Rules of Debate / Decorum

Unparliamentary language: expression "misrepresent"

September 28, 1990

Debates, pp. 13579-80

On September 28, 1990, Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South) rose on a question of privilege concerning comments made during Question Period earlier that day.

In response to a question posed by Mr. Manley regarding the Goods and Services Tax, the Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) had commented that the figure quoted was "a deliberate misrepresentation by the honourable Member."^[1] Immediately following Question Period, the Minister of Finance rose on a point of order to withdraw the word "deliberately." However, he then had asked Mr. Manley to "make sure of his facts before using them in the House."^[2]

Mr. Manley claimed that although the Minister had withdrawn one word considered to be unparliamentary, he had given the impression that Mr. Manley had nonetheless misrepresented the facts. Mr. Manley then sought clarification from the Speaker as to whether the word "misrepresent" is an acceptable parliamentary term. The Speaker ruled immediately. The decision is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: The issue was first raised by the honourable Member for Ottawa South and raised immediately and properly with the Chair on the question of "deliberately misrepresent." There is no doubt in my mind that "deliberately misrepresent" is unparliamentary. The question of "mislead" or "misrepresent" may or may not be unparliamentary, depending on the context in which it is used. If it is an argument over facts, that goes on in this place all the time. If it is said, and it may well have been, in the matter that the honourable Member quotes, it may have been said in a context in which the accusation was a very severe one indeed. That is why I caution honourable Members not to just look in Beauchesne to see what words have, at one time or another, been ruled as unparliamentary, but to remember that it also has to be considered in the context.

In this case, I understand the honourable Member, who is a conscientious Member in this place, wanting to establish that he did not make this statement carelessly. If the honourable Minister has a view about it which is different than his own, that is a matter of debate. However, the honourable Member has said that he feels that he made that in good faith. The honourable Minister has withdrawn any suggestion that there was any deliberateness on the part of the honourable Member and I think that that is where the matter must end.

A gain, it is an example of how careful we do have to be, even in debate, and even in the rough and tumble of exchanges in this place.

F0720-e

34-2

1990-09-28