SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Jun/13/23 6:31:25 p.m.
Watch

As I said earlier, the Chair is actively looking at the question of privilege and will come back with a response as soon as we possibly can.

27 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/13/23 6:32:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my previous eight minutes yesterday, I unpacked some challenges with what the Liberals are proposing and why I believe that what is more or less a sunset clause, which the opposition House leader has proposed, is vitally important to this discussion. I would like to conclude my remarks on this by emphasizing something that I believe is causing an erosion of the democratic institutions in this country. We see a growing disconnect between the executive branch of government in Canada and the legislative branch. I bring this up because it is foundational to what makes Canada distinct as a Westminster federal state. Unlike our counterparts in the United States and unlike other republics around the world, our executive branch of government is represented by a Prime Minister, the first minister among what are supposed to be equals, although that tradition has long since gone away. The government is also represented by the cabinet in the front bench, who are members of the Privy Council. We have seen a growing disconnect between what happens in this place and what conduct is decided upon when it comes to how government operates. This is especially concerning because in our nation, this is the only institution, with senators who are elected from Alberta being the small exception, on a national level where Canadians get to choose who represents them. In conclusion, I urge all members of this House to think about that, and specifically Liberal members, who seem intent on seeing the disconnect expand between the executive and legislative branches of government. The ultimate result is that it will break the very foundation of what our democracy is supposed to be.

280 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:34:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that there are, in fact, two members of my colleague's caucus who have had babies during this Parliament and who have actually been able to participate fully as members of Parliament after giving birth because of the hybrid option available. Since he and his party are opposed to it, I would like to understand how he proposes that his colleagues participate following giving birth to their children. I would also like to ask him, and I hope he answers honestly, whether he or any other member of his caucus has ever availed themselves of the voting app or the hybrid system. Why does he feel we should not continue to do this? I ask because it is actually enabling more gender equity in this place and is allowing a greater diversity of people to participate and represent their constituents.

146 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/13/23 6:35:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that a minister of the Crown would not have commented on my most recent remarks about the growing disconnect between the legislative and executive branches of government. I think it highlights the troubling trend we are seeing that is causing an erosion of trust in this institution. It is contributing to why Canadians not only do not trust the Liberals, but are simply losing trust in the democratic institutions of our country. Canadians point to members like the minister and the Prime Minister, among others, who are directly contributing to that. My commute each week is about 12 hours doorstep to doorstep, and I count it as an honour and a responsibility in the midst of the family sacrifice associated with it. Never once have the Conservatives said we should not find accommodation. That is playing politics on what we believe are serious issues. There is a need to ensure we respect our democratic institutions and the more than eight centuries of history associated with them. I urge the minister and members of all other political parties who seem bent on rushing into these things to take a pause and ensure we are finding the right balance, because simply put, my constituents do not trust members like the minister or other Liberals, as they seem to be putting their political interests ahead of those of the country and our democratic institutions, including those who are pushing for greater inclusion.

246 words

Trust

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/13/23 6:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as one of the people who believes very much in diversity in the House of Commons and making sure that all kinds of Canadians can participate in democracy, I am a strong supporter of the virtual Parliament measures. I think it is essential to our democracy that Parliament does evolve and change. Next door to me is the member for Victoria, a young mom who is about two days away from having a second child, and because she cannot fly during that period of time, she would be excluded from these proceedings if it were not for virtual Parliament. I think what we are seeing here is an evolution that makes Parliament more democratic and more representative. Like the member, I have a long commute and I go home every weekend. I do not avail myself of virtual Parliament very often, but that does not mean that I think others should be deprived of that right.

158 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/13/23 6:38:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, given the question that was just asked and the comments associated with it, and, likewise, what the minister asked before, I expect they will be supporting the amendment put forward by the opposition House leader. What that does, pure and simple, is ensure that Parliament continues to look at this and its impacts on our ability to do our work in this place. Never once have the Conservatives said that we should not endeavour to increase inclusion, that accommodations should not be made. To suggest that is blatantly untrue. What we need to do, however, is ensure that we maintain and treat carefully, with the utmost respect, the democratic infrastructure we have. Let us treat this place, this House of Commons, however one participates in it, with the utmost respect to ensure that we are ultimately respecting Canadians. That needs to be our focus. That needs to be our emphasis. We need to be focused on ensuring that Canadians can be represented in this place.

