SoVote

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

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

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

Jun/13/23 10:36:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to me, the job of MP is not a normal or usual job. We are seeing that this evening. We are all going to be here until midnight, when we started at seven or eight this morning. That is not normal work. This openness to hybrid Parliament is an exaggeration or maybe even an abuse of power by the Liberal government. We accepted an employment contract that had us spending roughly 50% of our time in our ridings and the other 50% in Ottawa. Suddenly, the Liberal government says that this is not working anymore. To help the NDP members who live far away, the government is going to make some changes. Obviously this really bothers me because this is not the job I signed up for. I would make two suggestions, Madam Speaker. The first would be that you also be allowed to be Speaker remotely, in a hybrid model. Why not? There are no limits, under the current proposal. The second—

166 words

Hybrid

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/13/23 10:37:49 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on a point of order.

21 words

Secretary

Mr. Chris Bittle

Jun/13/23 10:37:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the topic of Standing Orders, we are not supposed to have props in the House of Commons, and showing a party logo on the back of one's paper to the camera is using a prop.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/13/23 10:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Indeed, everyone knows that partisan logos are not allowed. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

20 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/13/23 10:38:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders of the House, it is not a prop. I believe that we must not go too far or too quickly, and that we must do things properly. I was elected by the people who sent me to the House and who pay me a very good salary. I am well aware that people pay me to be here in the House, and this salary comes with sacrifices that we must accept. I do not see how I could explain to my voters why I should be able to work at home every other day rather than coming to Ottawa, when the contract I have with them is to come here to do my job.

121 words

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

Jun/13/23 10:39:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech. He knows that I really enjoy working with him. However, I must correct certain facts. First, we have been working in hybrid mode for three years. It is not like this just started yesterday. There are still improvements that need to be made for the interpreters, but it does work really well. We know that because the Conservatives use it just as much as the other parties, if not more. Second, we discussed it for a year at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. When Parliament asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to do this work, it carried out a year-long study. There was a great deal of consultation, and the Conservatives know as much about it as the other parties do. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical about the Conservative Party's statements.

156 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/13/23 10:40:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to give an example to show why it is important for us to be present in the House. Tomorrow evening, I am going to offer MPs the chance to watch a documentary on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. All parliamentarians have been invited to join me to watch the documentary, to see what happened to residents and what caused the tragedy. Unfortunately, some parliamentarians will not be here and will not be able to attend the screening. Why? It is because they are currently in their ridings, instead of being in Ottawa to ensure that they are properly informed and up to speed on the issues that concern all Canadians, particularly those affected by tragedies like the Lac‑Mégantic disaster, for example.

131 words

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 10:40:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. I would like to ask him a question. I think that his speech, as valid as it was, did not identify the problem properly. Let us think back on the history of innovation in the House of Commons, like when microphones were brought in in 1957, or television cameras in 1977, and then simultaneous interpretation. Why does my colleague not see hybrid Parliament as another step towards innovation to reform our democratic institutions?

91 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/13/23 10:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I challenge my colleague to tell me, of all the changes he has just noted, how many of them were imposed through the will of one party. How many of those changes to our rules were made by one party, without consensus from all members of the House?

