Nick Whalen

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who sits next to me in this corner of the House, mentioned that this might fall under the framework of sharp practice. I do not think that would be the case for the vast majority of members of the family bar that I know who always try to encourage their clients to obtain the appropriate level of service and support and to try to reach resolutions that are in the best interest of the child. That is very much what this legislation is trying to do.

With respect to the issue of going through the less acrimonious and often more deliberate and successful route of dispute resolution, the bill contains requirements on legal counsel to instruct their clients to do so where appropriate. I provide the caveat “where appropriate” because in this particular bill, there is a new definition for family violence. It is a fairly comprehensive definition. It includes things like psychological harm and other types of manipulation that parents may engage in and former spouses may engage in with one another. In such instances, staying within the court system may be in the best interests of all involved. Otherwise, lawyers are instructed to provide a dispute resolution process to the parents, which would better conserve family resources, which is also, of course, in the best interest of the child.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-78 and the significant contribution it would make to improve the accessibility and efficiency of the family justice system.

As mentioned, federal family laws have not been updated substantially in over 20 years and changes are long overdue. Access to justice is a priority for our government and access to family justice is a key component of achieving that. Costs, delays, and complex procedures can make it difficult for Canadians to have access to justice. Along with the expansion of the unified family courts and sustained funding for family justice services, Bill C-78 is part of our government's commitment to improving access to justice for families going through separation and divorce. Under the pen of retired Supreme Court Justice Cromwell, the action committee on access to justice in civil and family matters stated that early management of legal issues and encouraging informal dispute resolution were key to improving access to justice.

Bill C-78 recognizes the need to improve access to justice and offers guidance, information and tools to help families going through separation and divorce, including people who represent themselves, as well as lawyers and courts involved in family law issues.

Bill C-78 encourages the use of family dispute resolution processes. These are defined as out-of-court processes used by parties to help them resolve their family law disputes. Negotiation, mediation and collaborative law are examples of such processes. These are often less expensive and faster than litigation and allow parents to actively participate in creating arrangements that are in the child's best interests.

Part of the role lawyers play is to ensure that parents who have family law issues have the relevant information on family dispute resolution. Bill C-78 would create a duty for lawyers to tell parents about family justice services that could help them resolve their disputes, and to encourage them to try family dispute resolution where appropriate.

In addition, if the case is before the court, the bill gives judges the option to refer parents to family dispute resolution where available. Bill C-78 also introduces duties for parents involved in a family law matter to try to resolve their issues through a family dispute resolution process where appropriate.

That said, family dispute resolution processes may not be appropriate in all circumstances, including where there is family violence. For this reason, Bill C-78 only encourages the use of these procedures where appropriate. Courts and lawyers must evaluate each of these situations on a case-by-case basis and take into account families' circumstances, including whether there is family violence, before encouraging the use of family dispute resolution. In addition, other service providers, such as certified mediators, play a critical role in screening for family violence and power imbalances in order to promote a fair and equitable process.

There are numerous ways that Bill C-78 would facilitate the resolution of family disputes and help parents reach out of court agreements focused on the best interests of their children. For example, it proposes changes to custody and access language, the definitions in the old version of the act, to use terminology that is more neutral and child focused and reflects the actual tasks of parenting, such as parenting time and other terms used in the act. It also includes a non-exhaustive list of criteria to help determine what is in the child's best interest, as well as criteria to assist parents dealing with relocation issues. This additional information will help parents make informed and child-focused decisions and better understand what the outcome might be if they were to go to court. This in turn is intended to help reduce litigation.

Our government is bringing forward some innovative thinking to help improve the family justice system. There are issues currently determined by courts that are administrative in nature and that could be handled outside of the court. Bill C-78 will expand the range of matters that child support services may address and will allow them to perform tasks currently that were in the sole purview of the court itself.

