44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 25, 2021 10:00AM
- Nov/25/21 3:41:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to let you know that I intend to share my time with my delightful colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. I would like to wish her a very happy birthday once again. She turned 23 yesterday, so I would again like to wish my colleague a happy birthday.
I hope you do not mind, Madam Speaker, if I take this opportunity to recognize the people who supported me during the campaign this autumn. I am thinking of the family members who, by force of circumstance, have become our most fervent volunteers and our most fervent admirers. I am thinking of our teams around us and, above all, we are thinking of the voters who have given us their trust. As we all know, sometimes we can say that the first time is perhaps an accident, but I can confirm that the second time is a mark of confidence that is appreciated all the more.
My thanks to all the volunteers who worked on my campaign, I see them not only as thanks, but also as a prelude to what I am about to discuss, because this team was on the warpath for months preparing for an election that was coming, we did not know when. That is always what happens in a minority government. They were also called upon to reinvent themselves, according to the somewhat overused term we heard during the pandemic.
We also wondered why the Liberals called an election during a pandemic. In Parliament, we even voted on a motion stating that it was irresponsible to hold an election during a pandemic, but that clearly did not bother the government since it went ahead and called one anyway.
One also has to wonder what has changed so much since the time of the election and now, since during the election it was fine to travel from one province to another and the borders were not closed. What has changed so much that we now need to adopt a hybrid system of Parliament?
As far as I know, things have improved somewhat and some restrictions have been lifted. Restaurants are able to welcome more customers at a time and there are no longer any limits on the number of people allowed at theatres. We stopped limiting the number of people who can go into the grocery store at one time. I do not think that things have gotten so bad that we have to go back to a hybrid system of Parliament.
The current situation is not ideal. The ideal situation would be if there were no pandemic. However, there is one and we must live with it. In this context, I would say that the Bloc's proposal for how we should work during the pandemic is the most balanced and the most reasonable: The 338 members would return in person and everyone would provide proof of double vaccination. That is the closest to what we are seeing in all societies that have put in place strict health measures.
The arguments made by my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook to justify hybrid sittings do not entirely have to do with the pandemic. This further bolsters my belief that we are being fed false arguments and that the pandemic is but a pretext to avoid returning to the House and being accountable to the people we represent. I find that there are false pretenses behind this.
I hear arguments about sick leave, maternity leave or snow storms. I am not saying that those are not legitimate concerns, but now is not the time to be talking about them, and during a pandemic is definitely not the time to be having this debate. Last summer I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we nailed down the ins and outs of a hybrid Parliament. During our discussions, we said that it was not the time to be making these kinds of arguments for a broader discussion on a hybrid Parliament. I get the feeling that this is what people are doing here today.
The motion will clearly be adopted and the hybrid system will soon be back. People are telling us that a hybrid Parliament is so important because they are worried about their health and want to be safe. I do not think there is any guarantee that the people we see on Zoom will spend the rest of the week in their basement, avoiding meeting with constituents, turning down meetings, not going to bingos or spaghetti suppers, and not campaigning in their ridings while they are supposed to be here, in Parliament.
I really want to stress that hybrid sittings mean we lose the natural, organic contact with our colleagues that we have seen over the course of these four sitting days. We lose the opportunity for one-on-ones with a minister, a colleague, a critic or a fellow parliamentary committee member. That kind of thing is not easy on Zoom.
The same thing happened in parliamentary committees. Not only are Zoom committee meetings more arduous, but they also do not afford members the opportunity to glance at a colleague in a way that says, “Let us meet at the coffee station to discuss something” while still following the conversation. Zoom meetings are not nearly as effective.
I think the biggest downside of all is lack of accountability. That may be why government members are the ones who seem most keen on the hybrid model. Virtual attendance means no reporters waiting for them on their way out of the House of Commons. All they have to do is click on “Leave” to dodge any accountability to the fourth estate, the press.
We also forget the work of the support staff, who we burned out by using the hybrid model. I am thinking about the IT group. We have to tip our hat to them because they performed miracles, but we wore them out by using the hybrid model so much. I am also thinking about the interpreters, whose sound quality during Zoom meetings was quite bad most of the time. We exhausted them as well. Returning to normal would do them a favour.
I am anticipating certain questions, so let me answer them immediately. If I answer them ahead of time, then my colleagues will not need to ask them. I invite them to come up with other questions to ask me.
