Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, I rise today to share my thoughts on the government motion to extend the hybrid sittings of the Senate.

On March 13, 2022, we entered the third year of a devastating and deadly pandemic. Societies all around the world were plunged into turmoil and ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic.

(1720)

Canada was no exception, and our health care system was hit extremely hard as the virus spread like wildfire. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the women and men who, day after day, took in and then cared for thousands of Canadians who needed urgent and essential care. Our health care system cracked but did not collapse thanks to the dedication of these health care workers. I have the utmost respect for them.

Unfortunately, esteemed colleagues, another system was compromised during this pandemic. I am talking about our democratic system.

[English]

Since the beginning of the pandemic, our Parliament has been reduced to its simplest expression, and that was done at the expense of democracy, unfortunately. To be totally honest, I believe that the slowing down of the primary function of Parliament has served Prime Minister Trudeau well. Mr. Trudeau likes to govern by decree.

[Translation]

People often say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Every year, the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and strategic analysis firm, publishes a document that ranks nearly all of the world’s countries in terms of health and democracy. The democracy index is based on 60 indicators grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Ratings on a scale of 1 to 10 correspond to the average score across all five categories. Countries are then classified as one of four types of regime based on their average score: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

Canada has always placed high in the rankings, usually around 7th, 6th or even 5th place, which is enviable and an accurate reflection of the fact that our democratic traditions are well established. In 2021, however, Canada fell from 5th to 12th. It appears this drastic drop is due to the Trudeau government’s many authoritarian and anti-democratic approaches.

This fall from grace is worrisome according to Andrew Potter, Associate Professor at McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy. How does Mr. Potter explain this slide? I’ll quote him:

What has happened over the last two years is that the Prime Minister has basically shut down Parliament for a long time and has been keen to limit the opposition as much as he can . . . . The House sat for a record low number of days . . . .

Mr. Potter went on to say, and I quote:

When people who disagree with the government’s decisions can no longer express themselves in the appropriate forum, they will look for other ways to be heard, on the streets if necessary. By deciding to silence the voice of the opposition within the institutions, Mr. Trudeau is directly responsible for what is happening . . . . His attitude towards Parliament has been contemptuous and dismissive . . . . What is happening on the streets of Ottawa is, to a large extent, a direct result of this. When people feel that their opinions are being ignored or disregarded, it is likely to lead to anger.

He concluded by saying the following:

If you were deliberately trying to make Canada less democratic, it would be difficult to do worse than what the Prime Minister has done over the past two years.

During the occupation of Parliament Hill in January and February, the government used the Emergencies Act to seize the bank accounts of protesters and force them to leave, in direct contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects citizens from unreasonable seizure. The Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged this a few days after the Emergencies Act was lifted. This is outrageous and antithetical to a democracy that respects itself and, above all, that respects its citizens. I will give you another example of the government’s contempt for democracy.

In the midst of the pandemic, Mr. Trudeau called an election that no one wanted, in his words to deal with the pandemic emergency. After wasting $612 million on the election, which yielded almost the same result as last time, Mr. Trudeau waited two months before convening the new Parliament. Finding himself once again at the head of a minority government, Mr. Trudeau ignored the popular will, pulled out his cheque book and sealed an alliance with the NDP in order to run the country as though he had a majority government. Only a very clever person will be able to tell us how many billions of dollars this political and undemocratic alliance will cost the public treasury.

The government will continue spending billions of dollars, either for the Prime Minister’s enjoyment or, most importantly, to keep him in control for the next three years. In doing so, it will be outrageously and irresponsibly inflating Canada’s debt, which has already hit astronomical heights.

Now for the government’s legislative agenda, which is disjointed and hard to predict. The government is sending bills marked “very urgent” to the Senate at the last minute because it apparently cannot or will not give us enough time. On more than one occasion, senators in all groups have felt rushed and disrespected by the government’s approach. It is often very difficult for committees to study bills in hybrid sittings because the technology sometimes fails and senators have quite limited interactions with each other. We need to abandon this approach as soon as possible in order to breathe life back into our democracy, which is so important to our society.

