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.