44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 3:33:56 p.m.
- Watch
Does the House agree with the member's proposal?
It is agreed.
The hon. member is therefore voting in favour of the motion.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 4:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly heard the member start off his speech by saying that he would be voting in favour of—
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 4:48:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will check the seats around me. I hope that is better.
I note that the member started his speech by saying that he would be supporting the bill, but then he spent about eight of the 10 minutes talking about everything that was bad about it. The member then came back at the end and said that there are a couple of good things about it, so therefore he would be supporting it.
Does this means that the couple of good things outweigh all the bad things, and that is why the member would be voting for it?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to note that there are, in fact, two members of my colleague's caucus who have had babies during this Parliament and who have actually been able to participate fully as members of Parliament after giving birth because of the hybrid option available. Since he and his party are opposed to it, I would like to understand how he proposes that his colleagues participate following giving birth to their children.
I would also like to ask him, and I hope he answers honestly, whether he or any other member of his caucus has ever availed themselves of the voting app or the hybrid system. Why does he feel we should not continue to do this? I ask because it is actually enabling more gender equity in this place and is allowing a greater diversity of people to participate and represent their constituents.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:05:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss this an in open setting. Usually our conversations are between ourselves sitting beside each other in the seats.
The abuse piece is one that is critical. We as hon. members need to follow the same principles as if we were here in person. That also means voting. I said that we are averaging 10 to 12 minutes per vote. Last week, we saw that the Conservatives were saying that their electronics were not working or that their connections were bad. That has since proven to be false, but it made our votes last 25 minutes.
We need to continue to operate as hon. members, using the tool to the advantage that it is giving us.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:06:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the speech by the member for Edmonton West this evening, and I feel as though I have an entire speech of questions I would like to pose, so I am going to try to narrow it down.
The first thing that comes to mind is accountability. I really think that, when we are holding fellow members of Parliament accountable in the House, we have to do some self-reflection with respect to our own parties.
Just the other day, I watched as Conservative members decided they wanted to circumvent a vote. They went on the other side of the wall here to cast their votes through the hybrid voting system. They did not have the appropriate headsets on, which put the interpreters at risk. Therefore, I think we need to look at ourselves.
Currently, the representation of women in Parliament is only at 30%. We can do better to ensure we have representation in this party. To say that everybody has equal access to being members of Parliament and serving here is completely out of touch and unrealistic. Quite frankly, those remarks show an element of privilege.
My question for the member is this: Why does he not believe in the tools necessary to have equitable representation within the chamber?
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:39:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the first point, this certainly is not about me trying to get control or seize power. We are using this system right now, and this system will be here for the foreseeable future. The member says that I am conflating electronic voting with the use of Zoom. I am talking about the two of them. I have made it very clear which I am talking about. If the Bloc's position is it supports the app but does not support Zoom, I have yet to hear that in this House. I have yet to hear the Bloc suggest anything otherwise, and it could be that I did not hear that part of the debate so far, but that is the reality.
When it comes to the interpretation services, I agree, and this goes back to my answer to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, that we should not spare any expense in ensuring that the right resources are in place to provide the right supports, not just to our interpreters, but to all the support staff we have here.
If that means investing more in their well-being and providing more resources, then we should do that. I do not think it should be an impediment to the democratic process we have set up in this place, so that we can bring more people from diverse backgrounds, and in particular more women, into this chamber.
An hon. member: You don't care about them.
249 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:09:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a good one. I think there are a few things to think about here.
First of all, and I think this is my point, as we open up the ability to do these things, people will do them; they will take advantage of them. As the member pointed out, it happens in all the parties. I think this is part of the danger. I heard another member speak about measuring this and encouraging members to be in the House. There is no teeth in what is being proposed here to do that, so what I believe will happen is that it will continue to go in that direction. People will just find it more convenient to be home, to not be in the House or even to be in their offices voting, and it is not right. I think the key point here is that I am not necessarily opposed to some of these measures, but what we have not done, and what I think we should be doing, is studying this more intensely to make sure we are making the right decisions.
