SoVote

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

Jun/13/23 11:09:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of my hon. colleagues in the NDP from Edmonton hit it right on the head. It is a bit ironic that the hon. member opposite is asking this question when his party has been involved in a lot of filibustering. If he wants to talk about resources, he should think about the ad nauseam delays at the finance committee. We just finally got our budget bill through. I sympathize with the member's point. If he feels as though committees do not have the ability to chart their own course, I think that is a conversation about trying to hire additional resources to support them. However, let us not compromise what he admitted was not necessarily a problem. Very few members of Parliament are utilizing the virtual provisions. It is not compromising his ability to hold this government to account. Let us hire more resources if he is concerned about committees, and maybe let us not filibuster.

160 words

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

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

Madam Speaker, we need to have healthy debate in the House. This evening, we are having a healthy debate. Since we are parliamentarians who respect our democracy, we will continue to have this type of calm, healthy debate. Now, I am looking at what is happening today. This debate should have been held before the motion was moved. The member across the way gave us several examples to illustrate why we should adopt the motion on hybrid Parliament. In that case, why did the Liberals not explain, in the parameters of the motion, the situations where it would be appropriate to use the hybrid Parliament? For example, it could be for health reasons or family reasons. Before being elected to the House, I worked at a pulp and paper mill. I also worked crazy hours on set. I was paid a quarter of what we get paid here. The people watching us on television are telling us to do our work the way we used to. Those who have health problems or family problems can use the virtual model, but we need to do our job.

186 words

Hybrid

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/13/23 11:11:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say a couple of different things. If we try to delineate every plausible rationale for why someone could use virtual, we would perhaps be too narrow in its application. Then this question would arise: What about this case? If there is a concern moving forward by a majority of members of Parliament, then we can start to put in parameters such as a certain number of days that could be used virtually, a certain proportion of a caucus that could be— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kody Blois: I have the floor, Madam Speaker. I would ask my colleague to listen to my response. Parameters could be put around this. The member gave the examples of forestry and the film industry. I have great respect for other industries. We do very privileged work in this place that is different from when I used to build pallets at home in Nova Scotia, but the reality is that this should not prevent us from finding reasonable ways to make this place function better.

177 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/13/23 11:12:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague. He has a beautiful suit on today. One of the things he spoke about was making sure that people can participate in this Parliament. I think about representatives in the Yukon and representatives in rural and remote northern communities and how difficult it is for them. It is a very different reality than when we have, for example, people representing ridings in Ottawa. I think it is important that we make sure all of those constituents are equally represented. He brought up the idea that Canadians ultimately choose who represents them. That is the cornerstone of our democracy. People will still be able to vote if—

116 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/13/23 11:13:03 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member for Kings—Hants time for a very brief answer.

17 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/13/23 11:13:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled that the member opposite thinks I have a nice suit on tonight. I will take that compliment. I agree with her that when we look at transportation across the country, in certain places members do not have very easy access to transport to get to and from Parliament. Hybrid is allowing them to be situated to have the same equity and access in this place. I agree wholeheartedly with her comments.

