44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 6:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to note that there are, in fact, two members of my colleague's caucus who have had babies during this Parliament and who have actually been able to participate fully as members of Parliament after giving birth because of the hybrid option available. Since he and his party are opposed to it, I would like to understand how he proposes that his colleagues participate following giving birth to their children.
I would also like to ask him, and I hope he answers honestly, whether he or any other member of his caucus has ever availed themselves of the voting app or the hybrid system. Why does he feel we should not continue to do this? I ask because it is actually enabling more gender equity in this place and is allowing a greater diversity of people to participate and represent their constituents.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:53:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on the motion to make permanent the hybrid proceedings in this House. I thank the hon. member for London West for sharing her time with me. In the short amount of time she has been in the House, she has already made a tremendous impact, and it is wonderful to be working alongside her on this and on other issues.
We know these measures were implemented on a provisional basis nearly three years ago. We also know that these provisions have allowed the House to carry on its business during the pandemic. Over time, many members have spoken in public, and some privately, of the benefits of the hybrid model, and there are many benefits.
During the most recent study of the hybrid model by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or PROC, as it is known, Dr. Jonathan Malloy, Bell chair in parliamentary democracy at Carleton, testified that a hybrid system goes beyond the objective of making Parliament more efficient. He stated that it speaks directly to the purpose that this institution serves, representing the diverse views of Canadians in every region of the country and ensuring that the interests of all Canadians are fairly represented in the political choices and outcomes of this chamber.
I submit many members will acknowledge that this question of hybrid proceedings is not just about flexible work arrangements and technological advancements but is also at the core of how we might change the way we participate in our proceedings to ensure a greater diversity of voices in this place. The more this place reflects the diversity of the Canadian population, the more Canadians will trust our parliamentary institutions.
Let us consider the impact and the benefits of virtual participation in the House and in committee. July 2020, of course, was the first hybrid sitting that allowed members to participate in debate in the House both in person and remotely. Additional corresponding temporary changes to the Standing Orders were made to accommodate these sittings.
These included allowing members participating virtually to be counted for the purpose of constituting quorum, lowering the threshold of the number of members for certain procedural motions, changing the procedure for requesting and granting unanimous consent and allowing members to speak and vote from any seat.
In listening to this debate, I heard other members speak to the tremendous flexibility hybrid sittings have afforded to members of this chamber. It is not for everybody to be using hybrid all the time, but it is available as a tool we can use so that we can continue to participate in the debate.
We used the voting application in 2022 and 2023. Yes, 2023 is the year when we are agreeing that we are at the back end of the crisis stage of COVID, although it still exists, and the original purpose of hybrid sittings has been set aside.
The member for London West mentioned the effects of asthma on our ability to speak in times when the air quality is not good. The air quality is very much better today than it was last week, but when things turn and one is not able to participate, we can use these advancements because we all are benefiting from the flexibility that these technological changes are affording us. It is like having a better opening for doors going into grocery stores. They were there originally to help people with accessibility challenges, but everybody benefits when the doors open more easily for all of us, and this tool allows that to happen in Parliament. It is opening the doors of Parliament for people across the country who are in different situations, such as people who just had a baby, as was mentioned earlier.
I had a medical operation a few years ago and I voted from the hospital. The nurses were not nuts about that. They did not think it was a great idea, but I showed them that it could be done and that I could continue to fulfill my duties to the people of Guelph even as I was under medical care.
Dr. Jonathan Malloy talked about parliamentary reform and democratic reform and how they are inextricably linked. How much extra time has this new way of working provided to spend in our ridings and meet with our constituents? How many more witnesses can access and provide evidence at committee through new video conferencing technology?
In the environment committee, we were able to talk to first nations witnesses across the country. It sometimes takes two days for them to get to Ottawa, not to mention all the time they are away from their communities. The convenience is really improving democracy. It is a tremendous opportunity for us to improve our connections and engagement with the Canadians we in this chamber represent.
