44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/12/23 2:45:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives would rather forget about the past few years and all that Canadians have been through in recent months and years, like the pandemic.
I know they would love to overlook the fact that the government decided to be there for Canadians in their hour of need with the necessary assistance to avert business bankruptcies and prevent people from losing their homes when they could not work.
How ironic to hear them admit today that Canadians are still struggling. Instead of helping Canadians in practical ways, they are trying to block the budget and prevent help from reaching Canadians. That is irresponsible.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:53:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the deficit spending Conservatives are talking about included the pandemic supports that made sure that families in my community could keep food on the table and a roof over their kids' heads. Those supports helped small businesses keep the lights on and the doors open. Now they are blaming the Canadians who availed themselves of those pandemic benefits for the deficit spending they now are attributing inflation to.
The reality is they do not support this spending now, and, at the time, their leader held a press conference in which he said that, as a Conservative, he did not support those big, fat government programs. However, I support them, because they kept my neighbours fed when they needed it.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:55:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is saying is absolutely false. What we did during the pandemic was support Canadians. When he is talking about that additional funding, he is talking about things like child care, $30 billion that is helping Canadians access child care.
We do not know how the Conservatives are going to vote on it, but what we heard during their speeches in the House is that they are pretty against affordable child care. They are pretty against Canadians having access to thousands of dollars in their pockets at the end of the year, that is helping them pay for the high cost of groceries, that is helping them with their mortgages, that is helping them take, maybe, a family vacation.
Let us see what they do. Let us see if they truly care about—
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 3:04:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, I reminded the Conservatives that their leader, at the beginning of the pandemic, held a press conference where he decried our pandemic benefits as big, fat government programs. If members watch that video on the Internet, the member who posed the question is standing behind him.
The reality is the spending we put in place has supported people through the pandemic. The Conservative solution to the cause of inflation is to spend less money on supporting the households that need it.
We are going to continue to be there for Canadians to support health care, to help protect our environment and to make life more affordable. It is a shame the Conservatives will not join us.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 7:04:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all of his work. He was there from the beginning of this debate and from the beginning of trying to find a solution, first in the pandemic and now looking at how we might use these provisions outside the pandemic.
I have had the opportunity, really the honour, of being the chief government whip for over three years. One of the things that was remarkable about that, that was really eye-opening to anyone who has spent time as a whip, is to see just how difficult it is being a human being. There are many difficult things that hit the lives of everybody.
It was difficult for me, before hybrid, to look people in the eyes who had massive needs to be at home. That was very evident to me seeing what was happening in their personal lives, or the types of events that the hon. NDP House leader is talking about.
Some people would say, “I need to be in my community, there is a disaster there,” but I had to say, “Sorry, we need you for this vote.” Members would say, “I need to be home, there is a critical situation with my family,” but I had to say, “Sorry, you have to be here for a vote.” It broke my heart to do that and it is unnecessary. We have proven it is unnecessary.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 7:59:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thought my turn would never come.
I was first elected to this chamber in October 2019. Our leader kindly asked me to be the House leader of our political party. Through contact with other parties' House leaders, I quickly learned how Parliament worked. Let us just say that there was a steep learning curve. Indeed, one of the first things we had to deal with was COVID-19.
In March 2020, something unprecedented was happening. Surely everyone remembers that the country was practically shut down. People could no longer work. We were facing an extremely virulent virus. At that point, the question was: What do we do? Do we stop sitting? Do we continue? If so, under what circumstances?
I am very glad to have experienced that. The government House leader at the time, who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, spoke with me. He told me that it was a critical situation and that we had to rise to the occasion. We had to save the country. That was basically how we talked about it, because the country was going through a catastrophe. Despite that, we did not lose our cool. We talked and came to an agreement. We decided to pivot to a hybrid Parliament.
I applaud the technicians and interpreters, who had their hands full, along with the House staff. Their outstanding work allowed us to keep sitting and bringing in legislation that would help people make it through the pandemic.
