44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 8:35:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on his first point, a lot of people would say that bringing cameras into this place in the seventies was a bad move because of the theatre it created. A lot of people would say that putting video online so that people could clip it in real time was a bad move. I think that hindsight is 20/20.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I listened to the member, and I am going to answer his questions, if he does not want to talk to me back and forth through the middle of it. I think that it is important to reflect on the fact that maybe decades from now they will look back and say that it was a bad idea, but I can tell members that from my perspective right now, it looks like it is going to allow more people to engage, just based on the participation from Conservatives.
On the member's second point about the resources, we should not spare any expense at making sure our democracy functions in the way it should. If we need to put more resources into that by building out the structure of resources we have, then we absolutely must do it.
To that point, I do not disagree with him that I share similar concerns, but I do not think that needs to be the reason we cannot proceed. What it says to me is that we need to be investing more in the interpretation services and more in the resources, so that we can continue to function like this.
266 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:44:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see many of my esteemed hon. colleagues participating in this debate. I will be splitting my time with someone who I have had a number of conversations with, the member for Saskatoon West. It is a pleasure.
I come tonight to this debate with a few thoughts on where things are at with regard to hybrid sittings and the importance of continuing that option for members and making some of these changes permanent in the Standing Orders.
I was fortunate enough to have been elected in 2015 in the wonderful riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge by the most entrepreneurial and generous residents across this country and to again be re-elected in 2019 and again in 2021. With that I have the perspective, like many of my colleagues, of having been in Parliament pre-COVID, having participated fully in that session of Parliament, and then post-COVID with the introduction of technology that has improved many aspects of Parliament.
I do attend. I am here in Parliament as often as I can be. I do think it is important for members to participate in person as often as they can, but I do think the permanent changes to the Standing Orders provide a certain amount of flexibility that reflects where we are in society, which makes our democracy more inclusive. My riding is the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is about an hour plane ride from here to Toronto and a 50-minute drive home, but I have the perspective of having grown up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is represented by one of the New Democratic members. If I were its representative, I could understand fully, being that far away, the enhanced flexibility of remaining in my riding for a few days for personal reasons, for reasons to tend to in the riding. I think that is very important. It is not lost upon me.
I am a little bit of a traditionalist in many ways. I care about institutions, I care about our structures and maintaining those institutions. For me to say that these Standing Orders changes should be done is in the right direction, because it reflects where we are in modern-day society.
Here are a few remarks that I have in front of me.
it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion to permanently implement hybrid sittings in the House of Commons. As members know, it has been a subject of debate since the early days of the pandemic, and I am pleased to speak in support of the motion. I would like to focus my comments today on how hybrid sittings can be beneficial not only to those of us who currently share the privilege of serving our constituents in this place, but for future members of Parliament. The subject of my remarks will focus on how hybrid proceedings of the House will benefit under-represented groups contemplating a life of politics and hopefully how the hybrid sittings can help to make our House a more diverse and inclusive place that better represents the communities we serve.
I would like to start my remarks by quoting a September 5, 2021 article entitled, "Why diversity matters in our politics - and what can be done to support it". The author states that, “politicians today are finding themselves representing increasingly diverse communities that are composed of many smaller communities with unique needs. Having diversity among elected officials is a definite way to ensure these unique needs are identified and brought to the forefront.” He goes on to say that “No race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sex, gender or sexual orientation has a monopoly on talent. The best and the brightest people who care about improving their community do not all come from one particular group” and that there are “barriers that de-motivate female, racialized, Indigenous, LGBTQ and differently abled people from entering politics”.
I believe that we can extend this argument to the barriers to participation in the proceedings of this place as a de-motivator for those groups who are under-represented in this chamber. In fact, flexible models of how we conduct parliamentary business would help level the playing field for racialized minorities, and current and future members of Parliament from rural, remote and northern regions.
Allow me to provide an example. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conducted a study on hybrid sittings last fall, entitled “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”, which was tabled in January 2023. During the study, the committee heard from several current and former members who testified in support of making hybrid proceedings permanent.
These witnesses raised a number of examples of life situations where a hybrid model would be beneficial, including health issues, pregnancy, parenthood, transportation and bereavement. In fact, our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Victoria, appeared before the committee on October 4, 2022, and stated that the impact of the hybrid model on her day-to-day life was “transformational”. As per the report, the member provided the committee with four examples of how hybrid proceedings gave her the opportunity to keep working when it otherwise would have been impossible: pregnancy, maternity, illness and bereavement.
