Debates of Nov. 25th, 2021

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague across the way. She has an adorable child.

I am coming back to the idea of prevention. Quebec has 902 cases today, which is much more than it has had. Just yesterday, the Quebec government renewed the emergency mandate because it sees where we are going. This is an opportunity to have in place a plan to continue to let us participate, should we need it.

Would the member agree this is the prudent thing to do so that we do not find ourselves acting in a reactive manner?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up the fact that each community is different. There are 338 of us, and we are coming from different contexts and different communities with different case numbers. It is so vital right now that we take this step.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion. I believe that it sets out a reasonable approach to allow the House to perform all of its regular business while keeping members and all the staff who support us safe during the ongoing pandemic. It is particularly frustrating that all parties in the House were not able to find common ground on a way to adapt our proceedings, given that the last Parliament, for those of us who were not here, appeared to function extremely well.

My riding of Vancouver Granville is the heart of British Columbia's medical infrastructure, with VGH, BC Women's Hospital, BC Children's Hospital, BC Cancer and the BC CDC, and it has also been ground zero for anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. Earlier today, I spoke with a health care professional from my riding, and they had one message for members of the House: Be an example. Be an example on vaccinations, be an example for wearing masks and, most importantly, be an example on showing people that they should be able to work remotely when possible so as not to spread COVID-19.

I am a new MP, and I have so much enjoyed being here physically with my colleagues this week. However, I also know that I have an obligation to my constituents, and that is to be an example of best practices, which is what this motion seeks to achieve.

There is no doubt that at the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, changes in institutions and organizations all around the world occurred, whether they were public or private organizations. Universities went online and corporations like the one I ran were able to use technology to hire employees across Canada, not just in a single location.

Now, some have adapted well by leveraging technology to work remotely from home, but unfortunately, many others have not been able to. As members of Parliament, we are fortunate and privileged to work in a resilient institution. This resilience is not an accident. It is the result of the hard work of many generations of Canadians and many generations of parliamentarians who have evolved our rules and procedures to match the times.

This is precisely what the House did during the last Parliament in the face of an unprecedented public health crisis. MPs found creative and innovative ways to debate, transact business and make decisions using a hybrid approach. Most importantly, this allowed members to fulfill all of their duties while staying safe. For those of us not yet here, it appeared to be an example of how things could get done.

Let us take a look at what we were able to achieve in the House during the second session of the 43rd Parliament using the hybrid approach. This was from September 2020 to June 2021, when the House sat with some members in the chamber and many participating remotely. The motion we are debating today largely replicates the approach from that period.

In the second session there was a total of 124 sitting days, during which all of the House's regular categories of business were conducted. There was a total of 185 recorded divisions taken during hybrid means, and over 120 of these were done using the convenient voting app that was in place for March 2021. Today's motion is proposing to reinstate this now tried and tested app. Sixty-nine of these votes were on government bills at various stages of the legislative process, and 19 government bills received royal assent. Indeed, it was an approach like this that allowed the member for Calgary Nose Hill to participate from wherever the member happened to be.

The legislative process is one of the most complicated that we have seen in this place, given the detailed intricate work required for us to scrutinize and debate bills. However, MPs were able to do exactly this in a hybrid Parliament. The legislation that was passed is making a real impact on the lives of Canadians—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Things have been going well here tonight, but I would ask folks to keep some of their comments to themselves and allow the hon. member for Vancouver Granville to continue. I will also give him a bit of a warning to be careful.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4, which was adopted in October 2020, created three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. Bill C-9 put in place new targeted supports to help businesses through the pandemic with the emergency rent and wage subsidies. Bill C-12 charted a course for clean growth for generations to come by legislating net-zero emissions by 2050. This is essential to avoid the worst impact of climate change, some of which we have seen in British Columbia, and fully seize the economic opportunities that it presents.

