Debates of May 19th, 2016

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, also not happy about the motion and what I have to speak to. I never anticipated that I would see what I saw yesterday here in our chamber right in front of my eyes. I never imagined that I would be speaking to something like this, but it is where we find ourselves. I want to speak to this motion and talk about a couple of things.

I want to talk about what happened on a human level, in terms of one human being to another human being and the kind of effect it has on all of us, and the kind of example that it sets for all Canadians: for young people who are watching, for children, and for people who are aspiring to this job. I want to talk a bit about that, and then I want to talk about the ramifications as far as what we have seen happening over the last number of weeks with the government asserting itself over the opposition.

Yesterday, we saw somebody lose his temper. I imagine that frustration and anger has probably been building up, and maybe some of it is tied to things we do not even know about. Sometimes in life that happens. We go to work and things have been pressing at us and there are things going on. Our co-workers are kind of annoying us and doing things that we wish they would not do. We get angry and frustrated. What is acceptable in the workplace is to speak to that individual. However, it would have even been unusual had the Prime Minister walked over and spoken to our chief opposition whip. What was not and is not acceptable in the workplace is for that temper outburst to then translate into physically touching and pushing around the person that one is angry at. That is not acceptable.

If a friend of mine had said that she or he had just been elbowed in the chest by a co-worker or CEO because of being angry at another co-worker and trying to push that co-worker somewhere, that would have been a huge workplace incident. I see our Prime Minister definitely as a CEO, as he is in charge of our country, but I do consider him a co-worker in this place. We are all equal in this House. We all are equal, in as far as we are all elected, so I would say that the Prime Minister is my co-worker. With a CEO or co-worker, it would never be acceptable for that kind of action to take place.

With that co-worker who lost his or her temper and came charging over and elbowed people, and all of the things that took place, even if that person said they were sorry, there would be consequences. There would be actions to ensure it did not happen again. There would be some discussion about why it happened, why the individual is frustrated with his or her job, whether there are other things going on, and how the individual would get help so as not to do that again.

In my experience, I used to work with children in schools. I have seen teachers. My sister was a nurse. I have seen a lot of work situations, and I have seen people get angry, upset, or frustrated. However, it is rare to see a physical outburst, and rare to see people physically laying their hands on another person. That is concerning for me.

I will be blunt. That the Prime Minister felt that he lost it that much that he would charge over and do what he did in this place, being so public, with cameras and all of us around, the very men and women he is leading, concerns me regarding his judgment and his state of mind at that time. That is one piece of this that I do not think we should ignore.

I hope nobody on the other side is laughing. I saw some of them cheering when he charged over here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it was a choice that the Prime Minister made. It was not an accident. An accident is when I am walking down the hall and I trip, and in tripping I accidentally bump into someone else. That is an accident. If I charge across the hallway in anger, elbowing my way, it is not an accident; it is a choice. The Prime Minister made a choice. He made a choice in this House of Commons, and there have to be consequences. He needs to do something about his anger. Let us call a spade a spade. He has anger issues, and he needs to figure out how to control them.

I am going to mention this very quickly. In the last Parliament, there were two individuals who were accused of harassing other members of Parliament. The two who were accused were part of the Liberal Party. At the time, the now Prime Minister was then the leader of the Liberal Party. He was the judge, jury and sentencer, and he immediately got rid of those two Liberal MPs. Their careers were destroyed and they are absolutely finished. I believe it was a different set of actions. We do not even know what actually happened in those cases. I would say that this also has to be taken into consideration. Let us hope that there is not one standard for certain MPs and another for the Prime Minister.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with the tone in the House of Commons, or what the NDP might have been doing yesterday or in the days before. This is not about the Conservatives. This is not about us in any way. It is about one thing: the choices that the Prime Minister made yesterday.

The Prime Minister apologized and said that he wants to make amends. One of the first things he could do in this House to bring back respect and civility, and to try to mend what he did, is to instruct his cabinet ministers to withdraw Motion No. 6.