Honourable senators, while the Prime Minister is gallivanting around the world, preaching love and peace, he has let his country’s democracy fall further and further into disarray, which I find incredibly sad and appalling.

Canada deserves much better.

Thank you for your attention, honourable senators.

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan: Dear colleagues, I rise today at second reading stage of Bill S-4, entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

In a presentation given on February 8, 2022, Justice Canada stated that the purpose of the bill was to support the safe, effective and efficient operation of criminal proceedings, in order:

 . . . to help address the challenges faced by criminal courts caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and modernize our criminal justice system . . . .

[English]

While I support the purpose of the bill, I regret that the government has taken so long to move forward with this legislation given that it was meant to address the impacts of the pandemic on the operation of the justice system. The courts adapted quickly, but had to do so before the government could adopt the reform it proposes today to promote and regulate the use of video and audio conferencing in court.

[Translation]

Senators will remember that in February 2021, the government introduced Bill C-23, which is almost identical to Bill S-4. What did the government do to advance Bill C-23? The Minister of Justice issued a news release in February 2021 when he introduced the bill, then he did nothing more on this file. The bill died on the Order Paper because the government called an election.

However, in its February 2021 news release, Justice Canada acknowledged that it was important to support the courts in their technological transition imposed by COVID-19 by amending the Criminal Code. I quote:

[English]

The effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are still being felt throughout the criminal justice system, and particularly in the operation of criminal courts. The pandemic has both created and amplified challenges and limitations within the criminal justice system. Canada’s criminal courts have been adapting and modernizing to address the challenges they face, but many remain unable to operate at their pre-pandemic capacity.

That said, I not only support the purpose of Bill S-4, but I also agree with the main provision of the legislation. However, I do believe it’s important for this bill, which is very technical, to be sent without delay to the Senate committee for further study. That will give us the opportunity to answer several technical questions and propose, if necessary, amendments to improve the wording of the bill.

[Translation]

Take, for example, the rules set out in the bill regarding the use of video conferencing. The rules require that the accused consent to the use of this technology for the preliminary inquiry, trial, plea hearing and sentencing hearing, all the stages where important decisions are made about the accused.

However, does Bill S-4 also require this consent from the offender for a hearing regarding a breach of an order of imprisonment in the community? This is an important hearing that takes place after sentencing, but that may have serious implications for the offender. If an offender breaches a conditional sentence order, the judge may order that the offender serve the rest of their time in prison instead of at home, for what could be months.

Yet Bill S-4 does not appear to require the offender’s consent to hold such an important hearing by video conference instead of in person.

I share this example to highlight what I believe is an important aspect of the bill, and the defence lawyers I consulted before writing my speech agreed. I am talking about the safeguard proposed in Bill S-4 requiring that the accused and the prosecutor consent to having important criminal hearings conducted by video conference or audio conference.

(1820)

Thanks to this measure, the parties’ lawyers can require that these hearings be held in person if they feel this could hinder the proper conduct of their case, the fairness of the proceedings or the constitutional rights of the accused.

I would completely understand if a defence lawyer required a sentencing hearing to be held in person in court, if they felt that would help in sharing information with their client.

It’s important to remember that each criminal case is unique. Take for example a homeless person who has neither a fixed address nor a cellphone. In practice, lawyers who have clients in this situation gain a major advantage when their client is required to appear in court on a given date. The presence of the accused in court gives the lawyer an opportunity that they would not otherwise have, to talk to the accused in private in order to prepare the case or to make an appointment at the lawyer’s office.

On the other hand, I can also see a defence lawyer preferring that the hearing not be held by video conference, if it would facilitate interactions with a client who is suffering from a serious mental health problem or has serious difficulties expressing themselves.

I used these examples to illustrate how Bill S-4, despite allowing for the use of audio conference and video conference, prioritizes the kind of flexibility that is needed for hearings. Some hearings are best held in person, while others are best held using remote appearances.

