Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, as much as it was to speak virtually from my home. I appreciate both opportunities, because it is such a privilege to add thoughts to important public debates.
Today we have yet another very important public debate. I suspect a number of Canadians are tuning in and looking for leadership coming from the House of Commons. I want to spend a bit of time on that, but because this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address the House, I would like to give a very special thanks to the residents of Winnipeg North. This is my fifth time back as a member of Parliament, but a certain part of Winnipeg North has elected me as a parliamentarian 10 times: first in the Manitoba legislature, and now here in Ottawa. I genuinely appreciate and value the support of the community and commit to work the hardest I can to serve them every day.
When I think of the issues before us, the potatoes in Prince Edward Island come to my mind right away, as do the drought in the Prairies, health care for the residents and seniors of Winnipeg North and the floods taking place in B.C. There are so many issues. I want to ensure that all members have the opportunity to participate in the debates we are going to have on the issues that are critically important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what this motion is all about. I agree with the NDP House leader that it would have been nice if this motion had passed unanimously on day one. That is the way it should have been. I truly believe that.
I listened to the Conservatives and their cozy cousins from the Bloc saying they do not want a hybrid system. I am concerned that they do not really see the true value of it. I hope to talk about the importance of leadership and why members should give consideration to how they will vote on this motion. I believe there is a great deal of room for support of this motion.
Let us not forget why we are at this point, as the opposition House leader referred to in his remarks on the motion. Not that long ago, 18 months or so ago, Canada found itself facing a worldwide pandemic. It was so encouraging to see parliamentarians from all sides of the House come together. The former government House leader knows that full well. We saw the merit in closing down the House of Commons. He worked with the opposition members to ensure that it was a priority. For those who were not here back then, we literally closed the House of Commons. That was the consensus from all political entities inside the chamber.
However, there was a consensus that we would not let a pandemic prevent us from fulfilling something that Canadians hold dear to their hearts, which is our democracy and freedom. The Parliament of Canada is so valuable that we had to make sure it was able to continue on. It was important to the Prime Minister, to cabinet and to the leader of the official opposition. I believe every member of the House recognized that back then.
There was a much higher sense of co-operation because people realized that Canadians were dying, Canadians were getting sick and the pandemic was hitting us hard. We all as parliamentarians, not as partisan parliamentarians, but as parliamentarians, had to take action to protect the interests of our nation. One of those actions is what we are talking about today. Even though some downplay the significance, I ask members to remember the important leadership role we all play here in Canada and the expectations Canadians have of each and every one of us.
Hopefully the worst of the pandemic is behind us. I believe it is, but there are still waves out there. There is no reason I have heard that could not be negotiated to enable us to continue on with a hybrid system. I have read the news, followed the media and I have listened to the stories and arguments being presented by some members from the opposition parties.
I would suggest that we revisit the attitudes we had 18 months ago. I know I felt good when I was able to go back to my community and say that we were working collectively not only in the House of Commons, but also with stakeholders, science and health experts, provinces, territories and indigenous communities in order to take on the pandemic.
However, our democracy, our Parliament and the issue of accountability are so important that we had to come up with a mechanism that would enable us to continue our democracy, and we did that with the hybrid system. This system enabled everyone the opportunity to participate in debate, in votes, at committees and with interjections, whether they were matters of privileges, points of order, members' statements or in question period. It enabled us to continue on. There was even the opportunity for the former House leader to ensure there was a mixture of ministers answering on the floor and virtually. I remember that well. It was a process that worked, and it was very effective.
We are asking opposition members to recognize the value of a hybrid system. To say that there is no value to it, or that we do not need it today, goes against the type of leadership Canadians are looking for. Yesterday Manitoba had its throne speech, like Ottawa did. Personally I thought ours was better, but that is a side point.
I called my daughter, as she is an MLA, and asked her how her day went. She said she does not get to go into the chamber until next week. I asked if they were still on the hybrid system, and she said they were. She will be in the chamber next week, but they still have a hybrid system.
That is a Progressive Conservative government in the province of Manitoba saying that there is a need. Heather Stefanson, the newly elected premier, is right because people are watching. People understand the seriousness of the pandemic. We understand it has changed all of our lives in a significant way, but at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is not far off from that hybrid system.
Yes, there are some differences and some unique aspects of ours compared to Manitoba's, but the bottom line is that it appears that all the parties recognize the need to continue with it. I believe that it is not too late for members opposite here to recognize the value of it.