My colleagues and I have talked about how the week started. On Monday, the government was embarrassed because it almost lost a vote. Because of that frustration, the government did legislatively what the Prime Minister did yesterday, when he came marching over. Motion No. 6, legislatively, is what the Prime Minister did. The government basically marched over and said to the opposition, “Sit down and shut up.” It smacked us down and said, “You stay in your place. In fact, we are taking away your ability to do anything else.” If the Prime Minister is serious about making a change and he wants to make amends, he needs to stop using the hammer on the opposition and taking away our tools. He needs to withdraw Motion No. 6. That is important. We have not heard that from him, nor have we heard it from any of the opposition members.

We also have to have some accountability at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This cannot be a matter of the Prime Minister going to the committee and the Liberals doing what they always do, which is to hurry through whatever they want done.

They will have the majority on on the procedure and House affairs committee. We are all concerned about that. Therefore, we need to see the Prime Minister take personal responsibility that this was not a mistake or an accident. He has to deal with his anger issues, his temper, and entitlement, or whatever that was. I am not a psychologist, and I am not about to try to define that. He has to withdraw Motion No. 6 in order to bring some civility back to this place. The whole issue with this going to the procedure and House affairs committee is that there will be no credibility to it because of the Liberal majority. The Liberal members will push it through as quickly as they can and hope that it all goes away.

This has to be dealt with on those three levels. I certainly hope that it will be.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the concern I have for the disrespect that has been showing up in this House. We sit across from the Prime Minister, and since my first day here, I have seen the arrogance. Other members on this side of the House have witnessed it when the cameras are not on him. He shows respect when the cameras are there. However, once those cameras are off him, the arrogance, the disrespect, and the immature facial expressions and remarks that are shot back across this room are of concern to me.

I am also concerned that I see a history here. Our member for Oshawa talked about the history of what we are seeing. I was witness to part of that history. I come from Salmon Arm. Many of the members in this House may not remember, but in August of 1982, a former prime minister, by chance of the same last name, happened to pass through Salmon Arm. He met with three protesters, who became angry enough that he shot them the bird, the proverbial “Salmon Arm salute”, as it became known across this country. It is that history of disrespect for other members, a disrespect for anyone who has a difference of opinion, that is showing up in the Liberal government again.

I would ask the member for Portage—Lisgar this. She spoke about remedial actions that should be taken. I would like her to elaborate a little further on that. What remedial action does she see for this disrespect that has taking place historically?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all of us see things going on in the House. Sometimes we get up and ask a question or answer a question and are indignant, but we talk with each other and we find a way to get along and be collegial. Certainly, though, when we see our Prime Minister sticking out his tongue and doing childish things like that, it is hard to watch. It is hard to see why he would continue to do that.

With regard to respect, I am very disturbed about the disrespect in Motion No. 6. It gives cabinet the ability to shut down debate, make debate go until 3:00 in the morning or end at 3:00 in the morning, whatever cabinet would decide. That is so disrespectful to opposition. We have a job to do. As the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, we are all elected. We are an opposition, but we are very proud of our job and proud of the role we have. We need to have the tools that are afforded to us.

It was disrespectful for the Prime Minister to come across the aisle, figuratively, and do what he did yesterday, which was to slam us all, in the head really, and tell us we cannot do our jobs, to sit down and shut up. That is disrespectful.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the apology a number of times. I am sure that the Prime Minister is indeed apologetic for getting caught doing what he did, but an apology should not come from a script. That is what we have seen.

I would like to ask our hon. colleague if she feels that perhaps an apology that is heartfelt should not come from a script, that there are other things our Prime Minister could do to prove that actions speak louder than words.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. I am sure the Prime Minister had a pretty rough night. He probably was a bit shook up himself, and perhaps he wanted to ensure that he said everything he wanted to say. Therefore, the fact that he read the apology, I do not doubt that he is very sorry that it happened. However, sorry is not enough in this case. It would not be in the workplace or any other situation. As much as “sorry” is appreciated, it is a first step of a lot of other steps that have to take place.