I think many lawyers, both Crown and defence, are hoping Bill S-4 will help them in a very real way because they will no longer have to spend hours physically waiting at the courthouse for short hearings. That can happen in cases where a lawyer wants to request a postponement of the trial, ask the court to change a condition for interim release, or enter a guilty plea along with the parties’ joint sentencing proposal. This kind of hearing can take a few minutes, but when the lawyer and the accused are required to be physically present in court, they have to wait their turn in line along with all the other cases on the docket that day. Clients may also have to pay their lawyer’s fees for the time spent waiting at the courthouse.

Some may be wondering whether these questions are truly important. They are in practice. Lawyers who are not wasting time at the courthouse can use this time to better prepare their cases at their office, take more time to meet with clients and even agree to take on more cases, which would help our unfortunately overloaded justice system. Most importantly, this could result in significant savings when it comes to fees for the non-productive time spent waiting at the courthouse.

The real-life benefits of appearing virtually instead of in person cannot be underestimated, if such appearances save several hours of waiting at the courthouse. An accused person, who is presumed to be innocent, would not have to inform their boss that they will be missing a full day of work to appear in court on criminal charges. They might avoid losing their job in some cases. An accused who has a disability or is seriously ill would be happy not to have to travel to the courthouse if they can testify from home or from the hospital.

[English]

However, I’m concerned that in some cases, the changes proposed in Bill S-4 would be inapplicable in practice. Again, consider the example of video conferencing. In principle, this use of technology would save defendants and lawyers in remote areas from having to travel long distances to the courthouses. Remember, not everyone has a car or a driver’s licence.

But in many rural communities or in Aboriginal communities in the Far North, access to a high-speed internet connection is either unstable or non-existent. These communities would not enjoy the benefits of the use of video conferencing in Bill S-4.

[Translation]

The Quebec Ombudsman, who is the ombudsman for prisons run by the Government of Quebec, condemned the serious injustices experienced by accused persons when there was no internet to provide access to video conferencing in certain Inuit communities in northern Quebec.

In 2016, a report released by that organization, which, I will point out, was headed at the time by our colleague, Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, stated:

Based on the information gathered, most of the villages’ courthouses, with the exception of the Kuujjuaq courthouse, do not have the equipment, technology, bandwidth or qualified staff for effective appearances via videoconferencing. . . .

In light of this situation, the Québec Ombudsman feels that further efforts should be made to increase the use of videoconferencing or any other adapted technology for all pre-trial stages — including the bail hearing — to be done remotely, without unnecessary transfers, barring some exceptions. . . .

In other words, due to the lack of video conferencing, some inmates from northern Quebec had to take a plane and spend several days being transferred in order to appear in person at the Abitibi-Témiscamingue courthouse, which was more than 1,000 kilometres from where they lived. Does this serious injustice continue to occur in these communities in 2022? Witnesses can answer this question when the bill is studied in committee.

Without significant government funding to reliably connect these communities to high-speed internet, the promises made in Bill S-4 are empty. Their residents will not have audio conferencing, or telephones, as an alternative to appearing in person at the courthouse because, by creating sections 715.231 to 715.233 in the Criminal Code, Bill S-4 allows for a trial to be held by video conference, but not by audio conference. Without a fast enough internet connection, it will be impossible to implement these provisions in these communities.

Another question about the bill is whether virtual hearings in criminal law actually reduce court delays. Prior to COVID-19, some judges were reluctant to hear applications for remission or guilty pleas by video conference. They would tell lawyers that it was more complicated for the court, and that wait times to connect or to sort out technical problems were delaying all the other cases of defendants and lawyers who were waiting for their turn in court.

It’s true that every minute counts in courtrooms, given the very large volume of cases that must be dealt with in a day.

That said, since COVID-19, there’s no doubt that the justice system has been forced to improve its practices and, I would even say, its openness with regard to remote appearances.

