- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Apr/19/24 10:13:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not have an answer to his specific question in terms of the particular organizations that he referenced. What I do know, as I indicated in my speech, there was an absolute ton of work done in creating this commission and in consulting with indigenous peoples directly.
I am a partisan person. I think the Speaker would acknowledge that. When I stand in the House, I am quite partisan. I will take the shots where I see necessary. I really hope that on this particular issue, an issue as important as this, the entire House can support it. We are talking about establishing a council with oversight. I really hope that we can put aside partisanship and that we can move forward in doing what it is right because I know, at heart, every member believes that.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 2:04:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Parliament is also a place where we ensure things are done in a proper manner to ensure that the right answers are received for Canadians. To his point, I absolutely hope we can remove the partisanship from this and work to getting those answers. To his last point, I most definitely want to get the answers to it, but more importantly, Canadians deserve to get the answers to these questions.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:10:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying I find the character assassination of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the Bloc is extremely troubling. The reason I say that is that, unlike a politician who is assigned to a political party and actively participates in a political party, the Speaker of the House of Commons, quite honestly, does not have the ability to give their side of the story. The Speaker of the House of Commons has to remain neutral even in a time when there is an attempt to assassinate his character, which is exactly what is going on.
I find it extremely troubling that once again, and we thought we had dealt with this matter in the fall, the Bloc and the Conservatives, for their own reasons that I will mention shortly, are just absolutely insistent that they do whatever they can to destroy the reputation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. They have their motives, and I will get to what I think those are in a second.
What did the Speaker do when he recognized he made a mistake? The Speaker came before the House, apologized to the House, accepted that what he did was wrong, and left it at that. This is because that is all he can do quite frankly.
I learned a lesson very early on in my municipal political career, which was that one does not attack the staff. We do not attack the people who support us, the people who are there to give us advice and opinions, because they do not have the vehicle to defend themselves. They do not have the ability, the voice, that a sitting member has to defend themselves.
It is the same reason we do not attack the table officers. I regret to say I have seen it happen in the House that they have been shouted at. However, we do not go after them, because they do not have an ability to defend themselves. When we elect a Speaker, we ask the Speaker to be as impartial as the table officers. The Speaker right now has to be subjected to all of this and does not have an opportunity to give their side of the story. However, what he did do was apologize.
Another Speaker was basically being accused of the same thing, or was being accused of being partisan. Members already know which Speaker it was; it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. On September 24, 2014, he said, “Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, state that ‘Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.’”
That is how the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle dealt with similar accusations: Threats of breaches of his parliamentary privilege. This is not what we see from the current Speaker. The current Speaker accepted his faults, apologized for his faults and asked forgiveness.
The Bloc is going to tell us now, as its members have been saying today, that it just wants to calmly say that it wants a full investigation into this to look into the new information. How are we being so unreasonable? The Bloc members want to paint a picture of their having just shown up on the scene and of being the arbiters of good versus evil, of partisan versus non-partisan.
Let us not forget that it was the Bloc Québécois, on day number one, before the issue went to PROC and before anybody had an opportunity to discuss this matter, that was calling on the Speaker's resignation. As a matter of fact, and I remember it vividly, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came out here to stand on a point of order. I am pretty sure he thought it was going to end at that, which is that the Speaker had made an error. Then the Bloc Québécois stood up and demanded that the Speaker resign. Not to be outdone, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle sprinted back into the House and said that he too called for his resignation. The Bloc Québécois has been leading this charge from day one. Its members sat there through committee and have had the debates in the House, and now they are here.
Why are they doing it? They are doing it for political opportunity. They are doing it for the exact same reason that the Conservatives have jumped on the same bandwagon. They see opportunity in Quebec to take Liberal seats by showing that there is chaos within the Liberal Party. That is their sole reason. Everybody knows it; it is as clear as day and very obvious. The Conservatives just do not want to be outdone by the Bloc. They are fighting for those seats too, so they are pulling the same moves, trying to trump up and over-exaggerate allegations.
