Mr. Speaker, I found the end of my colleague's speech rather interesting. According to him, we should be present in the House to give speeches. When we are here to give a speech, it is nice when there are people here to listen. Since I know we are not allowed to mention the presence or absence of members in the House, I will not do so, but I think people get my drift.
The member said that there should be guidelines and that members should attend question period in person. However, there are no guidelines for those situations. To date, I have seen only one guideline, and that is that the opposition needs to have 25 members present in person in the House to block government motions, while government members are free to vote remotely on confidence motions.
Does the member not find that to be a major power imbalance? It seems as though this motion was moved without consulting the real opposition parties, because it is an initiative of the NDP-Liberal coalition. I do not understand why the NDP is supporting this motion, because it will reduce their power.
Does this imbalance not make the member uncomfortable? Is he not open to really working together across party lines and creating a real, serious working committee to oversee these changes?
We are not opposed to every aspect of hybrid Parliament. We agree with many of them, but we think that what is being proposed is not balanced enough. I would like him to elaborate on that.