44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/15/23 7:25:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and he did identify the nature of proximity and the ability to establish rapport and trust between members when they are in close proximity to each other.
There is nothing in the Standing Orders that gives any requirement of this. Under the changes that are proposed, any member could be virtual as much as they want, and the increasing use of the voting app shows the extent to which the expediency of it drives people out of this place.
Why make the permanent change now? Why not give us the opportunity to get it right following an election and following further all-party consensus, rather than a permanent change now?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:31:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Parliament exists so that common people, the commons, would have protection from what would otherwise be the unlimited power of government.
Every now and then, we have to get back to the basics. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, 808 years ago this week, actually. I have a real passion for civic literacy around the issue of what Parliament is here for, why Parliament exists and getting back to those basics.
Members are elected to this place. They are sent here to fulfill that basic purpose. We are here to hold the government to account. Not just the members who happen to run under parties that did not win the majority of seats or even the most seats, but all members here are elected as a Parliament that will hold government to account. Some members are chosen to become part of the government, but even the backbenchers of the governing party are here to hold the government to account. We all are. That is our job.
Our basic function is to vote on the key issues of the day, particularly to grant authority to the Crown to spend money, to make changes to the Criminal Code that affect people's liberty, and these kinds of things. This is what we are here for. That is why Parliament exists.
Let there be no doubt: The changes being proposed by the government would weaken the power of the House of Commons and strengthen the power of government.
Before I get too much further into this, I must point out that I am going to share my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I look forward to his remarks.
I am familiar with the arguments around the changes we are talking about here. We just heard some of the arguments in favour of the Standing Orders changes from the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I am a western MP. I spend a lot of time on airplanes, a lot of time travelling. I am family man, too. There is certainly some expediency around the voting app.
However, hybrid Parliament would give more power to the government. It does give more power to the government and less power to the opposition, making the tools available to the opposition more difficult to use. I have never heard a constituent, a person in my riding, say to me that what is really important to them is that Parliament become easier for MPs, so that we could make things easier for ourselves. That is not what Canadians say. They do not want their government to have more power and Parliament to have less.
There are practical problems, too, with the motion. We have all seen the inevitable technical glitches, which will always be there. We have problems with connectivity, with equipment and with simultaneous translation. The motion certainly does not address any of those issues, but here we are.
There are also lots of other problems with it that are not technical. There is a general lack of decorum that sometimes occurs through hybrid. We have the lack of uniformity in background and people can use a hybrid camera shot to create their own political messages or messages that do not belong in parliamentary debate.
By far and away, the biggest problem that we will have if we adopt a permanent virtual Parliament is entrenching the isolation and silo effect on MPs. If hybrid Parliament is to be made permanent, we have to answer these questions first: Do Canadians want their MPs to have less physical interaction and less proximity to each other? Do Canadians think that their elected officials would make better decisions for Canadians if they spent less time actually interacting with each other? Do Canadians want their parliamentarians and their Parliament to be more or less collegial? Do they want elected representatives to have more or less opportunity, as the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, to speak informally with members of the government, on either side?
Do Canadians want their MP to have the opportunity to walk across the floor and have a quick discussion with another member? Do they want their MPs to have the ability to interact with each other in person? Do they want ministers and the Prime Minister to spend more time face to face, facing the accountability of an opposition in Parliament with the equal rights and privileges that are afforded to members in this place?
I know Canadians expect more and not less accountability from their governments and they expect their elected MPs to have the ability to deliver that. Hybrid Parliament allows MPs to have every ability to just silo themselves and be isolated from other members.
Canadians in my riding ask me sometimes why we cannot work with other parties. I say that there are many occasions when MPs work across the floor and work with other MPs in their own caucus to effect outcomes on legislation or committee business or issues. However, in order to work effectively together, they have to have the opportunity to build rapport and trust, and they cannot do that through a video screen.
This really reveals itself in hybrid committees. When members of all parties are present, and the member for Barrie—Innisfil talked about this, members from each party can gather in a corner and resolve an impasse they have come to by just being able to talk to each other. Non-verbal body language is conveyed when we meet in person. When one is across a committee table from another member, one can get an idea of the effect of what one is proposing if negotiating on a motion or debating a committee report. We do not get that through hybrid Parliament. We do not get that through a video screen.
When trying to get through a committee report, if all the members are together and there are differences, there is no unanimity, but there might be the ability to have a consensus report. It is not going to get done through a video screen. People need to be able to talk to each other. The importance of personal interaction is just lost in the hybrid.
Some members have commented on the growing use of the voting app by members and the incentives to not be here with a hybrid system. The ability to use a voting app encourages members to do really anything but the job they are elected to do as legislators and debate legislation in the House. They have every advantage to just go back to their ridings while Parliament is sitting and campaign or do any number of other activities. Members have talked about the ability to achieve a better life and family balance, and I am sure this is an advantage for some members in that case, but it also gives incentive to do anything other than the job they are elected to do.
This brings us to the permanence of it. What is being proposed here tonight is a permanent change to the Standing Orders, which is ordinarily only done through consensus, when all parties agree. This is our democracy. The Standing Orders are how we govern ourselves in this place. It is extraordinary that we are here under a closure motion. They are ramming this through with closure, the permanent change to our Standing Orders.
Conservatives proposed at committee maintaining the use of the voting app and hybrid Parliament, that we would keep it and let it run through another election so members who are elected here could run and tell their prospective voters how they feel about this issue, and not permanently change the Standing Orders until there actually is an all-party consensus. That is the way to do it. That is the way that respects the democracy of this place.
If members value the office they are elected to and think Canadians want and deserve more and not less democratic accountability, and if they think the permanent changes should not be done without all-party consent, I beg them to show some respect for the 808 years of parliamentary accountability and oppose this motion.
1371 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:42:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am so happy that the member is here in this debate tonight and that she is able to be here. The member for Steveston—Richmond East and his remarks on his health challenges are important, but there have been long-standing tools. This is not new. Previous Parliaments have dealt with this by way of vote pairing. I do not think any constituent would want their MP to feel they had to leave medical treatment to fly here and use their voice in debate. People should take time and look after their health, make that their personal priority and make sure their vote is paired, so that there is still democratic representation.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right, and it is disgraceful. The members of that government and its caucus should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing, and so should the NDP members.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:45:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to put this nonsense to bed.
During the time that article came out, I could not even have, in a city like Calgary, in my home, enough reliable upload speed to be able to engage with the hybrid Parliament at that time. I would watch it on TV, because at least I could reliably see the image. I did not show up as being at work by logging in to Zoom; I followed what was going on in the chamber. If I knew that I was going to be speaking or participating in debate, I had a real scramble on my hands to make sure I actually could get the connectivity to participate, so if that Globe and Mail article and that member's measurement of showing up for work is whether they hit the log-in credentials on their Zoom call, I think that is a pretty flawed measurement of how people participate in Parliament.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
