Debates of Feb. 6th, 2026

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am torn between my sympathy for the idea of shorter speeches with longer questions following them and the fact that I have a 10-minute set-piece speech that I am going to be delivering later on this afternoon.

I do think there is a model for this, and I wanted to ask my colleague about it. Adjournment Proceedings questions, or late show questions, are four minutes of question and four minutes of answer. They are equal length and both of them are longer. It does give time to allow people to put a substantive, as opposed to purely rhetorical question, into what they ask.

I am wondering whether that serves as a model or potentially, as it is not a perfect system, a warning about things we should think about as we look at this question.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had not considered that model, but that would accomplish roughly the same objective. I think the late show proceedings are a much better forum for debate than speeches because we get more back and forth and a response from the other side. I think the member raises an excellent point.

Maybe another change, concurrent with what I recommended, is an expansion to an hour of Adjournment Proceedings rather than just 30 minutes, and maybe that it not be held at the end of the day, but at the beginning.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments with respect to virtual participation in the chamber. I just cannot reconcile why this continues to this day. I wonder if the member could share with us if he knows if this continues in any other Parliament similar to ours. My understanding is that it does not.

I fully agree that the tradition of pairing in the House should be fully used. Certainly, there is no reason for members to join in debate from their car in a gas station parking lot or from the bedroom in their hotel. It does not raise decorum in here, and neither do the heckles of the members opposite who would rather work from home.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments and the direction of that question.

To answer the specific one, I am not aware of any other legislature that has maintained this type of system. Debates are for the chamber. Work that members of Parliament do in their constituencies and across Canada is for those areas. Combining the two is doing neither effectively.

As far as convenience goes, the primary responsibility of members of Parliament is to represent their constituents in this chamber and participate in debate, not to talk into a camera from a hotel room somewhere or try to take a selfie for a vote. Members can do that if they want to, but they do it at their own risk. In fact, the controversies that arise in votes are usually around trying to log into the virtual system when the app has failed.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to start my remarks, I want to thank my family: my wife Dawn, daughter Sadie and son Isaac; our three cats, Tinkerbell, Luna and Max; and our dog Duke.

One of the interesting parliamentary rules of order is that if my daughter Sadie happened to be in the gallery today, I would not be able to acknowledge her and say, “Hi, sweetie. Thanks for coming and seeing Dad at work.”

I am just going to quickly pose for the camera here. I am on that camera, but I am wondering if we could switch to this one, because I have a way better background. There we go.

That brings me to my first point, which is that this entire room here is a television studio, which in many ways encourages performance. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that there is no actual prohibition of using a cellphone to record ourselves to take photos and videos. Maybe that is something that we should consider adding to the Standing Orders, to make a formal restriction, because the last thing that we want is a continuation of “like and subscribe for more great content” and actually bringing that into the House of Commons.

I am going to take a moment to reflect on the current Liberal caucus. The Prime Minister is a world-renowned economist with a lifetime of leadership on the global stage, and we have a really extraordinary set of ministers with decades of experience. In our caucus, we have former provincial legislators and council leaders. We have over 30 former municipal councillors and former provincial elected officials in our caucus, which is amazing, along with a number of doctors, lawyers, always tons of lawyers, engineers, farmers, business executives, labour and social justice advocates, indigenous leaders, women and diversity. We have people who reflect the entire spectrum of the Canadian population, which is amazing. It is an absolutely amazing group of people to work with each and every day, and I am so grateful that the residents of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas have given me that opportunity.

That reflects the outcomes of the last election, in which Canadians clearly wanted to elect a government with serious representatives and competent representation. There are very serious issues facing Canada at the moment, which have intensified since the last election. There is the U.S.'s hostile government and the deliberate destruction of the global allegiances and stability that our country has relied on. We have the Conservative Party of Canada's own Unity Mitford, who is attempting to freelance negotiations with the American President right now. There are separatist movements—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The Standing Orders require the member to address the business at hand, which is the Standing Orders. This is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity for parliamentarians to weigh in on how we govern ourselves, and I have not heard any recommendations about the Standing Orders, so I would ask you, Speaker, to direct him to—

[The Acting Speaker, Michael Cooper]

I thank the member. I would also say that there is quite a bit of latitude, but I would encourage the member to get to the Standing Orders.

The hon member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I appreciate the reminder, Mr. Speaker. That is actually an important point among the points that I am making this afternoon.