167 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:39:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate about making hybrid sittings a permanent fixture in our Standing Orders. I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph. I think we are in an era of growing uncertainty. COVID-19 was not the first global health crisis, and we know it will not be the last. The World Health Organization has warned us that pandemics will likely arise more frequently and will propagate at a faster pace in the future. Additionally, we have experienced several challenges in recent times that have caused us to have this conversation we are having today. These increasing threats are due to climate change, security and various health factors. They have the potential to shut down Parliament or make an inflexible, in-person-only Parliament. Parliament cannot shut down for months. When a crisis occurs, we need to be able to do the work necessary to resolve it. We have to continue advancing long-term projects to deliver results for Canadians and provide parliamentary oversight. Over the course of the last years, we have developed excellent technical tools and cultivated expertise in our staff that have given us the ability to meet in a hybrid fashion. We need to make sure that we can retain these tools and that we have the capable staff members so that the next time a crisis hits us, one that prevents us from being able to sit in person, we have the ability to switch seamlessly and quickly, without any interruption to the work we do in delivering results for Canadians. Maintaining hybrid options would pandemic-proof our sittings for the future. Pandemics are not the only events that could prevent us from being able to sit in person. We have also seen, in recent years, the types of security threats that we face on Parliament Hill and in our capital. These threats that have continued to threaten our members in the past mean that Parliament Hill has to be able to be flexible to accommodate people being able to be on hybrid as well. The Hill has not always been a safe place for all of us to congregate. We saw the security threats we had at the beginning of last year. We have these types of security threats that are intensifying as a result. When it is not safe for us to sit physically in the chamber, we have to be able to continue to do our work from our locations. Likewise, as climate change accelerates, we will see new threats to sitting in person. The most recent example is the poor air quality we experienced in Ottawa due to the forest fires in Quebec. Nobody could have anticipated that, but it indeed had an impact on whether people could commute to work or not. People should not have to choose between aggravating their asthma and not being able to do their job. Having the option of hybrid participation means that everybody would be able to continue to do their job and be able to continue to participate without putting their health at risk. We will see increases in extreme weather events as time goes by, and maintaining the flexibility of hybrid sittings would be crucial in the future. The paradox is that the times when sittings have been cancelled have also been times when we most needed Parliament to be sitting. During the convoy last year, sitting was interrupted. When we needed to debate the emergency measures the government was bringing in to deal with the convoy, we were prevented from that. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we also needed to sit in order to pass crucial legislation to boost access to employment insurance and other programs, to ensure that money would flow to workers and businesses in need. As Parliament could not sit regularly, the government was granted some extraordinary powers, such as the ability to spend without parliamentary oversight, yet the function of parliamentary scrutiny is most needed during those times of crisis. When the government has been granted extraordinary powers, it is of the utmost importance for the functioning of our democracy that we continue to carry on committee duties and debates, and that we question ministers. It is of the utmost importance that we ensure that our constituents' voices are heard and integrated into the policies and decision-making, and that this continues to occur. When the government is moving rapidly, in emergency mode, it is our job to check that nothing has been missed. That means we need to continue to do our work. We need to provide the additional perspectives and the scrutiny needed to ensure that the impacts on all Canadians are being considered. This means we have to be able to be flexible in the measures we are using. On that note, I would like to thank all the staff members who were adaptable, innovative and able to provide the hybrid measures that we have today and that we have all been able to enjoy, making sure that we were able to serve Canadians in such a time. I am sure members of the House remember how under-resourced we were at first during the hybrid sittings. We all remember the technical difficulties when we first got our equipment set up and how stretched thin our technical staff was. It took us months to get it properly set up to the point where we are now. We have invested the money into these hybrid tools. We have learned how they work. We have hired the highly capable technical staff we need in order to make everything work. If we were to stop hybrid sittings and return to in-person sittings exclusively, when the next crisis hits, it would take us weeks and months to get the tools set up again during the time when we need them most in order to meet and in order to make decisions for all Canadians. We can keep our equipment in reserve, but we would lose the technical teams we have built over the years and the money we have invested in that. The expertise is not replaceable and it was not built overnight. If we do not use our capabilities, we lose them. We need to maintain a properly functioning hybrid system so that when we really need it, we can actually use it. We have not seen our last smog crisis and we have not seen our last security emergency. We certainly have not seen our last pandemic. We live in a time when events will increasingly threaten our health, our physical security and our environment. Sometimes the best decision in the face of these threats and crises is that it will be safer for us to meet virtually rather than in person, or to at least give the vulnerable members among us that option. A House that asks its members to threaten their health and safety in order to come to work and do their job is not one that anyone wants to be part of. As pandemic crises and emergencies are bound to happen, we cannot have a Parliament that shuts down for months. Our work is way too important for that. We need to continue to work steadily in advancing legislation, and we need to continue to hold the government to account. It is precisely during these crisis situations, when the government has been granted extraordinary powers, that we need to provide this extra scrutiny. It is precisely then that we need to represent the interests of our constituents and to ensure that the government's response to crises is as good as it can be. For that to happen, we need to have a seamless transition to hybrid and virtual sittings, and we need to maintain our current system so that, when the next pandemic occurs, we have the expertise and the tools that are well-oiled and ready to make the pivot to hybrid and virtual sittings, to continue our crucial work in serving Canadians.

