Debates of June 13th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Rather than let the members talk to each other, I will just clarify that it is “questions and comments”, so it could be a question, but it could be a comment as well.

I will let the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members who are so eager to debate the new rules to learn the old rules first, about how questions and comments work.

I have a serious question to the parliamentary secretary. How does he get around this significant problem, in terms of resources, and the fact that it makes committees, which are supposed to be masters of their own domains, now subject to resource decisions that are made external to those committees?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on his first point, a lot of people would say that bringing cameras into this place in the seventies was a bad move because of the theatre it created. A lot of people would say that putting video online so that people could clip it in real time was a bad move. I think that hindsight is 20/20.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I listened to the member, and I am going to answer his questions, if he does not want to talk to me back and forth through the middle of it. I think that it is important to reflect on the fact that maybe decades from now they will look back and say that it was a bad idea, but I can tell members that from my perspective right now, it looks like it is going to allow more people to engage, just based on the participation from Conservatives.

On the member's second point about the resources, we should not spare any expense at making sure our democracy functions in the way it should. If we need to put more resources into that by building out the structure of resources we have, then we absolutely must do it.

To that point, I do not disagree with him that I share similar concerns, but I do not think that needs to be the reason we cannot proceed. What it says to me is that we need to be investing more in the interpretation services and more in the resources, so that we can continue to function like this.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, gaining and retaining power by any means necessary is in the DNA of that member and the Liberal Party. It is called Machiavellianism. This member completely misled the public by deliberately confusing electronic voting with the hybrid Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of electronic voting. The hybrid Parliament is another story. Why is the Liberal Party in favour of a hybrid Parliament? It is simply because it has an alliance with the NDP, and the hybrid Parliament benefits the NDP. The NDP members are mainly from western Canada, and we know that all of that travel is difficult. However, it comes with the job.

Next, I would like to talk a little bit about the respect that this member and the Liberal Party should have for those who provide simultaneous interpretation. Our interpreters are working their tails off, experiencing hearing problems and burning out because there is a shortage of staff. Obviously, the hybrid Parliament is directly related to that burnout.

If we did not have a hybrid Parliament, our interpreters would be in better shape and more available. They would be able to cover the schedule without any problems.

I care about the human side of things. Let us put our interpreters ahead of such purely political justifications.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, this certainly is not about me trying to get control or seize power. We are using this system right now, and this system will be here for the foreseeable future. The member says that I am conflating electronic voting with the use of Zoom. I am talking about the two of them. I have made it very clear which I am talking about. If the Bloc's position is it supports the app but does not support Zoom, I have yet to hear that in this House. I have yet to hear the Bloc suggest anything otherwise, and it could be that I did not hear that part of the debate so far, but that is the reality.

When it comes to the interpretation services, I agree, and this goes back to my answer to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, that we should not spare any expense in ensuring that the right resources are in place to provide the right supports, not just to our interpreters, but to all the support staff we have here.

If that means investing more in their well-being and providing more resources, then we should do that. I do not think it should be an impediment to the democratic process we have set up in this place, so that we can bring more people from diverse backgrounds, and in particular more women, into this chamber.

[An hon. member]

You don't care about them.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member has a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can respect the fact the Bloc member and I disagree, but when he shouted out afterward that I do not care about them, it is categorically false. I am giving my position on this.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I remind all the members to respect each other as much as possible. We are in the chamber, so we want to remember that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. We all agree the interpreters are really the foundation of Parliament, and we have to work harder to ensure they have a safe working environment and that we bring new interpreters along so we can really have them contribute in that most valuable way to the life of our Parliament. We all agree on that.

I think where some parties might disagree is that having close proximity to ministers means they are more accountable. I lived through the Harper regime and it was terrible. For nearly a decade, and there were some exceptions like Jim Flaherty, generally speaking there was no accountability by Conservative ministers. We saw that each and every day. They would not answer questions. They would not meet with members of Parliament. That is a red herring raised by the Conservatives.

My colleague pointed out that the Bloc Québécois uses the voting app more than any other party. The Conservatives use hybrid Parliament about as much as any other party. The NDP and the Conservatives are equal in that. The Liberals use it a bit more. The reality is Conservatives voted against and tried to block hybrid Parliament during the height of the pandemic. At the end of 2021 and in June of 2022 when COVID was still raging, they voted against it and tried to block it. We needed to use procedural motions to get the hybrid Parliament back in place to protect everybody.

