Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Unparliamentary language: Oral Questions; adequacy of Member’s apology called into question

October 1, 2009

Debates, p. 5459

On June 10, 2009, Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order, alleging that Ralph Goodale (Wascana) had, during Oral Questions that day, accused Lisa Raitt (Minister of Natural Resources) of not telling the truth. Mr. Lukiwski contended that this was unparliamentary language and asked for an apology and that the remarks be withdrawn.^[1] On September 18, 2009, Mr. Goodale rose in the House and withdrew any “specific word” that “turns out to be unparliamentary”.^[2] On September 28, 2009, Mr. Lukiwski rose on another point of order acknowledging Mr. Goodale’s apology, but characterizing it as evasive and requesting that the Speaker rule on the matter. The Speaker undertook to review the matter and return to the House as necessary.^[3]

On October 1, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared that it is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is spurious, incorrect, wrong or untrue, if no motives are imputed by the person making such a statement. He then ruled that he found the comments made by Mr. Goodale, that the Minister “cannot tell the truth”, to have been unparliamentary because he was challenging the truthfulness of what she was saying. He concluded that he considered the matter closed since Mr. Goodale had already risen in the House to withdraw the offending remarks.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On June 10, 2009, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order with regard to the use of unparliamentary language by the hon. Member for Wascana. On September 28, 2009, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary reiterated his request for a ruling, noting that he did find the withdrawal of the remarks by the hon. Member for Wascana on September 18 to be sufficient.

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order concerning unparliamentary language.

In first raising his point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary noted that during Question Period the Member for Wascana quite clearly accused the Minister of Natural Resources of not telling the truth, which in his opinion was unparliamentary language.

Making reference to sections of House of Commons Procedure and Practice and Beauchesne’s, concerning unparliamentary language, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that what he found distressing was that the Member for Wascana had used this language in a direct question in a deliberate and premeditated mode. He asked that the Opposition House Leader apologize and withdraw the remarks. He asked that I review the blues of the Debates.

In speaking in reply to the point of order, the Member for Wascana also asked me to review the blues and argued that he had chosen his language very carefully and that it was not beyond the rules of parliamentary procedure, a position he maintained when he later rose to withdraw his remarks.

I had the opportunity to review the Debates of Wednesday, June 10. In his preamble to a supplementary question to the Minister of Natural Resources concerning medical isotopes, the Member for Wascana made the following remark, “Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot give the numbers and clearly she cannot tell the truth either”. That is on page 4419 of the Debates. These comments created disorder in the House and as I pointed out to the Member at the time, such comments were unnecessary.

When the point of order was raised, I reviewed the section on unparliamentary language contained in Beauchesne, and I noted that there are a number of expressions that are very close to what was used, but none is precisely the same. I have also looked at other more recent uses of similar language in the House. There are numerous instances where my predecessors and I have had to rule unparliamentary such phrases as the “Member deliberately misled”, “the Member lied”, “the Member is a liar”, or calling on a Member to “stop lying”. In these cases, the use of such language is clearly unparliamentary.

Similarly, the use of expressions such as “a Member made an untrue statement”, “a Member did not tell the truth”, “the Minister did not tell the truth”, “a Member was not telling the whole truth”, have always been considered unacceptable and met with requests from the Speaker to withdraw the remarks. In one instance, on September 25, 1985, in the Debates at pages 6955-6, in his question, a Member had asked the Prime Minister “to tell the truth to the House of Commons”. Mr. Speaker Bosley noted that there was an improper implication to the question and asked the Member to rephrase it. Unsatisfied with the rephrasing of the question, the Speaker interrupted the Member and stated that making such accusations with regard to the character of a Member was improper in the House. He asked the Member to withdraw and put a simple question of fact.

As Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated in a ruling on October 13, 1966, Debates, page 8599:

My limited experience in the house indicates that it is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another Member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the Member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth.…

I do not believe that saying a statement made is spurious is unparliamentary, or that a statement is incorrect, wrong, or untrue, if no motives are imputed by the person making such a statement.

In his comments, the Member for Wascana stated that he had chosen his words very carefully and that it was not beyond the rules of parliamentary procedure. Nevertheless, it appears that in stating that she could not tell the truth, the Member for Wascana was challenging the truthfulness of what the Minister was saying and the Chair can only conclude that the remarks were unparliamentary.

The Chair notes that the Member for Wascana did rise in the House on Friday, September 18 to withdraw the remarks and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader has since pointed out that this still leaves open the question of whether or not the remarks were or were not unparliamentary. Let me remove all doubt on the matter: the words used were unparliamentary, they have been withdrawn and the Chair considers the matter closed.

I thank the House for its attention.