SoVote

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 7:09:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe a scenario that will likely come up at some point. Imagine an MP is exposed to the virus or contracts it even though he is double-vaccinated and has to stay home in quarantine. Is the fact that he is unable to vote because he is not given the opportunity to debate or vote remotely not akin to removing his privilege, given that a tool exists and it is not being given to him for reasons I fail to understand?

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 7:11:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can continue using the member for Beauce as an example. He was around other members of the Conservative caucus, which means there are members who no doubt have to potentially self-quarantine. The opposition House leader indicated that he was getting his second test today. We could have a situation where we could have many members of the official opposition, because of the pandemic, being completely disengaged without a motion of this nature passing. Would the member acknowledge that is not a healthy thing for our Parliament?

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

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

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/25/21 7:12:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I am certainly a strong believer in Parliament being here and it being accountable. The problem is that the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP have all committed to being vaccinated, but the Conservatives are refusing. In fact, they seem to think they are above the law, and that they have the right, the privilege, to come in here unvaccinated. I would like to ask the hon. member this. Will he tell us how many of his colleagues who are part of this libertarian caucus are using bogus exemptions to claim a right to come to work and make other people sick? I have to be in a lobby with them where they sit without their masks on when the staff or I walk in there. They have no respect for the people around them. How many of them are fully vaccinated? That is the question we should be debating.

161 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

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

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 7:14:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new position. By the way, it is nice to see an Acadian in the chair. Since this is the first time I am speaking in the House in this 44th Parliament, I would like to begin by thanking the citizens of Gatineau for once again placing their trust in me. It is the honour of my life to serve them and to represent them here in this chamber. I want them to know that I will do my best. My colleagues and I will work together to fulfill the commitments we have made over the years and during the election campaign. I would also like to thank my family, who have been supporting me in this political adventure for quite some time. They have been a tremendous support. I would also like to thank my supporters, the people around me. All of my colleagues and I have people in our ridings who volunteer to support us. I would also like to thank our staff who do so much for us. I want to thank all of those good people as well. As chief government whip, I am happy to work with my colleagues. I see my role as helping to make Parliament work and ensuring we can stand up for our interests and ideas and achieve our goals and objectives for Canada, our regions and our ridings. As whip, I am committed to making sure my colleagues on this side of the House and I take a collaborative, constructive approach to achieving our shared goals as we strive to create a better Canada. That brings me to the motion we are debating today. The pandemic rocked our country and the whole world. It has been a trying time for all our fellow citizens. To survive, we have had to follow code red, yellow and green rules that changed from day to day. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles talked about that. We were not sure our kids would be able to go to school, and we did not know if we had to follow a given rule from one day to the next. People had to adapt. It was difficult. We saw the consequences of that. People are eager to get back to some semblance of normal life, but they also want their government to set the example and for their institutions to reflect their primary interest, which, in my opinion, is to keep everyone safe. We need to keep our children, constituents, seniors and the people around us safe. That is the crux of what we are debating today. Like any organization, social club, sports association, educational institution or business, we had to take rather extraordinary and exceptional measures for a set period of time. The measure that we are discussing today is also for a set period of time. We had to take extraordinary measures to meet the sole objective of keeping everyone safe. There are a lot of people who depend on us, and I want to thank them. I am talking about the people in Parliament, the clerks, support staff, IT team, pages and interpreters. All of those people also had to take special measures and work twice as hard without infringing on our rights and responsibilities or undermining our ability to do our job, so that we, as parliamentarians, can enjoy our privileges, be present, talk and give speeches safely. I repeat that these measures are for a set period of time. The return is happening quite slowly. In my region, there is obviously a lot of talk about the public service, mandatory vaccination and the mandate given to deputy ministers and heads of federal agencies to decide when employees will return. Some are eager to get back to the office. Others want and need to continue working remotely, virtually. That is the case here as well. We do not know what the pandemic has in store for us. We hope it will end some day, but it is clear that we also need to take the necessary precautions and lay the foundations for a virtual system, without debating it every two weeks, that ensures that we can continue our work. My colleagues are eager to get back to work in this Parliament. They are looking forward to being here in this place and to participating in the debates, interacting with colleagues from all parties in the House and adding their voices to the great debates that occur in this place. However, they want to make sure that it is done safely. As for the government team, the Liberal government caucus, we will ensure that our members can participate in the work of the House here in person, but also in virtual mode and via teleworking, in order to continue that work. Our only goal is to ensure the safety of everyone, including our colleagues, the staff I mentioned, all parliamentarians and everyone around us. Today, I am listening to the speeches and I hope to be able to bring the debate back to the main issue. We are not undermining the democracy cherished on this side of the House and by all the other political parties. We are not trying to indirectly change something that has nothing to do with the pandemic. We are trying to make a slight change to our democracy with the tools provided by the people who work very hard to support us so that we can continue the great work of building our magnificent country while ensuring the safety of all those participating in this work. I tip my hat to them. I implore all our colleagues to vote for this measure that seeks to protect us and ensure the continued functioning of democracy in a safe manner.

