I am now, colleagues, ready to rule on the point of order raised on October 20 by the member for Calgary Shepard concerning an alleged use of unparliamentary language by the member for Whitby.
In his intervention, the member for Calgary Shepard stated that the member for Whitby accused the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes of making false claims in his oral question. The member for Calgary Shepard asserted that this was akin to claiming a member had deliberately mislead the House, had lied and that it was a breach of privilege to do so.
The Deputy House leader of the government countered that it did not appear clear that the exchange was in fact problematic. The member for Timmins—James Bay made the point that there was nothing wrong in stating that another member had “falsely claimed” a given assertion, noting that the expression has been used in the House frequently.
In reaching a conclusion, I am guided by precedents from my predecessors. On October 13, 1966, Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, at page 8599 of Debates, made the following point:
...is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another Member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the Member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth.
I have also reviewed past Debates when similar occasions occurred. I note this expression being used with a certain regularity from all sides in the House.
Members may disagree about facts or argue that certain assertions are false. What is unparliamentary is to suggest that a member has deliberately stated something that is false or misleading, as it implies a dishonest intent.
In examining the exchange from last Friday and in considering past precedents, given the frequent use of similar expressions, I cannot find that the language itself was unparliamentary or that it constituted any sort of breach of privilege. That being said, it is incumbent upon the member for Whitby and all members to stay as far away as possible from imputing intent or motives to their colleagues and to not look for ways to do indirectly what they cannot do directly.
Mindful of my recent statement on decorum of October 18, members may find themselves looking to the Chair, from time to time, for guidance in how to interpret these new guidelines. I would ask all members to show mutual respect and good faith toward each other during the course of debate or in asking or responding to questions, and to abide by the spirit of Speaker Lamoureux's wise words.
While I cannot find anything unparliamentary in this instance, I would like to reiterate a point made in last Wednesday's statement, on page 17593 of Debates, “too frequently our ideas and thoughts are expressed in provocative terms leading to tense exchanges that harm the necessary collegiality for our work.”
I implore members to take this message to heart when interacting with one another here in the House. Being judicious with our choice of words will, I think, reduce the frequency of disputes that arise between us and will lead to a more collegial environment for all.
I thank all members for their attention.
