Debates of Nov. 25th, 2021

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, does it make sense for the Sergeant-at-Arms and the institution to guarantee that people's health will be protected provided that they are double-vaccinated? That is what is going on at the Quebec National Assembly. Should that suggestion not be considered? That is more of a question.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will note, with pleasure, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert.

I want to spare a moment for all of us in British Columbia. There are more weather events on the way. Our thoughts are with our emergency services people and everybody else still trying to recover.

After almost 20 months, so many aspects of our lives have been upended by this once-in-a-century pandemic. As difficult as it has been, Canadians have found ways to adapt. This includes finding new ways of working and doing business that minimize the risk of transmitting the COVID-19 virus.

The House has not been an exception. In the last Parliament, we agreed to modify our proceedings in accordance with public health guidelines. This included a hybrid approach, with members participating in the House and committees proceedings both in-person and through video conference.

This was a reasonable approach, because it allowed all members to participate in all types of House business, while limiting close physical contact with too many people. We know that limiting close contact is a key measure to stop the spread of the virus. It was the right thing to do, not only because we wanted to keep parliamentarians safe but we also wanted to keep safe the staff who support us, our families and our constituents.

COVID-19 is unpredictable. I know a family of three, two people in their late 50s and a mom in her 80s, all with compromised health systems, and all who had COVID and did not know it. On the other hand, a robust chap in his late 50s, an outdoorsman and enthusiastic bhangra dancer, the husband of one of my staff, in fact, ended up in an induced coma for two months, a candidate for a lung transplant, still doing his best to walk for more than a few minutes without needing to rest.

We have seen examples of long-haulers, who suffer for extended periods. A recent Washington Post article noted, “The worst effects include debilitating weakness and fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, difficulty thinking, and hard-to-define challenges functioning in daily life. Family members, suddenly thrust into the role of caregivers for a seriously ill loved one, endure emotional and practical difficulties of their own.”

A year ago next month, we thought we would see the end of the pandemic in sight, thanks to Canada's world-leading vaccination program rollout. Unfortunately, at the outset of this 44th Parliament, the pandemic lingers, longer than we had hoped. We are getting close to finishing the fight against it, but we still must remain vigilant.

We know that government members, members from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party are fully vaccinated. Personally, I do not see any problem disclosing my status as a breach of my right to privacy; rather, it is a signal to our families, staff and everybody here that I am not among those more likely to spread the virus. However, if I am unlucky enough to be laid low by COVID-19, I owe it to the people of Fleetwood—Port Kells, who I thank for honouring me with my third term, to keep doing what I was elected to do. What our government is proposing will allow that.

It is a mystery that the leader of the Conservative Party would want to deny that ability to anyone in this place, especially members of his own caucus. However, his opposition to a reasonable tried and tested alternative will do just that.

It is a further mystery why Ottawa's best-kept secret is whether a Conservative MP next to other members in the lobby or at committee is vaccinated or not. I would not be surprised if a Conservative raised a question of privilege on that matter, the right to a safe, secure workplace. We saw a member of the Bloc do so a couple of days ago, and it is a mystery to see the Bloc's position on this.

I would point out that vaccine mandates are not new. The United Kingdom had one in 1853 to address the smallpox epidemic. In 1905, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upheld the constitutionality of mandatory smallpox vaccination programs to preserve public health.

The Conservatives might think of themselves as the freedom party, but those freedoms exist in the context that also recognizes the duty we have to one another in the interests of the common good. As the party of the charter, we Liberals fully understand that in some ways personal choice should not trump our collective rights. It is a matter of reasonable vigilance.

That is what the motion before us today is all about, vigilance. The motion is about allowing all members of Parliament to fulfill all their duties safely. As noted, we have a tried and tested model of a hybrid Parliament that was used in the second session of the 43rd Parliament, and the motion before us would mostly reinstate the approach used then.

The motion mainly seeks to do five things. First, it would allow members to participate in proceedings of the House, either in person or by video conference, provided that members participating in person did so in accordance with the Board of Internal Economy's decision of Tuesday, October 19, 2021, regarding vaccinations against COVID-19, and that reasons for medical exemptions followed the guidance from the Ontario Ministry of Health entitled “Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccination”. As well, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization informs us on this. The motion temporarily suspends or alters a few Standing Orders to facilitate this move.

