Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I was called to appear before this committee, it unleashed a flood of memories. I realized that I had managed to forget most of the unpleasant moments and remembered only the good ones. This is probably more understandable if I tell you that the six or seven years during which I shared the Speaker’s Chair were part of another era. We are talking about 20 years ago, in the fall of 1986.
In 1984, when I arrived in the House of Commons, the House had just been though the horrors of the rat pack era. It was absolutely terrible. A certain measure of calm had returned with the arrival of Mr. John Fraser, the first Speaker to be elected by the House.
When I first occupied the Speaker’s Chair, I must admit that as an actress who had spent the last 20 or 25 years of her life showing every emotion, I sometimes had a very hard time hiding my impatience with some members who made life hard for me. When a new person takes the Chair, they try to see how far they can push her, and believe me; they don’t cut you any slack when you’re a woman.
From 1984 to 1986, when Mr. John Bosley was Speaker of the House of Commons, naming a member who was behaving badly had become a very common practice. Mr. Marleau reminded me a short while ago that
John Bosley named more honourable members during that year and a half or two years than had been named since Confederation. It became an everyday affair.
When John Fraser arrived, he said to his three assistants that they were not naming anyone and they were not throwing anybody out. That was for one reason. When the members were thrown out, they would go to committee; they would go back to their office and make phone calls; and they would eat at the cafeteria, where it was much cheaper. They would still have all the advantages and none of the problems. More than that, they were sure to be on television that very day, not only live in the House, but also on the news. So being named became,
a feather in their cap, and not a shame.
The only means at the Speaker’s disposal was to refuse to recognize a member, which provoked endless questions of order. We witnessed the arrival of the first Bloc Québécois members, who were all defectors, except Mr. Gilles Duceppe. There was Mr. Jean Lapierre, who didn’t give way any for anyone. He was a past master in the art of talking about anything else but the subject under review. When you tried to tell him he was supposed to talk about such and such an amendment, or bill, he would switch back to his subject in no time.
I remember during a plenary committee, I had to stop him at each amendment. It was pure hell. There wasn’t much I could do, because he was trying to be obstructionist.
Some people gave us a hard time with their lack of courtesy. I remember Mr. John Nunziata, whom some of you may have known. We had decided that we would no longer recognize him, but all it took was for me to leave to answer an urgent call of nature for someone else to take the Chair and recognize him. There was nothing we could do.
I remember that once when John had been extremely brutal towards another member. I called him into my office, and he told me that when he was attacked, he would counter-attack even more brutally. I answer that the House of Commons was not a schoolyard and perhaps he should learn to act differently.
Don will surely remember the moment when a committee had recommended that Mr. Waddell be called to the Bar. It was a notable moment, an exceptional situation. Mr. John Fraser was surely the more uncomfortable of the two.
Robert, you could tell us a lot more than Mr. Waddell, who found the situation quite funny.
The advisory committee I chaired had no follow-up, because shortly afterwards, there were the 1993 elections.
Some of the suggestions that are in the report could be used. Please study them. Go slowly--not everything at the same time. But mostly I think that all parties must be doing something. It really is the responsibility of the whips, of the House leaders, because as long as it is something fantastic to be named and ejected from the House, and not shameful, this is not the way to go. So the communication people could be at work as well, because it is a shame not to act decently in the House when you represent people who sent you there.
Thank you for inviting me. I hope I can be helpful with answers.
I thank you and wish you courage. You have your hands full.