Debates of June 13th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to disagree with the member when he makes such a compelling argument. Also, I would say that committees should continue to be chaired by people in person, which is a provision in the bill that we have before us.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by letting you know that I will not be sharing my time with any of my colleagues. I therefore apologize profusely because you are going to have to listen to my voice for about 20 to 30 minutes. I will try to make it as pleasant as possible.

Today we are talking about making a hybrid Parliament a permanent thing for centuries and centuries to come. As people often say, nothing is more permanent than that which is temporary. That is exactly what is happening today.

We have had important discussions about setting up a hybrid Parliament in the past. We were in the middle of a pandemic, so it made sense, and the parties had the ability to make those changes happen at the time.

Now people are acting as if we were still in a pandemic or as if more pandemics will happen over the coming centuries. They are ignoring the fact that we do know how to talk to each other when there really is an emergency.

At the time, there was an urgent need to set up a hybrid Parliament so we could work. Despite the fact that we could not be physically here, members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs took the time to hold meetings during the summer to analyze how to put in place some sort of hybrid Parliament. We consulted experts from other countries. We looked at what was being done in other parliaments. I remember it very well. In the summer of 2020, I was among those who asked experts several questions to learn about the pros and cons and what we should study to establish a hybrid Parliament.

As I said, there was an urgent need for action back then. Despite the urgency, we still took our time.

I see no urgency at the moment. There is no emergency that would require immediate and permanent changes to the way the House works. Still, even though there is no emergency, and even though it will completely upend our way of operating in the House, the motion is being presented to us as if there is an emergency. There is no emergency, yet we are being forced to accept permanent changes to the way we work. All of this landed on us out of the blue on June 8, when the government announced a motion that would have to be voted on before the House rose for the summer. In fact, the government practically threatened to stop us from leaving for our ridings this summer until this system is adopted, despite the fact that, as I mentioned already, there is no emergency.

Before I get to the substance of the motion, I am going to say a bit more about this approach because I still cannot get over the way things were done. The parties were not consulted. Aside from the government talking to the NDP, no discussion was had and no letter sent. We were not told that the government wanted to table a notice of motion containing these elements.

The motion before us is no small thing, however. It is 42 pages long. The government introduced it in the form of a motion that will not be debated at any time other than the few hours we spend on it now. It completely changes how Parliament works with a mere two, three or four hours of debate and, subsequently, a vote without any real opportunity to amend it, discuss it or hear from external parties, experts or people from other parliaments to see how they do things. This is a complex issue that should not be dealt with by way of a simple motion, especially considering that it is, as I said, 42 pages long.

I would like to come back to the question asked by my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who said that he was not an unreserved fan of everything in this motion. If this motion does not even please the people who plan to vote in favour of it, if they do not even have the opportunity to debate it, to amend it, to improve it, to see how we could be more effective in the future, this is further proof that the modus operandi behind this amendment is inadequate, to say the least.

The parties would also have liked to have input on how things should be done, because when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deliberated on the hybrid Parliament last fall, eight recommendations were made. Some work has been done on this. Two dissenting opinions were presented by the Bloc and the Conservatives. The parties did have something to say on this. Despite that, the government refused to listen to any input on this motion and completely ignored the work that had been done in the past.

A report was tabled in December 2022 as a result of the committee's work. The committee chair at the time said that the government supported the recommendations set out in the report and intended to table a proposal in the House of Commons to make permanent changes to the Standing Orders, as recommended by the committee. Despite that, the government still decided to ignore the recommendations.

At the time, we suggested it be a best practice for members of cabinet to be present in person in the House to answer questions. That was the first suggestion that was rejected. These days, cabinet members do typically come to the House to answer questions rather than doing it virtually. It was an internal directive that was basically imposed by the government whip, for one.

However, the government decided against having the motion include this requirement for cabinet members to be in the House to answer questions, despite the fact that it was a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is more, the committee chair, speaking on behalf of the government, had said that this recommendation would be included in any motion or other form of amendment aimed at overhauling the way Parliament works. The government has already gone back on its word.

As I was saying, we had the right to expect discussions among the parties. It is customary for us to operate by consensus for these types of changes to House procedures. Many other members spoke at length about that, particularly on the Conservative side. There is a tradition in that regard. However, the government is not operating by consensus. It is not trying to debate the motion, to improve it or to try to figure out how we could be as effective as possible.

It makes me think of a quote from Woody Allen, who said, “The dictatorship is 'shut up', democracy is 'always concerned'.” The government is giving us a few hours to talk and letting us say that we disagree, but then it is going to force us to vote, and this measure will be adopted without any real discussion or debate and without us coming up with something that is really the product of a consensus.

As I was saying, this is kind of a breach of tradition. In the past, amendments to the Standing Orders concerning procedure were made by consensus. In 2022, the House published a list of parliamentary changes to procedure. With one exception, all were made by consensus.