As I was saying, some of the biggest risks that we are facing as a country are extremist movements, extremist ideologies and the politics of division, anger, resentment and hatred being directly imported from the United States. That is not on one side of the spectrum; that is on the extremes of both sides. It is damaging to our democracy and it is undermining the public's confidence in our democratic institutions, which brings me to the issue of parliamentary privilege.

In the House, MPs cannot be sued or prosecuted for things that they say in the chamber, in committee or in official parliamentary proceedings. In itself, this is not a standing order. This is an inherent feature of the Westminster system of government, but, interestingly, it does not exist at the municipal level. I am obviously rather new to this role, but I did spend seven years as a municipal councillor in Hamilton, Canada's 10th-largest city, with 650,000 people and a $2-billion annual budget. I was the chair of the planning committee, the budget and the public works. I served as deputy mayor. In that span, I probably chaired hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings. Local politics in Hamilton are fairly ruthless, cutthroat—

[The Acting Speaker, Michael Cooper]

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière is rising on a point of order.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think our colleague is well aware that we are debating House rules and procedures today, and he received a warning a few moments ago that he should address the subject being discussed today. I think it would be appropriate to call him to order.

[The Acting Speaker, Michael Cooper]

The member has wide latitude, but I look forward to his submissions with respect to the Standing Orders.

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate is on the Standing Orders, but we are also discussing parliamentary procedure in general, which I am doing.

As I was saying, Hamilton is a rough place to be an elected representative, and I am rather used to some rough treatment. I am very proud to say I have served two terms. Before that, I worked for 20 years in heavy civil construction as a structural engineer. In total, that is 27 years working as a professional and being accountable, publicly and privately, for what I said, what I wrote and how I presented myself, in an environment where making a false or defamatory statement would quickly result in a lawsuit.

Now, I understand the history of parliamentary privilege and why it exists. Without it, MPs could be under the threat of silence through frivolous lawsuits, and courts could be second-guessing parliamentary debate, but again I go back to my initial point that, at the municipal level, municipalities across Canada have wide-ranging democratic debates without parliamentary privilege protecting members from lawsuits. What it comes down to is that it really only works when members of Parliament approach this role in good faith. People have often asked me what the biggest difference is that I have seen between working at the municipal level and working at the federal level, and it is the hyperbole, nonsense and expanding the truth that we see rather routinely in this chamber, which is at times, I would submit, rampant abuse of parliamentary privilege.

How I am seeing parliamentary privilege being used here, and this is my observation, is that there will be false, defamatory, over-the-top hyperbole or a statement made in the House that is clipped and shared on social media, and then there are legions of followers, trolls and alternative news sources that then share and promote it as if it is true. It is an intentional strategy that builds anger and creates division and an entire industry of political grift. I would be really interested to test this theory: In the House we are protected by parliamentary privilege, but if a member shares a false or defamatory statement on social media, are they still protected by parliamentary privilege when they are publishing false and defamatory statements outside of the House? As far as I know, the courts have not tested that. I am not a lawyer, but I would love to investigate that further.

That brings me to a point about the need for a strong and robust mainstream media, such as the CBC, because legitimate journalists are bound by a code of ethics and the threat of lawsuits. They do not generally re-publish false and defamatory materials. Standing Order 18 on parliamentary privilege does prohibit personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and disrespect toward Parliament, the Crown or members. As a member, I cannot say that a member is lying, even when it is a blatant lie, and that is kind of bizarre if we think about it. I can use all kinds of euphemisms. I can say it is misleading, it is misinformation or the member did not understand, but I cannot straight up say it is a lie and the member is lying. That may be something that needs to change.

Technically, the Speaker, under Standing Order 16 on decorum and Standing Order 18 on parliamentary language, can intervene to correct statements such as that, misinformation or lies. Maybe we need to encourage the Speaker and the party whips to be a little more aggressive and use formal points of order to correct blatant lies that are put on the record.

I will make a couple of comments on dress and decorum. The Standing Orders require members to be properly attired in the chamber. Of course, for men, that means wearing a tie. I am strongly in favour of maintaining those provisions. I think losing the tie is the thin end of the wedge to hoodies and track suits in the House of Commons. We have an obligation to Canadians to be professional in our role and project that to the public.

