SoVote

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

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

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/13/23 10:24:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Alberta on being able to bring the issue of guns into the issue of a hybrid Parliament. Well done on his speech. I listened to his speech and he talked about what is being lost with a hybrid Parliament. I recognize that he feels that this is the case, but I want him to consider those things that are being gained and I want him to perhaps consider the fact that the world does move on. We do not have Blockbusters any more. There was hockey without helmets before. There was a Parliament that did not have women's washrooms before. I wonder if he could talk about the fact that sometimes things change, that sometimes they change for the better and that we need to be able to look at how to build change going forward that will make it easier for people to participate in our democracy and make it easier for people to participate in our—

169 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/13/23 10:25:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

8 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Jun/13/23 10:25:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Parliament is for us to come here and serve the people who elected us to come here, and not to come here and serve ourselves and make life easier for ourselves. That is what is missing. We are here as the servants of the people; some in this place appear to be servants of themselves.

61 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Jun/13/23 10:26:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe. This evening, in his speech, with his parliamentary experience, he talked about the many years he has been a member here, both on the opposition side and the government side. He learned to operate within this parliamentary life that calls for a lot more than just standing up, giving speeches and sharing his positions. Parliamentary life is bringing the voice of the people back home here to Parliament, joining it to the other voices we hear across the country, throughout Quebec, in British Columbia, in the Atlantic provinces, in northern Quebec, to be able to have discussions between colleagues about what everyone is going through. After that, we can make more informed decisions on how we are going to vote, the bills we will support, the discussions we will have in committee. This allows us to see what is happening and what people are experiencing in this wonderful country from coast to coast to coast. Indeed, to me, this is a great country from coast to coast to coast. At present, the government is proposing 50 permanent changes to the Standing Orders, to make permanent a situation that was temporary during COVID‑19. The pandemic was a terrible time. Fortunately, the technology made it possible for us to continue debating. If not for the technology, the government would have preferred that we adopt the majority of laws without debate, without discussion, without committee meetings, because it would have made things much easier for it. However, the technology helped us get through the situation. The technology also has its faults. We see it today with the arrival of artificial intelligence. People believe that it may revolutionize the world and help everyone, but it is raising many concerns. Hybrid Parliament is not without its faults. The main fault of the 50 amendments that the government is proposing to change the way members work together in this chamber to make Canada a better place is the fact that these changes will impose a new way for the House to carry out its work, breaking a tradition that goes back many years. Major changes to how we work in the House are usually made by consensus. A consensus means that we agree, that we are working together. This can take time. It can take a while, especially when we are talking about opposing political parties that are not always on the same wavelength. One thing everyone must understand, however, is that we are all here to represent our constituents. We are all here to stand up for our values. We are all here to stand up for our principles in our various political parties. We are on the parliamentary playing field, where we exchange ideas and where these exchanges have been going on for decades in a relatively specific way, based on rules that sometimes seem a bit exaggerated. It is precisely the role of parliamentarians to try to convince other parliamentarians that their point of view is better than any other one. That is how it works. These are the kinds of discussions that should normally take place to amend the Standing Orders. We should have taken the time to do that. Yes, today's technology allows us to do things that were not possible before. However, these changes should have been made by consensus. All parties should have had time to submit proposals. As long as we do not all agree on a change, we wait and put it off until later. In terms of the voting app, we nearly reached a consensus. We were almost there. That could have been one change. The first change that could have been made was the remote voting app. We support using this application. I know that my Bloc Québécois colleagues were somewhat reluctant to extend it to all votes, but it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, in committee, when the time came to continue these discussions, one party—which is in the minority—and another party—which has an even smaller minority—decided to join forces and vote for these changes. They chose to work together to make sure things changed. That was the end of consensus. In the past, there was a majority government. I had just been elected shortly before that. The majority Liberal government tried to unilaterally change the rules in a rather absurd way with a motion known as Motion No. 6. It was moved in response to altercations that occurred between the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party whip at the time. The Prime Minister and the Conservative whip got into a spat and I would say that the Prime Minister practically assaulted him. Then, the government said that it was going to put an end to all this nonsense by changing the rules, but that did not happen because all of the opposition parties stood up and decided that the motion was not up to snuff. Still today, we would expect changes like these to require the consensus of all members of the House, particularly given that the government is in a minority position. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I would even say that the Liberals are braver than usual because they have the support of the NDP. Why are they braver? They now know that they form one party and they have the support of another party; with two out of four parties, that should be enough to change the rules. Canadians will probably not really realize that the government did not listen to the majority of the House, that we did not work on consensus. This emboldened the Liberals and made the NDP forget their role as opposition. The NDP basically decided to become a full-fledged member of the government in many ways. These changes to the rules are probably part of some negotiation between the Liberals and the NDP to get things that we saw in the budget and to get all sorts of other benefits for a very minor party that is doing business with a party that has a few more members. That is where we are at. The NDP members are forgetting that they are members of the opposition. They are letting the Liberals do the dirty work of changing the rules without reaching a consensus, but there is one thing the NDP is forgetting. Their party is going to remain an opposition party. There will be a change of government, but they will still be in opposition. That is just the way it is. Unfortunately, the party will have to relearn how to become an opposition party, just under the rules it agreed to change when it decided to support the Liberal Party. It will pay for that, one day. Unfortunately, in the meantime, democracy is paying the price. Democracy pays the price because the hybrid Parliament is a form of Parliament that we are just getting to know. We should have had more time to do a full cycle and look at the pros and cons and come to a consensus. That is why the Conservatives proposed setting an end date, but not just some random date we pulled out of a hat. We are proposing that the temporary measures come to an end one year after the election of the next government. That would give the next government enough time to see what worked and try to come to an agreement with all parliamentarians on whether the changes should become permanent. This is not something that should be done at the last minute, as my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said earlier. This is not something that should be done at the last minute as the summer looms and all the bills are being rushed through with the Liberals' gag orders. We must operate by consensus. That is what gives the Standing Orders longevity. Imposing changes opens the door for successive governments to make changes to the Standing Orders. They will believe that anything goes because the Liberals will have broken the basic rule. According to the Liberals, when they want to change how we work in a democracy, how parliamentarians vote and do their job, there is no need for a consensus and they can do it provided they have one more member than all the other parties. Unfortunately, it is an NDP member this time. How sad. I believe that it would be better for the Liberals and the NDP to say that they have heard the official opposition and the other parties, that they will take a break, pause this reform and try to obtain a consensus. Small steps take us further than a giant leap into the void.

1476 words

Quebec
Covid