Anthony Rota

[Points of Order, June 5th, 2023]

I will now turn to the points raised by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

The member indicated that the programming motion adopted by the committee for Bill C-47 had prevented the moving of amendments during the clause-by-clause study of the bill. For that reason, he asked that his motions now be selected at report stage. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South echoed the same concerns, adding that rulings made by the chair of the committee had prevented members from moving new proposals to the bill.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 787 and 788:

...the Speaker could, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to explain it so as to enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it, but in practice, Members would send a written submission to the Speaker if there were any doubt as to the selection of their amendments for debate.

I would like to stress the latter part of this sentence. This important practice was also mentioned by the Assistant Deputy Speaker when she addressed the point of order on Friday.

If members wish to assist the Speaker in his deliberations, they are strongly encouraged to bring their arguments for the selection of their report stage motions by way of a written submission when they place them on notice. They can nonetheless rest assured that all report stage motions are always carefully analyzed by the Speaker, even if they are not accompanied by written submissions. The Speaker makes his determination after a thorough analysis of the committee’s consideration of a bill, precedents and guidance provided by the Standing Orders. This includes considering whether or not motions could have been presented in committee.

As per usual practice, the Speaker’s rationale for the selection of motions for Bill C-47 will be provided to the House when it is called for consideration at report stage.

[Privilege, June 5th, 2023]

The Chair will begin by addressing the concerns raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, before turning to the question of selection and grouping of report stage motions.

In his intervention, the member claimed that his privileges were breached during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Finance. His concerns centred on the contention that his right to vote, to move subamendments, to speak and raise points of order were unfairly limited by the committee chair. He argued that Standing Order 116(2)(a) had not been respected. Furthermore, the member alleged that the scheduling of the bill last Friday by the government had limited his ability to have report stage motions drafted and submitted in time for publication in the Notice Paper.

Standing Order 116(2)(a) makes clear that a committee can set time limits in relation to its own proceedings. The standing order reads:

Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative, committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate.

This also applies during the consideration of legislation.

It is an established practice that a committee can adopt its own orders, set its own deadlines to submit amendments or limit debate during its clause-by-clause consideration of bills. This appears to be what occurred in this case, where the committee adopted a motion to restrict the time for considering Bill C-47. Given that the committee made such a decision, as the Standing Orders allow, I do not believe that the Speaker has any cause to invalidate its proceedings nor to consider them a breach of privilege.

As to the other matters raised by the member, Speakers generally will not address procedural concerns from committees without first having a report outlining what procedural irregularities may have occurred. This was stated by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on Friday and I too see no reason to deviate from this well-established practice in this case.

As to the contention that the scheduling of the bill for consideration in the House last Friday limited members’ ability to submit report stage amendments, I would refer members to Standing Order 76.1(1), and I quote:

The report stage of any bill reported by any standing, special or legislative committee after the bill has been read a second time shall not be taken into consideration prior to the second sitting day following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.

The report in question was presented on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. It could therefore be called for debate as early as Friday, June 2, 2023.

This two-sitting imperative, combined with the 24-hour notice requirement to submit report stage motions, is standard and usually provides enough time to have motions drafted and submitted.

As such, members who wish to receive support in the drafting of report stage motions should contact the capable staff in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel as soon as possible with clear drafting instructions. If members wait to see when the bill will be called, they run the risk of not having their motions drafted in time.

For all these reasons, the Chair fails to see how the rights and privileges of the member were breached.

[Privilege, May 31st, 2023]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the member for Durham. I would like to thank the member for having raised this matter.

In his intervention, the member alleged having been a victim of an ongoing campaign of foreign interference, orchestrated by officials and agents of the People's Republic of China and dating as far back as the previous Parliament. He added that this campaign was not related to the one single event, which made his question of privilege distinct from the one raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He also indicated that interference of this scale had violated not only his privileges, but also those of many more members of the House.

I am hearing some noise, I am not sure if it is coming from the outside or inside. I am going to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to maybe just take a walk around the hall. I am sure there is nothing intentional there, but we just want to make people aware that if they are speaking on the outside, it echoes into the chamber.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie, supporting the member for Durham's assertions, suggested that the matter either be found prima facie or be integrated into the current study of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The House has the right to the services of its members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference. The Chair takes any claim of foreign interference in the work of members, as well as its impacts on their families, very seriously.