Why does my colleague think Conservatives have been so adamantly opposed to a hybrid Parliament but use it so extensively?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I just want to point out that a member from literally the other side of the country, and I am assuming he is in his riding, is participating in this debate right now. I am so lucky I am an hour and 45-minute drive from this place. If I leave right now, I can be home in two hours, which will happen tomorrow evening sometime. Think of the commute this member has to do in order to participate here. I am not saying he does not want to come here, but I am just saying there are times when it makes sense for him to participate in this manner because he can still participate from his riding. Something that has perhaps been lost in this discussion is the equal opportunity for members to physically get to Ottawa because our capital happens to be located here.

Having said that, why do I think Conservatives have been against this before and against this now? I do not think individually any of them are against it. Collectively they have decided this is the best narrative. They decided they can sow the narrative within the public that the NDP and the Liberals do not want to work and want to just work from home and sit behind their computers at home in their pyjamas and participate in the House of Commons. That is the narrative they ultimately want to sell. We will have to wait for the fundraising videos to come out later on to find out.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see many of my esteemed hon. colleagues participating in this debate. I will be splitting my time with someone who I have had a number of conversations with, the member for Saskatoon West. It is a pleasure.

I come tonight to this debate with a few thoughts on where things are at with regard to hybrid sittings and the importance of continuing that option for members and making some of these changes permanent in the Standing Orders.

I was fortunate enough to have been elected in 2015 in the wonderful riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge by the most entrepreneurial and generous residents across this country and to again be re-elected in 2019 and again in 2021. With that I have the perspective, like many of my colleagues, of having been in Parliament pre-COVID, having participated fully in that session of Parliament, and then post-COVID with the introduction of technology that has improved many aspects of Parliament.

I do attend. I am here in Parliament as often as I can be. I do think it is important for members to participate in person as often as they can, but I do think the permanent changes to the Standing Orders provide a certain amount of flexibility that reflects where we are in society, which makes our democracy more inclusive. My riding is the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is about an hour plane ride from here to Toronto and a 50-minute drive home, but I have the perspective of having grown up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is represented by one of the New Democratic members. If I were its representative, I could understand fully, being that far away, the enhanced flexibility of remaining in my riding for a few days for personal reasons, for reasons to tend to in the riding. I think that is very important. It is not lost upon me.

I am a little bit of a traditionalist in many ways. I care about institutions, I care about our structures and maintaining those institutions. For me to say that these Standing Orders changes should be done is in the right direction, because it reflects where we are in modern-day society.

Here are a few remarks that I have in front of me.

it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion to permanently implement hybrid sittings in the House of Commons. As members know, it has been a subject of debate since the early days of the pandemic, and I am pleased to speak in support of the motion. I would like to focus my comments today on how hybrid sittings can be beneficial not only to those of us who currently share the privilege of serving our constituents in this place, but for future members of Parliament. The subject of my remarks will focus on how hybrid proceedings of the House will benefit under-represented groups contemplating a life of politics and hopefully how the hybrid sittings can help to make our House a more diverse and inclusive place that better represents the communities we serve.

I would like to start my remarks by quoting a September 5, 2021 article entitled, "Why diversity matters in our politics - and what can be done to support it". The author states that, “politicians today are finding themselves representing increasingly diverse communities that are composed of many smaller communities with unique needs. Having diversity among elected officials is a definite way to ensure these unique needs are identified and brought to the forefront.” He goes on to say that “No race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sex, gender or sexual orientation has a monopoly on talent. The best and the brightest people who care about improving their community do not all come from one particular group” and that there are “barriers that de-motivate female, racialized, Indigenous, LGBTQ and differently abled people from entering politics”.

I believe that we can extend this argument to the barriers to participation in the proceedings of this place as a de-motivator for those groups who are under-represented in this chamber. In fact, flexible models of how we conduct parliamentary business would help level the playing field for racialized minorities, and current and future members of Parliament from rural, remote and northern regions.

Allow me to provide an example. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conducted a study on hybrid sittings last fall, entitled “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”, which was tabled in January 2023. During the study, the committee heard from several current and former members who testified in support of making hybrid proceedings permanent.

