- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Health
- Liberal
- Ajax
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,982.00
- Government Page
- Nov/9/23 3:06:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the pandemic was a really difficult time. It was impossible to imagine that there would ever be a vaccine available for the entire population. At that point, the government made sure to make a choice that took into account every legitimate option. As a result, our response to the pandemic was one of the best in the world. The vaccine was available to all Canadians. We are really proud of that.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/23 3:17:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and his excellent work.
Clearly, vaccines have saved millions of lives. Canada's response to the pandemic was one of the best in the world.
I had the privilege of visiting the new Moderna plant in Laval last Friday. It is a site where future vaccines will be manufactured here, in Canada. Producing the next vaccine here, in Canada, is extremely important to protect our health and safety.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 3:37:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightfully named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians.
We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage.
On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.
Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.
234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 10:40:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I struggle to understand the question, but I will try to answer it in a couple of ways.
First of all, we have rules and regulations that govern this place. One of them is the tie that I wear today. On Thursdays I happen to choose a bow tie, but that is permissible under the rules of this place. I am required to wear a tie to stand in my place. There are many other rules in this place. I am going to be limited in how long I can speak. I am not able to continue speaking for an unlimited time, and some members are excited about that rule.
However, let us talk about rules we should really be excited about, the ones that protect our personal safety, the ones that keep this workplace safe. I am not just talking about for members of Parliament. At the end of the day, the members who are here, including you, Madam Speaker, put our names on a ballot. With that, we accept certain risks, but it is really abhorrent to me that the situation of the employees here, the journalists and the pages, who may themselves be vulnerable, is not considered, and that some of the members opposite are unvaccinated. They will not say how many.
The member talks about the fact that people who are double vaccinated could work in a workplace. What about them? We do not know how many people are unvaccinated. This is a workplace where we expect people to be vaccinated.
257 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/21 4:09:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Cumberland—Colchester to this chamber. I look forward to engaging him in many debates, and I appreciate his comments here.
Of course, this is the point with a hybrid. If the member is comfortable and confident working here fully vaccinated, the member can do so. I would just ask him these questions: What would he say to members who have health concerns or who are immunocompromised about forcing them into this chamber shoulder to shoulder? Why is he opposed to the idea of having hybrid provisions that would allow members to make the choice to ensure they can operate safely?
Would he not agree that other workplaces with vaccine mandates have adapted and changed to allow remote work to take place, particularly during a public health crisis? Does he not think those are appropriate? Does he think all workplaces should force employees to be in their seats, regardless if there are other tools to work remotely? At what point does he think we should go back to hybrid measures? At what point would this pandemic reach a threshold of danger that he would find hybrid measures acceptable? If we have a new variant, or if the case counts double, triple or quadruple, would he have us relitigate this in March? Would he have us come back here in February and spend more House time negotiating this? This makes no sense to me.
240 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/21 3:53:54 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on the day after this order is adopted until Thursday, June 23, 2022:
(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating in person do so in accordance with the Board of Internal Economy’s decision of Tuesday, October 19, 2021, regarding vaccination against COVID-19, and that reasons for medical exemptions follow the guidance from the Ontario Ministry of Health document entitled “Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccination” and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI);
(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House are counted for the purpose of quorum;
(c) any reference in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual nature of the proceedings;
(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;
(e) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;
(f) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;
(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:
(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,
(ii) during Routine Proceedings, members who participate remotely may table documents or present petitions or reports to the House electronically, provided that the documents are transmitted to the clerk prior to their intervention,
(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,
(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;
(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;
(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;
(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to motions relating to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, pursuant to Standing Order 50, the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,
(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or
(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,
provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;
(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;
(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;
(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);
(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;
(o) the House Administration be directed to begin as soon as possible the onboarding process of all members for the remote voting application used in the 43rd Parliament, that this process be completed no later than Wednesday, December 8, 2021, and that any member who has not been onboarded during this period be required to vote either by videoconference or in person;
