SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Jun/15/23 6:30:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 6:30:38 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

27 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Jun/15/23 6:31:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil. This House is struggling to fulfill its constitutional role. It is struggling to hold the government accountable. Over the last several years, the House has tried to hold the government accountable on various matters where it has clearly failed in the discharge of its responsibilities. I would like to give a couple of examples to illustrate my point. Four years ago, on July 5, 2019, two government scientists were escorted out of the government's microbiology lab in Winnipeg by the RCMP. They were reportedly walked out of the lab because of national security breaches, but what exact breaches occurred were not known. When that story broke, this House tried to do its job and find out exactly what happened. A committee of this House began to investigate, asked for documents from the government and put in place measures to ensure that those documents would be held under lock and key to prevent anything injurious to national security from being released. However, instead of giving documents to this House, the government thumbed its nose at the committee. It refused to hand over the documents, so the committee escalated its request and issued an order to the government for the documents. The government defied the order of the committee for the documents. Ultimately, this House and its committee issued four orders ordering the government to hand over the documents concerning the national security breaches at the Winnipeg lab. Not only did the government defy those four orders, it took the Speaker to court. The Speaker stood up to defend the rights of members in this House and indicated that the Speaker was going to fight the government in court, but before any of that could take place, the Prime Minister advised the dissolution of this place and, along with that, the four orders of this House were dissolved. Now we have an extra-parliamentary committee, a committee that sits outside of this place, which is reviewing these documents. Members like me have no access to that process or those documents. Having initiated an inquiry in this House, this House has been unable to get to the bottom of what happened at the Winnipeg lab and, therefore, has been unable to hold the government accountable. More recently, a similar situation occurred. When the story broke last November 7 that the government knew for years that Beijing was conducting foreign interference operations targeting our elections and involving this democratic institution, this House and its committees began to uphold their constitutional role. They began to ask questions in this House and to conduct studies in committees to find out exactly what happened. Despite the passage of eight months, we have found out little. All we have received are heavily redacted documents, scraps of information here and there and nothing that will lead us to a definitive conclusion. Most of the information we have received has come from outside Parliament, from media reports. Most of what we have gotten from the government is a mountain of process outside Parliament; NSICOP, NSIRA and the special rapporteur, all of which are appointed by and accountable to the Prime Minister. We have gotten so desperate that we are willing to support the establishment of an independent public inquiry outside of Parliament so that we can get answers as to what happened. While this inquiry would stand outside of Parliament, at least it would be independent and would have all the powers that this House supposedly has to call for witnesses, to order the production of documents and to get to the bottom of who knew what and when. At least a public inquiry would hold the government accountable. We should aspire to a Parliament that can do the work we are punting to a public inquiry, and that leads me to the motion in front of the House today. The House of Commons is the only national democratic institution there is in Canada. The introduction of this motion will diminish a place that is already struggling to fulfill its constitutional role: to hold the government accountable. Hybrid Parliament has made this House and its committees less efficient. Our output has declined. Here is one example. Votes in this place before hybrid Parliament used to take eight minutes. They now take at least 10 minutes and, in many cases, 12 minutes. At 12 minutes, votes take fully 50% more time than they did before hybrid Parliament. I have counted and last year we had 227 votes. If we multiply that by four minutes per vote, it is 15 hours of lost time, almost two days of sittings. In 2019, the first full day before the pandemic, we had 403 votes. If we multiply that by four minutes lost per vote, it is 26 hours of lost time. That is three or four sitting days of this House. This is but one example of the inefficiencies a hybrid Parliament is creating. Others are time lost because of microphone checks, technology failures and the cancellation of committee meetings due to a lack of technology resources. All of these things have led to a less efficient Parliament and a reduction in the work we do here. The Canada-China committee has been cancelled three times in the past four weeks because of the technology limitations of a hybrid Parliament. It is one of the most important committees of this House, which is doing work on the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China. More important than all of that is the loss of the magnificence of this place and its committees when we meet in person, when all eyes are on the other, watching the cut and thrust of debate, watching government officials testifying in person at committee and watching how Canadians' representatives are standing up for the things they believe in. That is why we are investing $5 billion in the buildings of this place. That is why the fathers of Confederation spent vast sums of money they did not have building Parliament Hill; they understood the importance of meeting in person. They could have built much more modest buildings than they did, out of wood or fieldstone, but they did not. They understood the importance of interacting with others in person. The tyranny of technology is to turn us all virtual. We must resist. We are the only major western democracy that still has a hybrid Parliament and now the government is proposing to make it permanent. The U.K. House of Commons ended hybrid sittings on July 22, 2021, two years ago. The U.S. House of Representatives ended hybrid sittings on January 9 of this year. The Australian Parliament ended hybrid sittings on July 25 of last year. Only the current government is proposing to make hybrid sittings permanent. The French National Assembly never had hybrid sittings. In fact, in April of 2021, the French Constitutional Council declared a proposal from the assembly unconstitutional because the measures were not precise enough. That proposal would have modified the assembly's rules of procedure in order to allow for remote participation in plenary and committee meetings under exceptional circumstances. In our Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1867, section 48 requires the presence of a certain number of members in this place for this House to meet. The framers of our Constitution thought it so important that a certain number of members be present in person for this House to meet that they put it into the Constitution. They did not allow members to “mail it in”, as one could do in those days, to allow this House to meet. I will finish by saying this. We already sit far less than national legislatures in other western democracies. The U.S. House of Representatives typically sits between 164 and 192 days a year. The U.K. House of Commons typically sits between 146 and 162 days a year. We only sit 129 days a year. We also sit far less than we used to. We used to sit 160 to 170 days a year during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. During the Pearson era, when Parliament was so effective in dealing with framework legislation on major initiatives like the Canada pension plan, our public health care system and the national flag, the House sat 160 to 170 days a year, eight weeks longer than the 26 weeks we sit today. The motion in front of us today will further weaken and diminish this place. Therefore, I urge all members to vote against this motion.