We reached a consensus. This is exactly where I was heading. Despite the extremely difficult situation, we met up and came to an agreement. At the time, I clearly sensed that the government House leader was striving for consensus. Later, we went through wave after wave of the pandemic, yet we never stopped trying to reach a consensus. One of the methods we used was to present motions that included a deadline. We would negotiate terms that would apply for one year, and then revisit the matter for the following year. This allowed everyone to reach an agreement. Back then, in 2019, the Liberals were a minority government and they acted like one. They would try to come to an agreement with one party or another and, in the process, they would look for consensus.
An election was held in 2021. In case anyone has forgotten, the results were as follows: the Liberal Party, 160 seats; the Conservative Party, 119 seats; the Bloc Québécois, 32 seats; the NDP, 25 seats; and the Green Party, two seats. The Liberals won 160 seats, but they needed 170 seats to achieve a majority. They became a minority government once again, as they had been from 2019 to 2021.
The people of Canada gave this government a minority mandate, but the first thing that the Liberals tried to do was look for friends to help them artificially cobble together a majority government. They found New Democrat friends who fit the bill. In return, the Liberals gave them dental care insurance, presented at the time in a piece of crudely drafted legislation. In my 10 years in the parliamentary system, I have never seen more poorly drafted legislation. It could have been scribbled on the back of a napkin. In return, the New Democrats gave the Liberals the assurance of a majority. That is what happened.
The Liberals showed no modesty toward Canadians and Quebeckers. As a minority government, they might have felt compelled to limit their actions accordingly. Instead, they were arrogant. The gag orders started piling up. Discussions between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois became few and far between.
This motion is vitally important. It changes the ground rules of Parliament. It matters. We will be deciding the way in which Parliament is going to function.
We are not talking about what colour pens we are going to use in the House. This is extremely important.
In the past, we always required a consensus to change the rules governing the parliamentary system. I will come back to that again later and I will give specific examples. In the past, we sought consensus.
The government is presenting a permanent motion. That is the first thing. The Liberals are permanently changing the way Parliament operates. This is the first time they have done that. They came up with this motion and are telling us how things are going to work.
A few months ago, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told me that I could send him suggestions and that we would discuss them. We prepared suggestions, but he never asked us for them. Instead, the Liberals turned around and shoved this motion down our throats. The whip can attest to that. They decided how things were going to work. That is how much respect the Liberals have for the opposition parties. They are changing the rules without a consensus.
What does that mean? Of course, they think they are doing the right think and doing it with a smile; they are showing others how things should be done. The Liberals are the masters of giving lessons on democracy. We can forget about Socrates: They are the great democrats.
Now the Liberals are changing the rules permanently. This means that they are setting a precedent. I do not read tea leaves or crystal balls, but I can say that, at some point, they will not be in government. I predict that this will happen sometime in the next 100 years. At some point, the Conservative Party will form the government. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the Bloc Québécois will never be in power, but it is likely that the Conservatives will come to power.
Let us say that the Conservatives form a majority government. They might get up one morning and announce that they have decided on new rules. The Liberals, who will be in opposition with their NDP friends, will not be able to say that the Conservatives have not achieved a consensus, because the Conservatives will say that they are following the example set by the Liberals, who should be a little more humble. That is what they will say. What I am saying is that this creates a precedent.
That is what is dangerous about this. Now, what does it mean? It means that we will continue with a partially hybrid Parliament. Earlier, I heard an NDP member say that she had had COVID-19 and that it was terrible, but that she still wanted to work. I think that is the right attitude.
However, every time I spoke with the government about it, I said that virtual should be the exception, not the rule. We in the Bloc Québécois are not saying that virtual activities should never be allowed, but we think this practice should be used sparingly, in exceptional cases. We should not have 30 members participating in debates virtually. That does not work. Having a bit of a runny nose or having a bad hair day is not a good enough reason to not show up in person. Members must have valid reasons.
We need to find a way to ensure that people participating in the debates virtually are doing so for the right reasons. That is the bottom line, and that should be the rule. We were willing to work collaboratively. I did not barge in like a matador, saying that it had to be my way or the highway. No, we were collaborating, we wanted to work together, and we wanted to come up with solutions. We were in solution mode. We did not hear the same thing in return.
