Debates of Nov. 24th, 2021

Hybrid Sittings of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his excellent question.

Indeed, this is the first time in the history of Canada and the history of Parliament that we have faced a situation like this one. The pandemic has caused major upheaval, not only in the House of Commons, but across the country and around the world.

It is essential that we remain flexible in this situation and that we adopt a system that works well in a health crisis. We need to maintain such measures, as well as a hybrid system.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to see you here in the Speaker's chair and to be together again in a normal House. That is what Canadians want to see.

On Monday, all 338 members were present here in the House of Commons. On Tuesday, all of the members were in the House of Commons. Today, all of the members are in the House of Commons. We had our first question period with the Prime Minister and his members, the members of the official opposition party, the second opposition party and the third opposition party, and the independent members. We had a so-called normal day in a normal Parliament.

As long as this motion is not adopted, Parliament will run normally. That is why we seriously believe that this is not the right motion. On Monday, Tuesday, today and most probably tomorrow and later on, we proved that Parliament works in its usual form, and that is what we want.

First off, this is the sixth time in this Parliament that I have had the privilege of standing in the House. I would like to sincerely thank the people who made it possible for me to enjoy the privilege of once again being here today among my colleagues in the House as the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This is the third time that the people in my community have put their trust in me to represent them in the House of Commons. It was the sixth time that I had the pleasure and the honour of being elected, either to the National Assembly or to the House of Commons. Being elected six times in 13 years is an honour and an extraordinary tribute that we must accept with all due humility.

Basic math tells us six elections in a little less than 13 years comes out to one election every 25 months. I admit that I am becoming pretty experienced. I can think of another adjective, but for now I will use the term “experienced”. I would like to thank the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent from the bottom of my heart for placing their trust in me again. I would like to congratulate all those who ran in every riding in Canada, especially my worthy opponents in Louis-Saint-Laurent, because the campaign lived up to all Canadians' expectations. I would like to thank them and congratulate them.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge my leader, the hon. member for Durham and leader of the official opposition, for his renewed trust in appointing me to the very important role of House leader, which comes with significant responsibility. I very humbly accepted his offer to be House leader of the official opposition for the second time. I was pleased to serve with the leader in this position last year. Since I have been again confirmed, I would again like to thank the hon. member for Durham and leader of the official opposition.

I would also like to give a shout out to my counterparts across the aisle, because it is all of us, all the House leaders, who ensure the smooth operation of Parliament with the support and collaboration of our members. I would like to acknowledge my ministerial counterpart, whom I obviously knew by reputation. I have been here for six years, so I have seen him proudly defend his government, as we all, of course, proudly defend our political positions. I know that he was somewhat embarrassed earlier to speak in French, saying that he appreciated the people listening to him. I can assure him of one thing: his French is impeccable and inspiring. I offer my sincere congratulations. I may have less flattering things to say about him later on, but I recognize that the hon. member, who has several years’ experience, will be a tough opponent. I am sure of it, but so much the better. That is the beauty of democracy.

I would also like to give a shout out to his predecessor, the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, with whom I have had my fair share of discussions in the context of political debates, television debates and my first campaign in 2015, but with whom I had a good and honest working relationship when he was House leader. On behalf of all Canadians and this country, I wish him the best in the new ministerial responsibilities entrusted to him by the hon. member for his neighbouring riding of Papineau, the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would like to acknowledge my old colleague from the National Assembly, the House leader of the second opposition party, the Bloc Québécois. I apologize if I had difficulty identifying the individual in question, but I would like to say hello to my colleague, with whom we have always had a good working relationship that has benefited all of Canada and Quebec. That is how it should be. We have work to do and we do it properly.

I would also like to applaud my NDP counterpart, whose French is more than inspiring; it is exemplary. It is also good evidence that people can indeed learn a second language. I do not mean a true “second” language, because each official language is as important as the other. I am referring to the second language he learned later in life. I just wanted to point out that the House leader of the NDP has shown on numerous occasions just how good his French is.

We often agree to disagree. It is true that, on the political spectrum, we in the Conservative party are very different from NDP members, but that is as it should be. That is the beauty of the parliamentary dynamic that we must all fight to preserve here in the House.

Why are we assembled here, and why are we debating the motion?

