Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

References to Members: dispute as to facts; impugning motives; personal attacks

June 14, 2005

Debates, pp. 7095-7

On June 3, 2005, Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) rose on a point of order charging Pierre Poilievre (Nepean–Carleton) with making inappropriate allegations, during Oral Questions earlier in the sitting, against a Senator and against Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) in connection with their alleged involvement in the awarding of Government contracts. After hearing from other Members, the Deputy Speaker (Chuck Strahl) stated that it was improper to impugn motives or question the integrity of parliamentarians and that he would review the transcripts of that day’s Oral Questions and report back to the House if necessary.^[1] On June 6, 2005, Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) rose on another point of order with regard to similar remarks made during that day’s Oral Questions by Mr. Poilievre.^[2] When Mr. Poilievre had alluded to “Liberals caught breaking the law”, which elicited a strong reaction from some other Members, the Speaker had intervened to point out that the question was not out of order since it did not accuse any Member of breaking the law, but he had cautioned against creating a disturbance.^[3] Mr. Szabo argued in both of his points of order that Mr. Poilievre had brought a Member of the Senate and the Minister into disrepute, and that consequently the questions had been out of order. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker informed the House that he did not think Mr. Poilievre had contravened any Standing Order in his question and urged the Members to meet and discuss the matter that seemed to be a dispute over words that were used in committee. The Speaker also stated that he would look into the matter and return to the House if necessary.^[4]

On June 14, 2005, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the House was faced with two different interpretations of the same events connected to the awarding of certain Government contracts, and that it was not up to the Chair to determine which interpretation was the correct one. However, after reviewing the supplementary question asked on June 3, 2005 by Mr. Poilievre, he did feel that the suggestion that the contract in question was a “dirty deal” did indeed impugn motives and had therefore been out of order. He reminded Members that Standing Order 18 prohibits disrespectful reflections on parliamentarians of either House. In addition, while the remarks made on June 6, 2005 had not contravened the Standing Orders, he noted that they had caused disorder and this was unacceptable. Noting Mr. Poilievre’s allusions to his consultations with the Clerk concerning his questions, the Speaker cautioned Members against such references to private consultations with the Chair or the clerks at the Table, lest this compromise the reciprocal atmosphere of trust and confidentiality. In closing, the Speaker commented on the importance of Oral Questions and urged all Members to remain cognizant of the fine line between holding the Government and its Members to account, and attacking the conduct of individuals, including Senators.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the points of order raised by the hon. Member for Mississauga South concerning remarks made during the Question Period of Friday, June 3, 2005, and Monday, June 6, 2005, by the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton about the awarding of Government contracts involving a Member of the other place.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I also wish to thank the hon. Minister for Public Works and Government Services, the hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton for their comments.

In his initial intervention, the hon. Member for Mississauga South stated that, in the preamble of a question posed by the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton during Question Period on June 3, 2005, the Member had discredited the reputation of a Member of the other place, made allegations of wrongdoing and attributed incorrect statements to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The hon. Member for Mississauga South suggested that the Member’s questions should have been ruled out of order. He also asked that the Deputy Speaker look at the evidence from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of June 2, 2005, which he claimed showed that the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton was fully aware that the statements he made in his preambles were incorrect.

In commenting on this point of order, the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton stated that the remarks in his preambles had been based on the testimony of the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services before the Standing Committee where, he claimed, the Minister had admitted that section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act had been contravened by a Member of the other place.

The Deputy Speaker stated that in his opinion the first question had been in order. However, he expressed concern about the hon. Member’s supplementary question in that it may have impugned the motives or questioned the integrity of Members of this House or Members of the other place. He undertook to review the supplementary question and return to the House if necessary.

On June 6, 2005, the hon. Member for Mississauga South rose on a point of order following Question Period to protest that the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton had again asked questions which directly or indirectly attacked a Member of the other place. He requested once again that I look at the transcripts of the proceedings of the Standing Committee.

Following interventions by the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton and the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, I informed the House that I did not think the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton had contravened any Standing Order in his question. I also urged the Members to meet and discuss the matter and I asked all hon. Members to show restraint in phrasing questions and answers. Nonetheless, I also undertook to look into the matter and report back to the House. I am now ready to deal with both complaints.

In examining these points of order, I have reviewed the questions that were asked during both Question Periods and I have reviewed the transcripts of the June 2, 2005 meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The hon. Member for Mississauga South argued that the questions posed by the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton contradicted the evidence given in the Committee and that the Member deliberately continued to impugn the motives of a Member of the other place. The Chair has, of course, now looked at the Debates and at the Committee Evidence in dispute.

As your Speaker, I am mindful that it is a wise and longstanding practice of my predecessors not to be drawn into debate. It appears that a dispute over interpretation of events is indeed what we have here, and that is a matter of debate. I suggested when this objection was raised with me that “if the Members got together and looked at the transcript and figured out what language was used, it might temper the questions and the answers in future which would make it easier for all hon. Members, not just the Speaker”.

Having now had an opportunity to review all the evidence, I realize this suggestion can only be helpful when Members’ exchanges are made in good faith, in the interests of bringing the facts of the situation to light. The suggestion falls on deaf ears when such exchanges are instead a continual and arguably disingenuous repetition of selected quotations. This sort of exchange does little to raise the level of debate or enlighten the House.

In the circumstances, then, as I have noted in the past, when the House is faced with two different interpretations of events, it is not up to the Speaker to determine which is correct.

However, I have also reviewed the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton on June 3. His suggestion that the contract in question was “a dirty deal” impugns motives and is indeed out of order.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind all hon. Members that Standing Order 18 prohibits disrespectful reflections on Members of this place as well as on Members of the other place. As is stated at page 522 of Marleau and Montpetit:

References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged and it is out of order to question a Senator’s integrity, honesty or character. This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party”.

In addition, the House will note that while the remarks on June 6 may not have contravened the Standing Orders, they did lead to disorder in the House. That is unacceptable under our practice.

In conclusion, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton, who indicated in his intervention on the point of order that he had prior consultations with the Clerk of the House about his questions. I would like to caution the hon. Member for Nepean–Carleton, and indeed all hon. Members, to refrain from referring to private consultations they may have had with the Chair or the Table.

Ultimately, such consultations are intended to assist Members, not to prejudge a future situation. For example, in judging the language that an hon. Member might use, the Chair must be guided not just by vocabulary. A myriad of factors must be considered: context and tone, circumstances and the reaction of the House. The very same words that will be intended and heard as a witticism in one instance may be seen as a grave insult in other circumstances. The Chair and the Table try to be helpful to all hon. Members, but an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality works both ways.

Finally, let me just say that the right of Members to seek information from the Government and the right to hold the Ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary Government, principally exercised through the asking of questions in the House. The importance of Question Period in our system is undeniable. However, all hon. Members must walk a fine line between holding the Government and its Members to account and attacks on the conduct of individuals, including those who are Members of the other place.

Canadians will judge all of us and the House of Commons as a whole on what they see of us on television and how they see us working. I would urge all hon. Members to remember that in all their exchanges in the House but especially in Question Period.