These witnesses raised a number of examples of life situations where a hybrid model would be beneficial, including health issues, pregnancy, parenthood, transportation and bereavement. In fact, our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Victoria, appeared before the committee on October 4, 2022, and stated that the impact of the hybrid model on her day-to-day life was “transformational”. As per the report, the member provided the committee with four examples of how hybrid proceedings gave her the opportunity to keep working when it otherwise would have been impossible: pregnancy, maternity, illness and bereavement.

The member for Victoria told the committee that she was advised not to travel during her pregnancy. Without the hybrid sittings, she would not have been able to continue her work into her ninth month of pregnancy, nor would she have been able to work when child care issues arose with her newborn. Furthermore, the hybrid situation allowed the member to continue working when she contracted COVID-19 and when she flew home to see her father prior to his passing. The PROC report says, “[The member for Victoria] stated that more women need to be encouraged to run for office and that, in her experience, it was ‘incredibly hard’ to convince them to do so.” The member stated that she is certain that women's political participation would increase in Parliament if Parliament were made more family friendly, which is what the hybrid solution allows.

The report also says, “[The member stated] that the hybrid model opened up the possibility for people with disabilities to run for office even though their health or disability might have prevented them from doing so in the past. She considered it to be critical to work towards a more equitable and accessible Parliament.” This is a concrete example of how hybrid sittings can reduce the barriers for women in the House of Commons and also reduce barriers for those contemplating running for elected office in the future.

I will now turn back to PROC's 20th report to highlight testimony provided by the Samara Centre for Democracy. Sabreena Delhon, executive director of Samara, recommended the House of Commons maintain hybrid proceedings for both the chamber and committees. The PROC report includes Ms. Delhon's testimony, which states:

...a variety of minority communities are currently under-represented in the House of Commons. These groups include women, people from [the] LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous people, and visible minority communities. Samara’s research has shown that members of the House from under-represented groups often [feel] alienated in Ottawa. Ms. Delhon stated that if these members had more opportunities to work from and within their communities, it would reduce the feeling of alienation that they may experience in the House. She also noted that, in the long term, offering the option of hybrid participation could encourage [Canadians] from under-represented groups to not only enter into politics, but [to also remain members].

Ms. Delhon's testimony suggested that hybrid sittings allow the House, “to be more inclusive and representative” and to demonstrate to those contemplating a career in politics “that Parliament is a flexible, responsive, contemporary work environment that is committed to attracting, retaining and supporting top talent”. The report also states that, furthermore, “Samara’s research has shown that constant travel takes a mental and physical toll on members”, particularly those whose constituencies are far from Ottawa and are perhaps located in rural or remote areas that are difficult to access. Reducing the frequency of travel would improve physical and mental health outcomes. This would, in turn, help people to continue functioning at a high and effective level for the constituents whom they represent.

I commented, at the beginning of my remarks, on the use of the app in being able to vote and the use of Zoom for MPs who, for whatever particular reason, are unable to physically be in attendance here in Parliament. Some of my colleagues travel from the interior of B.C. or rural Alberta or northern Ontario. Particularly when they have the option and are thinking that they have been in Ottawa for two or three weeks in a row, and the next week there are some family or personal obligations and things they need to take care of in their riding, they can work from the riding. That reflects modern-date society, and it is one of a few reasons that the permanent changes to the Standing Orders should go forward.

Again, I say this with a great deal of thought and empathy, because I very much, personally, enjoy being here in Parliament. I very much aim to be here when the House is sitting. I do try to go home on Fridays, so I can see my children earlier than usual. The changes we have put in place for the hybrid Parliament are allowing me to do my committee work on a Friday morning from my office, effectively as usual, much like all MPs. However, it has allowed me that flexibility to quickly go home and help my wife with duties, including picking up one of my children from day care and the others from elementary school. That flexibility is what we need to incorporate into the House, but always with guard rails such that we ensure that members try their utmost to be in the House when they need to be in order to vote in person, to be at committee in person, and so forth.

It is great to see so many of my colleagues this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech. I noted that he articulated a number of conveniences and a number of combinations of duties that a member of Parliament can undertake through a hybrid setting.

Would he acknowledge there are downsides and some risks to the traditions? Those traditions have come about for certain reasons. Would he acknowledge there is a diminishment of accountability with a hybrid system?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington for his question. We have many mutual friends in the area. I know the hon. member is a long-time farmer in the agriculture sector. I have a great deal of respect for everyone in the agriculture industry across this beautiful country and for what they do for us.

