Debates of Nov. 25th, 2021

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to hear about the events in the member's riding today, and my heart goes out to all those affected.

I am glad to see him. I am glad to see everybody in this room. I have not hugged him yet, but I might before the week is out.

I agree with much of what the member said today. There has been a lot of rhetoric in the last 24 hours on this motion. The rhetoric was amped up already. We were talking about hockey games and concerts and all those things. I am looking at the motion, and I cannot figure out for the life of me why we are having that discussion because what this motion does not say is that I cannot come here. I plan on being here.

Therefore, what we need to do is talk about some of the issues the member raised in his speech and we can do that as soon as this motion is passed. I think the member will find most of us are here. Please, can you go to your colleagues and get unanimous consent on this motion so we can get back to work, because I am going to be here and so are most of us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member should address all questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first time standing in the House. Yesterday I was so concerned with sending my condolences to the town of Vanderhoof that I forgot to thank the residents of Cariboo—Prince George for once again electing me. I also forgot to thank my rock, my wife, and our family for all their support. Without them, we cannot do what we do.

First off, in answer to my colleague's question, if he wants to hug me he can. I am double-vaxxed. We all want to be back here. We do not need unanimous consent. It is that side of the House that needs to be convinced. It is down there that need to be convinced.

Let us get back to work. Let us be here and let us show Canadians that light, peace and hope are possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

From the beginning of the debate, we have heard from the government and the NDP that no one is being prevented from coming to the House. However, would my colleague agree with me that the issue really is whether those of us who come to the House have the right to have our colleagues opposite us in order to answer our questions and be accountable?

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I said when I said that this House does not belong to us, it belongs to the electors. They elected the 338 members of Parliament to stand, be counted and bring their voices to Ottawa, not the other way around, to represent them, do that work and make sure that, at least on the opposition side, we are holding the government accountable.

On the government side, the members' constituents elected them to be here, do their job and be accountable.

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

Madam Speaker, it is so good to see my colleague here. We worked together on a private member's bill a couple of years ago. It is great to see him.

Nowhere in this motion does it say that I cannot be here. I can assure the member that I have missed this place too. I have missed everyone. I am planning on being back as long as my health allows me to, and I am not exposed. My concern is that, God forbid, I become exposed to COVID. There is no mechanism for me to come and make sure that I can vote, make sure that I can speak and be the voice of the citizens.

I lost my aunt to COVID-19 in May 2020 in a CHSLD. I know first-hand what it means to be afraid. I do not want to take away the opportunity for my colleagues, who may be afraid to come in because they may have been exposed, to participate in a vote.

I can assure my colleague across that there is no way I will be hiding and not come to this House if I am able to do so. Would he agree that this is the responsible thing to do?

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

Madam Speaker, first, let me send my heartfelt condolences to my colleague for the loss of her loved one. My son lost one of his best friends to COVID, a young gentleman just in his twenties.

To the best of my knowledge, it sounds like this is about a member's privilege. The reality is that it is not about a member's privilege. It is about the jobs that we were all elected to do.

We can all find ways to get our job done and get here. We can get COVID from going to the grocery store. We can get COVID from going to other places. It is about being here, being accountable and doing our job.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and colleague from West Nova on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.

I am sure over the course of my speech I will also echo some of the comments and sentiments from my colleagues over the past couple of days. However, they are very important and will be echoed.

It is an immense pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons and address my fellow hon. colleagues in the 44th Parliament of Canada in person. We are following public health measures and the science and representing our constituents in person.

It is an indescribable feeling to be standing here making my maiden speech. I would be remiss not to thank the constituents of Cumberland—Colchester for entrusting me to be their representative in this House. I thank my friends, volunteers and my family, especially my wife Deborah, my children Samantha, Allison and Zac, who have all supported me in this incredible journey.

My dear friends, I have had the opportunity to live my version of the Canadian dream. What do I mean by that? I have been able to work hard to secure an education, to find meaningful employment and to help make my community a better place. I realize this is not the version of the Canadian dream for all. However, being an elected member of Parliament allows all of us to help Canadians live their version of the Canadian dream.

For my maiden speech, I should also be talking about my background. As a young man, I grew up in a trailer park in rural New Brunswick. I joined the Canadian Armed Forces, attended medical school and had a career as a family physician for the past 26 years.

