SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/13/23 8:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of a 16-month-old daughter, I am following these debates very closely. I know that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes work-life balance. Having tested out the hybrid model with my daughter in my arms, it is not the model I prefer. The issue of quality time, of separating the time I spend with her from the time I spend here in the House, is crucial. I am worried about that. I also think we should be talking more about what we are doing right now, holding debates until midnight during this entire period until we rise. The House's hours need to be reviewed. That, for me, would do more for work-life balance. Last year, I took part in debates with my infant daughter, who was just a few weeks old, until midnight. I think that is far more unacceptable. Personally, because I need some separation and need to spend quality time with my daughter, I see major disadvantages to a hybrid Parliament. It may not be everyone's cure-all for work-life balance. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

197 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:05:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been over year, but I congratulate her on the birth of her child. There are ways we can deal with this. Certainly we can make adjustments for those who are sick and those who have babies, etc. We can certainly work around that, but we should look toward consulting members about how we can address that. We should look at all sides, and not just at what we are seeing from the government, which is a blanket hybrid for all. If it was simply on the honour system and everyone showed up in committee when they were in town but we had the hybrid for other reasons as a backup, as the colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke explained with his situation, I would be fine with that, but we do not see that. In the committee I chair, I see often one member of the government there and I see the faces on the screen of the others sitting in their offices on Wellington or in Confed, or I see ministers Zooming in, or officials. If the system is set up to ensure we can have accountability and those who could be here are here, I would be supportive of that, but this system as it is, without consultation from all the parties and without a real sincere attempt to try to address very valid issues about accountability or caring for families, has not been seen, so I cannot support what the government has proposed.

251 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/13/23 8:06:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the speech by the member for Edmonton West this evening, and I feel as though I have an entire speech of questions I would like to pose, so I am going to try to narrow it down. The first thing that comes to mind is accountability. I really think that, when we are holding fellow members of Parliament accountable in the House, we have to do some self-reflection with respect to our own parties. Just the other day, I watched as Conservative members decided they wanted to circumvent a vote. They went on the other side of the wall here to cast their votes through the hybrid voting system. They did not have the appropriate headsets on, which put the interpreters at risk. Therefore, I think we need to look at ourselves. Currently, the representation of women in Parliament is only at 30%. We can do better to ensure we have representation in this party. To say that everybody has equal access to being members of Parliament and serving here is completely out of touch and unrealistic. Quite frankly, those remarks show an element of privilege. My question for the member is this: Why does he not believe in the tools necessary to have equitable representation within the chamber?

217 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:08:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague keeping it to two questions and not going on for a full 10 minutes, as she had commented. To the first issue, I would say that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I sit on the operations committee, and I watched the NDP join the government in a filibuster to block our ability to bring a privilege motion to the House. Our rights and responsibilities had been taken away by bureaucrats who refused an order of the House, and we had the NDP filibuster it. Therefore, I can understand the member's frustration with voting, but it is no different than filibustering to prevent members of Parliament from exerting their privilege. With respect to the comment on privilege, Canadians do have equal access to be able to run. People are in different stages of their life and in different circumstances. Certainly, we should encourage everyone we can to run. I agree that, if there are ways we can improve access, that is wonderful, but it should be decided among the parties, not just the by the government, with its enablers in the NDP, forcing these changes down our throats. It used to be tradition that changes to the Standing Orders were done through a consensus in the House. If one person said no, the government would back away. We are not seeing that. At the operations committee, we saw the government try to change the process with the estimates to allow it to have access to I think it was $7 billion of spending on vote 40. When Scott Brison was the president of the Treasury Board, he tried to change the Standing Orders on the main estimates, which is the reason Parliament exists, to suit himself and the government. Again, it is moving away from consensus to deciding and ramming it down the throats of others, and I do not think that is right.

323 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/13/23 8:10:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his well-argued presentation in the House just now. We have also experienced the same problem at the national defence committee, where we have had meetings cancelled because of a lack of resources. I want to ask the member for Edmonton West if he would really get down to it, especially as he talked about how this virtual Parliament is impacting the health of our interpreters and how the government is not here with a full cabinet to defend its record. Is that happening because the government wants to avoid accountability; has a lack of respect for members of Parliament; lacks compassion for those who work in the House of Commons, such as the interpreters; or is it all of the above?

