- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Health
- Liberal
- Ajax
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,982.00
- Government Page
- Jun/15/23 4:40:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, speaking of honesty, what I find dishonest is members using all the options available with the hybrid system and then saying it is a terrible system that they hate. They use the system every day.
We debated this for three years. We are free to use the hybrid Parliament every day. I love democracy here in Canada. I am so proud to say that, each day, I make sure that our democracy is as open as possible. When we have a system that provides a bit of flexibility, it helps more people become MPs. The hybrid system allows people to have a personal life while also fulfilling their responsibilities here in the House.
The member opposite knows full well that being a member of Parliament is very hard work and that the hybrid Parliament gives us a little room for a personal life.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:37:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start with the hockey analogy, because I think it is an apt one. Members can imagine a circumstance where there was a change, where there was an option to play hockey outdoors or play hockey indoors, either option was available, and someone chose every single day to play hockey indoors, but then came and said that playing hockey indoors is evil, awful and terrible. It is the worst thing to do, yet they keep showing up to the indoor arena. That is the actual analogy here.
There is an option. If one does not want to use hybrid, they do not have to use hybrid. They can show up and vote in person, and they can participate in person every single day, but that is not the choice the Conservatives make. The choice they make is to use the virtual functions when they do not have to. That is the point I am making.
The consensus is found in the utilization of all of it.
I certainly hope it is not the case, but if there is Conservative government one day, and that government decides with another party to get rid of these provisions, then it can. However, I am saying there are so many circumstances, such as what we talked about with Chuck Cadman. We talked about what his wife, Dona Cadman, said. We can talk about my good friend, Arnold Chan, one of the closest people in my life, whom I had to watch drag himself into this chamber with no option other than to be here, sick. We could talk about Mauril Bélanger. The list could go on and on. I have not even heard from the members how they would accommodate at least that.
In the reverse, what we have seen is that when the opposition has had issues, like saying ministers should be present in question period, we agreed. When they said chairs of committees must be present for accountability and in order for committees to function and work, we said “yes”. When they made actual constructive suggestions, we listened to them, and we will continue to listen to them.
363 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:34:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.
A number of changes have been recommended, in some instances by all parties. He mentions the change requesting that committee chairs be present. That is a change that was made. There was a request by opposition parties that all questions in question period be answered by the government in person. That change was made, and we have the opportunity to continue to evaluate how these provisions work.
However, to his point, when members say they are against hybrid sitting and then use it, it is hard to find them credible in that. If we say that a change in the Standing Orders should come from a unanimity of opinion, I think we can look at the past three years, including out of health circumstances, when members had every opportunity to be here. They use it, and it shows that they want it.
If the members from the Conservative Party and the Bloc were serious in their opposition to this, then we would see them here for every single one of the votes; we would see them here in person for every question and every speech, and of course that is not the case. The case is that they are using it, and in the hallways they are saying, “This is great; this is life-changing. There was an important event; something happened in my family; I had to be there for my child; I had to be there for my spouse; I was able to do it, because of hybrid; it changed everything for me; I am so glad it is there.”
Then, they walk in the chamber and say they are against it and it is wrong and an affront, and how terrible it is. It stretches believability.
298 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:29:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the past three years, I have had several discussions with the Bloc Québécois. I asked them what changes they were proposing for a hybrid system and for voting. Unfortunately, they made it clear every time that a hybrid system was not acceptable.
This is very odd, because the member opposite uses this system every day. I see this as providing an option. With the support of a majority of members, it would be possible to change the rules and, for example, cancel the hybrid system.
I do wonder what would happen if we did not adopt the hybrid system, however. In the future, this way of doing things will continue to exist for one reason: It provides flexibility for important moments in a member's life. That is so important that we must continue using this system.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 4:18:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, context is really important. At the start of the pandemic, when we were in a very difficult situation and it was impossible to work in person, we had to use technology to be able to continue our work in Parliament. At that time, we unanimously passed a motion to operate in a hybrid format.
When health conditions improved, we were able to return to the House to continue our work in person. Over the past three years, we have seen just how effective the system has been. Ministers have continued to be in the House when members on the other side stand up during question period, and this will continue to be the case. The concept of accountability is included in the change proposed today.
