SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/15/23 7:29:40 p.m.
Watch

I have to give another member an opportunity to ask a question. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

20 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/15/23 7:29:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have heard in this debate is a concern about abuse of the virtual tools that we have become accustomed to. Thinking about the constituents I represent, I think they have an expectation both that I travel to Ottawa, be a part of this place and represent them in the House of Commons and also that, under certain circumstances, the virtual tools allow me to do an even better job and be present more of the time. Does the member agree that our constituents' expectation that we spend time in Ottawa and in the House of Commons will serve as a control on the potential abuse of these virtual tools that we now have available?

121 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Jun/15/23 7:30:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. Ultimately, we are all accountable to our electorate. I think those of us who decide not to come to Ottawa or are seen always up in their bedroom on a Zoom call, participating virtually in Parliament, perhaps will suffer as a result at the ballot box. There is a certain element of accountability there that will keep us honest and keep us from abusing that—

73 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/15/23 7:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

9 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/15/23 7:31:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Parliament exists so that common people, the commons, would have protection from what would otherwise be the unlimited power of government. Every now and then, we have to get back to the basics. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, 808 years ago this week, actually. I have a real passion for civic literacy around the issue of what Parliament is here for, why Parliament exists and getting back to those basics. Members are elected to this place. They are sent here to fulfill that basic purpose. We are here to hold the government to account. Not just the members who happen to run under parties that did not win the majority of seats or even the most seats, but all members here are elected as a Parliament that will hold government to account. Some members are chosen to become part of the government, but even the backbenchers of the governing party are here to hold the government to account. We all are. That is our job. Our basic function is to vote on the key issues of the day, particularly to grant authority to the Crown to spend money, to make changes to the Criminal Code that affect people's liberty, and these kinds of things. This is what we are here for. That is why Parliament exists. Let there be no doubt: The changes being proposed by the government would weaken the power of the House of Commons and strengthen the power of government. Before I get too much further into this, I must point out that I am going to share my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I look forward to his remarks. I am familiar with the arguments around the changes we are talking about here. We just heard some of the arguments in favour of the Standing Orders changes from the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I am a western MP. I spend a lot of time on airplanes, a lot of time travelling. I am family man, too. There is certainly some expediency around the voting app. However, hybrid Parliament would give more power to the government. It does give more power to the government and less power to the opposition, making the tools available to the opposition more difficult to use. I have never heard a constituent, a person in my riding, say to me that what is really important to them is that Parliament become easier for MPs, so that we could make things easier for ourselves. That is not what Canadians say. They do not want their government to have more power and Parliament to have less. There are practical problems, too, with the motion. We have all seen the inevitable technical glitches, which will always be there. We have problems with connectivity, with equipment and with simultaneous translation. The motion certainly does not address any of those issues, but here we are. There are also lots of other problems with it that are not technical. There is a general lack of decorum that sometimes occurs through hybrid. We have the lack of uniformity in background and people can use a hybrid camera shot to create their own political messages or messages that do not belong in parliamentary debate. By far and away, the biggest problem that we will have if we adopt a permanent virtual Parliament is entrenching the isolation and silo effect on MPs. If hybrid Parliament is to be made permanent, we have to answer these questions first: Do Canadians want their MPs to have less physical interaction and less proximity to each other? Do Canadians think that their elected officials would make better decisions for Canadians if they spent less time actually interacting with each other? Do Canadians want their parliamentarians and their Parliament to be more or less collegial? Do they want elected representatives to have more or less opportunity, as the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, to speak informally with members of the government, on either side? Do Canadians want their MP to have the opportunity to walk across the floor and have a quick discussion with another member? Do they want their MPs to have the ability to interact with each other in person? Do they want ministers and the Prime Minister to spend more time face to face, facing the accountability of an opposition in Parliament with the equal rights and privileges that are afforded to members in this place? I know Canadians expect more and not less accountability from their governments and they expect their elected MPs to have the ability to deliver that. Hybrid Parliament allows MPs to have every ability to just silo themselves and be isolated from other members. Canadians in my riding ask me sometimes why we cannot work with other parties. I say that there are many occasions when MPs work across the floor and work with other MPs in their own caucus to effect outcomes on legislation or committee business or issues. However, in order to work effectively together, they have to have the opportunity to build rapport and trust, and they cannot do that through a video screen. This really reveals itself in hybrid committees. When members of all parties are present, and the member for Barrie—Innisfil talked about this, members from each party can gather in a corner and resolve an impasse they have come to by just being able to talk to each other. Non-verbal body language is conveyed when we meet in person. When one is across a committee table from another member, one can get an idea of the effect of what one is proposing if negotiating on a motion or debating a committee report. We do not get that through hybrid Parliament. We do not get that through a video screen. When trying to get through a committee report, if all the members are together and there are differences, there is no unanimity, but there might be the ability to have a consensus report. It is not going to get done through a video screen. People need to be able to talk to each other. The importance of personal interaction is just lost in the hybrid. Some members have commented on the growing use of the voting app by members and the incentives to not be here with a hybrid system. The ability to use a voting app encourages members to do really anything but the job they are elected to do as legislators and debate legislation in the House. They have every advantage to just go back to their ridings while Parliament is sitting and campaign or do any number of other activities. Members have talked about the ability to achieve a better life and family balance, and I am sure this is an advantage for some members in that case, but it also gives incentive to do anything other than the job they are elected to do. This brings us to the permanence of it. What is being proposed here tonight is a permanent change to the Standing Orders, which is ordinarily only done through consensus, when all parties agree. This is our democracy. The Standing Orders are how we govern ourselves in this place. It is extraordinary that we are here under a closure motion. They are ramming this through with closure, the permanent change to our Standing Orders. Conservatives proposed at committee maintaining the use of the voting app and hybrid Parliament, that we would keep it and let it run through another election so members who are elected here could run and tell their prospective voters how they feel about this issue, and not permanently change the Standing Orders until there actually is an all-party consensus. That is the way to do it. That is the way that respects the democracy of this place. If members value the office they are elected to and think Canadians want and deserve more and not less democratic accountability, and if they think the permanent changes should not be done without all-party consent, I beg them to show some respect for the 808 years of parliamentary accountability and oppose this motion.

