New Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia hopes he doesn't have to give anyone a game misconduct
By
Sitting in his stately office just down the corridor from the Chamber of the House of Commons, where he has to keep the sometimes rowdy MPs in order, the new Speaker of the House used a hockey analogy to describe his job.
'You're not seeking to give a penalty or a game misconduct,' said Francis Scarpaleggia, who was elected Speaker on May 26, the first day of the new Parliament. 'That's not what you're looking to do.'
Scarpaleggia, who lives in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, has been the member of Parliament for the West Island riding of Lac-Saint-Louis since 2004. In the last session of Parliament, debates and question period became increasingly acrimonious, with heated fights between former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre. Previous speaker Greg Fergus kicked Poilievre out of the Commons in April 2024 after the head of the Conservatives called Trudeau 'wacko' for supporting British Columbia's past policy of decriminalizing some hard drugs.
In an interview last week, his second week on the job as Speaker, Scarpaleggia said so far the verbal sparring in question period has been relatively polite. A couple of hours later during question period, there was some energetic back-and-forth between the Liberals and both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, with the opposition parties criticizing Prime Minister Mark Carney for failing to make a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump on tariffs and not doing enough about inflation. But no one called Carney a wacko.
'The trick is to find that fine line between maintaining order and allowing enough latitude to the opposition to express themselves,' Scarpaleggia said. 'Of course that line changes depending on the mood of the House on any given day. But we're at the start of a mandate and things so far have been going well.'
The Speaker's job doesn't just involve keeping the MPs in the chamber in line. They are also the liaison between Parliament and the Crown, which is why Scarpaleggia introduced King Charles before the monarch gave the Throne Speech last month. He also has to wear that unusual-looking hat and leads what is called a parade to open each day's Parliamentary session. The position also has a diplomatic side that involves the Speaker liaising with ambassadors and embassies representing other countries. He is also in charge of the administration and finances of the House of Commons.
When we spoke, Scarpaleggia was still getting used to the job.
'Second week in the role, so every day is a learning experience,' Scarpaleggia said. 'But I've been watching Speakers perform their duties for 20 years.'
The Speaker is elected by a secret ballot. There were six candidates, all Liberal, after the two Conservative candidates, Chris d'Entremont and John Nater, dropped out of the running.
There is an informal campaign leading up to the vote.
'You do have lots of conversations with colleagues from all sides of the House before,' Scarpaleggia said. 'You make lots of phone calls.'
A tradition that the prime minister and leader of the opposition pull the Speaker to the chair on his or her first day resulted in a funny photo of Carney and interim opposition leader Andrew Scheer dragging him to his chair.
'That goes back apparently many centuries ... when the King was still very powerful and even though he granted rights to the Commons, the Speaker, as representative of the Commons, could incur the wrath of the King, with a fatal end,' said Scarpaleggia. 'So when the Throne Speech is read … (the Speaker) reads a statement to the Governor General, or in this case the King, where he or she says basically, 'If you're displeased with something, it's not the fault of my fellow members of Parliament, I take the blame.' So you can understand that many centuries ago, it was a risky job, which is why they had to drag the person into it. Obviously it's done as performance. The tradition is to be dragged in and to pretend to resist.'
Scarpaleggia, 68, receives an extra $99,900 to serve as Speaker, in addition to his salary of $209,800 as MP. He gets an apartment in the West Block and has an official estate in Gatineau Park, known as The Farm. It is used for hosting foreign dignitaries. His wife, Jan Ramsay, spends more time in Ottawa with him, because their two daughters are in their mid-20s.
He was national caucus chairman for the Liberals from 2011 to 2021 and he has chaired many Commons committees over the years.
As Speaker, he has to be non-partisan. He can't criticize the government or the opposition. He no longer votes in the Commons unless there's a tie, in which case he casts the tie-breaking vote. This is a minority Liberal government, with 169 MPs, three shy of a majority. If there was ever a tie in a vote of confidence, Scarpaleggia said he would have to vote to keep the government in power.
'The Speaker wouldn't vote to cause an election,' he said.
Scarpleggia went to Loyola High School, then Marianopolis College before receiving a B.A., honours, in economics from McGill. He also has degrees from Columbia and Concordia.
He was legislative assistant to MP Clifford Lincoln from 1994 to 2004. Lincoln, 96, was at Scarpaleggia's riding office on election night and remains a close friend.
Scarpaleggia is a passionate music fan who still sees lots of shows.
'I like it all. I like it when it's fresh and innovative. I like a Jack White quite a lot. That might come as a surprise. I saw him at Place Bell a few years back. One of the first albums that my father bought me when I was very young, at 11 or maybe 12, (was) The Band album, the second one, and I wore that thing out.'