The permanent changes to the Standing Orders have provided a balance to ensure that members' asking questions, accountability and transparency and being there for our constituents are maintained. We always need to ensure that our democracy is robust. Our democracy is there for Canadians to participate in. The permanent changes to the Standing Orders in Government Business No. 26 reflect modern-day society but also reflect maintaining accountability and transparency that every Canadian from coast to coast to coast demands.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He seemed quite calm when talking about this evening's debate. It is good to tone down the debate a little.

Before being elected, I worked in a pulp and paper mill. I followed the three-two-two-three model. I will explain. I worked three day shifts, had two days off, worked two night shifts, had three days off, worked three night shifts, had two days off, worked two day shifts and then had three days off. I worked weekends, nights and days. I worked at least 12 hours a day and sometimes 16.

Before that I worked on film sets. I worked all summer, 20 hours a day, on American sets. It never stopped. I am probably one of the few politicians here who sees more of his family after being elected. I must be one of the few, because I go home every weekend.

This motion is poorly drafted. The government did not come to see us. When considering changing the way Parliament works, the government must discuss it with all elected members. We are not necessarily against the hybrid model, but we were not consulted.

Here is my question: Why is it that, when they want to make such a big change to the way we do things and how Parliament works, they do not come to all the elected members of the House to discuss it and come up with proposals everyone can be okay with?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. I would like my colleague from the province of Quebec to know that I have worked in that area too.

I worked at a pulp and paper mill in B.C., Repap Industries, during the summer for many years. I do understand and acknowledge what shift work means, whether people work four on and four off or four 10-hour days, or whether someone works nights, afternoons or a morning schedule. I worked shift work at a grain elevator every summer, so I do appreciate the member's comments.

We are debating Government Business No. 26 this evening, the permanent changes to the Standing Orders. I think we can all say we have had the experience of utilizing the hybrid option for quite a period of time. We know it does provide enhanced flexibility for members. The member is correct. On the weekends, we do get to go to a lot of events, but we are home with our family members. My hat goes off to the police officers, the firefighters and anyone who works shift work all the time. They certainly have my utmost respect, and they always will.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being elected by the good people of Saskatoon West in 2019 and again in 2021. My focus has been on what policy changes I can make as an MP to improve the lives of people in Saskatoon.

Representing voters is a big responsibility that I take very seriously. There are issues like affordability and allowing people to keep more of their paycheques by reducing taxes, like the double carbon tax scheme that will add 61¢ to every litre of fuel. There are issues like crime, and making sure violent repeat offenders are put in jail and not repeatedly given bail. Also, there is providing more focus on addictions treatment instead of handing out free drugs. There are issues like lowering inflation, building more housing, allowing newcomers to work in the field in which they have been trained. These are the policy changes I have been focused on. I did not expect to spend time on a motion like this one, providing virtual options to make the lives of MPs easier. I want to make the lives of ordinary Canadians easier. I am not worried about making my life as an MP easier, and I would argue that virtual Parliament has the potential to make it worse for MPs.

Indeed, virtual Parliament was my introduction to becoming a member of Parliament, as COVID hit shortly after my first election. I did not have the prepandemic opportunity that many of my colleagues had to meet other MPs in caucus, attend committee meetings in person and make direct friendships within their party and across the aisle. Therefore, when an issue arose, the person I needed to talk to was often at home instead of in Ottawa, making it much more difficult to connect with them. For example, there was a man in Saskatoon being deported to Uganda. This was an urgent case, because the man is gay, and Uganda considers this a crime with very severe implications, including death. I had to intervene with the minister in order to keep this man in Canada. Fortunately for him, I was successful, but it involved several discussions with the minister. For issues like this, meeting face to face is always better. That is why I believe MPs are elected to serve and do the job they were elected to do to represent their voters in Ottawa. To me, it is not acceptable to “mail it in”.

I am sure most people watching have no clue what Standing Orders are. Basically, they define the rules on how Parliament functions, what is allowed and not allowed, and how proceedings must be done. However, the motion before us would change the Standing Orders to permanently allow virtual options. This would affect things like voting, speaking, remote participation, how to file paperwork, etc. For example, the Standing Orders allow individual members of Parliament 60-second statements each day before question period begins. Standing Order 31 would be one of the affected Standing Orders if this virtual Parliament motion is adopted. Perhaps I should demonstrate, for those watching at home, what a member’s statement is by actually delivering one on a topic such as our upcoming national holiday:

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are coming together on July 1 to celebrate Canada Day. In Saskatoon, this means sunshine, barbeques, and fireworks. Canada Day is a day we spend with our families, our friends, our neighbours and even people we may have met just that day, to celebrate our country, our province, our city and ourselves. In Saskatoon, we are proud to be Canadians. It does not matter what one's ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual identity is; in Saskatoon, everyone is Canadian.”

