Rules of Debate / Decorum

Unparliamentary language: sexist and racist remarks

October 10, 1991

Debates, pp. 3562-4

During Routine Proceedings on October 10, 1991, Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona) rose on a point of order concerning the use of offensive language in the House. He suggested that whereas the existing rules, practice and custom address the utterance of remarks which might be classed as personal insults directed at individuals, recent incidents of sexist and racist remarks exemplified a new trend of remarks directed at individuals but reflecting on an entire group of people. He asked the Chair to consider if, in cases where the offence extends to a group, the traditional apology and withdrawal of the offensive remark were sufficient. He also asked the Chair to consider the case of offensive remarks made in the House and heard by other Members, but which do not appear in the record of House proceedings.

The Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Government House Leader) referred to some action he was contemplating with regard to decorum in the House and, more specifically, that he would introduce a motion on this matter and on the power of the Chair to enforce it

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) argued that under the Standing Orders, the Speaker is already empowered to deal with Members deemed to be out of order.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview—Greenwood) then rose and took issue with Mr. Andre's remarks, asserting that opposition Members are provoked to heckling and barracking by Government Members, who must share responsibility for the decline of decorum in the House.

Mr. Blaikie concluded by expressing concern that the point he had made with regard to recent racist and sexist offences to groups of people would, inadvertently or otherwise, be overwhelmed by the separate and more general matter of the decline of decorum in the House.^[1]

The Speaker made some remarks throughout the discussion. His comments are substantially reproduced below.

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIR

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona has raised a matter which I think the House knows is serious. The honourable Government House Leader has referred to the fact that across the country there is an unprecedented mood, at least in current times, of antagonism toward not just those of us who happen to be elected but to the whole political process. Some of that is manifested by complaints as to what happens in this place.

We have had several incidents recently which I think have given concern to reasonable and decent people in this place, which means the majority of us. The honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona is raising as a point of order whether or not we are adequately dealing with some of the things that have happened. What he is asking the Chair to do is to consider these matters and perhaps find a way to report back to the House so that we can reach the objectives which most of us wish to not only meet, but to maintain. We must also keep in mind our obligation to this institution, the history of the place, our country and the public....

Let me make it very clear to the honourable Member [Mr. Mills] and to all honourable Members that having been here for many years, there is no particular monopoly of virtue on either side in this assembly when it comes to anything from heckling to something worse. But that is not the point. The point is that when decorum degenerates, it leads to further and further excess and it may very well be that both sexist remarks and racist remarks are a direct result of the state of decorum in general. It is very difficult to disengage completely the one kind of excess from the other.

The honourable Member has talked about provocation. I do not think we need to have a House committee to remind ourselves that there often is provocation in this place and it comes on both sides. There has to be, of course, some common sense to our approach because this place has never been a tea party and strong-minded men and women who believe passionately in things are going to express that passion and conviction from time to time. But certainly I am prepared to try and assist along the lines expressed by the honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona, the Government House Leader and the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond....

I thank the honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona. I understand perfectly well the distinction that the honourable Member is raising and I am very sensitive to it.

At the same time I do ask honourable Members and the public which is listening to keep in mind that the general decorum is also of importance because when that is reduced too far beyond what is acceptable, it leads to other things.

The other thing, and I repeat what I said to my honourable friend from Broadview—Greenwood and other Members, is that this is a tough place. It always has been. That is not an excuse for excess, but it is and it must be remembered that the most precious things and the most vital issues that this country faces are debated here and there will be at times expressions of great commitment, conviction and passion.

I am sure that people will understand that in a free country, provided that those expressions are done in such a way that they do not wound others or bring into indignity the institution itself, that is probably something we have always had and probably something that will continue.

The other thing I want to say to honourable Members is this. What we are discussing are a couple of incidents that only took a few seconds in this Chamber out of the many hours in which debate takes place. It is no secret that most of the time in this place there is not only excellent decorum but the place is relatively calm and there is debate which is seriously proceeding.

I think on behalf of all Members of the House I have to make this statement. Maybe it is a misconception to say that this place is always in excess or even in an uproar because that is not so. There is also no doubt in my mind that the public is asking us to improve.

I might just say to honourable Members, remember many years ago when in order to express our approval of some brilliant move on the part of one of our colleagues or some brilliant criticism we pounded the desks. You will remember that it was shortly after television came into the House that we began, all of us, to receive letters and telephone calls saying that we should stop it.

What stopped it is that one party stopped it and substituted it with applause and within a few days it had ceased. It does not take place any more. That is an example of the House responding to public opinion.

I will not go on any longer because I can see some Members are tempted to pound their desks in approval of what I have just said. That would sort of defeat the example.

I will do the very best I can, in response to the honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona. I understand exactly what he is saying. I am conscious that it is a serious matter and I shall try to assist the House.

F0722-e

34-3

1991-10-10