Despite the additional flexibility provided to members through hybrid sittings, members continue to participate in proceedings of the House and committees in person. The claim of some members that hybrid proceedings would turn all parliamentary work into a virtual environment is simply not borne out by the facts. If I understand correctly, the current numbers are that about 70% of members continue to participate in person.
As was noted by the hon. member across the way, the conversations we have in person are much different and much richer, so this is not to abolish in-person sittings but to complement them by providing additional tools for those who, for various reasons, cannot be in the House for in-person sittings.
The second most significant change brought about through the use of hybrid sittings is the ability to vote electronically. While this place holds debates on all forms of parliamentary proceedings, it all comes down to the vote and being available to make that decision after all the debates have ended. Many members will no doubt remember that in the early days of the pandemic, each recorded division took up to 45 minutes, because members had to weigh in and state their vote. Now that we have the voting application, we are averaging about 10 to12 minutes, which is on par with the quickest recorded divisions before the pandemic.
Not only that: With the advantage of the electronic voting application, the House has seen greater democratic participation in voting in the House, which makes sense. If members are available to vote remotely because they cannot be in Parliament, more people will vote, and more people are voting. Having more members vote can be seen as making the House more transparent, more participatory, and definitely more accountable to the people whom we are elected to serve.
Another improvement that hybrid sittings has brought about is the ability to table documents electronically, provided they are allowed to be tabled pursuant to the Standing Orders or a statute. That includes annual reports, government responses, petitions and Order Paper questions. It really helps us with efficiency in tabling documents in the House.
This is not the first time that the House and committees have considered implementing technology to assist our proceedings. During the recent PROC study, we heard from Mr. Léo Duguay, the former MP for St. Boniface from 1984 to 1988. He is the president of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. In fact, he was my member of Parliament when I was living in St. Boniface during that period. Mr. Duguay was a member of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and he told the committee that electronic voting in the House of Commons was an innovation that members had advocated for over 40 years. He indicated that an “overwhelming majority” of members believed that hybrid proceedings in their day would have had the effect of increasing their parliamentary participation in debates and the voting process, and Mr. Duguay was right: We are seeing it happen in real time.
Also, the member for Labrador was here today. She has returned to the House after successfully fighting cancer. While she was in Labrador, she was able to continue her service to her community through the use of hybrid sittings.
I suspect that some people will want to go back to the good old days, the days when we did not have technology, the days when a riding was really the distance one could ride on a horse to cover one's territory. We have gone past that. At this point, I think we need to urge all Canadians to embrace this technology and consider running for Parliament if it has not been accessible to them in the past.
I will conclude by noting that I really support hybrid sittings and I hope we are able to continue them.
I will turn to answering any questions the members might have.
1480 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues across the way, they might want to see the flexibility that hybrid brings, but in reality, as they just pointed out, it can be abused as well.
The sense of honour of being in this chamber has always been to protect the individual member and to ensure that changes to the rules were done through consensus of every member of this House. I have been here for 19 years and I have actually seen, when changes to the Standing Orders were attempted, one member deny that change. We went for unanimous consent, and it was not there. In light of the fact that these changes to the Standing Orders, the way our Parliament functions, have nothing to do with party affiliation, they should be done through consensus and not through this hammer-fisted unilateral move that we are seeing right now from the Liberals and the NDP.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:07:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member posed the question earlier as well. The provisions for a hybrid Parliament are winding down at the end of June, so it is incumbent on us to give a path forward so that we know how we will be operating in the fall, and it is up to us to operate honourably. Whether we are on social media or we are speaking in the House, it is up to us to follow the rules of honour by which we are elected to serve the people and represent them honourably.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:10:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by letting you know that I will not be sharing my time with any of my colleagues. I therefore apologize profusely because you are going to have to listen to my voice for about 20 to 30 minutes. I will try to make it as pleasant as possible.
Today we are talking about making a hybrid Parliament a permanent thing for centuries and centuries to come. As people often say, nothing is more permanent than that which is temporary. That is exactly what is happening today.
We have had important discussions about setting up a hybrid Parliament in the past. We were in the middle of a pandemic, so it made sense, and the parties had the ability to make those changes happen at the time.
