Parliamentary Speeches

Earlier today, the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege in relation to the decision of the Board of Internal Economy to require vaccination against COVID-19 for members accessing the House of Commons precinct. However, the Speaker signalled that he would reserve his final ruling until such time as the member for Banff—Airdrie could move an appropriate motion. Since the member for Banff—Airdrie has since indicated that he is satisfied with the Speaker's finding and no motion was subsequently moved, the Chair considers the matter to be closed. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

Madam Speaker, I extend to you my warmest congratulations on your re-election as Speaker. I would also take this opportunity, my first time rising in the 44th Parliament, to thank my constituents in Brossard—Saint‑Lambert for sending me back here for the fourth time, with an overwhelming majority. I am honoured and deeply touched. I am honoured to participate in today's debate on the motion moved by the government leader to implement hybrid sittings for the beginning of the 44th Parliament. I have heard a lot of arguments for and against this motion, as well as a controversy that was blown out of proportion for reasons that sometimes escape me. I would be the first to say that I would prefer to sit here full time. I love being in the House of Commons. I love meeting with my constituents, not all, but most, and I am very happy when I am in the House. I came here as often as I could when we were operating virtually. I do not think the purpose of this motion is to send us all home. The goal is to make sure we all have a safe option if we need it, such as if physical distancing measures had to be reinstated. Again, the idea is not to find ourselves in a situation where there is just one person in the House. It is to establish a limit on the number of people who can be here. The point is to give ourselves a degree of flexibility we do not have right now, and that includes the flexibility to vote and participate in debates without necessarily being here in person. Any one of us could get sick, maybe even with COVID-19, and need that flexibility. What the hon. member for Saint-Jean said earlier is absolutely true. Before the hybrid Parliament option was available, many of us stayed home when we got sick and could not participate in debates here. Progress being what it is, we can now have a hybrid version of Parliament. I think the point of this motion is to show that we are still in a very delicate situation. The pandemic is far from being fully under control, we have not yet reached herd immunity as we would have liked, and children five to 11 years old are only just beginning to be vaccinated. It is with this in mind that the government is proposing the option of a virtual Parliament, that is, for those who could not come to the House of Commons. This is not at all about sending us home. On the contrary, we want to be here as much as possible and with as many colleagues as possible. I also think the terms of the motion aim to bring some predictability to the way we will be working in the coming months, considering we are still in a public health emergency. During the long months of 2020 and 2021 when we were in hybrid mode, we got to learn how it works. We also saw that it came with some pretty real challenges, from both a technical and human standpoint. I agree with my colleagues who say just how hard it has been for our interpreters. It may have led to work-related illness for those who sometimes had to grapple with a virtual presence less disciplined than it was in person in the House. We have to admit that, because every day we see the cacophony in our debates, especially during question period. On Zoom or in the House, the cacophony is part and parcel of our debates. Though it may seem harder with Zoom, I think it has the same effect on the interpreters in the House. It also caused problems for committee interpreting. I am not sure why, but it seemed to have something to do with the fact that a lot of members were not wearing their headsets. This made it difficult for the interpreters to do their job. If that is the problem, I totally agree: It is a matter of respect for the interpreters and for our other colleagues. The fact remains that, before the pandemic, I believe there were usually about a thousand employees in the parliamentary precinct, including MPs, parliamentarians, staffers and all of the personnel who support us in our work in the House. That includes the security staff, pages, food services staff, clerks and the whole structure that enables us to do our work. We are talking about over a thousand people in the House every day. That is a lot of people, and we want to make sure that they are all double-vaccinated. I assume that is the case for all of us. We also know that the vast majority of us will need a third dose. Quebec just announced today that those who received two doses of AstraZeneca can now go and get their third dose, because they are not yet fully vaccinated. There is still a lot of uncertainty regarding the pandemic. There is still a good chance that things will go downhill again. We are already seeing an increase in the number of cases every day in Quebec and across Canada. Furthermore, an increase in cases can cause more complications, which is why we need the flexibility this option affords us. We do not want to suddenly force everyone into virtual sittings, but we want that option to be available. I think that is the objective of the government's motion. That is why I think we are here. In closing, I want to say that I am very happy to be back in the House, being around and seeing my colleagues. I was looking forward to this and I am happy to be here among them all. I hope that we will be able to do so safely until June 2023.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question. It is warranted by the situation right now because we have colleagues who are impacted by COVID‑19 and cannot be present at this time. Even if they do not have serious symptoms, they cannot come to the House. Therefore, the health situation remains precarious. There are still a lot of unknowns and we do not know how we will proceed. Thus, offering parliamentarians the opportunity to continue to participate virtually is one way to continue. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did actually confirm today that ministers are supposed to be here every day, and we are supposed to be here every day. If we are healthy and vaccinated, why would we not be here every day? Proposing a solution does not mean that we will decide to proceed in that manner and have a government to go, as the member called it.