Many provinces and territories have child support services that recalculate support orders, for instance. Bill C-78 proposes several measures to make these services more efficient. This includes the recalculation of interim child support amounts in Divorce Act orders. In addition, the bill would allow child support services to recalculate child support amounts at the request of a parent, for example, if there were a job loss. Currently, the Divorce Act requires that recalculation be done only at fixed or regular dates.

The bill also includes a new approach allowing for the calculation of initial child support amounts by provincial or territorial child support services, where possible. This will allow administrative services, as opposed to courts, to calculate, based on relevant income information, child support amounts based on child support guidelines.

These proposed additions and improvements to the Divorce Act would make it easier, less costly and less adversarial to determine or recalculate child support amounts.

Changing Divorce Act orders when parties live in different jurisdictions can also be costly and cumbersome for families. Bill C-78 proposes to improve the process to change a support order for parties living in different provinces or territories.

Currently, two courts are involved, a court in the applicant's province that makes a provisional order and a court in the respondent's jurisdiction that confirms the order. The new process would involve only one court and would eliminate the need for the current first stage hearing, thereby saving time and money. Because this new system mirrors that in most provinces and territories, it would also ensure consistency whether interjurisdictional proceedings are conducted under the provincial legislation or under the Divorce Act.

The bill also includes provisions to improve processes in international child support cases. These changes are an essential step for Canada to become party to the 2007 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which was signed in May 2017.

The 2007 convention is an international agreement that provides a low-cost and efficient legal framework for cross-border establishment, modification, recognition and enforcement of family support obligations. It will be of particular interest to Canadian families and children, as it provides a means for a parent to obtain child support from a former spouse living in a different country.

Another way in which Bill C-78 would increase access to justice and improve the efficiency of the family justice system is by amending the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. This act is used to help parents enforce support. The bill proposes to amend it to permit, in certain limited circumstances, the release of income information when parents do not provide it.

Accurate income information is key to determining fair child support amounts. This change would help to accurately determine child support amounts and enforce support orders, as well as to reduce time spent in court to obtain this information. Proceedings to obtain this information currently take up a lot of court time and resources and this can be expensive for people who are trying to obtain support and is not a good use of family resources.

When this information is given to a court, it would be sealed and kept in a location to which the public has no access, and the court could make any order necessary to protect the confidentiality of the information.

While the bill encourages resolution of matters outside of the court system, there are some matters that require formal court resolution.

Budget 2018 announced funding to expand unified family courts, fulfilling one of the Minister of Justice's mandate letter commitments to Canadians. The family court in my riding of St. John's East has benefited from this.

Unified family courts provide one-stop shopping for the family justice system by combining jurisdiction over all family law matters into one court. They also provide access to a range of family justice services, such as family law information centres and mediation services to help families through a range of family law issues, including separation and divorce and other services.

Funding is essential for the delivery of family justice services which fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. In budget 2017 our government committed $16 million per year for family justice services on an ongoing basis. This funding will increase Canadians' access to family justice by supporting provincial and territorial programs and services, such as mediation, parent information, education and support enforcement.

We have to work together to improve the accessibility and the efficiency of the Canadian family justice system. Bill C-78, along with the expansion of unified family courts and sustained funding for family justice services, will help support Canadian families going through separation and divorce and the over two million Canadian children who live in separated or divorced families. This is a great step forward and I trust that the changes we have proposed will bring positive changes to the family justice system.

In closing, I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation, as I do, so we can see it move to committee where it can be studied further.

[Accessibility, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, to celebrate the first ever United Nations International Day of Sign Languages, I participated in a rally organized by the Canadian Association for the Deaf about increasing recognition and awareness for American sign language, langue des signes québécoise and indigenous sign languages. Every day, 310,000 deaf Canadians and their families contribute greatly to our society and yet, significant barriers still limit their full participation in our society.

Can the minister please inform this House how our government is ensuring a more accessible Canada?

[Accessible Canada Act, September 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted for the opportunity to speak to the accessible Canada act today.