[English]

Expert witnesses must be heard by a Senate committee to explain whether the current use of video and audio conferencing in the different regions of Canada has generally made it possible to hold criminal hearings without causing court delays. It should be noted that, in criminal law, judicial practices vary considerably from region to region. They vary because the administration of the criminal justice system falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and also because judges have the independence to adopt different rules of practice according to different regions.

[Translation]

Does using the technology, all across Canada, effectively provide for the use of interpretation services, for confidential discussions between lawyers and clients, or for evidence to be presented during a trial if the individual presenting it is not in the courtroom?

How do we ensure that the individual appearing by audio conference is actually the accused? How do we ensure that the accused is not being fed answers behind the screen or is not reading a text when testifying by video conference? Has there ever been a case where an accused failed to appear virtually because of a technical glitch or a connection problem but the judge was not made aware and issued an arrest warrant for failure to appear?

Senators need this kind of information so we can assess whether the measures in Bill S-4 will, in practice, make it possible to meet the objective of improving, simplifying and aligning the use of video conferencing and audio conferencing for criminal cases across the country, all while ensuring the proceedings are fair and the administration of justice is efficient and effective.

(1830)

[English]

While I support the purpose of Bill S-4, I would not be surprised if the testimony received by the Senate committee recommends technical amendments to refine the bill to better address problems that have been observed in practice.

[Translation]

There is something else to watch out for as we follow up on the study of the bill. We must also consider whether promoting the use of video or audio conferencing may in practice restrict public access to trials and public criminal law hearings. The public nature of trials is recognized in paragraphs 2(b) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, in its February 2021 report, the Canadian Bar Association expressed its concern as follows:

The emergence of online proceedings can pose challenges to the public and media’s ability to access hearings.

It is a concern that underpins a very important principle. As the Supreme Court of Canada explains in 1996 in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General):

The principle of open courts is inextricably tied to the rights guaranteed by s. 2(b). Openness permits public access to information about the courts, which in turn permits the public to discuss and put forward opinions and criticisms of court practices and proceedings.

[English]

I will close my speech by briefly addressing another important measure in the bill that proposes to relax the rules for obtaining a telewarrant. For those of you who are wondering what a telewarrant is, it is a procedure that allows a police officer to apply for an arrest or search warrant without having to go to the courthouse to apply for the warrant before a judge.

[Translation]

Under the Criminal Code, there is currently a condition for obtaining a telewarrant. The police officer must demonstrate that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a justice to make an application for a warrant.

Some may believe that eliminating this requirement could diminish a person’s protection against unreasonable search or seizure, which is a right protected by section 8 of the Charter. Law professors could certainly enlighten the Senate committee on this subject. I believe that, at first glance, eliminating this requirement would strengthen rather than weaken the protection of Canadians’ privacy.

The procedure for obtaining a telewarrant requires a police officer to prove to the justice that, based on the information collected during the investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that a warrant would make it possible to collect evidence concerning that offence. The same rigorous criterion is used when the warrant application is presented by the police officer in the justice’s office rather than electronically.

In this context, I believe that Bill S‑4 could have the positive effect of reducing warrantless searches because it would be easier for police officers to request telewarrants. The advantage would be that there would no longer be cases requiring justices to determine if the police had sufficient grounds, without which a warrantless search cannot be authorized.

The Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal — Laval — Longueuil, or AADM, seems to agree. Its representatives wrote me to say that they think Bill S‑4 “adequately balances the needs to protect privacy and to simplify the process for requesting” warrants electronically insofar as Bill S‑4 upholds the stringent criteria for obtaining warrants.

For all these reasons, I encourage you to support this bill at second reading and refer it to the Senate committee for study so the committee can make the appropriate recommendations to the Senate.

[English]

Senator Omidvar: Senator Housakos, I was reflecting on your exchange with Senator Carignan about the Queen. I’m not quite sure what relevance the Queen has to this debate. But it did remind me of someone who was a queen in our midst, and that was Senator Forest-Niesing. As we all know, she passed away suddenly and tragically from COVID, and that was a particular circumstance.