For example, in 2017, the Liberal government attempted to reform Parliament by instituting electronic voting, similar to what we have at present. It also wanted to abolish the half sittings on Fridays. It wanted to establish what it referred to at the time as parliamentary programming, which would have been a type of process requiring the parties to agree beforehand on the amount of time allocated for debate of a bill. The government would not have had the last word unless the parties could not agree.

At the time, the opposition parties, including the NDP, rejected these proposals. Despite the fact that the government had a majority and that it could have pushed an amendment to procedure through the House on its own, it decided not to move forward because it did not have the approval of all parties in the House for something as important as the reform of parliamentary procedure.

This is part of the tradition that has always been followed in the House, with one exception, specifically when the government, under former prime minister Trudeau, created the time allocation motion. The irony is that he used a closure motion to get his amendment adopted. This shows that it was an exceptional way of proceeding at the time that has since been adopted by this Parliament.

What could have been done to change the procedure? I am still talking about the procedure. I have not yet even gotten to the substance of the motion. There are many other ways the Standing Orders of the House could have been amended. For example, we could have used a unanimous consent motion. That is what we did when the pandemic hit. We temporarily changed the procedure by unanimous consent among the parties. If an agreement had been reached, it would have been done quickly. The leaders could have discussed it, and then a motion would have been moved.

If that did not work, the government could have used the usual method of deliberation in the House. For example, it could have introduced a bill and had a vote on how to proceed, as we did at the very beginning of the pandemic. We could have referred that bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government could have sent its proposal to that committee and asked it to assess it, make recommendations and produce a report. Then, we could have responded the report.

In the end, the government decided to go with a last-minute motion without informing anyone and to force us to vote on that motion before Parliament rises for the summer.

There are several things that have not been considered in all this. We have talked about this many times. I know that my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît talked about it extensively yesterday, so I will not go into all the details.

However, I must mention the interpreters. They were the first victims of the hybrid Parliament, and they are still being victimized. From the outset, those on the other side who are in favour of the change have said that operating in hybrid mode has numerous advantages. We can be in our constituency more often. It is a positive if we have children because it facilitates work-life balance. It makes it easier for us to be everywhere all at once. We talk in the first person but tend to forget that there are people behind the scenes, not just the interpreters. There is a whole group of people who are connected with Parliament who are burdened with additional work. As far as the interpreters are concerned, it is even worse, because they are being physically harmed by a hybrid Parliament.

We know that because of differences in the volume and audio quality when people are participating virtually instead of in person, there is a much higher risk of acoustic shock and toxic sound. We know that the interruptions in the sound chain during hybrid proceedings create dangerous situations for the interpreters. The statistics speak for themselves. Technical difficulties were to blame for 30% of the incidents reported by the interpreters during hybrid sittings from 2020 to 2022. That number may be on the low side, because 45% of interpreters on the Hill are contract employees and may not be reporting the injuries they sustain. Thirty per cent of injuries are reported by only 55% of the people. The number of injuries among interpreters is very likely much higher.

Other aspects affected by the hybrid Parliament were already anticipated even before the pandemic. In 2018, a study was done on the different e-parliament models used around the world. The Inter-Parliamentary Union stated that the e-parliament “transforms both processes and relationships, both inside parliament and with outside actors.” These new processes “increase, decrease or alter how well a parliament legislates and deliberates, holds government to account and represents its citizens.” These four things are excluded from this debate, but I would like to address them.

I am going to talk about a matter that concerns the representation of our constituents. Kathy Brock, associate professor at Queen's University, told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that when members participate in hybrid proceedings virtually, a kind of power dynamic settles in that puts ministers and opposition critics in the foreground, while backbenchers somehow fade into the background. This means that members without a title have a harder time in making their voices heard and representing their constituents effectively. The hybrid format does not put everyone on an equal footing because of a dynamic that establishes itself and is harder to undo in virtual mode than in person, in the House.

I have to mention the spirit of collegiality and the informal discussions we are able to have when we are here in person. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert talked about that. When we are physically present at a committee meeting, we talk with our colleagues. While still half listening, we can go and get a coffee with a colleague at the back of the room in order to talk about a certain proposal or one of their recommendations that we want to tweak to make it work. That is something that we cannot do when working remotely. There is only one channel for the sound and we cannot listen to two discussions at once. We cannot have informal discussions, and democracy pays the price.

As my colleague mentioned, it is all well and good to have the right to choose to attend in person so that we can have that latitude and human interaction, but it does not make much difference if no one from the other parties has to be here because they have the option of working remotely. At that point, it becomes rather futile to be present in the House in person because none of the members opposite will be there with us to have those discussions with.

Accountability is also an issue. Let us talk about the fourth estate: journalists. They complained during the pandemic that ministers were not on site and so they could not catch them as they were coming out of the House to ask them questions.