999 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Nov/25/21 7:23:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating to listen to this today and to hear my colleagues continue to complain about the personal health information of my colleagues on this side of the House. I think it is deplorable. The Personal Health Information Protection Act is there to protect us. What if, as a physician, I stood at the doorway and started asking members how many people had heart disease, diabetes or even worse things such as erectile dysfunction or sexually transmitted illnesses? Would that be appropriate? I do not think so. Why do my colleagues on the other side of the floor continue to think it is appropriate to ask about personal health information?

114 words

All Topics

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Nov/25/21 7:24:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, apparently my hon. colleague did not listen to the very last part of my speech, where I said not to make this into more than what it is. We are living in an extreme and unique pandemic. The last one happened over 100 years ago, and I think part of the problem of the debate we have had today is to try to impute grand principle into what is basically a simple calculation: ensuring the pursuit of our ancient parliamentary democracy, which is so dear to us, while ensuring the personal safety and security of all of us in this chamber and all of those thousands of people who surround us daily.

114 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Nov/25/21 7:25:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to acknowledge all of my constituents in Thérèse‑De Blainville and to thank them for placing their trust in me once again. I was listening to my colleague opposite say that every member on the other side of the House was looking forward to coming back here. I am pleased to hear that, because we had to wait 72 days to come back to the House. The election was held on September 20, and we only came back this week. I believe in good faith. However, this is the same government that rushed to call an election in August, that said it was anxious to end the pandemic yet put up no barriers when we were campaigning. I do not understand what is happening today. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I do not understand how it can justify starting the 44th Parliament in full hybrid mode. I do not understand why it is suggesting making the exception the rule when every condition is being met, in the current pandemic context, to ensure that we can safely sit here in the House of Commons.

199 words

All Topics

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Nov/25/21 7:27:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. Again, I think that we need to move away from these arguments and come back to the motion we are debating today, which seeks to bring in a temporary measure to adapt to our reality. The member is talking about health conditions that can change at any time. I invite her to look at how the number of cases is soaring right now in Europe and around the world. It is very sad. This is about bringing in a temporary measure to adapt to the pandemic reality we are in.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/25/21 7:28:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think one of things that is most disturbing is that we saw the Conservatives promoting hydroxychloroquine as a medical treatment for a pandemic. Now we have the latest out of YouTube.com telling us that diabetes and heart disease are somehow spreadable when we are dealing with a pandemic. Could the hon. member explain to the Conservatives that their anti-vax propaganda in the House is actually doing real damage to the fight that we are leading across the country, along with the medical community, to keep people safe? It is not diabetes we are worried about. It is a pandemic.