My life continues to be about serving my country, having a strong work ethic and bringing forth my constituents' triumphs and tribulations to this very floor. Sadly, the Prime Minister and my Liberal colleagues prefer to avoid these difficult questions from my Conservative and Bloc colleagues on pressing issues of inflation, continuous scandals and vaccine hesitancy of Canadians, and they hide behind a hybrid parliament. The best way to hold a government to account is to be in person and to respect the work that occurs in this institution.

The COVID pandemic began very inauspiciously for me on March 13, as my learned colleague said, in Truro, Nova Scotia. I entered an unprepared hospital, region, province, and quite frankly, an unprepared country. We have been toiling in this situation as health care workers and as all Canadians for 21 months.

In the medical world, COVID-19 was a brand new foe. Sadly, as we were so unprepared, many of us on the front lines thought we faced certain death as patients began entering our hospital on March 18, 2020. All Canadians have suffered greatly during this pandemic. We have all suffered in different ways: physically, mentally and financially.

Frontline health care workers worked overtime, and continue to do so. A regular work week as a physician was 80 hours or more. Families were separated by distance and the inability to feel the embrace of a grandchild. Seniors living in long-term care longed to be with their families, but were separated by a pane of glass.

Children were forced to go to school via Zoom and they were deprived of their friendships and their participation in sporting activities. The tourism sector was decimated and continues to remain so. We have missed birthdays, weddings, bar mitzvahs, baptisms, holiday gatherings, faith services and, sadly, funerals. We have been mandated, locked down and tested. We have been ordered, locked out and excluded.

Finally, as a nation, a great nation, it is now time to begin to emerge from this pandemic. It is time for Canada, and indeed this Parliament, to be the voice of Canada and to show our fearless leadership as we sit in person in the House of Commons.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, I have been privileged to see first-hand the enthusiasm of members meeting in person for the first time in a very long time, and hearing stories of friendships missed and open discourse thwarted by a virtual Parliament. I have heard about the mental and physical health of interpreters and the failure of technology. There is an overall sense that virtual Parliament does not work.

Once again, as I mentioned, there is no scientific data to say how great it works, even though many colleagues will say how wonderful it is. Legislatures around the world have been closed to the public; numbers of representatives have been reduced; and in extreme cases, such as in Hungary, the Prime Minister is ruling without consulting members of Parliament.

As a family doctor at heart, I am a social scientist, and we as human beings are social beings. There is a great need to interact with others in person. Indeed, as my colleague mentioned, we have seen the usual handshake replaced by other forms of contact, such as fist bumps and elbow taps.

Setting aside the incalculable effects of the lack of socialization, we are not here to socialize. We are here to work, to make laws, to consider significant issues and to lead our great country. We need to be a reflection of Canadians and also to give them hope. They have borne the burden of mandates and lockdowns, and now, as it is possible to emerge, we need to lead the way. If hon. members of the government do not intend to return to in-person work and intend to stay locked down alone at home in their slippers, the work does not get done and the benefit of vaccines is lost.

Around the world, people are envious of our position, not just the incredible opportunity afforded to us as Canadians, but as individuals who have the opportunity to return to in-person work. We know that our Liberal colleagues have attended in-person social events. We have seen many on TV and social media. Just this week, the House gathered safely to elect a Speaker and to debate the Speech from the Throne.

I have another analogy: What if all of our health care workers decided to work only virtually? I have tried it and quite frankly it stinks. Should we ask Canadians to draw their own blood, listen to their own heart sounds, insert their own chest tubes or insert their own intubation tube? I think not. Then why, we might want to ask, should we all not return to work here in the House of Commons?

We are not asking parliamentarians to take any greater risk than we ask of other Canadians who report to work every day. My learned colleague mentioned the farmers, fisher-people and other people who work with their hands. They need to go to work. Are some of us more equal than others?

It is clear to me that not being here in person allows the government to continue its reckless platform of overspending and not addressing real crises, such as housing and the floods in B.C., without having to be held accountable. Real-world issues such as the high cost of living, the censorship of the Internet and an inadequate number of workers need to be addressed, debated and solved. Instead of addressing these critical issues, the Liberal government would rather waste time questioning the validity of the House administration and questioning the integrity of medical professionals.