134 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Jun/13/23 8:11:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above.

8 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:11:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa June 13, 2023 Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, Christine MacIntyre, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13th day of June, 2023, at 6:09 p.m. Yours sincerely, Ryan McAdam Director, Office of the Secretary to the Governor General The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

137 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/13/23 8:14:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41 Bill C-35 Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of government business on the hybrid system we have adopted and have been using in the House over the last number of years. In some of the last discourse, we heard from Conservative members in an exchange that came from a question from the NDP about members not using the technology and tools we have in place for the right purpose. This is given that we witnessed just days ago the abuse of hybrid Parliament, whether it was on Zoom or with the voting application, and the manner that was was utilized by Conservatives to delay the vote and use it as a procedural tool. We saw Conservatives who were voting and coming online through Zoom, and it was obvious they were sitting in the opposition lobby or perhaps had the beautiful stonework behind them from this place. They were doing this intentionally for the purpose of delaying the House. Why was that so obvious? The only members who seemed to have problems from a technical perspective at the time were Conservatives, so it was pretty clear there was an abuse of the system. Therefore, I would tend to agree with Conservatives when they say that we need to ensure that the system and the tools we have are not abused. I think that we saw a lot of that on those two particular days. I think it was a Friday and a Monday when we saw that happening. Nonetheless, I reflect on just some of the most recent votes. On Monday, June 12, which was just yesterday, we had a vote that was related to Bill C-33, where 70% of my Bloc colleagues and 66% of my Conservative colleagues used the voting app, according to the records that we have. When Conservatives talk about having consensus to use the hybrid Parliament, I would suggest to them that consensus comes through their basic agreement with and use of the technology. Also on Monday, we had a number of other motions. We had the Bloc opposition motion, and 50% of the Bloc members, on their own motion, used the app to vote when we voted on that yesterday. Clearly the Bloc members favour using this technology that we have, given the fact that half of them, one out of every two Bloc members, used the app to vote on their own motion just yesterday, while 36% of Conservatives used it. When we had Bill C-35 at report stage, 74% of Bloc members, almost three out of every four of them, used the voting application that we have adopted. Therefore, when the Bloc members get up, as I have heard them do both yesterday and today, to say we should be doing things based on consensus, I think that we have consensus is pretty darn clear when they are using the technology to the fullest of its ability. We should be concerned that Bloc members might not be in the House, but it even gets worse than that. By the third reading and adoption of Bill C-41, 80% of Bloc members used the voting app. That is four out of every five of them. I do not think that we need consensus from the Bloc members that this is a good tool. They seem to be using it in great earnest. It goes on. The Conservatives, although their percentages are much better, have been using the application and the tools just as much as everybody else. I am reminded of just very recently when a Conservative member, a new mother who had just given birth days before, was participating in a House of Commons debate while holding her newborn. I remember it very well because she was speaking softly, and I remember that feeling of having a newborn, especially when they are sleeping, and wanting to let them sleep because we know what it is like when they are not sleeping. The member was speaking softly while sitting in her kitchen. The lights were dimmed, and she did not want to wake the baby. She was giving a passionate speech. I thought to myself, “Wow, look how far we have come in the short period of time since we started bringing on these new provisions.” We have a new mother who is able to participate in a House of Commons debate literally days after giving birth. Let us imagine trying to convince people in this place 100 years ago that this would one day be the reality, or even 10 years ago, or even just five years ago. The idea would have been foreign. As a society and as a country, we go through experiences. We went through a horrible experience in the pandemic. A lot of people suffered. There was a lot of financial hardship. There were a lot of people who, emotionally and from a mental health perspective, really struggled, but I think that we also have to realize that we discovered things and perhaps came across opportunities during the pandemic that could improve the quality of life for people who wish to be part of this process. This House is not what it was decades ago. This is not a House filled just with male lawyers. Let us be honest: When this House was first established, it was lawyers and it was men, and that was it. Over the years, we have seen that evolve. My predecessor was a scientist, Ted Hsu, who came to this place. We have seen other people come here who were activists or people who were really passionate about certain fields of work and who did not particularly fall into that mould of what a parliamentarian used to be. As my NDP colleague pointed out in a question that she asked about the under-representation of women in this place, she is absolutely correct. I am trusting that her number of only 30% of the members in this place are women is accurate. How do we get that to a better place? It is funny. I had dinner this evening with a senator, and we had a really interesting conversation. He was commenting to me that he believes the Senate has changed so much because half of the senators are women. He said it brings a certain decorum to the place, and that the decorum might be from the fact that those who are not being more collegial and using decorum are highlighted. I would be the first to point out, as already happened today, that I am not by any means putting myself in the category of those who always demonstrate great decorum. I do not want to get off the very important point here. The point is that we need to create a place that does not just represent Canadians. I know the former answer to a question from a Conservative was that this place does represent Canadians. Well, it might represent Canadians in the sense that there is a mix of different backgrounds, but I do not know if it genuinely represents Canadians in terms of gender parity. I think that in particular there is an impediment to many women who have to make the decision of whether they want to get into this line of work, given that it requires so much time in Ottawa. When we look at the tools that we have been able to develop, test and rely on confidently during the pandemic, why would we not take those tools, if we see them as a way to make this place more suitable, to better represent Canadians, including and in particular as it relates to a gender balance in this House? I have heard some of the arguments against this. I have been listening and following the debate. I think I have addressed the Bloc's concern over consensus. I hear the concern that comes quite a bit from my Conservative colleagues. I heard the Conservative House leader say that they would be in support of all of this if there was a sunset clause. The way he described it was that one year after the next election, we would have to review and then