44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 2:45:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, commissions of inquiry are not held to deal with simple issues. They are held to deal with sensitive issues where the information is not accessible, because those with the information are afraid or do not want to collaborate. Cleary, it is a delicate matter. Clearly, there will be times when proceedings are in camera. Commissions of inquiry provide for that. If it were not a sensitive matter, we would not need an independent public commission of inquiry, but that is where we are today.
When will the government announce this independent public commission of inquiry ?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since I have 20 minutes of speaking time, I would like to tell my colleague that when I saw the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, I did not actually see her.
I will say from the outset that I will be voting against Government Motion No. 26, as are all my Bloc Québécois colleagues. We talked about it and reached an agreement. We are going to vote against the motion in order to uphold the conclusion of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I attended for weeks. I was there for the testimony, the deliberations, all the work. The Bloc Québécois's position takes into account our ongoing concerns, which have arisen from our parliamentary experience since the beginning of the pandemic.
The hybrid Parliament was put in place because it was necessary; it allowed us to continue our work. Otherwise, everyone was simply staying home. How did we manage to make this happen? There was a quick, friendly and consensual consultation to hammer out a plan to work together. As the old saying goes, nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. I have no desire to live that way.
There is no doubt in my mind that the government is making changes to the Standing Orders unilaterally, without even initiating a dialogue. There has been no attempt at dialogue or discussion with the opposition parties. No one was consulted. Where is the good faith?
Frankly, I find it hard to understand why anyone would do such a thing, given everything we have been through at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We managed to adopt a report, although the Bloc Québécois tabled a dissenting report. The report contained several potential options.
Mr. Speaker, ultimately, much of the report's contents came from certain witnesses, including yourself. Your suggestions were extremely valuable.
Thanks to the agreement with the NDP, the government can pull a fast one on the opposition parties. I look forward to seeing the Liberals when they are in opposition, perhaps under the Conservatives. That is what I am predicting. That might come back to haunt me. Will this motion still be in effect? We will have to see.
The fact is, the government should have sought a consensus. We are trying to work together. I can be honest, because the Bloc Québécois is not looking to be in power. We are seeking freedom for our country, Quebec, so I can say that. When people talk to me about partisanship, nonsense and bickering, I can deflect the blame.
This motion is going to drastically change the rules of the House of Commons and cause dramatic shifts in the dynamics of the work of parliamentarians. Without informing or consulting all of the other parties about the content of the motion, except, of course, the NDP, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to unilaterally announce on June 8 how the representation of constituents and the debates on the issues that affect them would work here in Canada from now on. Come on. That is a major change.
I can see what is happening with our allies, and I think that it would be in everyone's best interest to discuss this together. It requires a lot more respect, but the government is doing this just a few days before we rise for the summer. We finished our study in January. There was plenty of time to discuss it. We would have even had a few weeks before the end of the session.
This 42-page proposal will change the way of doing politics in Ottawa and, obviously, reduce the accountability of government members in their roles.
I fear for our democracy. It must be protected. It is a hot topic these days. Just today at the procedure and House affairs committee, we spent another five hours talking about foreign interference to save our democracy.
I will give some examples. When question period ends and members leave West Block, that is when journalists have access to them. This is important for the people who are watching. If members are in their offices, just a few metres from Parliament, that is a great way for them to hide.
Some will say there are other ways. Accessibility and journalistic rights will be violated. I have proof of that, and all the witnesses reiterated it.
Would a healthy democracy just allow this? Is this really the direction Canada wants to take? Honestly, I am certain that it is not. As my colleague said earlier, it is a Bloc member who is fighting to defend Canada's democracy. It is unbelievable.
As I said at the outset, the government House leader brought this to us a few days before we rise for the summer, with no consultation and no notice. The fact is, he is doing it at the eleventh hour.
There comes a point where enough is enough. I am not going to rant and rave this evening. I already did that the other night, but the government could stop taking us for fools. Right now, we are talking about defending and respecting democracy. As I was saying, we have been talking about foreign interference in our elections for weeks. We have been asking the government to protect democracy for weeks.
