SoVote

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

Jun/15/23 4:29:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, over the past three years, I have had several discussions with the Bloc Québécois. I asked them what changes they were proposing for a hybrid system and for voting. Unfortunately, they made it clear every time that a hybrid system was not acceptable. This is very odd, because the member opposite uses this system every day. I see this as providing an option. With the support of a majority of members, it would be possible to change the rules and, for example, cancel the hybrid system. I do wonder what would happen if we did not adopt the hybrid system, however. In the future, this way of doing things will continue to exist for one reason: It provides flexibility for important moments in a member's life. That is so important that we must continue using this system.

144 words

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

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 4:33:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Standing Orders, and of course I am in support of them. We have heard in this 30 minutes of debate some of the hypocrisy in the fact that a couple of the opposition parties who are against this are readily using these tools. My question to the hon. House leader is this. We have moved through a continuum of making changes as this House sees fit, and I know that right now some members are going to ask that committee chairs be in the room physically when they are conducting meetings. Can the hon. House leader talk about the fact that, yes, we are adopting this, but perhaps ease some concern for those who are worried about this, in that we can adjust it as we go forward, as we have done all the way along? This is a good thing. It provides more tools to Parliament, but with the will of Parliament, we can adjust as necessary.

171 words

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

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/15/23 4:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. A number of changes have been recommended, in some instances by all parties. He mentions the change requesting that committee chairs be present. That is a change that was made. There was a request by opposition parties that all questions in question period be answered by the government in person. That change was made, and we have the opportunity to continue to evaluate how these provisions work. However, to his point, when members say they are against hybrid sitting and then use it, it is hard to find them credible in that. If we say that a change in the Standing Orders should come from a unanimity of opinion, I think we can look at the past three years, including out of health circumstances, when members had every opportunity to be here. They use it, and it shows that they want it. If the members from the Conservative Party and the Bloc were serious in their opposition to this, then we would see them here for every single one of the votes; we would see them here in person for every question and every speech, and of course that is not the case. The case is that they are using it, and in the hallways they are saying, “This is great; this is life-changing. There was an important event; something happened in my family; I had to be there for my child; I had to be there for my spouse; I was able to do it, because of hybrid; it changed everything for me; I am so glad it is there.” Then, they walk in the chamber and say they are against it and it is wrong and an affront, and how terrible it is. It stretches believability.

298 words

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

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/15/23 6:43:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to respond to the parliamentary secretary representing the government. For days now, the government has been giving examples like the one about the voting application to claim that everything in the motion is positive. However, the motion includes a lot of other things. We, the Bloc Québécois, are not opposed to the voting application. However, the motion contains other things that cannot be changed or seriously debated to make them better. That is a problem. The biggest problem, however, is this: In the entire history of Parliament, such changes have always been adopted unanimously by the House to protect every elected official. As far as minor changes go, one exception was made under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It was the first time in history that the rules were amended by a simple majority. What does my hon. colleague think about that?

162 words

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

Mr. Parm Bains

Jun/15/23 7:13:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot about tradition, and I know other members have talked about tradition as well, but it was a break from tradition to bring cameras into the House of Commons, and that changed in 1977. This is a meaningful discussion, and I understand the concerns, but we are having a debate and raising these questions. Members have had an opportunity to raise them for a few years now, so on this side, we believe these changes are necessary to increase democracy.

86 words