Selected Decisions of Speaker John Fraser 1986 - 1994
Rules of Debate / Decorum
Unparliamentary language: withdrawal of remarks
Debates, p. 3516
Context
On October 9, 1991, Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration) rose immediately following Question Period to withdraw certain remarks. The Member explained that during Question Period in an exchange between the Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration) and Members of the New Democratic Party, he had made certain comments which he wished to "categorically and completely withdraw" and for which he apologized to the House.
Mr. Steven Langdon (Essex—Windsor) attempted to pursue the matter but was interrupted by the Speaker. The Speaker insisted that since Mr. Shields had withdrawn the remarks the matter was closed.[1]
Following a point of order by another Member on a separate issue, Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor—St. Clair) also attempted to continue debate on the matter. The Member referred to an earlier incident when sexist terms had been used in the House and to the subsequent decision to have a special advisory committee set up concerning those remarks.[2] He also requested that "the House expand the purview of that committee to include racist remarks."[3] The Speaker ruled immediately. The essential part of the decision is reproduced below.
Decision of the Chair
Mr. Speaker: The difficulty that I am in—and I am sure that the honourable Member would want to co-operate with the Chair—is that our tradition and our practices are that if somebody has offended this House or offended a Member and said things that are clearly wrong, the responsibility then lies with the House to complain to the Speaker. If something is clearly wrong, the Speaker then orders a withdrawal or the Member can be expelled or the Member may not be recognized for a great deal of time.
The Member in this case, as has been the practice, has apologized. Honourable Members clearly feel very strongly about the matter as perhaps so does the Speaker. I cannot allow, just because this is a hard case and hard cases can make very bad law, that a practice build up of continuing the debate.
If the honourable Member wants to broaden the scope of the advisory committee which has been raised as a consequence of some sexist remarks, I invite the honourable Member to make representations to that effect.
The honourable Member may remember that at the time when we had to deal with that, the Speaker made it very clear that there was more to this issue than just sexist remarks in this Chamber. Decorum does go beyond just sexist remarks. There can be other kinds of remarks that are equally offensive to all fair-minded and reasonable honourable Members.
If the honourable Member wants to make a suggestion to me that this be considered, I will take it up with House Leaders. I ask the honourable Member to co-operate with the Chair and not extend the debate over the actual exchange, which has been withdrawn.
Postscript
Neither the written nor electronic Hansard has any record of Mr. Shields' remarks.
F0721-e
34-3
1991-10-09
Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.
[2] The Special Advisory Committee to the Speaker referred to by Mr. McCurdy was an unofficial committee composed of Members from all the recognized parties and chaired by the Deputy Speaker. It began its study in November 1991 and reported to the Speaker in June 1992. The report was then transmitted to the House Leaders of the parties by the Speaker. No official action was taken on its recommendations.
[3] Debates, October 9, 1991, pp. 3515-6.