In the last two years, our country and those around the world have had to address the tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic. Let me remind members that about 20 months ago, when the first signs of the COVID pandemic arose around the world, we were very cautious. Everybody was looking at it. We were not quite sure how to address it in March when everything happened in our country.

I want to pay my respect to all civil servants who worked tirelessly, many times 24 hours a day, to ensure we could have a hybrid Parliament. Why? Because at that time, it was a real tragedy. There was a pandemic in Canada, from coast to coast, and all around the world. Yes, in a very excessive situation, we needed real, true solutions.

That is why all the parties worked shoulder to shoulder and did their part. We closed ranks to create this hybrid parliament. If I may, I would like to salute and thank, as I did a bit earlier, the House of Commons staff, whose extraordinary work over a few days, or perhaps a few weeks, helped us create a virtual parliament and allowed Canada’s parliamentary democracy to carry on despite the serious crisis.

I would also like to thank the individual—whom unfortunately I cannot name—who used to hold this position in our caucus. I can say that I humbly agreed to succeed her and am very proud to do so. She and others worked very hard to respond to the pandemic and meet health requirements by creating a virtual parliament.

Two years ago, we saw everyone working together. However, I must say that, about 11 months ago, when Parliament resumed in January, the government unfortunately decided to politicize the House of Commons and teach everyone a lesson.

I want to be very honest and sincere. We still have not seen more than one government member in the House. Here I would like to sincerely commend the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, whose perpetual presence in this chamber has ensured government authority in the House. I asked him how it was that he was the only one here, but I will let him answer the question himself because I would not want to reveal any of his secrets—I am saying this with a smile on my face.

I want to pay my respects to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, who served as the only soldier of the Liberal government in the House of Commons. It is a personal achievement, but also a shameful achievement of the government. Why? Yes, we saw one member attend in the House on a daily basis, but all the others spent their time in their ridings, in their houses and also in their offices, which were not far from the House.

That is why I want to strongly condemn the attitude of the government party in the first six months of 2021.

We saw members and ministers perform their duties while strictly following the rules imposed on them by the Prime Minister and their party, namely staying at home, not crossing any borders and working from home, their department office or their constituency office. They were not to budge from there, period.

I want to point out that, indeed, ministers have acted according to these rules imposed by their own party. I want to point out, among others, the member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount who headed two very important departments during that period: the Department of Transport and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not remember seeing the member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount anywhere but in his house. I say that with a smile because we recognized the pictures behind him of his children. For several days there was even a ladder leaning on the wall behind him. A little more and I would text him to ask if he would put the ladder away at some point. I say this with a smile because we have all experienced similar situations. He respected the rules. Not all parliamentarians have respected the rules they have imposed on themselves.

Among others, I must unfortunately point out, the one whose supreme duty is to ensure law and order in this country, that is, the Minister of Justice, has done as he pleased. The Minister of Justice is the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, in Quebec. We saw him here in the House, often in his ministerial office, which is in Ontario. That means that the minister was crossing the border while many members and ministers, including my colleague at the time, the member for Honoré‑Mercier—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I regret my first time to rise in the House is on a point of order. I do not believe it is appropriate or in order to talk about the presence of a member in the House, whether it is in the past or currently. He is a very experienced member and would know that. He has continuously been referring to the fact members were not physically in the House.

As we know by the rules that were set out during the last Parliament, whether one was virtual or physically in the House, one was considered to be present. The member is completely disregarding that rule.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the intervention by the member.

I will remind the hon. member, who has a lot of experience, that no one should say who is or was in the House or who is not or was not here. I will leave it at that.

The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent may continue.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I missed the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Now, I am not sure I miss him that much anymore.

I understand that we are treading on thin ice here with this subject. I do have grey hair and experience, and I like that, but the reality is that the intervention by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands illustrates in all its ugliness the reality of what this party has done in the first six months of 2021. That is why we are having this debate today. That is also why I will beat around the bush a little bit to say exactly what I said earlier.

The extension of the House is indeed the hybrid Parliament, regardless of where the person is, but we still have physical realities. If a minister happens to be exactly 1,009 feet from the House of Commons because he or she is in a ministerial office, that is indeed an extension of the House. I recognize that.

