Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

References to Members

February 19, 2001

Debates, pp. 881-2

On February 14, 2001, Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny) rose on a point of order with regard to a question addressed by Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour–Petitcodiac) and the answer given by Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) during that day’s Oral Questions.^[1] Mr. Sauvageau alleged that remarks he had made during Statements by Members on February 13, 2001, concerning the IVth Games of La Francophonie,^[2] had been knowingly misinterpreted by both Members. He argued that the House had been misled by the Members who attributed to him comments that he had never made and claimed that what was said in the House by the Members was inaccurate and impugned his integrity and honesty. Mr. Sauvageau asked that the offending remarks be removed from Hansard and that the Members concerned be obliged to withdraw their remarks and apologize. The Speaker replied that he did not consider the matter to be a point of order but rather a disagreement as to facts. After another Member spoke, the Speaker declared that he would look into the matter and return to the House, if warranted.^[3]

On February 19, 2001, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that, after reviewing the videotape of the exchange in question and the transcript of the Debates, it was clear to him that what had been said was neither a personal attack nor a direct quotation. The Speaker concluded that the matter was a disagreement as to facts.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order, please. I wish to rule today on a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Repentigny on February 14, 2001. This point of order concerns comments made by the hon. Member for Beauséjour–Petitcodiac during Question Period.

The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Repentigny concerns a question put by the hon. Member for Beauséjour–Petitcodiac to the Government House Leader. In phrasing his question, the hon. Member for Beauséjour–Petitcodiac referred to a statement by “The Bloc Québécois”.

When the hon. Member for Repentigny raised the point of order, he claimed to have been targeted by that comment and quoted the statement he had made during the time allotted to Statements by Members on Tuesday, February 13, 2001.

The hon. Member for Repentigny argues that the hon. Member for Beauséjour–Petitcodiac attributed to him comments that he never made. He objects to the interpretation given to his statement by the hon. Member for Beauséjour–Petitcodiac and claims that what was said in the House was inaccurate and impugned his integrity and honesty. He also asks that the comments be withdrawn and that an apology be offered.

I checked the videotape of the exchange that took place on February 14 and the transcript of the Debates, and I can confirm that what was said was not a personal attack or a quotation.

The comments made did not refer to a specific individual and constituted, at most, a partisan remark by one party about another.

Speaker Fraser, who had to rule on a similar question on May 15, 1991, stated the following at page 100 of Debates:

The hon. Member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind of issue to raise. The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on answers that are given. It is not a question of privilege, it is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.

I finish the quotation from Speaker Fraser and I say we have witnessed exactly the same thing today.

In this case involving the hon. Member for Repentigny, the exchange also constitutes a disagreement.

I repeat what I said when the point of order was raised, that “there is a disagreement concerning the facts in this case” and that “it is not up to the Speaker to rule that this is a point of order”.

I would like to thank the hon. Members who intervened in this matter.

Following the Speaker’s ruling, Mr. Sauvageau rose to ask whether it implied that henceforth Members of the Bloc Québécois would be entitled to attribute “outrageous remarks” to Members of the Liberal Party. The Speaker answered that it was not his role for the moment to interpret his ruling for Members, that the ruling was clear, and that Mr. Sauvageau might read it and decide for himself whether it was “clear” and “wise”.^[4]