Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Reference to members of the public

April 24, 2007

Debates, pp. 8585-6

On April 16, 2007, Maria Minna (Beaches–East York) rose on a point of order with respect to comments made by Mike Lake (Edmonton–Mill Woods–Beaumont) on March 28, 2007.^[1] Mr. Lake had, during Statements by Members, spoken critically about a member of the public whom he had named.^[2] Ms. Minna contended that Mr. Lake’s comments had constituted a personal attack on the person named by him and had therefore been in breach of the rules. Responding to the point of order, Mr. Lake disputed the contention that the remarks at issue constituted a personal attack, maintaining that it had been an organization and not a person which had been the object of his criticism. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[3]

On April 24, 2007, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared that Mr. Lake’s statement had concerned issues of public policy rather than persons, notwithstanding the fact that a particular individual had been mentioned by name, that the remarks fell within the broad parameters of the freedom of speech enjoyed by Members, and that therefore no breach of the rules had occurred. He concluded by urging Members to exercise great caution when naming members of the public who were not in a position to defend themselves.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 16, 2007, by the hon. Member for Beaches–East York concerning remarks made by the hon. Member for Edmonton–Mill Woods–Beaumont.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Beaches–East York for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Edmonton–Mill Woods–Beaumont for his response.

In raising this matter, the hon. Member for Beaches–East York stated that during Statements by Members on March 28, 2007 the hon. Member for Edmonton–Mill Woods–Beaumont subjected the executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada to a personal attack. The remarks in question made particular reference to evidence given before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I cannot, of course, deal with allegations arising from proceedings in committee. It is at the Committee itself that the hon. Member for Beaches–East York must raise any concerns regarding the questioning of a particular witness.

I have, however, reviewed with considerable care the statement in the House which gave rise to this point of order. In it the hon. Member for Edmonton–Mill Woods–Beaumont commented on evidence given at a public meeting of a standing committee and therefore a matter of public record. He went on to express certain opinions about that evidence.

In the view of the Chair, his statement concerned issues of public policy rather than persons, notwithstanding the fact that a particular witness was mentioned by name. While some hon. Members might dispute the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Edmonton–Mill Woods–Beaumont or quarrel with his interpretation, his remarks fall clearly within the broad parameters of the freedom of speech enjoyed by all Members of the House.

Having said this, I would encourage hon. Members to exercise great caution before referring to members of the public by name. I quote from page 524 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for the naming of an individual.

Mr. Speaker Fraser elaborated this principle in a ruling delivered on May 26, 1987, in which he said:

I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied.

It is incumbent upon all Members to exercise fairness with respect to those who are not in a position to defend themselves. That being said, the Chair finds no grounds for further action in the present case.

I thank the hon. Member for Beaches–East York again for having brought this matter to the attention of the Chair.