We don’t know who else here may have an underlying medical condition because medical information is private. We’re mostly a senior citizen group. And it is also more likely — and the science bears me out — that older people will have greater affinity for catching a virus, even after they have been vaccinated.

So I ask you, Senator Housakos, in light of the fact that there are many of us in the Senate — and this is not reflecting on the age of the Senate staff, all the pages and the security services, it’s reflecting just on us — would you not think that it is wiser and safer to meet in hybrid mode so that the tragic incident that we experienced in the Senate at the passing of Senator Forest-Niesing does not occur again?

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, “representation,” and “to be representative of” are at the core of arts programming challenges in today’s realities, and especially so with COVID-19’s current status.

Arts organizations are opening. Programming has begun and audiences are returning, though uncertain. At this time of reopening, many organizations are seriously working in new ways to represent and reflect their diverse communities.

Two recent visits in British Columbia were particularly inspirational for me. The University of British Columbia’s Museum of Anthropology’s exhibition Sankofa: African Routes, Canadian Roots, and the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria’s Denyse Thomasos solo exhibition. Both exhibitions were stellar and both presented artists we have featured in our installations honouring Canada’s Black artists.

Chantal Gibson had works in Sankofa, and the Thomasos exhibition featured paintings from the series now in our foyer.

The Thomasos exhibition was organized by Kleinberg’s McMichael Gallery and curated by Gaëtane Verna, Director of Toronto’s Power Plant Gallery, and she advised us on our current installation. The exhibition introduction noted Thomasos’s power, “to help us see human history in a new light.” She did, with strong work, and so too did that exhibition.

Sankofa included both African and Black Canadian artists with work from the museum’s collection and that borrowed from artists. Three sections in the show were curated by young Black curatorial students under the guidance of senior Museum of Anthropology, or MOA, curators. That exhibition effectively reflected on the past, the present and indeed the future. The introductory statements were stunning, and the facts presented were stark and demand reflection.

Quotes such as “A guiding light forward — permission to exist as a living ancestor” and “A past confronted with our future in mind” were poignant and germane.

Colleagues, the arts do and should reflect society. We, as viewers, are invited into the dialogue and reflections and are richer for those opportunities.

Dance, theatre and orchestras — large and small — across this country are, likewise, working in new directions with composers, musicians, writers, actors, choreographers and dancers to present unknown stories.

The representation of artists of colour is improving, and so too will the presentations reflecting our cultural diversities.

Again, I applaud and thank them all.

Thank you.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, a substantial amount of the spending in Bill C-15 and the Supplementary Estimates (C) concerns Canada’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet again, we must reckon with the significantly worse health outcomes faced by low-income Canadians both prior to and during the pandemic.

Data from the Public Health Agency of Canada underscores that those with the least have been twice as likely as those most well off to die of COVID-19. The Public Health Agency links this horrific disparity to social and economic inequalities faced by people below the poverty line — from greater risk of underlying and disabling health conditions and lack of safe housing, to unsafe working conditions and not being able to afford to stay home from front-line gig work or minimum wage jobs.

In human, social and health terms, these unequal health outcomes are unconscionable. They also carry significant financial consequences. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reminded the National Finance Committee during his testimony on the Supplementary Estimates (C), the financial burden includes:

. . . first, the costs on the individuals themselves by being prevented from working due to poorer health outcomes. . . . it reduces income and employment gains, and it also reduces attachment to the workforce. . . . individuals with poorer health outcomes tend to have weaker social networks, which can lead to further isolation . . . They often have to incur additional expenses: medication, drugs, supports, at-home supports and others.

There are also costs that have to be borne by society. . . . If people with poorer health outcomes have to withdraw from the labour force, that imposes costs on each and every one of us when jobs go unfilled.

There are also the costs of treating people. Those costs would be lower if they had better health outcomes in the first place. It is much more expensive to treat diseases and illnesses than it is to prevent them, generally speaking.