There is a problem with accountability in that regard. It does pose a problem when a minister, for example, is not in the House to answer for their policies or the spending committed or being considered.

One thing we see in the government's proposal for a hybrid Parliament is that there is some sort of imbalance or asymmetry in the proposed amendments.

On the one hand, ministers are no longer required to be physically present in the House to give notices of motions, such as closure motions, time allocation motions, ways and means motions and notices of the designation of another day for a budget presentation. Ministers will be able to do so remotely. On the other hand, with respect to the number of people that must be physically present in the house to oppose something, we are going back to what was in place before the pandemic. For example, opposing a notice of motion to extend a session in the preceding hour requires the presence of 15 members in the House.

During the pandemic, we decided that five members were required to oppose something remotely; now it is 15 in the House. We are returning to the practices that existed before the pandemic. We are lightening the government's burden to present notices, but we are keeping pressure on the opposition for members to be physically present in the House.

It is the same for opposing an urgent motion from a minister that would allow the government to suspend the Standing Orders at its convenience. For that, there must be 10 people physically present in the House rather than five MPs participating remotely, as was the case during the pandemic. For motions during routine proceedings, 25 members need to physically rise in the House to oppose a motion moved by the government during routine proceedings.

There seems to be an imbalance that works in the government's favour when implementing this hybrid parliament. This is basically in line with the sort of overall imbalance that we see with the government side gaining more advantages when implementing a hybrid parliament.

To use the expression about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we would have liked to debate the details of setting up a hybrid Parliament. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. There were some good technological breakthroughs during the pandemic, and it would be foolish to completely discard them. However, we should have been able to debate about what we want to keep to ensure that there is a consensus and that the aspects that are ultimately maintained will serve Parliament well.

The Bloc Québécois is not entirely against the idea of continuing to use electronic voting. However, we would have liked to be able to set some parameters around the use of electronic voting, such as making it mandatory for confidence votes to be held in person in the House.

There has been a lot of talk about work-life balance being one of the benefits of hybrid Parliament. We agree, but could we not have provided a better framework? I will echo the words of the Speaker who is returning to the chair right now. He mentioned in committee that work-life balance should have been an exception. It should be allowed, but only as an exception and with parameters to ensure that this option is not abused.

Should we completely abolish the use of Zoom for the House? Not necessarily, but we should have been more precise about it instead of applying a very broad measure that may benefit people who may abuse it. For example, a member involved in a scandal would be able to stay home and not be held accountable here in the House when journalists might want to ask questions.

These should be exceptional circumstances, such as a death in the family, illness or urgent personal circumstances. A framework could have been developed for this. The use of hybrid Parliament is not all bad. It is bad insofar as it is not balanced.

In short, there are many things the Bloc Québécois would have liked to discuss. That is our main complaint, specifically, the fact that a bunch of measures are ultimately being imposed on us with no real opportunity to make changes, improve the proposal or take advantage of the good that might come out of the pandemic. It is being imposed on us at a time when our work is winding down, when, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there is no immediate urgency because the pandemic is largely behind us.

If the government was going to make changes that will affect Parliament in the long term, the least it could have done was to seek a consensus among the parties, as was customary in the House.

This is a letdown that, unfortunately, we have to focus on as the session nears its end.

I am now ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member drew an interesting comparison with Pierre Elliott Trudeau passing a standing order change without having the full consensus of the House. It was on time allocation.

If we look at that today, it has proven to be very successful. We have had different political parties in government support it. We have even had opposition parties, the Bloc included, support time allocation. Every party of the House, with the possible exception of the Greens, has supported the use of time allocation.

At times, when we cannot achieve a consensus, we do need to take advantage of the things that have taken place over the last couple of years. It is called the modernization of Parliament. I would like to think that, years from now, people will look back and try to imagine 338 people coming to the House to vote in person for 400 votes, staying overnight for over 24 hours to vote. They will look back and see this as a positive change.

I suspect, if we listen to what the Conservatives have suggested, a sunset clause would enable the Conservatives to support everything. There seems to be a fairly good consensus already.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Winnipeg North had been paying attention to my speech, he would know that I talked about the Trudeau senior government's passage of time allocation in the part of my speech about how things are being done, not the part about the substance of the motion.

We can agree on the merits of time allocation. Perhaps discussions with the parties could have resulted in an agreement rather than the use of a closure motion on the decision to create time allocation. That is the thing I have a problem with.

There could have been discussions about the creation of a hybrid Parliament with minor amendments that might have garnered the government the support of all the parties, or at least a significant majority. At the very least, we could have arrived at something that looks a lot more like a consensus.