“Indigenous people, first nations and Métis celebrate Canada with us. Newcomers to Canada, refugees, economic immigrants, or those here for their families are all celebrating that they are in Canada. July 1 is truly a day that makes us all patriotic and all equal.”

“For myself; my wife, Cheryl; and our two adult children, we know we hit the jackpot because we were lucky enough to be born and to live in Canada.”

“I thank all my friends in Saskatoon West and wish them a happy Canada Day.”

As members can see, the Standing Orders are a wonderful set of rules that give us, as members of Parliament, the ability to speak to issues that are important to the people who sent us here. The Standing Orders govern how debate happens in the House, and they govern how we coordinate ourselves in committees.

Virtual Parliament, of course, has made it down into the committee structure. Conservative members of Parliament understood that while COVID-19 raged, it was important for MPs to keep their distance and undertake committee hearings remotely. However, now we have instance after instance of NDP and Liberal MPs using Zoom to avoid accountability, mute their microphones and look otherwise completely disengaged and bored while in the comfort of their homes during committee meetings. I am not criticizing them for taking advantage of the rules as written; I am criticizing the rules for allowing this behaviour in the first place. This is the failure of virtual Parliament.

We, as opposition members, hold the government to account on committees, and yes, these changes to the Standing Orders directly affect how committees function and how they report to the House. For instance, Standing Order 66(2)(c) would also be changed by what the NDP-Liberals are doing here today. This Standing Order affects concurrence debates on committee reports.

I will give a little background for those who are on the edge of their seat, wanting to know all about concurrence reports. However, first, I must admit that I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and I have participated in several of these debates since the election.

In the past 18 months, I have been able to speak to concurrence debates on Bill S-245 regarding the Citizenship Act, the persecution of Uyghurs and Turkic minorities in China, and the special immigration measures for Ukrainians fleeing the war. In practical terms, what do these specific changes to how reports are concurred in mean to the people of Saskatoon West? Perhaps an illustration is in order.

Last week, on June 8, I had the honour and privilege of filling in for one of my colleagues on the status of women committee while it was dealing with two very serious reports in camera. As these reports were in camera, that is to say confidential until made public, I will not comment on what I heard during our deliberations. However, I can say what the topics were, as these are publicly available on the committee website.

The first was women and girls in sport and the second was human trafficking of women, girls and gender-diverse people. When these reports are adopted by the committee, they will come to this House, and any member of Parliament who is or is not a regular member of that committee, such as me, will then be able to move concurrence on the report and begin a debate on that issue in this House. This allows members who were not able to take part in these discussions at the committee level to get their thoughts on the record.

In these cases, they are both very serious issues that unfortunately only get attention when they make headlines, and bad headlines at that. I do not think any of us who has children, girls or boys, wants our children subjected to any form of abuse when they play organized activities or sports. We hear what happens to young girls and teenagers on sports teams. There are horrible stories that run the gamut, from bullying to psychological abuse to physical assault to, in some cases, sexual abuse and rape.

This is totally unacceptable at all levels and must be stopped for all of our children. It must be stopped in organized activities, in sports and in our schools, just as human trafficking of all people must be stopped. Women, girls, men, boys and gender-diverse people are all subject to horrible forms of human trafficking in Canada.

While studying illegal border crossings at the immigration committee last fall, we saw time and time again the RCMP begging us for more money and resources to combat this problem. On November 25, I asked the acting commissioner for the RCMP, Michael Duheme, the following question about human smuggling: “How many charges have you laid for smuggling?” He said, “it's a challenge to get them to talk.... The idea is, how do you intercept them beforehand so that you can get them to talk a little more?” This is an issue I am clearly engaged in, and I will bring my expertise to a concurrence debate.

I am worried that making virtual Parliament permanent would change how concurrence debates and other parliamentary processes function. Others have raised serious concerns about the workload that virtual Parliament places on interpreters and the resulting diminishing of the French language in Canada. Unfortunately, I do not think a proper study has been done on these issues, nor has proper consultation taken place.