make a decision on whether or not to move forward. He is trying to phrase it so that rather than making a decision about getting rid of it, we would have to make the decision about keeping it. I would say that is a nuance. Whether the government of the day wants to bring forward a new motion to change the Standing Orders back to the way they were or whether the government of the day brings forward a motion to keep the Standing Orders as they are, the point is irrelevant. It is going to be exactly the same debate that takes place. People's positions on things would be pretty much the same. I do not think they would particularly change. The important thing is that I do not think it should be a deal breaker for anybody that would make them just say they cannot support this because they really wanted a sunset clause. This is my personal opinion. I preface it by saying that it is my opinion. I certainly do not know this to be fact. I would say probably the majority of Conservatives like the tools that we have. They certainly use them a lot, as do my Bloc colleagues. I think this is a bit of partisanship. I think this is about positioning oneself and positioning a particular party to try to put a narrative in place that people are not working, to say that when they go back home, they are not really working and doing their work. From listening to the speech from the House leader for the government yesterday, we know that anybody who is in this job is working 24-7. When members walk into a store in their riding, how often does somebody bump into them and want to talk to them? Then they are working. That happens all the time. This is not a nine-to-five job. We will be here until at least 1:00 a.m. tonight, and that is fine. That is part of the job. I think we all accept that, and I certainly accept it. If we can put tools in place to make it even more inclusive, I think we should be doing that. In preparation for this speech, I was looking back at some references in Hansard for this Parliament. I reflect back to March 28, when my Conservative colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, was giving his speech. If I have this correct, it was from a city council chamber in his riding. He was commuting to the airport to come here, presumably. He wanted to give his speech and was able to set up a temporary spot to give his speech from a city council chamber. He said: As we know as members of Parliament, things can change and develop quickly in this job. This has led me to be making a speech from a bit of a unique location. Having seemingly come down with the flu over the weekend, I was delayed in my return to our nation's capital. As a result, I was not able to get on my Sunday afternoon flight, which is my normal commute. Therefore, if you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I am in a unique location that I would like to highlight. I am giving my speech from another chamber, actually: the town council chambers of the community of Drumheller. This is the second-largest community in Battle River—Crowfoot in this beautiful area of east central Alberta, and I am proud to represent it. He goes on after that. I am not saying this in any way to say, “See, I told you so. You love hybrid Parliament and you are using it.” I am bringing it to everyone's attention because I think it is unique and important that the member was able to participate. He clearly could not come to Ottawa because of an illness. When he got better, he was on his way here, but he really wanted to participate in debate and made other accommodations to be able to do that. As much as this motion about adopting a hybrid Parliament might be able helping a newborn's mother participate, it is also about helping people who have come down with an illness, who are on the mend and who might be on their way to Ottawa, as was the case with this individual. On Friday of last week, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave a virtual speech on Bill C-41. He is another Conservative colleague of mine. What I am trying to point out is that we are all using this technology. We all see the benefit in the technology, and it is genuinely allowing us to participate in debate when we otherwise may have been limited. Most of us in this chamber, especially those elected in 2015 and after 2019, know what it was like to not be able to do that. This has given much more opportunity for people to participate by providing another way to participate. We do not have to physically be here. I think it is worth keeping in that regard. I heard a criticism from a Conservative who spoke before me. It was specifically about accountability, and I heard his comments about accountability in two regards. In the first regard, he spoke about accountability in terms of ministers answering questions. I know I heard him say that he was speaking specifically about accountability as it related to ministers speaking on Zoom to a committee. However, I do not think that is appropriate, and I can tell members that on this side of the House, and it should be quite obvious from question period every day, no minister answers a question on the screen. No minister answers a question virtually. If a minister cannot be present here in question period, a parliamentary secretary or another minister answers the question. That is not a rule established anywhere, but it is certainly a rule that the leadership on this side of the House has put in place in order to preserve that accountability. Question period is probably the part of the proceedings here that the public watches the most, and certainly that is the time that there has to actually be a physical presence in the House. The other area of accountability the member mentioned is accountability in terms of individuals who are participating by Zoom in a committee and whether or not they are accountable. Well, we are accountable: We are accountable to the individuals who send us here. If the individuals determine that we are not doing an effective job, they will stop sending us here. We are accountable because we will go into an election at least once every four years. No two MPs, in my opinion, approach this job in exactly the same way. Everybody develops their approach to the job in how they deal with constituents, how they deal with casework, how they deal with the House proceedings and with committee, how they deal with everything in the spectrum. If our electorate decides “Hey, you have not done a good job in terms of how you are handling your participation and how you are representing us”, it is up to them to hold us accountable. It is up to them to decide if they want us or somebody else. In that regard, I certainly believe that we are accountable. I think we will always have that accountability to people. We are not like the Senate; senators are appointed, and they are appointed for a set period of time. We have to go back to our electorate on a regular basis and ask for their continued support. That is really, in my opinion, the most important thing. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I think this is a good motion. I do not believe that putting a sunset clause on this motion can be a deal breaker. It is just as easy for a future government, after the next election, to say that it does not want this and that this is how it should be done. I also do not believe that the Bloc is against this motion, based on the fact that there is no consensus. Its members have by far, as a percentage of the political parties, used the voting application the most. They clearly enjoy using it, and I think that if the motion does not pass, many of them would probably be upset that we were not going to continue using it. I will certainly be supporting this motion. I think it is a way to get so many more people interested in this place and to get so many more people to put their names forward. It is a way to continue to build on the diversity in this House, and particularly, in my opinion, to build on the kind of diversity that will bring us closer to a gender balance.