76 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/13/23 11:13:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I begin this debate tonight, I will state that this is not an easy job to do. I will be the first to acknowledge that. I love what I do, and I think every member in this place loves what they do. They have a passion, energy and desire to build a better country. I have been here three and a half years, and like many members, a few who have spoken tonight, I am from the class of 2019. We had a few months of normalcy after the 2019 election. We figured out where the offices and washrooms were. We figured out how things ran here. Then the world changed, both in what we talked about in policy with the pandemic and in how we operated here. There are many different facets to the role we have as members of Parliament. I am thinking of the work we do here in the chamber, at committee and back in our constituency offices on case files. We are present in the community at riding and community events and get feedback. Of course, now that we are out of the pandemic, we are getting to different parts of the country to get the message out from our caucuses and leaders and so forth. However, I will say this. Despite the changes in 2019, we are now, at this point, in this debate tonight, out of the pandemic and back to what I would say is a semblance of normalcy. I knew what I was signing up for in 2019 when I took this job. Every member of Parliament has challenges in the work they do here on the Hill. There is no denial there. There are family responsibilities, circumstances that change and travel as well. I often chuckle that I have a pretty easy commute, being from eastern Ontario, to get back home. It is about an hour and 10 minutes to my riding. I consider myself very fortunate. For me, the member next door in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and members in the national capital region, it is a blessing to get home quickly. It can also be a curse some days, because constituents know I can go back for a passport clinic, a community event or whatever it may be. However, all that said, given the point in time we are at now, when we are talking about the strengthening and protection of our democracy and its integrity and all aspects of that, the debate we are having tonight is fundamentally important to getting the basic stuff right. I am in favour of change. Change naturally happens. I remember being a mayor at the municipal level and having to navigate a lot of that. It is not always easy to do. However, sometimes there is change for the sake of doing something, and sometimes change goes too far. As I was preparing my comments for the debate tonight, I thought of the words of a colleague who is no longer in the House, Wayne Easter. The former member for Malpeque had a great comment on Twitter this week: “Let me put it this way: If you don't want to work in Ottawa during the Parliamentary sessions—don't run to be an MP. A hybrid Parliament made sense during Covid but it should never be permanent. I strongly oppose govt's move to make it permanent.” I could not agree more with what Mr. Easter said on that point, and I am laughing when thinking of his Zoom discussions with the member for Carleton, the leader of our party, at the finance committee. They were certainly navigating some very interesting times. As I share my time tonight with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am reflecting, in a sense, on certain provisions from our side of the aisle. As we have said in our dissenting reports and talked about at committee, some aspects can stay. Electronic voting is an example of that. How we can make that work could be open for discussion, as an example. However, the idea is to be here on the floor of the House of Commons, to travel here and speak on behalf of, in my case, the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry from the perspectives of my riding, my community and my personal lived experience, whatever the benefit may be. That needs to happen in person. I have seen things I take for granted. In the last few months, we have gotten traffic back in our caucus meetings, on the floor of the House, in committee and, yes, in the hallways for the networking and different connections we do at different times of the day. There is a value to being in person. It adds to our democracy; it does not take it away. When we talk about these things, like making permanent the idea that somebody can Zoom in from their home or from their basement, I think we are at a point now where we can be compassionate. We can make changes to help adapt to difficult family situations and circumstances. I think the whips in our parties have given better flexibility over the course of the last couple of years to recognize personal and professional needs where need be. We can keep the core foundation of what we are talking about here. I always joke that we are not normal. Most Canadians watching this would ask what the heck a standing order is. We are talking about the fundamental rules of how this House operates, and I think a way to describe them is they are the character, the tone and the nature of the way we do our business. I am very concerned that we are making Zoom aspects permanent so that people will be able to Zoom in for all of this. Another part that is very concerning is the manner in which these changes are being made, the magnitude of these changes given our normal traditions here in the House and the way we have gone about this generally, with unanimous consent by all parties. We have this motion supported by the Liberals and the NDP. The Conservatives have raised some serious concerns in wanting a difference and the Bloc Québécois has done the same. I cannot say it was for the entire Canadian history and our entire tenure of Parliament, but for the overwhelming majority of the time, changes to the Standing Orders and the rules that govern the House have been done by unanimous consent, by all parties giving and taking, figuring things out, throwing things at the wall, seeing what they can find a consensus on and making changes. Those changes, I think, have been for the better over the course of time, and this has been the best way to build confidence from Parliament to Parliament on these core essential functions. One thing we have in here is a change to have committee chairs in person. I think that would end a lot of the chaos that happens in certain committees. With all due respect, I am thinking of numerous times at the heritage committee that we watched a natural technological filibuster of checking headsets, the chair not knowing what is happening with the committee clerk in the room and somebody calling a point of order. Consider the amount of time lost in a two-hour committee. Members of Parliament here talk about the efficient use of time. Our clerks are there. The interpreters are there. The IT team is there. The amount of time that was lost is probably into the hours over the course of the last couple of years simply because the chair was not in the room. The fact that this is changing is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We talked about having the appropriate resources. When having these Zoom capabilities and all of these things going on, the resources are not backing them up. I have heard several times tonight members of the government say, well, these are all things that could be adjusted and talked about. They should be done in the amendments to the Standing Orders. These things should be figured out now, these guardrails or barriers, to make sure we have protections so that committees can run when a majority of members of Parliament want to meet and they have work to get done, bills to go through, studies to do and witnesses to hear from. Because of a lack of resources, we are shutting things down. That, still two years in, has been acknowledged many times. In all fairness, it is often to the benefit of the government. If something gets contentious and they are starting to negotiate which committee gets cancelled, it is not fair and it is not balanced. To colleagues who say that those are things we could have a conversation about, I would say these things should have been settled and done the way they have been done in parliamentary tradition in this country for many generations: all parties coming to unanimous consent, unanimous agreement, on how we can get to that. Another thing we talk about is that there are some other tools already here that could be used more. If an absence is requested, there are pairing opportunities. There are leaves that can happen. There are tools. We have made a lot of advances here in recognizing the diverse geography of the country. As we have had more parents, different age groups and different circumstances, we have enhanced child care options and added designated travellers. All of these things were done to help make our work better and function better. Tonight, as I wrap up, I think of my comments about these amendments to the Standing Orders. There was a time and a place for Zoom, but now is the time to get back in person. Our jobs are unique. It is an honour and a privilege to be one of only a few hundred members of Parliament in this country. When we speak for our constituents, there is no reason why that should not be done on the floor of the House of Commons. I think of the United Kingdom. I think of the United States. I think of many other countries' parliamentary structures that are similar, like Congress. They are back in person. They are doing the work. They are making it work. Canadians expect us to get back to work in person and get the job done. As our leader likes to say, we need to bring it home.

