Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Unparliamentary language

May 26, 2009

Debates, pp. 3702-3

On May 14, 2009, Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order arising from that day’s Oral Questions to accuse Gilles Duceppe (Laurier–Sainte-Marie) of having used derogatory and unparliamentary language when he had suggested that certain Ministers of the Crown were lying. Mr. Duceppe responded by stating that he had simply been echoing remarks made by Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) during the previous sitting when he had characterized a Bloc Québécois statement as “an untruth”. The Speaker, while commenting that the language in question was unacceptable, indicated that he would review the transcripts and get back to the House. Pierre Paquette (Joliette) asked the Speaker for reassurance of fair treatment and encouraged him to review the transcripts. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs) denied that the Minister had accused any Member of lying, to which Mr. Duceppe responded that he himself had been addressing an institution and not a particular Member, as the Minister had done. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Later in the sitting, Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord) also rose on a point of order arising out of Oral Questions, in which he alleged that Gary Goodyear (Minister of State for Science and Technology) had used the term “dishonest” in his response to a question. Mr. Guimond requested that the Speaker determine whether the word “dishonest” constituted unparliamentary language. The Speaker again took the matter under advisement, stating that he would get back to the House if necessary.^[2]

On May 26, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling on both points of order. He declared that while it might be argued in a purely technical sense that the language used by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had not been directed at a particular individual, a review of the video had led him to the conclusion that the Minister should withdraw the word complained of. In the case of Mr. Duceppe, the Speaker declared that while some of his remarks had been of a general nature, his comment that the Prime Minister’s responses were “full of lies” was unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. In addition, he ruled that the term “dishonest” as used by the Minister of State for Science and Technology cast doubt on the honesty of the Member posing the question and had also been out of order and should be withdrawn. The Speaker reminded Members that certain words, though not aimed specifically at individuals and therefore not technically out of order, could still cause disruption and would be disallowed by the Speaker. He accordingly called upon all three Members to withdraw their remarks.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the points of order concerning unparliamentary language raised on May 14, 2009 by the Government House Leader with regard to the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie and by the Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord concerning remarks made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology.

I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord for raising these matters. I also thank the hon. Members for Laurier–Sainte-Marie and Joliette as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for their interventions.

In raising his point of order, the Government House Leader stated that the Leader of the Bloc Québécois used derogatory and unparliamentary language and accused Ministers of the Crown of lying. He pointed out that the use of such language was unacceptable and asked the Speaker to take disciplinary action.

In his reply, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that he had used the same language as that used by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the previous day during Question Period.

In his intervention, the Member for Joliette reiterated the remarks of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, particularly the plea for equitable treatment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs contended that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had not aimed his comments at any particular Member, unlike the Leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to remind the Members that on a number of occasions I have quoted page 526 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which 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.

I have now reviewed the Debates of May 13 and 14. On May 13, at the end of his reply to a question posed by the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had stated: “To say that we are hindering Quebec is an untruth. What we are doing is giving it a boost.” (p. 3446 in the Debates). It is possible in a purely technical sense to argue, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has done, that the transcript shows that these remarks are not directed to any specific individual and therefore are not out of order. A review of the video of the exchange in question has given me a better understanding of the context and suggests to me that quite a different impression may well have been left by the Minister when he used the word complained of. This has led me to conclude that the Minister should withdraw the word.

In his comments on the point of order, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois had stated: “Mr. Speaker, when I say the Government is telling lies, I am not addressing the specific individual, but an institution.” (Debates, p. 3529). However, having reviewed the beginning of the preamble to his question on May 14, this is not entirely the case. The Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie has made the point that this part of his preamble was of a general nature, similar to that of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. However, he then added that the Prime Minister’s responses were also full of lies and this is where his remarks became clearly unparliamentary. And as the House is aware, I did advise the Member at that time that the remark was unparliamentary and asked him to withdraw it.

After a full review of the remarks made on May 14, I must conclude that the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie did indeed use unparliamentary language in reference to the Prime Minister and therefore that he should withdraw the words complained of.

I wish now to address the second point of order, namely the one raised by the Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord on May 14.

In his submission, the Member pointed out that the Minister of State for Science and Technology had used the word “dishonest” in his reply to a question posed by the Member for Shefford. The Whip of the Bloc Québécois asked the Speaker to determine if such a term was acceptable to the House and, if he found it unparliamentary, to ask the Minister to withdraw the word.

Having examined the Debates, it appears to me that the remark of the Minister of State casts doubt on the honesty of the Member who posed the question and, as such, is unparliamentary. I would, therefore, request the Minister of State for Science and Technology to withdraw this remark.

The two cases just considered highlight an increasingly common difficulty the Chair has faced of late and, as Members know, they enjoy practically unfettered freedom of speech in the Chamber. It is in this context that the Speaker is obliged by Standing Order 10 to, “… preserve order and decorum… ”, while Standing Order 18 obliges Members not to, “… use offensive words against either House or against any Member thereof”.

I want to reiterate that certain words, while not always aimed specifically at individuals and, therefore, arguably technically not out of order, can still cause disruption, can still be felt by those on the receiving end as offensive and therefore can and do lead to disorder in the House.

It is that kind of language that I, as Speaker, am bound by our rules not only to discourage but to disallow. That is why I am appealing to all hon. Members to be very judicious in their choice of words and thus avoid creating the kind of disorder that so disrupts our proceedings and so deeply dismays the many citizens who observe our proceedings.

It is in that spirit of cooperation that I now call upon the hon. Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie, the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology to withdraw the remarks that gave rise to this ruling.

Subsequently, all three Members concerned withdrew their remarks.^[3]