Debates of June 12th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I invite the member to look at the questions I submit, because I am always looking for data, content and information. That reminds me. With the member's interruption, I do have a Yiddish proverb. I hope that everything I have spoken about tonight are things I have seen. “Let you not say things that you have not seen” is a Yiddish proverb. I hope I have done that.

I have stayed consistent with what I have said in past debates on the Standing Orders. The House is built on consensus and trust, and what the government is doing here, because it has a coalition ally, is simply ramming through changes to the Standing Orders. The preference has always been that we do Standing Order changes by consensus. We do not always get everything we all want. We get what we can all agree on, which are small changes.

That has been the great thing about Parliament. Our rules protect backbenchers; they do not protect the front bench. These changes will protect the front bench from backbenchers. There are more backbenchers in the House, and this is the House for them and for their constituents, not for cabinet.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite a very specific question, but I would first like to give a small introduction.

The pandemic forced us to innovate. It forced us to make greater use of technology. Let us think of our families who are benefiting from it today. During the pandemic, my children were able to learn at home without missing a class, and my wife, who is a teacher, taught from home. We adapted.

This week we saw a Conservative member with a baby in his arms. It was beautiful to see that and to think that it is possible to work from home, from time to time, while looking after one's family.

Can the member opposite tell us that technology has come a long way and that today it is time to move to a hybrid system?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, but that is not the issue we are examining in the House right now. The question before us is whether we should have a hybrid Parliament that operates in the way set out by the government in Motion No. 26.

During the pandemic, two of my three children, the two oldest, were attending school online. I was also the caucus chair. As such, I had a screen in front of me and I also had my two children sitting in front of me doing their online classes. I had to make sure they were paying attention to their classes. Then, there was the youngest who was watching television on mute because he wanted something to do.

That is not what being a parent is all about. It is not about being obligated to work for four and a half hours every Wednesday and spending two days getting ready to do that, while taking care of the kids who are also in virtual mode and who have things to learn and classes to take online. That is not what raising kids should be. After the pandemic, I do not think that is what parents want to see, even in the House.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Shepard for his remarks. As usual, they were clear and intelligent.

He addressed a very important issue, in other words, human contact and what I would call informal discussions. That is where we get to know one another and understand each other. It is through these contacts that we can develop a rapport and negotiate better agreements, better bills for the public every day.

Everyone will say that we will be in hybrid mode on an exceptional basis. However, since there is no framework to the proposal, it will be used increasingly more often and people will no longer come in person. That is what worries me. I would like my colleague to address that and tell us what he thinks.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé is right. The amendments to the rules proposed in government Motion No. 26 will do away with the need for members to get along with one another.

It is easy for cabinet members to meet and talk to one another. They often meet during the week. These meetings are usually held in person, since they sometimes have to talk about confidential matters. However, for backbenchers, the only way to advance a file, to create a bill and amendments, is to talk face to face to build mutual trust.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to stand up and speak since one of the member's colleagues brought up time allocation. Therefore, I want to make the point that, when the Conservatives were in power, they used time allocation 115 times. In fact, they made a cake to celebrate the 100th time. I just wanted to make that clear.

However, the member talked about a lot of hypothetical situations that I do not think any of us can address. He also talked about the fact that there is no difference between constituency and parliamentary weeks, saying that our constituents would expect us to be around all the time. I think that is the case for many of us. What I do not understand, though, is how taking Zoom away from Parliament would take Zoom away from parliamentarians. It would not. Our constituents would still be able to reach us through Zoom, and they would still expect that to happen. Therefore, that argument does not actually make a lot of sense. Could the member comment on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify, because I do not think the member quite understood what I was getting at.

What I am saying is that, in the future, what will happen is that constituency weeks will simply disappear. This may be two, three, four, five or six years from now. There will be an expectation that we do sessional weeks half of the year or more, and members will pick which weeks they will be in their constituencies. However, there will be this constant tension from our constituents and local organizations that a member must appear at all local events while doing all their work. I can even imagine a situation where members have committee business that they will have to conduct from their car while going to, say, a Legion hall for events related to veterans.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, and tonight I bring them in person to the debate on Motion No. 26.

I want to begin by asking a question: What is the role of Parliament?