However, I also acknowledge that, physically speaking, he is barely 1,000 feet from his seat here in the House. He could very well have come, especially since he comes across many people on his way to the office and back to the car, and then he crosses the border only to cross it again in the morning.

That is the exact opposite of what those who are lecturing us were hoping to achieve, but that is what was going on. Worse still, press conferences were held here in the basement of the House of Commons. They came to the building to give press conferences, but refused to come here to the House, to their parliamentary office, where their job is to answer questions.

That is why we are very suspicious of the government when it says that its members and ministers will be there to answer questions. Unfortunately, what we saw was a party that said one thing and did the opposite, and we are very suspicious of the government's approach and its desire to return to a hybrid Parliament. We have shown without a shadow of a doubt in the past three days that regular parliamentary sessions can be held properly and that things work in a regular Parliament.

What can we say about the election?

I heard my counterpart mention earlier how important it was to protect people's health and especially that of those who fly across the country.

Let us consider the facts. The Prime Minister voted in favour of a motion not to hold an election during the pandemic. One Wednesday in August, just a few short months ago, Dr. Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, declared that Canada was officially entering the fourth wave of the pandemic. The following Sunday, the Prime Minister went to Rideau Hall to dissolve Parliament and trigger an election. Despite the fact that they did this in the middle of the fourth wave of the pandemic, they have the gall to lecture us today.

What happened during the election campaign?

All of the parties ran hybrid campaigns. Twice a week, our leader held hybrid gatherings. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP did the same, and I assume the same is true of the Green Party. That is not what the Liberals did, however. On the contrary, the Prime Minister flew across the country in his plane. In a mere 50 hours, he flew across the country twice. He left Toronto for Vancouver, then flew to the Atlantic provinces and back to British Columbia.

The Prime Minister did all this is barely 50 hours. Today, the Liberals are lecturing us. They are telling us to be careful, not to fly. They mentioned that people who fly will cross the country, but that is exactly what they did for an entire month in the middle of a pandemic.

Need I remind the House that there was a rally of Liberal Party supporters in Hamilton? Hamilton is a beautiful city, by the way, and the birthplace of Tim Hortons restaurants. How many supporters were in the room again?

There were 400. I do not have a problem with partisan rallies, but I certainly have a big problem with being lectured by people who flout public health rules and then act holier-than-thou and tell us to follow the rules. The government party did not do what they were supposed to during the election campaign when it came to health rules.

Earlier I greeted my opponents in Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. I would also like to greet my Liberal opponent in my riding, although I do want to point out that when the Prime Minister came to the Quebec City area to make announcements and play politics, which is perfectly legitimate during an election campaign—he was quite welcome in Quebec City, as everyone is—my Liberal opponent had his picture taken with his leader. This happens all the time. I did not get out a ruler to measure how far apart they were, but they were pretty close. Neither of them wore a mask. However, the rules state that when people are close together, one or both must wear a mask. Seeing people say one thing and do the opposite sometimes makes the public cynical about politics.

At the beginning of 2021, the government sought to portray itself as a paragon of virtue when it said that it would keep the number of individuals in the House to the bare minimum and that people would work from home, in the spirit of extending the House of Commons. We recognize that.

However, some senior ministers did the opposite. They attended from their ministerial suite instead of being here in the House. I recognize that their offices are an extension of the House of Commons, but let us also recognize that they were not physically present in the chamber. That goes against the principle of the thing, particularly because, in some cases, some ministers, like the Minister of Justice, barely set foot in the chamber. They crossed plenty of borders and visited plenty of government offices and buildings and could very well have come to the House. What is worse, they held meetings in the basement of the House of Commons, but they did not want to come here, 10 feet up, to answer questions. That is why we want to hold sittings in person.

This government has been disappointing us for over a year, whether it was during the early months of 2021 or during the election campaign. After the election, we had to wait 63 days before we were able to come back here. Two whole months went by when, in the end, the House looks pretty much the same as it did before. The election campaign cost over $600 million and the only thing that came out of it was a cabinet shuffle. For $600 million, it is likely the most costly cabinet shuffle in the history of Canada. That is typical of this government.

I found it interesting to hear what my Liberal counterpart said earlier.

