Larry Bagnell

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 1st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, as other members have said, I will be giving my own personal opinions. I have not talked to any member from any party about my ideas.

As a former chair of PROC, I think the results of this debate may depend on how PROC deals with it. PROC is a very busy committee. It has a lot of things to do, and there have been serious, major issues raised today that PROC just would not have time to get to. To deal with some of the major issues like electronic voting or a second chamber, I think PROC should consider creating subcommittees that could have other members, not just PROC members. Some of these issues may then actually be dealt with.

My major point today is one on which I have been pushing for years now, and I will take this opportunity to push it again. It is that when we return to the House, we should have electronic voting there. I am chair of the parliamentarians of the Arctic nations, and every one of the seven Arctic nations has electronic voting.

I do not think it serves people well when what now takes several hours for a few votes could be done in a couple of minutes. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent on this. I do not think workers in Canada appreciate it when millions and millions of dollars of their money are being spent just so that members can stand up before the results go in Hansard. That is where everyone finds out how we vote. The record is in Hansard. If there were a button on our desks, we could just push it. The results would show up on a screen, and then they would go into Hansard and everyone would know how we voted.

There is also the opportunity cost. Members are constantly saying they want more time to discuss important bills, yet we are taking hours upon hours in each session for people to stand up one at a time to vote.

For members who have questions about this, we could have trials. There could be certain votes that it would not apply to and for which members would still have to stand. We could do trial sessions, as has happened in the hybrid Parliament. As the Green Party member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has said, I think we need to get into the 20th century, even, and make Parliament more efficient in that way. Perhaps the Library of Parliament could do a study, and maybe they already have, on how this is done around the world.

I would like to raise some other potential points. First, I do not think it makes sense to require unanimous consent to start the committees. Second, Sweden has votes only Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and that type of discipline would certainly free up a lot of members who have other urgent things to do and who may not be able to be in the House for votes or, as an NDP member said, be able to travel 20 hours for a 10-minute vote.

Another point is that PROC has dealt with electronic voting before and has said it was something that could be discussed in the future, as it did with the idea of a second chamber. The House of Commons in Britain and the House of Representatives in Australia both have a second chamber. That gives more MPs time to speak. We hear time and time again that more MPs would have liked to speak on a bill, as we heard again today. A second chamber would allow that, as it does in those other parliaments. This is great timing for PROC to do a study on that, because we have a second chamber being built in the Centre Block and we have this one in the West Block.

The other point is that in a pandemic or an emergency, such as damage to a House, we would be ready to go. That is another reason to do that as well.

As we have proven in the virtual Parliament, Friday sittings work very well. There is no reason Friday sittings and even Monday mornings could not be done by virtual Parliament. Sometimes in the past, because of my travel of 28 hours and eight airports every weekend, I would get home Saturday night, depending on delays and airplanes and everything, and have to leave eight hours later to get on four planes at 4:00 a.m. Sunday to get back here. Friday and Monday sittings are terribly inconvenient for my young family.

I once again go on record to say that I hope PROC reports on the Centre Block renovations. I have been pushing for a playground in the empty courtyard, particularly for women with children.

I do not think we should require a vote regarding the Standing Order that allows a member to be heard. There should be another process for that, because it is a good way for any party to waste time if it wants to.

What PROC or one of its subcommittees should discuss are the rules for pandemics and other emergencies that could occur, such as a fire. We need more detailed rules so that we can carry on regardless of what happens. Good examples would be a standing order related to social distancing during a pandemic or for a fire that requires movement to another building, such as a second House of Commons.

The points made about unanimous consent are very important. Sometimes we go through three reading stages, hours in committees, three votes, and then the same process in the Senate, to discuss major issues that are important to Canadians. They are given very thoughtful consideration throughout our system. There are a lot of protections to make sure this process is done right and is carefully thought out. However, someone can raise a motion for unanimous consent, and then we have 10 seconds to think about something major and make a decision on it. We have to look at how that could be made more efficient, relevant and appropriate.

I agree with what was mentioned today, I believe by an NDP House leader or former House leader, with respect to the order of the private members' draw. I too was in Parliament for well over a decade before my name was drawn for a private member's bill. One way that problem could be fixed is if the order could be carried over from one Parliament to the next for members who are re-elected. I know that solution has been proposed before.

Programming in general and the programming of government bills is a very good idea. It is done in many other houses. The opposition parties and the government sit down to decide how things would be discussed and for how long. If the Library of Parliament or a perceptive journalist were to do a study on how much time was spent on some very serious issues compared to some that could be dealt with very quickly, they would find that the time spent was not appropriate. That is because programming is not done. Programming would allow more time for things that have very serious consequences and are very important to Canadians. It would also provide for more orderly progress in the House and avoid the extensive delays that we see, which are not productive and which reduce the number of times a person can speak on very important matters they want to speak on.