This is why I ruled on May 8, 2023, that a similar matter raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills constituted a prima facie question of privilege. At that time, the Chair agreed that the matter of a foreign entity trying to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings, targeting members and their relatives, touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills subsequently moved a motion to refer the matter of the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against him and other members to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The motion was adopted by the House on May 10, 2023. Though the motion related to the actions of one specific individual, the Chair's ruling referred more broadly to a foreign entity.

The points raised by the member for Durham are extremely serious. While I agree they must properly be addressed, in considering a question of privilege, the Chair must determine whether it should take precedence over the business of the House. Given that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already been instructed to investigate the matter of foreign interference, the Chair believes that it is the appropriate forum for further discussion of this issue.

As such, I invite the member, and any other member impacted, to make representations to the committee over the course of its study.

I thank members for their attention.

[Points of Order, May 18th, 2023]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised yesterday, May 17, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader regarding an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Development during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

The parliamentary secretary explained that the committee adopted an amendment to clause 2 of the bill that creates a new obligation on the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. According to the parliamentary secretary, this amendment proposes a new concept that exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. The parliamentary secretary argued that, for this reason, the amendment in question should be struck from the bill as reported by the committee.

When this amendment was proposed at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The decision was challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

When considering legislation, the House and its committees are guided by specific procedural rules that have been long established. In relation to the scope of a bill, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Bill C-281 does amend several acts, and it does create certain new obligations on the minister in relation to human rights. However, after a close reading of the bill, the new responsibilities for the minister are limited to specific areas, including communicating with families of prisoners of conscience and producing formal responses to House and Senate committees.

After careful consideration, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment creates a new obligation requiring the designated minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. The Chair of the committee correctly concluded that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, as it introduced a new concept not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading.

When a committee considers a bill at clause-by-clause, the committee chair must ensure that the proceedings on the bill conform to the procedural rules governing the consideration of amendments to bills. This includes ensuring that the committee’s review of the bill falls within the scope and principle as established by the House at second reading.

When a committee fails to adhere to the will of the House as it pertains to bills, it oversteps its authority, as delegated to the committee by the House. Speaker Milliken said it well when, on May 11, 2010, at page 2650 of the Debates, he explained:

As has been frequently noted, the Speaker’s involvement in committee matters is limited except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority. The adoption of amendments that are beyond the scope of a bill is such a case....

While some members may be of the opinion that a different bill, perhaps broader in scope, ought to have been introduced, I must base my decision on the bill that actually was introduced and approved by the House at second reading.

As such, the Chair rules the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development null and void and orders that it no longer form part of the bill as reported by the committee. The Chair also orders a reprint of the bill at the earliest opportunity for use by the House in its consideration of subsequent stages of the bill. However, given that the House is scheduled to consider Bill C-281 at report stage later this day, so as not to disrupt the business currently before the House, report stage will proceed based on the version of the bill as reported back from committee, with the understanding that when the bill will be reprinted, the text of the inadmissible amendment in question, at clause 2, will not be included.

I thank members for their attention.

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 2 by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills concerning alleged acts of intimidation by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

In his intervention, the member alleged that he was a victim of intimidation by Mr. Wei Zhao, a diplomat representing the People's Republic of China in Canada, who targeted him and his family. He noted that he was made aware of this information following a report by The Globe and Mail the previous day. According to the article, the attempts came in retaliation for a motion that the member moved in February 2021. He asserted that this constituted intimidation of a member in the context of their parliamentary duties and that it also constituted an interference in parliamentary proceedings. He concluded his remarks by suggesting that both these affronts were a breach of the privileges of the House. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby echoed these arguments.

The government House leader, while recognizing that foreign interference is a very serious matter, countered that this question of privilege did not rise to the threshold needed to make a prima facie finding. In support of this assertion, the government House leader made the three following points. First, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills failed to raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity, noting that the member could have raised the question of privilege the day before. Second, the alleged intimidation occurred outside of Canada, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. Finally, he argued the claim referenced in The Globe and Mail article was uncorroborated. In an intervention earlier today, the House leader of the official opposition disputed these arguments.

In considering this question of privilege, the Chair will address in reverse order both the points raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the government House leader.