I represent the riding that Peter Milliken once represented. I knew Peter Milliken in my time as a city councillor and before that. I am very aware of what the longest-serving Speaker of the House of Commons did in our riding and perhaps the one or two neighbouring ridings, what he deemed to be acceptable and what he did not. As a matter of fact, there is a CTV article from August 25, 2015, ironically written by Jordan Press when he was with the Canadian Press, a Queen's grad and a former reporter with The Kingston Whig-Standard. I will read what he wrote on what Peter Milliken had to say on that:
Peter Milliken, the longest-serving Speaker in Canadian history, didn't attend the Liberal party's weekly caucus meetings, nor did he go to party conventions. During elections, he didn't attend any events where Liberal leaders stumped for votes, believing it would be “inappropriate” to be in attendance....
Milliken said the trick to campaigning as Speaker is to avoid taking stands on federal policy issues: You can say what your party's position is on a particular topic, but you don't express a position on a topic on which the party hasn't taken a stand. The same rule doesn't apply to local issues—only national ones, he said.
Milliken also said he avoided attending any events where the Liberal leader was stumping for votes, believing it was “inappropriate” given how he tried to keep a firewall between him and the party....
[The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle], however, opted to attend Harper's event at a farm outside Regina where many of his supporters were in attendance to hear from the Conservative leader.
Thus, while the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker of the House of Commons, while he was threatening MPs not to challenge his non-partisanship over the possibility of breaching his privilege, he was attending events where Stephen Harper was showing up for campaign events. The double standards are endless, and I have more examples.
We can go to the Regina—Qu'Appelle Conservative Association: “Back by popular demand. Cigar and Scotch tasting, $175 per person. Dinner and shooting that will be held at the Regina—Qu'Appelle skeet shoot and dinner event.” This was not during a writ period; it was in advance that. The member will argue that away by saying, “Well, it was my riding, and so it was okay.”
However, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has countless violations. He hired his sister-in-law, in the Speaker's office, by the way, whom he then had to fire after the press found out about it. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle shifted cash to a Tory campaign smeared in the robocall scandal. This is the same individual who then had to preside over those deliberations after the election where the robocall scandal came out. It turned out that his riding was the one giving money for the robocalls into Guelph, and he presided over it. However, do not dare question his impartiality, because if we do, we are breaching his privilege. He did not waste any time making sure members knew about that, as I previously indicated.
The House Speaker, referring to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, on December 14, 2011, used a firm linked to the Cotler calls, which were the calls that went out to say that Irwin Cotler had resigned. As well, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle broke Parliament's rules by filming a partisan video in his office, and that was not even that long ago.
When I thought we were having the last debate on this, on the very last sitting day prior to the break, I referenced a tweet that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle had put out the day before. On December 14, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, in reference to what was going on with the member for Hull—Aylmer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, “It’s all totally unacceptable. When I was Speaker the only fundraiser I attended was for my own riding. This is something all Speakers are allowed to do because they must run under a party banner, and other parties run candidates against them.”
The next day, on December 15, just over a month ago, I said:
I know that yesterday the member tweeted out an explanation as to why it was okay for him to attend a political campaign fundraiser in his own riding and suggested that it is okay to do it in one's own riding but not outside one's own riding. I am wondering if the member can just expand a bit on that and inform us why it would be okay in their own riding if they are the Speaker, but not another riding outside their riding.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle responded to my question by saying:
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I appreciate the friendly question from the member from Kingston because there is a very important difference and it really does change the nature of it.
Speakers have always had to run under party banners. Until the day comes when parties have a convention or agreement that we will not run candidates against the Speaker, the Speaker has to go into an election and has to have signs and pamphlets and organize volunteer meetings. There has never been an expectation that a Speaker would cease partisan activities in that nature for their own re-election. Previous Speakers have done that for decades. In fact, the previous Speaker, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, made a government announcement in his riding for government funding. Nobody objected to that because it was clear that he was communicating to his own constituents. He was talking about the work that he does as a member of Parliament and informing his constituents as to a government decision in his riding. We were aware that the former Speaker had made that announcement, but that did not offend members of Parliament because it was in his own riding. The same is true for partisan fundraising activity.
That is very important. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle told me in this House that the same can be true for partisan funding activities and members should be doing them only in their own ridings, according to him.
The problem is that in 2015, the member for Regina—Wascana, which is a neighbouring riding, not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's riding and not the Speaker's riding, long before the election, as this was in May and the writ period did not start until August, and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle attended a $100-a-person fundraising event. The Regina—Wascana Conservative EDA was pleased to invite them to a private networking event with the now Leader of the Opposition, the member of Parliament for Carleton, on Tuesday, May 19, at 6:30 p.m. This event was taking place in a member's home; therefore, space was very limited. They fully expected the event to sell out, and tickets were $100.