On a personal level, he needs to figure out why he did that. It was not just an accident; it was a choice. It was a well thought-out choice. He needs to think about that on a personal level and deal with it. This is what he has to answer. Here in the House of Commons, if he wants to have a fresh start and have some credibility in the House, he needs to show that by withdrawing Motion No. 6 and not stopping and ending debate in the way that he has proposed.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I am very troubled, like many today who have stood up to speak. What I would really like to do is perhaps set the table a bit on how we found ourselves in this position. I think more than one incident has created this really unfortunate position we are in today.

I would like to start with the election of October. The Liberals were given a strong majority. In part, their message to Canadians was that they represented change, a new voice, and a change in our democratic process. Canadians listened to that, they watched, and in October provided a strong majority for the Liberals.

I want to quote a part of the Speech from the Throne, which was just five months ago. It states:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

The Speech from the Throne is a very critical document. It is the road map that the government is providing and sharing with Canadians on what its plans are.

The speech also indicated “give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees”.

Those are very important commitments.

In every minister's mandate letter, this is included:

I made a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. We made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration.

Again, every minister has that in their mandate letter. It is in the Speech from the Throne. It is the tone that was committed to by the government to be set in the House.

The government is not very old. It is only six months. Of course, we did not sit until January. We had a small sitting in December and then we had a sitting that started in January after Christmas. Perhaps the first month or two, the Liberals lived up to the commitments they made to Canadians. However, starting in the last few weeks, there has been a significant and noticeable change. The hon. opposition leader, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland, said it best when she said that the Liberals apparently now wanted to have an audience and not an opposition.

We can look at items like democratic reform, which is fundamental. The Liberals do not want all voices heard; they only want their voices to be heard. If we do not agree with them, they will do things like move opposition days to Fridays, which is a very short time and there is not much opportunity to debate.

Everyone in the House recognizes that Bill C-14 is very important legislation, and we need to look at this because it is very important. We returned on Monday, and the understanding was that we would spend most of the day talking about Bill C-14.

I have been in the House for seven years, and I have one of the furthest ridings, which is usually 12 hours door to door. I always make that trip on Sunday night so I am here ready to be present in the House when it opens on Monday.

It is also important to note that the House only sits 26 weeks of the year. There are 26 weeks where members can be in their ridings or cabinet ministers can do some of the important work they have to do outside the House. We know the government wants to get rid of Friday and does not want to show up to work on Monday.

It is very simple math. The government has 184 members, and they need to have 169 in the House on Monday morning. How many were here? There was 139. Even at 169, it means we can still have a few people who are away, or some ministers off doing some of the work they need to do. However, they need to have their people in the House. They were shy of that 169 by 30 members.

The fact the Liberals almost lost the vote is not the responsibility of the opposition; it is the responsibility of the Liberals and their need to show up to work.

Instead of debating Bill C-14, what did we do? With respect to Bill C-14, we hear from the Minister of Health that it has a critical time frame, that it has to get done. Did we debate Bill C-14 on Monday? No. We debated Bill C-10 all day. Although important legislation, it did not have the criticalness to it that Bill C-14 has.

What did we do Tuesday? We debated Bill C-6, the citizenship act, which is important legislation. All legislation is important, but it was not Bill C-14 with its critical timeline.

Then we went back to the debate on Bill C-10, the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Then we debated Bill C-11, the Copyright Act, again, important legislation.

Essentially, we offered to debate Bill C-14 until midnight for two days, but the Liberals had us debate other legislation instead. More important, not only did they have us debate different pieces of legislation, they failed to even provide a parliamentary calendar. That has never been done in the whole time I have been here. We are given the agenda for the week so we can prepare. The Liberals did not even have the respect to provide a parliamentary calender. All of a sudden we were debating the Copyright Act. That is a profound disrespect to the opposition and it has never been done in Parliament.