The timeliness criteria is an important principle of which all members should be mindful when raising a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 145 sets out:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

Speaker Milliken, on May 29, 2008, at page 6277 of the Debates, explained how the Chair operationalizes this important principle.

In making a prima facie ruling on another question of privilege, he stated:

The Chair has always exercised discretion on this point given the need to balance the need for timeliness with the important responsibility members have of marshalling facts and arguments before raising matters of such import in the House.

Similar to that question of privilege, and given the gravity of the claims made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the Chair does not find the delay before the question of privilege was raised to be unreasonable.

The Chair will now turn to the contention that the apparent intimidation occurred outside of Canada, and that it was not corroborated.

It is not clear to the Chair, based on the information presented, where exactly the alleged events occurred or whether these alleged threats were indeed carried out. However, when the Speaker is making a prima facie finding, he is not making a finding of fact. At this stage the Chair is simply indicating that, on its face, the matter appears serious enough to warrant priority of debate.

A former clerk of the House, when appearing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 19, 2002, echoed this understanding, and I quote:

The Speaker's role ought to be explained, and it is that the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding of fact, it is simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the House warrants priority consideration over all other matters, all other orders of the day that are before the House.

I will turn to the issues raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 57, describes the privilege and immunities of the House and its members in such way as to “allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded”.

It further refers to, at the same page:

“…the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account.

Threats to intimidate and interfere in a member’s actions can impede their ability to freely carry out their parliamentary duties to the benefit of their constituents and the House.

In a past ruling on another matter of intimidation of a member, one of my predecessors noted on March 6, 2012, at page 5835 of the Debates, and I quote, “threats or attempts to influence a member's actions are considered to be breaches of privilege.”

The Speaker went on to say, at the same page:

These threats demonstrate a flagrant disregard of our traditions and a subversive attack on the most fundamental privileges of this House.

On September 19, 1973, in response to a question of privilege regarding the intimidation of a member, Speaker Lamoureux noted one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary privilege at page 6709 of Debates.

He stated:

I have no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.

The Chair will now to address the claim that the actions of Mr. Wei Zhao, directed towards the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, interfered with the proceedings of the House. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills argued that in the attempt to intimidate him, these actions, by extension, also sought to influence others in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.

As I said earlier, it is not clear whether the alleged threats were carried out. Indeed, in the present case, the member only became aware of the threats through a newspaper article based on presumed leaks from intelligence authorities, which were subsequently confirmed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The member did not indicate how he was impeded in his parliamentary duties, but he nonetheless considered the threats as real.

The Chair has no higher responsibility than to ensure that the rights and privileges of the members, and of the House, are respected. I considered the gravity of the information that has been put before the House, the origins of the information and the potential impact on our parliamentary duties.

The Chair agrees that the matter raised by the member, that is that a foreign entity tried to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings through a retaliatory scheme targeting him and his family, squarely touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded. On the face of it, the Chair believes this matter to be serious enough to take priority of debate over all other parliamentary proceedings.

Accordingly, the Chair finds this to be a prima facie question of privilege and invites the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to move his motion.

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2023]

Before going on to question period, I would like to make a statement on maintaining order and decorum in the House, following the point of order raised during the sitting of May 4.

The rules and practices governing order and decorum are intended in part to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a civil, courteous and respectful manner. In particular, members are expected to address each other through the Chair and to avoid making any offensive or disruptive remarks. For example, stating directly, or indirectly, that a colleague is a liar, or has lied, is unacceptable.

Maintaining order and decorum in the House is a responsibility that has been delegated to chair occupants. This is a task of great importance whose enforcement relies on striking a fine balance between the nearly unlimited freedom of speech in the House and complying with Standing Order 18, which provides, and I quote:

No member shall...use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.

When the Chair is asked to rule on alleged unparliamentary language, it takes various criteria into account, including the member’s tone, manner and intent, as well as the disorder in the Chamber that follows the remarks.

Chair occupants always try to apply the rules consistently. What may appear inconsistent to some is often the result of the fact that every situation is different. As a result, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes on page 624, “language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day.”

When the Chair finds that a member has used unparliamentary language, the Chair may ask the member to withdraw their words and apologize. If the member declines to do so, the Chair may then refuse to recognize them, or “name” them and expel them from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting.