Posted on May 21, days later, is a picture that has the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Regina—Wascana and the now Leader of the Opposition standing next to each other, and the member for Regina—Wascana had a caption under the picture that said that on Tuesday evening he was joined by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Carleton at the wine and cheese event hosted by the Regina—Wascana Conservative Party EDA, and that it was a great night of discussion and fellowship.
We have the Conservatives trying to use this, in my opinion, for nothing more than political chaos and political gain. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle knows full well the countless violations that his standard would have applied to him when he was Speaker, but, for some reason, there is absolutely no shame in his approach when he makes the demands that he is making on the current Speaker of the House, who, by the way, as I said when I started my speech, acknowledged his error, apologized and asked for forgiveness.
I have told members how the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle dealt with similar scenarios. He threatened parliamentary privilege upon people if they continued to challenge his potentially biased nature while sitting in that chair.
What message are we sending to people? What message does this send to our children? If someone apologizes and asks for forgiveness, they are going to get doubled down on by the Conservatives and the Bloc. They are going to go after them even harder. They see them as weak now. They see them as a political target. They see them as somebody they can exploit for political gain.
That is all that is happening. That is what has happened with this issue from the beginning. It is how it started, with the Bloc outdoing the Conservatives. It is completely how this was conducted in PROC. It is how this is being conducted now. There is just absolutely no sense of being able to rectify, no sense that somebody has made an apology, that somebody has said they will attempt to do better and has owned up to their mistakes, which is exactly what we are seeing.
Instead, we hear from the Bloc, who are now saying that new information has come to light because the Speaker was at a provincial Liberal volunteer event.
I listened with interest when the Bloc spoke earlier, because Bloc members kept repeating two fallacies. They referred to it as a fundraiser. It was not. It was a volunteer appreciation event.
They also said it set a precedent. It certainly does not set a precedent. The only thing that has set a precedent with respect to this issue is the manner in which the Bloc and the Conservatives are treating it.
The precedent was set, most likely, long before the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, but it certainly was a precedent that he upheld, because he continued to act in a manner that he now deems as being completely inappropriate.
The Bloc wants us to believe that if we set this precedent now, it changes everything going into the future. I have news for the Bloc. This is not precedent-setting.
Just so we are absolutely clear on this issue, the Bloc Québécois takes great exception, suddenly, to the Speaker going to a volunteer appreciation event at an Ontario Liberal event.
I do not know how it works in Quebec. Maybe the federal Bloc Québécois and its provincial counterparts all get together, but I can tell members that in Ontario, the Ontario Liberals and the federal Liberals are two completely separate entities. We see each other at Christmastime, in my riding anyhow, and say hello and shake hands.
In any event, it really offends the Bloc that the Speaker went to a provincial riding association volunteer appreciation event, but somehow the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle going to a $100-a-person fundraiser at the equivalent federal-level riding association next door to his, which he had to pay money to go to, is somehow a non-issue. Do not worry about it. It happened so long ago that it does not even matter anymore, I guess.
No, that is not what this is about. It is not about the Bloc comparing the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to the Speaker now. It is not about the Bloc Québécois comparing the present Speaker to any other Speaker. It is about a character assassination by the Bloc Québécois. That is what this is. Bloc members want to stir up political turmoil, and they are seizing their opportunity. That is all that this is.
2914 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are very sensitive. It is becoming a common theme. Every time I get up to speak, different Conservative members come out here, most likely at the direction of somebody sitting behind a desk in the lobby who is telling them to come out here and raise these pointless, ridiculous points of order.
I will let the member know that I actually take great pride in knowing that what I say obviously impacts him enough to have to run back into the room to call points of order on what I am saying. What I am saying is true. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stood in this House for 10 minutes and went on about how he supports this motion and that he needs to see the work happen at PROC, even though he already knows what the outcome is.
What I was saying a few moments ago is that my NDP colleague said that he does not see a problem with somebody having a position on something and then still undertaking the work. The difference here is that it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, a Conservative member, who put forward this motion.
