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.