Debates of Nov. 25th, 2021

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

We have been going a little long on our questions and answers, and I just want to make sure that we keep them concise and short.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, “hypocrisy” is a word that is unparliamentary, so I will not use it. Having said that, I can tell members that the Progressive Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I appreciate the joking there, but members cannot do something indirectly that they cannot do directly. I will ask the member to just retract that and start again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should have known better. You are right on the ball.

The Conservative Party in Manitoba, the Liberal Party in Manitoba and the NDP in Manitoba are today sitting in a hybrid system. They are having question period. They actually have members of the legislative assembly who have COVID-19, and they are able to continue on. It seems it is just the Conservative Party, and I do not know how they conned the Bloc into it, that has made the decision that somehow this is anti-democratic. However, the hybrid system is something we can all benefit from.

The pandemic is not behind us, and my question to the member is: Will he not recognize what the Province of Manitoba and other jurisdictions have? There is nothing wrong with having a hybrid, and this has a sunset. It ends in June.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to me to hear a Liberal talking about how they could benefit. That is what Liberals like to do.

When we have these members talking about these provincial legislatures, the fact is that there are a number of provincial legislatures that are also sitting, and there are a number of parliamentary bodies across the world that are sitting. If the member wants to cherry-pick individual jurisdictions and say that we should be like them, he is welcome to do that; this is a debate.

However, what I am here talking about is what I think Canadians want to see from our Parliament, and they want to see a Parliament that is back in session, where there are safeguards for public health, and where we can vigorously fight, present our views, challenge the government and have the government bring forward legislation so that we can actually move forward as a country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I generally agree with his points, but I just have to ask him about one thing that is bothering me.

The vaccination status of our Conservative colleagues has been an issue throughout this whole debate. How many Conservatives have medical exemptions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member and his party for largely collaborating with Conservatives on what we both agree is a very fundamental issue for Canadian democracy.

The fact is that the Board of Internal Economy met and imposed a set of rules, and those rules are in place right now. There are people in this country who receive medical exemptions, and I trust our non-partisan, impartial, professional House administration to do the best job possible to keep members and staff safe. I completely trust our House staff to take care of us.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

I have a question for my colleague.

All day long, the Liberals have been asking questions about the fact that certain provinces or places have a hybrid Parliament. The Quebec National Assembly is 100% in person, and it is completely safe. We can do the exact same thing here, in the Canadian Parliament.

Some significant safety measures have been implemented here so that we can do our jobs.

My colleague referenced them, and I would like to hear more about these measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election. It is well deserved.

I am very confident in the House administration and the safety protocols that we put in place, and I think we should keep them going forward. There may be cases where COVID-19 comes up, but we know that vaccination rates in this country are high and thankfully getting higher every day, so we can look forward. We need to lead as a Parliament. We cannot just wait for all the provincial legislatures and all the other Parliaments around the world. We should not be the last Parliament to move forward. We should be taking a leadership position.

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue, but it is irresponsible of the government House leader to suggest that folks who were vaccinated but contracted COVID-19 should still be allowed to come to work. It is very confusing to Canadians when they hear things like that, and we cannot have that. We need clarity from the government on what the rules are, not changing the goalposts every time they do not suit the government's needs.

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

The member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was standing earlier, and I missed one of the members from the NDP who stood to ask a question, so I will ask the member for Vancouver East to ask her question now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member actually did not answer the question about how many Conservative members have gotten some sort of medical exemption.

That is as an aside, but I want to bring this debate back to the issue at hand, which is about health. The reality is that we are still in the fourth wave and COVID is still very active in communities. The other clear health measure is that if a person has any symptoms at all, a sore throat, a scratchy throat, anything at all, they are not supposed to go to work, but that does not mean to say that they are not able to work. The hybrid system would allow members to continue to participate and do their work. That is the beauty of the system, that it allows us to do that. There is a sunset period until June, when this will end, but in the meantime it allows members to continue to participate.

Would the member not even acknowledge the importance of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the party in the House that claims to stand up for the rights of workers and organized labour is suggesting that we need to create a system to ensure that sick people continue to work. Sick people should be taking time to get better, not forced to show up to work. That is what I think.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for allowing me to return to the House, in person, for a third time to debate and pass important legislation for Canadians.