It is a rhetorical question for sure, but it has a clear answer: It is to serve Canadians, and that concern is at the heart of the matter being debated tonight. The Liberal-NDP coalition has unilaterally pressed for making hybrid Parliament, a temporary model of Parliament, into a permanent model. Such a dramatic change to a long-held procedure cannot and should not be implemented without clear consensus from all recognized parties within this chamber.

On May 5, the World Health Organization formally declared the COVID-19 pandemic emergency to be over. The governing coalition cannot hide behind a past crisis to avoid accountability and transparency, because ultimately that is a by-product. I hope that is not the intention, but that is a by-product behind this procedural change. Instead of helping Canadians who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table, the government is actively working to avoid facing the Canadian people.

Both accountability and engagement suffer in a hybrid Parliament. We have seen the core constitutional principle of responsible government, which is accountability to Parliament, weaken under the current hybrid system. I do not think anyone is challenging that.

In this session of Parliament alone, House administration decided to cancel dozens of committee meetings due to a lack of resources for virtual participation. That fact alone should give my colleagues across the aisle pause. The importance of committee work cannot be overstated. It is at committee where drafted legislation is reviewed, and at times it is there, after all, that corruption and mismanagement are uncovered.

Here are some examples. It is at the finance committee that the extent of the implications of another deficit budget are examined and highlighted. It is where amendments are tabled, debated and hopefully passed to improve the lives of Canadians, though unfortunately not this year.

At the fisheries and oceans committee, which I attended this morning, the bungling of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' handling of the bilateral Great Lakes Fishery Commission file has united both houses of the U.S. Congress and all four accredited parties of this chamber in calling for a change in how the commission is managed. This failure has caused our American partners to walk away from the board table and risk the $8-billion fishery industry through the return of an invasive species, the sea lamprey, which devastated the Great Lakes in the 1950s and actually led to the original creation of the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.

Earlier this evening, I attended an agriculture and agrifood industry committee where the four parties representative of this chamber reviewed Bill C-280 for my colleague from York—Simcoe, a bill to bring about some protections for fresh vegetable and fruit growers in case of bankruptcy of their buyers.

Committee work is important, then, for advancing legislation and for government accountability, yet through the mechanics of a hybrid Parliament, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been able to duck and weave their way around facing questions from His Majesty's loyal opposition. This defies a founding tenet of our Westminster parliamentary system, in which the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account. There are technical glitches. The ministers avoid standing in their place in this chamber or at committee, choosing instead to surround themselves with screens in their offices right here on the Hill to avoid accountability when a poor grasp of a file is on full display.

Is this acceptable? As parliamentarians, is it not our duty to serve our constituents to the best of our abilities? How can we do that if the government enshrines opportunities to avoid accountability?

I do not deny that by almost every quantifiable metric, productivity and accountability are higher when we are working in person, but to quote General Patton, “Always do everything you ask of those you command.” This is not what the Minister of Procurement demonstrated as the minister was directing our federal workers back to work in the office. How is it just to deny a provision to federal workers while granting the same privilege to politicians? This is a textbook example of “Do what I say, not what I do.”

Beyond televised acts of accountability, there are innumerable interactions that help our constituents, advance public policy and generally contribute to the building of constructive relationships among colleagues, both within our caucuses and across party lines. Stifling these small but consequential interactions through a hybrid system is simply flawed.

I am sure I do not need to explain the many ways that constituents' problems can be solved with a quick word to a minister while the bells ring for a vote, or the important information that stakeholders draw to our attention when they visit us personally in our offices, or how a casual word with a colleague bumped into in the hallway helps to build the trust needed later to be confident that a future agreement struck at committee will be honoured. This has been mentioned several times this evening. These are just some of the examples of inter-personal dynamics that a hybrid Parliament prevents and discourages.

Again, it must be asked how Canadians are best served by their parliamentarians. Is it through increasing the personal convenience of members of the House or is it instead through encouraging maximum transparency and accountability, part of which is through ensuring that both official languages in Canada are given equal weight?

Conservatives have a long and proud history in building and supporting a bilingual Parliament.

I do not speak French, but I am learning French with Duolingo.

That is as far as I can get right now, which is why it is all the more alarming to hear from the International Association of Conference Interpreters, Canada region, and its president, Linda Ballantyne, who said that a hybrid Parliament has meant that “English has predominated and French has been snuffed out.”

