Rules of Debate / Decorum

December 12, 1991

Debates, pp. 6218-9

On December 11, 1991, Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre) rose on a point of order regarding the alleged use of unparliamentary language by the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister). Mr. Walker requested that the Prime Minister, who had left the House, withdraw the remarks that had been heard by many Members on the opposition side of the House. Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Government House Leader) responded by stating that he was not aware of the remarks concerned and would review the "blues." Following interventions from other Members, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) suggested that the discussion be continued the following day should there be no evidence in the "blues" of the alleged language used by the Prime Minister. The Speaker exercised his discretion to close off the matter and deal with it the following day.^[1]

On the following day, December 12, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) inquired whether the Chair could bring forth a ruling on the matter when the Prime Minister would be in the House later that day. Mr. Andre rose to deny "categorically and absolutely" the statement attributed to the Prime Minister the day before.

The Speaker indicated that he did not want further debate on the matter. He noted that he had reviewed the official records of the House and they were of no assistance. The Speaker stated that until he had heard from the Prime Minister the matter had not been completely settled. Mr. Andre argued that, since the allegations had been denied, the matter should be closed. The Speaker then stated that if Mr. Dingwall felt the denial of the Prime Minister outside the House was sufficient, then the Speaker would accept it. In response, Mr. Dingwall stated that his party would wait until the Prime Minister returned to the House and addressed the issue. Observations on the status of the "blues", on the attribution of words to a Member, and on the practice regarding denials were made by other Members. The Speaker then closed off discussion.^[2]

Following Question Period later that day, Mr. Dingwall rose on a point of order to ask whether the Prime Minister intended to make a statement. Mr. Andre again denied that the Prime Minister made the remark in question.^[3] The Speaker then indicated to the House that he was prepared to give a procedural ruling on the matter which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond has raised the matter which engaged us yesterday and also this morning. The honourable the Government House Leader has made his position quite clear. I am going to try to deal with the situation we find ourselves in as succinctly as I can.

Yesterday the honourable Members for Winnipeg North Centre, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (Mr.   Don   Boudria) and    Hamilton  East  (Ms. Sheila Copps) urged the Chair to review Hansard and the electronic tape, alleging that the Right Honourable the Prime Minister had used unparliamentary language and consequently caused disorder.

There were other Members who wished to be heard, but I took the position that I had the point that was raised and I undertook to the House that I would, as they say here, look at the "blues"; in other words review Hansard and also the electronic Hansard.

This morning when asked by the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Dingwall) I reported that I had reviewed both Hansard and the broadcast tape and neither lend any support to the claim or the allegation that the Right Honourable the Prime Minister used unparliamentary language. This morning the honourable Government House Leader asserted the view that the Right Honourable Prime Minister did not utter the words that had been attributed to him.

I ask honourable Members to listen carefully because I am rendering a procedural decision. There is a dispute as to what happened. There have been statements made outside the House of which I am aware, but as is our tradition the Speaker cannot and should not make any ruling based on comments outside the House or in media reports.

In a situation like this, which is not easy, the first condition is: Did the Speaker hear words or a phrase of an unparliamentary nature? I have to say to all honourable Members that the first condition was not met yesterday as the Chair did not hear the alleged utterance.

Honourable Members will say: "Well, why didn't the Chair hear it?" The Chair cannot hear all comments made in the Chamber. All honourable Members, I am sure, can accept that and know that.

The second condition if the Chair has not heard the words complained of is to verify our records to establish if they are reported by Hansard or audible on the recording.

Having done so there is no supporting entry in Hansard, nor does the electronic Hansard demonstrate that an offending phrase was used by the Right Honourable Prime Minister....

I suggest to the House that is where we are now. I am asking honourable Members to listen carefully. That is where we are now. I suggest to the House that the Chair can go no further. I have done what I was requested to do and I have reported on it. The Speaker has no power to compel any Member's attendance nor can I force any Member to make a statement.

I want it clearly understood that some weeks ago on an unhappy day when a Member was brought to the Bar of this place, it was not done so by the order of the Speaker. It was done so by the order of this House after debate. There is a distinction.

The Chair is faced with a dispute and is unable to resolve it. When the official records are not supportive of the allegations, I am convinced that it is not the duty of the Chair to try to resolve it.

As far as I am concerned from a procedural point of view and in keeping with our conventions the matter is closed.

F0723-e

34-3

1991-12-12