1371 words

Mrs. Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 7:41:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that there are a lot of advantages to being here together to make sure we serve our constituents, but my question is this: What would he say for those members who, God forbid, have to go through health challenges? Back in February 2018, I was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Not having the provision of the hybrid Parliament, I was not able to be the voice of my constituents here for four months, until my chemotherapy was completed. I was not able to participate in debates and I was not able to vote. What would the member say in regard to those situations? I ask, because we never know what is coming around the corner.

119 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/15/23 7:42:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am so happy that the member is here in this debate tonight and that she is able to be here. The member for Steveston—Richmond East and his remarks on his health challenges are important, but there have been long-standing tools. This is not new. Previous Parliaments have dealt with this by way of vote pairing. I do not think any constituent would want their MP to feel they had to leave medical treatment to fly here and use their voice in debate. People should take time and look after their health, make that their personal priority and make sure their vote is paired, so that there is still democratic representation.

116 words

Health

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/15/23 7:43:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the hon. member a few years back in time. When he was in the House in 2017, the Liberal government had a majority. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wanted to change the Standing Orders so that, for example, the House would no longer sit on Fridays. The Bloc Québécois was in favour. The Liberal government House leader in 2017 said that it would not happen because there was not unanimous support. She had the support of some opposition parties, but she did not have unanimous support. In order to change the Standing Orders, the way the House operates is that unanimous consent is required. She backed down, and it did not happen. We now have a government that says that it is going to change the rules with a simple majority, which sets a precedent. What does the hon. member think about that?

159 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/15/23 7:43:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is right, and it is disgraceful. The members of that government and its caucus should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing, and so should the NDP members.