Throughout the accessible Canada consultation, the broadest consultation on disability in our country's history, the Government of Canada heard from more than 6,000 people and over 90 organizations.

These stakeholders told us clearly and repeatedly that Canada needs disability legislation with teeth. We need legislation that would move us away from the current system of placing the onus on disabled Canadians to remove barriers. We need legislation that would help us build a more inclusive, accessible and tolerant society. We need legislation that would set in place a system to proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction.

To this end, Bill C-81 would create a dedicated accessibility commissioner within the Canadian Human Rights Commission who would be responsible for ensuring that organizations are in fact meeting their obligations under the proposed accessible Canada act.

The need is clear. Let me remind hon. members of a few of the most recent statistics published by Statistics Canada that elucidate this issue.

The employment rate of Canadians aged 25 to 64 with disabilities is a mere 49% compared with 79% for Canadians without a disability. The employment rate among persons aged 25 to 64 with a mild disability is 68% compared with 54% for those with moderate disability and 42% for persons with severe disability, and merely 26% among those with a very severe disability.

Approximately one in two university graduates with or without disability held a professional occupation. However, graduates with a disability were less likely to hold management positions and earned less than those without a disability, especially among men.

Among Canadians with a disability, 12% reported having been refused a job in the previous five years as result of their condition. The percentage was 33% among 25 to 34-year olds with a severe or very severe disability.

I am sure that members on all sides of the House would agree that the measures we are proposing today in Bill C-81 would help address this inequality and are long overdue.

This is how Bill C-81 would work.

With respect to compliance tools, the accessibility commissioner would have access to a variety of proactive enforcement tools to verify compliance and to prevent noncompliance with the act. Proactive inspections of regulated entities would be a large part of ensuring that the onus for removing barriers is not placed on individual Canadians. The accessibility commissioner would be empowered to conduct an inspection of any place that he or she considers necessary to verify compliance. In addition, the commissioner would have the authority to conduct paper-based inspections through production orders.

If, following an inspection, the accessibility commissioner found that an organization had contravened its obligations under the act, there would be a variety of different tools the commissioner could use to ensure compliance.

One of these tools is compliance orders. A compliance order would ensure that if an inspector sees a barrier that needs to be removed immediately, the inspector could order that this be done within a timeframe the commissioner considered appropriate. For instance, if an organization has placed garbage cans that block an accessible entrance, an inspector could order those garbage to be moved without delay.

The accessibility commissioner would also have the authority to issue notices of violation. These notices could be given with a warning or with a monetary penalty.

Under Bill C-81, the maximum penalty for a violation would be $250,000. The penalty issued for a given violation would depend on the nature and the severity of the issue, the criteria for which would be set out in regulations.

However, Bill C-81 also includes the idea of continuing violations, whereby a violation that continues more than one day would constitute a separate violation for each day and could result in separate $250,000 penalties each day the violation continues.

Additionally, if the possibility of an administrative monetary penalty is not enough to encourage an organization to comply with its obligations, Bill C-81 would also provide authority to publish the name of the organization or person who committed the violation, along with the amount of the penalty.

In terms of jurisdiction, compliance and enforcement under Bill C-81 would build on existing expertise within the Government of Canada and fill gaps where needed.

Bill C-81 expands on existing sector-based mandates, authorities, expertise and experience in relation to accessibility within the federal transportation network and broadcasting and telecommunications services.

Both the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission have existing accessibility mandates. Bill C-81 proposes to enhance these mandates and to expand the powers and responsibilities of the Canadian Transportation Agency as well as the CRTC in relation to accessibility. The Canadian Transportation Agency would continue to be responsible for the accessibility of passengers in the federal transportation network, with an enhanced mandate, responsibilities and powers. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission would continue to be responsible for accessibility in relation to broadcasting and telecommunication services with new responsibilities for overseeing accessibility plans, feedback processes and progress reports.

