The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Statements by Members: personal attacks

April 29, 2009

Debates, p. 2871

On April 29, 2009, the Speaker interrupted a statement being made by John Duncan (Vancouver Island North) during Statements by Members judging that it constituted a personal attack against Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic) and John Rafferty (Thunder Bay–Rainy River).^[1] Later in the sitting, Mr. Duncan rose on a point of order arguing that he had been making statements of fact rather than personal attacks.^[2]

The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. He stated that, while attacks on the position of a political party are in order, attacks on individual Members are not as there is no opportunity for reply. He referred to his ruling of March 12, 2009, and noted that statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31 are not intended as debate.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The issue with the statement by the hon. Member for Vancouver Island North was he dealt with specific Members in the House in his statement. In my view, the earlier statements he referred to, there were some quotations from Members, but that is it. Then the attacks appeared to go against an entire party for being inconsistent, or whatever other words Members may have used. I did not memorize them all and I would not.

There is a difference between an attack on a party’s position or a party’s apparent decision from an attack on an individual Member. That is what happened in the course of the hon. Member’s statement. He went after two Members for their vote on a particular item and the statements those individuals had made. In my view it constituted an attack.

There was one very similar one earlier in the week, quoting, I believe, the same hon. Members. I did not get up at that time, but I did speak to the hon. Member who made the statement and indicated my displeasure and unwillingness to countenance this again. The Member received a warning from me. It was not done in public; it was done in private.

In this case, being the second time this week I have heard the same statement, or a very similar statement, I moved to end it.

In the circumstances, I would urge hon. Members to look at what they are going to say. Attacks on party positions are entirely permitted. I have not ruled those out of order. I have simply said that attacks on individual Members are out of order because, as the hon. Member for Vancouver East said in her statement, there is no opportunity for a general reply. We have lots of those during Question Period, but there are opportunities for supplementary questions or responses to questions during that period.

Standing Order 31’s are not intended as debate. They are statements by Members. I quoted that in my original ruling on this subject and indicated very clearly that they should not be used for attacks on individual Members. It was the individual part of it that I objected to in the hon. Member’s statement and it was on this basis that I interrupted him. I am sure he will take it to heart in future.