SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23

Jun/12/23 6:49:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I make the point because all of our time here is temporary, and that is important to remember for two reasons. I lost once and felt it viscerally. When we leave this place and the comma is no longer after our names and we are no longer members, what we are left with is our families, friends, passions and, frankly, the relationships we made here. Those are the things that matter. That is the glue that binds us. It is and should be a cultural statement to every person in this place. No job we take should ever ask us to put the job ahead of family or those we love. Service is deeply important, but we have to put that service, first and foremost, toward those we love. There are a couple of reasons for that, aside from it being the right thing to do. It is also because, in my darkest moments, in the moments when I most lost myself and most lost my way, it was the love of my children that pulled me from that darkest spot. When I faced some of the toughest elections I ever fought, leaning in for my values and fighting for what I cared about, my mom was on the street knocking on doors hundreds of nights in a row and being there for me in all of those moments. It was seeing her strength when she is not even serving that fortified me. That is what happens. We are facing dark, hard times. There is not a member in this House who, when turning on social media, is not filled with hate and contempt as darkness is thrown at them. If we are not given time for those we love and if we are not given the opportunity to be fortified by that, then we will not be equal to the hour in front of us. We overcome darkness with perseverance. Anybody can stand up at a moment and be strong, but to do it for days, months, years and decades takes an internal fortitude that comes only from having the strength around us of those who love us and will be with us when we put down the sword and someone else picks it up. They will need it as well. I do not know, but in all likelihood, this speech will be a text somewhere in a book that is mostly used as wallpaper and will be forgotten. However, when we speak here, hopefully it is a microphone to history. I would say to anybody who is newly elected to take rest and make time for things outside of this place, as no one else will tell them to do that. Everyone else will tell them they are not doing enough, they have to work harder and they have to go to more places. The honourable people who fill this chamber actually need to be told the opposite of working hard. They need to be told to take a break and make sure they are getting what they need, that they are with their families and that they are restoring for the big and hard battles ahead. What happens when we do not get our needs met is we walk into the room as robots and ghosts. We do not come here with the strength of our convictions or the ability to fight for what we care about. We drag ourselves from one room to the other, exhaustingly shaking hands and trying to remember talking points. I will hold out that I work less today, and I am proud to admit it. I work much less today than I worked in my first three terms, and I would say that I am much more effective. I ask less of my staff today, and I would say they are much more effective. This does not just make sense because it is the right thing to do, but because when people have energy, context and space, they can see what is important and have energy to do it. If it is not enough to talk about giving members of Parliament a bit of space and a bit of a break to be at those really important events, then I am going to end by talking about Arnold Chan. Arnold was one of my closest friends in this world. He managed every election day that I was in. He was my political mentor. Watching Arnold die of cancer was one of the most viscerally painful things I have ever gone through. However, what made that so much harder was watching this man, who loved this chamber, who loved this House and who loved the opportunity to serve, have to drag himself in here to participate in debate and to vote. Seeing him in the chamber that lies just behind this chamber, doubled over in pain and in an absolutely horrific state because he did not want to let his constituents down, was ridiculous. If we had had hybrid then, he could have done that from his home. Unfortunately, as whip, I know there are way too many situations like this, where health affects a member's ability to be here, and not just their health but potentially the health of their loved ones. It would seem to me that at the very least, even if members are not compelled by the other arguments, like being there in major moments of our families' lives, remembering the memory of a Mauril Bélanger or an Arnold Chan should inspire some sympathy for the pain we cannot see and the struggles that are not so visible that need to be attended to. I know in my heart that a hundred or a thousand years from now, the changes we are putting in the Standing Orders will continue. I know this, as I move these changes here today, not because they cannot be changed. They can. Another government of another day could reverse them. They will not be changed because I can already see all members of the House using them and using them judiciously and appropriately. I have talked to members in the corridors from every single party. They have talked to me about how these provisions have been a total game-changer for them, their families and their ability to do their jobs. This is the right thing. It is not just the right thing for the people who are here. It is a siren call to all others that this is the House of the common people. I am certain that some people will see these changes, people who did not see themselves being able to step forward and live a public life and thought it would be impossible to serve in Parliament, and say that it is possible and they can come forward and serve. Perhaps there is no more important thing than that. Hybrid makes this Parliament a little more accessible, a little more open and that much more representative of the country we are so lucky to serve. I hope all members really consider the last three years, consider the work that was done by the procedure and House affairs committee and consider honestly the toll of this job and the message it sends to adopt hybrid: what it says now and what it will say to the Parliament of the future.