There are concerns that private members' bills may not make their way through the House. The reality is that, in the second session, these were in no way impeded by the hybrid process. There were 46 recorded divisions taken on private members' bills and motions. Six received royal assent, and six of the motions were adopted. Of the private members' bills that were passed, five of the bills were introduced by Conservative members and one by a Bloc Québécois member.

These are just a few examples of bills the House passed by working together, but in a physically distanced way. A total of 28 votes took place on opposition day motions. Of the 24 motions they debated, 16 were adopted. As members are aware, House committees also met in a hybrid format during the second session of the 43rd Parliament. The motion before us today would allow this to continue in the 44th Parliament.

Standing committees also played their important accountability function in our system of responsible government by reviewing government bills and estimates and issuing reports on government policy and actions. All of these functions were carried out in a hybrid format, and would be again under the proposed motion.

There are those who argue that conducting parliamentary business using video conference is too impersonal and that the cut and thrust of good debate is lost. I understand these concerns, particularly as a new MP. However, the reality is that COVID-19 is spreading in our communities, and too many people are still being hospitalized. Case counts are not going down.

Members of Parliament must lead by example. We have the means to be flexible and safe in how we conduct our business, and I believe it behooves us to use them. Technology is not perfect, and there is nothing that replaces in-person engagement, but these are extraordinary times, and we must find ways to adapt and to reflect the realities that we face today. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would limit members' ability to participate in any parliamentary proceedings, and it would in no way infringe on their privilege.

In fact, this motion would facilitate greater participation in the face of ongoing public health restrictions. Members can imagine a scenario where a member has to isolate at home because of potential exposure to COVID-19. In a hybrid model, that member could still participate in House proceedings.

Canadians did not send us to this place to debate our needs as members of Parliament, and they certainly did not elect us to potentially contract and/or transmit COVID-19 in our home communities. They elected us to address the issues that matter most to them and their families, and the government has an agenda to do just that. I am hoping that all members in the House will work together to pass, before the winter adjournment, the crucial legislation the government has forthcoming.

While Canada has the enviable position of having recovered jobs to a level higher than that at the beginning of the pandemic, there are still sectors that are adversely affected by the pandemic and need support, and the government is bringing forward legislation to provide targeted support to the tourism and hospitality sectors and other hard-hit businesses.

Particularly during a global health crisis, it is vital that federally regulated workers have access to 10 paid sick days, so they do not have to make the difficult choice of whether they should go to work sick or not pay their bills. Frontline workers, many of whom live in Vancouver Granville, always deserve our greatest gratitude, especially during a pandemic. This is why it is so disappointing that there are those who are harassing and threatening frontline workers at their places of work. The government will legislate protections for these vital workers and their facilities.

We are so close to finishing this fight against COVID-19. Indeed, this very week we have further reason to be optimistic. Thanks to the government's efforts, vaccines for children aged five to 11 are arriving across this country. As much as we all want to be done with this pandemic, we now have over a year and a half of experience working within it, and we can draw on this experience during the 44th Parliament.

The second session of the 43rd Parliament showed us that a hybrid Parliament, with members participating in person and online, can produce real results for Canadians. It is the safe and responsible thing to do to keep using this flexible approach. For those of us who were not here, we watched with awe as the House functioned remotely.

I encourage all members to join me in supporting this motion.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member tried to dress this up as a temporary measure, but the last three speakers, two NDP and one Liberal, really tipped the hand of the agenda of this new coalition. They want a permanent hybrid Parliament. They see it as a tool for advancing what they see as family-friendly to permanently replace Parliament with a Zoom call.

I speak as a member with four young children. I have a fifth on the way. My wife works as a physician, and our due date for the fifth is when Parliament is sitting, so I understand the sacrifice that families have to make. Obviously, virtual Parliament would be easier for me personally, but it was worse for this institution.

