Debates of June 13th, 2023

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I have the floor, Madam Speaker. I would ask my colleague to listen to my response.

Parameters could be put around this.

The member gave the examples of forestry and the film industry. I have great respect for other industries. We do very privileged work in this place that is different from when I used to build pallets at home in Nova Scotia, but the reality is that this should not prevent us from finding reasonable ways to make this place function better.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague. He has a beautiful suit on today.

One of the things he spoke about was making sure that people can participate in this Parliament. I think about representatives in the Yukon and representatives in rural and remote northern communities and how difficult it is for them. It is a very different reality than when we have, for example, people representing ridings in Ottawa. I think it is important that we make sure all of those constituents are equally represented.

He brought up the idea that Canadians ultimately choose who represents them. That is the cornerstone of our democracy. People will still be able to vote if—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. member for Kings—Hants time for a very brief answer.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled that the member opposite thinks I have a nice suit on tonight. I will take that compliment.

I agree with her that when we look at transportation across the country, in certain places members do not have very easy access to transport to get to and from Parliament. Hybrid is allowing them to be situated to have the same equity and access in this place.

I agree wholeheartedly with her comments.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I begin this debate tonight, I will state that this is not an easy job to do. I will be the first to acknowledge that. I love what I do, and I think every member in this place loves what they do. They have a passion, energy and desire to build a better country.

I have been here three and a half years, and like many members, a few who have spoken tonight, I am from the class of 2019. We had a few months of normalcy after the 2019 election. We figured out where the offices and washrooms were. We figured out how things ran here. Then the world changed, both in what we talked about in policy with the pandemic and in how we operated here.

There are many different facets to the role we have as members of Parliament. I am thinking of the work we do here in the chamber, at committee and back in our constituency offices on case files. We are present in the community at riding and community events and get feedback. Of course, now that we are out of the pandemic, we are getting to different parts of the country to get the message out from our caucuses and leaders and so forth. However, I will say this. Despite the changes in 2019, we are now, at this point, in this debate tonight, out of the pandemic and back to what I would say is a semblance of normalcy.

I knew what I was signing up for in 2019 when I took this job. Every member of Parliament has challenges in the work they do here on the Hill. There is no denial there. There are family responsibilities, circumstances that change and travel as well. I often chuckle that I have a pretty easy commute, being from eastern Ontario, to get back home. It is about an hour and 10 minutes to my riding.

I consider myself very fortunate. For me, the member next door in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and members in the national capital region, it is a blessing to get home quickly. It can also be a curse some days, because constituents know I can go back for a passport clinic, a community event or whatever it may be. However, all that said, given the point in time we are at now, when we are talking about the strengthening and protection of our democracy and its integrity and all aspects of that, the debate we are having tonight is fundamentally important to getting the basic stuff right.

I am in favour of change. Change naturally happens. I remember being a mayor at the municipal level and having to navigate a lot of that. It is not always easy to do. However, sometimes there is change for the sake of doing something, and sometimes change goes too far.

As I was preparing my comments for the debate tonight, I thought of the words of a colleague who is no longer in the House, Wayne Easter. The former member for Malpeque had a great comment on Twitter this week: “Let me put it this way: If you don't want to work in Ottawa during the Parliamentary sessions—don't run to be an MP. A hybrid Parliament made sense during Covid but it should never be permanent. I strongly oppose govt's move to make it permanent.” I could not agree more with what Mr. Easter said on that point, and I am laughing when thinking of his Zoom discussions with the member for Carleton, the leader of our party, at the finance committee. They were certainly navigating some very interesting times.

As I share my time tonight with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am reflecting, in a sense, on certain provisions from our side of the aisle. As we have said in our dissenting reports and talked about at committee, some aspects can stay. Electronic voting is an example of that. How we can make that work could be open for discussion, as an example.

However, the idea is to be here on the floor of the House of Commons, to travel here and speak on behalf of, in my case, the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry from the perspectives of my riding, my community and my personal lived experience, whatever the benefit may be. That needs to happen in person.

I have seen things I take for granted. In the last few months, we have gotten traffic back in our caucus meetings, on the floor of the House, in committee and, yes, in the hallways for the networking and different connections we do at different times of the day. There is a value to being in person. It adds to our democracy; it does not take it away.

When we talk about these things, like making permanent the idea that somebody can Zoom in from their home or from their basement, I think we are at a point now where we can be compassionate. We can make changes to help adapt to difficult family situations and circumstances. I think the whips in our parties have given better flexibility over the course of the last couple of years to recognize personal and professional needs where need be. We can keep the core foundation of what we are talking about here.

I always joke that we are not normal. Most Canadians watching this would ask what the heck a standing order is. We are talking about the fundamental rules of how this House operates, and I think a way to describe them is they are the character, the tone and the nature of the way we do our business. I am very concerned that we are making Zoom aspects permanent so that people will be able to Zoom in for all of this.

Another part that is very concerning is the manner in which these changes are being made, the magnitude of these changes given our normal traditions here in the House and the way we have gone about this generally, with unanimous consent by all parties. We have this motion supported by the Liberals and the NDP. The Conservatives have raised some serious concerns in wanting a difference and the Bloc Québécois has done the same.