Second, the motion would similarly allow members to participate in committee meetings remotely or in person provided that they met the vaccine requirements set out by the Board of Internal Economy.

Third, it would provide for documents to be laid before or presented in the House electronically. This includes the documents that the government is required by statute to table as well as petitions or other documents that any member may wish to provide.

Fourth, the motion sets out how and when recorded divisions are to be taken in the hybrid format. I will return to this in a moment.

Finally, for the current supply period, it provides for Supplementary Estimates to be referred to and considered by a committee of the whole. This is in keeping with past practices of the House to allow for scrutiny of the estimates early in a new Parliament before standing committees have been constituted.

The motion would keep these measures in effect from the day it is adopted until Thursday, June 23, 2022, before the House adjourns for the summer. This time frame would allow the House to safely conduct the business Canadians sent us here to accomplish for them. After June, we could have another look at how we conduct our proceedings, taking into consideration the best health advice at the time.

Focusing now on the motion's provisions relating to voting, I wanted to first acknowledge how this single act is one of the most important that parliamentarians carry out. During the early months of the second session of the last Parliament, members in the chamber voted by the traditional process of row-by-row. Members participating by video conference were called on one by one to cast their votes orally. While these voting arrangements were successful and used for over 50 votes, they were time-consuming. Some votes required as much as 50 minutes to complete. However, the House also agreed to develop and test a remote voting application, and one was introduced in March. With this application, a vote could be completed in 10 to 15 minutes. The remote voting application was used successfully for over 120 votes.

Today's motion would put this app back into use, allowing us to express our will safely, securely and conveniently. Although the remote voting app was successfully used in the last Parliament, the motion would take the prudent step of directing the House administration to carry out an onboarding process of all members for this app to be completed no later than Wednesday, December 8, 2021. Once the onboarding is complete, but no later than December 9, the app would be put into use.

Paragraph (q) of the motion ensures that there would be integrity in the use of the app. Among other things, it requires that votes have to be cast from within Canada using the member's House-managed device. Also, the visual identity of members must be validated for each vote. This could be verified by the whip of each party recognized in the House.

Any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the provided 10 minutes could connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention. The motion is therefore very careful to put in place contingencies should members encounter problems with the voting application, so as to not disenfranchise them. We want to avoid disenfranchising people.

Some have argued that the literal act of standing up to be counted during an in-person vote is too important to be set aside. I do not want to argue that tradition. I would simply say that the motion aims to put in place reasonable, temporary measures to allow each member the ability to safely vote.

For each vote, members' names will still be recorded in the House journals allowing all to see where they figuratively stood on the issue voted on.

The motion before us also seeks to arrange a deferred schedule for recorded divisions on most types of debatable motions, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday. Specifically, votes would take place after question period on a day depending on when the time recorded division was requested. This order would be in keeping with past practice of the House, would provide members with some predictability for when votes would occur and would allow us to better manage our time both in and outside of the House.

I know all members of the House agree that we want to put this pandemic behind us. Through the Speech from the Throne, we set out an agenda to do just that. We are securing the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for kids—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Time is up. The hon. member will be able to add more during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time in this new Parliament.

Does the hon. member agree with the government House leader who said on Monday that if a fully vaccinated person tested positive for COVID-19, they could still go to work?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what this motion allows. A fully vaccinated person who does come down with COVID-19 could still go to work.

The Conservative opposition to this measure would deny that person the opportunity to serve their constituents.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him.

He listed some of the advantages of the hybrid model, including remote voting. For example, he said that if he had COVID‑19, he could stay at home and not come here to vote. In the past, people got sick while Parliament was sitting and were unable to come to vote.

Does he agree that the opportunities that we might have with a hybrid Parliament in exceptional cases should be studied at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for example, and not under a closure motion?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we are missing an important point here, which is that in spite of the presence of a hybrid voting system, anybody and everybody would be free to come to the House to fulfill their duties except if they were sick or if they were fearful of getting sick. At that point, the hybrid system would allow them to do their jobs.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his well-thought-out speech. I was really moved at the beginning when he spoke about our shared concern about the climate crisis happening in British Columbia. We have just come off COP26 where the Prime Minister made great statements, yet we see the RCMP going with sniper rifles against unarmed indigenous people defending their territory.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question, while I have the chance to be here with him. The climate crisis is here, and the Environment Commissioner has just given a damning report to the federal government on its failure to stand up and actually make moves on targets.