1350 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:46:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate: That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it that the Senate agrees with the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protect Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, without amendment.

78 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/13/23 6:47:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disturbed that we are sitting here having this debate tonight on changing the Standing Orders through a forced vote. I have been around this place for some time, since 2004. Whenever there have been changes to the Standing Orders, they have been done through consensus, not by having one party or its collaborators, this time the NDP, ramming it down the throats of all the other parties. This is a dangerous precedent that the Liberals are trying to set. The member mentioned that we needed to do this during the pandemic. First of all, if she missed the news, the pandemic has officially ended, according to the WHO. Second, we know there was an opportunity during the pandemic, when we were all here, to make the changes that happened to ensure that Parliament can exist through virtual Parliament. Third, the one thing that happens in virtual Parliament that does not happen here is that there is a lack of empathy. We cannot interact with other members on Zoom like we can in the House. We miss out on the sidebar conversations that happen between all members of the House, not just within their own caucuses. That is the way we build personal relationships. Those relationships were destroyed because of the pandemic, especially for those who were elected after 2019. I can tell members that if we want to repair that and make this place a more inclusive, collaborative chamber, then we need to get rid of virtual Parliament and work side by side on dealing with the issues that are important to all Canadians.

269 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:49:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question in my colleague's comments. I will say that, when the pandemic happened, I was a city councillor. One of the first things the City did was shut down and declare a state of emergency. It took us time to get to a place where we could actually respond to the most emergent and the hardest situations our city was experiencing. We have now been on the other side. We know that crises like the pandemic and like what happened recently with the smoke outside from the wildfires are challenging situations that impact the health of people and the access to workplaces for people. We cannot simply sit and wait, acting as if these situations were not already present. We have to take proactive measures to make sure we can still accommodate people to do their jobs. It would be impossible if we could not make decisions that impact Canadians. It was hard when people could not access money to feed their families. We had to come up with every single measure to respond very quickly. I saw it first-hand as a local representative, and, as a member of Parliament I can see how important it is, even now, for the government to continue to meet the needs of Canadians in such crises.

225 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/23 6:50:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am a bit naive. When I first got here, I naively thought that we would be debating. I thought that democracy was the bedrock of ideas, that we would put forward ideas, that the opposition parties would put forward other ideas, that the government would also put forward ideas, that we would debate them all, and that this would lead to amazing bills. People would look at us and say how incredible we are. I thought that was democracy. As I have said many times here, that is not the case. I have lost count of the number of gag orders this government has imposed. Now we have a fundamental proposal that will change how we debate things for the next 10, 15, 20 or 100 years. We hope to be long gone by then, because Quebec will have become independent. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that this proposal is going to be adopted, changing all the rules of the game with the wave of a magic wand. We have just a few hours to debate huge changes to how we conduct debates here. I think that is totally unacceptable.

196 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Jun/13/23 6:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent presentation. I think he has a brilliant way of expressing himself. It is not that we are proposing new measures. Our situation has been evolving for some time now, in line with the measures that have been brought in to deal with the pandemic and to respond to the crises we are currently facing. We are simply saying that the world has changed, things have changed, and we all have to adapt to those changes.

84 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/13/23 6:52:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate, and I have enormous respect for the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I do agree with him that we work better when we are here in person. However, last October, I had a very severe bout of COVID and I had to stay at home. I was not allowed to fly. I was a danger to other people. I could not have participated without virtual Parliament. I know there are others who have had similar experiences. People say that the pandemic is over, but we just had an outbreak of COVID in a child care centre in my riding. It has been very severe. Tons of kids and their parents now have COVID again. Does the member for London West agree that we are not really out of the woods on these pandemics, that we may need these measures and that we should keep them in place in the interim?

159 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Jun/13/23 6:52:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making those really important comments that actually prove we are not out of the woods. When the World Health Organization said that we are not out of the woods with pandemics, it meant it. As he said, there was just an outbreak in his community. People are still catching COVID. People are still catching diseases through super spreaders. It is not just important to make sure we have those accommodations for people who are not able to be here in person because they are going to infect their colleagues. It is also important to think about other reasons we need the hybrid model so members can continue their work. Many colleagues in this room have children; one of my colleagues mentioned that earlier. It is important we build a system that is inclusive for all families and that we make Parliament family friendly.