1236 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/12/23 6:57:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to draw out a point the government House leader made and challenge him on it. He used a few times in his speech language about unanimity and consensus when it came to drastically overhauling and changing the Standing Orders of this House. It is a very important point, because historically and traditionally, major changes to the Standing Orders have come through consensus and often unanimity. What the government has done today, though, is break with that tradition, because there are many things within this package of Standing Order reforms that the official opposition objects to. In the spirit of finding consensus, we would have agreed with some of the points we might not have preferred to have in there if there had been a sunset clause in this package. We are entering into a new world. Even though we have been operating under many of these provisions for some time now, it still remains to be seen what the long-term impacts of these major changes will be. Our proposal was to agree to this package but have a sunset clause so that after the next election, within about a year, we would require a positive action for the House to continue with this. I wonder why the government House leader chose to ignore the very reasonable request to have this package expire and to force a future House to make a positive decision about whether to continue with these changes.

246 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/12/23 6:58:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, on the question of unanimity, let me be very clear that unanimity existed for a brief period of time, and for a very focused reason. Unanimity existed when the pandemic first began. We all agreed, rightfully at that moment in time, that it was going to be impossible for Parliament to operate in person. It was time-limited, but it is important to understand that those changes and that work were done with the co-operation and unanimity of all parties. In terms of why we do not just put in a sunset clause, I have a couple of points. The first point is that every time we started a session of Parliament over the last number of sessions, it began with a very long, protracted debate about whether or not we should use these provisions. We debated them extensively, and we are seeing them work. This brings me to my last point in response to the opposition House leader, which is that the unanimity that exists here is in watching the provisions be used. I found it very ironic, for example, that the Conservatives who had a position against the voting application, when there was a vote on the voting application, mostly voted using the voting application. It is an inconsistent position to be against the voting application, but then use the voting application; to be against the utilization of hybrid, and then to watch Conservative members even today participating in debate virtually, as one member did. So, when there is a use by all parties of the provisions, it makes it sound like the opposition is more partisan in nature and cares more about posturing than it does about what I think the hon. member knows, which is the fact that these provisions work, they are used judiciously and, lastly, they could be changed at any time by a government in the future having a majority by changing the Standing Orders.

328 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/12/23 7:00:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government leader says that he has a message for MPs who want to join parliamentary life. The person who makes us work until midnight every day is telling them to rest. I listened to him speak. I think that his whip lacked compassion. I do not know who his whip was, but when I heard that, I found it difficult. I followed what he said, but I thought it was very sad. I will not say what I think of that. I want to know how he will react. The Liberals will not be in power forever. Even though that is what they believe, at some point, the Conservatives will be in power. What will happen the day that the member is in opposition and sees a Conservative government, probably with a majority eventually, unilaterally, on its own, decide how Parliament will work? The Conservative prime minister will say that from then on, the parliamentary rules will be the following. The government leader has created a precedent by proceeding according to the will of the majority instead of obtaining unanimous consent. How will he react when that poor example is followed by the Conservatives?

197 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/12/23 7:02:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my hon. colleague's question. That is the case every summer. Parliament sits later than usual. It is normal to sit until midnight before rising for the summer. However, there has been a major change: It is now possible to work virtually. With the hybrid system, it is easier to manage the situation that the member opposite described. Second, there is something very different about the current situation. It is possible for a majority government to change the rules, but in the current situation, another party, the NDP, supported the amendment. Also, the change to the Standing Orders was originally supported by all parties. In fact, every party uses this system every day here in the House.