Now people are acting as if we were still in a pandemic or as if more pandemics will happen over the coming centuries. They are ignoring the fact that we do know how to talk to each other when there really is an emergency.
At the time, there was an urgent need to set up a hybrid Parliament so we could work. Despite the fact that we could not be physically here, members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs took the time to hold meetings during the summer to analyze how to put in place some sort of hybrid Parliament. We consulted experts from other countries. We looked at what was being done in other parliaments. I remember it very well. In the summer of 2020, I was among those who asked experts several questions to learn about the pros and cons and what we should study to establish a hybrid Parliament.
As I said, there was an urgent need for action back then. Despite the urgency, we still took our time.
I see no urgency at the moment. There is no emergency that would require immediate and permanent changes to the way the House works. Still, even though there is no emergency, and even though it will completely upend our way of operating in the House, the motion is being presented to us as if there is an emergency. There is no emergency, yet we are being forced to accept permanent changes to the way we work. All of this landed on us out of the blue on June 8, when the government announced a motion that would have to be voted on before the House rose for the summer. In fact, the government practically threatened to stop us from leaving for our ridings this summer until this system is adopted, despite the fact that, as I mentioned already, there is no emergency.
Before I get to the substance of the motion, I am going to say a bit more about this approach because I still cannot get over the way things were done. The parties were not consulted. Aside from the government talking to the NDP, no discussion was had and no letter sent. We were not told that the government wanted to table a notice of motion containing these elements.
The motion before us is no small thing, however. It is 42 pages long. The government introduced it in the form of a motion that will not be debated at any time other than the few hours we spend on it now. It completely changes how Parliament works with a mere two, three or four hours of debate and, subsequently, a vote without any real opportunity to amend it, discuss it or hear from external parties, experts or people from other parliaments to see how they do things. This is a complex issue that should not be dealt with by way of a simple motion, especially considering that it is, as I said, 42 pages long.
I would like to come back to the question asked by my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who said that he was not an unreserved fan of everything in this motion. If this motion does not even please the people who plan to vote in favour of it, if they do not even have the opportunity to debate it, to amend it, to improve it, to see how we could be more effective in the future, this is further proof that the modus operandi behind this amendment is inadequate, to say the least.
The parties would also have liked to have input on how things should be done, because when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deliberated on the hybrid Parliament last fall, eight recommendations were made. Some work has been done on this. Two dissenting opinions were presented by the Bloc and the Conservatives. The parties did have something to say on this. Despite that, the government refused to listen to any input on this motion and completely ignored the work that had been done in the past.
A report was tabled in December 2022 as a result of the committee's work. The committee chair at the time said that the government supported the recommendations set out in the report and intended to table a proposal in the House of Commons to make permanent changes to the Standing Orders, as recommended by the committee. Despite that, the government still decided to ignore the recommendations.
At the time, we suggested it be a best practice for members of cabinet to be present in person in the House to answer questions. That was the first suggestion that was rejected. These days, cabinet members do typically come to the House to answer questions rather than doing it virtually. It was an internal directive that was basically imposed by the government whip, for one.
However, the government decided against having the motion include this requirement for cabinet members to be in the House to answer questions, despite the fact that it was a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is more, the committee chair, speaking on behalf of the government, had said that this recommendation would be included in any motion or other form of amendment aimed at overhauling the way Parliament works. The government has already gone back on its word.
As I was saying, we had the right to expect discussions among the parties. It is customary for us to operate by consensus for these types of changes to House procedures. Many other members spoke at length about that, particularly on the Conservative side. There is a tradition in that regard. However, the government is not operating by consensus. It is not trying to debate the motion, to improve it or to try to figure out how we could be as effective as possible.
It makes me think of a quote from Woody Allen, who said, “The dictatorship is 'shut up', democracy is 'always concerned'.” The government is giving us a few hours to talk and letting us say that we disagree, but then it is going to force us to vote, and this measure will be adopted without any real discussion or debate and without us coming up with something that is really the product of a consensus.
As I was saying, this is kind of a breach of tradition. In the past, amendments to the Standing Orders concerning procedure were made by consensus. In 2022, the House published a list of parliamentary changes to procedure. With one exception, all were made by consensus.