The most significant spending measure in Bill C-15 arises from the need to treat the results of health inequalities that we have neglectfully failed to prevent. Thirty per cent of the spending proposed by the bill — $4 billion — earmarked for procurement and distribution of additional COVID-19 rapid tests is linked specifically to trying to address COVID-19 risk among so-called vulnerable groups.

At the National Finance Committee, the Public Health Agency of Canada identified these populations as including groups such as Indigenous peoples, those of African descent, other racialized populations, those with disabilities, front-line service providers and essential workers. The committee had the opportunity to ask government officials whether these latest proposed measures are projected to close the gap in COVID-19 mortality for Canadians who have the least. Particularly, we asked how they would compare to income support measures that might have addressed underlying inequalities and allowed people to afford measures, from PPE to physical distancing, necessary to better protect themselves, their families and communities during the pandemic.

We also asked about the portion of pandemic spending, from the cost of PPE to vaccinations to mental health supports and so many other measures, related to the need to respond to emergency health situations created by social and economic inequalities that predated and were exacerbated by COVID-19.

In response, the Public Health Agency acknowledged its own previous research revealed “robust associations between income and health in Canada” and that “the direct economic burden of health inequities on health care costs is substantial.”

In 2016 alone, socio-economic inequalities cost at least $6.2 billion annually, or over 14% of total expenditures on acute care in-patient hospitalizations, prescription medication and physician consultations.

The Public Health Agency also indicated, however, that it had not conducted health policy modelling studies to determine the effects on pandemic spending and health outcomes if measures such as robust income supports had been in place to try and redress pre-existing inequalities for those most at risk of COVID.

We could find no department that has conducted such analyses. The failure of the government to provide this type of assessment results in a massive gap and wholly inadequate ability to plan, much less prepare for, future challenges. It thus significantly erodes confidence in the foundation upon which the Canadian health, social and economic policy decisions are being made. When policy is debated in Canada, whether here in Parliament, around kitchen tables, in the metaverse or on the streets, many are acutely aware of the consequences of the continued reaction to emergencies.

Too often, though, the real cost of failing to take proactive, preventative action is not in the balance when we weigh the challenges of decades of inaction. Instead, focus is zeroed in on the initial costs of bold measures to address poverty and inequality — from guaranteed livable basic income to housing strategies, disability benefits, universal mental health care, pharmacare, dental care, child care and education.

Too rarely do we consider the costs of failing to act, the costs we are repeatedly being asked to approve in order to patch some but not all of the wounds and not for everyone.

Poverty and related inequalities cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, particularly in emergency health care measures, the criminal legal system and responses like shelters or food banks that dangle the hope of survival while reminding people that they are constantly on the brink of crisis.

These are the hidden costs of policies characterized as pursuing fiscal prudence but which do not reach everyone in need or fail to provide enough support and further stretch social and health systems that already leave too many people behind. Much worse than financial cost, as we have seen during the pandemic, failure to redress these inequalities also costs lives.

I want to urge therefore that we recognize many of the measures in this bill as not only vital to COVID-19 responses but also the costs that Canadians continue to pay as a result of our country’s failure to shore up health and social safety nets, to redress social, health and economic inequality and, particularly, to work to support people in finding pathways out of poverty.

The costs of our inaction need to factor into how we analyze and evaluate government spending. They must also push us to consider how resources can be invested differently to bring about healthier, more just and equal communities for all of us. Meegwetch, thank you.

Senator Marshall: No, it’s not because of COVID. It might have intensified with COVID because some of the COVID spending was statutory. However, it has always existed, and I think I have spoken about the issue in the Senate a number of times. In fact, I have drafted a letter — it’s not quite ready to go; I’m waiting for the translation to be done — asking that the National Finance Committee undertake a review of the spending of this $308 billion. My concern is that perhaps the members of the Finance Committee think that all the spending is in the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates, and that’s not correct. There is a lot of spending outside that process, and members of the committee should be aware of it. We should be tracking it, providing oversight and making our colleagues in the Senate aware of it.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your speech, Senator Cordy. As some of you may know, in the month of March alone, there have been 23 cases of COVID in the Parliamentary Precinct: 12 in the Senate family, 7 in Parliamentary Protective Service and 4 in Public Services and Procurement Canada.