I heard the government House leader's speech and I must say that it made me feel uneasy. I could go on about that at length, but I will not. I was listening to him and I thought, yes, an MP's life is difficult, but no one ever found out only after becoming an MP that they had to go to Ottawa. Give me a break. Of course MPs have to go to Ottawa, that is where we sit. That is how it works and how it has been for 155 years. Yes, MPs have to go to Ottawa. Those who have a family have to do what they can, but there is no surprise there and that is how it works.
Our whip keeps saying that we need to be compassionate and try to listen to people who have children and give them some latitude to have a family life that is not too damaged by the parliamentarian experience.
It has been this way for 156 years. Some might say that I am being too harsh with families. No, people can find a way to organize their schedules. We can make arrangements with Parliament to make work easier for people with children. There is a way we can sit down and talk about it and try to deal with the situation. At the time, we may not have had this problem, but now we have to consider work-life balance. We could sit down with everyone and discuss this.
Conversely, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is saying, here is what I have noticed and this is my solution. He thinks very highly of himself. Could he sit down with people and come up with a solution? I am sure that talking to the Conservatives, to the NDP, to the Liberals and to us would make it possible to come up with solutions to achieve work-life balance.
At the Bloc, we also have young mothers and they tell us what they are going through. It is extraordinary what they manage to do in this situation. We could listen to them and ask them what solutions might be possible.
Could there be virtual sessions on occasion? Could we be told about this before we are forced to participate virtually? This is not even a case of take it or leave it. We are being told we have to take it; we have no choice. There is no real room to try and negotiate and make improvements. That does not seem to be a possibility.
With regard to electronic voting, if asked, we will say that we agree with it. Do we still agree with electronic voting? If it is a vote of confidence, I think voting should take place in person. In a situation where the government could be brought down, I think decency dictates that people should be here, voting in person.
With respect to accountability, we saw that some ministers were not around very often during the pandemic. That was acceptable during the pandemic; however, at some point we were no longer in a pandemic, yet some ministers seemed to think it was okay to attend virtually. I think that ministers and others who answer questions in the House or in committee must be accountable by being present to answer questions.
Earlier, a colleague mentioned that being in the House allows us to do a better job because it is easy to meet with ministers. Ministers are approachable. When we go see them, they seem pleased to speak with us. They are human beings. We are polite with them, they are polite with us. It is possible to cross the House and to speak with them in under 30 seconds, depending on how quickly a member walks. With his long legs, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean can get there in two strides, but in any case, we walk over to see them and we can talk to them.
Earlier, some colleagues were laughing and saying that we could just call them. We could call them, but that is more difficult. I find it harder to speak to a minister on the phone than to cross the floor and go see them. I can say that because I have done it several times. I am not saying that ministers do not answer the phone; that is not what I am saying. It is much easier for everyone to be in the House. To be present in the House is to do our job properly.
I would like to share something about what happens when members work remotely. Kathy Brock, a professor and senior fellow at Queen's University, appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and said that when members participate virtually in hybrid proceedings, a certain power dynamic is enforced, meaning that ministers and shadow ministers tend to be at the forefront while the backbenchers feel a bit left out.
Some experts are saying that it can be harder for members to do their work virtually. Members meet not only with ministers, but also with other members who sit on the same committees. We see that a lot. There is some degree of collegiality among us. We talk about the motions we are going to move, about what happened recently in the House. My colleague who chairs the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs often meets with our critic to chat and find out what she thinks about a particular subject.
The objective is to make the work easier. That is the objective of being present in the House.
In fact, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled a report that suggested that ministers should be present in the House for the purposes of accountability. The committee said that ministers must be present, but the government did not take that into consideration, even though it promised to abide by the committee's report. That is a problem.
My colleague will speak in more detail later about interpretation, but the evidence shows that the use of French in debates decreased dramatically with COVID-19 and a virtual Parliament. That pushed witnesses and others to speak more in English. We often hear the Liberals and just about everyone saying that Canada's two official languages are English and French, but I have some bad news: The virtual Parliament has been detrimental to the use of French. The numbers do not lie.
