44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/15/23 4:16:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am at a loss for words to express my frustration with this government, especially its leader, and its methods. The rules of Parliament are being changed without a consensus or even the semblance of one in the House. The government is riding roughshod over the way we do things, in complete violation of the very spirit of the parliamentary system. It is a disgrace to democracy and a disgrace to the House. To add insult to injury, a gag order is being imposed after a few days of debate. I have never seen anything like it.
As everyone knows, I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance. I had the pleasure of working with the committee's chair, former Liberal MP Wayne Easter, for several years. He agrees that attempting to make these changes is preposterous. These are fundamental changes that will have far-reaching implications. Whenever ministers are put on the spot, they can simply duck behind their screen or hide in their basement to avoid pressure from reporters or members of Parliament.
Since this involves changing the way things work, consensus is needed. We need to take the time to debate this motion before adopting it. Right now, the government leader is acting like a bulldozer and is not seeking consensus. He is telling us that he does not care. What is more, he is moving a time allocation motion to limit debate on this motion. I cannot believe what is happening to democracy and to the history of this Parliament. This way of doing things is unprecedented. It is unacceptable. I am truly disappointed.
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate that we have been having in the House on this issue. The one issue that I keep hearing from the Bloc members is that we need to have consensus. However, I reflect on the fact that on Monday of this week, there was not a single vote in which fewer than 50% of the Bloc members used their voting app. As a matter of fact, when we voted on Bill C-41, 80% of the Bloc members used their voting app. When we voted on their own motion about climate change, 50% of the Bloc members used it.
Would the House leader not agree that consensus is pretty well established, given the participation in using the application?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:42:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, remember, these provisions have been in place exactly as they are for three years, and so we have had an opportunity to use these. At the beginning of every session of Parliament, we had a protracted debate for, in some cases, weeks about the use of the applications. We have had an opportunity House leader to House leader to have extensive conversations.
As I said earlier, once the report from PROC was completed at the end of January, it was an opportunity to digest two and a half years of information and have conversations about how we could move forward. It became clear that one of the parties, the Conservatives, said that under no circumstances would they ever accept this. The only way it could go forward, despite the fact they were using it every day, was for us to proceed in this fashion.
I tried to provide as much time as possible to find that bridge, to find some way to work together, to find some way to get to unanimity. Unfortunately, working with the Bloc and working with the Conservatives it became clear such consensus would never be possible. It would not only not be possible between January 31 and now, it would not be possible between January 31 and, if one listens to the Conservatives, the end of time. However, they still want to use these provisions, and that is the point—
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 6:44:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for sharing his perspective with us. This is a very important point.
To this point, generally speaking, permanent changes to the Standing Orders of this chamber have been done on a consensual basis, involving support among all the parties of the House. There have been exceptions to that rule, but they were rare.
I think the government is setting a dangerous precedent here in proposing this change without the consent of the second-largest party in this place, the official opposition. I think it is a very dangerous precedent that does not bode well for future changes to this place.
For that reason, I do not think the change should be made permanent. I think that there would be a consensus among all recognized parties in the House to have hybrid Parliament go on but to have a sunset clause, where it would expire at the end of this Parliament.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:12:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very uncomfortable with this motion, not so much because of what it contains, even though my party and I disagree with that, but with the way the government is going about getting this motion adopted.
There is a tradition in this House, which, to my knowledge, exists in all Parliaments. The rules are not changed by the simple majority because that would mean imposing the majority's vision on all the minorities. That is not the right approach.
However, that is what the government is doing here. Rather than trying to reach a consensus with all the parties and agree on the rules before putting them in place, the government is refusing to discuss them with us and imposing its way of doing things. Is that not completely undemocratic?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 8:00:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think I can provide an argument against it because I am not actually against hybrid. I am not against the voting app, nor indeed is the motion proposed by our House leader, which would allow the voting app to continue for the rest of this Parliament and one year into the new Parliament. I am really against the removal of the consensus requirement for changes to the Standing Orders.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