I welcome any questions.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I found that to be a bit of an ironic speech from the member, because he is one of the most uninformed members on the rules in this place. This is a member who walked into a justice committee meeting and took a photo of the proceedings of the committee. I then raised a point of order with the Liberal chair, who completely whitewashed it and never reported back to the committee about whether the photo was deleted by the member.

He does not care about the rules of this place. He does not respect the few rules that he knows, so I do not understand why he is giving a speech about a whole bunch of Liberal talking points on various different issues when there were probably other better-informed members of the Liberal caucus who should have been speaking today about the actual Standing Orders and making this Parliament function better.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, as Monica said, “Rules help control the fun.”

As someone who has chaired hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings, of course I very much value the rules that control and direct debate to ensure that everybody has a fair opportunity to contribute.

With respect to taking photos or selfies in the chambers or the standing committees, as I said in my speech, I do not believe there is actually a restriction on that. Rather, it falls under a Speaker's ruling, and we should consider adding that as a Standing Order.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on question period. This morning, I spoke about a situation we recently experienced. The Speaker of the House intervened in order to cut off certain types of questions relating to something that was happening in Quebec City but that could have an impact on us. We felt that our questions were valid.

The Chair would not entertain our arguments, so we asked for a Speaker's ruling on the matter. If the Chair starts controlling the content of the questions, should they not also look at controlling the content of the answers?

When ministers give an answer that is completely off topic, should they not be required to start over and stick to the subject at hand, as the member was asked to do earlier at the beginning of his speech? What does my colleague think about that?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, question period is its own thing. As others have mentioned, such as my colleague from Calgary, when we have students here observing question period, it is a bit of a shock.

Personally, I would like to see a more forceful intervention from the Speaker in question period. My experience, again working at the municipal level, is that questions have to be on specific topics. I think that is worthwhile to include in our question period, that we stay on the topic of the day and have more robust and truthful answers.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have an opposite opinion to that of the member for Brandon—Souris. I think what this member brought up is the thing that has bothered me the most in my 10 and a bit years here, which is that parliamentary privilege allows us to lie in the House. If we call out a lie, we will be made to apologize, but we are never made to correct a lie. That is one of the things that have bothered me the most in 10 years, and it has really upset decorum in this House.

I would ask the member, through you, Madam Speaker, how he might suggest a fix for that.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a difficult question, because what is a lie is very subjective, and I think the last thing we want to have is the Speaker being a fact-checker. We need to have robust debates. We are going to have different political opinions on things, and statistics or certain facts may be interpreted differently. However, what I would like to see, when it is a blatant lie or an attack against an identifiable person or organization, is that the Speaker becomes more involved and steps in to ask the member to withdraw statements that are clearly false and defamatory.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on this. He talks about decorum in the chamber but is widely known as one of the biggest disruptors. He heckles and uses unparliamentary language, all while hoping that because he sits far enough away from the Speaker, he will not be called out on his terrible behaviour. It is shocking to see him do this today. It is no surprise that he was on the receiving end of a code of conduct complaint and violation when he was a municipal councillor, which he talked a lot about.

He wants more rules here, but he does not seem to want to follow them. Does he have any comments about that?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the record, I was on the receiving end of multiple code of conduct complaints by my political enemies, who used those as a way of retaliation. As I said, Hamilton is a rough place to be an elected official.

However, broadly, we could all use a little bit more respect for the House, the institution and our Canadian democratic values.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was unaware of the code of conduct issues that had arisen with regard to the member. I will just observe that it is an excellent introduction to what I am about to deal with here, which is our own code of conduct.

The Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons is an appendix to the Standing Orders, and today's debate is therefore the appropriate forum in which to discuss the code and also to discuss the problematic way in which it has been administered.

In my remarks today, I will demonstrate that, in at least one case, the administration of the code by the former ethics commissioner, Mr. Mario Dion, was itself a very consequential violation of the code. I hope that the current commissioner will take heed.

I have already been vocal in my criticism of Mr. Dion. In February 2021, I wrote an essay, which I published on my website, criticizing Commissioner Dion's report finding the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore guilty of an entirely invented breach of the code. Last October, I had the opportunity to speak out against the former commissioner's outrageous 2019 finding that the member for Ottawa West—Nepean had violated the code by transgressing a preposterously stringent interpretation of the term “using her position as a member of Parliament”.

