SoVote

Nov/25/21 3:20:08 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

23 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Nov/25/21 3:20:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to get back to the truth with the habit we have in the House of Commons of the Thursday question between both House leaders. Allow me to officially congratulate you on your election, Mr. Speaker. We have demonstrated in the last four days that Parliament is working well. What does the government have in store for us in terms of parliamentary work in the coming days? That is my question to the hon. government House leader.

84 words

Weekly Business Statement

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 3:20:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I love questions, but I especially love the Thursday question. I can say that tomorrow we begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑2, an act to provide further support in response to COVID‑19, which was introduced yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. On Monday of next week, we will resume debate on the COVID-19 economic measures legislation. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, we will have a debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

100 words

Weekly Business Statement

The Speaker

Nov/25/21 3:22:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has three minutes remaining.

11 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 3:22:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we talked about the opportunities of the 2019 class in the previous Parliament. One opportunity I did not have then was to give a speech that ran out of time just before we went to members' statements, so I will try to pick up where I left off. I was explaining that as the chair of rural caucus for the governing party, I have had the opportunity to speak to my colleagues. I mentioned the Minister of National Revenue and that I had spoken to the her about the challenges she has in being able to get to Ottawa because there is not the same availability of flights. I am tying that back to the provisions of the motion under consideration right now, which allows us to look at certain votes and make sure they happen at certain times of the week. It is responsible, it is equitable to members from far-flung parts of this country who are not within driving distance and it is a reasonable piece. I also want to mention to my colleagues who have been expressing some level of concern over the motion that this is time limited. As I have said, we are in the middle of a pandemic. I look around and I see people with masks on. We know that COVID still exists, but the motion is not going to continue indefinitely. It has a date of June 23, I believe. I do not have the text right in front of me, but it is June 2022. It is a reasonable motion to make sure that we can continue debate. Some of my colleagues may not have been in the chamber before question period, but I mentioned that I intend to be here. However, I want to make sure that all of my colleagues and I have the ability to practise our parliamentary privilege in the event that one of us or someone close to us contracts COVID. The fact that the member for Beauce has COVID-19 right now is a prime example of that. I want to make sure that his privilege is protected in the House, and I fail to understand completely why there is such opposition in the House to the motion that has been put forward. I will leave it at that. I would welcome any questions from my colleagues if they have them.

399 words

All Topics

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Nov/25/21 3:24:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really do respect what the member is bringing to the table and understand the importance. I know that many of my colleagues have brought forward the option of pairing, making sure that if someone's vote is not able to be counted, we can pair or do something of that sort. There have been many options. I have sat through a hybrid Parliament. I have sat through PROC, where we saw so many issues with interpretation. We understand that there have been medical conditions. I wonder why the member is not asking why we should not test when we come in. Why are there not options other than just having a hybrid Parliament?

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Nov/25/21 3:25:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that testing is part of the COVID response, but testing alone is not always going to pick up instances where COVID-19 exists. The member mentioned the hybrid Parliament. Again, I would dare say that the majority of the members, if not all the members, prefer to be here, but we are still in the midst of COVID-19. We have to make provisions for members if they do contract COVID-19 so that they can participate. The member mentioned pairing. I would not want to take away anyone's ability in the House to come here physically, if they choose to do so, because I contracted COVID-19, and then get them to ask a member from the official opposition or from one of the other parties not to physically show up. I would rather have the ability to tune in from Nova Scotia. I say this regrettably because I would rather be here, but I still want the opportunity to bring the voice of my constituents to this place.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Nov/25/21 3:26:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we saw in the Speech from the Throne, we have a government that talks the talk but does not walk the walk. We have a government that talks about science, but that does not act on it. Can someone explain to me why the City of Montreal, the Quebec National Assembly, the City of Toronto and the City of Winnipeg can offer their citizens functioning legislatures and municipalities while here, in Ottawa, we are told it would be impossible?

