44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 8:37:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, gaining and retaining power by any means necessary is in the DNA of that member and the Liberal Party. It is called Machiavellianism. This member completely misled the public by deliberately confusing electronic voting with the hybrid Parliament.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of electronic voting. The hybrid Parliament is another story. Why is the Liberal Party in favour of a hybrid Parliament? It is simply because it has an alliance with the NDP, and the hybrid Parliament benefits the NDP. The NDP members are mainly from western Canada, and we know that all of that travel is difficult. However, it comes with the job.
Next, I would like to talk a little bit about the respect that this member and the Liberal Party should have for those who provide simultaneous interpretation. Our interpreters are working their tails off, experiencing hearing problems and burning out because there is a shortage of staff. Obviously, the hybrid Parliament is directly related to that burnout.
If we did not have a hybrid Parliament, our interpreters would be in better shape and more available. They would be able to cover the schedule without any problems.
I care about the human side of things. Let us put our interpreters ahead of such purely political justifications.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:13:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech; it could have passed for a Bloc speech.
I feel like the Liberal government put one over on us during COVID‑19. We got hoodwinked because it asked for our co-operation and then forced its hybrid Parliament model on us. It is overreaching, and that disturbs me a lot. This government does whatever it wants.
This motion is super important. It should have required more than a 50% plus one vote—maybe even unanimity. This is a big deal because it is an attack on the rules of Parliament. It changes fundamental things. It changes MPs' contract with the people. This is a major issue for me, and it cannot go through like this.
The fluidity of member-to-member contact here in the House, when we see each other face to face, is a big deal. It is important for resolving conflicts and problems with our constituents and government departments.
I would just like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what I just said.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:36:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to me, the job of MP is not a normal or usual job. We are seeing that this evening. We are all going to be here until midnight, when we started at seven or eight this morning. That is not normal work.
This openness to hybrid Parliament is an exaggeration or maybe even an abuse of power by the Liberal government.
We accepted an employment contract that had us spending roughly 50% of our time in our ridings and the other 50% in Ottawa. Suddenly, the Liberal government says that this is not working anymore. To help the NDP members who live far away, the government is going to make some changes. Obviously this really bothers me because this is not the job I signed up for.
I would make two suggestions, Madam Speaker. The first would be that you also be allowed to be Speaker remotely, in a hybrid model. Why not? There are no limits, under the current proposal. The second—
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about adapting. I totally agree that we have to adapt on a daily basis.
On the other hand, neither Quebec nor any other province has a hybrid legislature. I would like it if he could name two or three countries in the world that operate in hybrid mode.
Some MPs are giving the excuse that their constituency is remote. My colleague's riding, Lac-Saint-Jean, is a seven-hour drive away. The ridings of MPs from British Columbia are a six-hour flight away. Where is the logic?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:24:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my grey hair bears witness to the fact that I have learned certain things in life. One of them is that changes need to be explained and justified. Intelligent arguments must be presented. People need convincing. That is not what I am seeing in this motion. These changes are being imposed and have not been properly thought out.
The government should remember that, during the pandemic, we were eager to return to work here after two years. We were glad to see one another and to work together again. Today, we are hearing the total opposite from the Liberals. We are being asked to accept that the work will be done from home under certain conditions that are as yet unknown.
That is not what we signed up for. Our voters did not put us in power or elect us to do that. Changing the rules midstream is never healthy. I would like to have—
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:41:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not have much parliamentary experience. Soon, I will have been here for a mere four years.
However, like everyone else, I have noticed something that even the Liberals who are moving this motion have noticed. For at least two and a half years, there have been major problems with interpretation. There are issues with availability, and the interpreters are experiencing more and more hearing problems. All this irritates me because this motion runs completely counter to that; it does not take into account the interpreters' health and hearing needs.
If we care about our staff, we should look after them and look out for them, for God's sake. This motion does the exact opposite. Hybrid Parliament puts a lot of pressure on them.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
