- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $135,225.85
- Government Page
- Jun/13/23 11:13:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I begin this debate tonight, I will state that this is not an easy job to do. I will be the first to acknowledge that. I love what I do, and I think every member in this place loves what they do. They have a passion, energy and desire to build a better country.
I have been here three and a half years, and like many members, a few who have spoken tonight, I am from the class of 2019. We had a few months of normalcy after the 2019 election. We figured out where the offices and washrooms were. We figured out how things ran here. Then the world changed, both in what we talked about in policy with the pandemic and in how we operated here.
There are many different facets to the role we have as members of Parliament. I am thinking of the work we do here in the chamber, at committee and back in our constituency offices on case files. We are present in the community at riding and community events and get feedback. Of course, now that we are out of the pandemic, we are getting to different parts of the country to get the message out from our caucuses and leaders and so forth. However, I will say this. Despite the changes in 2019, we are now, at this point, in this debate tonight, out of the pandemic and back to what I would say is a semblance of normalcy.
I knew what I was signing up for in 2019 when I took this job. Every member of Parliament has challenges in the work they do here on the Hill. There is no denial there. There are family responsibilities, circumstances that change and travel as well. I often chuckle that I have a pretty easy commute, being from eastern Ontario, to get back home. It is about an hour and 10 minutes to my riding.
I consider myself very fortunate. For me, the member next door in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and members in the national capital region, it is a blessing to get home quickly. It can also be a curse some days, because constituents know I can go back for a passport clinic, a community event or whatever it may be. However, all that said, given the point in time we are at now, when we are talking about the strengthening and protection of our democracy and its integrity and all aspects of that, the debate we are having tonight is fundamentally important to getting the basic stuff right.
I am in favour of change. Change naturally happens. I remember being a mayor at the municipal level and having to navigate a lot of that. It is not always easy to do. However, sometimes there is change for the sake of doing something, and sometimes change goes too far.
As I was preparing my comments for the debate tonight, I thought of the words of a colleague who is no longer in the House, Wayne Easter. The former member for Malpeque had a great comment on Twitter this week: “Let me put it this way: If you don't want to work in Ottawa during the Parliamentary sessions—don't run to be an MP. A hybrid Parliament made sense during Covid but it should never be permanent. I strongly oppose govt's move to make it permanent.” I could not agree more with what Mr. Easter said on that point, and I am laughing when thinking of his Zoom discussions with the member for Carleton, the leader of our party, at the finance committee. They were certainly navigating some very interesting times.
As I share my time tonight with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am reflecting, in a sense, on certain provisions from our side of the aisle. As we have said in our dissenting reports and talked about at committee, some aspects can stay. Electronic voting is an example of that. How we can make that work could be open for discussion, as an example.
However, the idea is to be here on the floor of the House of Commons, to travel here and speak on behalf of, in my case, the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry from the perspectives of my riding, my community and my personal lived experience, whatever the benefit may be. That needs to happen in person.
I have seen things I take for granted. In the last few months, we have gotten traffic back in our caucus meetings, on the floor of the House, in committee and, yes, in the hallways for the networking and different connections we do at different times of the day. There is a value to being in person. It adds to our democracy; it does not take it away.
When we talk about these things, like making permanent the idea that somebody can Zoom in from their home or from their basement, I think we are at a point now where we can be compassionate. We can make changes to help adapt to difficult family situations and circumstances. I think the whips in our parties have given better flexibility over the course of the last couple of years to recognize personal and professional needs where need be. We can keep the core foundation of what we are talking about here.
I always joke that we are not normal. Most Canadians watching this would ask what the heck a standing order is. We are talking about the fundamental rules of how this House operates, and I think a way to describe them is they are the character, the tone and the nature of the way we do our business. I am very concerned that we are making Zoom aspects permanent so that people will be able to Zoom in for all of this.
Another part that is very concerning is the manner in which these changes are being made, the magnitude of these changes given our normal traditions here in the House and the way we have gone about this generally, with unanimous consent by all parties. We have this motion supported by the Liberals and the NDP. The Conservatives have raised some serious concerns in wanting a difference and the Bloc Québécois has done the same.
I cannot say it was for the entire Canadian history and our entire tenure of Parliament, but for the overwhelming majority of the time, changes to the Standing Orders and the rules that govern the House have been done by unanimous consent, by all parties giving and taking, figuring things out, throwing things at the wall, seeing what they can find a consensus on and making changes. Those changes, I think, have been for the better over the course of time, and this has been the best way to build confidence from Parliament to Parliament on these core essential functions.
One thing we have in here is a change to have committee chairs in person. I think that would end a lot of the chaos that happens in certain committees. With all due respect, I am thinking of numerous times at the heritage committee that we watched a natural technological filibuster of checking headsets, the chair not knowing what is happening with the committee clerk in the room and somebody calling a point of order. Consider the amount of time lost in a two-hour committee. Members of Parliament here talk about the efficient use of time. Our clerks are there. The interpreters are there. The IT team is there. The amount of time that was lost is probably into the hours over the course of the last couple of years simply because the chair was not in the room.
The fact that this is changing is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We talked about having the appropriate resources. When having these Zoom capabilities and all of these things going on, the resources are not backing them up.
I have heard several times tonight members of the government say, well, these are all things that could be adjusted and talked about. They should be done in the amendments to the Standing Orders. These things should be figured out now, these guardrails or barriers, to make sure we have protections so that committees can run when a majority of members of Parliament want to meet and they have work to get done, bills to go through, studies to do and witnesses to hear from. Because of a lack of resources, we are shutting things down.
That, still two years in, has been acknowledged many times. In all fairness, it is often to the benefit of the government. If something gets contentious and they are starting to negotiate which committee gets cancelled, it is not fair and it is not balanced. To colleagues who say that those are things we could have a conversation about, I would say these things should have been settled and done the way they have been done in parliamentary tradition in this country for many generations: all parties coming to unanimous consent, unanimous agreement, on how we can get to that.
Another thing we talk about is that there are some other tools already here that could be used more. If an absence is requested, there are pairing opportunities. There are leaves that can happen. There are tools. We have made a lot of advances here in recognizing the diverse geography of the country. As we have had more parents, different age groups and different circumstances, we have enhanced child care options and added designated travellers. All of these things were done to help make our work better and function better.
Tonight, as I wrap up, I think of my comments about these amendments to the Standing Orders. There was a time and a place for Zoom, but now is the time to get back in person. Our jobs are unique. It is an honour and a privilege to be one of only a few hundred members of Parliament in this country. When we speak for our constituents, there is no reason why that should not be done on the floor of the House of Commons. I think of the United Kingdom. I think of the United States. I think of many other countries' parliamentary structures that are similar, like Congress. They are back in person. They are doing the work. They are making it work.
Canadians expect us to get back to work in person and get the job done. As our leader likes to say, we need to bring it home.
1793 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member for the Green Party mentioned in his comments today, there has been support for this legislation going through. There have been some issues of process, which have been the challenge and making sure that Parliament has the appropriate time to discuss and debate exactly what he spoke about today. This is to fix a problem we should have fixed a very long time ago. I think of my constituency office where we saw some of these programs announced at the beginning of the pandemic and how red flags were raised then. Here we are now two years later correcting a problem and the government is saying we need to do this right away.
I agree with the member completely that housing for seniors and rent is a big issue as well as the cost of living. Having the proper time for these bills and to discuss the issues that seniors face in general is something we need to do. I wonder if the member could comment on the process and why we need to rush these things all the time as opposed to having debates on the substantive issues that people in Kitchener and the country are facing.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
