Item 4, Returns to Oral Questions. Before we go into the question period, I would like to read my ruling from yesterday.
Speaker's Ruling
Yesterday, the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi raised a Point of Order alleging the possibility that the honourable Member for the Mackenzie Delta, Richard Nerysoo, had called him a liar.
I wish first to indicate to all Members that it is often difficult for the Chair to determine immediately if a phrase used by a Member is unparliamentary. As indicated in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, at citation 486(1), and I quote, "much depends on the tone, manner and the intention of the person speaking", end of quote. All of these factors must be viewed in the context of the general debate surrounding the alleged unparliamentary phrase. This particular incident is a good example of the difficulty the Chair sometimes has in isolating a specific unparliamentary phrase from the surrounding context of heated debate.
I have reviewed the unedited Hansard, and in particular, pages 444 to 446. Mr. Nerysoo's exact words were, and I quote "I also want to indicate to the honourable Member before he gives the impression that I have had nothing to do with the Gwich'in self-government discussions, or for that matter, the development of the proposal that has been before the government is absolutely a lie," end of quote. Mr. Nerysoo did not call Mr. Kakfwi a liar or refer to anything he had said as a lie. However, Mr. Nerysoo did anticipate that the Minister would respond to his question with a response, which to him would be a lie. It has always been unparliamentary to suggest that a Member has deliberately lied and deceived the House. Beauchesne's contains many citations to this effect. I refer Members to Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 494, which states that, "it is not unparliamentary temperately to criticise statements made by Ministers as being contrary to the facts, but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible." Accordingly, the word "lie" would suggest an intentional deceit, which has always been ruled unparliamentary. Furthermore, I rule that to anticipate an intentional deceit, a lie by a Member is also unparliamentary. The comment was almost assuredly made by Mr. Nerysoo in the heat of the debate and was most likely totally inadvertent. However, I feel that the implications contained in the use of the word "lie" cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I will ask Mr. Nerysoo to withdraw the word "lie."
In reviewing the unedited Hansard, however, I also note that the debate leading up to the unparliamentary language could have caused some degree of provocation. Mr. Kakfwi said, and I quote, "To suggest that I do not know what his constituency is saying is a bit irresponsible." Statements such as this can cause negative reactions. Debate in the House may become heated and Members may say things that, upon reflection, might have been phrased in a different way. I ask all Members to be careful and respectful of the other Members of this House when engaged in debate. It is fundamental to the democratic process that all Members be able to share their different points of view in a reasonable and rational manner and that the dignity of that debate and of the Legislature always be respected and preserved.
Mr. Nerysoo.