I cannot say it was for the entire Canadian history and our entire tenure of Parliament, but for the overwhelming majority of the time, changes to the Standing Orders and the rules that govern the House have been done by unanimous consent, by all parties giving and taking, figuring things out, throwing things at the wall, seeing what they can find a consensus on and making changes. Those changes, I think, have been for the better over the course of time, and this has been the best way to build confidence from Parliament to Parliament on these core essential functions.

One thing we have in here is a change to have committee chairs in person. I think that would end a lot of the chaos that happens in certain committees. With all due respect, I am thinking of numerous times at the heritage committee that we watched a natural technological filibuster of checking headsets, the chair not knowing what is happening with the committee clerk in the room and somebody calling a point of order. Consider the amount of time lost in a two-hour committee. Members of Parliament here talk about the efficient use of time. Our clerks are there. The interpreters are there. The IT team is there. The amount of time that was lost is probably into the hours over the course of the last couple of years simply because the chair was not in the room.

The fact that this is changing is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We talked about having the appropriate resources. When having these Zoom capabilities and all of these things going on, the resources are not backing them up.

I have heard several times tonight members of the government say, well, these are all things that could be adjusted and talked about. They should be done in the amendments to the Standing Orders. These things should be figured out now, these guardrails or barriers, to make sure we have protections so that committees can run when a majority of members of Parliament want to meet and they have work to get done, bills to go through, studies to do and witnesses to hear from. Because of a lack of resources, we are shutting things down.

That, still two years in, has been acknowledged many times. In all fairness, it is often to the benefit of the government. If something gets contentious and they are starting to negotiate which committee gets cancelled, it is not fair and it is not balanced. To colleagues who say that those are things we could have a conversation about, I would say these things should have been settled and done the way they have been done in parliamentary tradition in this country for many generations: all parties coming to unanimous consent, unanimous agreement, on how we can get to that.

Another thing we talk about is that there are some other tools already here that could be used more. If an absence is requested, there are pairing opportunities. There are leaves that can happen. There are tools. We have made a lot of advances here in recognizing the diverse geography of the country. As we have had more parents, different age groups and different circumstances, we have enhanced child care options and added designated travellers. All of these things were done to help make our work better and function better.

Tonight, as I wrap up, I think of my comments about these amendments to the Standing Orders. There was a time and a place for Zoom, but now is the time to get back in person. Our jobs are unique. It is an honour and a privilege to be one of only a few hundred members of Parliament in this country. When we speak for our constituents, there is no reason why that should not be done on the floor of the House of Commons. I think of the United Kingdom. I think of the United States. I think of many other countries' parliamentary structures that are similar, like Congress. They are back in person. They are doing the work. They are making it work.

Canadians expect us to get back to work in person and get the job done. As our leader likes to say, we need to bring it home.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member very effectively argued his perspective and I found it very interesting. Something that has come up with some of our Conservative colleagues has been the separation between the voting app and participation in speeches and debate in the House. I would argue that our most important function in the House is actually the voting piece.

I am wondering how the member is separating those two and if he could further explain his position on that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually elaborate on what my colleagues on the PROC committee said in our dissenting report about separating the voting aspect. I have heard more. Again, I wish there was a better opportunity to discuss the amendments. There is a more narrow path on that, but I will go back to electronic voting. Personally in my case, I and many colleagues in our dissenting report on PROC alluded to a compromise, a negotiation that we would have to do.

I think that across the country, people are battling illness, people are in bereavement and people have family issues. They probably are not ready for a 10-minute speech on the floor of the House of Commons with questions and comments. They can keep their votes and they can keep representing their constituents and have that balance.

There are some tools we can use to modernize ourselves. Now that we are out of the pandemic, I think that Zooming in from somewhere like a home basement to talk about an important issue today when 98% of us are here is not required anymore.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my grey hair bears witness to the fact that I have learned certain things in life. One of them is that changes need to be explained and justified. Intelligent arguments must be presented. People need convincing. That is not what I am seeing in this motion. These changes are being imposed and have not been properly thought out.

The government should remember that, during the pandemic, we were eager to return to work here after two years. We were glad to see one another and to work together again. Today, we are hearing the total opposite from the Liberals. We are being asked to accept that the work will be done from home under certain conditions that are as yet unknown.

That is not what we signed up for. Our voters did not put us in power or elect us to do that. Changing the rules midstream is never healthy. I would like to have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc about the different issues and some of them being untested. Yes, we had tested them during the pandemic when we were not able to travel and were unable to get around our communities and do the work that we needed to do. Now that we are in the time frame we are in, I think there are some areas we could have found agreement on, but in this situation we are breaking a massive tradition that has generally held through the entire tenure of a number of Canadian Parliaments over many generations, which is unanimous consent to change the Standing Orders.

I go back to say that there are many things we are doing to help parents, help families, help people with health conditions and help people with bereavement. That does not mean we have to allow Zoom to come in. There are some things we can do. There are many things we are doing and there are more that we can do. We were absent from that conversation. It was the Liberals and the NDP who worked together to put this motion forward that we have tonight. It is very frustrating and frankly unnecessary, in my opinion.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say that I also am admiring the member's nice navy blue suit, as it has been a theme of this evening's conversations.

Oftentimes in our conversations about the rules of this place, we fail to recognize that many of the rules were designed and set up to keep many of us out of this place for a very long time. I am one of those people. This is not a place that was necessarily built for a woman or for members of many other equity-seeking groups in this place.