Would the member explain whether or not he is standing with the Wet'suwet'en people in the face of the RCMP attacks?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is asking a question that is not really on the matter that is before the House. I am not sure if the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells wants to answer or if he wishes me to go to a different question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you will realize that is what it is about, because it is about my presence in the House and being able to ask a question. That is what we are debating today.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague a great deal and I have no problem answering his question.

What is going on with the Wet'suwet'en territory is concerning. It is troubling. As politicians, we do stay out of the way of policing matters. We also have to defer to the Province of British Columbia, which is basically setting the framework for what is going on there.

That said, in the spirit of reconciliation, I think that more work does need to be done. I appreciate the member's question because it raises a very important, pertinent, current matter.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, following up on the question from my hon. colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, if it is deemed relevant, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party why his leader did not denounce the activist David Suzuki for threatening to blow up pipelines in regard to the protests?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind members that when they are asking questions, they should be relevant to the matter that is before the House, which is the time allocation and the issue about hybrid sittings. I will allow the hon. member to answer this question, but I want to advise members to please focus the debate on the matter that is before the House. If the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells wants to answer the question, that is fine. If not, I will move on.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Again, Madam Speaker, out of respect for a person I do respect quite a bit, I will answer.

The fact is that Dr. Suzuki issued a statement today in which he retracted his comments and apologized for them. We have to recognize that this gentleman is extremely passionate and sometimes passions get away from people. Lord knows, who among us has not been guilty of that from time to time? The story is now straight. Hopefully it has settled down and we can move on.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I extend to you my warmest congratulations on your re-election as Speaker.

I would also take this opportunity, my first time rising in the 44th Parliament, to thank my constituents in Brossard—Saint‑Lambert for sending me back here for the fourth time, with an overwhelming majority. I am honoured and deeply touched.

I am honoured to participate in today's debate on the motion moved by the government leader to implement hybrid sittings for the beginning of the 44th Parliament.

I have heard a lot of arguments for and against this motion, as well as a controversy that was blown out of proportion for reasons that sometimes escape me.

I would be the first to say that I would prefer to sit here full time. I love being in the House of Commons. I love meeting with my constituents, not all, but most, and I am very happy when I am in the House. I came here as often as I could when we were operating virtually.

I do not think the purpose of this motion is to send us all home. The goal is to make sure we all have a safe option if we need it, such as if physical distancing measures had to be reinstated.

Again, the idea is not to find ourselves in a situation where there is just one person in the House. It is to establish a limit on the number of people who can be here.

The point is to give ourselves a degree of flexibility we do not have right now, and that includes the flexibility to vote and participate in debates without necessarily being here in person. Any one of us could get sick, maybe even with COVID-19, and need that flexibility.

What the hon. member for Saint-Jean said earlier is absolutely true. Before the hybrid Parliament option was available, many of us stayed home when we got sick and could not participate in debates here. Progress being what it is, we can now have a hybrid version of Parliament.

I think the point of this motion is to show that we are still in a very delicate situation. The pandemic is far from being fully under control, we have not yet reached herd immunity as we would have liked, and children five to 11 years old are only just beginning to be vaccinated.

It is with this in mind that the government is proposing the option of a virtual Parliament, that is, for those who could not come to the House of Commons. This is not at all about sending us home. On the contrary, we want to be here as much as possible and with as many colleagues as possible.

I also think the terms of the motion aim to bring some predictability to the way we will be working in the coming months, considering we are still in a public health emergency.

During the long months of 2020 and 2021 when we were in hybrid mode, we got to learn how it works. We also saw that it came with some pretty real challenges, from both a technical and human standpoint.

I agree with my colleagues who say just how hard it has been for our interpreters. It may have led to work-related illness for those who sometimes had to grapple with a virtual presence less disciplined than it was in person in the House. We have to admit that, because every day we see the cacophony in our debates, especially during question period. On Zoom or in the House, the cacophony is part and parcel of our debates. Though it may seem harder with Zoom, I think it has the same effect on the interpreters in the House.

It also caused problems for committee interpreting. I am not sure why, but it seemed to have something to do with the fact that a lot of members were not wearing their headsets. This made it difficult for the interpreters to do their job. If that is the problem, I totally agree: It is a matter of respect for the interpreters and for our other colleagues.