When asked for his favourite artist of all time, he jokes that given his Speaker's job 'impartiality requires me not to choose between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Poll suggests half of Canadians believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
OTTAWA – A new poll suggests that nearly half of Canadians believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza almost two years after the current conflict began. In a survey conducted last weekend, the polling firm Leger asked Canadians and Americans a series of questions about the conflict in the Gaza Strip. Leger surveyed 1,511 Canadians and 1,011 Americans between June 6 and June 8. The poll cannot be assigned a margin of error because online surveys are not considered truly random samples. The polling comes as the federal government is under pressure to take concrete steps to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Leger asked respondents whether they 'agree or disagree that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip' based on how they 'define what constitutes a genocide.' The UN declared genocide a crime under international law in 1946. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines it as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. That can include killing members of the group, causing them serious injury, deliberately inflicting conditions that can be dangerous to their lives, imposing measures to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring children from the group to another group. Just less than half of the Canadian respondents, 49 per cent, said they agree that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, including 23 per cent who said they strongly agree and 26 per cent who said they somewhat agree. Another 21 per cent said they disagree with the claim that Israel is committing genocide — 10 per cent said they somewhat disagree and 11 per cent said they strongly disagree. The remaining 30 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer. Conservative supporters were the least likely to say they believe Israel is committing genocide, with 37 per cent agreeing with the statement and 33 per cent disagreeing. More than 60 per cent of Liberal, NDP, Green Party and Bloc Québécois supporters said they agree Israel's actions amount to genocide. The poll was conducted just days before the Canadian government took action against Israeli cabinet ministers it accuses of inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. On Tuesday, a group of five countries including Canada announced sanctions against Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The five countries accused the ministers of calling for the displacement of Palestinians and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Last month, an open letter from Prime Minister Mark Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza and called the level of suffering in the territory 'intolerable.' The letter threatened concrete actions if the Israeli government did not allow more food aid into Gaza and end its military operations there. It also called on Hamas to release its remaining hostages. In response to the genocide question, 38 per cent of Americans polled said they agree Israel is committing genocide, while 26 per cent said they disagree and 36 per cent said they don't know. Supporters of the Democrats – 52 per cent – and Americans under the age of 35 – 53 per cent – were the most likely to call the situation in Gaza a genocide. More than half of Canadians, 54 per cent, said they don't follow news about the Middle East or the current conflict in the Gaza Strip. Just nine per cent said they're following news about the Gaza conflict very closely, and another 35 per cent said they're following somewhat closely. American respondents reported almost the same levels of engagement. Despite that, 49 per cent of Canadians and 54 per cent of American respondents said they feel they have a very good or fairly good understanding of the conflict in Gaza. Opinions on mainstream media reporting about the conflict were evenly split, with 20 per cent of Canadian respondents saying they feel the media has been 'generally balanced.' Another 20 per cent said they feel the coverage has been more favourable toward Palestinians and 21 per cent said it was more favourable to Israel. American respondents reported almost identical responses. Many Canadians surveyed were pessimistic about the possibility of a peaceful resolution. When asked whether they believe that lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians can be reached, 41 per cent of Canadian respondents said no, 28 per cent said yes and 31 per cent said they don't know. Canadian respondents over age 55 were the least optimistic — 51 per cent of them said a lasting peace cannot be achieved. Americans were more evenly split, with 34 per cent saying they think peace is out of reach and 33 per cent saying it can be achieved. The polling industry's professional body, the Canadian Research Insights Council, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population. — With files from David Baxter This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.


Ottawa Citizen
2 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
U.S. warns Canada is not yet ready to handle F-35 fighter jets
Article content U.S. officials warned that the Canadian military didn't have the proper facilities to house the F-35 stealth fighter jet, forcing a redesign of the buildings and extra costs for Canadian taxpayers, according to a new report by Canada's auditor general. Article content The Americans also highlighted ongoing concerns in Canada's plans to support the arrival of the first planes in 2028. Article content Article content Article content The Liberal government announced in January 2023 it was spending $19 billion to acquire 88 F-35s from the U.S. government. Article content As part of the F-35 program, the Americans have a say on whether hangars and other facilities being built in Canada to house the aircraft are up to their standards. Such a requirement is needed to protect the U.S. technology outfitted on the stealth fighters. Article content But such standards weren't met for the infrastructure originally being built at military bases at Cold Lake, Alta and Bagotville, Que., said the auditor general's report, which was released on June 10. Article content In addition, the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, which oversees the continued operation and sustainment of the F-35, including those in foreign service, noted that Canada wasn't ready to receive the plane because of ongoing issues. Article content 'In June 2024, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office conducted an assessment of the interim operations plan to determine how ready National Defence was to support the first aircraft arrival in Cold Lake in December 2028,' Auditor General Karen Hogan noted in the report. 'The overall rating for this assessment was 'RED,' meaning that significant issues remained unresolved and required senior leadership action.' Article content Article content Both DND officials and staff at the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office noted additional requirements that were needed, including the redesign of the facilities to handle the jets, the auditor found. Article content Article content That, and other problems dogging Canada's F-35 program, meant that the cost of the project is now $27.7 billion, according to Hogan's report. That is nearly 50 per cent more than originally anticipated, she added. Article content Another $5.5 billion will be needed to achieve full operation capability for the planes, Hogan added. Article content The DND released a statement Tuesday that it accepted Hogan's findings and is working to follow her recommendations to improve the project. Article content Defence Minister David McGuinty blamed the cost overruns on inflation and the pandemic but told journalists Tuesday that Canada is soon to receive its first 16 F-35s. 'We'll be taking possession of those 16 F-35 fighter jets in the next several months,' he added.


Winnipeg Free Press
6 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5% – 25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.