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that, as dean, your remarkable 37 years of uninterrupted service to Parliament is equal to the amount of time it has been since a woman has occupied the chair, and we must admit that is a significant number of years. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chair, that it is starting to feel like a long time. The fact that I am a woman is not the only thing I would bring to the table. What I hope to bring to this position is a unique vision of this House. I am not here to oppose anyone. I am here because I hold certain beliefs that I think could provide another way of approaching our responsibilities as parliamentarians. Of the 30 million people in Canada, we are the 338 who have been chosen to pass legislation for the present and, more than ever, the future of Canadians. Since I was elected the first time, I have been acutely aware of the incredible honour bestowed upon me by my constituents in Brossard—Saint‑Lambert and of the responsibility that I have undertaken to fulfill. Some of those responsibilities include, and depend on, the constant quest for truthfulness and common good. As we start this 44th Parliament since Confederation, after close to two years of a public health emergency that changed so much of what we took for granted, I also believe one of our responsibilities is to find joy in the work we do. Loving what we do, this place where we do it and the people who help us do it, for me, are fundamental aspects of a successful parliamentary life. I associate some of the more meaningful hours I have experienced in this House with debates where members strove to find shared goals. From emergency legislation to support and sustain Canadians through the pandemic, from reconciliation to the right to repair, and from climate change to the Uighur genocide, the 43rd Parliament did allow us to engage in lively and constructive debates. It cannot and should not be all about insults and accusations, about “gotcha” moments and questionable statements. What I take from these moments is that we are perfectly capable of rising above partisan bickering when the situation calls for it and that the sense of humour of some members can spice up dry conversations that are sometimes too technical. The ability to find the right words is an art that I admire, and many of my colleagues are experts in that art. Our debates should always exemplify the art of public speaking, and should therefore be conducted with mutual respect and follow the basic rules of courtesy. First and foremost, we are here to pass good laws. Although we all do essential work in our ridings, our primary role is that of legislator, and it takes a team effort to keep our discussions courteous, especially when there are dissenting opinions. Holding the government to account is the essential element of parliamentary democracy. No government is immune from the necessary scrutiny of its proposed legislation and its management of the public accounts. However, Canadians have told us time and time again that they expect us to do this with far more civility than they see in this place most days. It is often said that teachers feel a certain dread when bringing students to Parliament or showing them snippets of parliamentary debate. It is also said that our behaviour in this House is so abhorrent that the message it sends to students is exactly the opposite of what teachers would like to convey. I will go a step further with this. Sometimes, and I am hardly blameless, I listen to the heckling and the insults that fly around the House, particularly during question period, and I ask myself if this how we want to be remembered, or if this is the legacy we would like to leave behind once our time here comes to an end. I have concluded that, for me, the answer to those questions is a resounding no. Members can reject me if they must, but should I be given the honour of being elected to the Chair, I would strive with all my might to bring dignity to our debates. Dignity is a principle that is very important to me. No one in this House, whether a parliamentarian or someone else, should be deprived of their dignity as a human being. Let us humbly thank the pages who bring us a glass of water or a lectern. Let us be aware and respectful of the tremendous work done by the interpreters. Let us recognize the sensitive nature of the task that falls to the table officers. Finally, let us remember that, despite our differences, we are all here for one purpose: to pass good legislation. Joy is also a principle that is extremely important to me, and the joy of music is an endless source of wonder. I dream of creating a parliamentary choir, a goal I have had ever since I learned that several European parliaments have one and that they visit one another. Over my many years in this place, I have heard people, including journalists, staff and sometimes new members, suggest that some of the traditions and rituals we observe here are silly, arcane or outdated. I tend to disagree, but it does not mean we should not try to create new rituals that, in turn, will become traditions. This is the people's House and we are only temporary occupants and guardians of it.