153 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:53:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on the motion to make permanent the hybrid proceedings in this House. I thank the hon. member for London West for sharing her time with me. In the short amount of time she has been in the House, she has already made a tremendous impact, and it is wonderful to be working alongside her on this and on other issues. We know these measures were implemented on a provisional basis nearly three years ago. We also know that these provisions have allowed the House to carry on its business during the pandemic. Over time, many members have spoken in public, and some privately, of the benefits of the hybrid model, and there are many benefits. During the most recent study of the hybrid model by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or PROC, as it is known, Dr. Jonathan Malloy, Bell chair in parliamentary democracy at Carleton, testified that a hybrid system goes beyond the objective of making Parliament more efficient. He stated that it speaks directly to the purpose that this institution serves, representing the diverse views of Canadians in every region of the country and ensuring that the interests of all Canadians are fairly represented in the political choices and outcomes of this chamber. I submit many members will acknowledge that this question of hybrid proceedings is not just about flexible work arrangements and technological advancements but is also at the core of how we might change the way we participate in our proceedings to ensure a greater diversity of voices in this place. The more this place reflects the diversity of the Canadian population, the more Canadians will trust our parliamentary institutions. Let us consider the impact and the benefits of virtual participation in the House and in committee. July 2020, of course, was the first hybrid sitting that allowed members to participate in debate in the House both in person and remotely. Additional corresponding temporary changes to the Standing Orders were made to accommodate these sittings. These included allowing members participating virtually to be counted for the purpose of constituting quorum, lowering the threshold of the number of members for certain procedural motions, changing the procedure for requesting and granting unanimous consent and allowing members to speak and vote from any seat. In listening to this debate, I heard other members speak to the tremendous flexibility hybrid sittings have afforded to members of this chamber. It is not for everybody to be using hybrid all the time, but it is available as a tool we can use so that we can continue to participate in the debate. We used the voting application in 2022 and 2023. Yes, 2023 is the year when we are agreeing that we are at the back end of the crisis stage of COVID, although it still exists, and the original purpose of hybrid sittings has been set aside. The member for London West mentioned the effects of asthma on our ability to speak in times when the air quality is not good. The air quality is very much better today than it was last week, but when things turn and one is not able to participate, we can use these advancements because we all are benefiting from the flexibility that these technological changes are affording us. It is like having a better opening for doors going into grocery stores. They were there originally to help people with accessibility challenges, but everybody benefits when the doors open more easily for all of us, and this tool allows that to happen in Parliament. It is opening the doors of Parliament for people across the country who are in different situations, such as people who just had a baby, as was mentioned earlier. I had a medical operation a few years ago and I voted from the hospital. The nurses were not nuts about that. They did not think it was a great idea, but I showed them that it could be done and that I could continue to fulfill my duties to the people of Guelph even as I was under medical care. Dr. Jonathan Malloy talked about parliamentary reform and democratic reform and how they are inextricably linked. How much extra time has this new way of working provided to spend in our ridings and meet with our constituents? How many more witnesses can access and provide evidence at committee through new video conferencing technology? In the environment committee, we were able to talk to first nations witnesses across the country. It sometimes takes two days for them to get to Ottawa, not to mention all the time they are away from their communities. The convenience is really improving democracy. It is a tremendous opportunity for us to improve our connections and engagement with the Canadians we in this chamber represent. Despite the additional flexibility provided to members through hybrid sittings, members continue to participate in proceedings of the House and committees in person. The claim of some members that hybrid proceedings would turn all parliamentary work into a virtual environment is simply not borne out by the facts. If I understand correctly, the current numbers are that about 70% of members continue to participate in person. As was noted by the hon. member across the way, the conversations we have in person are much different and much richer, so this is not to abolish in-person sittings but to complement them by providing additional tools for those who, for various reasons, cannot be in the House for in-person sittings. The second most significant change brought about through the use of hybrid sittings is the ability to vote electronically. While this place holds debates on all forms of parliamentary proceedings, it all comes down to the vote and being available to make that decision after all the debates have ended. Many members will no doubt remember that in the early days of the pandemic, each recorded division took up to 45 minutes, because members had to weigh in and state their vote. Now that we have the voting application, we are averaging about 10 to12 minutes, which is on par with the quickest recorded divisions before the pandemic. Not only that: With the advantage of the electronic voting application, the House has seen greater democratic participation in voting in the House, which makes sense. If members are available to vote remotely because they cannot be in Parliament, more people will vote, and more people are voting. Having more members vote can be seen as making the House more transparent, more participatory, and definitely more accountable to the people whom we are elected to serve. Another improvement that hybrid sittings has brought about is the ability to table documents electronically, provided they are allowed to be tabled pursuant to the Standing Orders or a statute. That includes annual reports, government responses, petitions and Order Paper questions. It really helps us with efficiency in tabling documents in the House. This is not the first time that the House and committees have considered implementing technology to assist our proceedings. During the recent PROC study, we heard from Mr. Léo Duguay, the former MP for St. Boniface from 1984 to 1988. He is the president of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. In fact, he was my member of Parliament when I was living in St. Boniface during that period. Mr. Duguay was a member of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and he told the committee that electronic voting in the House of Commons was an innovation that members had advocated for over 40 years. He indicated that an “overwhelming majority” of members believed that hybrid proceedings in their day would have had the effect of increasing their parliamentary participation in debates and the voting process, and Mr. Duguay was right: We are seeing it happen in real time. Also, the member for Labrador was here today. She has returned to the House after successfully fighting cancer. While she was in Labrador, she was able to continue her service to her community through the use of hybrid sittings. I suspect that some people will want to go back to the good old days, the days when we did not have technology, the days when a riding was really the distance one could ride on a horse to cover one's territory. We have gone past that. At this point, I think we need to urge all Canadians to embrace this technology and consider running for Parliament if it has not been accessible to them in the past. I will conclude by noting that I really support hybrid sittings and I hope we are able to continue them. I will turn to answering any questions the members might have.

