in-person proceedings while maintaining the voting app. The Liberals should not be making these changes without the consent of the other opposition parties. Their will to do so indicates that these changes are not being put forward in good faith. Since Confederation, the business of the House has always been conducted in person. This was, of course, a necessary condition because of the limitations of the technology of the time, although the idea of Sir John A. Macdonald or Wilfrid Laurier debating on Zoom is an amusing one, if we consider it. However, despite these technological limitations over time, there has always been good reason for the business of the House to be done in person. Some of these reasons are obvious, and others might not be. The provinces have all understood this. That is why not a single one of the 10 provinces of this Confederation have maintained hybrid proceedings. I will start with what should be plain to most, which is the concept of accountability within the parliamentary system. The role of Parliament is to hold the Prime Minister and the executive, which is made up of the ministers of the Crown, to account. This is a process that I have witnessed, over the last 18 years, to be most effective in person. I have had the luxury of watching 15 years of in-person sittings and a handful of years of hybrid sittings. The difference is stark. Being an effective parliamentarian takes more than just firing up our computer and logging in. All citizens can do that, but it does not automatically make them parliamentarians. An effective parliamentarian works behind the scenes, as well as in the limelight of the House of Commons, committees or media scrums just outside these doors. I would humbly argue that, as important as giving a speech in this place is, it is hardly going to be the catalyst to change people's opinions and minds on a matter that is before the House. That requires legwork, convincing and behind-the-scenes conversations in order to build what I call the “sphere of influence” that we all have as parliamentarians. We gain our appointed authority by winning an election. Our power as parliamentarians comes from building relationships and influence with each other and with the broader Canadian public. It comes from bringing that influence to this place, convincing our colleagues of ideas and changes that are in the best interests of the nation. I would argue that this would be impossible to do if a member were not able to resist the temptation to stay home and just tune in via Zoom to the House of Commons, check the box that says they were there, make a speech that they could post on social media, wash their hands and call it a day. That is not a day in the life of a parliamentarian. Madam Speaker, you have been here for a long time too. You know of what I speak. Furthermore, Canada is a diverse country with many regions. It is via gathering in a common place that, as parliamentarians, we have a unique chance to learn about other regions of this massive country. I am looking across at my colleague from another party, who is from virtually the opposite end of the country; we are culturally quite different, but I do not doubt his heart is just as Canadian as mine. We would never have the opportunity to chat, to end up at maybe even a range where firearms are being used lawfully and have conversations about the greater good of the nation. Even though we might be quite different in different parts of the country, we have opportunities to break bread and to rub elbows together. This is where good decisions are made. When Canadians go to the workplace, they have water cooler exchanges and conversations at the coffee pot, for example, at the back of a committee room. This is where good discussions happen. Parliament takes this concept and expands upon it to a much greater extent. It is what makes this job so unique, so much fun and so challenging. Members of Parliament may have discussions after their time in the House and in their committee assignments to informally discuss these issues. It could even happen from time to time that we cross paths at a local pub after the day is done. That is where the real honesty, I think, happens. These discussions go on across party lines and within our own party. I do not know how it happens in other caucuses, but sometimes, I hear things in my caucus that make me go back to the coffee pot and ask whether I heard correctly what I thought I just heard. That is what matters, and that is what is lost. I am encouraged that, in spite of the fact that we have had hybrid Parliament, we do have a relatively large attendance rate here. However, if we enshrine these changes and codify them permanently, there could be changes to this institution. If the effect on this institution that comes to pass is the same as I have seen from the decisions of the government on our other institutions, then I am afraid that this is not a good decision for our institution. Members do not have to take my word for it. Our former colleague, Wayne Easter, for those who want to take to Twitter, has a seven-part series of tweets that basically call out the government and the caucus that he once belonged to for making this change permanent. He tweets that MPs have a responsibility to be present in the House, not be relaxing at home or even attending something in the riding. Constituency weeks are constituency weeks, and Parliament weeks are for Parliament. That is just one example of the common sense that we must adopt in this place. I encourage my colleagues in this House to just pause and think about the traditions, think about the history and make sure that we are actually moving in a direction that protects the sanctity of this institution and the country that stands upon it.

1236 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 10:21:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things to take in. What we have just heard was a very dramatic exposé about the horrors that hybrid could offer in the House. For anyone at home who might be wondering, as a mom of young children, I can assure them that if I am ever participating in hybrid at home, I am not relaxing. It is very hectic, and we all have to juggle a lot of things. It is certainly not something that I like to do very often. I am a chair of a committee, so I am here in person absolutely as much as possible. I would like to ask the member about accountability. Let us focus on that. Are there existing mechanisms to ensure that this could function without coming to these extreme examples of the traditions of the House possibly falling apart?

147 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Jun/13/23 10:21:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this was the argument that was presented by some who came before the procedure and House affairs committee, but I will just refer to another couple of the tweets from her former colleague, the Hon. Wayne Easter, who has spent years in this place. He said, “If you don’t want to work in Ottawa during the parliamentary sessions, don’t run to be an MP.” It seems like harsh language, but I will go back to the comments that I have made before. I have watched decisions made that I consider to be absolutely damaging to the interests of this country because MPs were operating in individual silos on Zoom in their constituency offices, with a general inability to reflect with each other about the decisions being made in this place. I will go back to 15 years prior, to when I first witnessed hybrid. I had never seen such disastrous decisions being made, because when we were all here and we were all together, we had to work together and we made better decisions. It is the ideas that come together, the bubbling up through the discussions that we have in this place that make this country great.

206 words

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

Jun/13/23 10:23:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have had many hours of debate. I was wondering about something. I have to confess that, in my two short terms, I have sat the same number of hours in person and virtually. I therefore have little experience in terms of knowing all the benefits. Considering that my colleague from Alberta has many more years of experience, I am hoping he can help me understand why a decision as important as this is coming to us at the end of a parliamentary session, even though our committee tabled it back in January. Why is this happening?

106 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Jun/13/23 10:24:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is nothing that justifies urgency more than leaving something to the last minute, when closure can be invoked in the name of getting something done before the summer session. I would suggest to my colleague that this is not an accident. This is simply loading up the agenda at the end of the parliamentary session and getting through it as quickly as possible, with as little debate as possible, so that Canadians do not actually have the time, through their elected representatives, to get the full circle of what is being discussed and debated, and by the time everybody figures out what has happened, it is too late. My colleague down the way should never fear, because there will soon be a Conservative government that will fix this great nation.

133 words