Once again, I would like to point out that there is absolutely no urgent need at this time to introduce permanent changes to the way the House of Commons operates by adopting a hybrid system, especially based on the small number of hours that we will get to talk in the House to a government that refuses to listen anyway. It has already made up its mind, with total disregard for a tradition that has been consistently followed, with one exception, that involves finding a consensus with parliamentarians when it comes to changing the rules of procedure of the House.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her heartfelt speech. I think we agree on a number of points.

Yes, we need to be open to making some changes. However, as she so rightly said, it is important to take the time to do it right. The pandemic is over, and I think that the existing rules should be reviewed.

She talked about several subjects in her speech, including accountability. Ministers need to be present in the House so that we can ask them questions. I came here in 2019, and I worked here in person until March 2020. Then, I started working remotely. I have not really had much of a chance to get to know how things work around here.

Over the past few months, I have noticed that it is much more convenient and important to be here in person. As my colleague from Saint-Jean rightly pointed out that, when we go get a coffee outside the chamber, we can take the time to talk with our colleagues opposite and share our opinions. I think that is important.

We are talking about accountability and discussions among parliamentarians. The work that we do in our ridings is important. For me, the work that I do in my riding is very important. I go back to my riding every weekend to meet with my constituents. However, the work that we do here with the other parliamentarians is also very important. The opportunity to talk to those we are asking questions of is important.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of elements in that question. It makes me think of things I wanted to say, but did not.

There are other things that could have been considered for the balance between the work we do in the House and the work we do in our ridings. One example that readily comes to mind is the parliamentary calendar. We sit 26 weeks a year. Is it necessary during this time of year to have a constituency week followed by four weeks in a row in the House, where we sit until midnight to boot? That is no way to achieve work-life balance, and it is not the most efficient formula, either.

In the meantime, after the holidays, the House is shut down from mid-December and we do not return until the end of January or early February. Could we not add some of the final weeks in June to this period so as not to have this six-week gap during which we cannot hold the government responsible for things it could have chosen to put in place during the final weeks in December? We would have the same amount of time in the House, but we would make better use of it and we do not even have to think about the hybrid model to get there.

Many options could have been considered for improving work-life balance and increasing the amount of time we spend in our ridings. There are currently many activities taking place, but we are missing them. Why? It is because we are in the House. Why are we in the House? Do we really need to be in the House nine out of 10 weeks at present?

A simple change to the parliamentary calendar might have been much more beneficial than the creation of a hybrid Parliament to achieve that goal.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a small correction to the record. The member for Saint-Jean implied that I had said I did not support everything in the motion but was in favour of virtual Parliament. What I said was that I am a strong supporter of virtual Parliament on the basis of its ability to be more family-friendly, to make Parliament more diverse and to include people when they have physical and health challenges.

I did say that I have some concerns about practices that evolved during virtual Parliament. I was happy to hear the member raise the condition of the health and safety of interpreters. They are essential to the operation of the House, no matter whether one is an English speaker or a French speaker. What measures does she think we should be taking now to improve the working conditions for those very important interpreters?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I am sorry that I misquoted him. He has become a member of the big club of misquoted members. I believe we are all unwilling members of that club.

On the issue of protecting interpreters, if it had not been urgent and if we had had this discussion about the substance and form, we could probably have put in place more mechanisms to protect the interpreters. One that comes to mind is the communication of complaints concerning the misuse of electronic equipment by parliamentarians. When there is feedback, do we really have a good way of ensuring that the interpreters let us know so we can fix it?

Even worse, the Bloc Québécois made a recommendation at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It recommended that rigorous measures to protect the health and safety of interpreters be implemented as follows: by improving working conditions to prevent injuries, by providing good equipment, by having a rigorous protocol for the use of technology, by having a better process for reporting technical difficulties.

That recommendation was not even put to a vote in committee, let alone included in the motion before us today. They could have taken the time to ensure better protection for interpreters. As I said, there was no need to rush this motion. Doing so will hurt the people who help us do our job well every day. That is absolutely deplorable.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those of us in opposition have very few weapons to use against the government, which has all kinds of ways to control what happens in the House. Some of those weapons are time management, filibustering and opportunities to oppose all kinds of motions.

In this case, the government is sneakily taking many of those tools away from the opposition in this bill. Does my colleague think that this is a mistake on the part of the government, or is it a deliberate tactic to weaken the opposition?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there appears to be some asymmetry in the measures that the motion sets out for the changes they want to make to the rules of procedure.

The in-person attendance obligations for the government side are being watered down. In contrast, the opposition side is facing the exact same prepandemic obligations when it comes to being able to thwart certain government motions. For that reason alone, I get the impression that this is indeed somewhat deliberate.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join the debate today on amendments to the Standing Orders. I am very pleased to represent the people of Edmonton West. I am actually the ninth MP representing the riding called Edmonton West since the First World War, in 1917. At that time, Edmonton West actually took up one-third of the entire province of Alberta. Now, West Edmonton Mall actually takes up about one-third of the size of Alberta.