104 words

All Topics

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Nov/25/21 7:28:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have always sought to be guided by the science. What do we know? We know this is a spreadable disease. We know that this is a highly contagious disease. We know that it is an incredibly dangerous threat to our public health and, indeed, I do not think anyone is served by obscuring any of those essential facts with more extraneous facts. We have tried to be guided by that science. We have tried to be guided by those measures. Like every other organization in the world, we have taken measures to adapt our day-to-day reality to the unfortunate reality of this pandemic, and tried to terminate those measures at an appropriate time. We will continue to do that.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/25/21 7:29:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in today's debate. I want to start by recognizing how difficult the last 19 months have been for everyone. It has certainly been difficult from an economic point of view, and I will be talking a little about that tomorrow in the debate on Bill C-2, and also difficult in terms of coping with the consequences of some of the public health measures that have had to be taken. It has been difficult to be shut in our homes. It has been hard not to be able to go out and get together. I fully understand people's desire to get out and reunite with people. Indeed, I have enjoyed being able to come to this place and see some colleagues, even as I have some reservations about whether it is the appropriate thing to do and whether we are really there yet. We know we are in the middle of a fourth wave. Depending on where we are in the country, our experiences of COVID are very different right now. There are provinces where ICUs are full and they are worried about the consequences for their medical system, and there are other provinces that are faring relatively well for the moment but are wondering what the future holds. We just heard the premier of Saskatchewan, today or yesterday, express some regret for not having implemented more strict public health measures earlier in the province's own fourth wave. What have we done? We have followed the advice of public health officials, which is the right thing to do. I am an electrician by trade. I would not take kindly to somebody doing some research on the Internet and then coming to tell me how to wire something. I would tell them that I am a Red Seal electrician: I have the experience, and if anybody is going to correct me it would be somebody with similar training and experience, not somebody who had been investigating things on the Internet. It has been right and good to follow the advice of public health authorities throughout the pandemic. They have told us to wear masks. They have told us to socially distance. Sometimes they have told us to stay home. They have told us to get vaccinated and that vaccination is our way through this. We are getting closer to a normal time, because more people are accepting that advice and choosing to get vaccinated. I commend them for that, and I encourage those who have not done that to do it soon. For every person with some medical credentials out there who is a COVID denier, there are many more who accept the science. I do not believe there is any great conspiracy. Frankly, having spent six years here, I do not think the government is capable of the intelligence, discipline and coordination it would take to orchestrate a conspiracy that vast, nor do I think the so-called government-in-waiting is capable of such a thing. I find these conspiracy theories simply unbelievable. If vaccination is part of the way for us to get back to normal, then I think it is incumbent upon us as elected officials to show leadership in that. One of the principle barriers to us being able to talk about how we conduct ourselves properly here, or to get back to some kind of normally functioning Parliament, is that the Conservative Party in particular has not been forthright about how many of its caucus members are vaccinated and how many are not. The Conservatives say we should simply trust the system. I think we should expect more transparency from people who are elected to public office. We often hear from them about the transparency they want from the government, and about the right to demand more transparency from the government. We have to show that in the way we behave ourselves. We have a leadership obligation to get vaccinated and to show, be honest and report our own numbers. Every other caucus here has done that. I take the Bloc's argument for an in-person Parliament to be a little different. The Bloc members are coming from a different place. They are saying that they did the right thing: They all got vaccinated, and they want to come and meet in person. I think that reasonable people can disagree about whether it is the right time to do that and whether we should have a hybrid Parliament. Their argument comes from a different place, because they have been transparent and have shown that leadership. I thank them for that, even as I disagree on the issue of whether a hybrid format should be available. The member for Vancouver East made the point very well earlier when she talked about many of us having to get here on a plane. The fact is that if I am showing any two minor symptoms or one major symptom, I have to fill out a COVID screening on my phone to get my boarding pass. If I have a scratchy throat and a runny nose, which happens often in Winnipeg in the winter, I either have to lie and get on the plane, doing the wrong thing, or I have to stay home. I would be glad for the opportunity to participate in Parliament from home, and do the right thing by avoiding getting on a plane when I am presenting symptoms. I did a lot of work in the virtual Parliament. I was frustrated by some of the things that other members have raised. I was frustrated by committee meetings that were disrupted by technical difficulties. I was frustrated by problems with interpretation. I felt for and talked about and stood up for our interpreters who were facing a disproportionate amount of injury as a result of the hybrid format. All of those things are true, but I was able to get a lot of work done. We got a benefit of $2,000 per month for people who could not go to work. We got a student benefit that would not have happened if it had not been for the interventions of the NDP. We got a sick leave program that would not have happened if it had not been for the interventions of the NDP. It is not just what we managed to accomplish for Canadians in their time of need, but it was also some of the accountability work that we did. Some people around here may remember a guy by the name of Bill Morneau, who did the wrong thing with respect to the WE Charity scandal. It was in the virtual summer sittings and virtual committee meetings of 2020, which the NDP negotiated, that testimony came to light that brought Bill Morneau down for his wrongdoing on the WE Charity scandal. That summer, he resigned his position and ultimately left the government. If that is not accountability, I do not know what is. The idea that there cannot be good parliamentary work in a virtual Parliament, both in terms of helping people and in terms of holding the government to account, simply is untrue. I do not accept those arguments. As I alluded to earlier, in the lead-up to this Parliament feelers were put out to the Conservatives and the Bloc to talk about what our Parliament would look like, whether we would have a hybrid Parliament and, if so, what shape that might take. However, they chose to abstain from those discussions. We might have had a hybrid Parliament where committees met in person. That might have alleviated some of the burden on our interpreters. We might have had some kind of understanding about how many Liberals might be in the House. However, instead of being able to have a constructive conversation, the conversation was about the disorder in the Conservative caucus and whether the Conservatives were going to require their MPs to be vaccinated. They were splintering off into a bunch of subcaucuses, and we could not have the kind of real conversation that we needed to have in the lead-up to this moment, because now we are back. Finally, Parliament has met again after the election. It took too long, but now we are here. Parliament is in session and there are things to do that are actually about the people we were elected to represent. Therefore, we should not spend all our time debating this. There was a window to talk about how we were going to do this. Some chose not to participate, so then what is the most reasonable thing to do? The most reasonable thing to do, if parties are committed to having a hybrid Parliament in this time when the pandemic is not yet over, is to adopt the same rules that those parties once agreed to. If we were going to do something different, that would be worse from the point of view of forging a new path. This at least is what they once agreed to, so our hands are somewhat tied by the fact that they would not engage in good-faith conversations about what kind of alterations to the hybrid Parliament we might make or if there were ways that we might scale back the hybrid element in certain parts of Parliament. I imagine this may happen again. This has a deadline, and the pandemic may not be over by June 2022. The next time we discuss this, I invite these parties to come to the table and talk about how to make Parliament work with the 21st-century tools that we have, in a way that makes sense during a pandemic.