As we all know, the Parliamentary Precinct pretty much operates in an integrated fashion, so when cases are compiled and reported they include all of those I just mentioned, including, of course, employees of the House.

Given this integration, senator, do you think it would make sense for the Senate to transition back to in-person sittings before the House does? Would this not just simply be increasing the risk, not only for ourselves but for the entire precinct?

Senator Cordy: Yes, I did speak about those who are immunocompromised. I did not speak about those who may have contracted COVID and who are able to still take part by sitting at home and not going out of their house to spread it. Provided they’re not in a serious condition, bedridden or even in the hospital, they are still able to sit in a room in their house and take part.

You spoke about the lack of direct flights. I think all of us who have to fly to get here understand that. Flying to Nova Scotia used to be very easy with a choice of five or six direct flights a day. Now there are two direct flights a day. If I wait until the next day, it’s either 6 a.m., which doesn’t lead to a very productive day when I arrive at home — and that’s not a direct flight — or getting home late on Friday afternoon and heading back to Ottawa either on Sunday night or Monday morning.

I’ve spoken to one person who has to take three planes to get to Ottawa and could probably drive faster to Ottawa if she wished to do so. You’re absolutely right. There are a lot of things happening during the pandemic times and lack of convenient flight times would certainly be one of them. Thank you for raising that.

Senator Bovey: Senator Cordy, you mentioned that the hybrid sittings allow those who are immunocompromised to fulfill their responsibilities and take part in the chamber. You’ve talked about the hybrid continuing until the end of June. I certainly agree with that, especially at a time when direct flights from our cities have not yet been put back in place. I’m from Winnipeg. Mine is not going to be back in place until June. That increases the occasion for some of us, as I have, to contract COVID. The hybrid sitting has allowed me to take part this week. I would not have otherwise, though I’d much rather be in the chamber, as you know.

Would you agree that hybrid sittings allow those who do contract COVID to continue to be active in chamber deliberations?

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that. I couldn’t verbalize it any better than you’ve already done. I think it’s really important. Resources were stretched before COVID, and they’re stretched now. Our office staff and the Senate staff have been going above and beyond, and I’m sure that exhaustion sometimes leads you to be more vulnerable to picking up COVID, colds or flu when you’re exhausted. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Senate staff and our office staff for going above and beyond.

You have raised a really good point that maybe we should have a working group looking at resources. We’re looking now, and Senator Gold gave us the numbers of people within our institution who have been getting COVID. However, we should certainly look at it and see where we need people and where we have to hire more staff. Thank you very much for raising that.

Senator Housakos: Where I do disagree with you, senator, is your claim that there’s evidence that people that are older in age have a higher propensity of catching COVID. That I disagree with. There is a case that the dangers increase with people of a certain age. That I totally agree with.

Having said that, we have seen now that with people who are fully vaccinated, it has completely mitigated the risk factor of getting sick to a huge extent. We see it in our hospitals.

Furthermore, you can take a bunch of steps that we have taken in this institution to protect individuals as they do in every other place of work.

All I’m simply saying is that there is an inherent danger with COVID. Every single profession faces it — police officers; ambulance workers; doctors, on a daily basis; respiratory therapists, of which my wife is one. So if these people have been taking the steps in their professions to mitigate the risks but still show up to work, I think it’s incumbent on us to do the same thing, to take the mitigating steps to make sure that we can do our job in an effective fashion.

But it’s inexcusable that our committees are operating at a third of the output that they’re supposed to be operating at. It’s inexcusable that we’re sitting fewer days over the last two years as this country faces a huge crisis. And what we’ve done is, during that crisis — some legitimate, some illegitimate — is set world record spending with the least amount of oversight. So, yes, there has to be a balance.

But currently, the general view is — and this is my view — we have completely put all the emphasis on making sure we’re safe and not enough of an emphasis on making sure that we can do our jobs while being safe.