1793 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 11:23:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member very effectively argued his perspective and I found it very interesting. Something that has come up with some of our Conservative colleagues has been the separation between the voting app and participation in speeches and debate in the House. I would argue that our most important function in the House is actually the voting piece. I am wondering how the member is separating those two and if he could further explain his position on that.

80 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/13/23 11:23:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would actually elaborate on what my colleagues on the PROC committee said in our dissenting report about separating the voting aspect. I have heard more. Again, I wish there was a better opportunity to discuss the amendments. There is a more narrow path on that, but I will go back to electronic voting. Personally in my case, I and many colleagues in our dissenting report on PROC alluded to a compromise, a negotiation that we would have to do. I think that across the country, people are battling illness, people are in bereavement and people have family issues. They probably are not ready for a 10-minute speech on the floor of the House of Commons with questions and comments. They can keep their votes and they can keep representing their constituents and have that balance. There are some tools we can use to modernize ourselves. Now that we are out of the pandemic, I think that Zooming in from somewhere like a home basement to talk about an important issue today when 98% of us are here is not required anymore.

185 words

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

Jun/13/23 11:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my grey hair bears witness to the fact that I have learned certain things in life. One of them is that changes need to be explained and justified. Intelligent arguments must be presented. People need convincing. That is not what I am seeing in this motion. These changes are being imposed and have not been properly thought out. The government should remember that, during the pandemic, we were eager to return to work here after two years. We were glad to see one another and to work together again. Today, we are hearing the total opposite from the Liberals. We are being asked to accept that the work will be done from home under certain conditions that are as yet unknown. That is not what we signed up for. Our voters did not put us in power or elect us to do that. Changing the rules midstream is never healthy. I would like to have—

158 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 11:25:48 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

28 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/13/23 11:25:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc about the different issues and some of them being untested. Yes, we had tested them during the pandemic when we were not able to travel and were unable to get around our communities and do the work that we needed to do. Now that we are in the time frame we are in, I think there are some areas we could have found agreement on, but in this situation we are breaking a massive tradition that has generally held through the entire tenure of a number of Canadian Parliaments over many generations, which is unanimous consent to change the Standing Orders. I go back to say that there are many things we are doing to help parents, help families, help people with health conditions and help people with bereavement. That does not mean we have to allow Zoom to come in. There are some things we can do. There are many things we are doing and there are more that we can do. We were absent from that conversation. It was the Liberals and the NDP who worked together to put this motion forward that we have tonight. It is very frustrating and frankly unnecessary, in my opinion.