2891 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/13/23 8:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reflections on this issue. I think an important distinction should be made between whether the rules are being used and whether the rules are good for the institution. I can say that for me personally, these hybrid rules have made my life a lot more comfortable. They have been convenient for me personally, and I have used them from time to time, but I also think they diminish the institution. While they are in place, I will use the voting app, but I think this place would be better off if some of the hybrid provisions were not in effect, which is an important distinction between whether members are using it today versus whether members view these rules as being good for the institution in general. The biggest problem I have with a hybrid Parliament is the strain it has created on our resources. Before these rules were in place, parliamentary committees could sit basically when they wanted to sit. They could sit into the evening. We have a situation now in the public accounts committee, where Liberals are filibustering a motion, and the committee cannot move forward because it is stuck in these limited time slots. I will acknowledge that other parties engage in filibusters as well and that it is not just one party, but if committees have work they need to get done or if there is an urgent issue, they should be able to sit more. When I was a staff member, the industry committee sat in the evening for five hours at a time for three nights in a row because there was an issue that justified it. These rules no longer allow committees to be masters of their own domain. They make committees subject to determinations by the whips in the House about those resources—

311 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:34:54 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Guelph is rising on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 8:34:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether we are listening to another a speech or if there a question that is going to be asked. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

29 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:35:07 p.m.
Watch

Rather than let the members talk to each other, I will just clarify that it is “questions and comments”, so it could be a question, but it could be a comment as well. I will let the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan continue.