The area has been served by various distinguished MPs over the years. In 1917, the MP's last name was Griesbach, and one of our ridings is named after him right now. William Griesbach was an MP for Edmonton West.

We had MP James MacKinnon, who served as MP during the Second World War. Unfortunately, he died in office, which is hopefully a precedent I will not repeat.

Marcel Lambert, who served after the war, was the longest-serving MP in Edmonton West. He served about 28 years. He was a World War II veteran; he landed at Dieppe, was captured there and spent three and a half years in a prisoner of war camp before liberation. He ended up being elected and served as Speaker of the House. We can see his painting in the hallway, the gallery of speakers' portraits. He was the minister of veterans affairs.

As well, serving the area was the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who served as our party leader for a while. Also serving part of Edmonton West, but at the time it overlapped what is now Edmonton West, was a friend of mine, Laurie Hawn, who was an MP for 10 years. Laurie was the very first Royal Canadian Air Force pilot to fly the CF-18, and then he served here for 10 years. Before I ran, he always provided lots of advice for me, but he told me that the best part of being an MP is serving people, and the worst part is the travel. Both are right.

I am blessed in that I inherited Laurie Hawn's staff, Oula Sanduga and Linda Lo, who still work with me today. They are amazing ladies, who have incredible empathy and who know everything about helping people. On my very first day in our office, we were able to help a new Canadian who had to have some paperwork finalized that day; otherwise, he would have lost out on his planned surgery the next day. It was a young boy getting cleft palate surgery. Our office was able to help him.

Laurie was right: The best part is helping other people, and the worst part is the travel. I bring that up because it relates to what I am going to get into about the Standing Order changes, and the main part, which is the hybrid Parliament.

We have all heard about, and we have all experienced, the horrors of airline travel in Canada, especially recently. There has been lost luggage. We have all had missed flights. I have had missed flights and delays; I have gotten stuck in the wrong cities. I thank Air Canada and West Jet. Part of the problem is that we have a near-duopoly, and that allows Air Canada and West Jet to treat Canadians the way they do, which is not very well.

The thing is that I knew about this in advance. The huge majority of us knew about that before we got into this role. We knew that travel was bad. We knew it was part of the job. We accepted that when we ran. Just as we knew that helping people would be the high of the job, we knew that travel would be the low of the job.

It is funny to sit here in the House and hear members talk about how the travel is bad now. It has always been a bad part of the job. To claim that, all of a sudden, it is bad, but it was not bad in 2015, 2019 or 2020 before COVID, strikes me as a bit dishonest, to be blunt. It is almost as if some members showed up here and were shocked to find out that coming to Ottawa 26 weeks a year is part of the job; therefore, they want to mail it in through a hybrid process.

It was bad before, but it was worse for poor Mr. Griesbach, who had to come out by train in 1917. It has been proven that it is still bad now. What has changed, of course, is the access to Zoom. Zoom is very convenient, I admit, but just because Zoom is available and convenient for members of Parliament does not mean it is something we should switch to as a matter of hand. I do not think it is good for democracy or for the health of this place. My preference would obviously be to not have a permanent hybrid process, as the government and the NDP enablers are suggesting.

In 2015, we heard from the government, and we heard earlier today, that we want to make it family-friendly. I always find in this place that whenever the government talks about reforming Parliament to make it family-friendly, it is a code word that means, “We're going to take away accountability. We're going to take away powers to hold us to account from the opposition.”

I want to talk about the main problem that I see with a hybrid Parliament, which is the accountability issue. Many times, we have seen elected officials, bureaucrats, show up only by Zoom in committee. A couple of months ago, on the public accounts committee, which I am also a member of, we had 13 witnesses from the public service. Every single one of them was based in Ottawa. Every single one of them decided it was too much to come in person to the public accounts meeting; it was too much to show Canadians respect by showing up in person. Every single one of them Zoomed in. We heard them with delays because of problems with mikes, computers not working and bad sound. Here we had a very important public accounts committee trying to seek answers on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, and we had 13 public servants who did not show up.

We have had committees where ministers would only attend by Zoom. We see Liberal MPs showing up in committees, and I recognize their backdrop, because they are in the Confederation Building. However, they cannot come to West Block downstairs to join the committee.

The reality is that the opposition members, including the Bloc and the NDP, are here to hold the government to account. The Liberal members who are not in the cabinet and are not in the government are here to represent their constituents. That is why we are here. To switch to a hybrid Parliament takes away that accountability for us to hold the government to account; it takes away the accountability of the Liberal members when it comes to serving their constituents here in Ottawa.

Canadians deserve more than just having a minister Zoom in their appearance to committee. They deserve more, they need more, than just having public service bureaucrats, officials, Zoom in to committees. They should be there in person.

We have a hybrid-driven lack of resources in this place right now. Yes, we are sitting late, but even before we started sitting late, we were running out of resources. We are losing committees because of burnout of our translators. We do not have enough translators, and we do not have enough people to run the committees so we can operate.