They say that we have to use the precious time we have in the House of Commons correctly and that we should adopt this on unanimous consent. That is fine. I do understand that sometimes we can agree, obviously, on some issues, but we can also disagree on those issues. Democracy is all about that.

I think members will recognize that two parties are working hand in hand on this motion and another two parties are not supportive of the motion. Democracy is all about that. We shall preserve that democracy. We shall preserve the fact that we can say that we agree to disagree. That is part of the debate. This is why we are here. This is why our people voted for us. This is why we are here as representatives of the people in our ridings, and we shall always keep in mind that we are here for Canadians and for Canada.

If we have debate, we have to keep it that way. We have to be respectful of those who do not share our point of view and address some aspect of that with good, frank, strong arguments instead of saying something bad about the opponent.

I said earlier that I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, but I was extremely disappointed in what he said during his scrum on Monday.

I have no problem with an opponent attacking us. There are 1,000 right ways to attack an adversary. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons went about it the wrong way. That happens to us all. However, if we are waging political battle, let us keep it in the political arena and not fight that battle at the expense of other people.

The government House leader cast aspersions not only on the work of the Conservatives and anyone who is against him, but also on the work of the Sergeant-at-Arms. He explicitly cast doubt on the integrity of the Sergeant-at Arms's judgment when the latter decreed that members could be granted exemptions in certain cases.

Neither the Liberal Party, nor the Conservative Party, nor the Bloc, nor the NDP nor the Green Party has the right to grant exemptions. Exemptions are granted and recognized by the House of Commons following consultation with medical experts. I know what I am talking about, and I will talk about what happened with us shortly.

However, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said during a press conference that he thought it was very curious that, mathematically speaking, so many people got exemptions. It is sad, because he was not actually attacking the Conservatives. He was attacking the Sergeant‑at‑Arms, whose sacred duty is to abide by the rules established by the House of Commons.

Let us talk about those rules. At first, there was no issue with exemptions. Now that a few Conservatives have an exemption, that no longer works. Need I remind colleagues that someone in the Liberal government had an exemption at one point? The Prime Minister was proud to say that the person had finally seen the light and no longer had an exemption. That is his right. I do not have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with people questioning exemptions now, when they themselves have had them in their party. At the risk of repeating myself, a person who is two-faced has twice as many cheeks to slap. That is what we are seeing right now. That is why we need to avoid any partisan debate when it comes to public health and people's health.

Unfortunately, those people chose to engage in partisan politics, raking the Sergeant-at-Arms over the coals instead of acting with honour and dignity. I want to make a point of saying so and strongly condemning them for this attitude. Yesterday, we raised a question of privilege regarding the management of the Board of Internal Economy and the behaviour of the Clerk of the House of Commons, which is part of the public debate, as we saw in a CBC news report. I am still waiting for the French version of that report. I have not found it. Who knows if one will ever be found. If anyone finds it, please send it to me, but it seems that it was not translated. For the record, the CBC is not a rag. The report included evidence, witness accounts, documents and all that. I will not get into the details, but the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons defended an employee of the House tooth and nail. That is fine, but 24 hours earlier he was raking the Sergeant-at-Arms over the coals. They say one thing and do another when it suits them. It is a shame to see the attitude of the current government House leader. I must say that I have a great deal of respect for him, but politicizing public health in this case is quite sad.

Earlier, he was talking about how rules must be followed, and that is what we are doing. The Conservatives have always followed the rules established and managed by the House of Commons, not by political parties. That is why we are very proud to say that all of our members are double-vaccinated or obtained the exemption provided by the House of Commons, which consulted experts and not a political party. All of the measures that were implemented have been followed. I want to point out that our colleague, the member for Beauce, had COVID-19, even though he was double-vaccinated. No one is immune. Double vaccination is the best way, in combination with other methods, to significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19, but no one is immune.

In Quebec City, a member of the official opposition at the Quebec National Assembly got COVID-19, even though he was double-vaccinated. The Montreal Canadiens' general manager was double-vaccinated but still got COVID-19. No one is fully immune.

We are in favour of vaccination and double vaccination. Let us not forget the many debates in this House when we fought tooth and nail for access to vaccines. We still think they are important. Members will recall that we asked dozens of questions after we noticed that this government had put all its eggs in the same basket, that of CanSino Biologics, which ended up dropping Canada in July. Unfortunately, this resulted in a delay that had serious consequences for Canada, which eventually pursued other manufacturers.