48 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 8:35:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members who are so eager to debate the new rules to learn the old rules first, about how questions and comments work. I have a serious question to the Parliamentary secretary. How does he get around this significant problem, in terms of resources, and the fact that it makes committees, which are supposed to be masters of their own domains, now subject to resource decisions that are made external to those committees?

77 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:35:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on his first point, a lot of people would say that bringing cameras into this place in the seventies was a bad move because of the theatre it created. A lot of people would say that putting video online so that people could clip it in real time was a bad move. I think that hindsight is 20/20. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I listened to the member, and I am going to answer his questions, if he does not want to talk to me back and forth through the middle of it. I think that it is important to reflect on the fact that maybe decades from now they will look back and say that it was a bad idea, but I can tell members that from my perspective right now, it looks like it is going to allow more people to engage, just based on the participation from Conservatives. On the member's second point about the resources, we should not spare any expense at making sure our democracy functions in the way it should. If we need to put more resources into that by building out the structure of resources we have, then we absolutely must do it. To that point, I do not disagree with him that I share similar concerns, but I do not think that needs to be the reason we cannot proceed. What it says to me is that we need to be investing more in the interpretation services and more in the resources, so that we can continue to function like this.

266 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:39:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, this certainly is not about me trying to get control or seize power. We are using this system right now, and this system will be here for the foreseeable future. The member says that I am conflating electronic voting with the use of Zoom. I am talking about the two of them. I have made it very clear which I am talking about. If the Bloc's position is it supports the app but does not support Zoom, I have yet to hear that in this House. I have yet to hear the Bloc suggest anything otherwise, and it could be that I did not hear that part of the debate so far, but that is the reality. When it comes to the interpretation services, I agree, and this goes back to my answer to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, that we should not spare any expense in ensuring that the right resources are in place to provide the right supports, not just to our interpreters, but to all the support staff we have here. If that means investing more in their well-being and providing more resources, then we should do that. I do not think it should be an impediment to the democratic process we have set up in this place, so that we can bring more people from diverse backgrounds, and in particular more women, into this chamber. An hon. member: You don't care about them.

249 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:40:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member has a point of order.

8 words

Point

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 8:40:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can respect the fact the Bloc member and I disagree, but when he shouted out afterward that I do not care about them, it is categorically false. I am giving my position on this.

37 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/23 8:40:52 p.m.
Watch

I remind all the members to respect each other as much as possible. We are in the chamber, so we want to remember that. Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

35 words

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

Jun/13/23 8:41:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. We all agree the interpreters are really the foundation of Parliament, and we have to work harder to ensure they have a safe working environment and that we bring new interpreters along so we can really have them contribute in that most valuable way to the life of our Parliament. We all agree on that. I think where some parties might disagree is that having close proximity to ministers means they are more accountable. I lived through the Harper regime and it was terrible. For nearly a decade, and there were some exceptions like Jim Flaherty, generally speaking there was no accountability by Conservative ministers. We saw that each and every day. They would not answer questions. They would not meet with members of Parliament. That is a red herring raised by the Conservatives. My colleague pointed out that the Bloc Québécois uses the voting app more than any other party. The Conservatives use hybrid Parliament about as much as any other party. The NDP and the Conservatives are equal in that. The Liberals use it a bit more. The reality is Conservatives voted against and tried to block hybrid Parliament during the height of the pandemic. At the end of 2021 and in June of 2022 when COVID was still raging, they voted against it and tried to block it. We needed to use procedural motions to get the hybrid Parliament back in place to protect everybody. Why does my colleague think Conservatives have been so adamantly opposed to a hybrid Parliament but use it so extensively?

267 words

Harper