Greg Fergus

[Privilege, June 17th, 2024]

Before we move on with debate, the Chair wishes to make a statement in regard to the concerns raised earlier today by the member for Edmonton Strathcona about the premature publishing of a tweet on the @HoCChamber X account.

In her intervention, the member pointed out that the account had prematurely disclosed the conclusions of the Speaker's ruling on the question of privilege raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre. The member stated that it was inappropriate that the conclusions of the ruling would be shared publicly before members of the House were apprised of them.

The Speaker wishes to note that the tweet in question was published in error. According to the process in place, a courtesy advance notice of tweets about rulings is shared with a very small team in the House administration to expedite publication on social media. The instructions are clear: Tweets must never be posted before a ruling is delivered. In this case, the text of the tweet was unfortunately posted as the ruling was being read and not afterwards. To our knowledge, this is the first time this has happened. I should note that at no point is anyone in my office involved in publishing these tweets.

On behalf of the House administration, the Speaker would like to sincerely apologize for this error. It is very important to the Speaker that members have the first opportunity to hear the conclusions of a ruling. To ensure that such a thing does not happen again, I immediately requested changes to our internal processes on your behalf.

While I am on my feet, I want to address the strong language that was used after the point of order was raised. The member for Winnipeg Centre made a significant point for all members to consider, yet used words that were not acceptable on the floor of the House. There are ways to make one's point without resorting to profanity, and I trust that this will not happen again.

I thank all members for their attention.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a point of order.

[Privilege, June 17th, 2024]

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, by the member for Winnipeg Centre, concerning editorial changes to the Debates of June 4.

In raising this matter, the member asserted that a substantive change was inappropriately made at page 24440 of the Debates of June 4, 2024. According to the member, that day's Debates do not accurately reflect the content of the speech given by the member for Saskatoon West during the consideration at report stage of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. She explained that the member for Saskatoon West had stated that a certain individual “was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.”

However, the Debates read that the same individual “was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.”

She stated that replacing the word “because” with the word “regardless” significantly altered the meaning of the member's intervention. In making this point, the member referenced a recent ruling in which the Chair indicated that revisions should not alter the substance and meaning of what members say in the House.

On June 6, 2024, the member for Saskatoon West rose on a point of order to apologize for misspeaking during the debate. He said that he had realized his mistake immediately after his speech and therefore requested the change when the blues came out.

The House leader of the official opposition subsequently intervened on this matter, outlining the purpose of the blues and the role of editors in producing the Debates. Given the apologies offered by the member for Saskatoon West and his admission that he had misspoken, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks, the House leader suggested that the matter be considered closed.

The Chair is hesitant to deal with concerns about the editing of the Debates. The work of the editors is based on a standard of professional excellence and performed independently from political pressures. However, when members complain about the accuracy of the Debates, the Chair also has a duty to assess whether the record accurately reflects the proceedings of the House. If not, the Chair can ask that the Debates be modified.

Regarding the editing process, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1229, states the following:

It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning

On October 29, 2009, in a ruling on a similar matter, which can be found at page 6356 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

As all members know, the Debates are not a verbatim ad literatum transcription of what is said in this House. When producing the Debates, House of Commons editors routinely edit interventions for clarity and clean up our grammatical and syntactical lapses. They also of course consider corrections and minor alterations to the blues submitted by the member to which words are attributed.

Any editorial changes, either suggested by a member or made by the editors themselves, must remain faithful to the original meaning of the statement as a whole, as spoken on the floor of the House. Editors are also expected to exercise judgment in assessing any potential change. The final word on the change does not rest with the member requesting it, but with the editors.

Just recently, on May 30, the Chair ruled on a complaint about the editing process for the Debates of April 30. In that ruling, which can be found at page 24087 of the Debates, the following is stated with respect to the independence of Parliamentary Publications, “The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.”

Exercising due diligence, the Chair assessed the facts of the present situation by inquiring with Parliamentary Publications. The question editors faced when preparing the Debates on June 4 was whether substituting “regardless” for “because” would distort the meaning of the intervention or clarify it. That day, even before the member for Saskatoon West requested a change, editors had already begun to investigate the issue and analyze the overall context of his intervention. They had found through their fact-checking that the member was paraphrasing an assessment made by the Parole Board that did not seem to align with the term used.