1442 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 6:41:13 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he was trying to ask questions while the hon. member was speaking. He has been here long enough to know that he is to wait for questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

50 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 6:41:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to point out the hypocrisy here. Let us really stop and think about this. The Conservative Party says no to the hybrid and the voting application. However, in the last vote we had, 65 Conservative members of Parliament, the member's colleagues in his party, voted using the hybrid application; 43 of them voted in person. Can members imagine? A person is voting against the voting application in the hybrid format, and they are on their phone, saying, “I do not want to be able to vote with my phone.” It sounds pretty stupid to me. Does the hon. member believe that he really has the full support from his entire caucus, in terms of the statement he has just made?

127 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/15/23 6:42:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the voting app is actually driving people out of this place. If there are two votes to take place in this chamber, they take at least 20 to 24 minutes. If one is using the voting app, one can literally take about 30 seconds of those 24 minutes to vote. If one sits in the chamber, one actually cannot do certain things while the voting takes place, across those two votes. One cannot, for example, be on a phone call with somebody else. One cannot be doing something other than what one is permitted to do in the House. The voting app, perversely, is actually driving members out of the chamber. This is why these sorts of measures need to be ended and sunsetted, as has been done in other western democracies.

134 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/15/23 6:43:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to respond to the parliamentary secretary representing the government. For days now, the government has been giving examples like the one about the voting application to claim that everything in the motion is positive. However, the motion includes a lot of other things. We, the Bloc Québécois, are not opposed to the voting application. However, the motion contains other things that cannot be changed or seriously debated to make them better. That is a problem. The biggest problem, however, is this: In the entire history of Parliament, such changes have always been adopted unanimously by the House to protect every elected official. As far as minor changes go, one exception was made under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It was the first time in history that the rules were amended by a simple majority. What does my hon. colleague think about that?