208 words

Pandemic

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/13/23 11:26:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say that I also am admiring the member's nice navy blue suit, as it has been a theme of this evening's conversations. Oftentimes in our conversations about the rules of this place, we fail to recognize that many of the rules were designed and set up to keep many of us out of this place for a very long time. I am one of those people. This is not a place that was necessarily built for a woman or for members of many other equity-seeking groups in this place. One of the things that I strive for when I speak to people who are talking about becoming more involved in politics and perhaps running for office is the importance of flexibility and a work/life balance. Certainly for women, who have very many child care obligations, that is a key point. To be able to attract that diversity of candidates who run for positions such as ours is key, and hybrid is a part of that key. Could the member please talk about the importance of that diversity and how we need to provide choice in this place?

201 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/13/23 11:28:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat what I started my speech with. I am the first to admit that this is not an easy job. It is at a high pace, it is busy; it is multi-tasking and it is a heck of a balance between work, life and family, community and all the different balls that we are trying to juggle up in the air. What I will say is that there are many opportunities and that there have been advances that this House has made to make it more family-friendly, to attract a more diverse group of Canadians to represent ourselves in this House. I do not believe in having the Zoom option. I think it takes away from individuals having a better voice. Their voice is best served on the floor of the House of Commons here in Ottawa, working with our colleagues in the House, in caucus, at committee and in this precinct. That is where all MPs belong.