The fact remains that, before the pandemic, I believe there were usually about a thousand employees in the parliamentary precinct, including MPs, parliamentarians, staffers and all of the personnel who support us in our work in the House. That includes the security staff, pages, food services staff, clerks and the whole structure that enables us to do our work. We are talking about over a thousand people in the House every day. That is a lot of people, and we want to make sure that they are all double-vaccinated. I assume that is the case for all of us.

We also know that the vast majority of us will need a third dose. Quebec just announced today that those who received two doses of AstraZeneca can now go and get their third dose, because they are not yet fully vaccinated. There is still a lot of uncertainty regarding the pandemic. There is still a good chance that things will go downhill again. We are already seeing an increase in the number of cases every day in Quebec and across Canada.

Furthermore, an increase in cases can cause more complications, which is why we need the flexibility this option affords us. We do not want to suddenly force everyone into virtual sittings, but we want that option to be available. I think that is the objective of the government's motion. That is why I think we are here.

In closing, I want to say that I am very happy to be back in the House, being around and seeing my colleagues. I was looking forward to this and I am happy to be here among them all. I hope that we will be able to do so safely until June 2023.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand here this afternoon and take this opportunity to thank my family, my friends and my partner Tammy for their support on the journey that has landed me here in the House. As well, I would like to thank our volunteers for their tireless work on our campaign.

It is an honour to be chosen to represent the people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame in this House, and I thank them for the faith they have put in me. All members' constituents want us in this House, where we can advocate and collaborate, work for them and be accountable. Instead, the Liberal-NDP coalition want a virtual Parliament.

In 2011, Jack Layton chastised then Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for having the worst attendance record in Parliament. He said that when Canadians pay us, they expect us to come to work. What was promised to the NDP in return for voting with the Liberals so that they could stay home? Why is the Liberal-NDP socialist coalition following Mr. Ignatieff's example?

[An hon. member]

How did you get here?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

How did I get here? I was elected to come here, and I want this place to be here for the people.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not quite understand what the question is. I did say that, yes, we are elected to be here and that I very much am looking forward to being here. There is nothing much else that I can add to that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a hard time understanding that whole controversy as well, because it never should have happened.

There is no controversy over opening arenas, universities or restaurants, but members on the other side of the House are suggesting a government available for delivery. A government to go.

Could we not have a flexible solution, as the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert said? The House would be reopened following the health regulations and then we could reassess how things are going later, if necessary.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question.

It is warranted by the situation right now because we have colleagues who are impacted by COVID‑19 and cannot be present at this time. Even if they do not have serious symptoms, they cannot come to the House.

Therefore, the health situation remains precarious. There are still a lot of unknowns and we do not know how we will proceed. Thus, offering parliamentarians the opportunity to continue to participate virtually is one way to continue.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did actually confirm today that ministers are supposed to be here every day, and we are supposed to be here every day. If we are healthy and vaccinated, why would we not be here every day?

Proposing a solution does not mean that we will decide to proceed in that manner and have a government to go, as the member called it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne.

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate you on your election.

I want to thank my family and the people of Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne for the trust they have placed in me.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Brossard—Saint‑Lambert on his election.

The point of this is actually for prevention. Right now, the Standing Orders do not allow a member of Parliament to participate in their elected duty should they become sick. What we are trying to do is to say that if they are sick or have symptoms, we ask them to stay home. It is just like the measures we are going to put in place for workers, so that they can have that time to stay home and stay safe.

Would the hon. member explain how this is a preventative measure to make sure people can have their opportunity to speak?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague. This is preventative. This is just an alternative that we are offering parliamentarians, and it is at the moment the best way we see to go forward to ensure that all parliamentarians can participate.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this House, as always, and add to the debate.

I first want to send my heartfelt thoughts and prayers to my community of Vanderhoof, because literally 20 minutes ago a warning came across that there was an active shooter in the community. I meant to stand up and say to please stay safe and stay inside, but my understanding is that the shooter has been caught.

Ladies and gentlemen, and colleagues, it speaks to the debate that we are talking about today. This person, for reasons unknown, shot into our RCMP detachment. Thankfully, as far as I know, no one was wounded. The person was taken into custody.