162 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/15/23 6:44:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for sharing his perspective with us. This is a very important point. To this point, generally speaking, permanent changes to the Standing Orders of this chamber have been done on a consensual basis, involving support among all the parties of the House. There have been exceptions to that rule, but they were rare. I think the government is setting a dangerous precedent here in proposing this change without the consent of the second-largest party in this place, the official opposition. I think it is a very dangerous precedent that does not bode well for future changes to this place. For that reason, I do not think the change should be made permanent. I think that there would be a consensus among all recognized parties in the House to have hybrid Parliament go on but to have a sunset clause, where it would expire at the end of this Parliament.

161 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/15/23 6:45:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's service to Canada, but the fact is that we had even greater problems with many of the things he raised in his speech when the Harper regime was in place. I lived through the lack of access to documents and the refusal of ministers to talk to members of Parliament; I saw it first-hand. As for the things he is raising now, for example, the time it takes for the House to vote, last Friday, we saw how Conservatives stretched a vote from what should have been 10 minutes to over an hour, through inconsequential, dilatory points of order. We see this in terms of committees. We have had to cancel committees because Conservatives have filibustered to block legislation, such as putting in place dental care and ensuring a grocery rebate for all Canadians, including in their ridings. Conservatives have been the cause of many of the problems that the member is raising.

161 words

Harper

Hon. Michael Chong

Jun/15/23 6:46:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a lifelong Conservative, I supported Speaker Milliken's rulings regarding the right of this place to order the production of documents, with respect to the Afghan detainee issue, as well as a committee of the House demanding information about the cost of the justice reforms that have been proposed by the government and the cost of the new F-35 jets. I supported them then and I support them now. Today, as a Conservative, I support the continuation of this House in a way that does not diminish its efficacy, in a way that ends hybrid Parliament at some point, as all other western democracies have already done.