As stated during the events of Thursday, May 4, the Chair wishes to reiterate that it will use all the powers at its disposal. To be quite clear, any remarks the Chair deems unparliamentary will be required to be withdrawn immediately and accompanied by a full and proper apology. If a member refuses to comply, the Chair will cease to recognize them until further notice.

As I explained in my statement on November 3, 2022, which can be found on page 9298 of the Debates, and I quote, “Exchanges between members of the House are sometimes heated and intense, but the Chair expects everyone to conduct themselves in a dignified manner and to choose their words carefully.”

As we approach the month of June, when the parliamentary workload is consistently very heavy, I encourage all members to contribute to the proceedings in a civilized manner, in accordance with our rules.

Members each have the primary responsibility for maintaining order and decorum. To help members do so, the Chair will use, in full, the powers it has been granted by the members themselves.

I thank all members for their attention and their collaboration.

[Privilege, April 20th, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 17 by the member for Pickering—Uxbridge concerning comments made following Oral Questions on March 31 by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

In her intervention, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge alleged that the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake had intentionally misled the House by falsely accusing her of having made a statement containing offensive words. This, she suggested, was a misuse of the privilege of freedom of speech. She categorically denied having made such a statement and felt that the accusation had damaged her reputation. She added that her ability to perform her duties had been hindered because of these allegations, since her office received several threatening and aggressive phone calls, emails and social media reactions.

For her part, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake asserted that her version of the events was different than that of the member for Pickering—Uxbridge. She countered that this matter did not meet the standards needed to establish that a member deliberately misled the House, and thus did not rise to the threshold of a question of privilege.

The Chair has had an opportunity to review the proceedings. No part of the off microphone exchanges between the members for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Pickering—Uxbridge was captured in the transcript or by the video recording.

In a ruling on a similar matter, on October 30, 2006, found at page 4414 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote:

...requesting an apology or a withdrawal is predicated on a common agreement about what actually took place, either because the exchange appears in the official record or because both parties acknowledge that the exchange took place. In this case, the official record is not helpful and the Speaker is faced with a dispute, indeed a contradiction, about what actually happened.

This also appears to be the case here. One member alleges that something was said, while the other denies having said it. The Chair has no reason to doubt that both members sincerely thought they were right and, therefore, I can only conclude a misunderstanding between them. One way to avoid such misunderstandings is to be civil with each other at all times.

The Chair is cognizant that exchanges in the House, on and off the record, can sometimes become heated. However, the Chair would urge members to be judicious with the words they use. There are alternative ways to make one's point and still remain respectful with each other.

As to whether the events described constitute a question of privilege, as indicated, the Chair does not believe that it has been established that there was a clear intent to mislead. Finally, it is not clear how the member was prevented from fulfilling her parliamentary duties. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find a prima facie case of privilege. I consider the matter closed.

I thank members for their attention.

[Points of Order, March 28th, 2023]

The Chair would like to make a statement regarding the period for questions and comments following speeches in the House. A series of points of order were raised on this topic on Wednesday, March 22, 2023. That day, some members immediately left the chamber after completing their speeches and were therefore unable to take part in the period for questions and comments thereafter.

The Chair thought it necessary to return to the House regarding this matter, given the numerous concerns expressed.

The provisions in the Standing Orders governing the period for questions and comments were adopted by the House on November 29, 1982, following the recommendations of the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. They were further modified on February 18, 2005, becoming the current Standing Order 43. In its report, the special committee expressed its intention that questions and comments exchanges be “short and sharp”. Our current practices have maintained this spirit.

The current iteration of Standing Order 43 includes references to both speeches and questions and comments periods. It shows those proceedings should be interpreted as complementary, as they enhance the qualities of each other. Setting aside time for questions and comments enriches debate and allows for a constructive exchange of views, instead of only a series of set speeches.

With respect to the events of last Wednesday, the issue raises concerns on what becomes of the period for questions and comments when the member who just completed their speech is unavailable.

This happens frequently when debate has been interrupted for another proceeding, resuming several hours or sometimes several days later. It is a well-established practice, in those cases, that the questions and comments period may only continue if the member having made the speech is present. This is the way my predecessors have consistently ruled.

These were not, however, the circumstances that occurred last Wednesday. Instead, members were leaving immediately after the conclusion of their speech. Many members, as well as the Deputy Speaker, expressed some concern that this resulted in the questions and comments period not taking place. While this does not appear to have been a widespread practice in the past, it was something contemplated by one of my predecessors.