83 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Nov/25/21 3:26:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. The examples he gave were local ones. The City of Montreal, the Government of Quebec and other local jurisdictions. This is the Parliament of Canada, and members come from all across the country, from coast to coast to coast. I think it is in the best interests of members to have the option to participate virtually when necessary.

68 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Nov/25/21 3:27:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I am speaking in the House, I want to thank my constituents for putting me back here for the second time. I have a couple of really quick yes-or-no questions for the member opposite that I am confident he will actually answer, unlike maybe his colleague from Winnipeg North. First, would he say that it would be preferable for the rhetoric in the House to be toned down, yes or no? Second, would he agree that it is a lot easier to build relationships in person than it is through a hybrid Parliament? Finally, I have a comment. The member should talk to the member for Winnipeg North. He spoke yesterday during this debate about extending the motion past the June timeline.

132 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Nov/25/21 3:28:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member opposite for his re-election to this place. I was taking notes, and yes, of course it is preferable to be here. As a new member, I felt like I was not able to fully participate because of the COVID pandemic. It was isolating at times to be at home. To his point about building relationships, I agree. In fact, I built many good relationships with the members opposite, particularly at the agriculture committee and the public accounts committee, in the last session. I will continue to be here in person, but I want to make sure that members have the ability to continue their privileges in the event that they are exposed to COVID-19 or their partner or a family member has to isolate. They should still have their privileges. We can continue to have respectful decorum and relationships, but we can also protect members' privileges when necessary.

159 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 3:29:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the 44th Parliament to once again represent the great people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. That is in Nova Scotia, of course. I want to thank them for electing me for a third time and giving me the privilege of continuing to represent them, speak on their behalf and advocate for them and all of the communities in my riding. I also want to thank the volunteers in my riding who came out to support the democratic process and do the work that is so important in delivering the message of Canadians during an election. What we were committed to is how to deliver that. That is really important. Finally, I want to thank my family, because we all know that when one of us is running, the whole family is in it together. It is a challenge, but it is an enjoyable experience and I would do it again, maybe. I am very pleased to speak to the motion we are debating today, to bring back a hybrid Parliament, and in particular to speak on social topics such as our working and private lives. More and more studies are showing that a flexible work environment has a lot of advantages. For example, it can reduce stress and increase satisfaction at work, on top of increasing productivity, which is a very important consideration. Canadians continue to develop this work-life balance. I think COVID-19 has shown that people can be very productive and successful in this type of system. A recent survey of Canada conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that decision-makers should look at implementing policies that would help Canada achieve a resilient and healthy post-pandemic society. That is also why we promised during the election campaign to amend the Canada Labour Code with certain very important principles in mind. We want to strengthen the code's provisions to better support women who must be temporarily assigned to other duties during their pregnancy, include mental health in workplace health and safety standards, require employers to take preventive measures against stress and the risk of workplace injury, provide all federally regulated workers with 10 days of paid sick leave and work with federally regulated employers and groups representing workers to develop a policy on the right to disconnect, which would let workers disconnect without having to worry about their job security. Since March 2020, the pandemic has forced us to change how we work and, to a certain extent, to reinvent work. An unprecedented number of Canadian employers have had to adapt and be more flexible over the past 20 months. Accordingly, telework and virtual schooling have led to huge changes with many positive effects. Virtual schooling has existed for quite some time and the pandemic has done much to advance this essential virtual programming. Despite the many benefits of teleworking, the closure of schools and school day care centres caused additional stress for many parents. That is why our government strongly believes in the right to disconnect. We are doing everything we can to manage the pandemic and accept that a return to normal will require a healthy work-life balance. The House of Commons Administration also demonstrated tremendous creativity and adaptability. It did an outstanding job delivering a hybrid parliament in such a short time. For 150 years, we had no other way to vote than to be physically present in the House. Suddenly, thanks to the exceptional work of the House of Commons Administration, we managed to do it, and we will be able to use this system for years to come. That is what it means to learn and to make the most of a difficult situation. The motion we are debating today is very similar to the one we discussed in the last Parliament. Yes, the vaccination rate has increased, the Pfizer vaccine has been approved for children aged 5 to 11 and the third dose is available. However, the situation is still precarious, and the number of cases is increasing because of the season, as we are going into winter. We are already seeing those numbers go up across Canada, and that is why we need to find ways to make this work. It is extremely important that we be able to work. Whether it is from this building or elsewhere, we must be able to work. Whether we vote here in the House or elsewhere, we must be able to vote and represent our constituents. If we find ourselves at home an extra day to participate in an important activity in our community, that is even better for our constituents. That is our job; we have done it before and we will continue to do it in the future.