34 words

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

Jun/15/23 7:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like the member. I know that he shows up. Many of his colleagues do not, and this is the problem. The Globe and Mail exposed the fact that the Conservatives are the most absent in this virtual Parliament. After the first couple of months in a virtual Parliament, The Globe and Mail showed us that Conservatives only show up 47% of the time. New Democrats showed up twice as much: 85% of the time. That member shows up; I am not trying to pretend otherwise. I am saying his colleagues do not, and the real concern is about MPs abusing this. It really comes from the example Conservative MPs have set themselves, being more absent than any other party in this House.

125 words

Absent

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/15/23 7:45:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to put this nonsense to bed. During the time that article came out, I could not even have, in a city like Calgary, in my home, enough reliable upload speed to be able to engage with the hybrid Parliament at that time. I would watch it on TV, because at least I could reliably see the image. I did not show up as being at work by logging in to Zoom; I followed what was going on in the chamber. If I knew that I was going to be speaking or participating in debate, I had a real scramble on my hands to make sure I actually could get the connectivity to participate, so if that Globe and Mail article and that member's measurement of showing up for work is whether they hit the log-in credentials on their Zoom call, I think that is a pretty flawed measurement of how people participate in Parliament.

167 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Jun/15/23 7:46:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from a strictly procedural perspective, I am speaking in favour of an amendment proposed, two days ago, by the House leader for His Majesty's loyal opposition, to the government motion to adopt a series of amendments to the Standing Orders. I will not read out the amendment here, because it runs several pages, and I will certainly not attempt to read out the government's set of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, which run to 25 pages in 12-point type. My speaking slot is only 10 minutes and I simply would not get through those things before I ran out of time. The general thrust of the government's package of amendments is to make permanent the interim Standing Orders, which would otherwise expire at the end of the month, that allow MPs to participate in the House debates and at committee meetings remotely, using Zoom, and to vote remotely as well using the app on our telephones. The government amendments would make this change permanent, extending not merely beyond June but also beyond the life of the present Parliament. The thrust of the opposition motion is that the expiry date should be pushed back from June to a date that is described in the amendment as “one year after the opening of the 45th Parliament”. This would provide a full year subsequent to the next election, during which a consensus could be developed as to which aspects of the rules for virtual sittings and remote participation would be retained. If, at that time, no consensus were achieved, then, after the year expires, it would be necessary for all MPs to attend sittings of the House in person, as was the case prior to the pandemic. Of course, if a consensus was achieved, then we could carry on with some form of virtual sittings. Very likely, the addition of a further year or two of experience with virtual sittings and online voting would allow us to make incremental improvements to the rules over the voluminous package being voted on today. Of the two alternatives before us, I prefer the one presented by the opposition House leader, but that is not the subject that I wish to address today. Rather, I want to focus on the entirely inappropriate way in which the government is attempting to push through changes by means of a whipped party line vote. I have been in this place for 23 years, nearly a quarter of a century, and until the present Prime Minister took office, that was never how changes were made to the Standing Orders. I could go back to the prior century and that was also not the way things were done. Some kind of non-partisan path has always been sought. There are two distinct ways in which the House of Commons has been able to achieve non-partisan changes to the Standing Orders. The first way, which is used more frequently, is to have a committee develop the details of any proposed changes to the Standing Orders and to have that committee present a consensus report, which contains only proposed amendments that have won the support of all groups that have party status, which is to say of all parties, and which have at least one MP on that committee. The centrepiece of the committee's report is always the exact wording of the proposed Standing Orders. The House then concurs in the report. A recorded vote may be taken or in some cases there may be approval by unanimous consent, but the key point is this: a consensus has been sought and the party or coalition of parties that have the majority in the House of Commons and on the committee judiciously refrains from attempting to impose measures that are not also supported by the minority. The purpose of the Standing Orders is, of course, to protect the rights of whoever is in the minority in the House of Commons, whoever is, in one form of another, on the opposition benches. In a political system where the majority can act with complete freedom and with no restraints in its actions, Standing Orders of any kind are a mere impediment. This kind of unbridled majoritarian system is not the Westminster system and has no place in Canada. It is with reason that this kind of unbridled majority rule is referred to as the “tyranny of the majority”, a term or a phrase developed in the 1840s by Alexis de Tocqueville, who was trying to distinguish between the unexpectedly moderate governing practices he had encountered in a trip to North America, as compared to the tempestuous situation in his native France, where one majority coalition would succeed another in an apparently unending series of revolutions, coups and counter-coups, with each majority