Then we hit yesterday, which was Wednesday. We were again ready to debate Bill C-14, which had important amendments from the committee and we needed to debate them. It is important to debate. Debate matters, especially in this instance. At second reading, I had a profound compliment when one of my colleague's said, “Listening to your words in the debate changed my mind in terms of how I'm going to vote”. We are debating life and death. We are debating amendments. What did the Liberals do? They put closure on the debate, maybe one speech at report stage on something so critical. We could have been spending Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday debating the bill.

On top of that, the Liberals introduced Motion No. 6, which was so aptly described this morning as looking at every possible tool the opposition has and taking it away.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said:

The fundamental responsibility mechanism in the House is the confidence convention. The 20 or so members of Parliament who are part of the ministry who are the government sit there because they have the confidence of the majority of members of this chamber. It is that confidence convention that is undermined by the motion that the government has put on the paper.

By giving members of the ministry the unilateral right, at any time, to adjourn the House...

We can certainly see a whole host of measures. Certainly we were debating a closure motion. The NDP delayed things for, I understand, less than a minute when the incident happened where the Prime Minister lost control.

As I head toward the end of my time to speak to this important issue, there are a few things that I would like to see.

First, the Prime Minister's apology was appropriate. He also needs to look into his heart to see what created that anger within him and why he responded to it in such an inappropriate way.

More important, I think we all expect him to live up to those standards and commitment he made in the Speech from the Throne to respect all members of the House. This would include removing Motion No. 6.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on this troubling incident and what we went through in the House yesterday.

I would like her to tell us more about the climate that probably contributed to this incident. The government is not only trying to physically push around members of the House, but it is also trying to push through items on the parliamentary Calendar. I think that this contributed to the incident, since the Prime Minister absolutely wanted us to move forward with the vote and pushed the opposition to speed things up. As always, the government wants to speed up the parliamentary calendar.

The government does not respect the opposition parties and simply does whatever it wants. The Liberals promised a new government and promised to do things differently. Does that mean pushing around opposition members?

Could the member speak to the climate that contributed to this incident and that is the result of the government's attempt to push through items on the parliamentary calendar?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the Speech from the Throne, which stated, “Parliament shall be no exception. In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit.”

In the last two weeks, we have seen nothing that possibly resembles respecting and honouring all those and all Canadians. What we have seen is a government that is dishonouring those words and its commitment it made to Canadians by doing many things. These many things are absolutely unprecedented in the history of Parliament, whether it is Motion No. 6, or closure on a debate as important as assisted dying. These things do nothing to live up to the standards the government set for itself.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after you spend years in politics, you start to see that cynicism is everywhere. People question whether we are doing good work. Many politicians cannot avoid cynicism in their political life.

Cynicism can sometimes get quite bad, especially in the form of caricatures, even though we never asked for that to happen to us. There have been pictures of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé circulating on social media since yesterday that do not show any semblance of respect for her. The member certainly did not ask for something like this to happen to her. Unfortunately, today, she is suffering the consequences of a completely irresponsible and cavalier act on the part of the Prime Minister.

No one can predict the indirect consequences of this act, as is evident today, given the completely inappropriate things on social media. Once again, she did not ask for this.

Can my colleague talk about what kind of consequences she has seen in the current political debate in Canada?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from some of the NDP members that the member is being exposed to some very vicious, ruthless comments on Twitter. She is the innocent in this event. The things she is having to deal with as a result of the Prime Minister's actions are absolutely unacceptable. That is certainly important.

The other important thing to recognize is that this type of behaviour, in any other workplace, would be absolutely unacceptable and there would be significant and severe consequences. Whether one is in health care, or a teacher, regardless of one's background, there are significant and important consequences when someone clearly loses control in such a way and creates some very difficult consequences.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that until today, every time I stand in the House, it has been an honour to talk about bills or a matter that moves this country and my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex forward.

