Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum
References to Members: misleading versus deliberately misleading the House
Debates, p. 6292
Context
On February 1, 2007, Charlie Angus (Timmins–James Bay) rose on a point of order, alleging that Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Status of Women) had accused him, during that day’s Oral Questions, of misleading the House. Mr. Angus requested that the Minister withdraw her remarks.[1]
Resolution
The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that it was not out of order to say that a Member had misled the House, contrasting it to stating that a Member had deliberately misled the House. Accordingly, he concluded that the point of order was not valid.
Decision of the Chair
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Member may want to put all kinds of facts on the record, but points of order are not opportunities for debate.
The Member has raised a point of order. He has said the Minister used words that were incorrect in her answer by suggesting that the hon. Member had misled the House. Now he is putting another set of facts here, which could go on for some time. I respect the fact that he may be interested in doing that, but there are ways he can do it. He can arrange for a late show, for example, in respect to the question he asked today, and have a much more extended debate on the subject then. In terms of the facts, that is exactly what he should do.
With respect to the statement the Minister made that the hon. Member misled the House, I point out to him that the Chair has never ruled, that I am aware of, that stating that a Member has misled the House is out of order. “Deliberately”, yes, but Members mislead the House for various reasons. Members may make a statement that is perfectly correct, but the person hearing it is perhaps not thinking straight, gets things mixed up, is misled, and therefore thinks the House has been misled because the person thinks everyone thinks like that Member. Misleading the House has never been unparliamentary that I am aware of.
While I respect the hon. Member’s objection, I do not believe he has a valid point of order in that the Minister, and I listened very carefully, did not say that he deliberately misled the House, which of course would have invoked all kinds of censure from the Chair. I respect the hon. Member’s view, but in the circumstances I do not believe he has a valid point of order.
Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.
[1] Debates, February 1, 2007, pp. 6291-2.