I would like to make a statement concerning an expression used recently during Oral Questions, which has become the subject of multiple points of order.
As members know, points of order cannot be raised during Oral Questions, but are instead brought up at the end of question period. While it can be challenging for the Chair to make on-the-spot decisions regarding language during the quick exchanges, the Speaker can intervene when appropriate, particularly in cases of disorder or when unparliamentary language is used.
After the point of order raised on May 12 by the opposition House leader, I undertook to review the transcripts and return to the House.
The opposition House leader argued that it was unparliamentary for the Prime Minister to use the phrase “deliberately misleading Canadians” in describing the position of the official opposition caucus. He noted that the use of words such as these has been found unparliamentary in the past. Indeed, similar language has given rise to objections before.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 624, 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.... Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder in the House should not be used.
Of particular importance in this case, it also states, on the same page, and I quote:
Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.
That being said, the comments made on May 12 were not directed at a particular individual. However, it is not helpful for members to make accusations using inflammatory language. It only invites a response in kind, leading to an overall lowering of the tone of our proceedings. The Chair has often reminded members of the need to be respectful in their exchanges and to maintain a certain degree of civility. It is possible to disagree, even forcefully, on matters of public policy without resorting to accusations of dishonesty or insults.
As we get closer to the summer adjournment, I would strongly encourage all members to find more judicious ways of expressing their disagreements and not resort to rhetoric.
I thank the hon. members for their co-operation in this regard.