It was around this time a year ago that we were asking dozens of questions about the importance of having access to vaccines, and we should remember what happened. After Canada received tens of thousands of doses of vaccine, the government made a big show of it, saying that vaccines were here for Canadians right before Christmas and that everything was hunky-dory.

I even remember a commentator in La Presse saying how mean we were being, because everything was fine and everything was going great. He even mocked us by saying that the only question the Conservatives did not ask was what colour the vaccine delivery person's hat was.

Unfortunately, what happened in January and February? We went through a 10-day void. For 10 days, Canada did not receive a single dose of vaccine. This made the third wave worse. It was much more severe in Canada than anywhere else because of that 10-day gap in January and February. Funnily enough, nobody was talking about the colour of the hat anymore, like we had read in La Presse.

We did our job and urged everyone to get fully vaccinated. Personally, I got both my shots, and each time, I put my smiling face on Twitter, Facebook and social media, as did many of my colleagues, to encourage people to get vaccinated. I received a few comments that were rather critical, to put it nicely. It was not pleasant to read those comments, but it was the right thing to do and the right thing to say.

We always follow the rules. That is why tomorrow, at eight o'clock, I will be getting a second test to find out whether I have COVID-19. One of our colleagues had COVID at a time when we were in close proximity to him, so everyone who was around him during the period defined by the public health rules had to get a first test. I will be getting my second test tomorrow, as will many of my colleagues.

We are not reinventing the wheel. All we are doing is following the rules. Just a few hours ago, I was in contact with a nurse who works for the House of Commons, not for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, but for the House of Commons. That is how it should be. We trust the House of Commons to act in accordance with the rules that have been set out. That is why we need to be very careful when we say that.

I would like to remind the House of the mathematical equation that my counterpart mentioned. According to science, only one in 100,000 people can get an exemption. In his opinion, it does not make sense for the Conservatives to have so many exemptions. He said that it does not fit with the mathematical equation because the odds for the Conservatives are one in 40, or something like that.

How many Liberals have been vaccinated? I ask because for months, there was one person on their side who had an exemption. I do not have a problem with that, but they seem to have a problem with people who have exemptions. Did they have a problem when their member had an exemption? No, but they do have a problem when it comes to Conservatives who have an exemption. The problem lies in politicizing a public health issue for partisan purposes.

Have we heard any Conservative members denounce, question or voice any suspicions about a Liberal with an exemption? No. Have we heard anyone from the Bloc Québécois rant and rave because someone from the Liberal Party had an exemption? No. Have we had someone from the NDP stand up and say that it did not make sense that someone from the Liberal Party had an exemption? No. Even the Green Party did not do that.

Why are the Liberals acting holier-than-thou today because Conservative members were given exemptions by the House of Commons, which consulted its experts? They were okay with it when there was only one, but not anymore. How sad. This is not the way to tackle the issue of COVID‑19 and find common ground.

I just want to be clear, because it is very important for us to stay focused on why we are here. We have been elected by our people. We have been sitting here in this House, on Monday, Tuesday, today and we will be here tomorrow too, if this motion is not adopted, with a normally sitting House, with a full crowd in the House. Just a few hours ago, we saw a very interesting, feisty question period with a full crowd here in the House. That was quite good.

That is what politics is all about. That is what democracy is all about. That is what parliamentary life is all about. It is about being here in this House, fighting for our principles, asking the tough questions and listening to the answers. That is what politics is all about.

Now the Liberals want to see us get back to a virtual Parliament. They want to ask what we would do if we continue and there is a huge crisis. If there is a huge crisis, we would do exactly the same thing we did two years ago. We would address it correctly.

This is not the case now, and we have proven that conscientiously and in a very good manner over the last three days. Yes, we can have a full House sitting and achieve great things.

We have to hold the government to account. We saw, at the beginning of 2021, that so many fewer members were here in the House. Yes they were technically in the House because we had a virtual Parliament, we know that, even if they were in their offices a few yards away from the House of Commons instead of being in the House.

This is why we need better than that.