123 words

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

Jun/12/23 7:03:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, about the fact that everyone uses the provisions that are already before us. I look forward to sharing the numbers for this use in the speech I will give later. My colleague did touch, I thought, very profoundly on the issue of members being sick and still representing their constituents, and members having family crises or family emergencies and still representing their constituents. We live in a vast land. My commute is 5,000 kilometres to get to Ottawa as I am at the other end of the country in beautiful British Columbia. However, we have seen wildfires hitting throughout the middle and northern parts of our country: northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and Nova Scotia. How important is it for members of Parliament to be able to be on the ground during those emergencies in their ridings and still advocate for the kinds of supports that the federal government needs to be providing in those crises as they are occurring? How important is that element as far as the hybrid—

197 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/12/23 7:04:42 p.m.
Watch

The hon. government House leader.

5 words

Hon. Mark Holland

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

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Jun/12/23 7:06:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. government House leader for his speech and for sharing this evening. It was very touching. I am struck with the reality that every party in this House has used hybrid over a period of time. It has become a useful tool for a lot of different reasons. Can he speak to the diversity of reasons one might choose to or need to engage virtually? Can he also comment on the willingness of some parties to look forward rather than backward when making decisions?

92 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Jun/12/23 7:06:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will give some direct circumstances that some people may not think about. One is talking to a parent whose kid is going through something really hard in school and really needs mom or dad to be there for a few days. That is going to make a huge difference in their mental health and development. I hear from members who have a loved one who just got terribly devastating news, and they are able to leave immediately to be there for that and still uphold their responsibilities. That is not something I have seen one party use; that is something I have seen every party use. That is why I would ask members to reflect on how they have used these provisions, how important they are, and to set aside the politics, do the right thing by supporting this motion and these changes so we can continue with hybrid.

