Analysis · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-11-02

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Mr. Speaker, earlier in his comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North said something with which I completely agree, and I would like him to underscore the point. I wonder why he did not make the same point to my question of personal privilege, where he disagreed. He said just now, and he is absolutely right, that if there was a misleading statement but no intention to mislead, that was different. It was misinformation, but misinformation with an intent to mislead would violate the rules of this place. The Speaker is still considering my question of personal privilege, so I ask my hon. friend from Winnipeg North to pitch in here and confirm what he just said, which was correct. “Disinformation” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, and any other dictionary, as “deliberately false information” for the purpose of deceit and deception. Would the hon. member agree that, when an hon. member here accuses other members of deliberate deception by using the word “disinformation”, as he just said, that violates the rules of this place?”

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is in Beauchesne’s sixth edition where it talks about the Speaker’s ability to use discretion as there is not any given word that is parliamentary or unparliamentary. Often, it is the context in which someone says something. For example, I can say, “It is absolutely misleading when members stand up in this chamber to say something that is just not true.” I would be very careful in terms of using the word “lie,” but I could say that. However, if I were to attribute it to an individual specifically, there is a chance the member might stand up on a point of order and ask me to apologize. I think it is not quite as simple as the member opposite says. I am sympathetic to what she is saying, but I do not believe that—