I'd be happy to share more of my academic research, but before I get to my thesis, I do have a couple of other articles that I'll be going through later. One is an exciting little examination of the changes to the Standing Orders regarding the election of the Speaker, going back to some of the comments that were made earlier in reference to the dean of the House doing that.
I also have an interesting discussion on some of the informal machinations of the House, including the Thursday question. The Thursday question isn't something that's heavily scripted within the Standing Orders, but is nonetheless an important part. I'd be happy to come back and discuss more of that in the weeks and perhaps months to come, provided I have the time to do so. It may take slightly longer to get through some parts of the research than others, but I will nonetheless be happy to share some information with this committee.
Again, going back to the point at hand, we have Standing Order 11 and the way in which it's interpreted. It's being used in different examples throughout this time period to really bring attention to a different issue, to an important issue at hand. In this case, it was a very topical issue related to the 1992 referendum, again a very divisive issue, probably only surpassed by the 1995 Quebec referendum three years later, again flowing from one to the other almost. It was being used by a Bloc MP to bring attention, through a standing order, frankly, to that issue.
Again, at the same time, we had a cohort of Reform Party MPs who were elected very much on a strong populace platform, “The West Wants In”, very much seeking to be a strong advocate of their region of their country. The first example of a Reform Party MP being named was on May 29, 1995. The gentleman's name was Jake Hoeppner. He was a Reform Party MP from Lisgar—Marquette, Manitoba. The area, of course, has slightly changed, and is now occupied by our current opposition House leader.
One of the controversial issues of that time, and it carried on for a number of years, involved the Wheat Board and criminal charges being laid against farmers who refused to sell their wheat through the Wheat Board. Mr. Hoeppner accused a minister of the crown of lying, and something you cannot do is imply that a minister would lie or tell mistruths. The Speaker, of course, asked him to withdraw the word, as is common practice. Again, as a slip of the tongue would happen, you would withdraw the word. He didn't, and he instead used it to bring attention. He was named. He was escorted out of the Commons. He was allowed to use this opportunity, through a House of Commons' procedure, to bring attention to the issue. Now in this case the issue was the Wheat Board, and that certainly stayed for many years as a controversial subject in our western provinces with our western colleagues.
I see Mr. Viersen from Alberta has joined us as well. He knows that's an issue.