We have been asked how this will work if the situation deteriorates while we are in normal mode. In that case, we will do the same thing as last time. We will turn things around in 24 hours and bring in a hybrid Parliament, especially now that we already have the necessary technology.
There have also been questions about how we will know if the situation has gotten worse. We will just have to look at what is going on in the provinces and in Quebec. Any new lockdowns would be an indication that the hybrid system should be brought back. It would be a relatively simple and quick process. We already know that it is possible.
There have been questions about members who may be immunocompromised and who may be afraid of coming to Parliament. I do not get the impression that the majority of members of Parliament are immunocompromised. If it turns out that there are members who are immunocompromised, which remains to be proven, they would probably be the exception. By bringing in a hybrid Parliament, the government is enforcing a universal standard to cater to special cases. The standard should be that members come in person because that is why we were elected. These supposedly immunocompromised members, if there are any here, probably campaigned outside of their basements.
We are also hearing the argument that some people have young unvaccinated children and they are worried about bringing COVID-19 home to them. We are about to start vaccinating younger children. Because of that, the argument already holds much less water. However, I would be curious to know whether members who have young children stop them from going to the movies, going to shows and seeing other people. Are they home-schooling to ensure that the children are not at risk? I think that is a fair question.
All that to say that the motion we are debating seems much more bogus. It seems to be using the pandemic for purely political and partisan purposes, and that is what I find really disappointing.
Moreover, the government is already anticipating that this measure will stay in place until June 23, 2022. June 23 is seven months away. If we go back the same amount of time, seven months ago, I could not even get on a waiting list for my vaccine. A lot of water has gone under the bridge in the past seven months. I expect that a lot will happen too. If the government wants to go so far with this right off the bat, surely that just confirms how partisan this measure is.
1525 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:51:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that sounds more like a question for a member of another party than for a Bloc member.
The answer is simple. Our solution is the most balanced approach. We want a return to in-person sittings with everyone providing proof of double vaccination.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:53:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I am sorry that I do not see her anymore. I may not be on the same committee as her, but I want to tell her that I enjoyed sitting next to her during the last Parliament.
Once again, our proposal settles the matter of double vaccination. We want everyone who enters the parliamentary precinct to be double-vaccinated.
Beyond that, the real question is this: What is the balance between parliamentarians' rights and their obligations?
This proposal seems to completely overlook parliamentarians' responsibilities and obligations, which includes the governing party's responsibility and obligation to be in the House to answer the opposition's questions.
All we are hearing the Liberals talk about is rights. They are avoiding the issue of responsibilities.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:54:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand that the question was not addressed directly to me, but I would still like to try to answer it.
Science has proven its worth. A person who is unvaccinated has a much higher viral load. Although double vaccination affords adequate protection, it is not perfect. We can still have symptoms of COVID‑19.
The ideal solution is for people to get double-vaccinated and to return to the House in person.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:55:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby seems to be suggesting that he thinks the various public health authorities are taking this situation lightly, since they have authorized the reopening and are allowing public gatherings.
I would remind him, as I said in my speech, that we will follow all public health recommendations and that, in the event of another lockdown, the hybrid model would be justified, but that is not currently the case.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 4:23:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him.
He listed some of the advantages of the hybrid model, including remote voting. For example, he said that if he had COVID‑19, he could stay at home and not come here to vote. In the past, people got sick while Parliament was sitting and were unable to come to vote.
Does he agree that the opportunities that we might have with a hybrid Parliament in exceptional cases should be studied at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for example, and not under a closure motion?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 4:53:59 p.m.
- Watch
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?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 5:36:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We heard her deliver a long speech and talk at length about the environmental benefits of a hybrid Parliament.
Which does she think would have a greater impact on climate change: a hybrid Parliament or ending fossil fuel subsidies?
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 6:07:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your appointment.
I thank my colleague from Victoria for her speech. Before I ask my question, I have to tell her that Alora is absolutely adorable. I listened closely to the member's speech. If we were not debating under a gag order in a pandemic, I would have roundly applauded what she said about work-life balance.
However, the issue is that when we look around, there is often only one government member in the House. As far as I know, unless they are very secretive, none of the other members have a seven-month-old baby. My question is this: Does the member feel as though the situation we are discussing should be the exception even though the motion applies to everyone?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
