Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Unparliamentary language: personal attacks during Statements by Members

March 12, 2009

Debates, pp. 1631-2

On February 26, 2009, Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord) rose on a point of order with respect to remarks made by Josée Verner (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister for La Francophonie) during Oral Questions earlier that day.^[1] Mr. Guimond claimed that the Minister had accused the Bloc Québécois of supporting threats and acts of violence, and characterized her remarks as offensive and unparliamentary. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs) argued that the Minister had been referring to the newspaper Le Québécois and noted that the Bloc Québécois had purchased advertisements in the paper. He sought and was denied unanimous consent to table a copy in the House. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2] On March 5, 2009, Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu–Nicolet–Bécancour) rose on a similar point of order. He alleged that Shelly Glover (Saint-Boniface) had used similarly offensive language in relation to the Bloc Québécois during Statements by Members^[3] and expressed his belief that the use of such language should be condemned. The Speaker stated that he would review the transcript and get back to the House with a ruling on the matter.^[4]

On March 12, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling on the two points of order. He stated that, while the remarks in question were not unparliamentary in a narrow, technical sense because they had been directed at a party rather than at an individual Member, they were undoubtedly intended to be provocative and had clearly created disorder. He also reminded Members that the Standing Orders provide the Speaker with considerable authority to preserve order and decorum and that, particularly in the case of Statements by Members, transgressors risk being cut off by the Chair. The Speaker concluded by urging Members to refrain from using similar language in the future.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord concerning remarks made during Question Period on Thursday, February 26, 2009, by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Since the hon. Member for Bas-Richelieu–Nicolet–Bécancour raised a point of order on March 5 concerning very similar remarks made that day, I will also rule on that matter in this ruling.

In his submission, the Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord stated that in response to a question he put to the hon. Minister, and following her reply to a question posed by the hon. Member for Québec, the Minister had said that “threats and calls for violence are not part of Quebec’s values. That is more like the Bloc’s ideology.” I am referring to the House of Commons Debates at page 1038.

The Member went on to say that these remarks were offensive, that the Bloc Québécois has always denounced all calls for violence of any kind and, consequently, that to accuse the Bloc Québécois of supporting threats and acts of violence was unparliamentary. The Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord felt that the remarks were in contravention of Standing Order 18, and asked the Chair to rule the hon. Minister’s remarks unparliamentary and require her to withdraw them.

In replying to the point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the Minister’s comments were in reference to the newspaper Le Québécois, the content of which he found offensive. He noted that Members of the Bloc Québécois had purchased advertisements in the paper.

In raising his point of order on March 5, 2009, the Member for Bas-Richelieu–Nicolet–Bécancour stated that he felt that the use of the terms “extremists” and “promotes violence” in reference to the Bloc Québécois that day by the hon. Member for Saint-Boniface during Statements by Members and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister during Oral Questions were also directed to him as a member of that political party. He expressed his belief that the use of such language should be condemned.

As I have stated in the past, it is the duty of the Speaker to ensure that all debates in the House are conducted with a certain degree of civility and mutual respect in keeping with established practice in this House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 503:

Members are to show respect for one another and for different viewpoints; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated. Emotions are to be expressed in words rather than acted out; opinions are to be expressed with civility.

It goes on to mention on page 526:

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.

At the same time, it should be remembered that proceedings in this House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. In addition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 526:

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.

In the case before us, it may appear that the remarks made by the hon. Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, the Member for Saint-Boniface and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, because they were directed to a party rather than an individual Member, were not unparliamentary in a narrow, technical sense. However, they were undoubtedly intended to be provocative and they clearly created disorder.

It should be noted that a considerable body of precedents has developed over the years with respect to Statements by Members. Not only are personal attacks prohibited, but House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 364:

The Speaker has cut off an individual statement and asked the Member to resume his or her seat when offensive language has been used; a Senator has been attacked; the actions of the Senate have been criticized; a ruling of a court has been denounced; and the character of a judge has been attacked.

The Speaker has also cautioned Members not to use this period to make defamatory comments about non-Members, nor to use the verbatim remarks of a private citizen as a statement, nor to make statements of a commercial nature.

I draw this particular quote to the attention of all hon. Members and urge them to have a look at that before statements today at 2 o’clock.

It is, therefore, in the strongest possible terms that I encourage Members to refrain from these sorts of remarks in the future. The Standing Orders provide the Speaker with considerable authority to preserve order and decorum and the Chair wishes to make it perfectly clear that transgressors risk being cut off by the Chair. All Members must realize that such provocative commentary only invites equally inflammatory responses and contributes greatly to the lowering of the tone of our proceedings. In recent weeks I have been obliged to intervene more than once to remind Members on both sides of the House of the standards of order and decorum which are expected of them both by the traditions of the House and by their constituents. Once again, I reiterate the need for proper decorum and temperate language in the House.

Later that day, during Statements by Members, the Speaker interrupted statements by Tim Uppal (Edmonton–Sherwood Park), Sylvie Boucher (Beauport–Limoilou) and Rodney Weston (Saint John) all regarding Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition).^[5] After Oral Questions, Mr. Uppal rose on a point of order to seek clarification from the Speaker as to what is permitted during Statements by Members. He suggested that his statement and that of Ms. Boucher were no different than statements made by Members of the Liberal Party in recent years attacking the Government. Furthermore, he pointed out that his and Ms. Boucher’s statements quoted from the Edmonton Journal. The Speaker reiterated his ruling from earlier in the sitting and encouraged Members to avoid personal attacks on one another in the course of debate in the Chamber, and particularly during Statements by Members, as there is no opportunity for reply.^[6]

Rulings regarding the conduct of Statements by Members can be found in Chapter 3, The Daily Program.