Is the government aware that it needs to restore people's confidence in our system? I would hope so. What has it done? We are trying to figure that out.
This is a collective responsibility that we all have as members. We know what we are getting into. I want to see real action. I want to see the government treat members of the House with respect. I am saying “I want to see” because I do not want to say “I would like”. Even though I am feeling a little less positive right now, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, I believe that we can work together.
Yesterday, we heard the speech given by the government House leader. He was being melodramatic and telling us stories to raise our awareness. It is impossible to be indifferent to that, but I will repeat that he is not going about this the right away. That is what the Liberals need to understand.
I was pretty disappointed to see that the procedure and House affairs committee did not accept the most respectable recommendations regarding the hybrid Parliament. I cannot get over it. With the government and NDP votes, the procedure and House affairs committee rejected a lot of parameters that would have made us more efficient. They were reasonable parameters for establishing and maintaining a healthy parliamentary democracy.
The motion had not even been drafted and moved before the government threatened to not suspend the work of the House for the summer until this and at least a dozen other motions were adopted.
We must add to that several other things, such as sittings lasting until midnight on several nights, though not all, and the excessive use of closure, more than I have ever seen before, to pass bills. Furthermore, forgotten bills are being put on the Order Paper, the bills that are considered a priority by the government are constantly changing, and briefings are held only for journalists before MPs are informed of the content of government bills and private members' bills. The government also refused to listen to the will of the House when we called for David Johnston to recuse himself from the study of the need for a public inquiry into foreign interference.
I could give other examples.
After all that, we are told that this is to further democracy. I doubt that is the real reason. When it comes to respecting the legislative process, the government members are truly arrogant.
At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a number of witnesses said that the hybrid format affects spontaneous connections between members from different parties. As an aside, I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for our colleague, the member for Labrador, who has received a lot of praise, three times now in the House. She was applauded and encouraged. I would love to know how these things are done virtually. This is tangible and real. This is changing the relationships between elected members.
The fact that I can bump into a minister in the hallway and talk to him or her about an important issue facing the people of my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, is just as important as oral question period. The informal relationships that we all build with one another help us better serve our constituents. Is that not our job?
We know the answer. We all have to be present to do our jobs properly and to serve our constituents. We must never forget that. I am not talking about reforming, reflecting or perfecting. I am talking about coming to an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. I am disgusted by what we are seeing here.
The thing that irks me about this debate, as I was saying earlier, is the method the government is using. I am against permanently having a fully hybrid Parliament, but we are not against every idea. There are several that are very good and deserve to be looked at. We should do that by consulting, negotiating and talking, not by having deliberations when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Some are arguing for better work-life balance. There are several good ideas that deserve to be studied to provide more flexibility to members in exceptional circumstances, like those who live in provinces affected by the forest fires.
We want in-person voting. Let me say it again, just to be safe. We want in-person attendance to be mandatory during all votes that the government has explicitly stated are confidence motions and during all votes on appropriations. I think that is common sense. We have yet to get a response to that suggestion, but that is because there has not been any dialogue.
It should be the same for parliamentary committee chairs. How can the chair sense what is happening in committee, understand and preside over debates if they are not there in person? Imagine the chair of the committee attending virtually while everyone else is attending in person. It has happened before. It makes no sense.
I agree that exceptional measures are appropriate, but certainly not in the format we have seen in recent months. Even the Speaker of the House of Commons came to meet with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He told the committee that we had to find the best way of doing things, not just something developed in a rush. We had a few weeks to prepare, because the report was tabled in January. That is not what I am seeing tonight, however.
I would like to remind members that, although the summer adjournment is only a few days away, we still have time to sit down together and discuss this.
The Speaker also said that there were issues to resolve regarding decorum, the dress code and connectivity. We do not all have access to the same quality of Internet services yet. However, there is nothing about any of that in the motion.