In the operations and estimates committee, also known as OGGO, or as I call it, “the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters”, since May 3, we have had three committees cancelled. In just a month and a half, three committees have been cancelled because of a lack of resources.

On May 3, we had the President of the Treasury Board set to appear to defend the main estimates. A lot of people at home, all five of them watching on CPAC and all five of them in the House right now, are probably unaware, but the estimates are why Parliament exists. It goes back to 1295 and the model parliament, where Edward said, “What touches all should be approved by all”. That is the basis of what our Parliament is: the approval of spending, raising taxes and spending them, which is the estimates process. However, here we have the President of the Treasury Board, representing the government's billions of dollars of spending, and we have to cancel the meeting that she was to attend. The Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and even Liberal members were deprived of the opportunity to question the President of the Treasury Board on the main estimates. What touches all should be approved by all, unless one is in a hybrid Parliament in Canada. In that case, things get cancelled, and the money just gets approved without oversight.

On May 10, also on the estimates process, we were to have two departments come in, but the meeting was cancelled because of a lack of resources, and this lack was driven by the demands of hybrid Parliament. There were two departments. We had Defence Construction Canada, a small side department that does not get in the news much. However, it is the only department I have ever seen noted by the Auditor General as specifically at risk for fraud. I have done public accounts for years, off and on, and I have done the operations estimates for eight years.

Billions of dollars of taxpayer money are at risk. The Auditor General notes that it is at risk of fraud, and the meeting was cancelled. MPs were not able to question the departments on what they are doing to address the Auditor General's concerns, because of a lack of resources driven by hybrid.

At the same meeting, the Transportation Safety Board was supposed to come before OGGO to explain its estimates request. The Transportation Safety Board is as it sounds. It is the safety board that ensures the safety of air, marine and pipelines, and it reports publicly. If Canadians want to freak out, they should google the watch-lists for the Transportation Safety Board.

The Transportation Safety Board was supposed to come before us, and it has several times. We always ask if Transport Canada is responding to its concerns, and the answer is always, “No.” I challenge members to look it up on the website. They will see that this goes back through eight years of incompetence by the government and the Minister of Transport, the same one who is leaving Pearson Airport a mess and leaving other airports a mess.

We can take a look at the watch-list. There are a couple of items from the watch-list here. Keep in mind that we were deprived of our ability, on behalf of Canadians, to address this issue. This is from the watch-list, just the air watch-list: “Runway overruns continue to pose a risk to people, property, and the environment.” That is wonderful. The next one is, “Runway incursions lead to an ongoing risk of aircraft colliding with vehicles or other aircraft.” Runway incursions have doubled since the current government took power. Think about that, Mr. Speaker.

Members can remember Air Canada at Los Angeles, LAX. A couple of years ago, due to an error, an Air Canada flight almost landed on and collided with another plane. The loss of life would have been in the hundreds and hundreds. That is what a runway incursion is. They have doubled in the last eight years. We were deprived of our opportunity to question them to make sure they have enough resources to do their work.

Also on the watch-list is, “Some transportation operators in the air, marine, and rail sectors are not managing their safety risks effectively.” Does the Transportation Safety Board have enough resources and people to follow up? We are not going to get a chance to question them and perhaps adjust the estimates for that.

Another issue is, “Crews often work long and irregular schedules, which poses a significant risk.” What Canadian out there wants to read this and know we could not ask questions about it, examine it or look at the departmental plans on how they are going to address this, because we have a lack of resources because of hybrid?

The TSB also wrote, “Regulatory surveillance has not always proven effective at verifying whether operators are, or have become, compliant with regulations and able to manage...safety”. If I go to its web page and actually read through the watch-list for marine as well, I would not be looking to fly in Canada. I think most of us in this place would be hiding in our basements, Zooming in like the Liberal government is, if we read what is going on.

I joke about that a bit, but this is a serious thing. This is a result of our not having the resources to examine this and make sure the Transportation Safety Board has resources or that its departmental plans reflect the ability to address that.

The next meeting that was cancelled was on June 7. Again, it was the operations and estimates committee. We had departmental officials called to explain why they were refusing an order of Parliament to produce documents. It is right in our rules and procedures that committees can order any document they wish. In fact, the Speaker, who is with us right now, ruled on this about a year ago, regarding the Winnipeg lab, that the committees have the power to order any documents they wish. The government cannot withhold them for privacy reasons or for any reasons. We have the ultimate power.

OGGO, with the support of the governing party, requested documents from McKinsey & Company. We asked McKinsey and we asked the 19 departments that had done business with McKinsey. Guess what? McKinsey approached us and said it would give us everything unredacted, but the government had asked it to redact some stuff. It asked if it could redact that, and we said, “No. The order is for unredacted.” It provided that. However, of the government departments we ordered documents from, 19 out of 19 refused to hand over redacted documents.