152 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/12/23 7:07:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, I just want to start off by setting a bit of context about how the Liberals treat Parliament in general. We all remember the 2015 election campaign when the Prime Minister pretended that he cared about things like accountability, transparency and the supremacy of Parliament, and the fact that we come to this place from all corners of this country to hold the government to account. That is not just a phrase that one might hear in a political science class or a high school civics class. Holding it to account is not just some kind of bookkeeping exercise where we make sure the numbers add up. Yes, that is part of it, but it is really about litigating the decisions of the government to ensure that Canadians get only the best. It is through the rigour of parliamentary debate, committee investigations and the daily questioning of the Prime Minister and cabinet that the facts emerge and Canadians are able to make informed decisions when it is time to vote. I was House leader back in 2015 right after that election, right after the Prime Minister said he would respect the role of Parliament, that he would always defer to the important role that the House of Commons plays in our democracy. Something happened in that first few months after the 2015 election that totally showed what a phony comms exercises all of that rhetoric was. There was a bill before the House back then; I believe was Bill C-10. The Liberals had trouble counting their caucus members one Monday morning. There was a vote that the Liberals were not expecting on that day and they almost lost it because they did not have enough members in town. They still had members back in their ridings perhaps or on international junkets, or on any number of other things. There was a tie-vote in the chamber. A piece of government legislation was almost defeated and the Speaker had to break the tie at that time and, as was the convention of the Speaker, broke the tie in favour of continuing debate and allowed the bill to pass at report stage, so the bill continued on. They were so rattled by that episode that just a few days later the government House leader came into this chamber and proposed Motion No. 6. Motion No. 6 was a complete defanging of the opposition, a removal of most of the tools that opposition parties use to hold the government to account, to draw out those details, and to litigate the government's course of actions and its legislation. It gave the government unprecedented power to move legislation along quickly and to prevent the opposition from using its very legitimate tools to hold up debate, not just for the sake of filibustering or delay for the sake of delay. It is in that delay that members of Parliament find those details, find the mistakes that the government makes or hear the stories from witnesses about how those unintended consequences might do more harm than good. The government's reaction at that time to a tie-vote on a piece of legislation was what might be called a parliamentary hissy fit where it just completely lost its temper and tried to take away all of the things that the opposition party could ever hope to use to hold the government to account. Thankfully, the opposition parties understood what was going on. It is always amazing when parties with as wide a variety of views as the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP can find common ground, but the Liberals are good at doing that. When the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP can find something to be such an affront to parliamentary democracy and everything that we are supposed to do here that we join forces together, and put our differences aside to protect this institution, it is actually a terrible indictment on the Liberal Party, and so often we have had to do that. For the sake of our institution, for the sake of future generations of Canadians, for the sake of future Parliaments and future members of Parliament to be able to have those very important tools to do the job on behalf of their constituents, we have had to join forces. I remember being there when the House leaders from all the recognized parties, along with the Bloc Québécois, told the story. We all told the story to Canadians about the motives and the consequences of what the government was doing. We were able to push back on that, whether due to the effective communications of all the opposition parties or due to the fact that in those moments, the Prime Minister lost his temper. The Prime Minister actually injured an NDP member of Parliament, when he elbowed an NDP member and forcefully grabbed the Conservative whip at the time. He completely lost his temper and physically manhandled a member of Parliament. Maybe that is why he finally backed down, but I like to think that it was at least in part because of the important points we were making as opposition parties to defend our institutions. We see this time and time again. Every time the Liberals do not get their way, they try to change the rules of the game. It is important to note that the tools that are available to the opposition to delay, to propose amendments and to physically have members of the cabinet and the government in the chamber, are an important part of the process. We have a system whereby the executive branch sits in the chamber, and the opposition parties have to have some tools at their disposal to be able to highlight the shortcomings, failures and mistakes in the government's agenda. It does not just happen in this House. The other place also plays an important role in that. I should point out that the other place has completely put aside its hybrid Parliament mechanisms. They have been back under normal operating standards for a long time now. For months, they have been able to continue doing their job. It is really just this chamber. In fact, it is just this chamber in all of Canada that is continuing on with a full host of measures that were originally put in place, as the government House leader acknowledged, when there was consensus about how best to do two things. One of these things was to respect the public health orders that were in place at the time, about people travelling from different parts of the country to come together, and the other was respecting the orders and regulations at the time to have people who were from different households being certain distances apart. We agreed at that time to respect those two things, because we could not have a period of time when Parliament was not doing its job. Thank goodness, we insisted on that. I remember those days, when the government was trying to arrange for unanimous passage of its legislation in response to the pandemic, without any debate at all. The Liberals wanted to just email the text of the legislation to members