- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Conservative
- Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $91,173.06
- Government Page
- Jun/12/23 11:51:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I talked about that in my speech. I said that I am actually personally open to exceptions, such as babies being born, illness, death, etc. However, my point is the accountability aspect. That is what bothers me. It is about ministers of the Crown and parliamentary secretaries being here, being present and being able to be held to account, because they are the ones who have that privilege of being in government. The job for all the rest of us as members of Parliament, even the backbenchers in the Liberal caucus, is to make sure all aspects for Canadians are being represented.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:49:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a number of members and our House leader, as well as the member for Perth—Wellington, highlighted that this is really the purpose of our amendment to the motion. I think that is technically what we are supposed to be debating right now.
It is about saying that we should keep this in place. There are parts that we do not like, but we can accept that. However, let us not make it permanent. Let us force the government to come back and work with all parties. I think the consensus is that, if we just put the sunset clause on this bill, it would be acceptable to all members here in the House. That is key.
Traditionally, for the last 100-plus years, changing Standing Orders has always been done through consensus, not unilaterally by the majority of MPs.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:47:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are elected to be here and to be the voice of the people in Ottawa, not the voice of Ottawa back in our constituencies.
I feel that our job is to listen. That is why we have constituency weeks. I actually think we should sit longer. We sit less than most Parliaments in western democracies in the world do. We should not be breaking next week. We should be going into July; we should be back at the start of September. We should start back in January.
I believe that our job is to work together to make the best legislation that works for all Canadians, not just the Canadians that the government is privileged to represent.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:35:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, “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.” Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Hon. Wayne Easter, the former Liberal minister and MP for Malpeque for almost 28 years in this House. I note that the statement Mr. Easter made earlier today was shared on social media by former Liberal minister Jane Philpott.
Before I forget, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
I am going to talk a bit about some of the advantages of hybrid sittings, because they have been brought up, to be fair, in some of the speeches. We talk about the sacrifice members make in the service of Canada to be members of Parliament. I would say first and foremost it is a privilege to be here. It is an absolute privilege and an honour. However, to be frank, part of the reason I decided to run for office was to have a better work-life balance, because compared to my previous life in the military, this is way more flexible. It is way easier to manage my work-life balance than it was in the Canadian Armed Forces.
We have people serving our country who do not have the privileges and options we have, and I would argue there are lots of Canadians out there, because of the dire state of our economic situation, who are working two jobs. They do not have the privilege of virtually attending their work and trying to balance everything. I am not trying to take away from any of this. I am just saying that it is a privilege to be here and we need to treat it as such.
We have had these rules, and I have used them when I have had to. I am a single dad half the time, and as a single dad of a nine-year-old, it is very difficult to try to balance all of this. My daughter has been here up in the gallery or in the lobby. When I was the deputy whip for my party, she even got to call the MPs into the House a couple times as we came in for a vote.
I have utilized the voting app as well, and I fully acknowledge that there are dire circumstances or situations, whether they be medical, a death in the family or a baby being born, for which we should not take away the right of a member to vote. I can see some legitimate uses for the voting app, as an example, but I note that we have had existing tools kicking around Parliament for a long time. We can pair members of Parliament. That is a good way to start, because there are members who face challenges on a regular basis.
One of the arguments we hear, which the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader has used, is the fact that we have used this, as if it is some sort of reason for us not to vote against it. I would note, though, that we can use the analogy of a sports team. Let us use hockey, for example. If we go back to the start of the NHL, a hundred-and-some-odd years back, players could not pass the puck forward. It would be dumb for opposition parties not to utilize the rules that have been forced upon us under this hybrid Parliament. We use the rules we are forced to use and we play the game. I do not even like using that term. This is not a principled issue about fiscal mismanagement or some issue of conscience. This is about procedural rules. We would be dumb not to use them.
I want to give another quote. It is from an article that came out of The Globe and Mail by Campbell Clark:
...governments...have wanted to find a way to get under-fire cabinet ministers into the Commons without having them walk past the press. Now they don't even have to sneak out the back. There is real accountability lost if ministers don't have to walk past MPs in their caucus and stand up across from the opposition.