This behaviour will be damaging to democracy. Obviously, I am thinking about foreign interference, which is a full-scale attack on democracy. I was laughing earlier because the opposition House leader was saying that for the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc to all get along, the subject must be fairly uncontroversial, since our views are so different. There are some points we agree on, but there are others we disagree on.
All three parties are saying that an inquiry is needed to protect democracy, but the government says it knows what it is required and that it is not necessarily an inquiry. I hope the Liberals will change their tune given what happened with Mr. Johnston.
However, this type of behaviour is problematic in everything this government does. It does not always seem to take democracy seriously. I am weighing my words carefully. I do not want to upset anyone or make anyone's ears burn, but that is what I am noticing more and more.
Add to that the situation of the current hybrid Parliament, where we are really creating a precedent. Democracy is being undeniably harmed by this type of cowboy behaviour. What is more, the opposition will be disadvantaged, but that is part of what the Liberal government wants. It wants a government that is easier to run. The surprising thing, although nothing surprises me anymore, is that the NDP, which is part of the opposition, is taking powers away from the opposition. This could cause problems in the near future.
I will be moving an amendment to the amendment.
In closing, the government is setting a precedent. The government is paving the way for a future that may be difficult with exceptionally rare and exceptionally questionable behaviour. We cannot allow this to happen. I am appealing to the goodwill of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I know him. I am sure that after listening to today's comments, he will change tack and accept our help to try to reach a consensus that will benefit our parliamentary life. This is coming from a separatist. That goes to show how important the institutions are: I must respect them and I do respect them. I hope others will do the same.
My amendment to the amendment provides that the amendment to Standing Order 45 be amended by adding the following: 45(13) Notwithstanding section 12 of this Standing Order, members are required to participate in person during the taking of recorded divisions on any question of confidence when explicitly stated by the government or to concur in interim supply, to pass estimates, budgetary policy and the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
2837 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 9:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in the House to join the debate on Government Business No. 26, which seeks to make permanent the changes to the Standing Orders to allow members of Parliament to participate virtually in the work we do in this place. This motion is an important step forward in the evolution of our democracy, to make sure we are keeping with the times.
I am part of the class of 2019, as I was elected in October of that year. For me, Parliament was in session for only about six weeks before the pandemic hit, so I was just getting the sense of how the business in this place operates when that hit. Then the COVID pandemic threw everything for a loop. We had to learn how to do the business of this place but be able to respect the public health guidelines we were given, which prevented us from travelling across the country and prevented us from gathering in large groups.
Therefore, at that time, we embarked on a new innovation that allowed us to participate virtually by creating a special version of Zoom. It would allow us to participate in a way that respected those public health guidelines but still do our important work where we would be able to deliver speeches by Zoom, participate as members of committees, and have witnesses in our committees participate by Zoom as well. We also were able to vote on important pieces of legislation. What we originally developed was actually not very efficient. We each had to say on Zoom what our vote was, but eventually we actually developed an application which utilizes facial recognition so that we are now able to vote anywhere in our country in sometimes 10 seconds or less. This is a very important innovation, to my mind.
The experience has shown that virtual Parliament worked. We were able to get very important work done over the course of the pandemic to deliver help to Canadians in some of the most dire straits. We were rapidly learning what the impacts of COVID were, and we were making an iterative response to make sure the programs we were rolling out were fit for purpose.
Since the public health guidelines have changed and we have been able return en masse to this place, we have kept these provisions as an addition to the work we do in this place, and that is very important to add here because there are very clear benefits to our being able to participate virtually when we need to. For instance, if there is an emergency, particularly a family emergency, members are able to be there with some of their loved ones in some of their most difficult states. Multiple members of Parliament have given birth just in the last year, and this has allowed them to continue to do their work as MPs while being at home with their newborn child. In addition, something that was very much highlighted during the pandemic is that those who are in poor health or are sick do not need to travel to be here. It means that they are not potentially exposing other people if they are contagious, or putting themselves in a very risky position. I have heard a number of the previous speakers mention some names of members of Parliament here, and I do want to just mention our late colleague, the Hon. Jim Carr, who, with a terminal condition, was able to participate virtually, right up until the end of his life. That bears mentioning because he brought so much wisdom to this place and I learned a lot from him personally.