When I ran for office, I understood that personal sacrifice. My family understood that family sacrifices were required for us to be able to do the kind of jobs that we needed to do to be here. I will also say that members have the option of bringing their families to Ottawa. They receive good support in terms of a housing allowance to do it. Certainly there were many Liberal ministers, in fact all of them, who consistently did their work outside of this House, not coming here to be accountable.

I do not understand how, if we are family-friendly for ministers with no children, they are communicating from their parliamentary offices instead of being on the floor in the House of Commons.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was, but I hear the hon. member's concern. I think the important thing to remember is that this process allows for accountability regardless of where individuals are. It enables people to participate in the activities of the House without endangering their communities, without potentially causing super spreader events and perhaps most importantly. It also ensures that Canadians can see their Parliament function as an example during COVID-19.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your new role. With immeasurable solemnity, Atlantic Canada proudly greets the sun each day before it casts its light across central Canada. Light comes from the Atlantic. With an Acadian in the Speaker's chair, the beautiful star that graces our Acadian flag shines even brighter.

That said, during the election campaign in which we all participated, not a single individual, association, municipality or stakeholder expressed dissatisfaction with the hybrid Parliament that was operating in the midst of the COVID‑19 crisis. On the contrary, people congratulated us for being more present on the ground in our constituency.

Without straying too far from the exact purpose of this motion, I would like to emphasize the fact that people talked to us about COVID‑19 and about recovering from the crisis, and they congratulated us on the work we accomplished while hybrid sittings were in effect.

I would like to ask my young colleague, who was recently out there campaigning, if he heard the same thing during his campaign.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, never, not even once.

The reality is that most Canadians wanted to know that government was functioning and that their parliamentarians were doing their work. That was the question, not where we work.

It is important to remember and note that, while we have heard the concerns of the members opposite, they are also the party that often talks about learning from the private sector and learning best practices. That is what this Parliament has done, and that is what this motion intends to do.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my colleague about being a woman with children and the argument being made today that it is hard. I know it is hard. I have three children. It is excruciating being away from them, but this is not about us. This is about something bigger than us. This job is not a normal job.

We took this job on to serve Canadians. Anyone who has worked on Zoom or virtually knows that the smallest technical glitch can squeak anything through. We are here to represent democracy. This is not about us. When we took this job on, we knew that we were representing something so much bigger than us. It is not about us, and members can bring their families here.

Why are they not open to pairing and negotiating here? How is it one or the other?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I hear my hon. colleague's concerns. I think the reality is that we have an example from the last Parliament of when things can work and when things do work. I do not see anything in this motion that steps into play anything sinister or anything long term. This is a motion to deal with this session of Parliament.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in the 44th Parliament and to be back here in the House of Commons.

Three hundred and thirty-eight Canadians are elected to represent their constituents from coast to coast to coast and this is my third time being sent here to Parliament to represent the wonderful, innovative, entrepreneurial and very generous residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge as one of the three MPs in the city of Vaughan. I wish to thank them for placing their trust, faith and hope in sending me here. It is a real honour to serve them, and I commit to them to do the best that I can to represent their interests here in Parliament and to be their strong, local voice.

Before I begin commenting on the motion in front of us, I also wish to thank my wife, Rose, my daughters Eliana and Natalia, and my six-week-old daughter Leia, who came into this world with God's blessing as quite a surprise for our family, probably the best surprise any family can have. I am not up to speed with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, as that member is up to number five. I think we will be stopping at three.

Nonetheless, on to the motion at hand. The last 18 months has been trying for Canadians. We represent Canadians and it has been trying because lives have been disrupted. Lives have been lost in all of our constituencies across Canada.

We are recovering. I want to thank the residents of York region where, as of tonight, 88.2% of residents 12 years and older are fully vaccinated. I applaud them for heeding public health advice. I applaud them for doing the right thing. If they can do that, I encourage all members of Parliament here this evening, all the ones who have come and are so happy to be back seeing their colleagues and their friends, to please get vaccinated. It is the right thing to do. Canadians are doing it. My residents are doing it, and that is the way we will return to normal.