One of the things that I strive for when I speak to people who are talking about becoming more involved in politics and perhaps running for office is the importance of flexibility and a work/life balance. Certainly for women, who have very many child care obligations, that is a key point. To be able to attract that diversity of candidates who run for positions such as ours is key, and hybrid is a part of that key.

Could the member please talk about the importance of that diversity and how we need to provide choice in this place?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat what I started my speech with. I am the first to admit that this is not an easy job. It is at a high pace, it is busy; it is multi-tasking and it is a heck of a balance between work, life and family, community and all the different balls that we are trying to juggle up in the air.

What I will say is that there are many opportunities and that there have been advances that this House has made to make it more family-friendly, to attract a more diverse group of Canadians to represent ourselves in this House. I do not believe in having the Zoom option. I think it takes away from individuals having a better voice. Their voice is best served on the floor of the House of Commons here in Ottawa, working with our colleagues in the House, in caucus, at committee and in this precinct. That is where all MPs belong.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to address the assembled House tonight on this government's proposal to make permanent changes that it has been tinkering with, experimenting with, over the last number of years on hybrid Parliament, which would allow members of Parliament to address the House both from the floor of the chamber and via Zoom.

I think we have a role, as Conservatives, to advocate for conserving the best traditions of our past, but that does not mean that we oppose change in all its forms. It means that we are appropriately cautious, I would say, about change in that we want to ensure that, in the process of changing fundamental institutions and other aspects about our national life, we do not lose things that were important about the previous forms of those institutions, which we were maybe not always fully conscious of.

Members of the government and of the NDP have repeatedly asserted that the current system is working. I think many members are relatively new in the House, and I was only elected in 2015. Those who have been here for a long time I think will notice how these changes have fundamentally changed aspects of our institution already and generally for the worse. It is important that we notice the ways in which the current provisions are not working and the problems that they are creating. As we deliberate about what the new rules should be, we ensure that we are pushing for solutions to these problems instead of allowing these problems that the government has created with this new model to simply continue to exist and fester.

The most critical concern I have about the way the current approach to hybrid Parliament operates is the way that it has shifted the role and powers of committees in this place. Previously, without the hybrid provisions in place, committees could sit largely whenever they wanted. They had designated time slots, but they had a great deal of flexibility in terms of going beyond those time slots.

As a political staffer, I recall times when we were dealing with critical issues in this place where committees would say “We decreed a new subcommittee and that subcommittee is going to meet for five hours Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday night to deal with whatever the issue is.” There was flexibility for committees to do what they wanted to get to the bottom of issues that had to be addressed. Committees could also extend if there was some unresolved issue, and I am thinking here, to some extent, of the filibuster that has been alluded to.

Yes, the filibuster is a legitimate technique that is used by all parties. I think Mr. Christopherson of the NDP still has the record for it. We have a filibuster ongoing with the Liberals at public accounts and, yes, from time to time, some people I know in our own caucus may have used that tool once or twice. However, the point is that the filibuster is a tool that seeks to create a balance between the majority and the minority in committee. Generally, filibusters are resolved by committees sitting for extended hours, which forces members who are filibustering to maybe come back to the table. However, when we have hybrid provisions that limit committees to only sit in narrow time slots, it actually makes it much easier for members to filibuster. That is why there has been an explosion of the use of the filibuster by all parties in the House since these rules have been put in place.

These resource limitations constrain committees in their ability to sit for extended periods of time to actually resolve conflict that may exist in the context of those committees and to dig deeply into issues of concern for our national life. An example I remember vividly from my career is the process by which the Uyghur genocide was recognized in this Parliament. It was the subcommittee on international human rights sitting for two days solidly, because the committee members wanted to look at the situation of Uyghurs in China. At the end of those two days of intensive sittings, the committee was able to come to a particular conclusion. Now, with the hybrid provisions in place and the resource limitations, it would be much more difficult for any committee that wanted to look in a deep way at any issue to be able to do that.

Committees, in order to access resources, need to go to the whips of the various parties who then are able to make determinations about the allocation of resources. So, control over committees is no longer in the hands of the members of those committees to decide when they sit. Control about when committees sit, how they sit, what time slots they have available to them are made by the central controllers of the resources that are going to be available. These central controllers, the whips, in some form, decide if they are going to allow industry, public accounts or foreign affairs to have that narrow slot, and committees have to get that approval to get access to those resources in order to sit.

So, the way this place has changed is that committees no longer have autonomy. They no longer have control. They no longer have the ability to delve deeply into issues as required, because it is the central controllers as opposed to the members of the committee who decide who gets resources. I think there has been some acknowledgement that this is a fundamental problem, a fundamental change in the way our institution operates. However, members opposite have said, “Well, this is a problem. We need to solve it, but we should just move forward anyway.”

I would submit to the House that we have been dealing with this problem ever since we have had hybrid Parliament. Members have repeatedly raised concerns about it. It may be an issue of available dollars, or it may be an issue of available people who have the experience and expertise to do interpretation. I do not know exactly what the source of the problem is, but the point is that we have been doing this for years, and we still have that problem persisting.