of Parliament, have them come in here for just a few moments, pass it all and then go home again. Thankfully, the official opposition, the Conservative Party, said no to that. It was through that parliamentary scrutiny that we learned many terrible things about the government's response to the COVID pandemic. We found out that the Prime Minister attempted to use the pandemic to try to enrich his friends. We found out because Parliament was sitting, because we had the tools at our disposal, in terms of committees and debates in the chamber. He did this with the massive disruption in people's lives; loss of life; people having to say goodbye to loved ones over Zoom; people having to miss birthday parties, anniversaries and funerals; businesses going bankrupt; and children missing out on activities and important parts of their childhood. The Prime Minister tried to give his friends at the WE Foundation, an organization that had paid members of his family hundreds of thousands of dollars, an untendered sole source contract worth half a billion dollars. However, he got caught, because we did not give up those tools in our tool kit to hold the government to account. We found out through parliamentary scrutiny that the government used the pandemic, as well, to reward Liberal insiders and defeated Liberal MPs, such as Frank Baylis. He got a sole source contract for providing medical supplies that he had no history of ever providing. The arrive scam app is another example of waste and mismanagement. Thank goodness we still had those parliamentary tools at our disposal. I want to address a few points that the government House leader brought up in his speech. He talked about unanimity consensus. My colleague in the Bloc Québécois just made a very important point. As a former speaker, I have learned a little about the history, about the importance of the Standing Orders and their evolution over time, as well as why things are the way they are. The McGrath committee was one of those great examples where Parliament had not been updated for a long period of time; society had implemented a whole bunch of innovations, and parliamentary life had changed. In response to those changing times in the 1980s, the government of the day decided that it would have a fulsome analysis of the Standing Orders, the parliamentary cycle and the daily routine of business. It was essential that all the opposition parties were brought in and a true effort was made to find consensus and common ground; where there was no consensus, the government did not proceed. It was out of that committee that we had major changes, for example, in the election of the Speaker. For generations before the 1980s, the Prime Minister chose the Speaker. It was a motion that the Prime Minister moved, and it was basically a fait accompli; whomever the Prime Minister wanted to become Speaker became Speaker. In the 1980s, the House decided, in its wisdom, that it would be better to preserve the impartiality of the Chair if the Speaker did not have to worry about pleasing or displeasing the Prime Minister. Therefore, the House instituted the secret ballot election, and former speaker John Fraser was the first to be elected by secret ballot. Ever since then, speakers have been chosen that way. That was a very important development in our parliamentary democratic underpinnings. It was a great development. It was a fantastic idea; it has served the House well, and it has served the Speaker as well. The point that I am making to my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party is that it was achieved through consensus, because if all parties from all different corners of the country and from different political perspectives cannot be convinced that it is a good idea that will serve the institution as an institution, and not one party over another, then maybe it is not such a good idea. Maybe we should at least go back and try to build that consensus. However, that is not what they are doing here. They would be creating a precedent, whereby future governments and future Parliaments would look and say that it has been done before where a government, perhaps backed by a junior coalition partner in a minority context, could say that at the end of the day, it is just going to ram it through anyway. We offered a good-faith effort to preserve the idea of consensus, to prevent what is about to happen when the government ultimately rams this motion through. We said that, in order to preserve the importance of overhauling the Standing Orders only after a government has achieved that consensus, we would agree to things on a time-limited basis that we might not normally agree to. We were willing to allow aspects of this hybrid package to continue, with the one caveat that the package of changes would sunset after the next election. This is a very simple and, I believe, common-sense proposal. What would that do, and why is it important? After every election, it is part of our normal routine of business that the Standing Orders are studied by the procedure and House affairs committee. There is supposed to be a debate in the House about the Standing Orders and whether anything needs to be changed or how the Standing Orders are serving the House at the time. It has never really resulted in anything substantially major, because the government of the day always wants to use government time to implement business. That is reasonable; the members get elected on a platform, and every day that they spend debating the Standing Orders, as they are today, is a day that they do not have to debate the legislation they would like to put out. Our proposal would have required a government of the day to, proactively and in a positive way, actually take some action to extend these changes. I submit that we are still only about a year or so out of the complete lifting of COVID restrictions. In some parts of Canada, it has literally just been 12 to 14 months since those restrictions have been fully lifted, so it is hard to say for sure what the long-term consequences of these changes will be on our parliamentary life. It is not just life in terms of our personal lives or how we conduct our business but also in terms of the institution itself. My hon. colleague, the House leader, has lots of examples of how it is tough to be here. Yes, it is difficult, but I do not think that members of Parliament should ask for considerations that hard-working Canadians from across the country in other industries do not have. Yes, it is difficult to be here. I have five children, and there are lots of things I wish I could have stayed home for. There are lots of important milestones I missed. I knew that when I ran for office. I knew when I put my name on the ballot that it would be a trade-off in my life. Yes, I would get the incredible reward of fighting for the things I believe in and serving my community and