We have proven that we are capable of having a full House sitting, with vigorous debates, as we did earlier in question period. Members aimed questions directly at the government, asking what the government is up to. The Prime Minister responded. That is democracy. We must preserve that, and that is why we oppose the motion.

I would like to table the following amendment:

That the motion be amended as follows:

(a) in subparagraph (s)(i) by replacing the words “a day” with the words “two days”, by adding after the words “not exceeding four hours” the following: “each day”, and by adding after the words “consideration of the business” the following: “on the second appointed day”; and

(b) in subparagraph (s)(iii) by deleting all the words after “adding the following” and substituting the following “Notices to oppose an item and respecting a motion to restore or reinstate any item in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, shall be laid on the table, or filed with the clerk, within four hours after the completion of consideration of said supplementary estimates in committee of the whole and be printed in the Notice Paper of that day, provided that no more than five opposed items shall be selected by the Speaker and that the remaining notices of opposed items in the said supplementary estimates, if any, shall be deemed withdrawn.”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

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

Madam Speaker, the opposition House leader's comments were very kind and I enjoyed our time together as well. He kept talking about the fact that everything is back to normal. He talked about Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and everything being back to normal, but indeed everything is not back to normal.

The member for Beauce cannot be here as a result of testing positive. As a matter of fact, the member himself just admitted he is continually getting retested to make sure he has not contracted COVID-19, and if he does, presumably he will not be able to come back in this House.

Does the member not recognize that by bringing in a hybrid Parliament he, if that was to happen, and the member for Beauce would be able to continue to participate in this House and the proceedings and continue to represent their constituents? So far, the member for Beauce has not been able to do so. He has not been able to help elect a Speaker and has not been able to contribute to a reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I wonder if this member would not like that opportunity, should he test positive.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague we are following his rules. I think the governing party has some problems when people are following the rules. That is exactly what we are doing. Yes, if there is some problem, we will address it, as we are doing correctly. This is why the sergent d’armes decided and identified those who can be in the House and those who cannot. We are following the rules established by the House of Commons and applied by the House of Commons, not by partisanship of some people. We saw on Monday great things in the House of Commons, but bad things just a few feet away during the press conference, when my counterpart put in jeopardy the judgment of the sergent d’armes. We have full confidence in the sergent d’armes and those he decides can be in the House and who cannot be in the House.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Quebec riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent for his remarks. This is my first intervention in the House in this new Parliament, the 44th Parliament, so I would of course like to take a moment to thank my Shefford constituents for giving me a second vote of confidence. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent knows the town of Granby well, and we talk about it often. I am deeply grateful to them for giving me a second term.

At this point in time, some members are worried about returning to the House, and that is because of ambiguity around the vaccination status of certain members and around exemptions specifically. The National Assembly has led the way by adopting vaccine passports, and Quebec members have decided to get vaccinated in order to send a strong message.

What does he have to say about his party's ambiguous stance during the campaign on its candidates' vaccination status? We still do not know exactly how many Conservative members have received medical exemptions. Is that ambiguity not the reason some members are worried, and is it not the reason the debate over in-person versus hybrid sittings has resurfaced? If everyone were vaccinated at this point, there would not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I have to make time for other questions and comments.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford, and I congratulate her on her re-election. It is unfortunate, and it is not that I do not like her, but there were Conservative candidates in every riding, and we would have liked all of our candidates to win. That said, I congratulate her on her re-election. While I do not have the good fortune and privilege of being born in Granby, in the riding of Shefford, I do have a special connection with that city. We may have the opportunity to talk about that one of these days. However, that is not what we are talking about right now.

First of all, the member just said that if everyone were vaccinated, we would not be having this debate. I am not so sure about that. We would first have to ask them if they think that that is right. We heard the government House leader say in his remarks and speech that there was a risk because we were entering a building with a lot of people in it. Even if all the members are vaccinated, this does not mean that it is 100% safe. We have seen fully vaccinated individuals still get COVID-19. This happens in all kinds of settings.

I would remind my colleague that rules do apply. We are following the rules to the letter. One of the rules is that when it comes to any medical issues, privacy must be respected.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a really tough conversation, because I really respect my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I am concerned about people coming to work with COVID or someone who might have symptoms of COVID being tempted to come to work, when they should be in quarantine and be staying at home, because they feel like their privilege will be violated and they will not have a chance to bring forward the concerns of the people who just elected them.