The member for Victoria told the committee that she was advised not to travel during her pregnancy. Without the hybrid sittings, she would not have been able to continue her work into her ninth month of pregnancy, nor would she have been able to work when child care issues arose with her newborn. Furthermore, the hybrid situation allowed the member to continue working when she contracted COVID-19 and when she flew home to see her father prior to his passing. The PROC report says, “[The member for Victoria] stated that more women need to be encouraged to run for office and that, in her experience, it was ‘incredibly hard’ to convince them to do so.” The member stated that she is certain that women's political participation would increase in Parliament if Parliament were made more family friendly, which is what the hybrid solution allows.
The report also says, “[The member stated] that the hybrid model opened up the possibility for people with disabilities to run for office even though their health or disability might have prevented them from doing so in the past. She considered it to be critical to work towards a more equitable and accessible Parliament.” This is a concrete example of how hybrid sittings can reduce the barriers for women in the House of Commons and also reduce barriers for those contemplating running for elected office in the future.
I will now turn back to PROC's 20th report to highlight testimony provided by the Samara Centre for Democracy. Sabreena Delhon, executive director of Samara, recommended the House of Commons maintain hybrid proceedings for both the chamber and committees. The PROC report includes Ms. Delhon's testimony, which states:
...a variety of minority communities are currently under-represented in the House of Commons. These groups include women, people from [the] LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous people, and visible minority communities. Samara’s research has shown that members of the House from under-represented groups often [feel] alienated in Ottawa. Ms. Delhon stated that if these members had more opportunities to work from and within their communities, it would reduce the feeling of alienation that they may experience in the House. She also noted that, in the long term, offering the option of hybrid participation could encourage [Canadians] from under-represented groups to not only enter into politics, but [to also remain members].
Ms. Delhon's testimony suggested that hybrid sittings allow the House, “to be more inclusive and representative” and to demonstrate to those contemplating a career in politics “that Parliament is a flexible, responsive, contemporary work environment that is committed to attracting, retaining and supporting top talent”. The report also states that, furthermore, “Samara’s research has shown that constant travel takes a mental and physical toll on members”, particularly those whose constituencies are far from Ottawa and are perhaps located in rural or remote areas that are difficult to access. Reducing the frequency of travel would improve physical and mental health outcomes. This would, in turn, help people to continue functioning at a high and effective level for the constituents whom they represent.
I commented, at the beginning of my remarks, on the use of the app in being able to vote and the use of Zoom for MPs who, for whatever particular reason, are unable to physically be in attendance here in Parliament. Some of my colleagues travel from the interior of B.C. or rural Alberta or northern Ontario. Particularly when they have the option and are thinking that they have been in Ottawa for two or three weeks in a row, and the next week there are some family or personal obligations and things they need to take care of in their riding, they can work from the riding. That reflects modern-date society, and it is one of a few reasons that the permanent changes to the Standing Orders should go forward.
Again, I say this with a great deal of thought and empathy, because I very much, personally, enjoy being here in Parliament. I very much aim to be here when the House is sitting. I do try to go home on Fridays, so I can see my children earlier than usual. The changes we have put in place for the hybrid Parliament are allowing me to do my committee work on a Friday morning from my office, effectively as usual, much like all MPs. However, it has allowed me that flexibility to quickly go home and help my wife with duties, including picking up one of my children from day care and the others from elementary school. That flexibility is what we need to incorporate into the House, but always with guard rails such that we ensure that members try their utmost to be in the House when they need to be in order to vote in person, to be at committee in person, and so forth.
It is great to see so many of my colleagues this evening.
1738 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:11:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the member said about the disadvantages of not being able to meet in person, but I have been here long enough to have watched friends and colleagues, before the days when hybrid was allowed, drag themselves in here literally from their deathbeds to protect their work because there were no rules to allow virtual participation.
In particular I remember the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Some members here tonight may recall when Mauril Bélanger, whose name I can say because he is passed away, had to protect a piece of private member's legislation. The only way under our rules to do that was to show up here physically. It was painful to watch what it cost him in his dying days to physically be here.
I would say to the hon. member that there are so many advantages to hybrid Parliament. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it should not be a default option, but I desperately want to make sure we never again see colleagues suffering with cancer, near death, who feel they must physically be here to do their work.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:40:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would love to have had a chance to amend the proposed Standing Orders with one change, and I would like the member's thoughts on it, although I do not think we would get a chance in this place unless the government makes the change.
If we go with the proposed new Standing Order 15.1, the only condition for participating virtually is that the members participating remotely be in Canada. I would love to add “and have submitted to the Speaker of the House the reasons that participation by video conference is preferable”. It is not a tough condition, but there would be greater accountability for constituents if they knew why their members were participating in video form.
124 words
- 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
