Debates of June 12th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Chair, excuse my voice. I have asthma, and I am suffering from the pollution syndrome right now.

I just want to say that there was some misinformation that went on in this House, and I want to correct it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's mike is not working properly. I will ask her to unhook it and hook it in again.

In the meantime, I will go to the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, and I will make sure that the hon. member's mike is plugged in properly to go back to her.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for the member who just gave his speech. All evening we have been talking about work-life balance, how nice it would be if we could all be in our constituencies with our husbands, wives and children and perhaps have a more balanced life. Of course, I think that every working person in the world would like to have a job where they work at home with their family close by. However, that is not possible.

My question is quite specific. There are a number of things the government can do, but is not doing, to make it easier to have work-life balance. I have the parliamentary committee schedule in front of me. Before the pandemic, I think even in the winter and spring of 2020, parliamentary committee meetings were not held on Fridays. Since we have started sitting in a hybrid Parliament, committees sit from Monday to Friday, full time.

Do you not think, sir, that this measure is getting in the way of work-life balance, yet it is tolerated in a hybrid Parliament?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must remind the hon. member to address her comments to the Chair and not directly to members.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is doing a number of things that are not good for families. Tonight, tomorrow night and the night after that, we are sitting until midnight. That is not good for families, but that is what the government is doing.

I want to say to the member for Vancouver Centre that we have been doing Parliament virtually now for three years, and we have to plug in our headsets in order to participate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Yes, I want to remind members that, if they want to participate, they should make sure their headsets are on and plugged in. Let us try that again.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to watch when someone is trying to be personal and nasty. People can make assumptions. My headset was plugged in. It just did not work for that moment.

I just wanted to say that there was a great deal of misinformation and, may I say, disinformation that went on with the hon. member's speech. If the hon. member will recall, the hon. member mentioned the clause-by-clause discussion of one of the very contentious bills on his committee. The committee did not work, and we had problems; we had to come back to the House to ask the House to set time limits for how we dealt with clause-by-clause. The reason for this was that his party filibustered every second clause. There was filibustering going on, and that was what created a dysfunctional committee, not my being hybrid, not my being there. I had everything in front of me. It was working extremely well.

Let us not be nasty and mean to people who have problems and sometimes could be ill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The microphone was showing as either not being plugged in or not being plugged in properly.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect. We had not proceeded to clause-by-clause until the Liberals brought in a guillotine motion in the House of Commons. To say that we were filibustering clause-by-clause is 100% inaccurate, so perhaps the member could refresh her memory, because that is not what happened. They came with a guillotine motion, literally in the dead of night, to force every clause through without debate or discussion. Every debate was debated in the dead of night.

To remind members who are wondering at home, the bill in question was Bill C-11. This was the Liberal effort to regulate the Internet and to try to force user-generated content to be subject to CRTC regulations. We all know that if we want something to be done poorly, we give it to the CRTC.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening tonight. We know that democracy is going to be changed with this virtual Parliament.

I wonder if the member has heard if the Liberal government has tabled or is going to table a stop-work order on Centre Block to save billions of dollars. Should we then, with their arguments, just make all of Parliament virtual? Do we need to spend $3 billion on Centre Block now? Should we act like a battery plant and put a stop-work order on Centre Block tonight?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Centre Block has a carving in the old House of Commons chamber, and part of that carving represents the 20 members who must contribute to quorum. The current Liberal government would be doing away with the constitutionally mandated quorum requirement that, at all times, 20 members must be present in the House of Commons. Because of the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement, they would do away with something as fundamental as the constitutionality of quorum, where members must be physically present in order to do that. It is disappointing to see the efforts of the Liberal government to avoid accountability on these important issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question before I get the opportunity to speak. Could the member give a clear indication of why the members of the Conservative Party seem to oppose the voting app? Do they support the app?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in our dissenting report, we were open to a compromise to allow all elements of hybrid Parliament to proceed for one year. Our clear requirement was that there ought to be a sunset clause so that, one year after the start of the next Parliament, the new Parliament would have a vote on whether to maintain those provisions. This was the compromise that, as opposition MPs, we were willing to make. Although we do not particularly like the provisions of hybrid Parliament, we were willing to make that compromise in order to come to a consensus among parliamentarians, but the requirements were the sunset clause and the vote one year into the next Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting point the member just raised. He says that the Conservative Party would support everything we are talking about if there were a sunset clause. If I am understanding what the member just said, he would then be in full support of the motion; I look to him to give clear indication that my statement is, in fact, correct.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That was in the dissenting report.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, he is reaffirming that by his comments across the way.

I think we have to put things into proper perspective here, and part of that is recognizing the role the Conservative Party plays today on the floor of the House of Commons. I would suggest that it is very much a destructive force. They talk about the NDP voting with us on time allocation, and they try to give the impression that there is a solid coalition and so forth. However, the member does not realize that, in the last federal election, Canadians decided that it would be a minority government.

In a minority government, it is not only the party that has the majority of seats that is afforded the opportunity to continue to govern, as we were given. It also ensures that the government works along with opposition parties. The Conservatives, virtually from the get-go, made it very clear that they do not see themselves as a co-operative—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is rising on a point of order.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to do a quorum call.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. There is no quorum call during these debates, and there are quite a few people online at this point.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is rising on a point of order.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think one of these screens should show the people who are online, so that when we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is now the second time we see that Conservative members do not understand the rules. They stand on a point of order when they know that, after 6:30 p.m., quorum cannot be called. It is very rude for members opposite to interrupt a member's speech in order to ask for a quorum call when they know full well they cannot do so. I would ask the indulgence of the Conservative Party members to understand that they cannot call quorum and to allow members to continue with their remarks uninterrupted.