For 20 years, I was involved in municipal government. I started out in planning, became a councillor, and then reeve and mayor for many of those years. Then I had the distinct pleasure and most distinguished honour of being elected to this place to represent the constituents of my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I have done so for a little over 10 years now, which I guess says a bit about how old I am. However, I can say that in that time and in my career as a business person, I have never in my life even attempted to visualize the abuse of an institution that we saw yesterday, not by a member of Parliament but by the distinguished head, the Prime Minister, of what I call this great country of Canada.

Every one of us will stand and say what a privilege it is to be here, and it is. I take every one at his or her word. Yesterday, I saw the Prime Minister get up out of his seat for some reason and storm across the aisle. I also watched the video clips last night and I have to say the clips did not show the anger in his face. I have absolutely no idea why a Prime Minister would get angry just because people had not yet taken their seats for a vote on cutting off the time for debate. However, he did. He stormed across the aisle, grabbed the Conservative whip, and dragged him away. Then something must have occurred, because the Prime Minister went back.

Not only did he abuse his authority, not only did he grab the Conservative whip and pull him away, but he went back and used coarse language in the House, which is not acceptable. Nobody on the other side seems to want to talk about it. I have listened to two members across the aisle today who actually tried to minimize what the Prime Minister, their leader, did. It will not get minimized and it will not go away until he does something to make sure there are consequences for what he did not only to our NDP colleague but to the members of the House and to regain the respect of Canadians across the country which was lost yesterday.

I am trying to figure it out. He was like an angry, spoiled adolescent who did not get his way, so he got up and went across the aisle. He instantly apologized. He made the apology not after the first time he crossed the aisle, not after he crossed the aisle the second time, but he made it after the House erupted and he maybe figured out that he had better say something. Then this morning, in a written statement, and my colleague from Portage—Lisgar said, “I understand, not likely a great night,” we have a written apology.

We learn from history. We learn from apologies. He is a great orator. He is a drama teacher. That is his background. He is a good actor.

When a member stands up in this place, we have to take the member at his word. In 2012, the Prime Minister, then a member of Parliament, made a comment to a colleague of mine. I was in the House. He used unparliamentary language. He hurled a comment at our environment minister. We were in government at the time. He said, “Oh, you piece of” and I cannot say the word in this House, but he did. Our Prime Minister, unapologetic about the spirit that moved him, said, “I called him something that was fundamentally biodegradable, compostable and good for the environment.”

Now our colleagues across the way are on their knees saying, “Oh, please, take him at his word. What he said was compassionate and he meant it.” In families and in business, and with people I deal with every day, I take people at their word when they follow their word. I do not take people at their word because they are good speakers, good orators, or a drama teacher before becoming the Prime Minister.

He has brought the House to the point where we have no trust in the government. The government almost lost a vote on Monday, and for almost the first time in the history of Canada, it took the Speaker to break the vote, because people did not show up for work.

We got elected to show up for work. I guess the government was embarrassed because it could not get its members here, so the government drafted Motion No. 6. First of all, the government took away the calendar. What does that mean to the folks who are listening? It means the government can bring bills forward and we will have no time to prepare to debate them. It took away the calendar that indicates which bill is going to be on the docket, and we would have no time to prepare for it. We have a dictator who created a motion that more or less says, “We are going to tell you when you are going to speak, what you are going to speak on, and by the way, we will tell you what the bill might be, just before we introduce it.” That is not democracy.

Democratic reform is a bit of a joke after the actions we have just seen. The Prime Minister has taken away the ability of the opposition to oppose. That is what we do. That is our mandate.

I am going to be looking for the consequences that Canadians are asking me about. The question of privilege will be going to PROC, which is rigged up and has a majority of Liberal members on it, but what sort of consequences will there be for our Prime Minister?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my take-away from this morning, from the Prime Minister, was that he is indeed sorry. The other two things I took away from it are that he has learned nothing and that he is not going to change. That is my take-away from it.