Through amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, the Canadian Transportation Agency would have new proactive compliance tools to ensure that those in the federal transportation network are meeting their accessibility obligations. These compliance tools would be very similar to those of the accessibility commissioner, including the ability to issue notices for violations, with fines again up to $250,000. Given the whole-of-government approach to ensuring the removal of barriers in federal jurisdiction, the bill requires that the various authorities put in place mechanisms for collaboration and coordination across organizations regarding their policies and practices in relation to accessibility.

In terms of remedies, although the focus of Bill C-81 is on proactive and systemic change, the bill also provides for complaints mechanisms for individuals who have been harmed by an organization's non-compliance with its accessibility obligations.

Bill C-81 provides individuals with a right to file complaints with the accessibility commissioner if they have been harmed or have suffered property damage or economic loss as a result of, or have otherwise been adversely affected by, the contravention by an entity of regulations made under the proposed accessibility act. If, after investigating a complaint, the accessibility commissioner finds that the complaint is substantiated, the commissioner could order a broad range of remedies, including that the entity that committed the contravention take appropriate corrective measures; make available to the complainant the rights, opportunities or privileges that they were denied; pay compensation to the complainant for wages they were deprived of, and for expenses incurred by them as a result of the contravention; pay compensation to the complainant for the additional costs of obtaining alternative goods, services, facilities or accommodation as a result of the contravention; pay compensation for any pain and suffering the complainant experienced; and pay the complainant an amount if the accessibility commissioner determines that the contravention is the result of a wilful or reckless practice.

The maximum amount that could be awarded for each of pain and suffering and wilful and reckless practice would initially be set at $20,000, but Bill C-81 includes a provision that would increase these amounts over time to account for inflation. If individuals and organizations think that the accessibility commissioner made an error in dismissing a complaint or in ordering a remedy, they would be able to make an appeal. For most complaints, these appeals would go to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. For complaints about parliamentary entities, appeals would go to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The accessibility commissioner would not be responsible for dealing with all complaints, however. In recognition of, and to leverage, the existing expertise of the Canadian Transportation Agency and the CRTC, these organizations would be responsible for dealing with complaints in the federal passenger transportation network and in respect of the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act, respectively.

Through the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act proposed in Bill C-81, the Canadian Transportation Agency would continue to deal with complaints in relation to undue barriers to the mobility of persons with disabilities in the federal transportation network, with enhanced remedies, such as compensation for pain and suffering, which would be better aligned with the remedies available under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Canadian Transportation Agency would also deal with a new type of complaint that addresses contraventions of regulations made under the Canada Transportation Act that result in harm, similar to complaints made to the accessibility commissioner under the proposed accessible canada act, with similar remedies for individuals.

For complaints about broadcasting and telecommunications services, Canadians would continue to file complaints with the CRTC, which would use its existing authorities under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to address the complaints.

In the case of grievances, many public service and parliamentary employees have existing grievance rights. Bill C-81 builds on these rights. Through amendments to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Employment Act, and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, these employees would be able to refer their complaints for adjudication.

I conclude by saying that I hope all members will support this bill at this reading so that it can go to committee, where it can be reviewed and sent back to the House for approval.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the economic, cultural and ecological importance of our oceans to Atlantic Canadians cannot be overstated. As depicted in Robert Chafe's play Between Breaths, the goals of working the sea and protecting our country's endangered whales are both vitally important to us.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that our government's significant measures to protect the North Atlantic right whale have balanced the protection of this iconic species with the help of Atlantic Canada's fisheries?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I have also heard the commentary earlier from the parliamentary secretary. There are protections in place either in the agreement itself or in the side letters with each of the individual states that protect indigenous rights and protect women's rights in the labour force. It is a progressive deal. The name of the deal was changed, from the trans-Pacific partnership to the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership, to acknowledge that these changes were made at the negotiating table. I believe that she should be happy and not fearful of the outcome.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, certainly in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador most companies, as my hon. colleague from Avalon has previously indicated, enjoy the fact of improved access to Europe and the United States for our fisheries products, our petrochemical products and our mining resources. It is important to note that these industries support good-paying, unionized, middle-class jobs, the families of the workers, the support services, and the additional enterprise that has undertaken each of these communities where workers in the fisheries sector, the mining sector or the oil and gas sector work. It is a pillar of our economy now that people would have access to international markets. Therefore, it is just not right to engage in the same type of fearmongering that the New Democrats are engaging in now, as she had mentioned, with respect to farms. People on farms should be excited about an opportunity to sell our farming goods and our agricultural products internationally because Canada has the highest standards in the world for our products. We have a great brand, and it is a great opportunity for Canada to leverage its value. Just as Canadian fishers are learning now that brand Canada means a premium for their products overseas, we will find that the same is true for our farming products.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that my colleague should not tell the people in her riding that they will lose their farms or jobs, because that is not true.