On September 29, 2020, it was my turn; the commissioner went after me. I received a letter on that day in which the commissioner informed me, “Pursuant to subsection 27(4) of the...Code, I am writing to notify you of my concerns that you may have contravened the Code by attempting to use your position as a Member of Parliament to influence a decision so as to further the private interests of a member of your family”. Commissioner Dion further stated, “Upon receipt of your response...I will determine whether an inquiry into your conduct is warranted”.

I will fast-forward to another piece of correspondence from Commissioner Dion, dated November 25 of the same year, in which he wrote:

I am writing further to the letter from your [legal] counsel...responding to my concerns...that you may have contravened section 11 of the...Code....

...I have determined that I do not have reason to believe you have contravened section 11 of the Code and I will not initiate an inquiry into the matter.

That ended things. I had a clean bill of ethical health. However, members will note that Commissioner Dion makes reference to a letter from my legal counsel. Here is that letter, and as members can see, it is over 100 pages long. I apologize for showing it in the House, but I want to make the point that it is over 100 pages. It includes tax returns, audited statements and other documents. Importantly, my legal bill to respond to Mr. Dion's preliminary review was $43,423.53, every penny of which was paid out of after-tax income. At the 50% tax bracket in which all MPs sit, the cost to me was over $80,000.

I have the good fortune to have a significant amount of inherited wealth. However, for the majority of members in this place, the sudden imposition of a legal bill of this magnitude could be ruinous. Had Commissioner Dion decided, as he could well have done, that he would go further and launch an actual inquiry, my legal bills might well have been several multiples higher.

When the costs of responding to an accusation become ruinous, prosecutions, including preliminary reviews and inquiries, can be weaponized. That is to say, the process of prosecution itself can be used as a weapon. Mere accusations, including groundless accusations, become death blows to all but the wealthiest. Our court system has therefore adopted a number of rules to prevent weaponization. One such rule is that the losing party in a court action must pay a share of the court costs of the winning party. Another rule is that the person who is accused has the right to face his or her accuser.

By contrast with the courts, our conflict of interest code contains no version of the first of the two rules I just mentioned, but it does contain an interesting proxy for the right to face one's accuser. Pursuant to subsection 27(1) of the code, the commissioner may pursue a preliminary review only if authorized to do so by a signed, written request from a member of Parliament, who effectively takes on the role of publicly identified accuser, and if at the conclusion of an inquiry, the commissioner is of the opinion that the request for an inquiry was frivolous or vexatious, subsection 27(6) of the code provides that “the commissioner shall so state in dismissing the request in a report...and may recommend that further action be considered against the member who made the request.”

However, in my case, the commissioner ignored the limit imposed on him by subsection 27(1). In his letter of September 29, the commissioner informed me that he had been notified by an anonymous tip. He said, “On June 26...I received a letter from a member of the public alleging that you communicated numerous times with councillors and municipal employees of Tay Valley Township in respect of your spouse's operation of a forest school and community garden at [Blueberry Creek Forest School and Nature Centre] on Highway 7.”

It was on the basis of this letter, from a party whose identity the commissioner subsequently kept secret, that he informed me that he would launch an inquiry unless, within the next 30 days, I satisfied him as to my innocence. It was the act of satisfying him as to my innocence, by exhaustively demonstrating the fact that Blueberry Creek is a bona fide not-for-profit and that my wife derives no financial benefit from the operation of the forest school, that cost me 43,000 after-tax dollars in legal bills. That is a bit like proving someone's innocence of witchcraft by drowning them during a witch dunking: They are innocent but also dead.

The accusation was costless for my anonymous accuser to make. Refuting the anonymous accusation was devastatingly expensive. Even though the request for the inquiry was indeed vexatious, I have no ability to seek the redress promised by subsection 27(6) because the commissioner has made sure that I cannot find out who made the anonymous denunciation.

However, I was able to draw the commissioner's attention to the fact that, whomever it may have been who contacted him, the ultimate source of this information had to be an interested party on the other side of an ongoing legal dispute between Blueberry Creek Forest School and Tay Valley Township. I sent a letter to the commissioner pointing out that one piece of evidence that had been given to him by the anonymous informant “has never been made public”. I am quoting from my letter, which continues, “Only the eight members of the Council to whom this was emailed, plus the township's clerk, Amanda Mabo, and the township's Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Donaldson, would ever have seen the...email.”

