Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Unparliamentary language: expression “modern-day Klansmen”

November 27, 2002

Debates, p. 1949

On November 19, 2002, Yvon Godin (Acadie–Bathurst) rose on a question of privilege alleging that, during Statements by Members that day, Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon–Humboldt) had used unparliamentary language by referring to certain other Members as “modern-day Klansmen”.^[1] Mr. Godin asked the Speaker to rule on the admissibility of the remarks and, if he found them inadmissible, to require Mr. Pankiw to withdraw them. The following day, Mr. Pankiw reaffirmed his original statement and stated that Mr. Godin should withdraw his question of privilege and apologize to him and all Canadians. The Speaker undertook to examine the matter and to return to the House if necessary.^[2]

On November 27, 2002, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded the House that while Members enjoy the privilege of free speech, its exercise implies a great responsibility, and Members must bear in mind the potential impact of their comments. In this instance, the Speaker concluded that Mr. Pankiw’s comments were meant to provoke colleagues. He ruled Mr. Pankiw’s remarks to be unparliamentary and invited him to withdraw them immediately. In response, Mr. Pankiw claimed that the matter should have been raised as a point of order, and not as a question of privilege, as Mr. Godin had done. The Speaker stated that whether it was raised as a point of order or a question of privilege, he reiterated his request that Mr. Pankiw withdraw the unparliamentary remarks. Mr. Pankiw refused to do so and the Speaker indicated that, while he would not be named, he would not be recognized to speak until he had withdrawn the offensive language.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Tuesday, November 19 by the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst alleging that some remarks made by the hon. Member for Saskatoon–Humboldt during Statements by Members were unparliamentary.

Having had the opportunity to review the Debates of November 19, I heard the hon. Member for Saskatoon–Humboldt who rose on November 20 to reply to the allegations of the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst.

My predecessors have on many occasions commented on the always difficult issue of determining what language is unparliamentary. They have often characterized this issue as a question of balance and they have been clear in insisting that every hon. Member shares a part of the responsibility for using respectful language and so helping to maintain order in the House.

I refer hon. Members to page 526 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice where it states:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary the following day…. Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder in the House should not be used. Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.

It is only to be expected that we in this Chamber will hear strong language and forceful expressions of opinion where there are strongly held views on contentious issues. The House of Commons is a place where competing ideas are tested and conflicting passions are given expression. Here in the Chamber, Members enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech that permits them to speak freely. This freedom however implies a great responsibility as well. We must bear in mind the potential impact of our comments.

It can have come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Saskatoon–Humboldt that objection has been taken by Members of this House to being characterized as “modern-day Klansmen”. This is the phrase he used in his original statement and a phrase he made a point of repeating in replying to the original objections raised.

There can be little doubt that the hon. Member meant to provoke his colleagues, not merely to make a strong statement of his views. Under the circumstances, I find that the language used is unparliamentary and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his comment immediately.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon–Humboldt, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, in order for me to properly reply to this, I need clarification. You stated that the Member for Acadie–Bathurst rose on a point of order. In fact it was a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that there is a prima facie case of privilege, yes or no?

The Speaker: I have given a ruling in which I have indicated that whether it is a question of privilege or a point of order, the hon. Member will withdraw his words. I ask him to do so at once.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the 6th edition of Beauchesne’s states in section 485(1) that unparliamentary language may be brought to the attention of the House by any Member but when this is done, it must be done as a point of order and not a question of privilege.

In that regard, you will note from Hansard that the Member for Acadie–Bathurst stood on a question of privilege, not a point of order as required—

The Speaker: I have heard argument on this point before. I heard the hon. Member give his reply to the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst on a previous occasion. I am not disposed to hear further argument on the point at this time.

I am going to ask the hon. Member to withdraw. If he chooses not to do so, I will deal with the matter in another way.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, according to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, chapter 6, “Privilege of freedom of speech”, a Member is entitled to explain the sense in which he used the words so as to remove the objection of their being disorderly. I would now like to exercise that entitlement.

The Speaker: I will leave the matter there and deal with the matter in my own way. I have asked the hon. Member to withdraw and he has refused to do so. Accordingly, I am not going to name the Member, but he will have trouble speaking.

The following day, November 28, 2002, Mr. Pankiw apologized for not respecting the authority of the Chair, and withdrew the remarks judged unparliamentary.^[3]