Debates of June 15th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

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

Madam Speaker, we know how things work in the House and we know how the negotiations went for these changes to the Standing Orders of the House. The government House leader went to see the NDP. They came to an agreement. After that, they did not talk to the other parties. They decided to shove new rules down the members' throats.

Here we are in mid-June discussing this under a gag order at the last minute, when it has been weeks, if not months, that the government and the NDP, with whom they are in bed, have known exactly where they are going with this.

I would like my colleague to tell me why, in his opinion, they used this strategy of endless stalling, making us waste time until the last minute to finally use the most undemocratic procedure in the House of Commons, the gag order, and force this down our throats.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is another example. Last year, the government did the same thing in June, with the NDP's help. They did it right before Canada Day. They said that if we did not vote, we would be staying here.

They are using this issue as a hostage-taking exercise. This is why we are ending up at the end.

However, on the point of not discussing, we have had consensus around this place on changes to the Standing Orders. That has been the convention, but obviously the government knows that it has NDP members in its hip pocket and it is using them to make these changes.

I ran as an MP knowing the issue, knowing that I would be here in Ottawa, and I would suggest to anyone that if they do not understand the obligation of a member of Parliament to sit in Ottawa, in this seat of power, the constitutional place of power in this country, and if they cannot conform to that, then maybe they should run for mayor or maybe they should run for councillor or maybe they should run for public school trustee.

I understand what my obligation is, as do many of the members, not just on our side but I suspect on the Bloc Québécois side as well. This is where people need to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the member, I remember his speech and I appreciate his consistency. He is saying something that the Conservatives have been trying to hide, which is that they are absolutely opposed to the hybrid Parliament. They are absolutely opposed to remote voting and the voting app.

However, we just had a vote in which over half of the Conservative caucus actually used the voting app to vote to try to block the use of the voting app, which is, to say the least, a contradiction.

We also know, dating back to The Globe and Mail exposé in June 2020, that Conservatives have the highest absentee rate when it comes to virtual Parliament. They were absent 53% of the time. The NDP showed up 85% of the time.

How does the member explain this contradiction?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this argument all day. The government, aided and abetted by the NDP, has set the rules. We are working within the rules. If those rules change and we get rid of the hybrid Parliament, every single Conservative will be in their seat representing their constituents and voting here on behalf of their constituents. However, the government set the rules.

There is one thing that is critical about this, which is that we cannot continue on this hybrid system and not expect our democracy to decline. That is exactly what the NDP is contributing to by voting with the Liberals on this issue.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to be speaking on the hybrid provisions today.

In 2021, I was honoured to be chosen by the people of Steveston—Richmond East to serve as their member of Parliament. However, that same fall, as I began work as an MP in Ottawa, I became very fatigued and my symptoms worsened. I was born with a solitary kidney, and upon my return to B.C., I was informed that my only kidney was deteriorating faster than expected. The time had come to prepare for a transplant, and I was to immediately receive dialysis treatment.

As serious as this was, I did not want my condition to affect my work or limit my ability to represent my community. To ensure there were no conflicts with my parliamentary responsibilities, I trained myself to self-administer the dialysis treatment at the nocturnal dialysis unit at the Vancouver General Hospital, where I would stay overnight three days a week.

While I waited for my transplant, it was crucial to avoid travel in order to not risk contracting any viruses, like COVID-19, so that I could be operated on safely when the time came.

If it had not been for the hybrid provisions, I could not have safeguarded my health and kept my commitment to represent my constituents in Parliament. I was able to fulfill my responsibilities virtually in the House of Commons and in committees. I was able to speak to bills, speak on the Emergencies Act, participate in a study on military procurement and share an untold inclusive Canadian heritage story confronting the realities of systemic racism, which was a very important priority for me.

I was also able to provide statements in the House regarding key investments the government is making in Richmond. Since I was elected to office in 2021, over $200 million in investments were secured in my city. I have been able to participate in all relevant caucus meetings to communicate Richmond's economic and service priorities. I participated in caucus meetings to communicate Richmond's social, economic, service and infrastructure priorities. At the same time, I was able to meet stakeholders within the municipality and throughout the riding. Many individuals, throughout all those meetings, mentioned that they had never even met their MP, and some of them had served in the municipality for over 20 years.