Canada has the highest vaccination rate in the G7. The parliamentary precinct has enforced public safety measures to ensure our members' safety. Why must we add rules to rules? Canadians are returning to work, businesses are reopening and Parliament Hill should be no exception to this reality. Millions of Canadians are unable to participate in a hybrid workspace, so why should the government believe it can receive special treatment and accommodations? Do people think that we are exempt from the same rules that everyday Canadians follow?

I realize that I am a newly elected member; however, I do not believe that the good people of Cumberland—Colchester have sent me to Ottawa so that I could sit behind a screen alone in my home or my office. They sent me here so that I would be here in the middle of the action where I can properly hold the government to account. That is what I was elected for, and the best way to do that is in person.

Canada was once an economic powerhouse, a revered nation of peacemakers, a friend to struggling nations and a beacon of hope in an otherwise dark world. This, my friends, is the Canadian dream. I implore my fellow members to do what is best for all Canadians, and that is to vote against the hybrid Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why the Conservatives oppose this motion. They are the ones who have decided to make this political.

My daughter gave a virtual speech inside the Manitoba legislature today. In Manitoba, the leader of the official opposition has COVID-19, and because it is virtual he is able to participate as the leader of the official opposition. There is a member of the House today who is not able to come in because of COVID-19. It is a reality that the pandemic is not over. No one is saying that there will be no members inside the House; in fact, it is quite the opposite.

Does the member believe that the Progressive Conservative government in Manitoba is wrong by having a hybrid system? Is it assaulting democracy by having a hybrid system? The Conservative opposition really needs to understand that this is about enabling members like the member's own colleague, the member for Beauce.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the main arguments that need to be made here is one of facts, science and trust. It is very clear that there is no science around having a hybrid parliament, how well it functions, what the outcomes are and how it is different from an in-person parliament. We know that over the last 150-odd years in Canada, an in-person parliament has worked. Therefore, when we have no certainty that a hybrid parliament works, I think on this side of the House there is a lack of trust that our good friends will not want to continue this indefinitely and indeed forever.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's riding represents the homeland of my mother's family, the McCurdys, so I am happy to hear from people from Truro in Cumberland—Colchester. However, I must admit that I have trouble agreeing with him.

I am a scientist. He is a medical doctor. He said we have no data. All I can say is that, from my experience, the hybrid Parliament worked very well. I had great access to ministers and other colleagues.

I fully intend to be here as much as I can throughout this Parliament, as I think everybody else does. What the motion does is it gives people who are sick or cannot be here for whatever reason the option to participate, to exercise that privilege. What is the problem here?

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

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues that I have to address. My scientific colleague has a study, as we might say in science, of “n=1”. He has one person in the study, himself. That is quite fascinating. Those studies are very good. We call them useless.

That being said, the other thing is good intentions. There are a lot of songs about good intentions and where that road is going to take us. We may all have good intentions to show up. We may all have good intentions to exercise every day, to eat better and to be better people. Clearly, the majority of us fail in those things over and over again. The concern is that it is very easy to take the easy road, stay home with our fuzzy slippers on, use a virtual parliament and say that there is something way more important to do than come here to do our job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to note for the member that his comments were actually bordering on personal attacks. That is not what the House of Commons is about, and he may want to apologize for that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing the arguments from all sides. The Liberals said earlier that ministers would always be present in the House. That was not my experience last spring and I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

Did my colleague understand that every minister would be present in the House? If so, does that change his position on the need to not adopt a hybrid format and sit in person? Our goal is to hold ministers to account. Does my colleague think that if every minister were present every day during oral question period that would change things? Unlike me, is that what he expects?

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

Madam Speaker, the expectation for in-person Parliament is that people are here, and that is the standard that has been set over the last 150-odd years. That is what is important. We want people to be here and we want them to be held accountable. That is the job of the official opposition, as I know it, and that is what I have been elected to stand here and do in the House of Commons.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your election. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for York Centre.

This being the first time I rise to speak in this 44th Parliament, I would like to thank my constituents in Vimy for entrusting me once again to be their representative in the House of Commons. I would also like to pay tribute to my team and the volunteers who participated in my campaign, as well as my husband, Gerry, who has supported me throughout this entire adventure.

It is an honour and privilege to serve our community. I look forward to another productive session of Parliament.