This point was brought up by a previous speaker. The press is another tool for holding the government to account; it is not just us in opposition. Specifically, when ministers of the Crown do not have to be in this House, it is a way for them to avoid tough questions, because, again, those in government have to make tough decisions.
I know you have been doing a good job, Madam Speaker, of recognizing the member for New Westminster—Burnaby virtually, but I know I have been on virtually plenty of times trying to get attention, I am sitting there waving my hands on the screen, and it is hard to get recognized. It is a lot easier here in the House.
The real point I want to focus on about hybrid that really scares me is the partisanship. This place is already divisive enough. Partisanship ebbs and flows in a parliamentary session. However, I would argue to take the pandemic out of it. There is an inability to build relationships in this House, which is what actually gets things done. I can speak to numerous examples from my short time here since 2019.
Shortly after the pandemic broke out, the government introduced the Canada emergency business account. I asked a question in question period. I got talking points from the minister. That was in June 2020. I brought it up in the summer when we were doing those special COVID committee sessions. Again, I got talking points.
September rolled around and I asked again, but this time when I did not get the answer that I desired, I basically cornered the minister in the hallway. There were no cameras, there was no worrying about being misunderstood and getting it reported incorrectly in the media. I was able to actually explain why small businesses that do not have business bank accounts really needed to qualify for this. There are many farmers and small businesses in my riding that were failing to meet it.
I was not the only MP bringing up this issue to the minister, but I swear I saw the lightbulb go on. It kind of took that for her to understand the challenges and the issue. Shortly after that, to give the government credit, it actually made the changes and announced the changes to the program, and things got done. This happens almost every day with opposition MPs and the government ministers.
We walk across the way, we talk to them face to face. We do not have to worry about going through staff. I have had that relationship with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Immigration in dealing with security clearances, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
This is not new. I will quote the press gallery reporter, Dale Smith. I do not think he is real friendly to the Conservative Party. He has quoted an article from about a year ago, I believe. He warns that this hybrid Parliament could “further erode the relationship building that better helps Parliament function”.
He points to research from the Samara Institute that was pulled from exit interviews from former MPs. Smith indicated that “over time the House of Commons has become a less-friendly place to foster that dynamic. In the Chamber, it’s harder for backbenchers and opposition MPs to catch ministers—who can now leave to vote on their phones—for constituent files that require ministerial intervention.”
There are other people I can quote. John Milloy is a professor of political science and public ethics at Wilfrid Laurier University who served as the Liberal MPP in Ontario and in former prime minister Jean Chrétien's office. He said, “Just those hours of being able to talk to each other, and dare I say, talk to the opposition,” are so important. Mr. Milloy talks about, in his references, about the voting opportunities should we use them, but we have to justify them.
I think the people who should never use hybrid Parliament are the actual ministers themselves. I started my speech saying it is a privilege for all of us to be here as members of Parliament. However, it is an even a greater honour and privilege to be a minister of the Crown, and with that comes sacrifice. I think the ministers and parliamentary secretaries should have to participate in debate in this chamber.
Conservatives have put forward some reasonable amendments that would allow consensus to occur around this motion and keep hybrid in place for the remainder of this Parliament. However, I cannot emphasize enough the risk to partisanship if we keep hybrid going into the future.
1552 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize for not trying to use a bit of my French tonight. It is getting late, and I do not want to butcher it too much.
I have more of a comment than a question, because the member really emphasized the impact on the interpreters, and therefore, the impact on committees. I just want to share that it is bigger than even the committees.
I have the privilege to sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and we have a challenge to just have enough interpreters with the right security classifications for that committee. We have been impacted directly by the injuries to interpreters because of the hybrid Parliament as well, which then makes it more difficult for us to meet.
If it were not for the graciousness of the Bloc Québécois member of that committee to attend committee and sometimes only participate in English, we would not be able to play our very important role, considering everything we are studying. I just wanted to get that on the record.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