805 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/25/21 3:36:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. After listening to it, I am wondering whether he actually wants the hybrid model to become the usual practice. Is that really what he wants? Our role, the reason why we were elected, is to come to Ottawa to debate and legislate. That is why the people of Shefford elected me. I have a little story to tell. Tuesday evening, I went to the Bell Centre to see the Genesis concert. There were thousands of people there. I showed my vaccine passport, washed my hands and wore my mask. I never felt unsafe. If the Government of Quebec is allowing thousands of people to gather when proper health measures are followed, can my colleague explain why we cannot do the same here? Is a Genesis concert more important than our role as parliamentarians?

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Darrell Samson

Nov/25/21 3:37:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, and I want to congratulate her on getting re-elected. There is absolutely nothing in this motion that says that she cannot come to the House if she wants to. She has the right to come here every day. What is important is that she can do her work here when she has to be here, and if something really important comes up in her riding that she is involved in, then she can be there to help promote projects that are important to her constituents. She will not lose her right to vote. I once had to leave the House for 36 hours while my wife was having surgery. I missed 22 votes because there was a marathon of votes. Is that right? Did I have the democratic right to vote? Was I representing my constituents? No. With the proposed model, we will be able to do that.

159 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Nov/25/21 3:38:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleagues across the aisle continue to talk about science. I am not sure how many scientists there are over there, but that is a whole other matter. It is important that we look at this. We have never done this before, besides last year. How many people really know that it works? Is it effective? Have we really studied it? We have not. I think it a shame that after 150-odd years of Parliament in Canada we allow the opposite side to control the destiny of democracy in Canada without any study at all, and to say that this is a virtual Parliament that is going to go on forever. When are we going to look at the science that all the Liberals continue to speak about?

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Darrell Samson

Nov/25/21 3:39:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Nova Scotia for being elected to the House of Commons. As he knows, we represent people and communities. It is our responsibility no matter where we live to support them. I congratulate him for being here. I know my poor colleague was not here in the last six years, when the party across the floor refused to listen to science. Even today, it is still refusing to listen to science. Just because we did not do it for the first 150 years does not mean it is not good and we cannot do it. That is what is very important. This is an opportunity to allow us to do our jobs even better.

122 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Nov/25/21 3:40:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. Something made me prick up my ears. I am a whip, I helped create the hybrid Parliament and I am going to say quite frankly that it is a temporary tool to get through a pandemic. I am hearing that telework is becoming more and more popular, that it is flexible and so on. Am I hearing that the government wants to change how Parliament works? That it wants to fundamentally alter Parliament just like that with one motion? A story cannot be changed. Telework is practical, but parliamentarians are elected to sit here in the House.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Darrell Samson

Nov/25/21 3:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleague for her question and comments. She needs to understand that the motion before us does not say it is forever. That is not how I read it. Like my colleague said earlier, I understand that it lasts until June 23, 2022. That is what the motion on the table says, and my speech reflects this motion.

68 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

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

Mr. Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 3:51:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I would like to wish the other member a happy birthday. We all know that COVID‑19 is a very contagious disease. All the peer-reviewed scientific studies show that the risk of death in vaccinated individuals is practically 0%. My question for my colleague is this: If a person decides not to get vaccinated and risk their own life, that may be their right, but does that person have the right to endanger the lives of others?

89 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 4