I am pleased to rise today in support of the motion on the continuation of hybrid sittings. I think it is an important motion that would allow all of us to participate in the House in a way that is safe, productive and accountable, and that sets a good example for all Canadians. That is where I will start, because I think it is really important for us to realize that how we behave, how we adapt and how we represent the legislative branch of government has an impact on Canadians across this land.

We have asked Canadians to modify their behaviours to help protect their family, friends and communities, and we must do the same. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we are taking a careful, responsible approach that reflects the ongoing pandemic that we are all living on a daily basis.

It may seem like the pandemic has been going on for a decade, but it was only in March of 2020 that we began to realize the gravity and seriousness of the global pandemic and that we had to take significant action.

This is the first time since the great flu pandemic of 1918 that we have had to suspend regular in-person sittings of Parliament, just as Canadians from coast to coast to coast had to stay home to help stop the spread of COVID‑19.

I would like to take a moment today to pay tribute to some of our colleagues in the provincial and territorial governments who also had to find new ways to ensure that, in a world where it was not safe to go to work, they were still able to work together to support Canadians and businesses from a provincial perspective.

If we look at that period between March and May of 2020, very few provincial and territorial governments were able to meet to conduct government business, with most holding less than five sitting days in the first three months.

While this was a necessary and important choice that demonstrated leadership in managing a public health crisis, it was clear that there would come a time when more regular sessions and accountability would be important. The question then became how to do that in a safe and responsible manner.

As we look around the chamber, we see the issue that many of our provincial and territorial counterparts would also quickly realize: Legislatures were not designed with social distancing in mind, with many located in historic buildings that have cramped seating. However, if we were simply limiting the number of people in the legislature, the question would become how we would also ensure that all representatives can continue to have their voices heard. It is a fundamental right and privilege of members to attend sittings of the legislature to which they are elected.

Some provinces and territories focused on the types of measures that would protect in-person meetings. This included measures like limiting the number of people in their legislatures if space would not allow for social distancing, requiring the use of masks, finding ways that would allow voting to take place safely, and eventually requiring proof of vaccination to enter the premises. These types of policies became the norm across the country, not just in governments, but in businesses and gathering places the world over. Others quickly began looking at how technology could be used to allow everyone to participate equally. Fortunately, we live in a time when technology gives us the ability to connect with people around the world at the touch of a button.

I admit that it would have been extremely difficult to participate remotely even a few decades ago when the Internet was in its relative infancy. However, here we are less than two years after the start of the pandemic, and the word Zoom is no longer synonymous with moving quickly, but instead is an adjective for how we are able to connect with one another.

For provinces and territories such as British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Quebec and Manitoba, the use of hybrid and virtual sessions began with committees, which was a cautious step and allowed some jurisdictions to test technology solutions on a smaller scale before deciding whether they could be deployed more widely.

They began by holding virtual committee meetings using video and teleconferencing technology. These were not just meetings to discuss pandemic-related issues, but to ensure that, even in the absence of face-to-face meetings, the necessary types of discussion and monitoring could take place.

In fact, some jurisdictions went beyond simply holding virtual committee meetings and, as we did at the federal level, adopted hybrid sessions of their legislatures during the pandemic.

The people of British Columbia are in our thoughts and prayers right now as they deal with the consequences of extreme weather and flooding caused by climate change, another issue of great importance to our government.

I just want to point out that British Columbia led the way with virtual sittings throughout the pandemic. On June 22, 2020, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia began meeting in a hybrid format using Zoom and limiting the number of members who could be present in person to ensure appropriate physical distancing. Those kinds of rules remain in place today.

On October 4, 2021, the Legislative Assembly adopted temporary changes to its Standing Orders to allow videoconferencing. These changes enabled members to participate, vote and table documents virtually, just as the motion we are discussing today would do.

The list of provinces and territories that have taken similar steps gets longer. On October 8, 2020, Manitoba held its first virtual sitting of the legislature, with only about half of MLAs present in person to allow for social distancing.

On March 11, 2021, Nova Scotia adopted a motion that would allow for virtual sittings, with just three members of each caucus and two independent members physically present in the legislative chambers.