Furthermore, the member's use of the word seemed illogical in the context of the rest of his speech. The request from the member for Saskatoon West to modify the blues ostensibly confirmed their suspicion as to his apparent intention. The editors concluded he had misspoken and it was on that basis that the editorial change was made. In retrospect, the editors might have handled the situation differently as they always have the option to leave an intervention as is, even if it is incoherent. However, their ultimate objective is for the transcript to make sense.

Members should not be surprised to learn that editors occasionally make changes and replace words to ensure that members' interventions remain coherent for the reader, while attempting to ensure they accurately reflect what was said. This is not unusual. These changes are made by editors on their own initiative, but also at the request of members from all parties. Accordingly, editors must have the latitude to navigate perilous interpretation exercises, though they do not have free rein, as they must be equally careful not to change the meaning of what is said.

Admittedly, some situations are more complex than others and, indeed, the present case has caused some degree of controversy. The member for Saskatoon West undoubtedly used the word “because” in his intervention. He admitted the mistake himself and apologized for having misspoken. His initial use of the word is now on the record.

The Chair is, nonetheless, satisfied with the explanations provided by Parliamentary Publications and the reasoning behind the replacement of the disputed word. While the decision does appear to change the meaning of the intervention, their motivation was clearly to make the text more coherent.

I hope members can accept that the editors have a challenging job and that the correction was made in good faith. As a result, the Chair concludes that this matter does not constitute a question of privilege and, therefore, considers the matter closed.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 11th, 2024]

I am also now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 30, 2024, by the member for London—Fanshawe concerning an alleged breach of the Deputy Speaker's impartiality.

In her intervention, the member indicated that she had just been made aware that a picture of the Deputy Speaker, wearing his robes, was used to advertise a political event held last October for a Conservative Party constituency association. She further noted that he was identified with his title of Deputy Speaker and not as the member for West Nova. She referenced other recent questions of privilege where the issue of inappropriate use of the Speaker's robes was also considered, which raised concerns over the use of House of Commons resources and about the impartiality of the Deputy Speaker.

In response, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable pointed out that the photo used in the ad was a publicly available image that could be found on the internet. He added that the ad contained no partisan criticism and that the event was not a fundraiser. Referring to a ruling made by Speaker Fraser on March 9, 1993, he also noted that expectations differed between the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

The Deputy Speaker, for his part, indicated that he had no knowledge of the ad. He said that, had he been shown a draft, he would have objected to it, and requested that it not be posted. He shared his regrets for the confusion that this may have caused to the House.

The member for London—Fanshawe intervened again on this matter on June 6, noting that she accepted the apology from the Deputy Speaker, but that the House was still owed an apology by those responsible for this mistake.

Let me first elaborate on the process used to bring forward the current matter. As I have indicated before, there is a mechanism to raise concerns about the conduct of a chair occupant. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” This is in keeping with past precedents, which apply to deputy speakers as well, though occurrences are rare.

In addition to the 1993 ruling, referenced by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, an interesting example can be found at pages 4365 to 4366 of the May 28, 1956, Debates. During what is known as the 1956 Pipeline Debate, the impartiality of the chairman of committee of the whole was questioned by the then leader of the opposition. Speaker Beaudoin determined that what has now become Standing Order 67(1)(p) should be used to call in question the conduct of chair occupants. He stated:

There is therefore no doubt in my mind that the proper course to be followed is for notice to be given of a substantive motion. Once the notice time has elapsed for the motion on the order paper, it is placed upon the routine proceedings, namely under “motions”. By virtue of [the Standing Orders] it is debatable and must be taken up when it comes up.

This is the approach also taken from March 16 to 19, 1964, regarding the then deputy speaker and, in March 2000, towards Speaker Parent. An alternative outcome was ultimately negotiated between the parties in that case.

Placing a substantive motion on notice, as was described by Speaker Beaudoin, therefore remains the usual course of action. As imperfect as this mechanism may seem to some, members unsatisfied with the conduct of one of the Chair occupants should take this very serious step. They should not be raising a question of privilege or commenting on their conduct in debate.

After having made this determination, deciding today whether the standard of impartiality expected of the Deputy Speaker was met or not, seems less relevant. That is a matter for the House to decide, not for the Speaker.

That said, interested members can refer to Speaker Fraser’s ruling of March 9, 1993, where he stated at page 16685 of the Debates, that Deputy Speakers “remain members of their political party, may attend caucus if they choose and may even participate in debate.”