Naturally, issues arise when we sign any deal with other countries. In this specific case, Canadian standards for farm and agricultural products are much higher. I believe that everyone working on farms in Canada will be proud to have the opportunity to sell their products around the world.

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in favour of Bill C-79, an act to implement the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The CPTPP, as this historic trade agreement is now known, would benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast and across all sectors of our economy.

Through the CPTPP, our government is demonstrating our commitment to growing our economy and strengthening the middle class by expanding and diversifying Canada's trade and investment relations. Canada as a nation builds on trade and as a medium-sized economy, trade is fundamental to our continued prosperity and economic growth.

While Asia has more than doubled in importance as a destination for Canadian goods and services since the turn of the century, Canada has lost market share to our competitors that have pursued closer integration with the region's fastest growing economies. The CPTPP will help remedy this. It will be the cornerstone agreement for Canada to diversify our trade and investment toward Asia and enhance our export presence in the region.

The 11 CPTPP members represent a total of 495 million consumers and 13.5% of global GDP. Canada's exports to our CPTPP partners totalled nearly $27 billion in 2017. The CPTPP would provide Canadians with the tremendous opportunity to continue to expand their business in Asia.

Trade has long been a powerful engine that drives the Canadian economy. Canadian jobs and prosperity depend heavily on our connectivity with other countries around the world. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada is related to exports, while Canadian exports amount to nearly one-third of Canada's GDP.

Opening borders to trade and investment and diversifying our trading partners has the potential to boost Canada's wealth and make us less vulnerable to changing conditions in any one market. Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular are looking for our government to open up new markets for potential exports, and the CPTPP will help us deliver on this task.

Implementing and ratifying this trade agreement will strengthen our economic ties with the 10 other CPTPP members, which include seven new free trade agreement partners: Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.

Once the CPTPP enters into force, Canada will have preferential access to 51 different countries through 14 trade agreements, representing nearly 1.5 billion consumers and over 60% of the global economy.

The CPTPP is projected to boost Canada's GDP by $4.2 billion over the long term and that growth will be driven by increased exports of goods and services, and increases in investment. This means more jobs and more prosperity for Canadians.

For trade in goods, the CPTPP would help Canadian businesses increase their sales and profits by virtually eliminating all tariffs, most of which would be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement and establishing mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to create more predictable and transparent trading conditions.

The CPTPP would allow Canadian companies to level the playing field with competitors that currently enjoy preferential access to key markets like Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, while gaining a competitive advantage over other countries that currently do not have the same level of access. It would help Canadian companies to establish customer relationships, networks and other joint partnerships and offer Canada the opportunity to further integrate with global supply chains.

Opening up new markets for our products means that Canada would be at an advantage to export more agriculture and agri-food, fish and seafood, industrial machinery, and everything in between.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, this would mean new markets or reduced tariffs not only for our fish, seafood, metals, minerals and forestry products, but also for the specialized industrial products our industry has pioneered in the offshore.