People may ask what the big deal is. Lots of people are working virtually now; why not MPs? Take my son, for example. He works in IT and has spent many hours working remotely from home. For him it works because his job mostly consists of sitting at a computer and writing code or responding to emails. My other son works in a potash mine, a physical job that requires his physical presence.

The point of all this is that some jobs are better suited to virtual and others not so much. I would suggest the job of an MP is best done in person. It is a job that requires extensive personal contact for success. It also depends on unplanned interactions in the hallway, in the restaurant or here in this House of Commons. I think everybody here can recall a time when a significant moment randomly happened simply because of being present. It is this work, this significant work, that we risk losing or diminishing.

Ultimately, what this debate is about is not what is best for me, for the Speaker, for the NDP-Liberal coalition or even for the Conservative Party. It is about what is best for the people of Saskatoon West. It is about how we as MPs deliver the best results for Canadians. As much as I would like to stay home and do Parliament via my computer screen, I know I cannot deliver the best results that way. Being an MP is a person-to-person, in-person job. If we want to deliver the best government possible, I believe we need to conduct our business here in person. I urge all members to vote against these NDP-Liberal measures.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not disagree with everything the member opposite had to say about the Standing Orders. However, I would like him to comment on the individuals who are present in the House on any given day during question period. All of a sudden, when question period is over and the Speaker is introducing a vote coming up or is reading what the vote is about, people on both sides of the House are exiting like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then later we will see it come up on screen that they voted virtually. They were sitting here in the House before question period ended, yet they scurried out and voted electronically.

Would he like to comment on that? I think it is wrong. If a member is here, they should stay here and vote. That is just my own perspective. Whether it is the government's perspective or the opposition's perspective, I do not know, but I would like the member to comment on that particular issue.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a good one. I think there are a few things to think about here.

First of all, and I think this is my point, as we open up the ability to do these things, people will do them; they will take advantage of them. As the member pointed out, it happens in all the parties. I think this is part of the danger. I heard another member speak about measuring this and encouraging members to be in the House. There are no teeth in what is being proposed here to do that, so what I believe will happen is that it will continue to go in that direction. People will just find it more convenient to be home, to not be in the House or even to be in their offices voting, and it is not right. I think the key point here is that I am not necessarily opposed to some of these measures, but what we have not done, and what I think we should be doing, is studying this more intensely to make sure we are making the right decisions.

Second, there should be a sunset clause for this. It should be deferred, possibly even to the next Parliament, so it can look at this again and make its own decisions. Those are things that I think are important and that we should be doing here today.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the member said about the disadvantages of not being able to meet in person, but I have been here long enough to have watched friends and colleagues, before the days when hybrid was allowed, drag themselves in here literally from their deathbeds to protect their work because there were no rules to allow virtual participation.

In particular I remember the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Some members here tonight may recall when Mauril Bélanger, whose name I can say because he is passed away, had to protect a piece of private member's legislation. The only way under our rules to do that was to show up here physically. It was painful to watch what it cost him in his dying days to physically be here.

I would say to the hon. member that there are so many advantages to hybrid Parliament. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it should not be a default option, but I desperately want to make sure we never again see colleagues suffering with cancer, near death, who feel they must physically be here to do their work.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and that is why I believe the right approach here is a more thoughtful study of this subject and a sunset clause. As the member mentioned, there may be instances, very specific instances, where this makes sense, but as the previous member mentioned, it would just get taken advantage of. That is why I think that with the way this motion is laid out, it has not been studied enough. There are other options and alternatives we could do to allow people, in very limited circumstances, the ability to do certain things, but there should be an onus and some mechanisms to ensure that, when able, people are here in this House, which is where they should be. We should all be here doing our work.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech; it could have passed for a Bloc speech.

I feel like the Liberal government put one over on us during COVID‑19. We got hoodwinked because it asked for our co-operation and then forced its hybrid Parliament model on us. It is overreaching, and that disturbs me a lot. This government does whatever it wants.

This motion is super important. It should have required more than a 50% plus one vote—maybe even unanimity. This is a big deal because it is an attack on the rules of Parliament. It changes fundamental things. It changes MPs' contract with the people. This is a major issue for me, and it cannot go through like this.

The fluidity of member-to-member contact here in the House, when we see each other face to face, is a big deal. It is important for resolving conflicts and problems with our constituents and government departments.

I would just like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what I just said.