In part, this is due to a skyrocketing injury rate among staff interpreters. We have gone from a single disabling injury before the pandemic to 90 incidents. With a dwindling pool of interpreters, we cannot tolerate the harm done to these crucial women and men in the functioning of our democracy. It is for these reasons that Conservatives put forward a common-sense recommendation to have the House of Commons proceedings return entirely to in-person while maintaining the voting application. Considering that 97% of chamber interventions are now made in person, this recommendation would have led to little change to the nature of House debates, yet such a change would free up a badly needed translation service while also reducing some workplace risks that interpreters have faced.

To reiterate an earlier point, far too many committee meetings have been cut short or outright cancelled due to a lack of resources, particularly the presence of interpreters to ensure our meetings are conducted bilingually. By cancelling the important work done at committees, Canadians are deprived of one avenue of making their voices heard, especially when it comes to holding this government or any government to account.

Regrettably, truncated committee work has formed just one portion of a broader pattern of hybrid proceedings eroding government accountability to Parliament. Finding an effective way of combatting the pandemic and ensuring that parliaments continued to function the world over was a global concern, yet perpetuating the solutions found during the pandemic to the post-pandemic era seems to be a problem unique to the Canadian federal government. According to Andy Williamson, an Inter-Parliamentary Union researcher, some of the digital and remote working practices at foreign legislatures “will have been temporary as they are no longer felt necessary”. Indeed, he advised that just 46% of legislatures will retain remote functionality while “in some cases this might only be for use in exceptional circumstances.” To answer a question heckled across earlier, even within Canada, no provincial or territorial legislature currently has a full-fledged hybrid system.

Succinctly, no other comparable legislature has rushed headlong into a permanent embrace of full-fledged hybrid proceedings or, if it is being entertained, it is with eyes wide open to the potential downsides. Despite the advances of technology and the rise of the Internet, some problems are best solved the old-fashioned way. Sometimes precedent and procedure are in place because they work. It is with a reckless disregard for the health and functioning of Parliament that the governing coalition has pressed for the permanent status of a hybrid system.

I must ask again. What is the role of Parliament? Is it to serve the interests of Canadians or the convenience of its members?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would argue that the interests of Canadians is best served by having a hybrid Parliament, as has been suggested in a motion that the Conservative Party has indicated it would support if there was a sunset clause where it would have to be reaffirmed three years from now.

Does the member not see anything within that statement that is rather odd with respect to the Conservatives saying that they will accept the changes if we put in that sunset clause, which, in essence, is saying for the rest of this Parliament and at least a year going into the next Parliament that these rules would be accepted? Does he not see any inconsistencies?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I see in the Conservative offer is respect from the Conservative Party for the long-standing tradition of compromise to get a consensus for the standing rules of the chamber. That is what I see from the members of the Conservative Party.

In that very vein, I was listening when the member for Winnipeg North was speaking. At 10:04 he was referring to something and saying that something was virtually impossible. He went on to explain that he was also willing to consider other changes in the Standing Orders if they were mutually agreed upon.

Would the member entertain, at some further point, that after 10 p.m., no puns would be allowed in this chamber? I do believe that saying something is virtually impossible when we are talking about virtual Parliament is a pun.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I have been here since the beginning of the debate, and I can say that few speeches have mentioned the whole issue of the interpreters and their health and safety while working in a hybrid Parliament. I want therefore to congratulate my colleague, because I share his concerns. I will speak more about that in my speech.

I am surprised by the arrogance of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and by the way he chose to move this motion in Parliament. He could have done it in a different manner.

I would like my colleague to address two things. First, what other approach could the government leader have taken to gain support and consensus on certain aspects of a hybrid Parliament? Second, could the member tell me who are the people most affected by the hybrid Parliament?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the member's first question, why would the House leader act as if he had a majority government and not have to work toward a consensus? Quite frankly, in this minority Parliament, I believe that at times the government is acting like it is has a majority. A prime example of that is what we are debating tonight being pushed through.

Do they not feel the need to work toward a consensus? I would direct that to our NDP colleagues across the aisle as they are supporting the government on many measures that seem to not be in the best interests of Canadians.