Opening up new markets for our fish and seafood industry would mean more opportunities for shrimp, salmon, halibut, lobster, clams, mussels and snow crab, supporting close to 76,000 Canadian jobs based mostly in rural and coastal communities like mine, to help expand the over $85 million in regional trade that we have enjoyed over the past two years.

In the case of metals and minerals, it means expanded market share for the petroleum and iron ore products sold from my province to Asia.

Opening up new markets for our manufacturing sector means Newfoundland companies in the aerospace and marine technology sectors like Kraken Robotics, PAL Aerospace, Virtual Marine, SubC Imaging, and others in our oceans supercluster would have new opportunities to compete fairly in the trans-Pacific region.

I have mentioned just a few portions of Canada's vibrant economy. There are many more sectors whose exporters would benefit from the CPTPP. Securing preferential access to CPTPP markets means that almost all Canadian products could be exported to our new partners without facing tariffs. Upon full implementation of this agreement, 99% of tariff lines of CPTPP parties would become duty-free, covering 98% of Canada's current total exports to these markets.

The benefits of the CPTPP do not stop there, however. In addition to addressing traditional trade policy issues like tariffs and technical barriers to trade, the CPTPP also covers trade in services, investment, intellectual property, government procurement and state-owned enterprises. Companies in my riding, and ridings all across the country, would have access to Asia-Pacific countries that would not exist for countries that have not joined the agreement.

These parts of the agreement serve to provide Canadian companies, service providers and investors alike with transparency, predictability and certainty in their access to CPTPP markets.

For example, the national treatment and most favoured nations provisions combined with a ratchet mechanism would mean that Canadian service providers and investors would have access to CPTPP markets, and these would improve over time as they take steps towards greater liberalization, including when these other partners complete free trade agreement negotiations with other countries around the world. It will mean that the CPTPP would not only open up new markets for Canada today but that our access would improve in the future and over time.

This is complemented by the commitments made on government procurement in the CPTPP, which establish fair, open and transparent rules for competitive procurement markets. Canadian businesses would enjoy equal treatment vis-à-vis domestic suppliers when bidding for government contracts in CPTPP markets. As a result, Canadian suppliers would benefit from new opportunities in markets such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, while gaining expanded government procurement access within existing FTA partners like Chile and Peru.

It is now clearer than ever that the CPTPP is a big deal for Canadian businesses and workers. We are making good on our commitment to create opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and generate economic growth that will benefit all Canadians. This agreement tears down barriers and builds a bridge across the Pacific for Canadian exporters of goods and services.

With the CPTPP, Canada would send a clear signal to the world that it stands firm in its support for the free, rules-based international trading system. In the wake of rising protectionism and sentiments like that around the world, the ratification of the CPTPP would not just secure economic benefits for us today, but also solidify our role in the economic architecture of Asia in the future.

When Canadian companies are given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, they win. This agreement would extend our playing field to 60% of the global economy. That is the potential for a lot of wins for companies, innovators, those working in trade-related industries, the service sector supporting those industries, those looking to invest in Canada and Canadian companies looking for capital to expand their businesses.

For these reasons our government is committed to ratifying and bringing the CPTPP into force and it is why I encourage hon. members of the House to support the bill before us today.

[House of Commons Page Program, June 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that the final score does not reflect how close the match was or that, this time, no pages were injured by the member for St. John's East. Sadly, I cannot.

Last night, in their final tune-up game before the World Cup, the pages, led by Ariana Coleman, Brandon Gertz, Sebastien Arsenault, Sylvan Lutz, and Michael Donaghy, thrashed the MPs on the all-party FC Commoners soccer team in our annual match.

It was all tied up at the half when the pages' goalie, Zachary Robichaud, went down hard on a save. We hope Zack is okay. After halftime, the MPs had an uphill battle both literally and figuratively. The final score: pages 5, MPs 1.

A victory that happens once every 40 years is a good way to round off the 40th anniversary of the parliamentary page program.

I ask all members to rise with me to thank and congratulate our pages. Long live the pages.