Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 257
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 10:49 [p.7215]
Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 19, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 10:53 [p.7215]
Madam Speaker, the angrier somebody gets, the more it reflects on their position as opposed to the circumstance we are debating.
Let us take a step back for a second regarding the measures the member is talking about. If he is opposed to them, he and his colleagues do not have to use them. If they want to not use the hybrid provisions, then they can do so.
I am sure that when the vote happens later today, we will see all Conservative members here in the seats. I am sure all members will be voting in person. After that impassioned speech about how terrible these measures are, I am sure that in question period today we will see every single member of the Conservative Party here. We are going to see every vote taken in person, because of course this is a terrible affront to democracy, right? The anger is real, and because the anger is real, we are going to see them all here.
Here is what happened. At the beginning of the pandemic, of course we had no idea what was going to happen. We developed provisions that would give us the flexibility—
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 10:54 [p.7215]
Madam Speaker, I am sure there will be many more questions, so I can come back to this.
I will say that, instead of debating this again and again, what we would give Parliament is stability for the next year, and we would give PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, the opportunity to look at what may or may not be used beyond that. That would provide stability and clarity, and give us an opportunity to look at what worked, and that is the right way to go.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 10:56 [p.7216]
Madam Speaker, this week, with the situation as it is now, many members have come down with COVID-19. The only way they can participate in the parliamentary debates and vote is through the hybrid system. The pandemic is ongoing. People are dying every day, unfortunately. This is a very serious situation.
This flexibility would give members the option to use the hybrid system. If things improve over time and members no longer want to use the hybrid system, then that will be up to them. They are not in any way obligated to use it.
However, if something changes, like with what happened with the omicron variant, we will need to be flexible and adapt. That is exactly what the motion would allow us to do.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 10:58 [p.7216]
Madam Speaker, I think we all need to take a step back here. What is being talked about is continuing something we have had for the last two years, which has given us incredible flexibility to represent our constituents, as people have been ill. Just last week, we had five members who had COVID, and we have many members this week, and they are continuing to be able to represent their constituents.
This would be for a year. If people are really against it, and I am hearing some people who really do not like it and that is fair, the procedure and House affairs committee is going to look at whether we would use these provisions outside of the pandemic or inside it, but it would be for a year. We have a committee that is going to be looking at all of the concerns. People are very passionate about this, saying that it should be used outside of a pandemic or that it should not be used outside of a pandemic. We need a parliamentary process to adjudicate that and to look at its relative merits, but how upset folks are getting is just not in line with what is here in front of us today.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:00 [p.7216]
Madam Speaker, my hon. friend and colleague is absolutely right.
The first point I would make is that, in talking with all opposition parties, I have been clear from the outset that I am open to any ideas on how to improve on any concerns they have. Unfortunately, what came back was nothing, just that there was opposition to it. We are going to continue to ask for ways for this to be improved in the near term as we continue to try to have flexibility in a pandemic.
We are an enormously large country, and we do not want members who are sick to be in a position where they have to make the choice of whether they represent their constituents or whether—
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:02 [p.7217]
Madam Speaker, when I am talking about feedback, let me be very clear. When members just tell me they are opposed, I get that. They are opposed to it. There is going to be an opportunity at PROC to talk about the reasons they are opposed to it, on an ongoing basis, and we will have a vigorous debate. However, I am interested in specific, concrete examples of what could be done to improve. I have heard nothing on that front, but of course I would welcome that.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:02 [p.7217]
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of reasons. The first is that we have to make a determination on this so that we can move forward with stability for Parliament. The motion asks for a year, and it would also give the opportunity for PROC to take a look at it and examine the relative merits of it.
Also, we have debated this ad nauseam. I see the hon. former House leader across from me for the Conservative Party and think of how many conversations we had leading into sessions, and how many conversations I had with the current House leader on this. Every time we try to open this place, we spend weeks talking about this, and what gets reported to the media is the discussion of “Will Parliament have hybrid or will it not?” Instead of talking about the critical issues of the day, we have this protracted debate on whether or not hybrid is something we should use in the middle of a pandemic.