What we are proposing here is to have the hybrid Parliament. People are expected to show up for work, but perhaps they feel like they are showing symptoms or that they are immune-compromised. There are those who have young babies. It is so nice to see young babies here in Parliament. We talk about a family-friendly Parliament, and finally we have people who are running for election who are pregnant or having babies and feel comfortable about bringing them in here, but they cannot get vaccinated. To ensure they have a voice in this Parliament, and that their privilege is not going to be restricted, is really critical.

The other thing is that we have staff working here. It is our duty not just to protect each other, but to protect the staff. We have young pages. Many of them are afraid, right now, to come to work, because they are worried someone is going to be tempted to show up here with symptoms.

Does my colleague not believe that we should create a safe workplace here and that we should do everything we can to ensure that everybody's privilege is intact and that they have an opportunity to have their voice in a fourth wave of a COVID crisis? This crisis is not over.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his re-election. I believe this is his third or fourth term, and I congratulate him.

The member raised the fact that there were some people in the House, some young mothers, who had their babies with them. All my respect to my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake who has been elected for the first time to the House of Commons. We are very pleased to welcome her. She has a great baby, and I wish her the best in the time to come.

As for the substance of what the member said, I thought it was interesting when he said that they expected everyone to be in the House. That is the problem.

The House shut down in June, before the Prime Minister decided, out of his own personal vanity, to call an election. This means we lost between 63 and 65 days of parliamentary work. Had it not been for the election that cost $110 million for a cabinet shuffle, we would have been able to sit as early as September. However, because of the Prime Minister's decision, which cost taxpayers $100 million, that did not happen.

He said that they expected to see all members on site. The problem is that from January to June, this government did not show up here in the House, and that is quite dishonourable. Perhaps things could have been different, but they demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they have contempt for parliamentary work, and this has shaken our confidence in terms of what we can expect going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things we dealt with at PROC, when we dealt with a virtual Parliament, was the prospect of exactly what is happening here, and that is the Liberal Party colluding with the NDP to expand the hybrid Parliament beyond what is normal. Some of the reasons that were given was the potential in those swing ridings for electioneering to occur.

Would my colleague comment on that part of it when we should be in Ottawa in the seat of our democracy?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. He has been re-elected for the third time thanks to the support of his constituents. He deserves that support.

My colleague raised a very serious issue. This is why we are taking this stand today. This is why we want to see a full House sitting. This is why we want to see all cabinet ministers in the House of Commons answering questions. This is what we are doing. This is what we have to do in the House of Commons, and we wish the government would understand that for once.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Hybrid Sittings of the House

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

Next, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents for putting their continued trust in me. I am very pleased and very honoured to serve them. I want to say hello to all of them. I would also like to thank the volunteers on my team who worked hard so that the Bloc Québécois could keep the riding of La Prairie. Finally, I would like to thank my leader because I likely would not have won without his help.

After I won the first time in 2012, someone told me that it was all well and good to get elected but that, when a person gets re-elected, it is as though the voters are adopting them after trying them out the first time. I am therefore very pleased to have been re-elected. I will work extremely hard so that my constituents do not regret it.

Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. What happened in March 2020 is undeniable proof of that. That is when COVID was spreading. The House immediately responded to this public health crisis in a coherent manner. When I say “in a coherent manner”, I mean that the House needs to remain in step with what is going on in the rest of society. It has to move in the same direction. It has to lead by example as well. The moment this threat was upon us, all parties joined in the effort to say that we were closing up shop for a month. The rest of the people were in almost total lockdown, that is what had to be done. All parties took responsibility.

Then we saw that society had decided to partly reopen some services, so we reopened Parliament in a hybrid format. It was the right thing to do, everyone agreed on that. Since then, things have changed. We need to adapt to change. We have to keep up with the reality of society. We cannot live in an ivory tower and say that we are going to react differently than the people are reacting. That makes no sense, because we represent them.