I want to ask the member if he would explain to the House, if I had done the same thing as the Prime Minister did yesterday but grabbed the Liberal whip and elbowed a Liberal female member of Parliament, what might have happened to me today. I would probably be kicked out of caucus, and maybe asked to resign as a member of Parliament. I want the member to outline what might have happened if I had done the same thing in this House.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member would not have had the opportunity to ask that question.

If the member was in the workplace as an employer, and he walked in and grabbed an employee within that business, hauled the person out, turned around and went back, and maybe accidentally knocked one of the ladies around, I can almost guarantee he would not have the privilege he has in this place of showing up for work the next day.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He did not really talk about this in his speech, but does doing politics differently mean not only pushing the parliamentary agenda through, but also pushing opposition members around?

In his opinion, is this the new way of doing politics that the Prime Minister promised Canadians during the election campaign? Is this the Liberals' new modus operandi, pushing the parliamentary agenda through and pushing opposition members around?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what happened was the Prime Minister either did not know about the process, or I believe just had the arrogance to say “I'll fix this” because they were not moving fast enough according to his agenda, and he just strong-armed our whip to get him up there. Unfortunately, because of the lack of process that he followed—after all, he has to know it, he is the Prime Minister of this country—he got into the issue of abusing an individual. There is absolutely no justification for that, and we cannot in this place minimize the situation that happened here yesterday, brought on by the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what troubled me the most is the Prime Minister of Canada is not just the leader of the government and the leader of his political party, but he is also Canada's leader. He is also charged with leading and providing an example to the institutions and agencies that are federal responsibility.

At a time that the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces have been struggling with workplace issues themselves, what example does the Prime Minister of Canada set when he feels that a simple apology, which I think most accept here today, ends the situation? Leadership by example would mean that he charts a course to show Canadians that that incident is not indicative of the federal government's approach to tolerance in the workplace. We expect a plan going forward by the Prime Minister.

I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks the Prime Minister should do now that the apology has been made. What leadership by example should he show in the days going forward?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the amazing work that he did when he was minister of veterans affairs, in terms of the respect that our country has for our veterans.

We have heard from the RCMP about the abuse that has happened. Let me just say one thing. This morning we were at an event that was covered by representatives from around the world. At one time our Prime Minister said “Canadians know Canada is broken. It's time for real change. It's time to do things differently”. Well, he just did. I had people from different parts of the world this morning ask me what happened to Canada yesterday.

[An hon. member]

Real change.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Real change.

On October 22, 2014, when there was the attack in Parliament, people said “Not in Canada. This cannot happen in Canada”. The same sentiment is happening right now. How can this happen in Canada, for our Prime Minister to discredit this country with his authority?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, I appear to have about six minutes, but before I go on, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara Falls.

The last time I rose in the House to speak, it was concerning the trans-Pacific partnership. I thought perhaps the next time I would speak on natural resources, or agriculture, or perhaps issues relating to my constituency in the Saskatoon area, as Saskatoon—University is the name of my riding. I never thought that I would be involved in a debate concerning a matter such as we had in the House last night.

Many members have been referring to their length of service in the House and that they have not seen something like this. I am not the longest serving member of the House, but I have been here almost 12 years. June 2004 was my first election. I have to say I have seen not always the best behaviour, but I have not seen a physical altercation between members, particularly senior members of the front bench. It has been noted in Hansard that backbenchers over the years have done things to threaten each other. The members in this room know this, but people reading this in Hansard or watching this on TV need to grasp that this is unique.

I want to frame my remarks in the context that not only do we need to know how to behave in the House, but we need for Canadians to understand how we generally behave, that this situation is unique, and why it is so particularly unacceptable.

It is very unfortunate that often many Canadians only tune in to see some of the highlights, or in this case the lowlights, of a parliamentary day. It is difficult sometimes to explain, as one goes around to schools or talks with constituents, that by and large the decorum of this place, the relationships we have with members of other parties are actually quite good and productive.