my constituents, but the counterpoint to that is that I would be away from home an awful lot. I made the decision to do it anyway, because I so value the important work that my party does and that my team does. I believe that the things I believe in are important enough that I am willing to sacrifice those special moments at home to help make Canada a better place. I want to help undo the damage that big government intervention has caused in our lives, with the liberty and individual freedoms that we have lost over the past few years under the Liberal government. It is worth it. I might miss one of my children's birthdays, but hopefully, I will help to roll back some of the misery that big government intervention in their lives causes for them. They will be better off for it throughout their life. That is one of my motivating factors when I have to miss those important moments. For Canadians in lots of different industries, they might have an important milestone in their family that they would like to get back for. Maybe they have to go to a trades conference, or maybe they are in the legal profession and have an important court date. They cannot just phone it in because they have something going on at home. I do not think members of Parliament should grant to ourselves a privilege and a comfort that so many Canadians across the country do not have in their lives. I do not believe that this is sufficient in and of itself to justify the changes that the government is making today. In terms of the important precedent that it is creating here today, it will likely not be singing from the same song sheet in future Parliaments if a future government does something it does not like with the Standing Orders. However, I would submit to the government that it is not too late. In a few moments, I will be proposing an amendment that will more closely resemble the consensus that we are trying to achieve in negotiating these packages of Standing Order changes. We have long held that major, enduring procedural reforms must be implemented with the support of a consensus of the recognized parties in the House. Making permanent such a sweeping change to parliamentary life is absolutely the sort of thing that should first be embraced by all sides of the aisle. In the interest of consensus, the official opposition would have agreed to renew the current hybrid procedures with some important limitations, subject to that sunset a year into the next Parliament, when a further renewal could have been considered with proper deliberations. It is the flip side of what the government House leader is saying. He was saying that a future Parliament could undo it. We are asking why we do not do it the opposite way. The onus is on the government to justify and to answer for all the potential and unforeseen consequences of its changes. It would have been far better for the House and for future Parliaments if it had been done in reverse, and if the onus were on the government for continuing them. I want to focus on hybrid participation in the chamber. There really is something to the physicality of the place. Holding ministers to account in person really adds a dynamic that we lose when we have hybrid Parliament. It is not just me saying that. There are parliamentary experts from all around the world in Commonwealth parliaments and even former Liberal MPs who have said the very same thing. Being in the chamber, with that thrust and that back and forth, is as much a part of the debate as the words themselves are. When the House sits in a hybrid fashion, it takes a tremendous amount of resources, particularly with translation services. Members of Parliament and Canadians have the right to read and watch the debates in either official language, in French or English. It is difficult for the House administration. I sit on the Board of Internal Economy; for Canadians who might not be familiar with the term, this is the management committee that oversees the House of Commons and its administration. It is generally non-partisan. It is literally designed to help make sure that the precinct is secure and that members of Parliament have the services they need to do their jobs. The strain placed on our translation services by hybrid sittings has been brought up multiple times at that committee. The translators have a very difficult job. They have to listen at a very specific sound level. They have to be able to hear what is being said and speak out the translation in real time. It is not as if translators get copies of speeches and can transcribe them into the other language and then just read them out. They have to simultaneously listen and speak at the same time. Our interpreters have had a surprising number of workplace injuries. Members of Parliament get up to speak, but maybe they are too close to the microphone, maybe they start off too loudly or maybe their headset is not calibrated properly. Our translators then get that initial blast of sound, and over time we have had an unfortunate number of interpreters who have had to go on leave or have been put on medical leave because of those injuries. As a result, our pool of available translators has shrunk, and it is now incredibly difficult for the House to find adequate levels of human resources for a hybrid Parliament while at the same time providing the same for committees. The reason I bring this up is that because of the nature of the importance of the deliberations in the chamber, the House of Commons itself is always given the first right of refusal on human resources. That means that we will always have translation services available to the House. Where does the House get those services when human resources are stretched thin? It gets them from committees. I know we have lots of colleagues in the chamber right now who sit on committees. How many of them have had a committee cancelled at the last moment over the last few months because of a lack of resources? I am sure every single member has experienced that. Often when the government extends the hours of the House by six or seven hours in the evening, suddenly the House administration has to scramble and reallocate those translators. As a result, committees get cancelled. Why would the Liberals want committees to be cancelled? The Prime Minister hates parliamentary committees, and it is not hard to understand why. It is at committees that we have exposed the most egregious examples of waste, corruption and mismanagement. We are able to really pore through the spending, the contracts and the hypocrisies in government programs in terms of economic mismanagement. We have had incredible breaking news and bombshell reports that have come out at committee. We catch one minister saying something that has been denied by another minister or we get a look at those contracts that have been awarded to Liberal insiders or we hear expert testimony that—