111 words

Afghan

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/15/23 6:47:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin my comments, I just want to express my concern about the situation that is unfolding in Manitoba. Tragically, by the latest account, 15 people have been killed in a traffic accident on the Trans-Canada Highway. My thoughts are with the families, obviously, with the victims and with the first responders as well. This is going to be a difficult night for people in Manitoba. I am actually profoundly disappointed that I am here again, as I was a year ago, when a similar motion to extend the hybrid sitting was proposed before Parliament. As the opposition House leader at the time, I actually spoke for almost two and a half hours on this issue. The theme of what I was talking about last year was, sadly, a decline in our democracy, a decline in our institutions, a lack of respect for the conventions of this place and how Parliament has functioned historically throughout the Westminster system, and particularly in this country for over 156 years. I just cannot express enough how profoundly disappointed I am that not only are we dealing with changes to the Standing Orders on a permanent basis without the consensus of parties, which has again been the convention of this place, but we are also dealing with it in a time allocation motion. Something that will make such a profound change in the way this place operates is being dealt with through just a few hours of debate, with a lack of consensus. It is extremely frustrating and disappointing. I think every Canadian should be concerned about the direction in which the government, aided and abetted by the NDP, is taking not just Parliament but also our institutions, as well as the general lack of respect they have for them. I recall back in 2020, at the height of the pandemic, that I was the deputy whip, and I happened to sit at PROC. Clearly, at the time, there was a lot of uncertainty and confusion about what was going on. That is when the issue of a hybrid Parliament and the voting app started really taking root in the psyche of parliamentarians. We had to function. We had to make sure that the business of the nation was going to continue, that there was some continuity. We sat down as the PROC committee. Again, I will remind members that it was a Liberal majority at the time, and there were certain patterns that were already starting to evolve. There were things that were being foretold back then that bring us to the day that we are facing today. I recall that the first issue we were dealing with was the voting application. The Conservative members of the committee issued a dissenting report at that time. There ae some highlights of that report that I would like to mention now. One of them is that the “underlying Liberal motivations left us skeptical”. Members may recall that, back in 2015, when the manifesto of the Liberal campaign policy book was issued, it talked about restructuring the way Parliament functions, so this was their intent back in 2015. What they did was use the pandemic as a means to an end. That end was always to disrupt this place and not allow it to function in the manner in which it was designed. The other aspects of what we were discussing back then included that the “Liberals seemed committed not just to a direction, but to a specific outcome”, as I referenced before, because that was in their campaign policy book. The committee worked hard. There were long days throughout that summer that we discussed this because of the importance of the issue at the time, but it was all in the “service of a Liberal talking point”. In other words, the fix was in. They knew specifically where they were going. There were some other things. One of the things in our dissenting report that we highlighted was that the “House of Commons must—and can—[and should] conduct its business in person”. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills just spoke eloquently on that, so I am not going to expand on that. Later on, I am going to give some reasons and examples of why this is important. As we went on later that summer, we talked about the voting app, and we wrote the dissenting report. Again, a Liberal majority, not a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP, caused us to write this dissenting report. Several times today, the government members have said that they are surprised about the opposition position on this. Our position was made clear back in 2020 as it related to the hybrid sittings of this House. The report said, “The Official Opposition will strongly resist any effort to exploit the pandemic as a cover to implement a permanent virtual Parliament, with its reduced ability to hold government accountable, gravely undermining our democracy.” It was almost like prophecy back then. We were predicting exactly what was going to happen, that this day would come, and here we are. Why is it important? It is important because of accountability. In this place, when we gather 338 members, our constitutional obligation is to hold the government to account. As We saw throughout the pandemic, as we are seeing as recently as this week, just how difficult it is to hold the government to account when its members are not in this House or when they are simply voting by the app. It is not just parliamentarians holding the government to account. It is the media. In such a situation as we are seeing this week and over the past couple of weeks, with the Minister of Public Safety, how can the media, Canadians and their representatives in this place hold the government to account if its members are hiding out on a TV screen or if they are voting by app? There are so many things that I cannot even do them justice within 10 minutes as I discuss the challenges that this hybrid system presents. There is the fact that it is not being done on consensus but is being rammed down the throats of Canadians, fundamentally changing the way this institution operates. We cannot do it justice within 10 minutes, and we certainly cannot explain why this is an ill-conceived idea through the proposal of time allocation. Again, it was supposed to be temporary. Human-to-human interaction is critical in this place; it is critical that I, as a member of Parliament in the opposition, can go and speak to a minister who is present in this place. I will give an example. At ethics committee the other day, we were dealing with an issue on the access to information report, which we expect to be tabled at some point over the next few days. There was a discussion that was engaged in between members of the committee who were in that room. It was about how we were going to move forward on a stalemate situation that we were facing. As the meeting continued, those members from the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party got together and worked out a deal to end the stalemate. That cannot happen when we are sitting on a TV screen or voting on an app. Those things have to happen in person, and this is why it is critical that we do not support hybrid sittings. We are the only western democracy in the world and there is no other legislature in Canada that is voting by an app, that is not meeting in person or utilizing a hybrid system. There is not one, and that should tell members everything they need to know about why this proposition is wrong. If we cannot set the example of what this institution means to this country, as the premier democratic symbol in this country, then it is awfully difficult to expect others to follow suit. I happen to think that it still means a lot. There are legislatures in this country that are leaders in this regard, yet here we are, not the leader. There are a couple more issues that I want to touch on. The first is interpretation. We have seen an increase in injuries to our interpreters as a result of the hybrid system. The system has become better, but the problem still exists, and it is going to continue to exist as a result of this hybrid system. I cannot support this. We have to return in person for the sake of our democracy and not continue down this path. We need accountability. We need transparency. We cannot continue down this path as a democracy in decline. Sadly, this motion would do that.

1487 words

Manitoba

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 6:57:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned that no other parliament in the world continued to allow a hybrid parliament, and the member himself mentioned that no other government in Canada was doing it. However, and perhaps I am wrong in this, my understanding is that the Scottish Parliament has decided to continue to allow a hybrid parliament, as has the Welsh Parliament. In addition, the Estonian government has also decided to do that, and the last I heard, New Zealand was still trying to decide on this matter.

88 words

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/15/23 6:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I was pretty clear in what I said, which was that there is no other western democracy. I was referring specifically to national legislatures. There are provincial legislatures in Canada, but not one of them is using a hybrid model or a voting app. They have all returned to some sense of normalcy, and that is specifically where we need to go. We cannot continue down this path, because, as I said earlier, we are going to continue to see a further decline in democracy.

