SoVote

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

Jun/13/23 11:23:43 p.m.
Watch

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.

185 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/13/23 11:24:53 p.m.
Watch

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—

158 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 11:25:48 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

28 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/13/23 11:25:56 p.m.
Watch

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.

208 words

Pandemic

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/13/23 11:26:52 p.m.
Watch

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?

201 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/13/23 11:28:19 p.m.
Watch

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.

165 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/13/23 11:29:11 p.m.
Watch

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.

1928 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/13/23 11:39:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

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?

183 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 11:40:38 p.m.
Watch

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.

146 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/13/23 11:41:35 p.m.
Watch

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.

141 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 11:42:38 p.m.
Watch

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.

169 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/13/23 11:43:32 p.m.
Watch

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?

91 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/13/23 11:44:04 p.m.
Watch

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.

123 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/13/23 11:44:50 p.m.
Watch

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.

2263 words

Debating

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/13/23 11:58:49 p.m.
Watch

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.

210 words

Sit
Sits

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/13/23 11:59:54 p.m.
Watch

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.

82 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 12:00:26 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-246

It being midnight, pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill S-246 under Private Members' Business.

24 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Jun/14/23 12:01:09 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-246 Bill C-268

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

781 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 12:16:16 a.m.
Watch

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.

44 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/14/23 12:16:31 a.m.
Watch

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.

76 words