Another benefit I would mention about this system is that it allows members to be in their constituencies more and to do more constituency work. A very important part of our job as parliamentarians is to make sure we can be there and listen to the concerns people have and be able to advocate for their priorities. To be able to do that, it is important to actually connect with people in our constituency so that when we come to this place, we are able to advance those priorities. Many of us in this place have ridings with large populations. For me, it is 131,000 people, and there are many other members of Parliament who have even more constituents and represent large areas that are sometimes very difficult to get to.
It is important that we be able to connect with folks so we do not get too caught up in the Ottawa bubble here and become detached from the realities people are facing. That work as a constituency member of Parliament is very important, as is just being there at events, so people can feel close to their government and so members are able to be more responsive.
There are significant costs to the pre-existing system we have, where everybody is here in person. A number of members previously have talked about how the size of our country, the largest democracy in the world and the second-largest country in the world, presents some major challenges. Just the time to get here from our constituencies can be immense. At the best of times, it takes me eight hours, point to point, to get here. In the last two weeks I have missed connections, which meant I had to stay overnight in places along the way. Some other members have talked about it taking 24 hours to get here, so time is a cost. There is also a monetary cost every time we travel here; it can be in the thousands of dollars for a round trip for folks to get here.
There are health issues, particularly for some of our more vulnerable colleagues, when we are doing 26 round trips a year, particularly if we have a time zone change. For me, it is a three-hour time difference, which does take its toll as well. There are also the environmental impacts. I calculated that, for every round trip I do to Ottawa, there are 1.2 tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted, so I think we all need to be mindful of that. Then, of course, there are the opportunity costs when we are not able to be in our community as well.
One thing that I do not think has been mentioned so far in the debate today is the cost it has on families. I have seen some statistics that have shown that members of Parliament have a divorce rate of 85%. It is not hard to see why. With so many of my colleagues I have talked to, I have seen the stress it puts on relationships when they are not able to be with their family for half of the year. I think this is something we also need to take into account, because it discourages many people from getting involved in this kind of work, particularly for young families or young couples expecting to have a family. The challenge of the amount of time we need to be here, which is sometimes 130 days of the year, is a huge challenge in getting more of the people involved in this type of work whom we really need to get involved.
I do not want to say I am advocating for all virtual, because there are very real benefits to people's being here. As the government House leader for the Conservative Party mentioned, being able to talk to a minister and get something solved is much easier when one is able to walk to their desk and have that conversation. We are not, if all virtual, able to develop the informal relationships that are so key to making this work effectively, whether with other members of Parliament from other parties, with senators, bureaucrats or other stakeholders.
It is really important that, when we are giving speeches, we be in this place, because the impact when we are able to see how it is landing with somebody is very different than reading something on the screen, so I think there should be guidelines for the use of the system. I think it is a very important tool we have. All members should seek to be here far more in person than virtually, and the experience to date has shown that the vast majority of MPs are doing just that. The questions and answers in question period should be done in person. I know a few other members have brought this up previously, but the experience has been that ministers are here answering questions, which is very key for accountability.
I very much support this motion, which creates the conditions for us to be more effective MPs and better people, more energetic in the work we do as well. It has very clear benefits when it is done in a judicious way, and the experience to date has shown that it has been used in just that way.
1511 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:44:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite a very specific question, but I would first like to give a small introduction.
The pandemic forced us to innovate. It forced us to make greater use of technology. Let us think of our families who are benefiting from it today. During the pandemic, my children were able to learn at home without missing a class, and my wife, who is a teacher, taught from home. We adapted.
This week we saw a Conservative member with a baby in his arms. It was beautiful to see that and to think that it is possible to work from home, from time to time, while looking after one's family.
Can the member opposite tell us that technology has come a long way and that today it is time to move to a hybrid system?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