While many of my colleagues in the House agree with this motion, many former MPs also support this initiative. On October 4, I appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee to tell my story and share how hybrid provisions helped me serve Canadians through my difficult health journey. My fellow witnesses included former MPs Dona Cadman and Léo Duguay. Dona Cadman, who sat across the aisle, recalled the hardship and the toll it took on her husband's health while he was serving as an MP and spoke about how the positive effects of working virtually with his colleagues across parties could have made a strong impact on his mental health in the last years of life.

In his opening remarks, Léo Duguay, the president of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, said that in 1985 he wanted to look at two things. The first was electronic voting. The second was improving the House of Commons.

During my preparations I learned that PROC released a report in 2016 entitled “Initiatives toward a family-friendly House of Commons”. The report details the heavy personal toll that legislators live with as a result of their work. Although virtual proceedings were not one of the recommendations, the hybrid provisions are vital to easing the pressures caused by uncontrollable long absences from Ottawa.

There are reasons to support this motion, as highlighted by the 2021 PBO report on the costs of a hybrid Parliament. Over a full year, the net savings from a hybrid parliamentary system are estimated to be $6.2 million. It is also estimated that the hybrid parliamentary system would reduce GHG emissions related to travel by about 2,972 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

These figures do not include the savings from reduced travel and accommodation costs for witnesses who appear before committees.

Although these are benefits of a hybrid Parliament, they are not the main reason that I support this motion. As members of Parliament, we are responsible for nurturing our democracy. It is our role to ensure that as many Canadians as possible can participate fully in our democratic processes, not just when it comes time to vote but when we want to raise our hands and represent our fellow Canadians. However, travel commitments and long separations from family and friends are a price many Canadians are unwilling to pay.

A modern Parliament is a hybrid Parliament. It is inclusive, accessible and a window into the future of democracy in the 21st century. As Canadians, we must not let this window close, because we would be doing a disservice to democracy and to Canadians.

A hybrid Parliament creates a more flexible environment to accommodate a greater variety of Canadians and keeps MPs closer to their communities. Returning to the way things have always run would be a step back in our national journey to build a stronger, more inclusive and more engaging democracy. Expanding each Canadian's capacity to stand for elected office and serve as an MP is important not just for the individuals who sit in the House of Commons but for our communities, because the best ideas on the needs of Canadians come from the regions each MP represents, allowing us to remain rooted in our communities and maintain a strong understanding of the everyday impacts people are experiencing.

Hybrid provisions allowed me to fulfill my parliamentary obligations, limit my exposure, maintain strong mental health and reduce the fears my family had as they supported me through my health journey. I received my transplant in August of last year and I owe a world of thanks to the person who gave me the gift of life. It is very hard to express how very fortunate and extremely grateful I am to be able to work in and serve the city I was raised in and the province of British Columbia that I was born in.

Of course, it also would not have been possible to keep doing a job I passionately enjoy without the excellent care provided by the team of medical professionals, the dialysis unit and the organ transplant team at Vancouver General Hospital, as well as Canadian Blood Services.

Madam Speaker, I failed to mention earlier that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I am prepared to take questions.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague referenced Chuck Cadman, whom I knew. He was from my neck of the woods, and I know that when he was seriously ill, he came here to vote, but an alternative option would have been for the government side of the House to have paired somebody with him so that he would not have had to go through the trouble and pain and inconvenience of travelling.

Is that a way forward for exceptional cases that make it impossible, or nearly impossible, for somebody to travel here?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think one of the key things here is that what he is suggesting, the pairing of someone, actually takes the voice of the elected member who is there to serve the community that elected them.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very uncomfortable with this motion, not so much because of what it contains, even though my party and I disagree with that, but with the way the government is going about getting this motion adopted.

There is a tradition in this House, which, to my knowledge, exists in all Parliaments. The rules are not changed by the simple majority because that would mean imposing the majority's vision on all the minorities. That is not the right approach.

However, that is what the government is doing here. Rather than trying to reach a consensus with all the parties and agree on the rules before putting them in place, the government is refusing to discuss them with us and imposing its way of doing things. Is that not completely undemocratic?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot about tradition, and I know other members have talked about tradition as well, but it was a break from tradition to bring cameras into the House of Commons, and that changed in 1977.

