44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 25, 2021 10:00AM
- Nov/25/21 2:54:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for three years, the Prime Minister told Canadians that it was impossible to close the Roxham Road crossing. However, during the pandemic, all of a sudden, miraculously, we stopped letting illegal migrants cross. This proves to Canadians that it can be done if there is the will to do it.
Since Sunday, the border has reopened to illegal migrants from the United States. Why?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 2:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand very well. Throughout the history of Canada and the United States, Canada has always welcomed immigrants, people fleeing their country because of poverty or war.
In this specific case, we are talking about people leaving the United States and coming to Canada. In January 2017, in response to Donald Trump's actions, the Prime Minister told them to come to Canada. Joe Biden is the President of the United States now. Is there still some reason we are telling people in the United States to come to Canada illegally?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 7:00:45 p.m.
- Watch
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.
1221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 7:10:04 p.m.
- Watch
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.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 7:11:46 p.m.
- Watch
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.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 7:13:22 p.m.
- Watch
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.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