In the 12 years I have been here, I have served on interparliamentary trips with members, particularly to Washington, but to other places, I have worked on committees, and I have seen the debate in the House. Yet when we talk to Canadians about the House of Commons, they think of the most chaotic incidents in question period and incidents like what happened last night, and the House is brought into disrepute. This is one of the things I was pondering as I was thinking about my remarks.

The actions that happened last night in the House most directly affected the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, but it also affects each and every member because the credibility of this place goes down. That is a very serious thing. We are having a debate in the House and starting to engage on the concept of broader electoral reform, and the argument is often made that Canadians do not respect this place and that is why voter rates are going down. Whether or not that argument is true, I do not know.

The issue that this does bring is that, when there are Canadians who tune in, particularly Canadians who are not good students of politics, not people who follow Hansard, the debates, or question period closely, this will be their impression of this place. This will be their impression of each and every member of this place. There are 338 of us who had our reputations damaged last night.

The Prime Minister has apologized and we in this place take him at his word, but the difficulty is that the damage will still be done. Over the years, I have seen poor behaviour in committees. I have never seen someone strike, come over, or touch someone else in committees. I have seen it almost happen, but not quite happen.

That is one of the things I will take away from this debate. I want to emphasize to Canadians who are watching that the behaviour of members of Parliament is positive most of the time. We are collegial. I have friends in the Liberal caucus, and I have had friends in the NDP caucus over the years. Events like this damage our working relationships with each other.

I will pause here and resume my final remarks after question period.

Komagata Maru

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long journey to get to yesterday's historic apology for the Komagata Maru tragedy. More than nine years ago, I made a statement here urging for a formal apology in the House of Commons.

I, along with many Canadians across our nation, including Mr. Sahib Thind and the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, have fought tirelessly for official recognition of this travesty of justice. Yesterday marked the end of a long journey, with the apology delivered by our Prime Minister, not only for the Punjabi community but for all Canadians. It marked a new era for our country that is founded on respect, dignity, and equality for all. I thank the Prime Minister.

National Order of the Legion of Honour

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two constituents from my riding: Mr. Allan McPhail of Cannington and Mr. Gordon Allen of Fowlers Corners. These men were both awarded, by order of the President of the Republic of France, the rank of knight of the French National Order of the Legion of Honour, the highest honour France awards to foreigners for their involvement in the liberation of France during World War II. These brave soldiers, like so many others, fought to protect our rights and freedoms.

My riding has a tradition of supporting and commemorating our military and its history. Just last weekend, I had the pleasure to attend the 100th anniversary of the departure of the 109th Battalion of Victoria and Haliburton counties for the First World War. Also, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Kawartha Lakes just completed a series of murals recognizing the lives and stories of Victoria County during those great wars.

I would like to conclude by thanking all those who have served, fought, and died to protect our values and beliefs; and by thanking those who are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Komagata Maru

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked an important moment in the history of this country. It recognized that Canada does not have a perfect history, that we have on occasion stumbled and been unjust. It also recognized that healing wounds is important, that being an example to the rest of the world must necessarily entail admitting to our own wrongdoings, and that we must address head-on when our nation has fallen short of its potential.

The Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in our history that should be a shame to all Canadians, and remains deeply painful to Indo-Canadians to this day. However, it is also a reflection of how we have changed, opened, and become more tolerant in a Canada that is welcoming to all.

I thank the victims' descendants for their patience and the endurance they have shown through this dark episode in our history.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize the Komagata Maru incident. The Komagata Maru arrived in Vancouver in May 1914, and it was carrying passengers of mostly Sikh descent. The Government of Canada turned away the boat and they were forced to return to India, a decision that resulted in the deaths of many passengers.

We will never forget about the prejudice suffered by the Sikh community as a result of this incident. I am proud that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, on behalf of the Government of Canada has recognized—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. member is a new member of course, and he needs to remember that we do not speak of hon. colleagues by name. I think he is referring to the right hon. Prime Minister, so I will let him finish quickly.