165 words

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

Jun/13/23 11:29:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to address the assembled House tonight on this government's proposal to make permanent changes that it has been tinkering with, experimenting with, over the last number of years on hybrid Parliament, which would allow members of Parliament to address the House both from the floor of the chamber and via Zoom. I think we have a role, as Conservatives, to advocate for conserving the best traditions of our past, but that does not mean that we oppose change in all its forms. It means that we are appropriately cautious, I would say, about change in that we want to ensure that, in the process of changing fundamental institutions and other aspects about our national life, we do not lose things that were important about the previous forms of those institutions, which we were maybe not always fully conscious of. Members of the government and of the NDP have repeatedly asserted that the current system is working. I think many members are relatively new in the House, and I was only elected in 2015. Those who have been here for a long time I think will notice how these changes have fundamentally changed aspects of our institution already and generally for the worse. It is important that we notice the ways in which the current provisions are not working and the problems that they are creating. As we deliberate about what the new rules should be, we ensure that we are pushing for solutions to these problems instead of allowing these problems that the government has created with this new model to simply continue to exist and fester. The most critical concern I have about the way the current approach to hybrid Parliament operates is the way that it has shifted the role and powers of committees in this place. Previously, without the hybrid provisions in place, committees could sit largely whenever they wanted. They had designated time slots, but they had a great deal of flexibility in terms of going beyond those time slots. As a political staffer, I recall times when we were dealing with critical issues in this place where committees would say “We decreed a new subcommittee and that subcommittee is going to meet for five hours Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday night to deal with whatever the issue is.” There was flexibility for committees to do what they wanted to get to the bottom of issues that had to be addressed. Committees could also extend if there was some unresolved issue, and I am thinking here, to some extent, of the filibuster that has been alluded to. Yes, the filibuster is a legitimate technique that is used by all parties. I think Mr. Christopherson of the NDP still has the record for it. We have a filibuster ongoing with the Liberals at public accounts and, yes, from time to time, some people I know in our own caucus may have used that tool once or twice. However, the point is that the filibuster is a tool that seeks to create a balance between the majority and the minority in committee. Generally, filibusters are resolved by committees sitting for extended hours, which forces members who are filibustering to maybe come back to the table. However, when we have hybrid provisions that limit committees to only sit in narrow time slots, it actually makes it much easier for members to filibuster. That is why there has been an explosion of the use of the filibuster by all parties in the House since these rules have been put in place. These resource limitations constrain committees in their ability to sit for extended periods of time to actually resolve conflict that may exist in the context of those committees and to dig deeply into issues of concern for our national life. An example I remember vividly from my career is the process by which the Uyghur genocide was recognized in this Parliament. It was the subcommittee on international human rights sitting for two days solidly, because the committee members wanted to look at the situation of Uyghurs in China. At the end of those two days of intensive sittings, the committee was able to come to a particular conclusion. Now, with the hybrid provisions in place and the resource limitations, it would be much more difficult for any committee that wanted to look in a deep way at any issue to be able to do that. Committees, in order to access resources, need to go to the whips of the various parties who then are able to make determinations about the allocation of resources. So, control over committees is no longer in the hands of the members of those committees to decide when they sit. Control about when committees sit, how they sit, what time slots they have available to them are made by the central controllers of the resources that are going to be available. These central controllers, the whips, in some form, decide if they are going to allow industry, public accounts or foreign affairs to have that narrow slot, and committees have to get that approval to get access to those resources in order to sit. So, the way this place has changed is that committees no longer have autonomy. They no longer have control. They no longer have the ability to delve deeply into issues as required, because it is the central controllers as opposed to the members of the committee who decide who gets resources. I think there has been some acknowledgement that this is a fundamental problem, a fundamental change in the way our institution operates. However, members opposite have said, “Well, this is a problem. We need to solve it, but we should just move forward anyway.” I would submit to the House that we have been dealing with this problem ever since we have had hybrid Parliament. Members have repeatedly raised concerns about it. It may be an issue of available dollars, or it may be an issue of available people who have the experience and expertise to do interpretation. I do not know exactly what the source of the problem is, but the point is that we have been doing this for years, and we still have that problem persisting. I would say, if we are going to move forward with some kind of a hybrid framework, we have to do so in a way that protects the fundamental rights of committees to be able to do their job. That means resolving these resource issues in some way. This is the most important point that I want to make tonight. The hybrid provisions undermine the ability of committees to act autonomously. For all members, in all parties, who care about the functioning of parliamentary committees, we cannot push forward with these permanent changes to the Standing Orders without resolving that issue of committees. I want to make a few other points as well. It is inescapable that a member standing in this place addressing members of Parliament is fundamentally different, in terms of the kind of communication that takes place, than a member sitting at home, in front of their screen, often reading off the screen, and able to completely shut out any other noises or interruptions. The back-and-forth taking place now, as Liberal members gesture and communicate, is part of what has made the House of Commons a great institution for over a hundred years. I relish that. I welcome the heckling. I welcome the back-and-forth. If I were sitting at home, sitting in front of a screen, reading off the screen, and able to shut out any noises from the member for Kingston and the Islands and others, that would be a completely different kind of exchange. Something is lost. Something is being lost in the tone, in the lack of exchange that exists in Zoom calls and speeches. I support the move to a voting app because I think we have seen how nothing is lost in the transition from standing votes to a voting app. However, I think we can see very clearly how a great deal is lost in the quality of exchange that takes place when we go from what is happening right now between members on the floor of the House and what happens when someone sits in front of a screen, shuts out any kind of other sound or noise or interaction, and simply delivers what is front of them. On the issue of family friendliness, I live in western Canada. I have five young children, and this is hard job. There are many hard jobs. There are many jobs in this country where it is simply a reality that, to do the job properly, people have to travel and spend time away from family. There are certain opportunities that we have as members of Parliament that many do not, by the way, and we are able to have our families travel with us from time to time. However, the reality is that there are challenges. There have been ways in the past that the House has accommodated these challenges. There has been the convention of pairing, for example. If a member needed to be away, they would engage a member of another party and both would agree to mutually absent themselves to preserve the balance. Members would cover for each other. This is what happened in the past. However, as we move forward, I think the voting app reduces the need for pairing. Members could still vote. Only one member can speak in the House at a time, one out of 338. If a member needs to be away for a couple of weeks, and they are not able to give speeches but are still able to vote, I think they could effectively represent their constituents for that period of time without being able to speak remotely. We could preserve the flexibility and the family friendliness by having that voting app, while still preserving the idea that speeches in the House of Commons should be delivered from the floor of the House of Commons. Finally, there has been discussion about diversity, about getting people with young families and more women in politics and such by giving more flexibility. However, it is important to note that changes to the Standing Orders the government is proposing still have a preference for members who are in person. It is odd to me that the government says people should be able to participate fully virtually, yet we can see in the changes to standing orders 26(2), 45(1), 53, 56(1), 62, 98 and one new standing order they are proposing, there are many cases where the Standing Orders say that members have to be in person to stand to object to the passage of a particular motion. I think it is quite unfair that the government would say that we are going to bring in more women and more working parents as members of Parliament, yet subtly putting in place, in the Standing Orders, measures that would limit the full participation of those individuals. We need to conserve the critical aspects of this institution that we have had for a long time. We can make some changes, but we should conserve the essential aspects of being in person, especially for speaking and for deliberating. This is the heart of our deliberative democracy, and something is lost with these hybrid provisions, something we need to conserve.