First, I would like to know the real reasons behind this motion that we are debating and voting on today. If the motion were intended to provide a tool for the House of Commons in the event of another widespread lockdown or an emergency, I would be the first to adopt it. Admittedly, the hybrid format did allow us to do part of our work when we were under lockdown.

However, we are in a completely different situation today. I have huge doubts about the real reasons for this motion. If we listen to the speeches that the Liberals and some of the NDP members gave today, it seems that the Liberals want to give themselves a political tool.

However, Canadians can now watch a Canadiens game at the Bell Centre, in a venue that seats 15,000 to 18,000 people. They can fly south on a plane packed with over 300 passengers for five or six hours.

Some claim that the House is a danger zone, but this chamber is massive and there are only 338 MPs. The argument was raised that we spend 12 hours a day here, but the only time all 338 MPs are in here together is during question period or during a vote. The rest of the time, we are either in an office or in committee, where we are well separated.

There is something else I find ridiculous. People from different families or who are simply friends are allowed to go to a restaurant in a group of six to 10 and can sit together for two or three hours drinking wine and eating without a mask. People can do that outside the Ottawa bubble. However, here, sitting next to my colleagues every day, all facing forward wearing a mask, is considered dangerous. That is why I wonder about the real reasons behind this motion.

I would support this motion if the government wanted to use this tool in the event of a lockdown during a potential fifth wave, but that is not the real reason.

The ministers are supposed to take questions from the opposition parties, but we noticed in the final months of the last Parliament that the ministers do not like to be in the House of Commons, because they found out in the last two years that it is much easier to be in a virtual Parliament. When we ask a question in front of a screen, seated at a computer, it has the same legal value as if we were asking it in person in Parliament, but the emotion is not the same. During a face-to-face meeting, the reactions are not the same. It is impossible.

We have enough experience with it now to know that the effectiveness of Parliament, question period and parliamentary committees is greatly diminished in virtual mode. In committee, for instance, our only way to communicate with colleagues is texting because it is impossible to talk to each other in a Zoom meeting. We text each other, but that is not fast enough and it does not work. How many votes, motions, committee proceedings failed because we could not communicate effectively?

The hybrid Parliament helped us out during the critical period of the pandemic. It created a semblance of the parliamentary system. However, that period should now be over because things have changed. I ask again, what are the real reasons for this motion?

The Liberals should be honest enough to say that this tool is to be used in a total lockdown or a return to the red zone. How could we forget the orange zones and the red zones? If we were told that we had to go back to Zoom sittings because we were in a red zone, I would not have a problem with that. In this case, however, we know full well that it is because some want to hide behind cameras. They will wait for the questions only to say they did not hear properly or there is a problem with the video, so they do not have to answer them. That is the real reason.

I was talking earlier about the importance of human relationships. Even when you ask a minister a tough question, there is an important human relationship. This is not available or accessible through Zoom. This destroys the very essence of what it means to be a parliamentarian.

Another thing that really bothers me about the rhetoric I hear is that it creates fear. We are often accused of fearmongering and being divisive, but the way the Liberals have approached this matter is creating fear. They are creating fear by talking about the vaccine status of my colleagues.

I do not even know how many of them cannot be vaccinated, but that is a private matter. However, there are tools in place. The Sergeant-at-Arms conducts checks, and I am sure that our health is protected. These people are taking rapid tests. They undergo more checks than those who are vaccinated. That must stop. They are the ones running the risk of becoming ill because they cannot be vaccinated on medical grounds. They are the ones who will experience problems, not us. People who are tested three times a week cannot pass on an illness to us. That is ridiculous. It must stop. These are media distortions created by the Liberals.

Another thing that is bothering me is the NDP's viewpoint. The NDP is making changes to the way we do our work as elected officials. They say it would be much easier if we could stay at home and not have to travel to Ottawa. I can understand this argument in a case such as that of my colleague who had a child two years ago. Family obligations are not easy.

We all had different experiences with work, but that system could get too comfortable. When someone finishes work, they just need to turn off the camera and they can go be with their wife and children. That is obviously easier. However, someone who chooses to run for office is not looking for easy. As a parliamentarian, they are looking to do their job well and do it efficiently, knowing that it comes with some inconveniences. That is what we are paid so well to do.