We want to ensure that a virtual Parliament will not weaken government accountability by allowing ministers to be absent when things get too hot for them to handle. That is one of our concerns. At one point along the way, most of the ministers were attending remotely. That is why we want to limit remote attendance. The witnesses and commissioners absolutely need to be present for committee meetings, as we saw today. That changes everything.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs just finished meeting. When witnesses appear in person, it is completely different. However, we still ran into some problems. Since the NDP whip was participating remotely, she was unable to see that a motion had just been tabled in person. Those are real-life examples that we cannot ignore.
In our opinion, the hybrid parliamentary model has not proven to be the effective parliamentary system that was expected in a country like Canada, which claims to be a model of democracy. The hybrid Parliament, in the form proposed by the government in its amendments document, could jeopardize the parliamentary mechanisms of government oversight set out to protect our democratic institutions. Our allies in other international legislatures told us that they went back to participation in person as soon as possible.
I am thinking about the people who are watching us this evening. We are in the House until 12:30 a.m. and parliamentary business is winding down. I implore us to be constructive. Let us prove it. I implore us to work together constructively. The House leaders of each party need to be consulted. A reform of this scope needs to be made without partisanship. When I think about the people who are watching us, I feel like we are giving them a very bad performance. We need to show we can collaborate, show that we are able to work together.
I will close by saying that the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and member for Waterloo tabled the committee's report a few months ago, but the government is only now reacting. Why is this being rushed through? Let me put it this way: It is because the Liberals procrastinated. As with so many files, they have been dragging their feet, and now they are in a hurry because everything has to wrap up on June 23. It is doing this at the last minute. This cannot happen again.
2325 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer all three questions even though they were asked by only one person.
First, in my mind, a pilot project must be evaluated for results that can be applied permanently. We had three years of practice. We met with experts. We have a result and that is the report. What I heard from my colleague is that they will not be using all the work we did. It has been shelved.
He said that there were discussions. Unless my dear leader slept all through these last few days, there was no communication about what would be tabled, in this case Motion No. 26. I would like someone to show me the proof and I will apologize for my comments. Otherwise, I did not see the leaders consulting and discussing the report or having any constructive consultations.
Finally, with regard to the voting application, I will slowly repeat my remarks. Sometimes I definitely speak too quickly for the interpreters.
We agree on the application. We used it a great deal. When I talk about in-person accountability, I am referring to confidence votes, which do not happen every week, and supply votes. We intend to use the application for everything else.
Are we going to have to say it 50 times? It seems clear enough to me.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:06:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a lot to say about that.
At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we do indeed work in a collegial manner. As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois lead with our conscience. We analyze whether something is good for Quebec, for our values. If it is, we vote in favour. If it is not, we vote against it.
That is what happened at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We voted for what is happening right now, which is the real defence of democracy. We are talking about the hybrid Parliament, and democracy means consultation. We used resources to consult experts and obtain results in order to establish a possible hybrid Parliament with rules.
That is being trampled on. With just a few days to go before we rise for the summer, all of a sudden a motion is being rushed through, without any real consultation. Once again, consistent with the list I provided earlier, I am unfortunately very disappointed in the government.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, I am very concerned about our resources. When we visit other Parliaments, it is clear that their staffing requirements are different, given that we have two official languages. In fact, what worries me is all the damage that has occurred with the use of Zoom and the resulting acoustic bursts. All the partners who met with us said that the education system needs to be involved upstream, to ensure there are sufficient resources. What is more, when people are working in hybrid mode, they work differently. The equipment is not the same.
Honestly, to go one step further, if our official languages are important, if French is important, if we want quality discussions without interruptions, that is another reason to use the hybrid mode sparingly.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:23:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have had many hours of debate.
I was wondering about something. I have to confess that, in my two short terms, I have sat the same number of hours in person and virtually. I therefore have little experience in terms of knowing all the benefits.
Considering that my colleague from Alberta has many more years of experience, I am hoping he can help me understand why a decision as important as this is coming to us at the end of a parliamentary session, even though our committee tabled it back in January.
Why is this happening?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