This makes clear that their degree of participation in political activities is an individual decision. Furthermore, House of Commons Procedure and Practice,, third edition, at page 362, states that “the Deputy Speaker must be governed by ‘good taste and judgement’.”

As such, considering the practice of the House, the Chair does not find that this is a prima facie question of privilege.

Beyond the specifics of this question of privilege, and recent similar ones, this is a fundamental issue that once more has been put before the House with profound implications. Now, through this question of privilege, and in comments made here in the House, two of the Deputy Speakers have been subjected to criticism. I would caution the House against dragging the different chair occupants into debate. It has a corrosive effect on their ability to effectively preside over the proceedings of the House. I would beseech all members to think twice before using the chair occupants as a sort of political football to settle scores or to criticize their political opponents. I have full confidence in each of the Deputy Speakers, and the House should too.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Points of Order, June 11th, 2024]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 30, 2024, by the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin regarding unparliamentary language.

During question period that day, the Chair intervened after the member for Calgary Forest Lawn used the phrase “anti-Alberta minister”. In his point of order, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin asked the Chair to clarify what constitutes unparliamentary language, because he asserted that the terms “anti-Alberta” and “anti-Quebec” had been used in the past with no objection from the Chair. The member expressed concern that the list of unparliamentary terms is getting longer and longer. When the point of order was raised, I promised to review the issue.

The Chair must take into account a whole range of factors before forming an opinion on what members perceive as inappropriate language.

I would refer members to page 623 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote: “[T]he use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.”

However, a little later, on page 624, that book states the following, and I quote: “In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.”

In short, the Chair is required, often in the heat of the action, to assess the content of remarks, but also to take into account more subjective and contextual factors. As a result, a term found to be unparliamentary in one situation may not be considered unparliamentary in another. This may occur not because the Chair is being inconsistent but rather because the tone, intention and reaction are different.

Language found to be acceptable when used in a general sense may be unacceptable when it targets a specific person. The Chair may be stricter to prevent a given situation from degenerating, while in other circumstances, the Chair would be inclined to let the comment pass or issue a warning rather than rule it unparliamentary. Each case must be considered in its specific context.

It is true that the term “anti-Alberta” has been used without being deemed unparliamentary. However, calling a member or a minister “anti-Alberta” could fall into either category. In the moment, out of an abundance of caution perhaps, the Chair directed the member for Calgary Forest Lawn to rephrase his question.

As for the second aspect of the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin's point of order, the Chair notes that no list of unparliamentary words exists. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 624, “language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day.”

As I just explained, it all depends on the context, tone, intention and reaction. The Chair therefore encourages members to choose their words with care so that we can have vigorous debates without lapsing into incivility.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2024]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 8 by the member for Simcoe North, concerning the response to Question No. 2221.

In his intervention, the member alleged that, through omission, the Minister of National Revenue misled the House. The member stated that he had asked for a specific set of information through Order Paper Question No. 2221, about overpayments of the Canada child benefit in the event of the death of a child. The corresponding response indicated that the information sought by the member was not collected in a way that permitted an answer to his very specific question. However, the member argued that he successfully obtained, through questioning of a government official at a recent committee meeting, the precise information that he had originally sought through his written question. This, he claimed, illustrated that the government did in fact have the information he wished to receive. He contended that the government attempted to frustrate his ability as a member to obtain factual information through the written question process. He argued that this qualified as a question of privilege that was worthy of examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The deputy government House leader countered that there was no intent to mislead the member for Simcoe-North or the House. He explained that the information shared with the member in committee differed from what was asked in question Q‑2221, which was about overpayments of the CCB in the case of a death of a child. However, he claimed that what the member asked in committee was a question about cancelled eligibility for the CCB. The government response that was provided to the written question addressed the issue of overpayments in the event of the death of a child, in as full a fashion as the data permitted. The deputy House leader concluded by asserting that the government answered the question that was asked, and that the response was accurate.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 529, describes the well-established precedent in which the Chair, and past Speakers have consistently responded to complaints about government responses to written questions, and I quote:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

The member for Simcoe North knows, as do all members, that the Chair does not parse the responses to written questions, nor judge their quality or delve into their content. The government did provide an answer to its question, though the member argues it was insufficient or incomplete. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa also complained about the substance of an answer to one of his written questions. While circumstances differed, the conclusion remains the same. The Chair is not empowered to review the content or the quality of answers provided to written questions.