For example, in 2017, the Liberal government attempted to reform Parliament by instituting electronic voting, similar to what we have at present. It also wanted to abolish the half sittings on Fridays. It wanted to establish what it referred to at the time as parliamentary programming, which would have been a type of process requiring the parties to agree beforehand on the amount of time allocated for debate of a bill. The government would not have had the last word unless the parties could not agree.
At the time, the opposition parties, including the NDP, rejected these proposals. Despite the fact that the government had a majority and that it could have pushed an amendment to procedure through the House on its own, it decided not to move forward because it did not have the approval of all parties in the House for something as important as the reform of parliamentary procedure.
This is part of the tradition that has always been followed in the House, with one exception, specifically when the government, under former prime minister Trudeau, created the time allocation motion. The irony is that he used a closure motion to get his amendment adopted. This shows that it was an exceptional way of proceeding at the time that has since been adopted by this Parliament.
What could have been done to change the procedure? I am still talking about the procedure. I have not yet even gotten to the substance of the motion. There are many other ways the Standing Orders of the House could have been amended. For example, we could have used a unanimous consent motion. That is what we did when the pandemic hit. We temporarily changed the procedure by unanimous consent among the parties. If an agreement had been reached, it would have been done quickly. The leaders could have discussed it, and then a motion would have been moved.
If that did not work, the government could have used the usual method of deliberation in the House. For example, it could have introduced a bill and had a vote on how to proceed, as we did at the very beginning of the pandemic. We could have referred that bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government could have sent its proposal to that committee and asked it to assess it, make recommendations and produce a report. Then, we could have responded the report.
In the end, the government decided to go with a last-minute motion without informing anyone and to force us to vote on that motion before Parliament rises for the summer.
There are several things that have not been considered in all this. We have talked about this many times. I know that my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît talked about it extensively yesterday, so I will not go into all the details.
However, I must mention the interpreters. They were the first victims of the hybrid Parliament, and they are still being victimized. From the outset, those on the other side who are in favour of the change have said that operating in hybrid mode has numerous advantages. We can be in our constituency more often. It is a positive if we have children because it facilitates work-life balance. It makes it easier for us to be everywhere all at once. We talk in the first person but tend to forget that there are people behind the scenes, not just the interpreters. There is a whole group of people who are connected with Parliament who are burdened with additional work. As far as the interpreters are concerned, it is even worse, because they are being physically harmed by a hybrid Parliament.
We know that because of differences in the volume and audio quality when people are participating virtually instead of in person, there is a much higher risk of acoustic shock and toxic sound. We know that the interruptions in the sound chain during hybrid proceedings create dangerous situations for the interpreters. The statistics speak for themselves. Technical difficulties were to blame for 30% of the incidents reported by the interpreters during hybrid sittings from 2020 to 2022. That number may be on the low side, because 45% of interpreters on the Hill are contract employees and may not be reporting the injuries they sustain. Thirty per cent of injuries are reported by only 55% of the people. The number of injuries among interpreters is very likely much higher.
Other aspects affected by the hybrid Parliament were already anticipated even before the pandemic. In 2018, a study was done on the different e-parliament models used around the world. The Inter-Parliamentary Union stated that the e-parliament “transforms both processes and relationships, both inside parliament and with outside actors.” These new processes “increase, decrease or alter how well a parliament legislates and deliberates, holds government to account and represents its citizens.” These four things are excluded from this debate, but I would like to address them.
I am going to talk about a matter that concerns the representation of our constituents. Kathy Brock, associate professor at Queen's University, told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that when members participate in hybrid proceedings virtually, a kind of power dynamic settles in that puts ministers and opposition critics in the foreground, while backbenchers somehow fade into the background. This means that members without a title have a harder time in making their voices heard and representing their constituents effectively. The hybrid format does not put everyone on an equal footing because of a dynamic that establishes itself and is harder to undo in virtual mode than in person, in the House.