I am pleased to participate in debate on this reasonable and pragmatic motion. We are considering an important matter, which is whether to adapt the proceedings of this House to allow members to participate either in the chamber or by video conference. The context for the motion is one that we have been living with for more than 18 months. The pandemic has affected our lives, our work in Parliament and our work in our constituencies. This is in addition to the impact on Canadians and Canadian businesses. Canadians have responded by respecting the guidance given by our public health officials: maintaining physical distancing, wearing masks, adopting new hand washing habits, and staying home and self-isolating when they have symptoms, when they have come into contact with someone who tested positive or when they have tested positive themselves.

Our high vaccination rates, combined with these public health measures, have allowed us to make significant progress in protecting ourselves from COVID-19 and contributed to the economic recovery from the pandemic. Yes, we have met our target for a million jobs, and yes, we will create hundreds of thousands more in the months ahead.

Today we have an opportunity to advance the fight against COVID-19 in our workplace, this House, which all 338 of us have the privilege to serve. Today we have an opportunity to do such a thing.

This motion would adapt our proceedings to protect not only members, but also the people who support us every day in this House: our staff, the House of Commons administration and the parliamentary protective service. Having the option to participate remotely means that members who are exposed to the virus or who test positive can still participate in House proceedings while they self-isolate, which is very pragmatic and very reasonable.

This is a reasonable and pragmatic motion that ensures that all members are able to participate in the deliberations of this House. It builds on the decisions of this House in the 43rd Parliament. In the last Parliament, this House chose to adapt its procedures, practices and technology in response to public health guidance. Eventually, the House was conducting all regular business in hybrid sittings. This allowed all members to fully participate in proceedings either in person or via video conferencing while respecting public health guidance. These changes were implemented incrementally as the extent of the pandemic became clear, and as technological and procedural solutions were developed.

There were four distinct phases in the House’s response to the pandemic in the 43rd Parliament.

First, in March 2020, there was considerable uncertainty about the extent of the pandemic and how long it would take to get COVID-19 under control.

The first phase of adaptations began on March 13, 2020, when the House decided to adjourn until April 20, 2020, and cancel all committee meetings due to the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic.

When the House was recalled, it sat with a reduced number of members in the chamber, in proportion to party standings, to allow for physical distancing to keep our members safe.

On March 24, the House began to adapt is proceedings to provide for parliamentary accountability during the pandemic. The House held a modified question period, where members could ask questions on the pandemic for up to five minutes over the course of an hour. Arrangements for a modified question period were continued each time the House sat until the end of the session.

The House also authorized the health committee and the finance committee to meet on matters related to the pandemic and the government’s response. I had the honour of also participating in the finance committee at that time.

The committees were granted authority to meet virtually. This was the first use of technology to support the remote participation of members during the pandemic.

Further, the House could only be recalled to consider legislation to respond to COVID-19. This measure would continue through the spring and summer of 2020.

Later in the spring, the government shared draft legislation with opposition parties in advance of its introduction, to obtain unanimous consent for motions to expedite passage of these bills to assist Canadian workers and to assist Canadian businesses. The duration of the pandemic became more apparent and further technological and procedural adaptations were agreed to and implemented.

In these early days, we came together in a team Canada approach, and I emphasize that for all sides of the House, to provide support for Canadians and business. I hope members can come together in the same way to support the important measures that the government is proposing to address in this phase of the pandemic.

In early April 2020, the government recognized the need for additional adaptations to allow the House to exercise parliamentary accountability, while respecting public health guidance. This is why the former government House leader wrote the Speaker to seek advice and assistance on the capacity for House administration to support virtual sittings.

When the House met on April 11, 2020, it adopted a motion to instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine how members could fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stood adjourned due to the public health concerns caused by the pandemic, a pandemic that is not over yet.

The procedure and House affairs committee tabled two reports on this issue that provided invaluable guidance to the House as it developed and implemented further adaptations.

