House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 40th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was leader.

Topics

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Someone across the aisle said sure. We will take good note of that.

“Mr. and Mrs. Jackson want us to know that they back the Conservative government. ‘The others are acting like a bunch of baboons and they are idiots’”. These are the words reported in Hansard. She also quoted Mr. and Ms. Caleo, who said, “People should organize and do something before this gang of no-goods take charge of our country”.

As if that did not suffice, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke poured it on even thicker during the time for questions and comments at the urging of the Conservative member for Macleod and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. She quoted Mr. Barry Evans, who wrote, “Regarding the three stooges, is there anything as a person I can do to help?” She also cited Ms. Leedum, “who is very opposed to any coalition. She voted for the Prime Minister. She says that French leader doesn't belong with us.” She quoted a Ms. Hopper who wrote, “I would prefer to have another election than have these egomaniacs govern Canada”. She quoted Ms. Jessop, too, who wrote, “These three stooges' affairs must end”.

In addition to section 18 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which protects us against this kind of language, I would refer you to page 525 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, where it says:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order.

Words like “whiners”, “baboons”, “idiots”, “no-goods” and “stooges” clearly constitute unparliamentary language. Whether they were used directly or quoted does not change their insulting nature.

Mr. Speaker, if you refuse to ask the hon. member to withdraw her remarks, it would mean you agree that things can be said indirectly that cannot be said directly. All the hon. members of this House receive emails and letters like the ones that were quoted. I ask the hon. member to withdraw her remarks and would like you to rule on whether members are permitted to read excerpts from the emails and letters they receive from constituents.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Prince George—Peace River
B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will start by stating the obvious about our new spirit of decorum in the House. During your election, Mr. Speaker, on the first day when this 40th Parliament met, I thought all parties and all 308 members of Parliament committed themselves to greater civility in this chamber, greater decorum—

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

An hon. member

And you broke it.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

I hear people hollering, Mr. Speaker. A member just said “And you broke it”. It is not terribly helpful to point the finger.

During that day, when successive members of all parties, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, allowed their names to stand for the august position of Speaker of this chamber, everyone I thought was in agreement that we should try and move beyond the way in which—

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Including the Prime Minister.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Everybody is pointing a finger. I thought we were going to move beyond that.

It is no great revelation that all of us perhaps have been guilty in the last couple of days of getting tremendously emotional about the situation facing us as a chamber. It obviously makes your life, Mr. Speaker, extremely difficult once again with all this noise, especially when something is happening at the far end of the chamber, and you cannot hear people even beside you let alone at the far end.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I privately brought to you a copy of Hansard from yesterday and pointed out to you a certain quote that was done directly, not indirectly, in this chamber, where a member referred to the Prime Minister as having told lies. You know that is not allowed. It is unparliamentary language—

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

He did.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Here again, Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer across the way says “He did”. How is that helpful to us trying to move beyond this?

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

But he did.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. You have a huge job to do if we are going to get this chamber back under control. All I am suggesting is that all of us need to help you in doing this.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the same point of order. That is not the question. The question is whether we, as parliamentarians, can read here in this House things that we have received in writing, either by email or in a letter, from a citizen who says something that might offend another party.

I did not have the chance to finish my thought earlier, but I would simply like to say that when the member was reading a letter from a citizen, which said: “that French leader doesn't belong with us”, I would like to know what the Conservative leader thinks of such a designation. What does “that French leader” mean?

Does that mean that we do not have the right to sit in this House because we are francophone?

It is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on the original point of order by my hon. friend from the Bloc Québécois. I respectfully suggest that he is wrong when he says the government House leader has misinterpreted and misunderstood what the point of this whole debate is.

My colleagues on this side of the House feel very passionately about our country. Many of our constituents do as well. During this constitutional crisis we have before us, our members and our constituents have spoken loud and clear.

Personally, I have received at my constituency office and my Hill office hundreds upon hundreds of emails and letters, and I know members opposite in the Liberal Party have received the same. The vast majority of these emails and communiqués are consistent. They are suggesting that they do not want to see a separatist coalition.

When the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke stood in the House and read an email, she was well within her rights to reflect the wishes and the views of her constituents.

I would respectfully suggest for my hon. colleague that this is not a point of order, nor should he try to prevent this, because it is Canadians who are speaking loud and clear.

Decorum in the Chamber
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I think we are getting into a debate here and beyond the point of order.

A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord concerning the words used by a member who gave a speech and read some letters. His argument is that the words used while reading the letters would not be acceptable if the member had used them herself without reading the letters.

I would like to take some time to consider the question and I will come back to the House on it. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is not here to explain the situation. If she would like to say anything, of course she will now have the opportunity. I will come back to the House shortly with a ruling on this issue. I will give my ruling, and I hope it will satisfy everyone.

Individual Member's Expenditures
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I have the honour to lay upon the table a document entitled, “Individual Member's Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2007-2008”.

Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement Implementation Committee
Routine Proceedings

December 3rd, 2008 / 3:20 p.m.

Vancouver Island North
B.C.

Conservative

John Duncan Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Report of the Implementation Committee on the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005.