I would say, if we are going to move forward with some kind of a hybrid framework, we have to do so in a way that protects the fundamental rights of committees to be able to do their job. That means resolving these resource issues in some way. This is the most important point that I want to make tonight. The hybrid provisions undermine the ability of committees to act autonomously. For all members, in all parties, who care about the functioning of parliamentary committees, we cannot push forward with these permanent changes to the Standing Orders without resolving that issue of committees.

I want to make a few other points as well. It is inescapable that a member standing in this place addressing members of Parliament is fundamentally different, in terms of the kind of communication that takes place, than a member sitting at home, in front of their screen, often reading off the screen, and able to completely shut out any other noises or interruptions. The back-and-forth taking place now, as Liberal members gesture and communicate, is part of what has made the House of Commons a great institution for over a hundred years. I relish that. I welcome the heckling. I welcome the back-and-forth.

If I were sitting at home, sitting in front of a screen, reading off the screen, and able to shut out any noises from the member for Kingston and the Islands and others, that would be a completely different kind of exchange. Something is lost. Something is being lost in the tone, in the lack of exchange that exists in Zoom calls and speeches.

I support the move to a voting app because I think we have seen how nothing is lost in the transition from standing votes to a voting app. However, I think we can see very clearly how a great deal is lost in the quality of exchange that takes place when we go from what is happening right now between members on the floor of the House and what happens when someone sits in front of a screen, shuts out any kind of other sound or noise or interaction, and simply delivers what is front of them.

On the issue of family friendliness, I live in western Canada. I have five young children, and this is hard job. There are many hard jobs. There are many jobs in this country where it is simply a reality that, to do the job properly, people have to travel and spend time away from family. There are certain opportunities that we have as members of Parliament that many do not, by the way, and we are able to have our families travel with us from time to time. However, the reality is that there are challenges.

There have been ways in the past that the House has accommodated these challenges. There has been the convention of pairing, for example. If a member needed to be away, they would engage a member of another party and both would agree to mutually absent themselves to preserve the balance. Members would cover for each other. This is what happened in the past.

However, as we move forward, I think the voting app reduces the need for pairing. Members could still vote. Only one member can speak in the House at a time, one out of 338. If a member needs to be away for a couple of weeks, and they are not able to give speeches but are still able to vote, I think they could effectively represent their constituents for that period of time without being able to speak remotely. We could preserve the flexibility and the family friendliness by having that voting app, while still preserving the idea that speeches in the House of Commons should be delivered from the floor of the House of Commons.

Finally, there has been discussion about diversity, about getting people with young families and more women in politics and such by giving more flexibility. However, it is important to note that changes to the Standing Orders the government is proposing still have a preference for members who are in person. It is odd to me that the government says people should be able to participate fully virtually, yet we can see in the changes to standing orders 26(2), 45(1), 53, 56(1), 62, 98 and one new standing order they are proposing, there are many cases where the Standing Orders say that members have to be in person to stand to object to the passage of a particular motion.

I think it is quite unfair that the government would say that we are going to bring in more women and more working parents as members of Parliament, yet subtly putting in place, in the Standing Orders, measures that would limit the full participation of those individuals.

We need to conserve the critical aspects of this institution that we have had for a long time. We can make some changes, but we should conserve the essential aspects of being in person, especially for speaking and for deliberating. This is the heart of our deliberative democracy, and something is lost with these hybrid provisions, something we need to conserve.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member. We were chuckling while he was speaking, but it was not for anything he was saying. It was just for the rich and incredible irony that we were hearing oohs out of that side of the House of Commons, because it was only a short three sitting days ago that the member spoke in the House on Bill C-41 by giving a virtual speech through Zoom. I am assuming he had good reason not to be in the chamber to do that and there was a really good reason he needed to do it by Zoom, and that is what put him in the position to not be able to be here physically.

The reality is that, from time to time, all members of this House need the ability to do that. Would the member like to address our concern over his hypocrisy for his speech about needing to be in the House as a member of Parliament when he delivered a full speech on Bill C-41 on Friday on Zoom?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member knows what the word “hypocrisy” means. I have been clear that I think the rules, as they presently exist, weaken this institution. As such, I do not think those rules should be in place.

I also believe, though, that it is legitimate for the members to use the tools as they exist. I do not think it is hypocritical at all to observe that these rules should not be in place, but insofar as they are in place, members can use them. The fact of the matter is that a speech is qualitatively different when it is delivered on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why I think all members should endeavour to be here as much as they can and that the rules should maximize the presence of members in the House.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much parliamentary experience. Soon, I will have been here for a mere four years.

However, like everyone else, I have noticed something that even the Liberals who are moving this motion have noticed. For at least two and a half years, there have been major problems with interpretation. There are issues with availability, and the interpreters are experiencing more and more hearing problems. All this irritates me because this motion runs completely counter to that; it does not take into account the interpreters' health and hearing needs.

If we care about our staff, we should look after them and look out for them, for God's sake. This motion does the exact opposite. Hybrid Parliament puts a lot of pressure on them.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern the member raised about interpreters, and I think this is linked to the resource challenges we face. From what I understand, the pressure this has created on interpreters is what has reduced the availability of time and resources for committees to be able to sit.