To the second point by the hon. member as to who is being hurt the most, I referenced in my speech that it is Canadians in general due to the accountability Parliament has to them. I also focused on our interpreter friends who we need for accountability, bilingualism and the future of this country.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the majority of the House wants hybrid Parliament. The member talked a lot about consensus and building that consensus. Could he provide the House, right now, with an absolute?

We have seen many times Conservatives filibuster their way. He was talking about resources in the House being taken up, and I would argue that a lot of that has been through a lot of the filibusters by the Conservative Party. However, can he commit right now to not filibuster? We could move forward in a consensus-based way by saying that a hybrid model is what the majority wants.

Would the Conservatives not filibuster that decision so we can move forward in a very productive way to build a hybrid Parliament together?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has respected the long-standing traditions of the House. We have even seen in this session of Parliament the government filibustered its own legislation at committee on Bill C-21.

I am not in a position to respond to that. Our track record as a party demonstrates the fact that we respect the traditions of the House and work at compromise. We have worked with the 100 and some-odd years of our Westminster parliamentary tradition, which has served us so well. I advocate using that going forward.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure at this late hour to rise and debate this motion.

Quite frankly, the fact that the government has planned changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons without even initiating any discussions or approaching all the opposition parties shows a certain degree of arrogance. It even shows a lack of respect and consideration for the work of the opposition parties and their leaders.

Some very important rules are being modified, and in a way, this reform is aimed at permanently establishing Parliament 2.0. I think the government could have sought consensus. Only then could they say that the other parties firmly oppose it, that there is no openness to discussion or the possibility of agreeing on one, two, three or perhaps four standing orders. We could have discussed this. Instead the government is refusing to listen.

I was even a bit insulted by the way this was presented. I read in the paper that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was saying how things were going to work and that Parliament was not going to close its doors until the motion was adopted. I do not see any openness on his part, and I no longer recognize him. He has not demonstrated the same openness and respect for the work of the opposition as he did when he was whip.

The bottom line is that the Bloc Québécois is against the principle of a permanent full hybrid Parliament. We are not against all the rules of the hybrid Parliament or all the ways of running it.

I am pleased to see in this motion that the government listened to one thing that I really care about, and that is the fact that committee chairs are not allowed to chair meetings virtually. I am very happy about that, because it is awful when a chair tries to fulfill their duties remotely. When a chair is sick, they need to take care of themselves and let a vice-chair take their place. I agree with that.

However, when it comes to some of the other rules, I cannot understand why we were not given the time, the opportunity or the pleasure of discussing them with the government House leader.

Many of the rules are interesting because it is true that they favour work-life balance, especially the electronic vote. However, it made me laugh earlier to hear some of the NPD members say that we were against electronic voting. It is quite the opposite. From day one, the Bloc Québécois and I, as the whip, have actively participated in implementing electronic voting. We have never hidden the fact that remote voting was a good way to promote work-life balance.

What we are saying is that if we bring in permanent rules, then we might need to restore the importance of the confidence vote. I was elected from 2006 to 2011 and I went through some confidence votes. When a confidence vote is coming up, for example, a motion to pass the budget or the throne speech, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the confidence vote is done properly. We experience these great moments in democracy by being here in person.

In the Bloc Québécois, we agree with allowing members to vote electronically. However, we would have liked to propose an amendment to give more value to confidence votes by ensuring that they are held in person.

We also believe that it is important to ensure that a virtual Parliament does not weaken accountability by allowing ministers to be absent during question period. I am not the only one who has said this; I heard similar comments during an NDP question. I think ministers should be here in person to answer questions put to them in committee or in the House. That is important, because it is not the same dynamic. As we have seen, when ministers are present or not, the dynamic changes, and I think that they should be here in order to testify, to express themselves or to answer questions put to them.

Of course, the other reason we have slight misgivings about a hybrid Parliament with no conditions and no framework is the whole issue of protecting the health and safety of our interpreters.

We need to ensure to take a fairly structured approach to conducting reviews to address the health and safety of our interpreters.

In the motion before us today, there is no consideration for these employees, who follow us every day in our committees or in the House of Commons to ensure that the work is done in both official languages. It contains no measures, apart from the mandatory headset that complies with the ISO quality standard. Other than that, there is nothing else for them.

