Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I was saying that it is important to schedule witnesses at different times for each political party so that we can ask them questions properly. These are people we invite to appear, and we prepare our questions accordingly. We often do not have enough time to ask them questions properly. This is also a very important point.
There is also the issue of members attending committee meetings remotely. Again, this should be allowed for health reasons or family reasons, but if a member is participating remotely, they should not be in a public place or in a car. We have seen all kinds of foolish and ridiculous situations. Yes, the hybrid Parliament absolutely needs to be tweaked.
We also suggest creating a Wednesday motion that would be voted on but not debated. The problem is that we often try to achieve unanimous consent or bring forward a motion that we want the House to vote on, but we get a “no”. That means the government cannot take a position on the issue. We are suggesting that a motion could be moved in advance. Each party would get a turn. Then the motion would be voted on, without debate, in the House either that day or the following week. This would force each political party to take a position. I think that would greatly improve our democracy.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes a bill comes back from the Senate and the House has to respond. We already went through a period where one political party decided to hold up a bill for over a year. That is unacceptable in a democracy. Debate should be limited so that we can respond to the Senate and move bills forward. We are here to legislate, to act on behalf of the people, not to obstruct things for partisan reasons, which is nonsense.
My last point will be a nice one. During oral question period, the speaking time is already very limited. It is 35 seconds, as someone said earlier. That is tight, and we do not have much time to make our argument. Furthermore, some of the questions from the government side are what I will politely refer to as softball questions. Those are planted questions where government members ask a minister to spend 30 seconds talking about how wonderful and clever the government is and how great it is doing in a specific area.
To me, that does not serve democracy. I think that the government has other opportunities to do that and that question period slots should be reserved for the opposition members, because our job is to ask the government questions about its work and then pass on that information to the public.
That covers all of my proposals. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.