I will now provide rulings on the points of order raised in the House on May 12th. All of the points of order dealt with unparliamentary language. In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.
The point of order raised by Ms. Lee objected to the use of the word “doublespeak” by the Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy. Ms. Lee felt that the use of this word suggested she had lied to the House. Mr. Abernethy gave a different definition, suggesting that the Minister had been ambiguous and evasive. I accept Mr. Abernethy’s word on this and find that there is no point of order.
The points of order raised by the Government House Leader referred to Mr. Ramsay’s Member’s statement of May 10th. Mr. Miltenberger argued that the words “arrogant” and “ignorant” were abusive and insulting to Ms. Lee. The use of such language pushes the limits of decorum in our consensus system. However, they have been used in the recent past by other Members in this House without objection. I find that there is no point of order.
The second point of order raised by Mr. Miltenberger referred to Mr. Ramsay’s statement about dividing people along racial lines. Mr. Miltenberger stated that this imputed false or hidden motives to another Member. I can’t say for sure whether Mr. Ramsay meant that the government was intending to divide people on racial lines or that this was the result of the government’s proposed policy. Either way, I think the matter is serious enough that the remarks should be withdrawn. I find that Mr. Miltenberger has a point of order. I will ask Mr. Ramsay to withdraw these remarks and apologize to the House. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do respect your ruling. I do withdraw those remarks. It was basically my interpretation of the government’s policy which led me to make the remarks that I made and I respect your ruling. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Thank you for that. With that, I think that resolves the matter. Again, colleagues, the debate we are having in this House is important and serious. There are lots of real issues to focus on and there is no need to use disruptive language and name calling to make the good points on both sides of the debate. I encourage all Members to tone down their language and treat one another with respect.