If we gradually change the way we work so that we simply have to plug in a computer, I would call that remote work. Some people would like this system, even once the pandemic is over. If someone wants to work remotely because they live far away and are tired of taking the plane, they should simply not run for office. Others would be happy to do so. Members are voted in and paid to take on these responsibilities. It is as simple as that.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize what really matters to me. I agree that we should have a tool in case of a lockdown, but I do not want a political tool to help people avoid answering questions.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe a scenario that will likely come up at some point. Imagine an MP is exposed to the virus or contracts it even though he is double-vaccinated and has to stay home in quarantine. Is the fact that he is unable to vote because he is not given the opportunity to debate or vote remotely not akin to removing his privilege, given that a tool exists and it is not being given to him for reasons I fail to understand?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question. Currently, there is the case of the member for Beauce who is double-vaccinated and who caught COVID‑19. He cannot participate in the debates this week. That is an example.

That is part of a much broader debate that could be held. Yes, there are technological possibilities these days. Could we decide that in future only people who are sick and have to stay home for other reasons could participate in the debates by video conference and vote electronically and that people who have no problem have to be here? That is another question. Yes, it is possible.

That is not what is happening right now. People are manipulating the situation and using the final days of the pandemic to try to create another political issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can continue using the member for Beauce as an example. He was around other members of the Conservative caucus, which means there are members who no doubt have to potentially self-quarantine. The opposition House leader indicated that he was getting his second test today. We could have a situation where we could have many members of the official opposition, because of the pandemic, being completely disengaged without a motion of this nature passing.

Would the member acknowledge that is not a healthy thing for our Parliament?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I will give him the same answer I gave his colleague earlier.

In the context of the pandemic, with the possibility of contracting COVID-19, the tool should be reserved for those who become ill, like the member for Beauce. They should be able to work with us virtually.

This same approach is used by private businesses and industries. People with a specific medical issue can telework. However, once they are all better, they must physically return to work. There is a distinction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I am certainly a strong believer in Parliament being here and it being accountable. The problem is that the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP have all committed to being vaccinated, but the Conservatives are refusing. In fact, they seem to think they are above the law, and that they have the right, the privilege, to come in here unvaccinated.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. Will he tell us how many of his colleagues who are part of this libertarian caucus are using bogus exemptions to claim a right to come to work and make other people sick? I have to be in a lobby with them where they sit without their masks on when the staff or I walk in there. They have no respect for the people around them. How many of them are fully vaccinated? That is the question we should be debating.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is offensive when he says that our caucus is libertarian and that we do not wear masks.

First of all, we follow the rules. We are allowed to remove our masks when we sit down to eat. When we are finished, we put our masks back on. No one walks without a mask outside the House except at mealtime.

Second, the insinuation that my colleagues are creating a situation that is dangerous to public health is completely false. As I mentioned in my speech, these people are tested regularly and have certain health conditions. No one in this place and only a doctor can assess health. The Sergeant-at-Arms assessed the situation and gave permission. Members must stop judging situations that they know nothing about.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new position. By the way, it is nice to see an Acadian in the chair.

Since this is the first time I am speaking in the House in this 44th Parliament, I would like to begin by thanking the citizens of Gatineau for once again placing their trust in me. It is the honour of my life to serve them and to represent them here in this chamber. I want them to know that I will do my best. My colleagues and I will work together to fulfill the commitments we have made over the years and during the election campaign.

I would also like to thank my family, who have been supporting me in this political adventure for quite some time. They have been a tremendous support. I would also like to thank my supporters, the people around me. All of my colleagues and I have people in our ridings who volunteer to support us. I would also like to thank our staff who do so much for us. I want to thank all of those good people as well.

As chief government whip, I am happy to work with my colleagues. I see my role as helping to make Parliament work and ensuring we can stand up for our interests and ideas and achieve our goals and objectives for Canada, our regions and our ridings. As whip, I am committed to making sure my colleagues on this side of the House and I take a collaborative, constructive approach to achieving our shared goals as we strive to create a better Canada.

That brings me to the motion we are debating today. The pandemic rocked our country and the whole world. It has been a trying time for all our fellow citizens. To survive, we have had to follow code red, yellow and green rules that changed from day to day. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles talked about that. We were not sure our kids would be able to go to school, and we did not know if we had to follow a given rule from one day to the next.