50 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 10:42:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening to participate in this debate on Motion No. 26. I will be splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants. It is my pleasure to participate in this debate tonight because, for me, this is a deeply personal issue. Since being elected in 2019, I have served on the procedure and House affairs committee with many great colleagues whom I am proud to work with every day on that committee. I was a part of the early debates that happened when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Obviously, our government was intent on continuing to serve Canadians through the pandemic, but it certainly recognized that coming back to the House of Commons at a time when there was a highly communicable disease spreading across the country putting Canadians' lives at risk, we did not want to be a further vector for the spread of that disease. For us, it was imperative that we not come back to the House of Commons physically, but rather work towards innovating and modernizing Parliament in a time of crisis to ensure we could continue to pass legislation, have parliamentary debates, and fulfill our roles and functions as members of Parliament. That, to me, was really important work we did. During that time, of course, we had very lively debates with members of all parties. In particular, I found the Conservatives to be ideologically committed to being back in these green chairs, despite the fact it could potentially spread COVID-19 across the country by us coming to the same physical location, then going back to our communities, and travelling back and forth. It was pretty clear that it just made no sense. However, for some reason, the Conservative Party wanted to criticize the government in public by saying that we did not want to do the work, while trying to tie our hands behind our backs by not allowing Parliament to function in a hybrid format. We had very lively debates where Conservatives tried to filibuster using hybrid, even in the worst crisis for many in our lifetimes. It is consistent with their approach, I have to say, to see them here today opposing this motion. However, I just see it as an opposition to innovating and adopting tools that every other industry has adopted. It seems to me that Parliament needs to modernize to the same degree other industries across Canada have, and within every industry, they are utilizing these tools. We know that Canadians recovering from the pandemic in many of those industries and in many of those jobs are utilizing digital tools to work remotely. This is not to say that I do not recognize the value of being here in person. I actually choose, as many members of Parliament do, to participate in parliamentary debates and proceedings. If I were to take the Conservatives' position, it seems to me that they thought that, if we introduced remote working capabilities for Parliament, no members of Parliament would ever show up in the House of Commons. However, what we have seen is the opposite, which is that members of Parliament generally wish to be here and prefer to be here, and there are many good reasons for that. That does not preclude the fact that members of Parliament would like the option to be able to be in their ridings. What we heard at the procedure and House affairs committee, while undertaking this work to look at whether hybrid provisions in Parliament and the changes that are proposed to the Standing Orders should continue, we actually considered and heard from many witnesses, considered many options, and had, again, very lively debates. Unfortunately, we saw the Bloc switch positions. Its members were originally supportive of hybrid provisions, but they switched their position. I am very happy to see that NDP members have stuck with their arguments for how hybrid proceedings make Parliament more inclusive and representative, and they acknowledge the many benefits that we can retain as a result of having these options for members of Parliament. Why is this so important? It is because it modernizes Parliament. The Inter-Parliamentary Union did detailed research. It has done several reports looking at parliaments around the world. I will mention stats from its extensive report in 2022. It has done statistical research and said, “84% of parliaments [have become] more innovative” as a result of COVID-19. It said 51% of parliaments around the world have held a virtual plenary sitting, and 77% held a virtual committee meetings. It also said, when surveying members of Parliament from around the world, that 88% of members agree that members are more receptive to new ways of working and 80% of members of Parliament trust digital tools and are more likely to use those digital tools as a result of the innovations that came out of COVID-19. The report says, “The research shows parliaments going through a phase of embedding innovations emerging from the...pandemic and institutionalizing new ways of working.” They do not see this as a one-off event. It states, “rather, it has been a catalyst for change that will lead to ongoing and incremental improvements in parliamentary functioning. Innovation and strong leadership are vital”. It talks about strong leadership being vital. The report from the Inter-Parliamentary Union recommends that parliaments around the world take a careful look at the innovations and modernizations of the pandemic to see what can continue to augment and enhance members of Parliament's ability to do their jobs. Before I move on, I will mention more from the report, which I think is very useful for this debate. It talked about business continuity planning being so important and how many parliaments around the world did not have an adequate business continuity plan. In fact, as a result of the pandemic, they actually modified and enhanced their business continuity planning, which makes parliaments more resilient in times of crisis. Members of Parliament are able to participate in debates in those moments of crisis. Business would continue. The business of democracy and the business of the nation would continue despite many of the different types of crises we experience today. We can think of floods, wildfires or many of the other crises we have been going through as a country. It is imperative that our Parliament can function. We also heard from members of Parliament in the PROC committee who came before the committee and testified about their various family situations and the length they had to travel across the country. Many of them are going through compounding health issues and wanting to exercise their parliamentary privilege to participate fully on behalf of their constituents. Our House leader put it really well. He said we do not have a problem with MPs not working hard enough around here, and I think that is true. Members of Parliament, from what I have seen, work hard every day. They are giving 110% or 120%. They are here until midnight or one o'clock in the morning. They are participating in so many different activities on behalf of their constituents. The tools we are here to debate, and hopefully they will continue indefinitely, really enhance our Parliament because they not only enable it to be more inclusive and representative, but also ensure that business continuity can continue and Parliament can continue to function. It also accounts for a compassionate, modern workplace that allows members of Parliament and the way that Parliament functions to compete, in a sense, with other industries that have modernized as well. I appreciate this debate and the opportunity I have had to participate this evening.

1295 words

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

Jun/13/23 10:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respectfully, I am quite struck by some of the language the member used, like that we have to modernize like other industries. We are not actually just an industry. We play a critical role as the deliberative heart of a nation, which is not an economic activity. It is a fundamental cultural and political activity. It is also not correct to say this is happening in every industry. There are plenty of people who, by the nature of their job or because they are involved in physical work, such as pilots and members of the military, in many cases do not have the flexibility to not be in a particular place at a certain time because that is what is required for the job. Of course in every space we look for ways of modifying that work and function well. I support, for instance, the voting app. It is a reasonable modification. However, it cannot be ignored or glossed over that fundamentally something is lost when one is sitting down speaking to a screen compared to when one is participating in deliberation in a chamber as we are. Does the member acknowledge that?

195 words