On October 28, 1985, Speaker Bosley stated at page 8076 of the Debates:

I said quite precisely to the House that when a normal period of interruptions such as a lunch period, overnight period or adjournment of the debate has caused a problem then it seemed to me to be unreasonable or to be against the spirit of what was intended by the Report to allow the question and comment period to continue in the unavoidable absence of the Member.

If the...Member is interpreting from that that he thinks that I believe that the question and comment period can be obviated by a Member making a speech and leaving the chamber then he has not interpreted me correctly.

Based on this, it is the expectation of the Chair that members having just completed a speech take part in the ensuing period for questions and comments.

Furthermore, should a member making a speech not be available immediately thereafter, and while the content of the member’s speech is still fresh to all, the Chair shall still recognize other members wishing to ask questions or comment on the speech, for the duration of the prescribed period.

The Chair invites the House leaders to discuss this matter further should they feel it necessary. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may also want to study the matter and make recommendations back to the House.

I thank members for their attention.

[Points of Order, March 27th, 2023]

I would like to address the point of order raised earlier today, concerning government Motion No. 2 to concur in Senate amendments to Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The House leader of the official opposition has raised concerns as the procedural admissibility of the government's new motion claiming that it is substantially identical to the motion that the House has been seized with since March 8, citing the ruling of anticipation. He contended that two motions cannot both be before the House at the same time, as stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition at page 568, that the rule of anticipation is:

dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

In a ruling on November 2, 1989, Speaker Fraser, at page 5474 of the Debates, provided this helpful observation: “in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if...they have the same purpose”.

This is the test to be applied when determining if an item of business is so similar that it cannot coexist with another item of business. In this case, while the difference between the two motions may appear to be minor, adopting the second motion would bring about a different outcome than adopting the first, in that it would result in a different amendment being accepted by the House in the French version of the bill. This means that the second motion is indeed substantively different than the first motion, and therefore, the concern over similarity is not present.

It should also be noted that, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the rule of anticipation has never been part of our Standing Orders and, furthermore, is no longer strictly observed. Invoking the rule stating that a decision once made must stand, which is detailed on pages 590 and 591 of the third edition, is often more relevant than the rule of anticipation. Indeed, there are several examples, including some cited by the opposition House leader, of two items proceeding simultaneously until a decision is made on one of them. I would point out that the House has not yet made a decision on the first motion.

As I understand it, the objective of the second motion is to correct an error found in the first, an error that arose because the numbering of the amendments is not the same in English and in French. Allowing such an error to stand runs the risk that the English and French versions of the bill would be different, with different definitions being kept in each language, therefore making the will of the House unclear.

The opposition House leader argues that the appropriate course of action should be to make this correction by way of an amendment, which could be moved once the current amendment to motion 1 has been disposed of. While that is indeed one way of addressing the issue, the Chair does not believe it is the only way. Instead, the government has proposed to bring forward a new motion with the necessary correction.

Given that the substantive effect of the two motions is different and given that no decision has been made on the first motion, I am prepared to allow debate on Motion No. 2 to proceed.

I thank the members for their attention.

[March 23rd, 2023]

Mr. President, Dr. Biden, whether from the Oval Office, the Senate chamber or inside the classroom, you have given yourselves to public service, to bringing people together for common good and to lifting others up in a shared sense of purpose.

It has been said, Mr. President, that empathy is your biggest superpower, and what a superpower that is.

You have used it to help people set commons goals and set aside their differences.

You embody the words of one of your illustrious predecessors, former president Jimmy Carter, who said, “What is needed now, more than ever, is leadership that steers us away from fear and fosters greater confidence in the inherent goodness and ingenuity of humanity.”

I would like to take a moment to say that our thoughts and prayers are with President Carter and his family during this difficult time.

Mr. President, Dr. Biden, you have both shown to the world that devotion to family and country are not mutually exclusive. The events of your lives, some heartbreakingly tragic, stand testament to how a life of dedication to family nourishes and strengthens us so that we may better serve others.

Indeed, Mr. President, you have shown, through example indeed, the transformative power of leadership from the heart. For this, we thank you very much.

Thank you for being with us today.

[Applause]