(p) until the onboarding process is complete, recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person and by roll call for members participating by videoconference, provided that members participating by videoconference must have their camera on for the duration of the vote;
(q) after the onboarding process outlined in paragraph (o) has been completed, the Speaker shall so inform the House and, starting no later than Thursday, December 9, 2021, recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means for all other members, provided that:
(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada through the House of Commons electronic voting application using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote requires visual identity validation,
(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,
(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person takes precedence,
(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,
(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,
(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,
(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,
(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,
(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or by videoconference;
(r) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating in person do so in accordance with the Board of Internal Economy’s decision of Tuesday, October 19, 2021, regarding vaccination against COVID-19, and that reasons for medical exemptions follow the guidance from the Ontario Ministry of Health document entitled “Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccination” and the NACI, and witnesses shall participate remotely, provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:
(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,
(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,
(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,
(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,
(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,
(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email;
(s) until Friday, December 10, 2021:
(i) Standing Order 81(5) be replaced with the following: “Supplementary estimates shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole House immediately after they are presented in the House. A committee of the whole shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than one sitting day before the final sitting or the last allotted day in the current period. On a day appointed by a minister of the Crown, consideration of the supplementary estimates shall be taken up by a committee of the whole at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, for a period of time not exceeding four hours. During the time provided for the consideration of estimates, no member shall be recognized for more than 15 minutes at a time and the member shall not speak in debate for more than 10 minutes during that period. The 15 minutes may be used both for debate and for posing questions to the minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister. When the member is recognized, he or she shall indicate how the 15 minutes is to be apportioned. At the conclusion of the time provided for the consideration of the business pursuant to this section, the committee shall rise, the estimates shall be deemed reported and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.”,
(ii) Standing Order 81(14)(a) be amended by replacing the words “to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates” with the following: “twenty-four hours’ written notice shall be given to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates”,
(iii) Standing Order 54(1) be amended by adding the following: “Notice respecting a motion to restore or reinstate any item in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, shall be laid on the table, or filed with the clerk, within four hours after the completion of consideration of said supplementary estimates in committee of the whole and be printed in the Notice Paper of that day.”.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House, particularly on this issue.
I harken back to March of 2020, as the pandemic became a reality for all of us and we tried to grapple with how this place was going to work. I really want to take a moment to thank the opposition House leader and the opposition whips from the Conservatives, from the NDP and from the Bloc Québécois, as we all worked very effectively. We were dealing with an extraordinarily challenging time, and we had to determine how we were going to continue to do the business of the nation.
I have to also thank the House administration for the incredible work it did as we worked and talked together to build a system that would allow us to continue as members of Parliament and to retain our privilege and be able to vote and debate and do the things we do here that are so important in service of our constituents and all Canadians.
As I stand here, of course I also have to harken back to my first time in the House as a member of Parliament. Every member of Parliament takes enormous pride in being able to stand in their place on behalf of their constituents. The first time they enter this chamber, they feel that sense of awe and humility at getting to do that on behalf of the people they live with, their home communities. It is pretty remarkable.
It is not a light thing to be away from this place, but of course we were in a global pandemic.
We created a hybrid system that worked very well, thanks to the House administration. All members were able to participate in debates and motions. Members could participate virtually during question period, and ministers could answer questions. The committees were able to sit.
We were able to do our jobs and address Canadians' top priorities. We created a new voting system and a new system for debate. We used new technology. It was a remarkable time, a time of transformation.
That is where we are today, with a system that worked and served us well, but we are not out of this pandemic. This pandemic, which has claimed 30,000 Canadian lives and affected more than five million Canadians across the country, is real. We do not know how it will end. All we know is that we continue to be within it.
We hit an incredible milestone as a nation, with 90% of eligible Canadians getting their first shot and over 86% of eligible Canadians getting their second shot. All Canadians can take great pride in that, and we in the chamber can take great pride in the way we worked with one another to advocate for vaccines being the only path out of this terrible pandemic, the only path to save lives and the only path to make sure that the most vulnerable do not end up in ICUs or, even worse, in morgues.