The most important point I raised in my speech was around the issue of how this new system is limiting the autonomy of committees and the ability of committees to do their job. That is linked to the point he raised, which is the impact on interpreters. The government's solution that we can just hire a bunch more interpreters and that money can just solve the problem shows a misunderstanding of why we have this problem. The problem of resources is not just about putting more money into the system; it is about the pressure on interpreters that is created, which makes it difficult to have the kind of flexibility with committees that we used to have.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan see no context in which we need to continue to have the availability of hybrid rules? Even with a voting app, without the rules we adopted post-COVID, members of Parliament who were actually dying had to come in here. They had to be physically present at a stage in their private member's bill, and there was no way to do it remotely. Is that what he foresees for the future, which is no options for hybrid participation?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is when we use the exceptional case to justify what is not actually going to be the median case. We can try to find ways of dealing with the exceptional case. For example, in exceptional circumstances, we could consider a member present who is not physically present. However, the vast majority of uses of these provisions are not going to be members in that situation. I believe that, in the future, we are going to see ministers who find it more convenient to have officials sitting beside them and handing them a paper instead of being in the House of Commons. These kinds of cases have to be dealt with, and they are not dealt with in this motion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being able to pick up exactly at this moment with my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I do not disagree. I find the notion worrying that, virtually forever, we are going to have a blanket equivalency between participating virtually and participating in person. I do not take it as something that is an automatic modernization or an automatic improvement.

Tonight, we are here debating something called Standing Orders. They are the rules of procedure. I always liked a quote from a British parliamentarian of some note, a member of several cabinets in the Labour government, Jack Straw. He said, “Procedure may be boring to some, but it’s about the distribution and exercise of power. It really matters.”

I wish we had a really good opportunity to debate all the Standing Orders to get through some of the issues that really matter but that are not about hybrid Parliament versus non-hybrid Parliament. Over time, the Standing Orders have increasingly privileged backroom political party approaches as opposed to the individual member of Parliament and our rights and obligations as individuals to represent our constituents.

It was a while ago now, in 2008, that the Centre for the Study of Democracy and Diversity at Queen's University commented that Canada's Parliament was particularly “executive-centred, party-dominated and adversarial”.

Back in 2016, I prepared a very long list of possible changes to our Standing Orders and delivered it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC. The list included such things as, “What would break down partisanship in this place?” and “What if we were seated alphabetically instead of by party group?” It would be very hard, as we routinely violate the standing order against heckling. Would we really heckle someone who was sitting right next to us, for instance, if I could sit with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan? We have an ongoing debate about whether heckling is more clever than obnoxious. I land on the obnoxious side; he thinks it is clever. However, we are friends anyway.

The Standing Orders could be really examined for how we could improve democracy in this place, but that, unfortunately, is not the topic for this evening. We have a fairly narrow group of Standing Order changes. They are dramatic, of course, but there is much in our Standing Orders that could be improved.

I will just mention a few of the things right now. Obviously, we already have a rule against heckling, but we are not very good at seeing it enforced.

I speak of this in the generic sense of “Speaker” to my hon. colleague, who is our distinguished Deputy Speaker, but over the years, this is the only Westminster parliamentary democracy anywhere on the planet where the Speaker of the House has ceded his or her unique and totally in-the-Speaker's-hands control of who gets to speak in this place. I think this bears mentioning. No, the party whips hand the list forward. The speakers, the people who will be recognized in question period, are not wondering if they will catch the Speaker's eye; that has become entirely fiction. They have to please the party whip to get the floor of the House of Commons. This is a power imbalance. It would be so much better if they had to be well behaved so that the Speaker might give them the floor, rather than pleasing the party whip. That accentuates the partisanship. It is completely unnecessary, and we do not even have to change the Standing Orders. It has been done voluntarily, and there is no rule to enforce it.

Similarly, there is a rule against reading speeches. Those things also would help us control and manage this place, but those are things we do not even have to change in the Standing Orders. We just have to get enough consensus from all the political parties that the Speaker can use the rules we actually already have.

With respect to the question at hand today, we have a number of changes to the Standing Orders. This question is unlike the proposed legislation that we usually debate in this place. When we debate proposed legislation, it is proposed. We know we can make a change. We can amend it. We can go to committee. That is not going to happen here. It is going to be an up or down vote. Either we are going to accept the changes to the Standing Orders that are proposed today, or we are going to reject them. That is a shame, because there are one or two changes that I would desperately like to make, but I am certainly not going to vote against continuing the access to a hybrid Parliament and the ability to participate virtually.

I am mostly not going to do that for the reasons I have mentioned. It may be the extreme case, but the extreme case in the absence of hybrid possibilities was actually Mauril Bélanger, the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier. He was in hospital, dying of ALS, and he literally had to struggle in here so that his private member's bill did not end up in the trash heap just as he was dying. It was appalling.

We have also seen it with our distinguished colleague Arnold Chan and from the comments that are in the report from the procedure and House affairs committee from the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt, his widow, who now occupies his seat in this place. She reflected on what it took from him while fighting cancer to have to exert the energy to come back and forth from his riding to participate as the member of Parliament in this place. He was one of the finest members of Parliament I ever saw, but we did not have that option at the time. I would not want to go back to those days where we do not have an option.

For some of the other arguments for why we should maintain a hybrid format, in terms of getting more women into politics, I just want to be clear. If we want more women in politics, if we want more diversity, the most effective thing to do is not to tinker with the Standing Orders. It is to get rid of first past the post.

