Pablo Rodriguez

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I agree.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the importance of the work that is done by each member, in this case by my colleague and by all of the other members of the House.

This gives me an opportunity to point out something else, and that is the fundamental work that MPs do when they are in their own ridings. Some members told us that it was time to get back to work. I heard the opposition say that several times. However, we are working every day when we are in our ridings, when we lend a hand to community organizations, when we call seniors who live alone. All of the activities that members do are essential. I am sure that each member does just as good of a job of this, and I do not think that this type of work is done any better by a Liberal, a Conservative or a Bloc member.

Every member does this type of work. We must continue to recognize that, just as we just continue to recognize the work we do here.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in a very objective way, that is an excellent question, because we want the participation of MPs from everywhere. In an ideal world, we would be 338 people here, men and women, representing their constituents. Because of the pandemic and the measures that have been put in place, and we respect those measures on both sides of the aisle, there is an option. It is this hybrid committee we can have here, with members on both sides, and MPs from everywhere across the country, so that MPs who are elected in Vancouver, Halifax, Côte-Nord or wherever can ask their questions on screen.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I too have regard for my Conservative colleague. That said, these are vital questions and it is just as vital that the government answer them, which it is doing. We may not agree on the answers, but we will answer openly, sincerely and with transparency.

My colleague referred to the committee. I thank him for that as it allows me to say that despite all the difficulties caused by the pandemic—people are dying, people are losing their jobs, some people are ill—we have managed to accomplish several things here in the House. For example, eight committees have held meetings. In total, there have been 74 meetings. We heard from 580 witnesses and 23 ministers appeared before committees.

The motion would have us add the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I am certain that my colleague is happy about that.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

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

We all agree that Parliament's role is important. That is why we asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the possibility of voting remotely, which is not currently possible. If remote voting were possible and if the Conservatives were interested, we would do it. My understanding is that the Conservatives do not want to do it. At some point, we may have to do it in order to carry out all our duties. We do not know how long the pandemic will last. We do not know what the future holds.

One thing is clear: The government will always act in accordance with the basic principles that define our country and will always debate issues and decisions. The opposition plays an important role that we respect, and we want it to carry on doing so.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we all want this place filled with MPs. I would like to see 338 men and women in this place representing their ridings and the people they were elected by, but it is another reality. My colleague talked about a precedent. What precedent does a pandemic have? How did we know? This is a new order for everybody, for all of us. These are not normal circumstances.

Of course, we are working toward coming back to Parliament. That is what everyone wants, but we need to strike that fine balance between the capacity of the opposition to ask important, tough questions, as they should do and as they are doing, and also respecting the advice of Health Canada. It is fundamental. This is why the motion is good and it represents that balance.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

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

The fact that the opposition will have five-minute question periods where there is an exchange is obviously much more difficult for the government. That is human nature. We will be a bit more destabilized.

In reality, the NDP made gains for the other opposition parties. It ensured that there will be more question periods where the government can be questioned about almost anything, any subject the opposition chooses. That is a measure that ensures the proper functioning of our democracy since it forces the government to stay on its toes and to fully respond to a number of questions. I think that is very good for our democracy. It is extremely positive. What is more, the fact that we will be meeting four times this summer is very positive. This type of questioning makes an enormous contribution to our democracy and we are happy to participate in it.

With regard to sick leave, my colleague is absolutely right. It does not make any sense for workers to have to choose between staying at home and hiding their illness and symptoms and going to work because they do not have enough money to put food on the table.

I want to come back to what the Bloc Québécois was saying. Obviously, this is being done in partnership with the provinces. Discussions have been initiated and will continue because we put people at the centre of everything we do. The opposition should do the same.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

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

Sometimes we have our differences and disagreements, but nobody goes and sulks in the corner if they do not agree. We sit at the table, engage in dialogue and talk it out.

The Bloc is again saying the reason it comes here is to make gains for Quebec. The way to make gains on any subject is to sit down at the table, not to stay away from the table and refuse to talk.

Once again, getting back to this motion, it strikes an important balance. There are many questions that remain unanswered. For instance, how will we vote on all the decisions a Parliament makes? How do we make sure that our colleagues who are not here can vote? They have a fundamental right to vote.

That is why, with this motion, we are asking the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine how this can be done, because it is one of the most important things a member does in the House. We need answers to this question and others, but in the meantime, we are increasing the number of hours for questions. In fact, questions on just about any subject are allowed. The members will decide what questions they want to ask.

We are going to come back here this summer. The members will get to make members' statements, speak on behalf of their ridings and so on. I think that is a good balance, because we are in a pandemic and there is a serious crisis under way. Public health officials are issuing directives, and we need to follow them.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that Canadians are not happy. I would say Conservatives are not happy.

Overall, MPs should be happy with the fact that there is more time to ask questions, because it is fundamental. We want that. We want to have more time for the opposition to ask important questions.

I was in the opposition for many years. I know how important the role of the opposition is, and the members are playing that role very well. We are giving them more time for more questions. They will be sitting this summer, with more hours a week with colleagues and big screens, being able to ask questions from across the country. It is a fair and balanced approach.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

In normal sittings, we have the equivalent of five question periods, which is five times 45 minutes. With this motion, we would come here four days a week physically. We would be here meeting and having fun, but our colleagues would also be able to participate from across the country. That is democracy. It is not just because someone who lives near Ottawa can ask a question, but anybody who has been elected should be able to ask a question. This is what we are doing.

I wonder why the opposition members have a problem if we are giving them more time than before to ask questions. I still do not know.