1480 words

Hybrid

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 7:03:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits very close to me, for his wonderful speech this evening. I believe the hybrid Parliament is a good thing, but I am not in favour of its being abused by members here in the House. It should be available, yes, for somebody who needs it. As the member said, he had surgery earlier this year and was able to vote on the app. I had surgery as well, on February 14, actually, and shovelled snow two days later. However, it is a privilege and an honour to be able sit and stand in this House as one of 338 people. I spend time here even when I am not on House duty. I love sitting in the House and having people sit around me instead of being in the office in my constituency with nobody. Does the member agree that it is a good policy to have, but it should not be allowed to be abused? People who can be here should be here.

172 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 7:05:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss this an in open setting. Usually our conversations are between ourselves sitting beside each other in the seats. The abuse piece is one that is critical. We as hon. members need to follow the same principles as if we were here in person. That also means voting. I said that we are averaging 10 to 12 minutes per vote. Last week, we saw that the Conservatives were saying that their electronics were not working or that their connections were bad. That has since proven to be false, but it made our votes last 25 minutes. We need to continue to operate as hon. members, using the tool to the advantage that it is giving us.

128 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/13/23 7:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues across the way, they might want to see the flexibility that hybrid brings, but in reality, as they just pointed out, it can be abused as well. The sense of honour of being in this chamber has always been to protect the individual member and to ensure that changes to the rules were done through consensus of every member of this House. I have been here for 19 years and I have actually seen, when changes to the Standing Orders were attempted, one member deny that change. We went for unanimous consent, and it was not there. In light of the fact that these changes to the Standing Orders, the way our Parliament functions, have nothing to do with party affiliation, they should be done through consensus and not through this hammer-fisted unilateral move that we are seeing right now from the Liberals and the NDP.

156 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/13/23 7:07:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member posed the question earlier as well. The provisions for a hybrid Parliament are winding down at the end of June, so it is incumbent on us to give a path forward so that we know how we will be operating in the fall, and it is up to us to operate honourably. Whether we are on social media or we are speaking in the House, it is up to us to follow the rules of honour by which we are elected to serve the people and represent them honourably.

94 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/23 7:07:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will calm down now. In fact, I am a bit of a rookie in the House, a rookie in that it has been four years. I was here in 2019, but the pandemic hit soon after. We went back home and sat via Zoom. We returned roughly a year ago. Honestly, when we are here in the House, that is when I resolve problems the most, by talking directly to the Minister of Immigration, among others. In Longueuil, there is a lot of immigration and we have very difficult and complex cases. Sometimes it is in talking to the Minister of Immigration, and offloading files to him, that we settle some things. I had cases involving Haitians who arrived in the past few weeks and months. If I had not spoken to the Minister of Immigration, I am pretty sure things would not have worked out so quickly. There is also an airport in my riding. On that issue there is a lot of work to be done with the Minister of Transport. If I did not meet him in person, this would never get resolved. I do not understand why people are insisting on sitting virtually when we do our best work, in my opinion, when we are here in person.

215 words