An Ethics Commissioner who allows anonymous denunciations to which the cost of responding are ruinous has set the grounds for the serial use of vexatious assertions of ethical breaches in order to settle scores or to force elected officials to resign as the only means of escaping expensive inquiries.

Now, lest the assertion that I have just made be taken as hysterical, let me point out that this is exactly what has happened to Ontario's system of municipal integrity commissioners. Ironically, this was attested to just a moment ago in the last remark by the previous speaker, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, who said he faced numerous such accusations for reasons that were entirely personal.

The Ontario system permits anonymous denunciations, arbitrary penalties and provides only the weakest safeguards against the integrity commissioners, as ethics commissioners are called provincially, who are usually external counsel retained on contract by the township or municipality, having their own conflicts of interest. For example, they might be simultaneously a town solicitor and its integrity commissioner, a clear conflict of interest.

In 2024, Ontario's integrity commissioner system was variously described as the “wild west” and as being a “cash cow” for the commissioners themselves, most egregiously for Tony Fleming, a lawyer at the Kingston law firm of Cunningham Swan, who served simultaneously as town councillor and integrity commissioner for 35 municipalities, despite repeated accusations that this represents a conflict of interest on his part.

In 2022, it was reported that the legal bills paid to the integrity commissioner in the town of Elliott Lake over the four-year term of the town council amounted to $858,000, or about $80 per town resident. To give another example, at one point in the summer of 2025, the integrity commissioner for the Township of Rideau Lakes, just south of my riding, was involved in 11 simultaneous investigations. The town council in Rideau Lakes has only nine members. A year earlier, the Ontario ombudsman reported that most of the complaints it had received regarding municipal accountability officers were specifically about integrity commissioners.

A similar form of weaponization of our own ethics code is a very real danger should the safeguards that have been built into the code continue to be ignored by the official who is charged with their enforcement.

Commissioner Dion facilitated weaponization. It is my hope that the current commissioner will hear what I am saying today and will firmly reject the dangerous precedent set by his predecessor, and in the event that he takes the position that his predecessor's actions in accepting anonymous denunciations were not a breach of the code, that the House will modify the code to impose this limit in clearer terms in the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my question is more so in regard to getting the member's thoughts on the issue of concurrence motions.

Today, we have a system where there is a limited amount of time to allow for debate to occur. I understand the arguments for concurrence motions, and I do not necessarily want to take away the need to have concurrence motions. However, I would like to hear his comments on the merits of having them take place, much like we have the late show or emergency debates, after Government Orders.

I am interested in what the member might have to say about having concurrence motions take place after Government Orders.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about the weaponization of our ethics code for the purpose of destroying the lives and careers of members of Parliament. I am not going to answer a question on that subject.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had today to rise to speak to the Standing Orders. If I can, before asking a question of the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac, I want to associate myself with some of the comments made by the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

I strongly agree with his argument that five standing members should be able to ensure a recorded vote and that passing bills on division gives an extreme level of power and authority to a small group of parties in this place, only the recognized parties. It reduces the rights of not just me as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but of my constituents, who do not necessarily know where we stand on the issues when we move so quickly. I thought the member for Calgary Crowfoot made very cogent arguments, and I also appreciated his suggestion that we look at the U.K. Parliament and the idea that an MP who is speaking can yield the floor to another MP of their own party.

I want to associate myself very strongly with the comments just now from the member for Lanark—Frontenac and support his concerns. For anyone watching this who does not know the member for Lanark—Frontenac, they will not find a finer person of greater integrity. What he went through with the Tay Valley Township council is appalling, and I want to thank him for always being upright, honest and so well informed.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to respond to that one either, except to say that there is a connection here. There are a number of these kinds of processes that have been weaponized.

One was weaponized against the leader of the Green Party, which was the internal processes in her party, by an individual who had come in as a temporary employee and proceeded to attack her leadership and basically tried to destroy it. It attracted enough attention that its refutation made its way onto the editorial pages of the National Post, where Christie Blatchford attacked the individual who had behaved in this disgraceful manner in attacking the member in her role as Green Party leader.

That individual's name is Rob Rainer, and he is now the reeve or mayor of Tay Valley Township. I have wondered whether it was he who anonymously denounced me to the Ethics Commissioner, but I have no way of knowing that. Perhaps Mr. Rainer will have the chance to say so, one way or the other, when he gets the opportunity.