I have to mention the spirit of collegiality and the informal discussions we are able to have when we are here in person. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert talked about that. When we are physically present at a committee meeting, we talk with our colleagues. While still half listening, we can go and get a coffee with a colleague at the back of the room in order to talk about a certain proposal or one of their recommendations that we want to tweak to make it work. That is something that we cannot do when working remotely. There is only one channel for the sound and we cannot listen to two discussions at once. We cannot have informal discussions, and democracy pays the price.
As my colleague mentioned, it is all well and good to have the right to choose to attend in person so that we can have that latitude and human interaction, but it does not make much difference if no one from the other parties has to be here because they have the option of working remotely. At that point, it becomes rather futile to be present in the House in person because none of the members opposite will be there with us to have those discussions with.
Accountability is also an issue. Let us talk about the fourth estate: journalists. They complained during the pandemic that ministers were not on site and so they could not catch them as they were coming out of the House to ask them questions.
There is a problem with accountability in that regard. It does pose a problem when a minister, for example, is not in the House to answer for their policies or the spending committed or being considered.
One thing we see in the government's proposal for a hybrid Parliament is that there is some sort of imbalance or asymmetry in the proposed amendments.
On the one hand, ministers are no longer required to be physically present in the House to give notices of motions, such as closure motions, time allocation motions, ways and means motions and notices of the designation of another day for a budget presentation. Ministers will be able to do so remotely. On the other hand, with respect to the number of people that must be physically present in the house to oppose something, we are going back to what was in place before the pandemic. For example, opposing a notice of motion to extend a session in the preceding hour requires the presence of 15 members in the House.
During the pandemic, we decided that five members were required to oppose something remotely; now it is 15 in the House. We are returning to the practices that existed before the pandemic. We are lightening the government's burden to present notices, but we are keeping pressure on the opposition for members to be physically present in the House.
It is the same for opposing an urgent motion from a minister that would allow the government to suspend the Standing Orders at its convenience. For that, there must be 10 people physically present in the House rather than five MPs participating remotely, as was the case during the pandemic. For motions during routine proceedings, 25 members need to physically rise in the House to oppose a motion moved by the government during routine proceedings.
There seems to be an imbalance that works in the government's favour when implementing this hybrid parliament. This is basically in line with the sort of overall imbalance that we see with the government side gaining more advantages when implementing a hybrid parliament.
To use the expression about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we would have liked to debate the details of setting up a hybrid Parliament. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. There were some good technological breakthroughs during the pandemic, and it would be foolish to completely discard them. However, we should have been able to debate about what we want to keep to ensure that there is a consensus and that the aspects that are ultimately maintained will serve Parliament well.
The Bloc Québécois is not entirely against the idea of continuing to use electronic voting. However, we would have liked to be able to set some parameters around the use of electronic voting, such as making it mandatory for confidence votes to be held in person in the House.
There has been a lot of talk about work-life balance being one of the benefits of hybrid Parliament. We agree, but could we not have provided a better framework? I will echo the words of the Speaker who is returning to the chair right now. He mentioned in committee that work-life balance should have been an exception. It should be allowed, but only as an exception and with parameters to ensure that this option is not abused.
Should we completely abolish the use of Zoom for the House? Not necessarily, but we should have been more precise about it instead of applying a very broad measure that may benefit people who may abuse it. For example, a member involved in a scandal would be able to stay home and not be held accountable here in the House when journalists might want to ask questions.
These should be exceptional circumstances, such as a death in the family, illness or urgent personal circumstances. A framework could have been developed for this. The use of hybrid Parliament is not all bad. It is bad insofar as it is not balanced.
In short, there are many things the Bloc Québécois would have liked to discuss. That is our main complaint, specifically, the fact that a bunch of measures are ultimately being imposed on us with no real opportunity to make changes, improve the proposal or take advantage of the good that might come out of the pandemic. It is being imposed on us at a time when our work is winding down, when, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there is no immediate urgency because the pandemic is largely behind us.
If the government was going to make changes that will affect Parliament in the long term, the least it could have done was to seek a consensus among the parties, as was customary in the House.