coalition then proceeding to trample of the rights of the newly created political minority until it, too, would be overthrown, following the defection of one faction or another and the cycle of oppression would continue with new masters and new victims. Returning to the committee for a moment, the work of creating and then sorting out the details of a series of changes to the Standing Orders, particularly in the case of technically complex changes, is often too much for a committee that is burdened with other matters as well, as is frequently the case for our procedure and House affairs committee, on which I served for 15 years. We were in the habit, when I served on the committee, of delegating the task of drafting such changes to ad hoc subcommittees. One such subcommittee developed a code of conduct for MPs regarding sexual harassment, which now forms Appendix II of the Standing Orders. Another subcommittee, which I chaired, dealt with the definition of “gifts” under the MP conflict of interest code, which forms Appendix I to the Standing Orders. Whatever the case, the rule was always to seek out consensus and to go no further than was possible on a multipartisan basis. The second way of achieving consensus is to have the procedure and House affairs committee review a set of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders and then to present the amendments to the House of Commons without making an actual recommendation. This is what was done in 2015 with regard to a motion that I had brought forward to change the manner in which the Speaker is elected, from a series of runoff ballots to a single preferential ballot. My motion was made in the Commons and then referred by the House of Commons to the procedure and House affairs committee, which examined it in detail, including hearing from expert witnesses. The committee then made a report to the House, stating: The Election of the Speaker is a matter for all Members to decide. The Committee does not oppose nor endorse motion M-489 brought forward by [the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington]— As I was at the time. —and feels that the entire membership of the House of Commons should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the Standing Orders in the manner suggested by M-489. In order to accomplish this purpose of having a vote in the House, the Committee recommends that Standing Order 4 be amended as follows... In the committee's report, this was followed by the text of the Standing Order amendments that I had proposed. As part of this arrangement, which is not written down in the official record but which can be gleaned from the debates that took place in 2015 in the House and in committee, it is clear there was an all-party agreement to allow all members from all parties to vote freely on the proposed amendment. No party would apply a whip to its members, and this is exactly what happened. The vote took place in the very last division of the 41st Parliament in June 2015, in fact almost exactly eight years ago today. Every single party in the House of Commons allowed a free vote, with the result that 27 Conservatives voted differently from their leader, 15 New Democrats voted differently from their leader, one Liberal dissented and even the Bloc Québécois, which only had four MPs elected in the prior election, recorded votes on both sides of that division. This is a reasonable model as an alternative to the consensus model, although I do worry that achieving a genuinely free vote is notoriously difficult in this place, which is why we elect our Speakers by secret ballot. In the event that a consensus cannot be achieved at committee, it would be reasonable to follow the model laid out by the procedure and House affairs committee in that 2015 report with the addition of a secret ballot in the House of Commons on the motion that the committee has proposed. I note that this kind of secret ballot is not currently possible and would itself require a change to the Standing Orders, but I think that it is worthwhile to put the idea out there for future reference. Nothing remotely like either of the two models I just outlined has been used in the present case, however. The procedure and House affairs committee signalled a majority preference for changing the Standing Orders in a report that features two dissenting reports from parties that, together, represent nearly half of all MPs in the House of Commons. This is as far from a consensus as it is possible to be. Worse yet, the committee did not actually endorse any specific set of amendments to the Standing Orders, only the idea that such amendments should exist, and the government then produced a text drafted by bureaucrats confidentially to the text of the Standing Orders. This process makes detailed changes to those proposed Standing Orders, those 25 pages, virtually impossible as any micro changes of this sort that are done in committee can only be done if the House of Commons chooses to sit as a committee of the whole, which is clearly not going to happen. Then, of course, there is the matter of closure. We are actually limiting debate and ramming through changes to the Standing Orders, something utterly unprecedented in this country, utterly without precedent and, I would say, utterly disgraceful. From a process perspective, this is a retreat from the Westminster model to the majoritarian tyranny that de Tocqueville warned against. It is grand being a tyrant while the tenure lasts, but it is terrible to suffer the tyranny of those whom one had formerly oppressed, as many former leaders have learned, after the tools that they had forged are turned on their former masters. That is the real lesson to be learned today, and since the way in which we will be voting does not allow this lesson to be easily teased out, I thought it best to commit these sentiments to words and to express them today. I have one last thought. This whole mess could be stopped if a standing order were adopted here that makes it impossible to amend the Standing Orders in the future using closure. If there was enough opposition, it would be possible for opposition parties to prevent a standing order change going through. That is not going to happen in this Parliament, but in the next Parliament, I will be proposing exactly such a change so that this kind of tyranny can never happen again.

