SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 259

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23
The Speaker
  • Nov/30/23 3:52:33 p.m.
  • Watch
I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised on November 27 by the member for Yorkton—Melville concerning language used in question period that day. According to the member, the government House leader made insinuations on the motives of certain members in relation to their vote on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, wondering if it was because they were pro-Russia. Her objection was echoed by the House leader of the official opposition and several members of her party. They referred to the ruling made earlier that day, where a member was asked to withdraw a statement accusing other members of being Hamas supporters. Members felt that being accused of supporting Russia was equally offensive. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, for his part, suggested that the statement was made, and I quote, “with the intention to be provocative and to elicit a response.” He added, and I quote, “it caused disorder in that moment”. He also suggested that the minister apologize. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the comments made respected parliamentary rules and that it was common for members from all sides to reflect on the manner in which a political party votes. I must say that I welcome the comments made by members intervening on this matter. It shows an interest in elevating the tone of debate in the House. It raises the bar for everyone. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie is right right in saying that the language used on Monday created disorder. This is indeed a key factor, one of the most important, in determining whether words used were unparliamentary or not. However, as explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 624, the Speaker must also consider the tone, manner and intention of the member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed and the degree of provocation. On contentious issues, it is not uncommon for members to criticize each other’s positions or to speculate as to why they are voting a certain way. For the most part, these kinds of remarks are part and parcel of vigorous debates. Members often feel that their positions are mischaracterized by others, but that is generally a matter of debate and not something in which the Speaker gets involved. However, the Speaker does have a responsibility for maintaining order and decorum. This can become problematic when a member seeks to associate one of their colleagues with an ideology or an entity whose values we would find odious. In the past, for example, Speakers have judged it unacceptable to compare a member with the wartime fascist regime in Italy or with the racist Ku Klux Klan. As I said on Monday, I believe accusing a member of supporting a violent and anti-Semitic terrorist organization would also fall into this category. These things clearly cross a line, cause disorder and contribute to an overall lowering of the quality of our discourse. Members have suggested that being accused of supporting Russia in the current context should be treated the same way. I think in some circumstances, depending on how such allegations are phrased, that can be true. On Wednesday, for example, I felt it was inappropriate to have accused another member of, and I quote, “cozying up to Russian dictator Vladmir Putin” and I asked for that comment to be withdrawn. I am not certain the comments of the Government House Leader were quite so categorical, though they clearly were not helpful. I suspect that if one were to scour the Debates, one could unfortunately find a series of examples of members, from all parties, attempting to suggest that their colleagues were in some way sympathetic toward regimes we would find brutal or oppressive. Going forward, I would ask all members to stay away from such inflammatory statements and to not attempt to make such provocative associations. Neglecting to do so may result in a member being cut off by the Speaker and a withdrawal being insisted upon. In my statement of October 18, 2023, which can be found at pages 17591 to 17593 of the Debates, I implored members to be mindful of the effect that their choice of words has on the proceedings of the House. I said, on page 17593: ...the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes...making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country. Speaker Milliken made a similar point on May 26, 2009, when addressing a rash of unparliamentary language. He said at page 3703 of the Debates: 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. I would ask all members to reflect on the events of the past several days, on the words used and on the aspersions made and the atmosphere they are creating. It is possible to criticize a party's position on the Middle East without calling members Hamas supporters. It is possible to criticize a party's position on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement without suggesting that members stand four-square behind dictators. I would encourage all members to find ways of engaging in vigorous debate without resorting to these sorts of associations. I thank all members for their attention.
1035 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border