All I am saying is to give it a year. Let us make sure that, while we have this uncertainty, we have a stable system in place, and then let us use the parliamentary committee to evaluate its utility, or lack of utility, outside of a pandemic circumstance.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:04 [p.7217]
Madam Speaker, we hold the institutions of Parliament incredibly dear. I know that every single person here has a profound regard for our democratic processes and systems and wants them to be successful. I can go back to the beginning of the pandemic, to how constructive the conversations were with all parties on the need for Parliament to adapt and provide additional provisions. Now, as we continue to be in a pandemic, and as we do not know where that pandemic will go, none of us being clairvoyant, this provides us stability.
If the member opposite thinks that some element is not as accountable as some other element, then there is going to be an opportunity to debate that. That is not an opinion that is shared universally. How a question is answered, I understand, is a concern for the member opposite, but so is members not being able to participate in debate because they are sick, and so is members not having the opportunity not to have to make a choice between representing their constituents and coming in sick, potentially getting others sick and then having that sent all around the country, or working virtually and—
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:07 [p.7218]
Madam Speaker, clearly, everyone wants the pandemic to be over. However, that is not the case. The pandemic is ongoing. That is our reality today.
We must therefore remain flexible, because it is really important that all members be able to represent their constituents. That is why we need a system as flexible as the hybrid system.
According to the hon. member opposite, the House would normally have finished its work yesterday. Today is therefore an extraordinary day. It is a wise thing that we are using a day that does not normally exist to finish this debate so that we can continue our work in the fall without any distractions.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:09 [p.7218]
Madam Speaker, I am glad that members have the opportunity to utilize these provisions. Obviously, we are learning from them. Today, there are many Conservatives using these provisions online. As we have a vote later on today, there will be many Conservatives who are using that application. All members have, in some form or another, used these provisions and continue to use them today.
It is clear that within all caucuses there is a variety of opinions about what does or does not work about this. That is why we should use this extraordinary day. This is a day when Parliament normally does not sit. Normally, we would be home in our constituencies. We are here longer than we usually are so that we can adjudicate this and give ourselves a year, and so that this impassioned debate on both sides can appropriately take place at PROC, in terms of whether we use these provisions outside of the pandemic circumstance.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:11 [p.7218]
Madam Speaker, perhaps the member could ask that question of members of his own caucus who are participating virtually today and will be voting virtually today. He could ask that question of members in his own caucus: why they are using it and why they find it useful. Perhaps he could level those criticisms at his caucus—
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:11 [p.7218]
Madam Speaker, I would reiterate that I understand that passions are very high on this on both sides. We all care about representing our constituents. We all care about this place. We all have a deep love of democracy that brings us to this place and has us make great sacrifices in the name of serving our constituents. Some believe very passionately, as the member opposite does, that they do not want to see this to continue. I certainly do not want the pandemic to continue, and we are certainly in it, but this gives us the stability over the next year to remain flexible and for members to use these provisions or not, as they wish. It also allows a parliamentary committee to look at this hereafter.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:13 [p.7218]
Madam Speaker, that is rather odd because the calendar was set a year ago.
At the time, the Bloc Québécois chose to sit today. It is not an extra day and it is not at all a surprise. If it is a problem today, on June 23, why was it not a problem for the Bloc Québécois when the calendar was decided? That seems odd to me.
The Bloc Québécois is upset that the House is sitting when it is supposed to.
The House is supposed to sit, folks.
That seems odd to me. I do not understand that argument at all.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2022-06-23 11:15 [p.7219]
Madam Speaker, the member opposite makes an excellent point. There are many members of Parliament who have different statuses of health. I spent over three years as a former whip, and there are a couple of things one learns. The first is how hard it is to be a human being. There are so many stories we do not hear about what others are going through, and I have tremendous sympathy for all members of Parliament and the sacrifices they make. Second, there has to be an opportunity for those who are ill in a pandemic, or have other illnesses or are immunocompromised, to have the circumstances to continue to represent their constituents. The hon. member is absolutely correct.
I will make a last point on this question. I see a child in the chamber, which I love. Not long ago, when I was elected in 2004, that would have been considered abhorrent. Having a child in the chamber would have been considered disrespectful to this place. Members would have talked in the lobby about how disgusting and disrespectful it was to have a child in the House. I heard that. People were saying they would never allow that, and that somebody talking about it is disrespectful to the place and destroys it.
Our institutions evolve as our compassion and understanding for one another evolve, and that is what this is about.
Results: 1 - 15 of 257 | Page: 1 of 18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data