Although I was embarrassed to say so in the past, I am no longer embarrassed to say that I am a unilingual francophone. The interpreters are my ears. I need them. I believe that I quite frequently have interesting things to say, and when I speak I also want unilingual anglophones to hear me. They have to be able to hear me.

We know, and it has been documented, that the reality of the hybrid Parliament has a greater impact on francophone members, because it is often when Bloc Québécois members or witnesses are speaking in French that there are technical, interpretation, sound or connectivity problems. Basically, what the government is telling us, with complete disregard for the interpreters, is that it would be great if everyone spoke in English so there would be fewer problems. No, the work must be done in both official languages.

Unfortunately, with a hybrid Parliament that has no conditions and no oversight, it is the francophone members and our francophone witnesses who are most affected. I can say that some of the francophone witnesses we invite prefer to give evidence in English because they know that they are less likely to be interrupted, either by technical problems or by problems related to interpretation.

I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and member for Ajax. Honestly, I have not heard him talk about that reality, and I do not get the impression that he or his government is particularly concerned about it. I would say the same thing about the NDP, since I have not heard them mention this concern for the reality of francophone members or for the health and safety of our interpreters.

I was surprised to hear him say in his speech that there was interpretation before the pandemic and that it makes no difference if we meet in person or virtually. No. There has been a lot of talk tonight about impressions, emotions and how we feel. Everyone is sharing a bit of their personal lives. The interpreters' issues are very well documented. A hybrid Parliament requires many more hours of work from the interpreters than a full in-person Parliament. That has been documented; it is not just an impression. There is data to back it up.

What really surprises me is that they are acting as if this data does not exist. I know that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader of the New Democratic Party are aware of the data, because we sit together on the Board of Internal Economy. We have spent two years talking about the problem of sound quality, difficulty recruiting interpreters, the shortage of interpreters and interpreter injuries. This has all been well documented. I have not heard the government members talk about it this evening. I would not go so far as to say they have not mentioned it at all, because I may have missed a few speeches, but I did not hear it or notice them talking about it.

I have worked hard and diligently to document the use of the hybrid Parliament. It is rare for me to make assertions that are not supported by data. The fact is that the hybrid Parliament is not working very well. When I hear that it has been running smoothly for three years, that we are okay and everything is fine, my response is no, not at all. It is the complete opposite. I can say that the data I have show that things are not going so well.

Every day, there are technical problems in committees. Every day, there are problems with interpretation. Committees are being cancelled because of a lack of resources. The Translation Bureau even told us that it does not know what it will do next September because there are no solutions to the shortage of interpreters. We in the House are debating this issue together. It is great that we can be at home and we can be close to our children and spouses. However, the government is not saying much about the possibility that proceedings will not be conducted in both languages, that committees will be cancelled and that we may not have full and complete debates.

The first victims of the hybrid Parliament are the interpreters. The unions say that since the adoption of the hybrid mode in March 2020, more than 300 dangerous incidents have been reported by the interpreters, including about 100 since 2022, and 30 disabling injuries have required interpreters to stop working. Every month, about a dozen interpreters are assigned to other duties for medical reasons because of injuries sustained during hybrid or virtual meetings. One interpreter even suffered a serious acoustic shock and had to be taken away in an ambulance.

The International Association of Conference Interpreters Canada represents freelance interpreters who work for Parliament. Approximately half of the interpreters who work on the Hill are members of this association, which surveyed its members last winter in light of the interpreters' increased workload during hybrid Parliament. In all honesty, the survey results show a trend that is not pleasant to hear.

Eight out of 10 interpreters, or 81%, stated that they are unlikely to make themselves more available to work on Parliament Hill. Due to the working conditions, the interpreters said that unless things change, they would look for work elsewhere. There is no shortage of work for interpreters. Two-thirds of interpreters, or 65%, say that they will probably reduce their availability to work to Parliament Hill. Seven out of 10 interpreters stated that they are unlikely to maintain their current availability to work on Parliament Hill. Finally, 87% of freelance interpreters who had never worked for Parliament but who planned to do so were going to change their minds.

What I am saying is nothing new. The government House leader knows it, the NDP leader knows it, and all the members of the Board of Internal Economy know it. What is more, it says it on the association's web site. What shocks me and makes me feel a bit emotional is that the government is ignoring this reality.