To support ongoing parliamentary accountability, the House expanded the number of committees authorized to meet virtually. By the end of the session, there were nine standing committees meeting virtually to examine COVID-19, the government’s response to the pandemic and other matters. I had the honour of sitting on two of those committees, plus assisting on finance.

On April 20, 2020, the House took a remarkable step in adapting its procedures, practices and technology. On that day, the House established the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. All members of the House were members of the special committee.

The special committee held 25 meetings from late April to mid-June. These included in-person, virtual and hybrid meetings. These were the first hybrid and virtual proceedings in the chamber during the pandemic. The House also agreed to hold four hybrid summer sittings with modified order of business.

The special committee meetings and summer sittings adapted many elements of regular House business in a virtual or hybrid format. This included debate, question period, statements by ministers, statements by members, tabling of documents and presenting petitions electronically.

These adaptations had benefits that supported parliamentary accountability and the role of members. The modified question periods during the special committee, the summer sittings and other sittings were longer than regular question period and allowed members to ask questions for up to five minutes. As a result, opposition members were able to ask over 80% more questions than if the House had held regular question periods during the spring of 2020.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to debate very carefully today and member after member on the government side has stood and said that this motion is about COVID, it is about protecting MPs, protecting the public and that is why we should have a virtual option. However, my problem is that when I read the motion, it does not say that. It does not say that members can Zoom in if they are diagnosed with COVID. It does not say that members can Zoom in if they have been in proximity of someone who has had COVID or has had to self-isolate. It does not say any of those things. It just says that any member can Zoom in for any reason.

I am wondering if the intention is, and I take my colleague at his word, that if members have one of those conditions, if they are diagnosed with COVID, been in proximity or had an alert, that under those circumstances they can Zoom in, and not for any reason?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleague from Manitoba. The riding name is quite long. I had the pleasure of working with that member on the finance committee. I welcome him back, and I congratulate him.

In the motion as written, hybrid sittings would go through until June 23, 2022. We are in the fourth wave of a pandemic. We know what is happening in Europe currently. Thankfully, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are receiving their vaccinations, disclosing that, ensuring the safety of their families and friends, and allowing them to get back to work.

We are getting back to work. It is so great to be here. I love being in the House of Commons. It is a privilege for myself and for the people who supported me, and I thank them.

The motion would allow individuals who may be exposed to COVID, who do need that flexibility to have it. In case members do get COVID, they would be able to work from home during that time. Hopefully they would be all right and would be able to come to work safety.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my esteemed colleague on his speech. He and I went on a magnificent trip to Italy together some time ago.

Unfortunately for me, the arguments advanced by the Liberal Party and the NDP really do not hold water. Fundamentally, we are elected to perform important legislative work, and that work is done here. Because of an exceptional situation, we pivoted to a hybrid model, but that should be over now. We are starting to get the pandemic under control.

If we managed to make it three or four days this way without anyone getting sick so far, I think we can carry on. We have rules here in Parliament to protect us. The problem is that the rules are not always adequately enforced.

My question for my colleague is this: How can he extrapolate and say that next June 23 will be the right time? Why not two months from now or next week?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question. I have been practising my French.

In response to my hon. colleague from the province of Quebec, I believe it is very reasonable to have an end date of June. We continue to be in the fourth wave of this pandemic. We do not know what the future holds. We do know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are getting vaccinated, and that is the best way to recover and move forward.

I encourage all members of the House to get vaccinated as well. I look forward to working with my hon. colleague, who I have gotten to know over the years, on future legislation, debating it and working for all Canadians.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on being in the chair. I also congratulate my friend, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, on his re-election, and his lovely wife Rose and his, now, three beautiful children, particularly his youngest daughter Leia. Although, given the timing of Leia's birth, I wonder if a hybrid Parliament is in the member's best interests if he really does want to cap the family at three children.