The Liberal government blocked all ability to report it to the House, so we invited the departments in to explain why they were refusing an order of Parliament. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We did not have the chance to talk to them, because of a lack of resources.

Here we have bureaucrats deciding what laws they will follow, what rules they will follow, not based on what Parliament decides, not based on what the Canadians who elected us decide, and not based on what Canadians want. We have bureaucrats deciding what they will hand over.

We had departments saying that the access to information law trumps Parliament, trumps what this very Speaker said our powers were. We had departments saying that the Constitution forbade Parliament from asking for these documents. We had one department actually claim that releasing the documents it had, that McKinsey had already provided us, would cause people's pensions to be at risk, even though McKinsey said it would hand them over.

We would have liked to ask the departments why they were blocking Parliament, but we never got to that, because of the lack of resources.

We like to say that Canada is a country of rules, and that the Constitution sets out the powers of Parliament and gives us the ability to make laws for peace, order and the good government of Canada. That is generally the case, unless the bureaucrats do not want that, in which case we cannot hold them accountable because we do not have the resources, because the virtual Parliament is burning out our translators, depriving us of this.

One of the more interesting ones that could not be brought before us was ESDC. It actually tabled redacted documents, despite the order, but it did not provide them in French. It was about 1,000 pages in English and 600 pages in French. We all know that, generally, if there are 10 words in English, it is about 12 or 13 in French. It tabled it, despite our Official Languages Act, despite issues that we have in this country, despite it being stated that we have problems with virtual Parliament drowning out French in this place. The government department did not table it in French. “Do not worry,” they said, “We will get back to you with it again in a week.”

The next week, they retabled it with English mixed in with the French, once again violating our rules. I would sure like to bring them before us, but of course we cannot.

We asked the Liberals if we could perhaps bring this to the House, to talk about why the department was violating the privileges of parliamentarians to have the documents in French. Liberals, with the help of the NDP cohort, blocked that as well.

I had the privilege of serving on PROC as well when we were studying some of the issues, and we heard from some of the translation bureau folks. They were telling us that it was like having popcorn going off in their ears when there were bad connections. We are still seeing, to this day, committee members showing up, Liberal committee members showing up without headsets. We have translators who are going on sick leave.

Again, think about that, the sound of popcorn going off in one's ears. That is with regular headsets.

We have a problem with this. I understand that there are some needs from time to time, when parliamentarians cannot get here. I accept that. I accept, perhaps, in the House, that there should be ways around it, so that we can ensure that our translators are protected, while also ensuring that we have accountability, that we can hold the departments accountable, that we can hold the government accountable, that we can do our jobs.

With how it is proposed right now, under the extension of the hybrid, I do not think we are getting that. I do not think Canadians are getting what they want out of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians are not getting what they want out of this system.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was having a little trouble following some of the discussion around the resources, but one thing that was sticking with me was the image of a person coming to Parliament in 1916 by train. When I made a decision to run, my wife and I made this decision together based on our kids being through college and being in that stage of life where I could devote more time to community service. Similar to the person in 1916, there were a lot of white middle-aged males in the House, similar to the way I look.

Now we have young families and people of colour and people of diversity. This tool allows people to make decisions based on any type of stage of life or any type of economic background they are coming from. This tool is opening up Parliament to all Canadians. Could the hon. member maybe talk about how the positive part of this is to involve the potential of any Canadian to serve in Parliament regardless of their background or stage of life?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my colleague had so much difficulty following regular straightforward stuff.

The reality is Canadians from all walks of life can be elected as parliamentarians. It is offensive for this gentleman to state that perhaps a person of colour cannot fly to Ottawa like anyone else. That is outright offensive. As to regular Canadians being part of Parliament, this place is full of regular Canadians.

If the government had suggested perhaps a system of the House being hybrid but committees being in person, committee chairs needing to meet in person and witnesses having to be in person, certainly I would be open to look at some solutions. A straightforward hybrid for everyone if they wish, including ministers at committee, any time they want does not work for accountability, it does not work for Canadians and I do not think works for parliamentarians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of a 16-month-old daughter, I am following these debates very closely. I know that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes work-life balance. Having tested out the hybrid model with my daughter in my arms, it is not the model I prefer. The issue of quality time, of separating the time I spend with her from the time I spend here in the House, is crucial. I am worried about that.

I also think we should be talking more about what we are doing right now, holding debates until midnight during this entire period until we rise. The House's hours need to be reviewed. That, for me, would do more for work-life balance. Last year, I took part in debates with my infant daughter, who was just a few weeks old, until midnight. I think that is far more unacceptable.

Personally, because I need some separation and need to spend quality time with my daughter, I see major disadvantages to a hybrid Parliament. It may not be everyone's cure-all for work-life balance.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over year, but I congratulate her on the birth of her child.