People had to adapt. It was difficult. We saw the consequences of that. People are eager to get back to some semblance of normal life, but they also want their government to set the example and for their institutions to reflect their primary interest, which, in my opinion, is to keep everyone safe. We need to keep our children, constituents, seniors and the people around us safe.

That is the crux of what we are debating today. Like any organization, social club, sports association, educational institution or business, we had to take rather extraordinary and exceptional measures for a set period of time. The measure that we are discussing today is also for a set period of time. We had to take extraordinary measures to meet the sole objective of keeping everyone safe.

There are a lot of people who depend on us, and I want to thank them. I am talking about the people in Parliament, the clerks, support staff, IT team, pages and interpreters.

All of those people also had to take special measures and work twice as hard without infringing on our rights and responsibilities or undermining our ability to do our job, so that we, as parliamentarians, can enjoy our privileges, be present, talk and give speeches safely. I repeat that these measures are for a set period of time.

The return is happening quite slowly. In my region, there is obviously a lot of talk about the public service, mandatory vaccination and the mandate given to deputy ministers and heads of federal agencies to decide when employees will return. Some are eager to get back to the office. Others want and need to continue working remotely, virtually. That is the case here as well.

We do not know what the pandemic has in store for us. We hope it will end some day, but it is clear that we also need to take the necessary precautions and lay the foundations for a virtual system, without debating it every two weeks, that ensures that we can continue our work.

My colleagues are eager to get back to work in this Parliament. They are looking forward to being here in this place and to participating in the debates, interacting with colleagues from all parties in the House and adding their voices to the great debates that occur in this place. However, they want to make sure that it is done safely.

As for the government team, the Liberal government caucus, we will ensure that our members can participate in the work of the House here in person, but also in virtual mode and via teleworking, in order to continue that work. Our only goal is to ensure the safety of everyone, including our colleagues, the staff I mentioned, all parliamentarians and everyone around us.

Today, I am listening to the speeches and I hope to be able to bring the debate back to the main issue. We are not undermining the democracy cherished on this side of the House and by all the other political parties. We are not trying to indirectly change something that has nothing to do with the pandemic.

We are trying to make a slight change to our democracy with the tools provided by the people who work very hard to support us so that we can continue the great work of building our magnificent country while ensuring the safety of all those participating in this work. I tip my hat to them.

I implore all our colleagues to vote for this measure that seeks to protect us and ensure the continued functioning of democracy in a safe manner.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating to listen to this today and to hear my colleagues continue to complain about the personal health information of my colleagues on this side of the House. I think it is deplorable. The Personal Health Information Protection Act is there to protect us.

What if, as a physician, I stood at the doorway and started asking members how many people had heart disease, diabetes or even worse things such as erectile dysfunction or sexually transmitted illnesses? Would that be appropriate? I do not think so.

Why do my colleagues on the other side of the floor continue to think it is appropriate to ask about personal health information?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, apparently my hon. colleague did not listen to the very last part of my speech, where I said not to make this into more than what it is. We are living in an extreme and unique pandemic. The last one happened over 100 years ago, and I think part of the problem of the debate we have had today is to try to impute grand principle into what is basically a simple calculation: ensuring the pursuit of our ancient parliamentary democracy, which is so dear to us, while ensuring the personal safety and security of all of us in this chamber and all of those thousands of people who surround us daily.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to acknowledge all of my constituents in Thérèse‑De Blainville and to thank them for placing their trust in me once again.

I was listening to my colleague opposite say that every member on the other side of the House was looking forward to coming back here. I am pleased to hear that, because we had to wait 72 days to come back to the House.

The election was held on September 20, and we only came back this week. I believe in good faith. However, this is the same government that rushed to call an election in August, that said it was anxious to end the pandemic yet put up no barriers when we were campaigning.

I do not understand what is happening today. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I do not understand how it can justify starting the 44th Parliament in full hybrid mode.

I do not understand why it is suggesting making the exception the rule when every condition is being met, in the current pandemic context, to ensure that we can safely sit here in the House of Commons.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

Again, I think that we need to move away from these arguments and come back to the motion we are debating today, which seeks to bring in a temporary measure to adapt to our reality.

The member is talking about health conditions that can change at any time. I invite her to look at how the number of cases is soaring right now in Europe and around the world. It is very sad.

This is about bringing in a temporary measure to adapt to the pandemic reality we are in.