1628 words

All Topics

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Nov/25/21 7:39:19 p.m.
Watch

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see you in that chair. My colleague's father was here for many years and was here as the Speaker as well, I believe. I would be interested to know how this would compare with his father's day, and the struggles he had with travelling such a long distance to get to Parliament to participate and vote. We are now looking at trying to move things forward to modernize Parliament, to have some flexibility for many people throughout our Parliament session. I am sure my colleague has had many discussions with his father about the modernization of Parliament, and I would be interested to hear some additional comments on that.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/25/21 7:40:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is true that when I was growing up my father was often in Ottawa. That is one of the reasons why, when I ran, my own family was very aware of the challenges of the job. Those were challenges that we accepted, as they are challenges that we accept now as well. We heard some excellent arguments for perhaps making some more permanent modifications to the House of Commons from the member for Victoria earlier, but we are talking about the pandemic. We are not out of the pandemic yet, and we are still dealing with public health matters. The day will come when we can have another conversation about what the House of Commons looks like on a go-forward basis, and how we might be able to accommodate families in a way that makes it possible for more women to participate in this place, but for now we are still in a pandemic. That matters for how we do business, and I would like some more acknowledgement of that on all sides of the House.

180 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Nov/25/21 7:41:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague agrees with me. I have been listening, and the concern I keep hearing has to do with the safety of all members of Parliament with respect to COVID-19. Our concern, however, is holding the government accountable. Does my colleague agree that, if the government wants a hybrid Parliament, it should make a firm, formal commitment that all ministers will be in the House for each question period, unless they have a good reason for being absent, for example, if they are abroad on government business or have a medical certificate stating that they cannot be here? Would my colleague agree that that would make things better?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/25/21 7:42:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do think that is possible, and I think that such an agreement would have been possible if the opposition parties had had a unified voice. This cannot happen if the other parties refuse to have a discussion on how a hybrid Parliament should run. Without that conversation, without a unified voice, it is difficult. We believe that a hybrid Parliament is more important, in light of the pandemic. We support the model that we had and that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives supported in the previous Parliament.

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Nov/25/21 7:43:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for hours and my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, perhaps made the best speech of the day. He has touched on all of the issues. One thing that has not really been a highlight in the discussion here is leadership, and what our role is to show leadership to the public to say how we can work together and support each other to beat this thing. Can the member extrapolate and elaborate just a little bit more about the importance of that point?

94 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/25/21 7:43:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about leadership here and what leaders should do. It is always very important that people who are going to critique leaders show that leadership themselves. I think that is what has been absent on the Conservative side of the House. When we talk about going back to work safely, that means people knowing what they are getting into. We cannot know that. The Conservative members talk about personal health information. I agree that people should not have to share their personal health information, but this is a public health issue. This is about something that is highly contagious. It is not like heart disease or diabetes that a person cannot catch by sitting next to somebody else who has it.

126 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 4