Along came the vaccine. The vaccine works well against existing variants. Generally speaking, it protects us from serious effects of the disease. It makes us less likely to transmit the disease. Being double-vaxxed means we can almost get back to normal. That is important, and that is why the Bloc Québécois supports double vaccination. Everyone here is double-vaxxed for sure. We have to lead by example. We have to reassure people, tell them it is important to get vaccinated, and prove it by doing it. That is the message we need to send. We are very happy about that.

The Board of Internal Economy has said—insisted, even—that everyone who comes here must be double-vaxxed, with few exceptions. That was the right thing to do.

Things have changed. We have a vaccine. Things have changed for everyone. People, ourselves included of course, are going back to restaurants. People are going back to the movies. I went on the weekend, and the place was packed.

People are going back to the Bell Centre. They would like a better team, of course, but they have to make do with what they have. I went. I was wearing a mask, and I wondered if I would take it off to holler if the Canadiens scored, but there is no need to go there because the team lost 6-0. People were masked. There were only about 12,00 people, not 18,000, and we were all masked.

There are 338 members in the House, but we are being told that this no longer works and we need to have a hybrid model and not take any risks. The thing is, it is important to return to sitting in person. It is our job and it would be a sign of returning to normal. This is how Parliament has been operating since 1867 and we have to go back to that way of doing things. This will force the government to be accountable to the House because until recently, we got the impression that they were trying to run away.

When I do good things it makes me happy. I go out and tell everyone all about it. Were they hiding because they were not doing good things? Did they lack the courage? I would not say so. I would say that they may have been embarrassed. When I look at the Liberal record, I can understand them a bit. I too might have seen the appeal of the hybrid model.

It is easier to interact with each other in the House. All the members do it. We all have files in our ridings. We meet with members by walking across the House and they are generally and even always nice. This allows us to plan for government interventions in our riding. This allows the media to be more aware of our work, and therefore better able to inform the public about what the MPs are doing in the House. It is important to get back to that.

Yes, there will be monitoring, just as public health in Canada or Quebec are constantly monitoring the situation. The movie theatres have reopened, knowing that if anything happens we might have to take a step back. We are not aliens and we can do the same thing here in the House.

The hybrid model had its share of problems as well. Some sure did like to eat treats in the basement and vote. We know that there were some problems for the interpreters, who had some serious health issues, since House resources were stretched thin. We have to respect what these people managed to do. They got the job done.

There is no question that French was used much less often in the hybrid model. The government talks about protecting French in the House. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons speaks French very well and I commend him for that. He wants to speak French, but if they want to keep on using French, they will have to acknowledge that French was used less frequently in the hybrid model. That is important to point out.

How about the other parties? I am going to speak mostly about the government side. I do not know what happened during the last session of Parliament, but at one point there were a few of them here and then, all of a sudden, there was just one person. It was not a minister; it was the member for Kingston and the Islands and he was brave. He was always there and, as much as I hate to admit it, he was tenacious and did his job. We were happy to see him, because he was the Liberal Party. There was no one else.

My colleague from Montarville, who delivered an excellent presentation, said that the worst part was that they answered questions while they were right here in Ottawa. They hid in their offices and, oddly enough, sometimes, when they found themselves in hot water, they would suddenly have technical difficulties. It was not clear and we thought it was strange. Then we would go back to the question but no one could hear the answer. Sometimes it sounded like R2-D2 talking. They loved it, because they were not in the House. If I look at their record, they must be embarrassed, but it must have suited them. When I asked if they were going to come back to the House, they reminded me of groundhogs, as though they were waiting to see their shadow before coming out of their hole. I asked if they had seen their shadow and if they would eventually come back to the House, but no, there was only one left in the House. The situation was serious and appalling. After the lockdown ended across Canada and Quebec, there was still only one Liberal MP left.

This summer, a miracle happened: The Liberals decided to call an election. That is when they came out of hiding and met with people. There were Liberal Party videos showing a lot of people close together, waving and hugging each other. Any more and they would have been breaking out the coconut punch and giving each other noogies. It made no sense. I thought that we would finally get back to the in-person format, but no. After the election, they decided to go back into hiding, because it is not easy and they are once again getting flustered. This is a bad sign.

When someone is proud of what they are doing, they face up to it and stand by their record and accomplishments. They are not embarrassed, and they look people in the eye. It would be nice if the Liberal Party started doing that.