89 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/15/23 6:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know how things work in the House and we know how the negotiations went for these changes to the Standing Orders of the House. The government House leader went to see the NDP. They came to an agreement. After that, they did not talk to the other parties. They decided to shove new rules down the members' throats. Here we are in mid-June discussing this under a gag order at the last minute, when it has been weeks, if not months, that the government and the NDP, with whom they are in bed, have known exactly where they are going with this. I would like my colleague to tell me why, in his opinion, they used this strategy of endless stalling, making us waste time until the last minute to finally use the most undemocratic procedure in the House of Commons, the gag order, and force this down our throats.

155 words

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/15/23 6:59:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is another example. Last year, the government did the same thing in June, with the NDP's help. They did it right before Canada Day. They said that if we did not vote, we would be staying here. They are using this issue as a hostage-taking exercise. This is why we are ending up at the end. However, on the point of not discussing, we have had consensus around this place on changes to the Standing Orders. That has been the convention, but obviously the government knows that it has NDP members in its hip pocket and it is using them to make these changes. I ran as an MP knowing the issue, knowing that I would be here in Ottawa, and I would suggest to anyone that if they do not understand the obligation of a member of Parliament to sit in Ottawa, in this seat of power, the constitutional place of power in this country, and if they cannot conform to that, then maybe they should run for mayor or maybe they should run for councillor or maybe they should run for public school trustee. I understand what my obligation is, as do many of the members, not just on our side but I suspect on the Bloc Québécois side as well. This is where people need to be.

230 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/15/23 7:01:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like the member, I remember his speech and I appreciate his consistency. He is saying something that the Conservatives have been trying to hide, which is that they are absolutely opposed to the hybrid Parliament. They are absolutely opposed to remote voting and the voting app. However, we just had a vote in which over half of the Conservative caucus actually used the voting app to vote to try to block the use of the voting app, which is, to say the least, a contradiction. We also know, dating back to The Globe and Mail exposé in June 2020, that Conservatives have the highest absentee rate when it comes to virtual Parliament. They were absent 53% of the time. The NDP showed up 85% of the time. How does the member explain this contradiction?

138 words

Contradiction

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/15/23 7:01:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard this argument all day. The government, aided and abetted by the NDP, has set the rules. We are working within the rules. If those rules change and we get rid of the hybrid Parliament, every single Conservative will be in their seat representing their constituents and voting here on behalf of their constituents. However, the government set the rules. There is one thing that is critical about this, which is that we cannot continue on this hybrid system and not expect our democracy to decline. That is exactly what the NDP is contributing to by voting with the Liberals on this issue.