1934 words

Interim

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 7:56:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me suggest a different reality. There were 108 Conservatives who voted in the last vote we had. Out of those 108, get this: 65 voted virtually. Imagine them saying, “I don't want virtual Parliament” as they pull up their phone apps to vote virtually. Sixty-five out of 108 did this, and 43 of them actually showed up to vote inside the chamber. I am not an actuary, but I do believe that is less than half. Many might see a bit of hypocrisy there. I, for one, see a whole lot of hypocrisy. Can the member explain why he cannot even get a majority of his own members to come in here as a way to make a statement that they do not want hybrid and will not participate in it?

138 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/15/23 7:57:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, did the member have cotton wool stuffed in his ears during my speech? I was talking about the fact that the government is using closure to ram through this amendment. That is what I was discussing. I was not discussing whether or not there should be hybrid voting. I did point out that the opposition motion allows for hybrid voting to go on for the entire rest of this Parliament and a year into the next Parliament. If the member ever paid any attention to what anybody else says, he would know that his argument is complete nonsense and has no bearing on reality. Frankly, I will say tonight that the member should be ashamed of the ignorance he brings to every debate he participates in. He is a disgrace sometimes. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

138 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/15/23 7:57:58 p.m.
Watch

I would like to advise members not to insult each other, please, and to refrain from calling other members names. The hon. member for Mirabel.

25 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/15/23 7:58:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech because, since this debate began, we have been hearing all kinds of generalities and nonsense about who votes virtually and who does not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has once again lowered the level of debate. However, I think my colleague raised the level of debate. Indeed, he pointed out that the way this motion is being put forward, regardless of content, is unacceptable. Since 1867, the House has always been able to operate unanimously. During the pandemic, we were always able to operate unanimously. The hybrid Parliament we have today was adopted unanimously. We have always been able to do that. A few minutes ago, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River told us suddenly that unanimity is not always the best thing, that things can change. Suddenly, everything becomes relative. How is it that, since 1867, we have always been able to operate properly and now, all of a sudden, we cannot?

170 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/15/23 7:59:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is just one thing I would like to say today about all the speeches from the Bloc Québécois. There is a party in the House that wants to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, and that party is more respectful of our institutions and our democracy than the government itself is.

60 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Jun/15/23 7:59:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have always enjoyed the member's speeches and hearing his learned thoughts. It is great to hear de Tocqueville brought up and that sort of history. I like being here, and we have seen in the past few weeks and months that basically everybody is here. I would like to hear a good argument against a hybrid Parliament that addresses accommodating the people who cannot be here, like the people who are sick, the people who are—

81 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/15/23 8:00:38 p.m.
Watch

I will give a very brief moment to the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston to answer.

19 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/15/23 8:00:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think I can provide an argument against it because I am not actually against hybrid. I am not against the voting app, nor indeed is the motion proposed by our House leader, which would allow the voting app to continue for the rest of this Parliament and one year into the new Parliament. I am really against the removal of the consensus requirement for changes to the Standing Orders.

74 words