44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 6:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate about making hybrid sittings a permanent fixture in our Standing Orders. I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph.
I think we are in an era of growing uncertainty. COVID-19 was not the first global health crisis, and we know it will not be the last. The World Health Organization has warned us that pandemics will likely arise more frequently and will propagate at a faster pace in the future. Additionally, we have experienced several challenges in recent times that have caused us to have this conversation we are having today. These increasing threats are due to climate change, security and various health factors. They have the potential to shut down Parliament or make an inflexible, in-person-only Parliament.
Parliament cannot shut down for months. When a crisis occurs, we need to be able to do the work necessary to resolve it. We have to continue advancing long-term projects to deliver results for Canadians and provide parliamentary oversight.
Over the course of the last years, we have developed excellent technical tools and cultivated expertise in our staff that have given us the ability to meet in a hybrid fashion. We need to make sure that we can retain these tools and that we have the capable staff members so that the next time a crisis hits us, one that prevents us from being able to sit in person, we have the ability to switch seamlessly and quickly, without any interruption to the work we do in delivering results for Canadians.
Maintaining hybrid options would pandemic-proof our sittings for the future. Pandemics are not the only events that could prevent us from being able to sit in person. We have also seen, in recent years, the types of security threats that we face on Parliament Hill and in our capital. These threats that have continued to threaten our members in the past mean that Parliament Hill has to be able to be flexible to accommodate people being able to be on hybrid as well. The Hill has not always been a safe place for all of us to congregate. We saw the security threats we had at the beginning of last year. We have these types of security threats that are intensifying as a result. When it is not safe for us to sit physically in the chamber, we have to be able to continue to do our work from our locations.
Likewise, as climate change accelerates, we will see new threats to sitting in person. The most recent example is the poor air quality we experienced in Ottawa due to the forest fires in Quebec. Nobody could have anticipated that, but it indeed had an impact on whether people could commute to work or not. People should not have to choose between aggravating their asthma and not being able to do their job. Having the option of hybrid participation means that everybody would be able to continue to do their job and be able to continue to participate without putting their health at risk. We will see increases in extreme weather events as time goes by, and maintaining the flexibility of hybrid sittings would be crucial in the future.
The paradox is that the times when sittings have been cancelled have also been times when we most needed Parliament to be sitting. During the convoy last year, sitting was interrupted. When we needed to debate the emergency measures the government was bringing in to deal with the convoy, we were prevented from that. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we also needed to sit in order to pass crucial legislation to boost access to employment insurance and other programs, to ensure that money would flow to workers and businesses in need. As Parliament could not sit regularly, the government was granted some extraordinary powers, such as the ability to spend without parliamentary oversight, yet the function of parliamentary scrutiny is most needed during those times of crisis. When the government has been granted extraordinary powers, it is of the utmost importance for the functioning of our democracy that we continue to carry on committee duties and debates, and that we question ministers.
It is of the utmost importance that we ensure that our constituents' voices are heard and integrated into the policies and decision-making, and that this continues to occur. When the government is moving rapidly, in emergency mode, it is our job to check that nothing has been missed. That means we need to continue to do our work. We need to provide the additional perspectives and the scrutiny needed to ensure that the impacts on all Canadians are being considered. This means we have to be able to be flexible in the measures we are using.
On that note, I would like to thank all the staff members who were adaptable, innovative and able to provide the hybrid measures that we have today and that we have all been able to enjoy, making sure that we were able to serve Canadians in such a time. I am sure members of the House remember how under-resourced we were at first during the hybrid sittings. We all remember the technical difficulties when we first got our equipment set up and how stretched thin our technical staff was.
It took us months to get it properly set up to the point where we are now. We have invested the money into these hybrid tools. We have learned how they work. We have hired the highly capable technical staff we need in order to make everything work. If we were to stop hybrid sittings and return to in-person sittings exclusively, when the next crisis hits, it would take us weeks and months to get the tools set up again during the time when we need them most in order to meet and in order to make decisions for all Canadians.
We can keep our equipment in reserve, but we would lose the technical teams we have built over the years and the money we have invested in that. The expertise is not replaceable and it was not built overnight. If we do not use our capabilities, we lose them. We need to maintain a properly functioning hybrid system so that when we really need it, we can actually use it. We have not seen our last smog crisis and we have not seen our last security emergency. We certainly have not seen our last pandemic. We live in a time when events will increasingly threaten our health, our physical security and our environment. Sometimes the best decision in the face of these threats and crises is that it will be safer for us to meet virtually rather than in person, or to at least give the vulnerable members among us that option.
A House that asks its members to threaten their health and safety in order to come to work and do their job is not one that anyone wants to be part of. As pandemic crises and emergencies are bound to happen, we cannot have a Parliament that shuts down for months. Our work is way too important for that. We need to continue to work steadily in advancing legislation, and we need to continue to hold the government to account. It is precisely during these crisis situations, when the government has been granted extraordinary powers, that we need to provide this extra scrutiny. It is precisely then that we need to represent the interests of our constituents and to ensure that the government's response to crises is as good as it can be.
For that to happen, we need to have a seamless transition to hybrid and virtual sittings, and we need to maintain our current system so that, when the next pandemic occurs, we have the expertise and the tools that are well-oiled and ready to make the pivot to hybrid and virtual sittings, to continue our crucial work in serving Canadians.
1350 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate, and I have enormous respect for the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I do agree with him that we work better when we are here in person.
However, last October, I had a very severe bout of COVID and I had to stay at home. I was not allowed to fly. I was a danger to other people. I could not have participated without virtual Parliament. I know there are others who have had similar experiences. People say that the pandemic is over, but we just had an outbreak of COVID in a child care centre in my riding. It has been very severe. Tons of kids and their parents now have COVID again.
Does the member for London West agree that we are not really out of the woods on these pandemics, that we may need these measures and that we should keep them in place in the interim?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:52:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making those really important comments that actually prove we are not out of the woods. When the World Health Organization said that we are not out of the woods with pandemics, it meant it. As he said, there was just an outbreak in his community. People are still catching COVID. People are still catching diseases through super spreaders.
It is not just important to make sure we have those accommodations for people who are not able to be here in person because they are going to infect their colleagues. It is also important to think about other reasons we need the hybrid model so members can continue their work. Many colleagues in this room have children; one of my colleagues mentioned that earlier. It is important we build a system that is inclusive for all families and that we make Parliament family friendly.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:55:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brings up some good points. The Inter-Parliamentary Union report shows there are many parliaments around the world that continue to adopt hybrid proceedings either in committee or in their plenary sessions. They have used digital tools to augment the way they function. Just because some of our provincial legislatures have chosen not to do that does not mean other parliaments around the world have just therefore abandoned the innovations and modernizations they put in place as a result of COVID-19.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