This is a letdown that, unfortunately, we have to focus on as the session nears its end.
I am now ready to answer my colleagues' questions.
3290 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 8:54:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech. I noted that he articulated a number of conveniences and a number of combinations of duties that a member of Parliament can undertake through a hybrid setting.
Would he acknowledge there are downsides and some risks to the traditions? Those traditions have come about for certain reasons. Would he acknowledge there is a diminishment of accountability with a hybrid system?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:57:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. I would like my colleague from the province of Quebec to know that I have worked in that area too.
I worked at a pulp and paper mill in B.C., Repap Industries, during the summer for many years. I do understand and acknowledge what shift work means, whether people work four on and four off or four 10-hour days, or whether someone works nights, afternoons or a morning schedule. I worked shift work at a grain elevator every summer, so I do appreciate the member's comments.
We are debating Government Business No. 26 this evening, the permanent changes to the Standing Orders. I think we can all say we have had the experience of utilizing the hybrid option for quite a period of time. We know it does provide enhanced flexibility for members. The member is correct. On the weekends, we do get to go to a lot of events, but we are home with our family members. My hat goes off to the police officers, the firefighters and anyone who works shift work all the time. They certainly have my utmost respect, and they always will.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:11:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the member said about the disadvantages of not being able to meet in person, but I have been here long enough to have watched friends and colleagues, before the days when hybrid was allowed, drag themselves in here literally from their deathbeds to protect their work because there were no rules to allow virtual participation.
In particular I remember the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Some members here tonight may recall when Mauril Bélanger, whose name I can say because he is passed away, had to protect a piece of private member's legislation. The only way under our rules to do that was to show up here physically. It was painful to watch what it cost him in his dying days to physically be here.
I would say to the hon. member that there are so many advantages to hybrid Parliament. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it should not be a default option, but I desperately want to make sure we never again see colleagues suffering with cancer, near death, who feel they must physically be here to do their work.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:34:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I will say that, as a father of a young family and as someone representing a riding in western Canada, I see personally, from a lifestyle perspective, the advantages of the current provisions, although I have concerns about their impact on this institution. I do support the voting app, because I do not think voting is the same as giving a speech.
I want to put to him a question I put to a government member. The biggest problem I have with how things are working right now is the way the resource crunch associated with hybrid has totally undermined the ability of parliamentary committees to be masters of their own domain. Parliamentary committees used to be able to sit when they thought it was necessary for them to sit to do the business of that committee. It meant that if the industry committee was dealing with a crisis related to industry, that committee could decide to sit, fundamentally, whenever it wanted in order to do its work. Now, it is some kind of process involving party whips that determines who gets resources and when. It is not the committees, it is not the members of the committee, and there is not the same ability to actually pursue the work that is required.
The parliamentary secretary acknowledged this problem and said we can figure it out at some point. The concern I have is that we have not figured it out. We have had this problem persisting for years. I think it is a fundamental enough problem for democracy, ensuring that parliamentary committees can do their job, that we need to actually consider that when considering how to vote on these provisions.
Does the member have concerns about the way parliamentary committees have been constrained by resources and the way they are effectively controlled in their ability to sit by those outside of those committees? Does he think this is a fundamental enough issue to say that we need to fix that problem before we move forward in any way with the rest of these provisions?
355 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:37:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed an unfortunate exchange. There was a good question, but things took a turn and sank into partisanship. That would have just as easily happened in a hybrid Parliament as a normal Parliament but, unfortunately, my colleague's question did not get answered.
No one in the Bloc Québécois is opposed to a new form of hybrid Parliament. We have never said that. I repeat. Voting with the app makes things move faster. If someone is on Parliament Hill, they do not have to be in the House. Therefore, we can speed up the process since committees start earlier. There are advantages to a hybrid Parliament, but the format of this hybrid Parliament has not been discussed with all the opposition parties.
My colleague talked about democracy, the importance of democracy and the respect we must have for democracy, specifically in relation to a hybrid Parliament. Meanwhile, the other opposition parties have no say. I find that unfortunate.