107 words

Hybrid

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 7:02:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to be speaking on the hybrid provisions today. In 2021, I was honoured to be chosen by the people of Steveston—Richmond East to serve as their member of Parliament. However, that same fall, as I began work as an MP in Ottawa, I became very fatigued and my symptoms worsened. I was born with a solitary kidney, and upon my return to B.C., I was informed that my only kidney was deteriorating faster than expected. The time had come to prepare for a transplant, and I was to immediately receive dialysis treatment. As serious as this was, I did not want my condition to affect my work or limit my ability to represent my community. To ensure there were no conflicts with my parliamentary responsibilities, I trained myself to self-administer the dialysis treatment at the nocturnal dialysis unit at the Vancouver General Hospital, where I would stay overnight three days a week. While I waited for my transplant, it was crucial to avoid travel in order to not risk contracting any viruses, like COVID-19, so that I could be operated on safely when the time came. If it had not been for the hybrid provisions, I could not have safeguarded my health and kept my commitment to represent my constituents in Parliament. I was able to fulfill my responsibilities virtually in the House of Commons and in committees. I was able to speak to bills, speak on the Emergencies Act, participate in a study on military procurement and share an untold inclusive Canadian heritage story confronting the realities of systemic racism, which was a very important priority for me. I was also able to provide statements in the House regarding key investments the government is making in Richmond. Since I was elected to office in 2021, over $200 million in investments were secured in my city. I have been able to participate in all relevant caucus meetings to communicate Richmond's economic and service priorities. I participated in caucus meetings to communicate Richmond's social, economic, service and infrastructure priorities. At the same time, I was able to meet stakeholders within the municipality and throughout the riding. Many individuals, throughout all those meetings, mentioned that they had never even met their MP, and some of them had served in the municipality for over 20 years. While many of my colleagues in the House agree with this motion, many former MPs also support this initiative. On October 4, I appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee to tell my story and share how hybrid provisions helped me serve Canadians through my difficult health journey. My fellow witnesses included former MPs Dona Cadman and Léo Duguay. Dona Cadman, who sat across the aisle, recalled the hardship and the toll it took on her husband's health while he was serving as an MP and spoke about how the positive effects of working virtually with his colleagues across parties could have made a strong impact on his mental health in the last years of life. In his opening remarks, Léo Duguay, the president of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, said that in 1985 he wanted to look at two things. The first was electronic voting. The second was improving the House of Commons. During my preparations I learned that PROC released a report in 2016 entitled “Initiatives toward a family-friendly House of Commons”. The report details the heavy personal toll that legislators live with as a result of their work. Although virtual proceedings were not one of the recommendations, the hybrid provisions are vital to easing the pressures caused by uncontrollable long absences from Ottawa. There are reasons to support this motion, as highlighted by the 2021 PBO report on the costs of a hybrid Parliament. Over a full year, the net savings from a hybrid parliamentary system are estimated to be $6.2 million. It is also estimated that the hybrid parliamentary system would reduce GHG emissions related to travel by about 2,972 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. These figures do not include the savings from reduced travel and accommodation costs for witnesses who appear before committees. Although these are benefits of a hybrid Parliament, they are not the main reason that I support this motion. As members of Parliament, we are responsible for nurturing our democracy. It is our role to ensure that as many Canadians as possible can participate fully in our democratic processes, not just when it comes time to vote but when we want to raise our hands and represent our fellow Canadians. However, travel commitments and long separations from family and friends are a price many Canadians are unwilling to pay. A modern Parliament is a hybrid Parliament. It is inclusive, accessible and a window into the future of democracy in the 21st century. As Canadians, we must not let this window close, because we would be doing a disservice to democracy and to Canadians. A hybrid Parliament creates a more flexible environment to accommodate a greater variety of Canadians and keeps MPs closer to their communities. Returning to the way things have always run would be a step back in our national journey to build a stronger, more inclusive and more engaging democracy. Expanding each Canadian's capacity to stand for elected office and serve as an MP is important not just for the individuals who sit in the House of Commons but for our communities, because the best ideas on the needs of Canadians come from the regions each MP represents, allowing us to remain rooted in our communities and maintain a strong understanding of the everyday impacts people are experiencing. Hybrid provisions allowed me to fulfill my parliamentary obligations, limit my exposure, maintain strong mental health and reduce the fears my family had as they supported me through my health journey. I received my transplant in August of last year and I owe a world of thanks to the person who gave me the gift of life. It is very hard to express how very fortunate and extremely grateful I am to be able to work in and serve the city I was raised in and the province of British Columbia that I was born in. Of course, it also would not have been possible to keep doing a job I passionately enjoy without the excellent care provided by the team of medical professionals, the dialysis unit and the organ transplant team at Vancouver General Hospital, as well as Canadian Blood Services. Madam Speaker, I failed to mention earlier that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I am prepared to take questions.

1128 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/15/23 7:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague referenced Chuck Cadman, whom I knew. He was from my neck of the woods, and I know that when he was seriously ill, he came here to vote, but an alternative option would have been for the government side of the House to have paired somebody with him so that he would not have had to go through the trouble and pain and inconvenience of travelling. Is that a way forward for exceptional cases that make it impossible, or nearly impossible, for somebody to travel here?

91 words

Mr. Parm Bains

Jun/15/23 7:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think one of the key things here is that what he is suggesting, the pairing of someone, actually takes the voice of the elected member who is there to serve the community that elected them.

38 words