May 2021 was a big month for provinces moving to hybrid sittings. In response to a COVID exposure, Prince Edward Island implemented its own temporary hybrid system. On May 18, 2021, New Brunswick held its first virtual sitting, with at least one MLA suggesting that it is a practice that should continue beyond the pandemic to deal with other potential issues such as extreme weather that would keep members from getting to the chamber. Finally, later that month, Nunavut also began having most regular MLAs attend their legislative assembly remotely.

I could go on, but suffice it to say the way things are being done has changed drastically in a relatively short period of time. While it might be nice to go back to business as usual, we are reminded on a daily basis that COVID-19 is still a threat to Canadians’ health.

While vaccinations have been an important step towards a return to normalcy, we continue to see waves of cases. As we move into the winter, where more people are stuck indoors and less able to socially distance, it is important that we stay vigilant. Our government has been clear that we have to realize we are still in a pandemic that needs to be treated seriously. Just like our colleagues in the provinces and territories, we have proved that hybrid sittings work, and may even have some advantages over the old ways.

With that, I implore everyone in this House to support the motion, which sends a strong signal to all Canadians that the government is ready to get to work, but is still keeping health and safety as a paramount concern.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about hybrid sittings having been done in the past and being done at other levels. It is important to underline that there are two things about the context that are particularly different now. One aspect of the context is that we have multiple strategies now that we were not aware of at the beginning for keeping ourselves safe. We have vaccination, but we also have testing, and the government has not put forward proposals, for instance, to have members regularly tested. I would support a measure to have all members regularly tested, regardless of vaccination status, but the government has not done that. We have tools available that we did not have a year and a half ago.

One other aspect of the context that is a different and particular to this chamber is that Liberal cabinet ministers have simply refused to show up. We have been in a context where the chamber, on that side of the House, has been virtually empty. One member would here, yet there there would be ministers giving speeches on government legislation from their offices in this building. They cannot even come down the elevator to speak in an empty chamber.

Would the member not agree that is an abuse of these provisions, which helps explain why the opposition is particularly concerned about the government wanting to position itself to repeat those abuses again?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, there is a lot of information that we did not have in the past, but we also have to remind Canadians that people were not vaccinated at the rate they are today. We cannot only be asking Canadians to sacrifice their own liberties by staying home when they are sick, so they do not spread the COVID-19 virus.

Our government and ministers were always ready, able and willing to answer questions and be held to account. I think they did a great job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I give the floor to the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I would like to remind members that, if they want to ask questions, they must be in their seat.

The member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague is pretty simple.

I think the hybrid Parliament was the exception to the rule, the rule being how Parliament functions normally. Hybrid sittings were introduced in response to a pandemic. The context then was very different. One significant element has changed: We now have access to vaccines.

As long as members and parliamentarians can present proof of vaccination when they enter the building, I see no reason why we should not sit in person, especially considering that nearly 20,000 people can attend a hockey game in the Bell Centre.

Safety first, of course, but I would like my colleague to comment on why we should not do the same thing here that people do elsewhere for recreational purposes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is much better for us all to be here together to communicate, exchange ideas and debate, but is everyone here today vaccinated? The answer is no.

If we look at the numbers in the newspapers, we can see there are a lot of cases. Some members do not even want to disclose whether they are vaccinated. I do not think we should risk being infected.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague across the way for being back in the House.

She made some very critical points around the fact that we are still in this pandemic. I know many of us in the House are very concerned that just a few days ago we lost a senator, who, I might add, was double vaccinated.

It was mentioned earlier that two MLAs in my home legislature of Manitoba have COVID-19. We know a Conservative MP has COVID-19. The idea of keeping one another safe, despite the fact that most of us are vaccinated, is so critical. I wonder if the member could speak to that.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague across the way for her re-election.

Vaccination is the way to getting back to normal. We cannot be hypocritical as members of the House. Canadians who voted for us, by the way, saw that a hybrid Parliament did work and that most of us are back in our seats. We cannot be asking Canadians to be vaccinated to help keep everybody else safe and not do the same thing in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I resume debate, I just want to apologize to the member for Cumberland—Colchester for the comment I made regarding the personal attack. I believed that he was speaking about the member's credential and not the report. I do apologize for that, and I wish to retract it.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all the members and colleagues who are here with me today. Congratulations to each and every one of them on their election or re-election to this House.

