SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 329

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 11, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24
The Speaker
  • Jun/11/24 10:03:33 a.m.
  • Watch
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 30, 2024, by the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin regarding unparliamentary language. During question period that day, the Chair intervened after the member for Calgary Forest Lawn used the phrase “anti-Alberta minister”. In his point of order, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin asked the Chair to clarify what constitutes unparliamentary language, because he asserted that the terms “anti-Alberta” and “anti-Quebec” had been used in the past with no objection from the Chair. The member expressed concern that the list of unparliamentary terms is getting longer and longer. When the point of order was raised, I promised to review the issue. The Chair must take into account a whole range of factors before forming an opinion on what members perceive as inappropriate language. I would refer members to page 623 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote: “[T]he use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.” However, a little later, on page 624, that book states the following, and I quote: “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 important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.” In short, the Chair is required, often in the heat of the action, to assess the content of remarks, but also to take into account more subjective and contextual factors. As a result, a term found to be unparliamentary in one situation may not be considered unparliamentary in another. This may occur not because the Chair is being inconsistent but rather because the tone, intention and reaction are different. Language found to be acceptable when used in a general sense may be unacceptable when it targets a specific person. The Chair may be stricter to prevent a given situation from degenerating, while in other circumstances, the Chair would be inclined to let the comment pass or issue a warning rather than rule it unparliamentary. Each case must be considered in its specific context. It is true that the term “anti-Alberta” has been used without being deemed unparliamentary. However, calling a member or a minister “anti-Alberta” could fall into either category. In the moment, out of an abundance of caution perhaps, the Chair directed the member for Calgary Forest Lawn to rephrase his question. As for the second aspect of the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin's point of order, the Chair notes that no list of unparliamentary words exists. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 624, “language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day.” As I just explained, it all depends on the context, tone, intention and reaction. The Chair therefore encourages members to choose their words with care so that we can have vigorous debates without lapsing into incivility. I thank all members for their attention.
542 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border