This is a meaningful discussion, and I understand the concerns, but we are having a debate and raising these questions. Members have had an opportunity to raise them for a few years now, so on this side, we believe these changes are necessary to increase democracy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Steveston—Richmond East for sharing his story.

We both come from British Columbia. It is very difficult, as many members know, to travel back and forth every week, as we like to do, to our homes when we live in British Columbia. The member happens to live very close to an airport, so he is luckier than I am, but I was really interested to hear of his health issues and how he got through them.

I think he touched on this in the answer to a previous question, but having this hybrid Parliament allowed him to represent his constituents while he was home in British Columbia rather than, as the Conservative member was suggesting, taking away someone else's right to vote as well as a better solution. I think sitting virtually is by far the best solution we have, and we should keep it.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly why I think this is an important piece.

I mentioned this while I was speaking, but to really understand the priorities of a region, members sometimes have to be there longer than than they are here. When we go to events, we see the mayor and the council, but do we get an opportunity to speak to the people who are operating within the municipality, the people who are building the homes or the planners? They told me that they had never met their member of Parliament, and that was a very important piece I was able to do while I was there.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to this issue for a couple of reasons.

One of the reasons I am here, the reason we are all here, is to represent our constituents, and I really think the measure of a hybrid Parliament does further the interests of our constituents. I also think it furthers the interests of democracy as a whole.

The other reason I wanted to talk about this is that it is a measure that came out of COVID. As a parliamentarian who was fairly involved with the whole COVID process, I was interested in this. I have to say that there is not a whole lot of good that came out of COVID, but this is perhaps one of the few good things.

I will start with COVID because that is really the origin of this hybrid Parliament. I am not sure about the rest of us here, but I am from the class of 2019, and we had a rough start to Parliament. Three months into that parliamentary session, we heard of the outbreak of a novel respiratory virus in Wuhan, China.

I followed this, because I am a doctor and I used to work for the World Health Organization. I studied and also taught global health law. In addition, during the SARS pandemic, I was working as a doctor around Toronto. I was actually quarantined because of SARS, so I followed this. Certainly, what was happening in Wuhan, China, did not look good.

Then the dominoes began to fall. First, it was Iran, with news stories of satellite images showing mass graves there. After that, it was Italy, and there were, I believe, over 140 doctors in Italy who died early on in the COVID pandemic. Then we started to get cases here.

I was sitting on the health committee. We had Dr. Tam, members from PHAC and other people coming before us. We asked some questions about COVID, and they responded, “Nothing to see here. We have it under control. It is not going to be a problem.”

I was rather frustrated. It was like watching an old disaster movie. For anyone who has ever watched one, it does not matter the disaster, whether it is the sinking of a boat, a big volcano going off, an earthquake killing lots of people or a big shark, in all of these, there is an unshaven has-been, because these are old movies and nowadays there would be a lot of women, but this person would be sitting at the end of the bar early on in the disaster. They see the disaster coming and say, “Well, I think maybe we ought to be worried here”, but no one gets worried. This is how I felt in the early days of the pandemic.

Then came March 13, 2020, and the wheels fell off the bus that day. On that day, it was announced that Tom Hanks, the actor, had COVID and the Prime Minister's wife had COVID. The NHL and NBA, in an unprecedented fashion, decided to end their seasons. It was horrible for us hockey and basketball fans.

At the same time, Parliament decided to shut down indefinitely. I remember, I believe it was a Thursday night, at the Marriott bar with some of my colleagues, who are undoubtedly here. We were talking about what we were going to do. Were we supposed to go home? Should we have been talking to each other? Were we giving each other COVID?

Going forward three years, on this side of the House, we think we did pretty well with COVID. We got through it. However, for us in Parliament, the democratic process to get through it was done thanks to being able to partake virtually in a virtual Parliament. Without that, we certainly would not have been able to continue the democratic process through COVID.

Moreover, generally speaking, the vaccines in society provided a lot of what we needed to deal with the pandemic. Later on, the various forms of treatments that came out in the health care system played a big part in reducing mortality. However, I would suggest that it was technology, the Internet and the ability to do virtual meetings that allowed us that social distancing, which we needed early on before we had the vaccines to prevent the spread of disease. These virtual meetings were certainly a big part of how we responded to COVID.