As we continue to push that number higher, any debate, frankly, that calls into question the efficacy or the importance of vaccines is incredibly disappointing. It is disappointing because it lends credence to the conspiracy theories and junk science that we see on the Internet that is making people fearful of doing the right thing to protect themselves and their families.
Some people have compared this place to a sports arena or a restaurant and asked why, if they can go to a sports game, members of Parliament cannot be in Parliament. Let us talk about that for a second and what the distinctions are. If I were to go to a sports game, I would not fly across the country. In fact, it would be equivalent to having a sports game where every participant viewing said sports game came from a different corner of the country.
Also, they do not spend three hours watching a game. No. They will spend 12- and 13-hour days inside that facility. The individuals who go to that sporting game would have a choice, if they were immunocompromised, on whether they would enter the facility. Members of Parliament have no such choice, because without a hybrid system they have no way to exercise their privilege and no way to represent their constituents.
Unlike a voluntary sporting match, where people can choose as vaccinated individuals whether they want to make that choice based on their own health, no such choice exists for members of Parliament. I do not think it is at all acceptable that members of Parliament should have to choose between their health and representing their constituents, particularly when we have already demonstrated a system that avoids that very problem now, in the midst of a pandemic that is continuing to claim lives.
I also do not want to relitigate this matter. With all due respect to everybody involved, we have talked about this too much. We have had to shut down the House entirely at one point in time, and at various points in time we ate up all kinds of time with the House that could have been used on other priorities, to debate having the flexibility of this system.
With all due respect to the members who are opposing this, I ask what they will do if in February or March there is a new variant or if there is a surge in cases and it is no longer possible. Do they honestly propose that we should debate this again, when we already have a system in place that is effective? I do not think that is a good use of this time, the precious time that we have as members of Parliament to answer the call of Canadians and their priorities.
The other thing that concerns me is that it would give members a terrible choice when they may be feeling a little under the weather or wondering whether they should come in. Do they miss that important vote and have to answer to their constituents? Do they skip that debate because they are feeling a little ill that day, or do they risk it and come in? If they risk it and come in, what is the impact on others' health?
In the midst of all this debate, underscoring it is something very concerning, which is that there are a few things we do not know, even being here in the chamber today. I do not know how many members are unvaccinated within the Conservative Party. They have not provided that number. We know that a member within the Conservative Party tested positive for COVID-19 just last week. We know as well that there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or I do not know how many MPs in the Conservative Party who are unvaccinated and who would have been in contact with that member of Parliament.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I am happy to talk outside the chamber if people have questions, or they are going to have a moment in a second to ask questions. We do not know whether they were in contact with that member. Let us be clear on what the public health rules are when someone is in contact with somebody with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated. They are to go into isolation and they are to do so for the protection of those around them.
I repeat that I know for a fact that there are members of Parliament who are in immunocompromised situations. We potentially have an unvaccinated member of Parliament entering this chamber who has had direct contact with somebody with COVID-19, and we do not know if they have been in this chamber under that circumstance, in violation of public health. That is deeply concerning.
What is even more confusing about that position is that there is a solution for the member or members who are unvaccinated. There is a solution for the member who tested positive for COVID-19. It is hybrid, but in blocking hybrid, the Conservatives are effectively saying they want to remove the ability of that member to represent their constituents. They effectively want to disenfranchise their own members' ability to serve their constituents. That is not acceptable.
With respect to exemptions, because we do not know how many exemptions have been sought, this motion addresses them. Let us be very clear. The chief medical officer of health and the documents that come from the Ontario Ministry of Health, which is the jurisdiction we are in, include a clear document entitled “Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccination”. It clearly lays out what is and what is not acceptable in terms of exemption. That should constitute roughly one in 100,000 individuals.
With a sample size of 119, which is the size of the Conservative caucus, if one in 100,000 results in one, those are some pretty unlucky numbers. If it is three Conservative members who have it, that is odds of one in 40. If a Canadian is in a workplace with a vaccine mandate, there is a one in 100,000 chance. For a Conservative, it is one in 40.
I do not buy that math. With all due respect, it stretches the boundaries of what is mathematically possible. In fact, I tried to take a look at what would be a statistical equivalent of that kind of math, and I am simply unable to find it on this earth.
