I love watching people, watching mannerisms. I do that. It's interesting when you sit in the House and you watch other members of Parliament and how they react, don't react, what they stand to, and what they clap to.
I'm going to tell you today that one of our colleagues was talking about Coptic Christians. There were three members on the other side of the House—only three members—who stood and clapped, only three members who stood and clapped on an event that was absolutely horrific. Regardless of what your beliefs are or whatever, you know, we have members of Parliament from all sides who do S.O. 31s, and it's our opportunity to talk about groups, events, or things that we hold dear.
Mr. Chair, while I'm not perfect, I give each and every one of our members of Parliament my attention as best I can, unless there's a conversation going on beside me. Actually, when there is debate, as I think some of my colleagues probably do—I would hope they do—I actually listen to the debate, to all sides. I listen not to respond. I'm going to offer you that. I think it's so important,.
I'll give you an example of what I did, which is completely what I'm talking against right now. I think it's important that we, as members of Parliament, don't ask a question with a preconceived notion on the answer that we're going to get back. I think far too often we listen to respond rather than listen to learn, and I think that's important. I'll give you a case in point.
Last week I asked a question. I already had my response in place. The minister actually answered the question, but I already had my response in place. I fired back with a question saying that it was not an answer. I watched my video over. I was man enough to go to the minister and say, “You know what? I was wrong.” Publicly, I'm telling you right now, I'm not above saying I was wrong. I'm just saying that we should be better. Setting a role model starts with the guy who has been tasked to lead not just his caucus, our caucus, but our country. I think that's so important, that he can authentically show up. If you want to build trust, show that you're truly interested in what we're doing, that you're not just interested in ramming down if you don't like the way things are going when people are asking you tough questions. Questions are going to be tough. Governing is tough. Our job as an opposition is to hold your feet to the fire.
I'm going to go back to what I was talking about, about being passionate. Another thing about trust is that you're passionate about your work. Passion isn't about cheerleading, platitudes, or cranking up fake enthusiasm. It comes from an inner desire, determination, and drive. I think that's important.
I remember the very first conversation I had with you, Mr. Ouellette. You were campaigning to be the Speaker, I believe, at the time. I don't know if you remember the conversation. I do. I remember the call. I didn't know who you were. As we were on the phone, I was Googling you, this guy who was calling me. When I got off the phone, I said, “I don't know who this guy is, but the fact that he took a moment out of his day to call me....”
You actually did some homework on who you were talking to, too, if I remember correctly. It showed me that you had passion, as we were moving forward. Passion can be shown in so many different ways. It's not about the cheerleader “rah, rah, rah, this is what we're doing, sis-boom-bah”. Passion is shown by interest, true interest. I think that's really, really important.
Third, Mr. Chair, they operate with self-awareness. I'll go back to my comments about operating with self-awareness and knowing that with every action, every time you are out in public, every time you are in the House, every time you interact with somebody, you represent Canadians. You represent us. I think that is really important.
There are things we do sometimes where we go, “Yikes, that was the wrong thing to do.” I just told you about something I did. I think there are ways we can do things better. To bring it back to what I said, it starts with the guy at the top and that office, the PMO. I think that's really important.
I'm going to skip through some of the things I have, but they are relevant too.
I think they have to truly care about people. Far be it from me to say whether the folks across the way truly care about people, although I think they do. That's why they went into serving the people. I am talking about how we build trust, that the other side or the group you are working with truly wants the best for you. I'm not quite sure we feel that from the other side. They are operating under the guise of making things better for everyone, for us, and we're going to have a better life. Everything is going to be rosy. As one of our colleagues said, there will be unicorns and rainbows, and things are going to be better. I don't think they truly mean well for all. I think they mean to do well for themselves. Again, it goes back to building trust. We have to trust that they actually mean well.
Another way that trust flourishes is if they listen, if leaders listen, truly listen and understand. They don't just say it. They really care. They truly listen. That's not just listening internally or externally. They listen to all involved. The reality is that what's being proposed impacts not just the 338 members of Parliament but also Canadians. I'm not quite sure that 39% gives them the mandate to actually change that. I truthfully don't believe that.
Another way that trust flourishes is when those who are leaders have perspective. In the real world, they know what matters in life. Trust-building leaders have that perspective. They know that you can't make a decision based on emotion, that you should take a step back, that if you don't like the way things are going, you don't just grab somebody and do things.... I know that the Prime Minister regretted doing that, or he said that he regretted doing that. To me, that gave us a snapshot into the psyche or the person. Maybe it was frustration. Again, we all do things out of frustration, but we have to have real-world perspective.
Again, it goes back to my comment. I don't have enough perspective, being a member of Parliament for 18 months, that I would offer a paper called “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”. Really, if we were to do something, I would better trust having an all-party committee based on folks such as my honourable colleague Mr. Van Loan and others who have been here much longer than we have. This paper basically implies—I don't know how long ago Mr. Van Loan was elected, as I don't have the parliamentary history—that, “You don't know anything. Those who have come before us know nothing. Ms. Chagger knows best.”
I'll again go on the record as saying that I don't believe Ms. Chagger actually wrote this. I think it's coming from somewhere else.
Again, if we were to truly have a discussion, which is what the government wished to have, we wouldn't have negotiated through the media. We would honestly have had that discussion truthfully.
Mr. Chair—