Hopefully, COVID is over, but we cannot say that for certain. I do not think this will happen, but perhaps in the fall there will be another wave with a new variant, and for that reason alone I think it is good that we are still able to meet virtually.

Rather than talking further about why I am for virtual Parliament, let me admit that I do think there are advantages of being here in person, and some of my colleagues on the opposite side talked about them. I would not deny there are a lot of good things that come out of that.

For those in the class of 2019, after having been meeting virtually for about a year and a half, to then come back felt like we were starting high school in grade 11. In our time back here it has become apparent to me, and perhaps to a lot of my colleagues from the same year, how much of the real work of Parliament does not occur right here on the floor, but in the back rooms.

The back is a place where I can corner a minister to ask them about an issue that is big in my riding and get an answer. It is also a place where we can form coalitions. In my experience, and in the experience of all parliamentarians here, an individual will have a really hard time moving any particular item. However, when they get consensus, it is far easier to do. That kind of consensus cannot be made on a Zoom call, but it is the kind of consensus we can make in the back rooms.

Having said that and having agreed that, generally speaking, being here in person is better, I think there are real advantages of being able to meet virtually. Those advantages certainly outweigh the disadvantages. I would like to point out that it is quite difficult to be a parliamentarian when one has a family. I have six kids. I have big kids, little kids, young kids and old kids, and being a good parent when spending half of my time not at home, but in Ottawa, is very difficult.

Our poor spouses end up running a single-parent family half the time. It is hard on anyone who has kids, but I would suggest it is particularly hard on women with small children. There are some women here who do have small children, so it is not impossible, but it is very difficult. I would suggest that reality scares off a lot of young women from wanting to partake in the democratic process.

We really want to encourage women to run. The hybrid Parliament makes it easier. For example, these last nine weeks or so, we have had one constituency week. However, with virtual Parliament, if someone has a family and kids, and the kids are sick or they are asking for them, they can spend a week back home with the kids and still partake in parliamentary duties.

Similarly, if someone lives in Labrador or the Northwest Territories, they can do Monday and Friday virtually, meeting their obligations to Parliament while still having time with their family. It allows parliamentarians to balance their obligations to their families with their obligations to their constituencies and to Parliament.

I suggest that is also the case for people, for example, with disabilities, with family members who are ill or who have elderly people in their family to whom they have obligations. It allows them to come to Parliament.

Why is that important? I have said before I think not being able to go virtual would be particularly hard on women. In Parliament, 50% of MPs ought to be women. Parliament, for the sake of democracy, ought to be a Parliament that reasonably reflects the population at large. That means not only having women in Parliament, but also having people who are mothers and fathers with younger or older children, or who have no children at all.

Let me reiterate that not much good came out of COVID, but I think one good thing that came out of COVID was hybrid Parliament. It is good for MPs, Parliament and the democratic process, and I think it is good for Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and he did identify the nature of proximity and the ability to establish rapport and trust between members when they are in close proximity to each other.

There is nothing in the Standing Orders that gives any requirement of this. Under the changes that are proposed, any member could be virtual as much as they want, and the increasing use of the voting app shows the extent to which the expediency of it drives people out of this place.

Why make the permanent change now? Why not give us the opportunity to get it right following an election and following further all-party consensus, rather than a permanent change now?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member opposite, and I wrestle with this every week when it is a choice of whether I should stay at home with my family and my kids and participate virtually or come to Ottawa. I decide to come to Ottawa because I think I can do a better job here. On the other hand, we have to balance that desirability of having close proximity to and being able to talk to people with the fact that not allowing it is a real, significant impediment to people with kids, especially women, being able to partake in the democratic process.

Without that, we have a Parliament with a bunch of older males or older women or people who do not have families, but we are missing a certain demographic of our population who are not here to vote and make decisions because they do not want to come to Parliament because they cannot both have a family and be in Parliament. With the hybrid system, they can.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I worked together at the Standing Committee on Health, and he knows that I appreciate him.

I know he is a democrat. In his speech, he discussed the importance of having a well functioning democracy. He believes that the new rules could help us to enhance the way democracy functions.

