ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker's Ruling

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am ready to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Plett yesterday. On February 14, when Senator McPhedran gave her first speech in the Senate, she included the following statement:

Last week, when Senator Plett was here, I heard him speak of his opposition to Bill C-16, and I have read some senators' concerns that Bill C-16 and new grammar on trans rights will infringe on their rights. I am not able to find any legal substance to these concerns but, as my fellow senator from Manitoba spoke, Senator Plett referred to "these people" or "those people," and, to my ears, I heard "othering." Othering can be understood as an indicator of bigotry. Colleagues, bigotry does not strengthen an inclusive democracy.

The substance of Senator Plett's point of order is that he has been identified as a bigot through association with "othering." He understood Senator McPhedran's statement as a direct accusation of bigotry, and he was not alone in this interpretation. Senator Pratte, for example, recognized the powerful nexus in the speech, when he stated:

Even though there was subtlety in the words, I certainly perceived this as unparliamentary language. I know that if I had been the target of those words, I would have felt very unsettled and profoundly insulted. I understand Senator Plett's feelings today.

Senator McPhedran did attempt to clarify her remarks, arguing that they were not actually about Senator Plett. She stated that the language used by Senator Plett with respect to "those people" "can be" symptomatic of bigotry, but are not necessarily so. She also proposed to remove the specific references to Senator Plett if that would help address the objection.

Honourable senators, words are powerful; they do matter. This is especially true when they are used to criticize not just a different point of view, but those who hold that point of view. A statement must be looked at in its totality, taking account of its overall effect, not just parsing fine gradations of meaning. Senator Pratte's statement to which I have made reference summarizes well the effect of the remark at issue.

Rule 6-13(1), states that "All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order." The Senate is characterized by the respectful exchange of ideas and information, even when we deal with topics about which honourable senators have strong views. We should always show respect for each other, no matter our views on an issue, since the right to hold and express our divergent opinions is the basis of free speech.

I know that we do give some leeway to new senators — we have all been new senators at one time — particularly in their first speech. However, the remarks alluding to Senator Plett were outside the bounds of acceptable parliamentary debate. They were hurtful and inappropriate. Such language does not help us in performing our duties. It creates discord and animosity. This does not serve the public good, the ultimate objective of all our work here as senators.

The language in Senator McPhedran's speech of February 14 can, in the context it was used, be characterized as unparliamentary. The point of order is well founded. I strongly urge Senator McPhedran, and of course all senators, to avoid offensive personal language. Colleagues, let us continue to engage in respectful debate and avoid, at all times, personal attacks.