There are a lot of things that PROC could discuss, but it is going to have to work out how it can do it because its plate is already full. It would have to set up committees or a process to be able to deal with some of these serious issues. There are so many of them that we need a process to deal with them all.

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 26th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member said we have no plan. I would like to ask the member this. If he and his party are going to try to make the case during this debate that we have no plan, why have they spent so much energy, effort and passion contradicting, voting against and denying the many items in our plan that are now reducing greenhouse gases?

[Citizenship Act, November 23rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment from the traditional territory of the Ta’an Kwach’an Council and the Kwanlin Dun, which both have signed modern treaties and self-government agreements.

I want people watching to think about how they would feel if they bought a house and when they went to move into it someone decided the house was not theirs and it was not being given to them. They can imagine how first nations and indigenous people felt when they signed treaties that were not honoured. It would be the same feeling.

This bill would give comfort and acknowledgement to immigrants. As I mentioned in a recent previous debate, we did not learn about this in school in any sufficient amount so this would give recognition of indigenous rights, which is in the Constitution, and the sanctity of the treaties we must abide by and, by the honour of the Crown, we should have been abiding by them from the very beginning. It would be a great recognition of that.

[Broadcasting Act, November 19th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about indigenous broadcasting, but first I want to thank him for his trip down memory lane. It was very fun.

I want to correct a couple inaccuracies about broadband and the great work that the broadband minister has been doing in connecting, already, over a million people. The member mentioned 2026 being the start of the action, but actually it is close to the end. By then, 98% of Canadians will be connected.

I want to give a big shout-out to Canadian indigenous broadcasters. Northern Native Broadcasting in the Yukon does a tremendous job. I hope it gets increased funding through the local content ramifications of the bill. I know the member is a big supporter of indigenous people and I am sure he is in support of the local indigenous production of their own stories that this bill would help.

[Petitions, November 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This might be an appropriate time, given the presentation of one of the earlier petitions, to remind members that when they present a petition they should not express their view or give a personal speech related to the petition, just what is in the petition.

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to comment on a larger philosophical issue that also applies in this situation, which is to have engagement or not to have engagement. History has shown us that one could have no engagement for a thousand years with a regime or a nation that is abusing human rights, and it would have no effect. I would like him to comment on making progress in human rights through engagement or non-engagement.

[Judges Act, November 16th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member always has very erudite speeches. Like the member, I am very passionate in my support of this bill. I will probably not ask a question, but let him carry on because I know he always has a lot of very important input. However, I want to make a couple of comments.

One was mentioned earlier this afternoon. Over and above the bill, which is very important, Bill C-51 added some very important steps. I want to ensure that all the elements of Bill C-51 are implemented so we can get the full benefit of the bill to deal with this.

The second point I want to make is that I am very strongly in support of indigenous involvement in designing the training. Indigenous women and girls, who are often the targets and victims, come from a different culture and a different history of their own unique legal systems. They are different social structures of which we just cannot understand—

[Bills of Exchange Act, October 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to ask a question. I will just let the member carry on because he has so much to offer. I want to say he is one of the most amazing members of Parliament I have ever met and he has done so much for human rights. He is totally right that we did not hear anything about this in the education system. That is why this is so important to me.

I want people watching on TV to think about what if someone came today and took their children? What if they said they were coming and people would not have their children back until next summer? What if the children did not come back or came back damaged?

We cannot imagine the pain and suffering, the effect that would have on people and whether they can survive if someone takes their children away. I think that is enough in itself; why it is absolutely essential that this pass and we give recognition to truth and reconciliation.

Marsi cho. Gunalchéesh.

[Criminal Code, October 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I ask people watching what they would do if someone asked them to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, or, even worse, tried to force them to do it as a kid. They should think about how they would feel.

I am moved and gratified that we are criminalizing the horrendous act of trying to change who someone is. I congratulate the high school students at Porter Creek Secondary School and others who brought this up. The Yukon government, two weeks ago, passed second reading of a bill against conversion therapy. Conversion therapy leads to a lack of self-esteem, increased anxiety and depression, and even suicide, so I thank MPs from all parties who support making five new criminal offences against conversion therapy.

[Global Polio Eradication Initiative, October 23rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is World Polio Day, a day to celebrate the world's progress against polio and our resolve to end this horrible disease once and for all. Recently, Africa was certified as free of the wild polio virus, which is a big milestone, but COVID-19 has caused 50 million children to miss their polio vaccinations, so sustained action is critical to protect global health. If we stop now, 200,000 children a year could be paralyzed.

In May, Canada committed $190 million to the global polio eradication initiative, building on past contributions. It is something all Canadians can be proud of.

Please join me in marking World Polio Day by thanking all who contribute to polio eradication, including rotary clubs across Canada and the Whitehorse Rotary Club, which sponsored polio survivor Ramesh Ferris' epic fundraising hand-cycling tour of 7,140 kilometres across Canada.

It is because of all these actions that 18 million people, who could otherwise have been paralyzed, are now walking. Let us keep it up.