However, we have heard much debate over the last 24 hours about why this is appropriate. People are using examples of hockey rinks and concerts as well as a variety of other totally irrelevant analogies in my opinion. What the motion does not say is that I cannot be prevented from coming into the House.

As I said earlier today, I plan on being here at every opportunity. What is the hon. member's intention?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election.

My great friend from Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a very good friend of mine. My intention is to do the good work of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge who voted me in for the third time. My intention is to come to Parliament as often as possible, most important, following public health guidelines and being safe. Yes, I am fully vaccinated.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on being in the chair. It is great to see you there. I hope, together with the Speaker, you will vigorously defend the rights and authority of parliamentarians in this Parliament as much as he did in the last Parliament.

I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

As this is my first speech in Parliament since the election, I want to quickly thank my family, particularly my wife Raechel for supporting me always.

I also want to thank my campaign team, my manager Luke Inberg; my board president Susan Evans; and members of my team, Rick Solomon, Tom Cox, Barb Costache, Imelda McLaren, Kristine Alex, Rebecca Van Middelkoop, Roger Hebblethwaite, Scott Hawkings, Julia Roy, Scott Brummet and many others.

Finally, I want to thank the good people of Sturgeon River—Parkland for placing their faith in me a third time. I will not let them down.

Today, we are debating a motion that would govern at least the next seven months of our nation’s Parliament. We have a clear choice. We can move forward with a hybrid system that we have used for the past year and a half or we can move back to the traditional system, with enhanced safeguards to protect public health.

It is important to reflect on what we saw under the hybrid system imposed in the last Parliament. That is the best indication of what we will see going forward should this system be restored.

In the last Parliament, I remember sitting in the House on multiple occasions with over a dozen members from my party and several members from other opposition parties, and yet only one, sometimes two members of the government caucus would show up. Of those one or two physically present members, there was rarely a minister or any member who could speak with authority.

This is not what accountability should look like, seeing one or two of the same MPs taking questions, while the rest of the government caucus and the ministers look on over Zoom or do not show up at all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members on the other side of the House know full well it is not appropriate to be talking about the absence or presence of members. I can assure the member that I took the days in which we were hybrid very seriously and I showed up. I might not have been physically in this seat, but I was in the House of Commons. That is why we had the hybrid, and I worked.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Throughout the day, we have been working our way in and out of the fact of who is here, who is not here and who is online and who is not. We are in a real gray area on this, so be careful on all of it. The same goes for my hon. colleagues to be careful when we are trying to set the stage on this.

Whether someone is online or not online is not exactly the case today. It is not whether someone is here today or was here before. It is whether someone was here in the past. This line of offline or not online is a very difficult one that we would have to look at. I hope that provides a bit of guidance.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully want to point out it is not a gray area. It is black and white that a member logged in virtually or a member present in the House is a member is full, is a member with all the rights and privileges afforded a member of Parliament. I humbly submit, sir, it is not a gray area at all. Whether members are logged in or whether they are in person, they are in fact participating in the deliberations of Parliament. In any event, it should not and cannot be the subject of discussion in the House whether a member is present or not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for Gatineau for that intervention as well.

As we continue to finish up this debate, it is going to maybe pop up a couple more times, so I ask my hon. colleagues to be careful when they are doing that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually anticipated that the government would be bringing up a point of order on that subject. I am not referencing the absence of any members who are in Parliament today, and this is substantive to the debate that we are having here over the quality of Zoom virtual Parliament versus in-person Parliament. If we are not allowed to talk about that, then that is making a mockery of the House of Commons. However, I will continue.

We need a critical mass of members in this House to ensure that it functions as it was envisioned to function, as a vibrant marketplace where ideas are presented and challenged vigorously for Canadians to reflect upon. Canadians expect to see their members of Parliament and their government members physically in this House, dealing with the matters before this country. While we made hybrid Parliament work for the sake of continuing this important business, this situation cannot be allowed to continue to the detriment of the interests of Canadians and our democracy.