Our country is divided. We have all just come through probably one of the most divisive elections we have seen in a very long time. We have colleagues from the government's side and colleagues from our opposition side who faced intimidation, threats and vandalism. Our family has received threats of violence and threats of death, and I know some of my colleagues have faced the same.

I want to bring us back to just two days ago, when we all convened in this House for the first time. There are pictures out there on social media. We are all sitting there, glad-handing each other and patting each other on the back. Some people even gave hugs, fist bumps and elbow bumps. There is a happiness in our being back here. I know I speak for many of us who have gone through the last six years, and at least for myself, when I say it is good to see members and it is good to be back here.

Last night I hosted the National Diwali on the Hill, Parliament's national Diwali, which was started by our great former colleague, the hon. Deepak Obhrai, 21 years ago. He started it here because he wanted to bring light to Canada. He wanted to bring a beautiful ceremony right here to Canada.

I think about this debate that we are having right now and I think about that significant event. Diwali is about the banishment of darkness and the bringing in of light, hope and peace. That is what Canadians need right now: light, hope and peace.

When I think about my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, there are residents who have been severely impacted by COVID and who have lost everything, including loved ones. I think about my friends and my family and our colleagues down in the Lower Mainland, who are battling the worst natural disaster in our country's history. I also think about my friends in Atlantic Canada, who are now receiving some of the worst weather patterns they have seen. I think about our good friend who spoke yesterday in a member's statement about losing two young members of his community.

The gentleman I am splitting time with, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, is going to speak about the impacts in his riding as well, and he is a physician.

It is time we got back to work here in Ottawa. I know there are important things, and I know that just because we were in a hybrid setting, our days did not stop. I know that we were all faced with probably more meetings than we could count, because it made it easier in some sense. However, it also made it easier for some on the front bench to obfuscate and get away from their responsibilities.

Our friend from Kingston and the Islands is a good soldier. He said that said that maybe once or twice in question period a minister could not answer the question. I would hazard a guess that it happened more often than once or twice, but at least he was admitting it.

We saw that during the WE scandal. Does everybody remember the WE scandal when we were having committee meetings? All of a sudden there were technical difficulties or, guess what, the meeting had to be called because the translators were having a hard time, or we did not have translators, or the room was booked for that full length of time or there were technical difficulties.

Think about the cost merely to put on hybrid. Think about the cost that we just went through for an unnecessary election, and that we are downloading onto the backs of Canadians.

We were all elected to be here. I will remind everyone, and those who are new, that it is not one of my speeches if I do not remind members that this House does not belong to us. It is not our House. It is the House of electors. It belongs to Canadians. They elected the members to be here to represent them and to bring their voices to Ottawa, not the other way around.

I have heard some of the arguments, such as, it is just in case somebody gets sick. I will bring members back to 2018 when I had a very serious illness and I was at home. I still managed to do my job. I got incredible messages from members that kept me in touch with what was going on with the fisheries file, because I had that at the time.

We need to get back to work. We need to hold the government accountable.

It is shameful that we have our NDP colleagues, many of whom I count as friends, who have partnered with our Liberal colleagues here. I know that many of our Liberal colleagues probably do not share the feelings of the front bench in pushing this forward, and they would like to be right here doing the work that they are doing. In the last session, in the last Parliament, 622 days ago, it was Friday, March 13 and I remember taking a picture of the calendar when we rose and we went into hybrid.

I have heard somebody saying again that Conservatives have not taken this pandemic seriously. I will bring them back to that last session in January 2020. I was the first person to raise the questions. Should we not be doing something; should we not be taking this international threat seriously; should we not be talking about perhaps closing our borders, perhaps limiting flights from those destinations that have high cases? I will remind members that I was told that I was fearmongering, that perhaps I was racist. Yes, we have taken this seriously all along the way and we have worked tirelessly with our colleagues from all ends of this House to make sure that we have a team Canada approach.

It was 349 days ago that members of this House stood together unanimously and passed my motion to bring 988 to Canada as a national suicide prevention hotline right here for our country. It was 349 days ago, yet, we still do not have that.

There is something to be said about being present in person, and looking across the way at the minister or being able to have those sidebar conversations with our colleagues, and those personal relationships to be able to get things done. It is much different than texting and zooming and video conferencing. Personal relationships are what get things done in this House, and we all know that. We need to get back to work, and our work is right here in Ottawa.

I will end with that. I look forward to the great questions from my colleagues.