The Daily Program / Statements by Members

Guidelines: prohibition against personal attacks; alleged unfair treatment by the Speaker; congratulatory remarks

Debates, p. 15717

Context

On November 26, 1990, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) rose on a point of order to seek clarification of the provisions of the Standing Order pertaining to Statements by Members. He said he felt the Chair treated Members differently, depending on their political affiliation. Mr. Dingwall referred to two instances where the Chair had interrupted Liberal Members while they were making statements. They involved Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt)[1] and the Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin—St. George’s).[2] He pointed to the fact that the Speaker had not called Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi) to order on November 1, 1990,[3] even though, in his opinion, this situation was comparable to the two others cited.[4] The Speaker clarified immediately some of the restrictions on Statements by Members as well as some of the difficulties encountered in applying the pertinent Standing Order. His comments are reproduced in their entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I would like to assure the honourable Member that the Chair, as much as is humanly possible, would not ever treat one honourable Member differently than the others.

A few days ago I said to the honourable Member for Scarborough—Agincourt that it may well have been that something slipped by my careful consideration. That is not satisfactory, but perhaps that is what happened. With respect to the honourable Member for Burin—St. George’s, I would be very pleased to go over the transcript. I might also ask the honourable Member to give me in full what it was he intended to say.

We will try to keep within the bounds of the prescription of Madam Sauvé of some years ago, in that Statements by Members are not supposed to make a personal attack on a Member.[5] I recognize that that gets a little difficult sometimes, especially when what is being attacked is a political position taken by the Member.

Madam Sauvé also commented on the fact that congratulations are really not the purpose of Members’ Statements. I received a note today from one honourable Member who is very diligent on these matters, pointing out that it may not have been appropriate to offer congratulations to the Winnipeg team.[6] I felt constrained, despite the fact that there have been comments by past Speakers, I was not sure that to restrain honourable Members in congratulating the winner of the Grey Cup would make any friends in the Chamber at all.

However, it is a difficult line sometimes to find. It is doubly difficult because the Chair cannot always be sure of exactly where the statement is going. If it is giving Members trouble and difficulties, I would be very pleased to discuss it and to see if we can straighten it out. It is not my purpose to leave even an impression that one Member is getting treatment that is not available to another Member.

I would ask all honourable Members because it is an important matter, to be very careful in giving Members’ statements. If it is strictly a comment upon a political position, that is one thing. If it passes over that and becomes a personal attack, then we have tried to stay away from that sort of thing.

F0306-e

34-2

1990-11-26

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.

[1] Debates, November 8, 1990, p. 15318.

[2] Debates, November 19, 1990, p. 15382.

[3] Debates, November 1, 1990, p. 14994.

[4] Debates, November 26, 1990, p. 15717.

[5] Debates, January 17, 1983, pp. 21873-4.

[6] Debates, November 26, 1990, pp. 15704-5.