Every democracy that uses fair voting, consensus-based voting or any form of proportional representation increases the number of elected women in legislatures. Moreover, it increases the number of equity-seeking groups, and it improves representation by minorities. Fair voting will do far more than hybrid Parliament in improving the ability of women to be elected and of equity-seeking groups to be here.

The literature on this is voluminous. I will just quickly reference it. If anyone wants to check it out, look at Patterns of Democracy, the definitive text by a California political scientist who hails from the Netherlands, Arend Lijphart. It is clear from looking at 40 different democracies over a period of decades.

There is no doubt that, without access to hybrid, there is no such thing as a work-life balance as a parliamentarian. It has made a huge difference, and not just for women with small children. I remember during COVID, when we first started being able to use virtual participation, I was speaking to men in this place, fathers, who said they never knew how much they missed being with their children.

That has been the foregone conclusion for decades, a century, of parliamentarians in this place, particularly when they were mostly men. They did not look after their children. They hardly knew their children. Other members in this place have talked about the old days. I think it was the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier tonight who said we saw a lot of divorces and alcoholism.

If we want to make better decisions, we should try to keep ourselves healthy, although I am a very bad example tonight as we approach midnight and have a late show as well. I have been working the last three weeks, three nights out of every week, until after midnight. It has been 19-hour day after 19-hour day. I am a very poor example of taking good care of our health in this place, but we really ought to try to make it possible for people to see their spouses, care for their children and actually be fully formed human beings.

That said, let me dive into one or two quick points about what I would like to see fixed here. I am absolutely baffled by one change in the Standing Orders. I cannot find any reference to it in the PROC report that led to these changes. Yes, there was work done. Yes, it was done in PROC. No, not every member of Parliament got to participate in those discussions.

There is no reference there to removing the reference to the Sergeant-at-Arms in Standing Order 11(1)(b). This is for the moment when the Speaker decides that somebody is violating the Standing Orders, and they are so obnoxious and loud that they should be removed. At the moment, the Standing Orders read as follows: “the Speaker shall order the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the member.” The new rules would just say that the Speaker shall order the removal of the member.

I am a bit troubled by the idea that we do not know who is going to do the removal. I am figuring out that it must be that they want to make sure that there is some way to remove a member virtually, and the Sergeant-at-Arms' sword is not really intended to deal with the IT department. I do not think the sword is intended to deal with us either, but it is impressive. I would like to know why we are making that change, and I cannot find out.

The other thing I would really like to see change is the one qualification on our right and ability to participate by video conference. It is not based on having a problem and therefore needing to go to video conference. The way the Standing Orders will be interpreted and will be read, because that is the plain language here in the Standing Order changes, is that the only limitation on members' participating virtually is that they must be in Canada. That is a perfect place to insert one other concept: that they, participating remotely, must be in Canada, and I would have liked to have seen it say, “and have submitted to the Speaker the reasons that require their participation by video conference.” I would love that improvement.

It would not, in my view, be appropriate for the Speaker to decide that an excuse is good or that an excuse is bad, but the excuses would be available to the public, so that the constituents of a particular riding would, as in some of the examples we have heard tonight, be able to say, “Well, if the hon. member had to, at that moment, show up for chemotherapy, then it is a damn good reason, and the fact that the member wanted to continue to work through that experience and participate remotely is a good reason.” I think that would improve our Standing Orders.

Now, the brake on that, of course, and the only thing about this that makes me feel a little less troubled by passing this holus-bolus as written, is that in the recommendations from PROC, which did the study, there is a recommendation to all of us. We do not get to approve it, because it is not in anything we are going to vote on, but the PROC committee report that recommends these changes to the Standing Orders does say that the committee itself must review the changes after a year and tell us if we are seeing abuse. It does not say the last part; it just says it will review the changes. One assumes that the committee wants to see whether the full-on access to hybrid, post-COVID, is actually working or whether there are signs of it being abused.

I absolutely agree with the member for Whitby in his earlier speech; members want to be here. We work better when we are here, when we can look into each other's eyes, when we can find agreement, when we can enjoy a joke, and when we can talk to each other in the corridors and try to persuade people that there are real things going on that we ought to be paying attention to, like “We are in a climate emergency” and “The country is on fire.” There are things we should be talking about, and I am able to reach people more easily here in person than on Zoom.

In the hopes that maybe someone might like to fit in a short question, I am honoured to have had a chance to put in some thoughts about the Standing Orders. I hope that, before too long, we can review more of them, and review them in a way that involves all members of this place, hopefully in a way that achieves consensus where all parties in this place agree with the changes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for keeping us abreast of many situations happening around the world.

The member raised the issue of first past the post, and I obviously agree wholeheartedly with her. She also brought up an interesting idea that maybe we should sit alphabetically. I was in Finland this year, and Finland's parliamentarians sit geographically; they do not sit by party. I think that is another interesting thing. As someone who sits on both sides of the House as part of the NDP, I think it would change the way we view our colleagues, so I agree with that very much.

