I am now ready to rule on the matter raised Tuesday last by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway concerning the speech of the hon. member for Central Nova on September 20, 1994 during the debate on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.
I have carefully reviewed the representations of these hon. members. I also want to thank the Chief Government Whip and the hon. member for Lethbridge for their contributions.
From the comments that were made Tuesday and from the Hansard of September 20 there can be little doubt that there exists a profound and fundamental difference of opinion among members.
It is evident from having reviewed Hansard that the opinions of the hon. member for Central Nova were stated during the cut and thrust of debate. Further, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway did indeed have the opportunity to challenge, refute and question the hon. member on her speech, as did the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. This is the very reason for debate.
It is not the role of the Chair to be the arbiter of opinion. Rather it is the role of the Chair to ensure that debate on any issue can proceed under the rules which the House has set for itself.
Held against that standard I am satisfied that the words of the hon. member for Central Nova were not directed at any one individual or any member specifically. Rather, they were the hon. member's personal opinions on the matter. .
[Translation]
I would refer hon. members to a ruling made by the Deputy Speaker on November 4, 1987, at page 10741 in the Debates . At that time, he said, in part that if remarks ``were not aimed at a particular member, the remarks are not unparliamentary''.
My colleagues, paramount to our political and parliamentary systems is the principle of freedom of speech, a member's right to stand in this House unhindered to speak his or her mind. However when debate in the House centres on sensitive issues, as it often does, I would expect that members would always bear in mind the possible effects of their statements and hence be prudent in their tone and choice of words.