I am wondering if he does not see that there is a certain paradox in the fact that, to enhance democracy with the new rules, we are violating democracy, we are violating the parliamentary tradition, we are violating the tradition of unanimity. We are dismantling a long tradition and setting a precedent that will allow any government, especially a majority government, to henceforth have the moral sanction to change all our operating rules as it pleases.

Does the member not find that strange to want to enhance the way democracy functions in a completely undemocratic way?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, as much as it is desirable to have unanimity, the democratic process does not generally require unanimity, because it is that difficult. Maybe this is wrong, but I understand that in Poland there was an absolute democracy that required unanimity in every decision, but that is practically impossible.

Therefore, I would suggest that in an example like this, where we are trying to protect a minority, perhaps young women, and allow them to be party to the democratic process, sometimes we have to stand up against the majority. That is the whole purpose of the Constitution. Moreover, if even a majority is not good enough and we need an absolute majority, that is a pretty hard hurdle to bypass. I would say that the ends we are seeking, which are allowing more women and more people with families to participate, are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give another member an opportunity to ask a question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have heard in this debate is a concern about abuse of the virtual tools that we have become accustomed to. Thinking about the constituents I represent, I think they have an expectation both that I travel to Ottawa, be a part of this place and represent them in the House of Commons and also that, under certain circumstances, the virtual tools allow me to do an even better job and be present more of the time. Does the member agree that our constituents' expectation that we spend time in Ottawa and in the House of Commons will serve as a control on the potential abuse of these virtual tools that we now have available?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. Ultimately, we are all accountable to our electorate. I think those of us who decide not to come to Ottawa or are seen always up in their bedroom on a Zoom call, participating virtually in Parliament, perhaps will suffer as a result at the ballot box. There is a certain element of accountability there that will keep us honest and keep us from abusing that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Parliament exists so that common people, the commons, would have protection from what would otherwise be the unlimited power of government.

Every now and then, we have to get back to the basics. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, 808 years ago this week, actually. I have a real passion for civic literacy around the issue of what Parliament is here for, why Parliament exists and getting back to those basics.

Members are elected to this place. They are sent here to fulfill that basic purpose. We are here to hold the government to account. Not just the members who happen to run under parties that did not win the majority of seats or even the most seats, but all members here are elected as a Parliament that will hold government to account. Some members are chosen to become part of the government, but even the backbenchers of the governing party are here to hold the government to account. We all are. That is our job.

Our basic function is to vote on the key issues of the day, particularly to grant authority to the Crown to spend money, to make changes to the Criminal Code that affect people's liberty, and these kinds of things. This is what we are here for. That is why Parliament exists.

Let there be no doubt: The changes being proposed by the government would weaken the power of the House of Commons and strengthen the power of government.

Before I get too much further into this, I must point out that I am going to share my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I look forward to his remarks.

I am familiar with the arguments around the changes we are talking about here. We just heard some of the arguments in favour of the Standing Orders changes from the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I am a western MP. I spend a lot of time on airplanes, a lot of time travelling. I am family man, too. There is certainly some expediency around the voting app.

However, hybrid Parliament would give more power to the government. It does give more power to the government and less power to the opposition, making the tools available to the opposition more difficult to use. I have never heard a constituent, a person in my riding, say to me that what is really important to them is that Parliament become easier for MPs, so that we could make things easier for ourselves. That is not what Canadians say. They do not want their government to have more power and Parliament to have less.

There are practical problems, too, with the motion. We have all seen the inevitable technical glitches, which will always be there. We have problems with connectivity, with equipment and with simultaneous translation. The motion certainly does not address any of those issues, but here we are.

There are also lots of other problems with it that are not technical. There is a general lack of decorum that sometimes occurs through hybrid. We have the lack of uniformity in background and people can use a hybrid camera shot to create their own political messages or messages that do not belong in parliamentary debate.

By far and away, the biggest problem that we will have if we adopt a permanent virtual Parliament is entrenching the isolation and silo effect on MPs. If hybrid Parliament is to be made permanent, we have to answer these questions first: Do Canadians want their MPs to have less physical interaction and less proximity to each other? Do Canadians think that their elected officials would make better decisions for Canadians if they spent less time actually interacting with each other? Do Canadians want their parliamentarians and their Parliament to be more or less collegial? Do they want elected representatives to have more or less opportunity, as the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, to speak informally with members of the government, on either side?