However, this motion provides some flexibility. Every party, whether it is the Conservative Party or the Bloc Québécois, uses the hybrid format. Every day, the members use technology to vote. Just a few moments ago, we saw the Bloc using this technology. I find it strange that the Bloc is against this proposal when it makes use of all the options available in the hybrid format, such as electronic voting.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 7:06:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will give some direct circumstances that some people may not think about. One is talking to a parent whose kid is going through something really hard in school and really needs mom or dad to be there for a few days. That is going to make a huge difference in their mental health and development. I hear from members who have a loved one who just got terribly devastating news, and they are able to leave immediately to be there for that and still uphold their responsibilities.
That is not something I have seen one party use; that is something I have seen every party use. That is why I would ask members to reflect on how they have used these provisions, how important they are, and to set aside the politics, do the right thing by supporting this motion and these changes so we can continue with hybrid.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 7:02:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my hon. colleague's question.
That is the case every summer. Parliament sits later than usual. It is normal to sit until midnight before rising for the summer. However, there has been a major change: It is now possible to work virtually. With the hybrid system, it is easier to manage the situation that the member opposite described.
Second, there is something very different about the current situation. It is possible for a majority government to change the rules, but in the current situation, another party, the NDP, supported the amendment.
Also, the change to the Standing Orders was originally supported by all parties. In fact, every party uses this system every day here in the House.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:02:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken note of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its 20th report, entitled “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”, presented to the House on Monday, January 30, 2023. In accordance with the government's response to the report on May 30, 2023, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, which aim to enshrine hybrid proceedings as a permanent fixture of the Standing Orders.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 3:23:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member's question covers two issues.
First, there is the issue of committees. That is the reason we can talk about the legislative agenda for Parliament and also for the committees. I am very aware of that. The 31 committees study some very important issues. There is also the legislative agenda here in Parliament, and it is vital that we have time for both.
Concerning the situation for mothers, I hope that the member opposite will support the hybrid system because it is a good solution, not just for mothers, but for anyone.
There are solutions. We must continue to talk.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 11:22:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes. Of course, the pandemic is not over. In fact, I will just point to what happened in November and December. The Conservatives, at that time, were demanding an end to hybrid sittings. They said the pandemic was over and that there was no need for these provisions: they were a waste of time, we were making up something and there could be the possibility of something else. Then, of course, omicron hit.
When omicron hit, we all, of course, had to use the hybrid provisions and move back to a different state. That is exactly what this flexibility allows. Nobody is forced to use these provisions. They are more than welcome to not use them, if they wish—
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 11:07:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly, everyone wants the pandemic to be over. However, that is not the case. The pandemic is ongoing. That is our reality today.
We must therefore remain flexible, because it is really important that all members be able to represent their constituents. That is why we need a system as flexible as the hybrid system.
According to the hon. member opposite, the House would normally have finished its work yesterday. Today is therefore an extraordinary day. It is a wise thing that we are using a day that does not normally exist to finish this debate so that we can continue our work in the fall without any distractions.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 10:56:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this week, with the situation as it is now, many members have come down with COVID-19. The only way they can participate in the parliamentary debates and vote is through the hybrid system. The pandemic is ongoing. People are dying every day, unfortunately. This is a very serious situation.
This flexibility would give members the option to use the hybrid system. If things improve over time and members no longer want to use the hybrid system, then that will be up to them. They are not in any way obligated to use it.
However, if something changes, like with what happened with the omicron variant, we will need to be flexible and adapt. That is exactly what the motion would allow us to do.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 10:53:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the angrier somebody gets, the more it reflects on their position as opposed to the circumstance we are debating.
Let us take a step back for a second regarding the measures the member is talking about. If he is opposed to them, he and his colleagues do not have to use them. If they want to not use the hybrid provisions, then they can do so.
I am sure that when the vote happens later today, we will see all Conservative members here in the seats. I am sure all members will be voting in person. After that impassioned speech about how terrible these measures are, I am sure that in question period today we will see every single member of the Conservative Party here. We are going to see every vote taken in person, because of course this is a terrible affront to democracy, right? The anger is real, and because the anger is real, we are going to see them all here.
Here is what happened. At the beginning of the pandemic, of course we had no idea what was going to happen. We developed provisions that would give us the flexibility—
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 7:19:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously, questions can be asked in committee both within and outside the hybrid system. Many people appeared in committee virtually, and we were able to ask them questions.
During the most difficult period of the pandemic for businesses and individuals, it was entirely possible for members to ask questions, participate in debates and exercise all their rights as members in virtual mode.
Generally speaking, most people now participate in person, but the hybrid system enables us to adapt to changing health situations while maintaining the flexibility to answer questions.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