I want to thank the constituents of York Centre who put their trust in me again. I was elected October 2020 and walked into this chamber for the first time exactly one year ago today. I want to thank my daughters Taya and Eden, my parents Uri and Nancy, my family members and my community members who helped me in the brave decision in the middle of a pandemic to stand up for my community.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of the motion to implement a hybrid sitting model in the House of Commons. As the 100th woman to step onto this House floor for the first time ever, I do not take it lightly that in this day and age, the role of women, both at home and in the workplace, matters more than ever, and our voices need to be heard in this House during the pandemic and as we move forward.

As we embark on a new parliamentary session, I have reflected on the past months and how we have adapted, as individuals, families and communities, our lives to the realities of the pandemic. I have thought about how we, as members of this parliamentary community, had to adapt our traditional ways of meeting and representing our constituents in order to keep us, our staff and the House of Commons administration safe.

In fact, until this week, that was the only way I knew how to be in this House. I entered in a Zoom Parliament. I worked hard through pieces of legislation with every member in this House, whether it was through committee, caucus meetings or other opportunities via email and separate Zoom meetings to make sure the work of this House got done. We kept Canadians safe, and we moved forward with what our government and this House is meant to do, which is to keep Canada moving forward.

A significant way that we achieved this was with the hybrid system whereby members could participate in person and virtually. That is what we are proposing now. I believe that the development of this hybrid system is a success story and one that should continue in this Parliament.

There are so many reasons that a hybrid system is beneficial. First and foremost, it helps keep us and our support staff safe by following public health guidance. Second, it ensures the participation of all MPs in proceedings and in chamber. Even those across the floor who have tested positive can be part of the parliamentary process. Third, it provides greater work-life balance for us as members of Parliament as we conduct our responsibilities in our constituencies and in Ottawa.

A fourth way in which hybrid sittings are beneficial, and one that is not mentioned as often, are the positive impacts for the environment. It is interesting to ask how a hybrid Parliament could help the environment. This question was asked as part of a study conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer just this past February. The study is titled “Cost Estimate of a Hybrid Parliament System” and was requested by Senator Rosa Galvez.

As described on the website of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the report estimated the incremental costs and savings of a hybrid parliamentary system. The significant decrease in travel reduced greenhouse gas emissions and as such, this report also attempted to estimate this associated reduction.

When the findings of the report were released, Senator Galvez stated that this is the first time the PBO assesses the Parliament's climate footprint. This initial analysis found the avoided travels to and from Ottawa would approximate annual reduction in GHG of 2,972 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, savings that are equal to removing 1.5 cars per parliamentarian from circulation each year.

The report offers conservative figures, not my colleagues across the floor, that do not include the use of charter flights by parliamentarians and concepts such as stratosphere GHG emissions of flights, which would effectively double GHG emissions. The PBO report confirms that a hybrid Parliament system is cheaper, more efficient and climate-friendly.

Since 2015, the government has been committed to finding real solutions to help tackle the climate crisis while also creating jobs, strengthening our economy and growing the middle class. How our Parliament works should be part of that solution.

We have put a rising price on pollution that puts money back into the pockets of Canadians. We have made new investments in public transit. We committed to reducing pollution by planting two billion trees and banned harmful single-use plastics to protect our oceans.

Another significant achievement was the passage of Bill C-12, a bill that I worked on with my colleagues in the House, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. It was our keystone piece, work that I am proud of in the previous Parliament. This was all done on Zoom. Our government promised to put forward a plan that would allow Canada to exceed its pollution-reduction targets and create a legally binding process for all future governments to set national climate targets that would achieve the science-based goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

Bill C-12 is the fulfillment of our commitment to Canadians to put these legally binding processes in place.

I was encouraged to hear the recent Speech from the Throne on how our government would continue to take strong and bold climate action by focusing on innovation and good, green jobs. By working with like-minded countries, we will build a more resilient, sustainable and competitive economy. These commitments include investing in public transit and mandating the sale of zero-emission vehicles that will help us breathe cleaner air and increase the price on pollution, while putting more money back into Canadian pockets.

I will conclude my remarks by asking all members to support this motion of a hybrid Parliament. It is time for us to get to work. I am here to work and to do so in a way that is responsible and safe for all of us. This would allow all members to participate in the important debates in the House. Let us continue with a hybrid Parliament and do the job that Canadians elected us to do.