This is not only a place where we have to worry about the privileges or the health of members. As I stand here and as I look at you, Mr. Speaker, I see pages who are working for us. I see journalists, and I see people within the House administration. I know that down these corridors walk staff who are diligently trying to serve this place and serve our democracy.
When I see those people, I wonder to myself, though sometimes I do not have to wonder because they tell me, how safe they feel. Is that fair? Is it fair that people are entering their workplace and are being left with huge questions about whether basic public health practices are being carried through?
Even if we say that we put our name on a ballot, and even if we say that as a result of putting our name on that ballot we accept a greater risk, do we also say that those who would serve us in this place, whose names never went on a ballot and who never made that choice, should face this kind of risk? Can we look them in the eye and tell them that they must face a higher public safety risk simply because people do not want to use a system that worked, or people do not want to use a system that was entirely effective?
Another thing that concerns me is that I have made offers. I have asked what needs to be changed and what we need to do so we can continue to follow public health guidelines, have this flexibility and have some modicum of social distancing, and so we can take advantage of the fact that people who are in a vulnerable health situation or who are immunocompromised could work at distance. I asked for them to give me something and to work with me, but there was nothing. There was no interest. It was too bad for every single person here in the middle of a pandemic, regardless of their health situation. I do not think that is acceptable.
We have on the other side an old, outdated and, dare I say, dangerous view of what has to happen. Damn the torpedoes and damn the consequences. Forget the technology available or the public health circumstance. Let us shove everybody in here. I do not want to think about what the consequences of that kind of thinking could lead to. It is not right. It is not right in this workplace, and it is not right in any workplace.
Members could, with these hybrid provisions and this motion, represent their constituents. They could hold the government to account. They could vote, debate and participate in committee, and they could do it all safely. With this motion and the suspension of Standing Order 17, they could also speak freely in all sorts of different places in this space so we can have some kind of social distancing in here, something else that is not now allowed. The production of documents would also be allowed to be done electronically. In short, the motion allows for the safe extension of a member's full and entire privilege in a time of a pandemic. It allows us to do the business of Canadians safely.
There are many debates that we have here where the science and the evidence leave some grey areas in between. I will finish on this note: There is no grey area of science here. There is no area of ambiguity in terms of the imperative action we need to take to protect not only members but also the people who work here.
I am saddened that this has come to debate. I wish that, like other matters that we dealt with so effectively, we could have reached unanimous consent, but here we are. Let us at least dispose of this quickly so we can get back to the business of this place.
4211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 5:24:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, questions of privilege are not just about individual members; they are about the collective interest and health of all members. What happens if a member has a health problem? That is why we are having these in camera discussions at the Board of Internal Economy. People's personal situations and health status must be discussed in private.
We have members in this place who may be immunocompromised, people who are actually put at very real, elevated risk compared to others because of a communicable disease. What about their privilege? I do not hear the Conservative members talking about the privilege of members who are in that very vulnerable state.
This place is not just about our privilege. As I stand here, I see members of the House administration. I see pages. I know there are people who are doing translation. There are journalists. What about their health? What about their privilege to have their health protected? At what point do we set rules to make sure that the privilege of an individual does not compromise the safety and health of others?
We know that this chamber is full of rules and full of things that would infringe upon our individual privilege. The whip spoke about the fact that I have to wear this tie. He is absolutely right; that is a rule, and I suppose that is an infringement of my privilege if I did not feel like wearing a tie. So are dress codes, limited hours and limited debate. I was just talking to the member for Winnipeg North, who was telling me a story of a member who walked into the Manitoba legislature with a knife and had to be told that their privilege did not include carrying a knife.
There are limits on our privileges in this place. Those limits are present at all times. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they most certainly are present during a pandemic. We are in a public health crisis. We would expect all workplaces to have these provisions. I am, frankly, disappointed that we are talking about this, because all of these conversations miss the single most important fact, which is that with unanimity we could have avoided all of this. We could simply have agreed that vaccines, in this place, on the parliamentary precinct, are the right thing to do. Instead, we are continuing to debate this for reasons that frankly, I have to say, are confusing to me.