There is something so special and important about being together physically in this House, with the opposition and the government benches participating in great debates over the direction of this country. How often have we seen in the past that a well-appointed and executed question or response has shifted the entire direction of this country, or when an impassioned plea rallied parliamentarians and our nation to take action?

In our hybrid Parliament, we did not see these things happen. Though many significant points were made and important debates were had, there was no one here to listen, to be inspired or to be drawn to take action. Instead, this became a dead place where members, from the comfort of their homes and offices or even their mobile phones, signed in to listen but not meaningfully participate, a place where a few members came in person and heard their statements echo off the walls. That is not what we should want and it is not what Canadians want for the most sacred chamber of democracy in this country. It is evident, however, that this is what the government wants.

I find that disturbing. It is always tempting for a government to undermine an effective Parliament, because without Parliament, the government is free to govern without accountability from the people's elected representatives. Under a hybrid system, the government got away with keeping Parliament going on life support, giving it barely enough oxygen to function but not enough for this institution to thrive.

We know that the Liberal government has impressive resources at its command: entire departments, bureaucracies and the bully pulpit of the Prime Minister. However, Canadians have only their parliamentarians fighting for their interests in Parliament. Under this hybrid system, our ability to vigorously fight for Canadians and hold the current Liberal government accountable has been severely limited.

For example, we saw numerous times that critical committee studies and exchanges were interrupted for lack of resources. This was very convenient for the government, because we know that committees are a vital tool to enable opposition parties to get to the facts, to hold ministers accountable and to advance alternative solutions. These disruptions did not happen when parliamentarians were meeting in person, and they should not be allowed to happen again under a hybrid system.

After many months of working out technological challenges, we did manage to create some semblance of a working hybrid Parliament over Zoom. However, the fact is that Parliament did not function in a way that the Canadians who elected us would expect. Unfortunately, the system remains flawed, with many casualties that are not spoken of enough.

I think about the interpreters, many of whom suffered from auditory injuries because of this hybrid system. Well over 100 have had issues, and this has placed tremendous strain on Parliament's ability to function. I want to thank our hard-working interpreters for the difficult work they do every day and for their very real sacrifices in terms of their personal health.

I do not know if we have a solution to these auditory issues. I know there are many people who have had to go on leave, but I am not confident that the government has done all it can to protect the health of interpreters. By pushing for a virtual Parliament, we are putting those interests above the interests of some of the people who work here.

It is time to get this Parliament back in session in person. Other parliaments around the world have already gone back, and if it is safe enough for the Prime Minister and his delegation to attend a climate change summit in Glasgow in a room full of thousands, often people not wearing masks, then it is safe enough for 338 members of Parliament to meet in this House.

I am not advocating that we ignore the realities of the pandemic or that we throw caution to the wind. We have put in place a system of tests and a system of vaccination. We have instituted one of the strongest protections for public health in any workplace in Canada. These are the rules that the government set and they are being followed by everyone in the House, and now government members are complaining that they do not like the rules. Well, they made the rules.

In fact, the system for parliamentarians is so strong, stronger than the system for federal civil servants, and yet this government is asking civil servants to prepare to go back to work. What kind of message does it send when the government is saying that it wants to give parliamentarians the right to work from home for the next seven months at least, yet civil servants will not be afforded that same treatment? Why are the Liberals demanding special treatment and accommodation that regular Canadians could never hope to receive?

Speaking personally, I know first-hand how a hybrid Parliament can be beneficial to families. I welcomed my daughter in May 2020, just as the pandemic was beginning, and in the last 18 months, it has been a blessing to be able to use hybrid Parliament during this pandemic. I know how convenient it is to vote at the touch of an app or to log in from my home office or my work office, but I am not here to vote for my self-interests. I am here to represent the interests of my constituents and the common good of my country. I believe today that this common good calls for a return to traditional Parliament, where we can focus on bringing real accountability for Canadians.