Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Unparliamentary language

April 17, 2007

Debates, pp. 8307-8

On March 21, 2007, Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform) rose on a point of order with respect to language used by Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) during the debate on the motion for concurrence in the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on March 2, 2007. During that debate, Mr. Martin had referred to Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food) as “Il Duce”, had compared the Minister to Mussolini and had characterized the Minister’s actions with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board as “fascism”.^[1] On March 27, 2007, Mr. Martin responded that what is acceptable in parliamentary discourse changes over time and that it was the Minister’s behaviour and not the Minister himself that he had described. Furthermore, he contended that there had been no reaction or disorder brought on by his remarks, and that timeliness was an issue as the point of order had been raised 19 days after the comments had been made. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker stated that the House had been adjourned from March 2 to 19, and Mr. Lukiwski had informed the Speaker of his intention to raise the matter on an earlier occasion but had postponed doing so in the absence of Mr. Martin. He concluded that the matter had been raised at the earliest reasonable opportunity and then took it under advisement.^[2]

On April 17, 2007, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that, while the immediate reaction to Mr. Martin’s comments had been muted, he needed to take into consideration its lingering effect. He underscored the need for free and civil discourse in the House and appealed to Members to take care in their choice of words. He ruled that the language used by Mr. Martin had been unparliamentary and that its inappropriateness was in no way mitigated by the context in which it was used. He then asked that Mr. Martin withdraw his remarks.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order. I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the alleged use of unparliamentary language by the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre on Friday, March 2, 2007.

I would like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for raising this matter, the hon. Chief Government Whip, the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst, and the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre for their interventions.

On March 2, 2007, during the debate on the motion for concurrence in the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre referred to the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as “Il Duce”, compared the Minister to Mussolini and characterized the Minister’s actions relative to the Canadian Wheat Board as “fascism”.

March 2 being the sitting day immediately preceding the two-week March break, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a point of order on March 21, 2007, to take issue with the language used by the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary cited page 150 of Beauchesne’s 6th edition, which lists the word “fascists” among those considered to be unparliamentary. He continued, and I quote from page 7714 of the Debates:

The fascist regime committed untold atrocities during World War II and for any Member of this House to compare another Member to anyone in the fascist regime is unconscionable.

In his intervention, the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre stated that it had not been his intention to call the hon. Minister a fascist, but rather to imply that he had acted like one by virtue of decisions he had taken in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Quoting from page 143 of Beauchesne’s 6th edition as follows, “An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be deemed unparliamentary next week”, he maintained that the words he had used were no longer as “volatile and emotionally charged” as they had once been. He invoked the principles that in these matters the Chair must consider the context in which the disputed remarks were made and whether or not they created disorder in the Chamber.

I undertook to review all of the relevant statements and submissions and to return to the House with a ruling on the matter.

One of the most basic principles of parliamentary procedure is that proceedings in the House be conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse (Marleau and Montpetit, pp. 503-4).

The Chair has often reminded hon. Members of their concomitant duty to use their freedom of speech in a responsible fashion and to exercise moderation in their choice of language.

On the occasion in question, in my view there is no doubt that the term “fascism” is unparliamentary when used to refer to the actions of a Member of Parliament, and the corollary references comparing the Member to Il Duce and Mussolini only exacerbate the problem. In making this determination, I looked carefully at both the context in which these expressions were used and at their immediate and potential effects on the ability of this House to conduct free and civil discourse.

In the opinion of the Chair, the inappropriateness of this language was in no way mitigated by the context in which it was used.

Admittedly, the immediate reaction to the comments in question was somewhat muted and the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre has drawn the attention of the Chair to this circumstance. However, in considering whether or not his remarks created disorder in the Chamber, the Chair cannot look only at the immediate reaction of those present in the Chamber.

In a ruling given on December 11, 1991 found at pages 6141 and 6142 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Fraser reminded Members that offensive remarks can linger and have a suffocating effect on the fair exchange of ideas and points of view. Anything said in this place receives wide and instant dissemination and leaves a lasting impression. Offending words may be withdrawn, denied, explained away, or apologized for, but the impression created is not always as easily erased. He went on to comment:

—few things can more embitter the mood of the House than a series of personal attacks, for in their wake, they leave a residue of animosity and unease.

That residue is the soil from which disorder springs and it is incumbent on the Chair to discourage language so provocative in character that it positively nourishes disorder.

So, once again, I appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House to choose their words with greater care. A reasonable degree of self-discipline is not a luxury; it is indispensable to civilized discourse and to the dignity of this institution.

Whatever the hon. Member’s intentions may have been, the Chair is not in doubt that this language is provocative and under the circumstances, I find that it is also unparliamentary and I ask the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre to withdraw his remarks immediately.

Immediately following the ruling, Mr. Martin rose and withdrew the offending remarks.^[3]