The Translation Bureau is unable to project forward. We asked the bureau how many interpreters we will have in September when the House resumes. They told us that it would be amazing if they could hold on to the number of interpreters they have right now. They do not think they will be able to add any more, even with a pilot project they are currently experimenting with. It is not like there is an abundance of interpreters who are looking to get injured at work, to have permanent hearing damage and to kiss their job goodbye.

Interpreters are taking their well-deserved retirement but there are few graduates coming out of universities. The House is struggling to recruit and retain interpreters, and there is no solution to rectify the situation. That is the harsh reality: There is no solution. The only answer is for more of the people who work here, by which I mean both elected representatives and witnesses, whether in the House or in committee, to return in person. This is the best solution to guarantee the health and safety of our interpreters.

I have said this several times. We are not taking care of our interpreters when we work virtually. We need to return to in-person sittings as much as possible. I will not rule out the possibility of sometimes participating virtually, with a hybrid model. As whip, I allowed my MPs to work virtually if they were in more difficult situations or needed to be present in their constituency. However, this needs to be used only in exceptional circumstances.

We also need to reduce the number of daily hybrid meetings that are interpreted, and insist that remote participants use the correct equipment. Again recently, committee chairs asked for unanimous consent for a witness to speak without a headset, despite everything we know today. There is resistance everywhere, in all the committees and in every party. There is resistance to using what we have at our disposal, which is not regulated, but makes the work safer for the interpreters.

For that reason, I challenge the premise that the government has listened to the opposition parties, listened to the data that currently documents the problems and listened to the interpreters' requests. It seems to me that things could not be any clearer than what I just said. A number of measures have been taken in recent years. I mean, we worked hard. Personally, I have put a lot of effort into making all my colleagues aware of what we can do, what is within our power to do and does not cost a lot of money.

I asked for a dashboard to see how things were going in committee. The interpretation problems related to the hybrid Parliament are being documented. Members of the Board of Internal Economy, including the leader, the government whip and the NDP leader, have had that information since November 26, 2020. They cannot say that everything is fine and that the hybrid Parliament is not affecting our valued interpreters. Since 2020, members of the Bloc Québécois have been on the attack. This is no joke. The Bloc Québécois has been forced to agree to actively work to change the routine motions in committee so that every committee conducts pre-tests. That came from us, the Bloc Québécois. We put this initiative in place to protect the health and safety of the interpreters, while, at the same time, guaranteeing the quality of the French interpretation.

Members of the Bloc Québécois were given instructions. If the interpretation is not good, if the interpreters indicate that the sound is not good, then Bloc members need to interrupt the committee proceedings. I participated in questions of privilege and many points of order on the use of House-approved headsets. Even Employment and Social Development Canada's labour program ruled in favour of the parliamentary interpreters. The chair is required to take that into account.

This could have been done a long time ago. Members are complacent or resistant to using the proper equipment for all sorts of reasons that I do not understand. Still today, there are members who are voting from their cars, who are participating in committee meetings from their cars without the appropriate equipment. That is still being done today, and it is unacceptable.

There is one measure that makes me say that political will is lacking on the government side because without rules and without permanent changes to the rules, everything I am saying could have been put in place with political will. The chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was able to create an atmosphere of respect. She was proactive. It is a fine example. I mention it often. Her colleagues should have followed her example more.

The fact that we are short on interpreters means that we have fewer committee meetings. We are cancelling committee meetings where democratic work is done, where we improve bills, where we conduct studies to document problems. Essentially, our work is falling by the wayside. I think that somehow it must suit the government that the committees cannot sit or improve its own bills. Maybe it prefers it that way because many committee meetings are cancelled every time Parliament extends its sittings. Just today, the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was cancelled. The work of the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship was cut short. This is a serious state of affairs.

We have spoken a great deal about work-life balance. I have a lot to say about that. I would like people to ask me questions about that because I did not have the time to address it in my speech as I had much to say.

Today is a sad day. I hope that the government will seize the opportunity. Our leader reached out asking it to amend its own motion out of respect for its consultations with many leaders.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, my colleague must be proud to speak in French in the House. I have also decided to speak French in my committees.