Do Canadians want their MP to have the opportunity to walk across the floor and have a quick discussion with another member? Do they want their MPs to have the ability to interact with each other in person? Do they want ministers and the Prime Minister to spend more time face to face, facing the accountability of an opposition in Parliament with the equal rights and privileges that are afforded to members in this place?

I know Canadians expect more and not less accountability from their governments and they expect their elected MPs to have the ability to deliver that. Hybrid Parliament allows MPs to have every ability to just silo themselves and be isolated from other members.

Canadians in my riding ask me sometimes why we cannot work with other parties. I say that there are many occasions when MPs work across the floor and work with other MPs in their own caucus to effect outcomes on legislation or committee business or issues. However, in order to work effectively together, they have to have the opportunity to build rapport and trust, and they cannot do that through a video screen.

This really reveals itself in hybrid committees. When members of all parties are present, and the member for Barrie—Innisfil talked about this, members from each party can gather in a corner and resolve an impasse they have come to by just being able to talk to each other. Non-verbal body language is conveyed when we meet in person. When one is across a committee table from another member, one can get an idea of the effect of what one is proposing if negotiating on a motion or debating a committee report. We do not get that through hybrid Parliament. We do not get that through a video screen.

When trying to get through a committee report, if all the members are together and there are differences, there is no unanimity, but there might be the ability to have a consensus report. It is not going to get done through a video screen. People need to be able to talk to each other. The importance of personal interaction is just lost in the hybrid.

Some members have commented on the growing use of the voting app by members and the incentives to not be here with a hybrid system. The ability to use a voting app encourages members to do really anything but the job they are elected to do as legislators and debate legislation in the House. They have every advantage to just go back to their ridings while Parliament is sitting and campaign or do any number of other activities. Members have talked about the ability to achieve a better life and family balance, and I am sure this is an advantage for some members in that case, but it also gives incentive to do anything other than the job they are elected to do.

This brings us to the permanence of it. What is being proposed here tonight is a permanent change to the Standing Orders, which is ordinarily only done through consensus, when all parties agree. This is our democracy. The Standing Orders are how we govern ourselves in this place. It is extraordinary that we are here under a closure motion. They are ramming this through with closure, the permanent change to our Standing Orders.

Conservatives proposed at committee maintaining the use of the voting app and hybrid Parliament, that we would keep it and let it run through another election so members who are elected here could run and tell their prospective voters how they feel about this issue, and not permanently change the Standing Orders until there actually is an all-party consensus. That is the way to do it. That is the way that respects the democracy of this place.

If members value the office they are elected to and think Canadians want and deserve more and not less democratic accountability, and if they think the permanent changes should not be done without all-party consent, I beg them to show some respect for the 808 years of parliamentary accountability and oppose this motion.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there are a lot of advantages to being here together to make sure we serve our constituents, but my question is this: What would he say for those members who, God forbid, have to go through health challenges?

Back in February 2018, I was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Not having the provision of the hybrid Parliament, I was not able to be the voice of my constituents here for four months, until my chemotherapy was completed. I was not able to participate in debates and I was not able to vote.

What would the member say in regard to those situations? I ask, because we never know what is coming around the corner.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am so happy that the member is here in this debate tonight and that she is able to be here. The member for Steveston—Richmond East and his remarks on his health challenges are important, but there have been long-standing tools. This is not new. Previous Parliaments have dealt with this by way of vote pairing. I do not think any constituent would want their MP to feel they had to leave medical treatment to fly here and use their voice in debate. People should take time and look after their health, make that their personal priority and make sure their vote is paired, so that there is still democratic representation.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the hon. member a few years back in time. When he was in the House in 2017, the Liberal government had a majority. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wanted to change the Standing Orders so that, for example, the House would no longer sit on Fridays. The Bloc Québécois was in favour. The Liberal government House leader in 2017 said that it would not happen because there was not unanimous support. She had the support of some opposition parties, but she did not have unanimous support. In order to change the Standing Orders, the way the House operates is that unanimous consent is required. She backed down, and it did not happen.

We now have a government that says that it is going to change the rules with a simple majority, which sets a precedent. What does the hon. member think about that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is right, and it is disgraceful. The members of that government and its caucus should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing, and so should the NDP members.