We cannot treat a political opponent as a “two of spades” in the National Assembly. Neither “pitou”, “coward” or “lazy”. These terms appear on the list of unparliamentary remarks, a list which includes 14 pages of words or expressions banned in the Salon bleu.
At the beginning of December, the words “exploit women” joined this list of words deemed insulting, hurtful or inappropriate. And in my opinion, we should be worried about it.
I recall the facts: during the question period on November 28, solidarity MP Christine Labrie asked the following question: “When the government refuses to increase public sector salaries at the top of inflation, it is economic violence against women. […] Three quarters of the people who work in our public services are women. Why does the CAQ persist in exploiting them? »
The President of the National Assembly, Nathalie Roy, asked the solidarity MP to withdraw her words and decided to add the expression “exploit women” to the index of unparliamentary comments.
At the time, I didn’t understand why. It was explained to me that there was a reference to pimping in this expression (!). Phew, I admit that I didn’t understand it like that at all. I’ve asked around and I’m far from the only one. I would have liked to discuss it with Mme Roy, but she declined my request for an interview.
You should know that the President of the National Assembly does not have to consult other parliamentarians before banning words, the decision is entirely up to her. And there are no absolute criteria that govern it.
I will be told that this list of unparliamentary remarks exists only for information purposes, that it does not have the force of law. But the very fact that it exists is problematic, in my opinion.
Have we understood correctly?
I was curious to know what Rachel Chagnon, dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law at UQAM, thought of all this. She admits to me straight away, this subject fascinates her. And she too asks questions about the relevance of this list which does not seem to have an equivalent in other democracies.
PHOTO PHILIPPE BOIVIN, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Rachel Chagnon, dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law at UQAM
You really have to have a twisted mind to have understood that Mme Labrie was referring to pimping. When we listen again or reread his remarks, we see that the exchanges were quite strong and that Mme Labrie issued a very harsh criticism. But the context was very clear. If they thought about pimping, they weren’t really listening.
Rachel Chagnon, dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law at UQAM
In Professor Chagnon’s opinion, this ban raises an even more important question about the ability of opposition parties to do their job. “The task of the opposition, and its only power, is precisely to question the role of the State, to confront its decisions,” she observes. If every time she carries out her task words are taken out of her mouth, I see it as an obstacle to democracy. »
All the more so, points out Rachel Chagnon, that the decision-making process of the presidency of the National Assembly is singularly lacking in transparency.
“As the presidency often comes from the party in power, we can think that it will have affinities and sensitivities towards it, which is entirely human. But since it is the ruling party that is the target of attacks and criticism, this ban on the use of certain words or expressions can become a tool to muzzle the opposition. »
PHOTO EDOUARD PLANTE-FRÉCHETTE, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
The President of the National Assembly, Nathalie Roy
Rachel Chagnon believes that there is another way to operate and impose discipline. After all, she recalls, France – where exchanges are much more vigorous – operates without a list. In Ottawa, the House of Commons abandoned its own. “The presidency could very well intervene on a case-by-case basis, by raising a yellow card or by withdrawing the right to speak from an MP,” she suggests. This would be more efficient and fairer, and it would avoid making bad decisions perpetuate. »
Are we protecting fragile egos?
The dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law at UQAM cannot help but notice a certain irony in the banning of words or expressions.
“It seems that the presidency of the National Assembly feels entrusted with the task of preserving fragile egos,” she remarks. From a government which has already denounced the excesses of wokism, this ban has something ironic. Can’t we tell them anything anymore? »
“At the rate of 14-15 words added each year, in 50 years, Quebec parliamentarians will no longer be able to say anything…” she adds with a laugh.
I completely share Rachel Chagnon’s opinion. I would add that parliamentarians are not children on whom a list of prohibited words must be imposed. They know very well that you don’t call your counterpart “auntie” or “shylock” (two words which also appear on the famous list).
Between you and me, I prefer that we let out a “buffoon” or a “bullshit” from time to time rather than risk censoring justified and well-felt criticisms.