I was trying to emphasize that a clear message was sent in the last election, not only to the Liberal Party but also to opposition parties. This message was that in order to pass anything through the House of Commons in a minority situation, one needs the co-operation of at least one opposition party. Without that, one cannot accomplish anything. The Conservative Party is very much on the record saying they do not support this party being in government. Its members are going out of their way to play a role as a destructive force in every way to prevent legislation and motions from ultimately being passed.

A good example of that is when the leader of the Conservative Party, just last week, prior to coming into the House indicated to the media and anyone who wanted to hear that he was going to speak until the Prime Minister withdrew budgetary measures. It lasted four hours; the vote ended up taking place anyway, because of the rules. In my mind, this amplified the Conservative Party of Canada's approach to dealing with issues that come to the floor of the House of Commons. As a member of Parliament now for over a decade, one of the things I have recognized is that it is exceptionally hard, if not impossible, to make substantive changes to the Standing Orders unless one is prepared to take a strong stand. This is because getting that consensus is virtually impossible.

I sat in on PROC meetings and listened to all sorts of discussions taking place. I guess I would say that I am a frustrated parliamentarian who recognizes that we need to modernize the rules of the House of Commons. There are changes that are necessary. After every election, we are actually afforded the opportunity, as individual members, as parliamentarians, to share concerns on rule changes we would like to see.

I recall standing up not that long ago, I believe it was last year, when we had that debate inside the chamber, and I talked about some of the rules I would like to see changed. I would like to see more debate time, for example, and I set in process a way in which that could be accommodated. Other members talked about different forms of rules and changes, such as dual chambers and so forth.

There have been both on-the-record and off-the-record discussions among members of all political parties. I was actually very pleased when, back in March 2020, we had a consensus to look at ways in which we could accommodate the pandemic and allow Parliament to continue. There was a very positive attitude, where opposition parties of all stripes worked with the government and where the government worked with opposition parties. We came up with a system that has clearly demonstrated that even in a worldwide pandemic, the House of Commons can continue and be effective. We are able to deal with the issues that concern Canadians day in, day out.

There are many things that took place during the pandemic that I would suggest would be of great benefit in terms of modernizing the House of Commons. Not all Conservatives within the House of Commons would balk at the idea of having the voting application completely in its hybrid form, as the government House leader himself pointed out when he brought forward the legislation. Like him, I too have heard many positive things about the hybrid format.

When I posed a question to the member who spoke just before me, asking whether they do or do not support the voting application, the member's response in essence was that if there were a sunset clause, they would support the motion in its entirety. That is what he implied. I actually repeated what he implied as he was there, and he nodded in the affirmative. He said, “Absolutely.”

This is mixed messaging. On the one hand, the Conservative Party is prepared to continue doing what we are doing for the next couple of years. We are committed to continue to work with opposition members, particularly the New Democrats, who have expressed an interest in listening to what Canadians said back in 2021 and making this Parliament work, which means we could be going well into 2025.

The Conservatives are saying that as the official opposition, if we give them the sunset clause, they will accept it. That tells me that they do support what is here. Their problem seems to be that they want us to say that it would be reaffirmed after the next election. After the next election, the standing order could be withdrawn. I suggest that once this resolution or this motion is passed and adopted by the House, as I anticipate and hope that it will be, we are not going to see even a Conservative majority government withdraw it.

It is not because it is to the advantage of one party over another, depending on whether someone is in opposition or in government. I do not believe that for a moment. That is the reason I posed the question. Having been a parliamentarian for over 30 years now, I know that most of my years were actually in the opposition benches. I understand the importance of opposition tools that are utilized in order to hold a government accountable. That is why I said to give me a tangible example of something within this motion that will take one of those tools away, and explain what it is.

Some members say it is ministerial accountability. I can appreciate the concern about ministerial accountability, but it has a lot more to do with the personality of the minister than anything else. When I was in opposition and I approached a minister, I was often told to check with their staff or call their office. Some ministers would actually sit down and chat, I suspect, or pick up the phone, depending on the situation. I do not believe ministerial accessibility is lost.

Every member of this House is afforded the opportunity to file four questions. Once those questions are asked, I think it is 45 days before they are answered. I know; I table a lot of these. I think I am well into the thousands of questions, and they will get a response from the ministers.

They talk about ministerial accountability. Well, thousands of questions have been answered now. When was the last time we heard a minister or a parliamentary secretary answer a question virtually? We see that the answers are being provided from the floor of the House.

People may say, “What about the future?” I remember that when I was sitting in opposition, we would be counting the number of question periods in which one of the ministers in the Harper government was not showing up to answer any questions, and it went for days and days, going into weeks, going past months.

Ministerial accessibility is not really an issue. I would suggest that it is not a tool that is going to make members more ineffective. At the very least, it would not prevent opposition, because opposition members will use the absence of a minister who does not show up inside the chamber as a reason for questioning that particular minister, and that has happened for years. I do not think ministerial accessibility has anything to do with it.

We hear about some of the benefits that are being proposed in the hybrid system. I am a big fan of the voting application. I believe that the voting application is probably the single greatest change that we have seen in generations.

[An hon. member]

In 152 years.