Rules of Debate / Decorum

Unparliamentary language: withdrawal of remarks; imputation of motives

October 30 and November 18, 1987

Debates, pp. 10583-4, 10927-8

On October 28, 1987, during Question Period, the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister), in response to a question, stated in part: "I know that my honourable friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are opposed to the interests of western Canada." The remark provoked a strong response from a number of opposition Members.^[1] A number of questions of privilege and points of order, each concerning some aspect of unparliamentary language or acceptable behaviour in the House, arose from the incident.

In particular, the following day, October 29, 1987, the Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board) rose on a question of privilege to claim that remarks attributed in Hansard to the Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) and Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) were unparliamentary and, in the interest of preserving the dignity of the House, asked that they be withdrawn and an apology issued. After hearing some brief comments from Mr. Broadbent, the Speaker adjourned the matter for one hour.^[2] Later that day, after making a brief statement, Mr. Broadbent withdrew unequivocally the terminology he had used. Mr. Fulton, despite the urging of the Speaker, did not. The Speaker adjourned the matter "to give the honourable Member time to give the entire matter further consideration."^[3]

During the procedural discussion which followed, a number of other Members, including Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton—Melville), Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), Hon. Robert Kaplan (York Centre), Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops­ Shuswap) and the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead), raised a series of issues. Among the most serious issues presented was that of Mr. Nystrom and Mr. Guilbault who claimed that the Prime Minister, by his remarks, had imputed motives to them and thus offended Citation 316 of Beauchesne Fifth Edition.^[4]

Finally, on October 30, Mr. Fulton rose on his own question of privilege. Indicating that he had received word that morning that the Speaker would not recognize him during Question Period, he was of the opinion that his privileges were thus infringed. He then sought clarification of where Mr. Mazankowski's question of privilege currently stood.^[5]

The Speaker addressed some remarks of clarification with respect to Mr. Fulton's situation on October 30, and then on November 18 addressed the points raised in the procedural discussion and most particularly the aspect raised by Messrs. Nystrom and Guilbault. The remarks of the Speaker on both these occasions are reproduced below.

Decision of the Chair

On October 30, 1987:

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the honourable Member for Skeena took a position with the Chair that he would not withdraw remarks which are clearly unparliamentary, the kind of remarks which are not permitted here, never have been permitted here, and I think the wish of this House is that they will not be permitted here. Having done that, the Chair has one option: the honourable Member could be named and put out of here for a couple of hours. In the opinion of the Chair that is no discipline whatsoever.

Second, I have asked the honourable Member to reconsider his position. I have not put any time limits on it. I should also say that the honourable Member for Skeena is very well and honourably known to me, not only as a colleague here, but personally. I have the very highest regard for the honourable Member. I also think I can have some understanding for his feelings in this matter. However, no individual Member's feelings can take precedence over the rules and traditions of this place.

If the honourable Member wishes to serve his constituents, then he must put himself back in grace in this House.

On November 18, 1987:

Mr. Speaker: I want to deal now with a matter that arose on Thursday, October 29, which is of some importance to the House. On that day the honourable Member for Yorkton—Melville and the honourable Member for Saint-Jacques asked the Chair to review the statement of the Right Honourable Prime Minister made during Question Period on Wednesday, October 28. I refer to Hansard at page 10482. The Right Honourable Prime Minister in response to a question said the following:

I know that my honourable friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are opposed to the interests of western Canada. That becomes clearer every day.

That is the exact quote of the latter part of the answer of the right honourable gentleman.

During the procedural debate, the Chair was asked to carefully review that statement in the context of Citation 316 of Beauchesne Fifth Edition which states that it is not proper to "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged to a Member".

I have also had the opportunity to review our practice and precedents as well as the whole of the discussion that took place on that difficult afternoon of Thursday, October 29, 1987.

What the Prime Minister said was targeted at Parties in opposition, in a generic sense, and was not directed as a reflection on a specific Member. Some honourable Members may feel that this is a fine line. As your Speaker, I can say with some experience that honourable Members often come too close to the fine line in both questions and answers during Question Period. No one Party has the monopoly on walking the fine line from time to time. There is not an honourable Member here with any experience who does not realize that that fine line can be breached either in the preambles to questions or in remarks made in answers. While it may not be unparliamentary, the experience of this place is that it makes it more difficult to maintain order. Ultimately, of course, in this place what causes disorder eventually will be ruled by someone as being unparliamentary.

However, in keeping with the decisions of my predecessors, I must rule that the statement of the Right Honourable Prime Minister did not violate our rules. There is no doubt that the statement of the Right Honourable Prime Minister was met with considerable emotional responses from both opposition Parties. Indeed, it led to the uttering of some unparliamentary language by some honourable Members. It was clear that some honourable Members were clearly offended by the statement of the right honourable gentleman.

In this first case with respect to the statement of the honourable Member for Oshawa, the Chair adjourned dealing with that matter for one hour, after which the honourable Member for Oshawa returned to the Chamber and corrected his own statement out of respect for the Chair and for the dignity of this House. He did so in the finest tradition of this place.

In the latter case, that of the honourable Member for Skeena, the honourable Member for Skeena expressed his unwillingness to withdraw the unparliamentary expression he had used in view of the Right Honourable Prime Minister's statement and in view of the way he took that particular statement.

The Chair then invited the honourable Member for Skeena again on Friday, October 30, to reflect upon his position and to reflect upon the duty of the Chair and of all honourable Members elected to this House. The House of Commons can only function properly when honourable Members respect and abide by the rules they themselves have set down.

I know perhaps better than many Members in this place that the honourable Member for Skeena is an effective Member of Parliament and has made a considerable contribution to British Columbia, my own province, and has represented his constituents very well indeed. I understand that the honourable Member may have a statement to make to the House. The honourable Member for Skeena.

Following the Speaker's ruling on November 18, 1987, Mr. Fulton rose and offered an explanation of his actions. He withdrew the words he had used which had been found unparliamentary by the Speaker.^[6]

F0719-e

33-2

1987-10-30

1987-11-18