I will go through what happened, so that Canadians really, fully understand what is going on here. This shows a bit of the partisanship and the game-playing.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came in a couple of days ago, stood in front of this House and put out a lengthy point of order on the issue. I think it was a valid point of order. Perhaps I do not agree with every detail of what he said, but I think he brought forward a valid point of order that the House needed to reflect on. He left. The point of order was over.
Then the Bloc Québécois stood up and called on the Speaker to resign. Then, as if he just could not possibly be outdone by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, ran back in here on another point of order and said that he thinks the Speaker should resign, too.
That is what is going on here. This is an issue of one opposition party not wanting to be outdone by the other opposition party. Here we have this motion that has been put in front of us by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The motion at this point is pointless from his perspective, because he already knows the outcome of what he wants from this. He has already predetermined what he believes the outcome should be, and that is that the Speaker should resign.
For me, being a member of the committee, I have problems with being able to walk into that room to sit at the table with my colleagues, like the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, and genuinely talk about who the witnesses would be. Perhaps one would be Peter Milliken, a great former speaker of this House, the longest serving speaker of this House, who is from Kingston and the Islands—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:23:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not see the procedural error I made there. I certainly made an error with respect to the timing, but it was not a procedural error on which the member could stand up on a point of order.
In any event, my point was to say that when the House leader for the Conservatives rose on his question of privilege, he never once made reference to the Speaker resigning. He did not do that until he decided he needed to because the Bloc Québécois was doing it. That signals that there is a great degree of partisanship going on here.
To the parliamentary secretary's point, when the Conservative member made his comments and was directing that this issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee, he had already precluded what the outcome would be. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would like to provide his insight into that.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:22:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I find really interesting about this particular issue, which speaks to the political partisanship of it, is that when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the House leader for the Conservatives, originally proposed his intervention this morning, he made no reference to calling on the Speaker to resign. Then in the next intervention, the Bloc Québécois called on the Speaker to resign, and as though not to be outdone, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle ran back into the House, rose on another point of order and said that the Speaker should resign. Now he has come to the conclusion, a mere couple of hours later, that there is absolutely no other option but for the Speaker to resign. However, in the entirety of his intervention, when he started off on the matter this morning, he never once raised it.
I wonder if the member can—
156 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/7/23 8:02:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I found deplorable was that when the member for Timmins—James Bay was asking his question and talking about how he could literally smell forest fires from where he was sitting in his community, Conservatives were just laughing.
Somehow, Conservatives think that climate change is a partisan issue, but even their buddies in the Bloc do not agree with them on that. They take it seriously.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on whether it is time to put partisanship aside when it comes to climate change. We can have debates about whether or not a policy is right or whether a different policy is the way to go, but what we should not be debating are the actual facts, the fact that climate change is real.
Would the parliamentary secretary like to comment on that?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:03:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, the member from the NDP who spoke gave a very passionate speech about dialing back the partisanship on this. I would completely agree with her. I think that what we are trying to convey is that accusations that the Prime Minister has known about this for two years are completely false as well. If we listen to what is being said on both sides, in the interest of genuinely dialing back the partisanship on this, perhaps we can all start from a point of not making those assumptions.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are laughing right now. This is about helping some of the most vulnerable people in our country and they are laughing, so I guess the partisanship will not be put aside.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, over the last few decades the disparity between the haves and the have-nots has certainly been growing, and it is incumbent upon us to find ways to try to reduce that. That is why we increased taxes on the richest 1% when we were first elected and reduced taxes for the middle class. That is why we brought in $10-a-day child care. That is why we continue to strengthen the various social programs we have.
With respect to the member's question, I would like nothing more than to see that bill, which is intended for the disabled communities in Canada, move expeditiously through this House, go to committee and come back here so that we can implement it and bring it into law. I hope and have faith that all members in this House can put partisanship aside for one issue like this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 5:01:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, he clearly understands the problem that we are in, yet he is not willing to be part of the solution. That just proves what I have been saying all along, which is that this weird coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives to somehow slow down the legislative agenda is impacting legislation. He literally just told us that he understands what the problem is, so he should vote in favour of this. Let us get moving on it. Instead, they have the luxury of being able to be against the government on this motion, but for the bill. It is a luxury that unfortunately the NDP does not have, but to their credit they have seen the importance of this. They are willing to see beyond that partisanship, and are actually helping to move this forward.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