That said, the Chair would, once again, like to reiterate its expectation that the government, in responding to written questions, be as forthcoming as possible in providing members with the information they require to do their job. Members can always seek clarification about their original questions or ask for additional information by providing new written questions on the Order Paper or even by proposing to a committee that it study the subject of their written questions.

Accordingly, the Chair does not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege. I thank all members for their attention.

[Privilege, May 30th, 2024]

It is the normal tradition of the House that the Speaker finishes their ruling before points of order are raised. I will entertain them at the end of the ruling, which will happen in a couple of minutes.

While the Debates are published under the authority of the Chair, the House should know that the Chair plays no part in editing the Debates. The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.

The editors may make changes to the records of the House proceedings, whether or not those changes are proposed by members, in accordance with their own guidelines and long-standing practices. Moreover, it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in the House.

The Chair learned that, on April 30, two versions of the blues had been prepared. The words “I withdraw” were indeed in the first version and were attributed to the member for Lethbridge. During the revision process, the editors listened carefully to the audio recording of the sitting but could not be certain that those specific words had been said or that the statement should be attributed to the member for Lethbridge. The word “withdraw” was clearly audible, but what preceded was not.

Given the context of the exchange between the Chair and the member, the words she said immediately prior and the process of naming the member that subsequently began, the audio in question could plausibly be interpreted as either “I withdraw” or “I do not withdraw”.

In addition, the particularly high level of ambient noise substantially complicated the editors’ task. Faced with this uncertainty, the editors removed the words, and a second version of the blues was produced, which was provided to the member. No comments or revisions were communicated to the Parliamentary Publications department in connection with this intervention prior to the publication of Hansard by the member for Lethbridge or her staff, or any other member or their staff.

Finally, the words are not included in the published version of the Debates. While investigating this matter, the Chair also learned that the staff responsible for Debates had provided these explanations to the member in the afternoon of May 1, even before she raised her question of privilege.

As the member for Lethbridge later pointed out on May 9, it is true that on the morning of May 1, a member of my staff received a question from a journalist about the difference between the blues and the Debates. On the other hand, it should be noted that the answer offered was very general and was provided even before the question of privilege was raised in the House.

The Chair recognizes that the member for Lethbridge states that she said “I withdraw”. The Chair has no reason to doubt her word, nor that of the chief opposition whip, who confirmed that others heard those words. I hope she will accept that, because she began by repeating her comments, and because the noise level was so high, the Chair did not hear her say that day that she was withdrawing her words. My decision to name her seemed justified, based on the information I had at the time. If the member had begun by withdrawing her words, events surely would have unfolded differently.

I want to emphasize this point. When the Chair asks a member to withdraw offensive remarks and apologize, out of respect for the Chair and the rules of the House, the Chair expects members to comply, with no hesitation, period. An invitation to withdraw words that are deemed unacceptable is not an invitation to repeat those very words. In the event of refusal to comply, a member risks being named and asked to withdraw from the House or having the Chair decide not to recognize them until they do.

Members sometimes disagree with the Chair’s decisions, but it is important for all members to accept them once they are made. Disregarding the rules is one thing; disregarding the authority of the Chair when one is called to order is another.

As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby stated in his point of order on May 1, 2024, criticizing such decisions in the House amounts to challenging the Chair, which is contrary to our practices. On the other hand, while it is true that the Chair exercises control over decorum during proceedings and generally does not comment on statements made outside, attacks on the Speaker or the deputy speakers outside of the House can have a corrosive effect on our proceedings. It certainly does not help the House function smoothly.

In conclusion, the Chair is of the opinion that the final version of the debates was prepared in accordance with the standards applied by the debates' editors and that their decision, as well as the Chair's decision to name the member, was justifiable based on the information available on April 30. Consequently, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege. The member for Lethbridge has clearly indicated what her words were, and that is now also part of the record.

I thank members for their attention.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill on a point of order.

[Privilege, May 30th, 2024]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 1 by the member for Lethbridge, regarding the content of the Debates of April 30. In so doing, I would also like to comment on several points of order raised subsequently regarding the fallout of that day’s events.

In raising her question of privilege, the member stated that the Debates of April 30 did not accurately reflect the previous day’s proceedings in the House. She alleged that the words “I withdraw” had been removed from the blues in the portion where the Chair had named her. The member stated that those words appeared under her name in the initial version of the blues and were attributed to her and that they could be heard in the audio recording.