If these moral arguments do not hold sway and if the concern of privilege for others does not hold sway, I will refer specifically to some items within the Parliament of Canada Act and elsewhere that demonstrate the Board of Internal Economy's ability to have authority to decide vaccination requirements within this House.
I would like to draw to the attention of members section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which states, in respect of the functions of the Board of Internal Economy:
The Board shall act on all financial and administrative matters respecting
(a) the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its staff; and
(b) the members of the House of Commons.
The Board of Internal Economy has a legislated mandate to act on administrative matters for the House and its members.
I would also like to draw the attention of members to Government Motion No. 1, which the government gave notice of today on the special Order Paper, and which was shared last week with all parties. Motion No. 1 directly addresses the matter of ensuring that members who participate in the deliberation of this House in person must be fully vaccinated or have a legitimate medical reason for not being vaccinated. This is a fundamental issue of the collective privileges of the House.
I can assure members that this matter will be debated as soon as possible to send a clear message that the health and safety of members who participate in person are of the utmost importance to the government members and, by extension, the House.
I would point out that not only does the Board of Internal Economy have the authority to make the sensible decision it has made, but also this matter will be debated and voted on in the next few days, which will further resolve the point raised by the opposition member.
In closing, I would like to cite a salient point made in the 2014 edition of Erskine May's A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, at page 203. It states that certain rights and immunities, such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech, belong primarily to the individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members.
It goes on:
Other rights and immunities, such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution, belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. Fundamentally, however, it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by Members.
That last quote is most pertinent to this situation. The question of the relationship between individual privileges and our collective privileges is a fundamental issue for this House to determine. That is precisely what the government is proposing to accomplish through Government Motion No. 1.
As the last point, even if the party opposite continues to protest in this way, there is a very simple solution, which the House leader for the NDP has indicated, and that is an extension of the hybrid measures which would allow the members who are unvaccinated in their caucus to participate remotely and do so in a way that is safe and does not in any way impugn their privilege. They are in the odd position of disenfranchising their own members by saying they are both against having this hybrid provision and also having this position on vaccines, which I find strange.
This matter is clear. Absolutely the board has the authority and collective privilege has to be respected in this place.
1047 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 5:20:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I take my place here yesterday and today, I cannot help but reflect on how fortunate I am to be here and thank the good folks of Ajax for sending me to this place for the sixth time. In returning for the sixth time, I welcome this debate because it is an opportunity for us to have a discussion on the nature of privilege.
Of course, privilege is extended to us not because we are special but because we hold an important democratic function representing the people in our ridings. We have a duty, as was just articulated by the NDP House leader, to lead by example and to use that privilege for the purpose for which it was intended, to extend the betterment of Canadian citizens, their health and well-being, and ensure we comport ourselves in a way that inspires leadership in the rest of the country.
We hit a big milestone today: 90% of Canadians have at least one vaccine and over 86% have two. It is a remarkable achievement. It is remarkable because we have been able to frankly be much less divisive in our country than we have seen in other places.
Every time we debate this, and is why I lamented being here today, it makes it harder for that last 10% to get that first shot and harder for that last 14% to get that shot. It is my sincere hope we can dispose of this matter and stop talking about it so we can be united in our desire to see every single Canadian vaccinated so we can put this whole business of COVID behind us.
I look at this and my problem is really a couple-fold. One would hold out that the Board of Internal Economy is only seven members of Parliament. Those members are representatives of their respective parties and represent more than 70% of the elected will of the Canadian people.
Others have spoken about other mandates in place and how we should expect Parliament to be no different. I would actually say that this place has an extra special responsibility to make sure everybody is vaccinated here, specifically because we are criss-crossing from every part of the country, convening in this room, meeting for very long hours and then returning to every part of this country.
This is not the same situation as the local restaurant. There is no other workplace like this one. Therefore, we have to be even more careful in how we—
423 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 4:40:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of the Board of Internal Economy are in camera, and therefore, the discussions about votes of the Board of Internal Economy are supposed to similarly be in camera.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
