Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Unparliamentary language: Oral Questions; distinction between calling a Minister a “liar” and using the word “lies”

November 23, 2009

Debates, pp. 7082-3

On November 3, 2009, Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) rose on a point of order, alleging that, during Oral Questions that day, Gilles Duceppe (Laurier–Sainte-Marie) had repeatedly accused Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism) of being a liar and asked him to withdraw his remarks. Mr. Duceppe denied calling the Minister a liar but admitted using the word “lies”, arguing that this was acceptable according to past practice and refused to withdraw his words. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker cautioned Members against using these words at all and stated that he would review the video recordings and return to the House if necessary.^[1]

On November 23, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that, after reviewing Hansard and the video recordings, he had been unable to discern what term had actually been used in reference to the Minister and that, in accordance with long-standing practice, he had to take Mr. Duceppe at his word. He added that he did not, however, want to leave the impression that words could be uttered in strict isolation without taking into account their effect on decorum in the Chamber. In view of this, he declared that he found that the remarks made by Mr. Duceppe had created such disorder that the dignity of the House had been compromised, and that they were therefore unparliamentary. He asked Mr. Duceppe to withdraw his remarks.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on November 3, 2009, regarding the language used by the hon. Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie during Oral Questions that day. I want to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for having brought this matter to my attention, as well as the hon. Member for Lévis–Bellechasse and the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord, for sharing their views.

In his submission the Parliamentary Secretary alleged that the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie repeatedly accused the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism of being a liar and asked the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie to withdraw the remarks.

For his part, the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie denied calling the Minister a liar but admitted that he used the word “lies”, arguing that this was in fact acceptable as per past practice.

As I committed to do, I have reviewed Hansard and the video tapes of the exchange in question. Unable to discern what term was actually used in reference to the Minister, I must take the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie at his word as is the long-standing practice. That being said, I would be remiss in my duties as your Speaker if I left hon. Members with the impression that words can be uttered in strict isolation without taking into account their effect on decorum in the Chamber. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 619:

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 at issue 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.

In another ruling concerning unparliamentary language delivered on May 26, 2009, at pages 3702 and 3703 of the Debates, I stated:

… 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.

These words ring as true today as they did then and are equally instructive in determining the acceptability of language used by hon. Members.

As I have done in the past, I appeal to all 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. That point has been made in several of the points of order raised earlier this day.

Accordingly, in the matter before us today, I must find that the remarks made by the Member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie did create such disorder that the dignity of this House was compromised, and as such were unparliamentary. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his words.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.

Immediately following the Speaker’s ruling, Mr. Duceppe withdrew his words.