3659 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:30:21 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Waterloo.

12 words

Waterloo

Hon. Bardish Chagger

Jun/12/23 7:30:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the opposition House leader, but I just think it is interesting that he is talking about interpreters, who do really important work, and he is almost suggesting that it is they who are causing committees to be cancelled when it is actually Conservative filibusters that have been—

54 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:30:41 p.m.
Watch

I think we are getting into debate. I am more than happy to let the hon. member for Waterloo ask a question when the speech is done. The hon. opposition House leader.

32 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/12/23 7:30:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has chaired a committee that often has to hear about the strain on House resources. She would know that by no means is it the translators' fault; it is the government's fault when it does not properly allocate its resources or when it makes these decisions at the last minute, causing committees to be—

63 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:31:10 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Waterloo has another point of order.

10 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

Jun/12/23 7:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do. I just want to say that when it comes to the relevance of the topic and wanting all members and all parties to agree, it is important that the member find a way forward rather than—

41 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:31:22 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member is still getting into debate. Members are more than welcome to ask a question once the speech is done. The hon. opposition House leader.

29 words

Speech

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/12/23 7:31:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the British Parliament, members of Parliament are able to ask questions and make comments during a speech by asking if the member who has the floor would give way or yield, but we do not have that system here. When I am finished, the hon. member can ask me questions or provide comments and I will be happy to respond to her, but not during my speech itself. Of course, she may have a turn to speak if the government House leader has her on his list of the members from his side who will speak. I think I was talking about how much the Prime Minister hates committees. It is because that is where the most egregious forms of his waste and mismanagement are exposed to Canadians. That is why our common sense proposal is to say that we should keep participation in the House in person. Let us at least say that when members are in the House, when they want to intervene, when they want something on the official record or when they want to give a speech on behalf of their constituents, they should do that in the chamber. As for committees, we could allow committees to continue in a hybrid format. We have lots of expert witnesses for whom it might not make sense to fly them all the way to Ottawa, put them up for several days in a hotel and then fly them back if they are really only required to give testimony for an hour or two. Conservatives recognize the reasonableness of that particular proposal, and doing it that way—separating the hybrid chamber from hybrid committees—would completely ease the strain on the translation services. However, that proposal was rejected. I also want to address something that the House leader referenced. He was actually making one of the points I was going to make, and then he kind of glossed over it in, I believe, an insincere way. He talked about the parliamentary precinct, life in Parliament and how our day-to-day routines actually help a lot of work get done outside of what I am doing right now, which is speaking to legislation. I just had an example of this. I have an issue in my riding that I have been trying to get a government minister to address. It often takes days and days to get a response back from a minister's staff. Obviously, they are handling a lot of different files, so sometimes when a request is made, it takes sometimes five to seven days to get a response. When the Speaker was welcoming the Portuguese ambassador, the minister was there. I happened to be in the same room and I could have gotten an answer right away. I could have said, “I have this important issue that I have spoken to the minister about before. I have not heard back yet. Could we get together tomorrow?”, and the answer would have been yes. All those types of meetings and the ability to advance files, the ability to move something along or to have things addressed, whether it is a program or a project in someone's riding, are lost if ministers are not physically here. If the—

550 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/12/23 7:34:28 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for King—Vaughan is rising on a point of order.

14 words