My colleague mentioned a number of statistics related to the situation facing interpreters, so my questions are along those same lines. I would like to see her source indicating that some witnesses prefer to speak English because of interpretation issues. Since 2015, I have not heard anyone mention those statistics. However, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the interpreters for their exceptional work. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me about the measures the Conservatives are taking, such as filibustering committees, and the partisan games they play in the House during votes, such as when they vote from the lobby, with or without their device, making it look like the system is faulty. Are those situations harmful for interpreters?

I am hoping she can talk to us about that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, it feels good to speak French. I think I was one of the first to deliver a speech entirely in French in the House.

To answer his specific question, filibustering is part of parliamentary politics. Sometimes it is misused, as the Conservatives did during the last few votes to retaliate against the government for its behaviour and arrogance.

It takes two to tango, however. A government that is defiant and irritating, one that refuses to compromise or negotiate and instead ignores the opposition is bound to face some bumps in the road. I do not agree with the Conservative Party's misuse of the voting app, but I can understand that sometimes there are no tools left to respond to an arrogant government that ignores the opposition parties.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

I think it is a good thing to speak more than one language. It is good to speak English, French and Spanish. I believe we should speak several languages. That is fine. The idea is that we must try to be accepting of the other person's language. I thank the member.

It gives me the opportunity to say, in this evening's debate, that we do not talk much about the interpreters' situation, but it is truly alarming. In September, more than 57 working events for our parliamentarians will no longer take place. This means that the hybrid Parliament eats up a lot of the interpreters' time. I really want the government to be aware of this issue. We must find concrete solutions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and especially for what she said about the interpreters. I give her full credit, because I know that she did a lot to defend the workplace health and safety of the interpreters before the Board of Internal Economy.

However, she neglected to mention that the NDP was also there and that we also lobbied hard for the interpreters. We think it is extremely important to resolve this issue. I spoke about it in my speech. What she said is not 100% accurate. On the contrary, the NDP has always fought for the interpreters to have good working conditions. We will continue to do that, and we hope to be able to work with her in that regard.

The member said that she thinks it is important that the Conservatives agree. However, the problem is that the Conservatives voted against the hybrid Parliament, even during the pandemic. For all of those reasons—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am trying to ensure that everybody gets enough time.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the principles I live my life by is that, when I believe in something, I defend it, and I defend it at all times. I noticed that my friend and colleague on the Board of Internal Economy was defending the interpreters at the Board of Internal Economy, but that is not what I am seeing this evening. When it comes to forming an alliance, he agrees to support a motion in its entirety, without amendments that would ensure that the hybrid Parliament is well structured and that interpreters are protected. As I like to say, people need to walk the talk.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which stands out from the other speeches that were all about lofty theories and the broad principles of modernization. She showed us what real democracy is. It means taking care of one another above all else. That is what she was doing when she was talking about the interpreters.

I know that work-life balance is very important to her as a mother and grandmother. As a mother myself, I would like to get her perspective.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed very concerned about the issue of work-life balance. I think that when a person is sick, they need to take care of themselves. Sometimes a member needs to take leave to take care of themselves. As whip, I accept that. I would not want that member to connect to the hybrid Parliament. I would want them to take care of themselves. If a member of my caucus is taking care of a sick family member, then I accept that they are providing this care and that they will not be participating virtually because they need to focus on the person they are helping.

In 2010, I was the deputy whip and my mother attempted suicide. Does anyone really think that I wanted to participate virtually? Of course not. I wanted some time off to be completely focused on my family member.

In closing, I sincerely believe that there are plenty of things that the government could do to show that it really cares about work-life balance. For example, committee meetings should not be held on Fridays. That is hard for families. Now, with the hybrid format, we are obligated to hold those meetings. The government could review the parliamentary schedule. That would have a very tangible effect on the lives of families and those who live farther from Parliament Hill.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and the relevant information she shared during her 20 minutes.

First, I want to say that the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has done an outstanding job. I have been to the committee a few times, and I have been very impressed. She is not biased. She is very open to discussion. I wanted to note that, as well.

I want to mention that things are easier for the opposition than for the government. I understand that you are not in government and never will be, because of the party you represent. I say that with all due respect.

I remember that, from 2015 to 2019, the MP who was here before me—