1928 words

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

Jun/13/23 11:39:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member. We were chuckling while he was speaking, but it was not for anything he was saying. It was just for the rich and incredible irony that we were hearing oohs out of that side of the House of Commons, because it was only a short three sitting days ago that the member spoke in the House on Bill C-41 by giving a virtual speech through Zoom. I am assuming he had good reason not to be in the chamber to do that and there was a really good reason he needed to do it by Zoom, and that is what put him in the position to not be able to be here physically. The reality is that, from time to time, all members of this House need the ability to do that. Would the member like to address our concern over his hypocrisy for his speech about needing to be in the House as a member of Parliament when he delivered a full speech on Bill C-41 on Friday on Zoom?

183 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 11:40:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member knows what the word “hypocrisy” means. I have been clear that I think the rules, as they presently exist, weaken this institution. As such, I do not think those rules should be in place. I also believe, though, that it is legitimate for the members to use the tools as they exist. I do not think it is hypocritical at all to observe that these rules should not be in place, but insofar as they are in place, members can use them. The fact of the matter is that a speech is qualitatively different when it is delivered on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why I think all members should endeavour to be here as much as they can and that the rules should maximize the presence of members in the House.

146 words

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

Jun/13/23 11:41:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much parliamentary experience. Soon, I will have been here for a mere four years. However, like everyone else, I have noticed something that even the Liberals who are moving this motion have noticed. For at least two and a half years, there have been major problems with interpretation. There are issues with availability, and the interpreters are experiencing more and more hearing problems. All this irritates me because this motion runs completely counter to that; it does not take into account the interpreters' health and hearing needs. If we care about our staff, we should look after them and look out for them, for God's sake. This motion does the exact opposite. Hybrid Parliament puts a lot of pressure on them. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

141 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 11:42:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern the member raised about interpreters, and I think this is linked to the resource challenges we face. From what I understand, the pressure this has created on interpreters is what has reduced the availability of time and resources for committees to be able to sit. The most important point I raised in my speech was around the issue of how this new system is limiting the autonomy of committees and the ability of committees to do their job. That is linked to the point he raised, which is the impact on interpreters. The government's solution that we can just hire a bunch more interpreters and that money can just solve the problem shows a misunderstanding of why we have this problem. The problem of resources is not just about putting more money into the system; it is about the pressure on interpreters that is created, which makes it difficult to have the kind of flexibility with committees that we used to have.

169 words

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

Jun/13/23 11:43:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan see no context in which we need to continue to have the availability of hybrid rules? Even with a voting app, without the rules we adopted post-COVID, members of Parliament who were actually dying had to come in here. They had to be physically present at a stage in their private member's bill, and there was no way to do it remotely. Is that what he foresees for the future, which is no options for hybrid participation?

91 words