However, I also know that the member lives in one of the most remote ridings in this country, and it takes her an awful lot of time to get here. She has been here for some time, and I wonder if she could comment on whether or not there is a correlation between how far individuals have to travel to get to this place and how long they choose to serve, because it is a very trying thing for families. It is very difficult, and it is very different if one is a representative in Gatineau versus a representative in Yukon, for example.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect that is really important. As I have been a climate activist since 1986, it bears mentioning that my biggest carbon footprint is getting to work. I do appreciate a chance not to have to fly. It definitely takes a toll. Jet lag definitely takes a toll and flying is physically exhausting, but I love being here. As far as I am concerned, I am on the freedom 85 plan, folks, and I am not going anywhere.

Lebanese Heritage Month Act

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

moved that Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak on behalf of the people of Halifax West.

Today, as a proud Lebanese Canadian, I am honoured to speak on Bill S-246, which would designate the month of November as Lebanese heritage month across Canada.

First I want to thank Senator Jane Cordy for shepherding this bill in the Senate chamber. The bill had its origins with my private member's bill, Bill C-268, last year.

It was a special honour to testify at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology when the bill was being considered at that place, not only because I represent many Lebanese Nova Scotians in Halifax West but also because I have worked throughout my life to share, celebrate and preserve Lebanese culture, language and traditions in Canada.

I speak to this bill as the daughter of first-generation Lebanese immigrants to Canada from the tiny village of Diman. I also spent years of my childhood growing up surrounded by grandparents and elders of the village before fleeing war and reuniting with extended family and community back in Nova Scotia.

I joined, at the age of 15, Diman Association Canada, a group that was founded in 1973 by second-generation teenagers whose parents emigrated from the village of Diman. This group continues to flourish and celebrates its 50-year anniversary September 30.

I also joined the Canadian Lebanon Society of Halifax and was elected for the first time in 1993, over 30 years ago, as the first female president, serving six terms. The last was in 2013, when I entered politics. This organization, founded in 1938 and headed by Lieutenant Edward Francis Arab as its first president, is one of the oldest such organizations in North America.

It was founded by first-generation Lebanese immigrants who wanted to stay connected to their heritage, their culture and their mother tongue.

We mark its 85th anniversary this November.

I am also a former parish council member at Our Lady of Lebanon Maronite Catholic Church. In Halifax, there are two Lebanese churches, Our Lady of Lebanon and Saint Antonios Orthodox Church, and each year each church hosts a summer Lebanese festival, one in June and the other in July, for all to enjoy.

A week ago, Our Lady of Lebanon hosted the Lebanese Cedar Festival with food, music, dance performances and so much more. It was a proud moment for me to see my children volunteering at the festival and my grandchildren doing the Lebanese dabke.

It was a welcome source of fun and community building and a chance to show our love and provide support to feed Nova Scotia and others in the community.

Through my involvement in all these groups, I have met people and groups across the country.

I know how significant this recognition would be, as the provincial recognition was significant when we proclaimed it in Nova Scotia in 2018.

When our Senate colleagues spoke to Bill S-246, they shared the stories of Lebanese Canadians from across the country, such as the Lebanese peddlers and fur traders who arrived in the late 1800s and early 1900s in P.E.I., Victoria and Edmonton.

There is business owner Annie Midlige, the first Lebanese immigrant in Ottawa.

There is George Shebib, who introduced the card game tarabish to Cape Bretoners in 1901.

There is William Haddad, a shopkeeper's son who became one of the first Arab judges in Canada.

There is Nazem Kadri, the Stanley Cup champion, and those who gave their lives for Canada, such as Charlie Younes and Lieutenant Edward Francis Arab, after whom we have named a street in the Westmount subdivision of Halifax.

There are also high-performance athletes like John Hanna, John Makdessi and Fabian Joseph from Nova Scotia.

There are artists as varied as singer Paul Anka, Drake collaborator Noah “40” Shebib, documentarian Amber Fares, Order of Ontario recipient Sandra Shamas, visual artist Jay Isaac and Order of Canada recipient Consul Wadih M. Fares, just to name a few.

There are academics and rights advocates.

There are civic leaders from all levels of government and political parties, including former senators and former members of Parliament, as well as my two federal colleagues from Laval—Les Îles and Edmonton—Manning and my former provincial colleagues Patricia Arab and Zach Churchill. There are, of course, Canada's first premier of non-European descent, Premier Joe Ghiz, and later his son Robert Ghiz, and so many more.

Indeed, Lebanese Canadians have had a strong presence in our country since the late 19th century. Today, Lebanon is represented in Canada by its embassy in Ottawa and has a general consulate in Montreal with consulate offices in Halifax, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver. There are notable communities in Edmonton, London, Ottawa, Gatineau, Montreal and Laval, Toronto and the GTA, Windsor, Halifax, Vancouver, and Calgary.

We also have smaller enclaves in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Winnipeg and elsewhere.

Global Affairs estimates that the Lebanese community in Canada includes between 200,000 and 400,000 people and that an estimated 40,000 to 75,000 Canadians live in Lebanon. From my experience, there are, sadly, many who have either forgotten or have lost their Lebanese heritage or even, at times, suppressed it. It makes me emotional because I have seen it. I have had those conversations. It is part of why this designation would be so important for so many people.

In my time leading the Canadian Lebanon Society, I met many who were the first of their families to arrive to this country. I would hear about how they lost their language, how they worked hard to erase their difference and how they anglicized their names. It is easy to forget this today in the diverse and welcoming place Canada has become, but there was a time when it was seen as embarrassing to claim one's heritage.