We do not have to think very hard on this because we all know the member for Beauce. He is not going to be able to vote on the motion we are debating right now. He was not even allowed to vote for the Speaker. Although, it might have been a bit of a challenge to get the hybrid system passed before we had the Speaker in place, but the point is that the member for Beauce cannot participate. If there were some sort of significant tragedy in his riding or something wonderful that he wanted to report on, he is not allowed in the chamber to do so. It is not possible for him to participate because of COVID and the pandemic.
The opposition House leader made reference to the fact that tomorrow he is going for his second test because he is following the rules, which is the way to go, but I trust it is because of the member for Beauce. There are a number of members in the Conservative caucus who, because of their proximity to the member for Beauce, had to get some testing done. I do not know about other members, but I believe that the opposition House leader, if he tests positive tomorrow, should be able to continue here, and he would be able to do that with a hybrid system.
I would argue that to believe that none of our colleagues, out of 338 of us, will not have COVID over the next number of months might be considered as being irresponsible. In Manitoba, there were two MLAs infected with COVID, and I believe both had been fully vaccinated. One is the leader of the New Democratic Party and another was just discovered recently. Maybe that is one of the reasons they factored in the benefits of having the hybrid system.
Why is it that some members would want to prevent other members from being able to participate in these debates? This is what I do not understand. That is what my colleagues in the Liberal caucus do not understand. This is not some way of escaping accountability. This is all about ensuring that members have the ability to hold the government to account. Whether it is one member or multiple members who are unable to be here for whatever reason, they would still be able to perform their responsibilities.
When we talk about accountability and transparency, yesterday and earlier today someone from across the floor heckled something to the effect that the Liberals have one member who is not vaccinated. Well, that is news to me. To my understanding, every member of the Liberal caucus is fully vaccinated. If those members do not believe that to be the case, please let me know which member it is, because I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus is fully vaccinated. I also understand that members of the Bloc and members of the New Democrats are fully vaccinated.
Now, I would suggest that there is an issue of transparency. Do Canadians have the right to know which members or how many members of the Conservative caucus are not vaccinated? The government House leader made reference to some statistics regarding the likelihood of someone getting a medical exemption, which is one in 100,000. We honestly do not know if there are 20 Conservatives or two Conservatives. We just know that there are some. We do not know the actual number. The likelihood is one out of 100,000 and there are only 119 Conservative members of Parliament. Statistically, what could that number be? That is hard for us.
One of my colleagues came up to me yesterday and he was genuinely concerned about his health. His primary concern was that some members are not fully vaccinated. I indicated that he should share his concerns with the government House leader. There are members in this House who are genuinely concerned for themselves, let alone having concerns about the people who operate this wonderful institution.
There are many people who make this Parliament work, whether it is security where we first walk in, or the people who make us our hamburger, fries and much more at the cafeteria. There are the translators, the clerks and the people who work on Hansard and have to listen to the speeches. There are so many people. At the end of the day we need to be thinking about the health and safety of all the people who are inside this building.
I would suggest that we, as parliamentarians at a national level, have an important leadership role to play. I know this has affected all of us and how we represent our constituents. Two years ago I did not even know that Zoom existed. Nowadays, I spend a lot of time on Zoom. I used to go to the local restaurant every Saturday for four hours. That is why I would be flying back to Winnipeg every weekend from Ottawa. It was to meet with constituents.
Many of the ways we serve our constituents have changed. With those changes we have to do some things differently. That is one of the reasons I now have Zoom town hall meetings. It is another way I can meet with constituents. Until it is safe, I will not return to the weekly meetings, which I had been doing for 30 years. I will wait until it is safe. In the interim, I am going to have my virtual town hall meetings. I had one just the other day.
Along with those changes, we need to recognize that our role is about more than just serving our constituents in our ridings. It is our role as parliamentarians to participate in votes and a spectrum of other things, but they do not physically have to be done here. A number of years back I asked the then clerk if there was any chance I could be sworn in as a member of Parliament in my own city of Winnipeg. He said that we could not do that. This time I was able to do that. I thought it was a wonderful thing to be sworn in as a member of Parliament there. Things have changed. We need to accommodate that.
I ask all members of the House to go back to the day when there was that high sense of co-operation and a recognition that in Parliament we need to work together to make sure that members of Parliament have the opportunity to be fully engaged. This will not be for forever. We are only talking about having this until June. One of the ways we can ensure that the member for Beauce and other members going forward will be able to fully participate is by passing this motion.