There are ways we can deal with this. Certainly we can make adjustments for those who are sick and those who have babies, etc. We can certainly work around that, but we should look toward consulting members about how we can address that. We should look at all sides, and not just at what we are seeing from the government, which is a blanket hybrid for all.

If it was simply on the honour system and everyone showed up in committee when they were in town but we had the hybrid for other reasons as a backup, as the colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke explained with his situation, I would be fine with that, but we do not see that.

In the committee I chair, I see often one member of the government there and I see the faces on the screen of the others sitting in their offices on Wellington or in Confed, or I see ministers Zooming in, or officials. If the system is set up to ensure we can have accountability and those who could be here are here, I would be supportive of that, but this system as it is, without consultation from all the parties and without a real sincere attempt to try to address very valid issues about accountability or caring for families, has not been seen, so I cannot support what the government has proposed.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the speech by the member for Edmonton West this evening, and I feel as though I have an entire speech of questions I would like to pose, so I am going to try to narrow it down.

The first thing that comes to mind is accountability. I really think that, when we are holding fellow members of Parliament accountable in the House, we have to do some self-reflection with respect to our own parties.

Just the other day, I watched as Conservative members decided they wanted to circumvent a vote. They went on the other side of the wall here to cast their votes through the hybrid voting system. They did not have the appropriate headsets on, which put the interpreters at risk. Therefore, I think we need to look at ourselves.

Currently, the representation of women in Parliament is only at 30%. We can do better to ensure we have representation in this party. To say that everybody has equal access to being members of Parliament and serving here is completely out of touch and unrealistic. Quite frankly, those remarks show an element of privilege.

My question for the member is this: Why does he not believe in the tools necessary to have equitable representation within the chamber?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague keeping it to two questions and not going on for a full 10 minutes, as she had commented.

To the first issue, I would say that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I sit on the operations committee, and I watched the NDP join the government in a filibuster to block our ability to bring a privilege motion to the House. Our rights and responsibilities had been taken away by bureaucrats who refused an order of the House, and we had the NDP filibuster it. Therefore, I can understand the member's frustration with voting, but it is no different than filibustering to prevent members of Parliament from exerting their privilege.

With respect to the comment on privilege, Canadians do have equal access to be able to run. People are in different stages of their life and in different circumstances. Certainly, we should encourage everyone we can to run. I agree that, if there are ways we can improve access, that is wonderful, but it should be decided among the parties, not just the by the government, with its enablers in the NDP, forcing these changes down our throats.

It used to be tradition that changes to the Standing Orders were done through a consensus in the House. If one person said no, the government would back away. We are not seeing that. At the operations committee, we saw the government try to change the process with the estimates to allow it to have access to I think it was $7 billion of spending on vote 40. When Scott Brison was the president of the Treasury Board, he tried to change the Standing Orders on the main estimates, which is the reason Parliament exists, to suit himself and the government. Again, it is moving away from consensus to deciding and ramming it down the throats of others, and I do not think that is right.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his well-argued presentation in the House just now. We have also experienced the same problem at the national defence committee, where we have had meetings cancelled because of a lack of resources.

I want to ask the member for Edmonton West if he would really get down to it, especially as he talked about how this virtual Parliament is impacting the health of our interpreters and how the government is not here with a full cabinet to defend its record. Is that happening because the government wants to avoid accountability; has a lack of respect for members of Parliament; lacks compassion for those who work in the House of Commons, such as the interpreters; or is it all of the above?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 13, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, Christine MacIntyre, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13th day of June, 2023, at 6:09 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Director, Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

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 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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reflections on this issue.

I think an important distinction should be made between whether the rules are being used and whether the rules are good for the institution.

I can say that for me personally, these hybrid rules have made my life a lot more comfortable. They have been convenient for me personally, and I have used them from time to time, but I also think they diminish the institution. While they are in place, I will use the voting app, but I think this place would be better off if some of the hybrid provisions were not in effect, which is an important distinction between whether members are using it today versus whether members view these rules as being good for the institution in general.

The biggest problem I have with a hybrid Parliament is the strain it has created on our resources. Before these rules were in place, parliamentary committees could sit basically when they wanted to sit. They could sit into the evening. We have a situation now in the public accounts committee, where Liberals are filibustering a motion, and the committee cannot move forward because it is stuck in these limited time slots.

I will acknowledge that other parties engage in filibusters as well and that it is not just one party, but if committees have work they need to get done or if there is an urgent issue, they should be able to sit more. When I was a staff member, the industry committee sat in the evening for five hours at a time for three nights in a row because there was an issue that justified it.

These rules no longer allow committees to be masters of their own domain. They make committees subject to determinations by the whips in the House about those resources—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Guelph is rising on a point of order.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether we are listening to another a speech or if there a question that is going to be asked.