The assimilation and prejudice that Lebanese Canadians faced, the need to hide their roots from others, had a major impact.

I can tell members about the children and grandchildren of Lebanese immigrants I have met, who grew up never telling people they were Lebanese because of what their families endured when they first came to Canada.

If there is one thing that is true about Lebanese people, it is that we are very resilient, like the cedar on the flag of our homeland.

In fact, the marginalization past generations experienced only pushed them to build closer bonds with others. I think of my own father in the early days of his immigration journey, when he worked a number of jobs, including at what was then the local Coca-Cola plant, and the friendships he forged with his African Nova Scotian peers.

I note the stories Senator Simons shared in her comments on this bill, recounting the relationships built between the early Lebanese fur traders in Alberta and the Cree and Métis trappers. These industrious folks learned the indigenous languages to forge friendships and do business, yet for too many their Lebanese heritage may be lost or hard to rediscover.

I can tell members that the designation of Lebanese heritage month in my home province has sparked many people to rediscover their Lebanese heritage, to do the digging and to share the stories of their grandparents, folks like Charlene Rahey-Pedersen in Nova Scotia, who reached out to me when she heard we were working on designating a heritage month and initiated the North Sydney and Area Lebanese Heritage Group.

That is one reason why these recognitions matter. They prompt discovery.

This project to designate November as Lebanese heritage month has prompted so many parliamentarians to approach me to share stories from their constituencies and provinces. I know many.

Since the arrival of Abraham Arab in 1894, many Lebanese people from Diman have chosen to make Halifax their home.

Many families like mine can trace their roots to that sacred place. Their impact is so profound that 10 years ago, The Globe and Mail published an article on the many big developers from Diman who built the city of Halifax through major projects such as the Nova Centre, The Trillium, King's Wharf, The Vuze and so on.

We also have the Sisterhood of Diman, a group of pioneering women such as Cristine Goshen Kahil who have worked hard over the years to raise money for the education and emancipation of the next generation.

The spirit of Lebanese Canadians shines through their hard work, determination, and love for their family and community. We work extremely hard because so many of us came from such humble beginnings, and when we succeed we give back so the road is easier for those who come next, and the communities we call home see success as well.

I want to mention the Lebanese Chamber of Commerce in Nova Scotia, a volunteer-led organization that for two decades has brought the Lebanese business community together in my province. I am not aware of many such volunteer chambers of commerce in Nova Scotia, which I think is a testament to the keen entrepreneurial instincts of Lebanese Nova Scotians who are so deeply enmeshed in our broader social fabric.

Of note, the Canadian Lebanon Society of Halifax has for decades run the Lebanese Heritage Language School, a critical institution that helps ensure that our young people still have that linguistic capacity, that connection to the mother tongue and where we come from.

I know that many members of the House can appreciate how important this is.

As a former principal and volunteer, I was immensely proud that, in 2020, Nova Scotia selected the school as an approved course provider for Lebanese Arabic grades 10 and 11, two full credit courses to allow high schoolers to learn the beautiful Lebanese Arabic language. As the member of Parliament who now represents nearly half of those who speak Arabic in Nova Scotia, that matters a lot to me.

As far as language is concerned, I would like to remind my francophone colleagues of the deep bond that unites the Lebanese people with the French language. Indeed, French is a more common second language in Lebanon than English.

That is why, as someone who spoke French before speaking English, I worked hard to foster collaboration in my community between the Canadian Lebanon Society and our local chapter of the Alliance française.

Locally, we have also been blessed in Halifax to host film screenings and I want to highlight the work of the Lebanese Film Festival in Canada.

Those recognitions of our proud cultural communities matter. They are not partisan endeavours, nor are they symbolic. When we collectively decide to mark a heritage month, we spotlight a community and give those people a new platform to tell their stories, gather, dispel myths and further their enmeshment in the great Canadian multicultural fabric.

We enable them to be seen and make them feel more at home here, while learning more about our neighbours and becoming more supportive citizens.

My colleagues have debated the merit of similar bills and motions before, so just before I conclude, I will share a personal anecdote that speaks to this.

My staff put WhatsApp on my phone late last year. I got a call through it. I was hesitant to answer but I did. It was a community leader in Lebanon. They were collecting donations of $10 so children could have a little something for Christmastime. She requested that I take a moment to stand in front of something recognizable and record a video to send a message to the children, something to show those struggling in Lebanon that there is hope, something to show them that, here in the diaspora, we are thinking of them, because people around the world are watching us. When we affirm the value of diversity and of our diasporas, it matters.

To those who are here, to those who dream of being here, to those who may have lost their heritage and to those who may never visit our shores themselves, this matters.

To all those listening to me tonight at midnight Eastern time, I say šukran, “thank you”.

I look forward to celebrating this from coast to coast to coast.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to thank the member for her intervention. As a Nova Scotian, it is great to be chairing this tonight because I have many friends who of course are of Lebanese descent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine there will be a voice opposing the creation of this recognition of the significant contribution of Lebanese Canadians to the life of Canadians. I found it very touching that our hon. colleague was asked to send a video from Nova Scotia home to children in Lebanon. I think the more we improve our ties with that country and welcome the Lebanese diaspora to Canada, the better off we all will be.