She added that, in this specific context, those words were not insignificant, as they showed that she had unconditionally complied with the Speaker’s request and that her withdrawal from the House was therefore unjustified. The member argued that since she was unable to participate in the debates and the votes of that day, her privileges had been breached. She also noted that this misrepresentation of her actions could amount to an improper reflection upon a member. The member was supported by some of her colleagues, who said that they had heard her say those words.

Let us first review the events of April 30. The beginning of question period that day was particularly difficult. There was clearly a lot of strong language and strong reactions that required the Chair to intervene. I issued warnings, but also the possibility to rephrase their comments, to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, for particular words they used, those terms being “racist” and “spineless” respectively.

I subsequently asked for the word “wacko” to be withdrawn when it was used as a personal insult. I am certain all members can agree that such terms are not helpful and do not contribute to the kind of civility necessary for our proceedings. In the course of these events, the Chair was subjected to invective from the member for Lethbridge. The Chair told the member that challenging decisions of the Chair is contrary to the Standing Orders and subsequently asked her to withdraw her words. The member replied by saying that the Chair was “acting in a disgraceful manner”. At that point, since she did not appear to be complying with my request to withdraw her words, I rose, and her microphone was deactivated. Even though the member was only a few metres from the Chair, I did not hear what she said after her microphone was turned off, as there was too much noise in the House. The member was named pursuant to Standing Order 11.

The Hansard blues are the unrevised transcript of the debates of the House of Commons. The Debates, on the other hand, are the record of the proceedings, with the necessary editing and grammatical corrections. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 1227, and I quote: “The Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. They are compiled using the audio recording of the proceedings as well as information provided by Parliamentary Publications staff stationed on the floor of the House.”

As Speaker Milliken explained on March 20, 2001, on page 1917 of the Debates, and I quote: “The editors of Hansard always try to be fair and just in reporting and printing what we have said in the House. It is often difficult to determine exactly what was said.”

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2024]

The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Health. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time. This time may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be used for speeches and how much time will be used for questions and answers.

Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with one or more members shall indicate this to the Chair, and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should approximately reflect the time taken by the question, since this time will count toward the time allocated to the member.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours as needed to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that, in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session, starting with the hon. member from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under Department of Justice. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time. This time may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be used for speeches and how much time will be used for questions and answers.

Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with one or more members shall indicate this to the Chair, and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should approximately reflect the time taken by the question, since this time will count toward the time allocated to the member.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all of the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

[Hon. John Fraser, May 21st, 2024]

Colleagues, I thank you for the kind words and thoughts that you have shared and the deep respect you have shown for our 32nd Speaker, the Hon. John Allen Fraser. He lived a long, rich life in service to his country.

I was a page standing in front of this chair, and I can tell everyone how inspiring he was. I can also say how his shoes squeaked every time he stood up, which gave the signal to the pages to stand. When asked what advice he would give a young person, he said, “Try mightily to maintain a vivid curiosity about everything, care about things a great deal and have courage.” Those are, indeed, words to grow and live by.

He had a deep love for the traditions and history of this place. He said that democracy does not function well without a sense of history and that we cannot take freedom and civility for granted. In many ways, his career path led him inevitably to this chamber and to this chair. He started in law and moved into politics.

John Fraser was always interested in politics and an active member of the Progressive Conservative Party, so he finally decided to take the step that everyone here has taken and run for a seat in the House of Commons.

He was elected for the first time in 1972 in the riding of Vancouver South, and he obviously served his constituents well because he was re-elected five times.

He served as Speaker from 1986 to 1994. Following the enactment of significant changes to the Standing Orders, many of his decisions created the basic interpretation of our modern rules and redefined what is appropriate practice in our chamber today.

John Fraser lived a long life of service. We are very grateful for his service to Canada and to this place.

He was also, as was mentioned by several members, a man who loved nature and all creatures, great and small. I heard an interesting anecdote about Speaker Fraser when he used to live at the farm, the official residence for the Speaker. One year there was an infestation of raccoons, and the people who take care of the official residence thought it was appropriate to set raccoon traps throughout the property. Mr. Fraser thought otherwise, so he would get up early, at the crack of dawn, armed with a broomstick, and set off all the traps along the property so the raccoons would not get hurt, much to the befuddlement of the people who took care of the official residence, as they wondered why all the traps were set off and not one raccoon was caught in them.

We extend our deepest condolences to his family, who are here with us today. We hope that John Fraser's remarkable contributions to Canada will bring comfort to his family in their time of grief.

I thank his family for being with him and having him serve not only this place but our great country.