There are people who will have to travel to their riding because of forest fires, for example. I know about that because that is relevant to me in my riding. My colleague is also affected in his riding. Of course we need to be there. There are people who will get sick. We have the technology so, of course, they can rely on the hybrid Parliament. All of that is true.
Now, the government's proposed changes to the rules require an opposition party to have 25 members rise in person to block a motion, under Standing Order 56.1(3). That is the entire NDP caucus. We know that the NDP already got a taste of this standing order when Thomas Mulcair was called to testify in committee on the use of satellite offices. The opposition has to give everything and the government does not even have to require its ministers to be in the House.
I am asking my colleague why we would accept such a motion without any discussion, when we could all provide our two cents' worth and come up with something quite a bit better than this motion.
It is important. It is about the work of Parliament. Parliament is the ultimate representation of Canadian democracy—and that is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. That is not nothing.
I am just asking my colleague if we can take the time to discuss this between us and come up with something much better than what is on the table today.
422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 9:39:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I actually thought we were discussing that. I do not know what the Bloc's problem is. Their members did get the chance.
However, I was fascinated by what was said by the member of the Bloc who spoke previously. He said the Bloc opposed “50% plus one”. I thought that was fantastic. It is like the Bloc members oppose “50% plus one” when it is about their privileges as members of Parliament, so I am more than willing to discuss their opposition to “50% plus one”.
I think the hybrid Parliament would help the Bloc. I certainly think we would hear more from the Bloc leader in the House, but I rarely hear from him anyway. If the Bloc members are serious about this, they would not be using the voting app 80% of the time. Nobody uses the hybrid Parliament more than the Bloc does. I think we are bending over backwards to make it possible to participate. I really appreciate hearing from the Bloc members and I would love to talk to them more about “50% plus one”.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:01:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is a bit rich to say we have been taking our time. That member knows that the challenges of getting anything through the House primarily come from colleagues next to the Bloc, the Conservatives, and the games they play to delay anything getting through the House. That is why this has taken so long.
Nonetheless, I heard her explanation of what happened with hybrid Parliament. She says we need to discuss and talk about it, but she sits on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we did talk about it at great length at that committee. Not only that, we have the incredible advantage of having had a three-year pilot project. Since when do we bring forward ideas, legislation or policy where we have had such an incredible opportunity to experience something in real time? That is what we have had here.
I am confused about the Bloc's position on this. Her colleagues with her in the House right now were very critical when I was talking about the number of times the Bloc has used the application. On Monday, in one vote, 60% of the Bloc members used the application to vote. They took great offence to that and said that they are not against the voting application, but they are just against the hybrid stuff, yet yesterday the Bloc brought forward an amendment, which was ruled out of order, that talked about certain times when one has to vote in person. Now, I am hearing that member talk about the voting application as though it were something that should not happen at all.
What is the Bloc's position? Do those member support the app to vote and not the Zoom capabilities, or do they support none of it at all?
301 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 10:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things to take in. What we have just heard was a very dramatic exposé about the horrors that hybrid could offer in the House.
For anyone at home who might be wondering, as a mom of young children, I can assure them that if I am ever participating in hybrid at home, I am not relaxing. It is very hectic, and we all have to juggle a lot of things. It is certainly not something that I like to do very often. I am a chair of a committee, so I am here in person absolutely as much as possible.
I would like to ask the member about accountability. Let us focus on that.
Are there existing mechanisms to ensure that this could function without coming to these extreme examples of the traditions of the House possibly falling apart?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:24:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Alberta on being able to bring the issue of guns into the issue of a hybrid Parliament. Well done on his speech.
I listened to his speech and he talked about what is being lost with a hybrid Parliament. I recognize that he feels that this is the case, but I want him to consider those things that are being gained and I want him to perhaps consider the fact that the world does move on. We do not have Blockbusters any more. There was hockey without helmets before. There was a Parliament that did not have women's washrooms before.
I wonder if he could talk about the fact that sometimes things change, that sometimes they change for the better and that we need to be able to look at how to build change going forward that will make it easier for people to participate in our democracy and make it easier for people to participate in our—
169 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