Second, there should be a sunset clause for this. It should be deferred, possibly even to the next Parliament, so it can look at this again and make its own decisions. Those are things that I think are important and that we should be doing here today.
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:34:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I will say that, as a father of a young family and as someone representing a riding in western Canada, I see personally, from a lifestyle perspective, the advantages of the current provisions, although I have concerns about their impact on this institution. I do support the voting app, because I do not think voting is the same as giving a speech.
I want to put to him a question I put to a government member. The biggest problem I have with how things are working right now is the way the resource crunch associated with hybrid has totally undermined the ability of parliamentary committees to be masters of their own domain. Parliamentary committees used to be able to sit when they thought it was necessary for them to sit to do the business of that committee. It meant that if the industry committee was dealing with a crisis related to industry, that committee could decide to sit, fundamentally, whenever it wanted in order to do its work. Now, it is some kind of process involving party whips that determines who gets resources and when. It is not the committees, it is not the members of the committee, and there is not the same ability to actually pursue the work that is required.
The parliamentary secretary acknowledged this problem and said we can figure it out at some point. The concern I have is that we have not figured it out. We have had this problem persisting for years. I think it is a fundamental enough problem for democracy, ensuring that parliamentary committees can do their job, that we need to actually consider that when considering how to vote on these provisions.
Does the member have concerns about the way parliamentary committees have been constrained by resources and the way they are effectively controlled in their ability to sit by those outside of those committees? Does he think this is a fundamental enough issue to say that we need to fix that problem before we move forward in any way with the rest of these provisions?
355 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:37:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed an unfortunate exchange. There was a good question, but things took a turn and sank into partisanship. That would have just as easily happened in a hybrid Parliament as a normal Parliament but, unfortunately, my colleague's question did not get answered.
No one in the Bloc Québécois is opposed to a new form of hybrid Parliament. We have never said that. I repeat. Voting with the app makes things move faster. If someone is on Parliament Hill, they do not have to be in the House. Therefore, we can speed up the process since committees start earlier. There are advantages to a hybrid Parliament, but the format of this hybrid Parliament has not been discussed with all the opposition parties.
My colleague talked about democracy, the importance of democracy and the respect we must have for democracy, specifically in relation to a hybrid Parliament. Meanwhile, the other opposition parties have no say. I find that unfortunate.
There are people who will have to travel to their riding because of forest fires, for example. I know about that because that is relevant to me in my riding. My colleague is also affected in his riding. Of course we need to be there. There are people who will get sick. We have the technology so, of course, they can rely on the hybrid Parliament. All of that is true.
Now, the government's proposed changes to the rules require an opposition party to have 25 members rise in person to block a motion, under Standing Order 56.1(3). That is the entire NDP caucus. We know that the NDP already got a taste of this standing order when Thomas Mulcair was called to testify in committee on the use of satellite offices. The opposition has to give everything and the government does not even have to require its ministers to be in the House.
I am asking my colleague why we would accept such a motion without any discussion, when we could all provide our two cents' worth and come up with something quite a bit better than this motion.
It is important. It is about the work of Parliament. Parliament is the ultimate representation of Canadian democracy—and that is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. That is not nothing.
I am just asking my colleague if we can take the time to discuss this between us and come up with something much better than what is on the table today.
422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer all three questions even though they were asked by only one person.
First, in my mind, a pilot project must be evaluated for results that can be applied permanently. We had three years of practice. We met with experts. We have a result and that is the report. What I heard from my colleague is that they will not be using all the work we did. It has been shelved.
He said that there were discussions. Unless my dear leader slept all through these last few days, there was no communication about what would be tabled, in this case Motion No. 26. I would like someone to show me the proof and I will apologize for my comments. Otherwise, I did not see the leaders consulting and discussing the report or having any constructive consultations.
Finally, with regard to the voting application, I will slowly repeat my remarks. Sometimes I definitely speak too quickly for the interpreters.
We agree on the application. We used it a great deal. When I talk about in-person accountability, I am referring to confidence votes, which do not happen every week, and supply votes. We intend to use the application for everything else.
Are we going to have to say it 50 times? It seems clear enough to me.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
