Debates of Dec. 7th, 1998
House of Commons Hansard #167 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.
Topics
- Motion No. 300
- Criminal Code
- Appointment Of Commissioner Of Official Languages
- Special Import Measures Act
- Insurance Companies Act
- Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act
- Professor Mohamed Elmasry
- Inquiries
- Opera Ontario
- Natural Disasters
- Monique Sioui
- National Friendship Centres
- Violence Against Women
- Maria Mach
- The Late Alphonse Piché
- Reform Party
- Agriculture
- Bernard Lord
- Boys And Girls Club Of Ontario
- Gun Control
- Apec Inquiry
- Taxation
- Prebudget Consultations
- Taxation
- Professional Sport
- Agriculture
- Business Development Bank Of Canada
- Steel Industry
- Agriculture
- Poverty
- Agriculture
- 1999 Francophone Summit
- Fisheries
- Canadian Human Rights Act
- Government Expenditures
- Parliament Hill
- Western Economic Diversification
- Fisheries
- Parliament Buildings Renovations
- Employment Insurance
- Privilege
- Points Of Order
- Government Response To Petitions
- Interparliamentary Delegations
- Citizenship Of Canada Act
- Petitions
- Questions On The Order Paper
- Points Of Order
- Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act
- Agriculture
- Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act
- Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act
- Division No. 299
- Division No. 300
- Division No. 301
- Division No. 302
- Division No. 303
- Division No. 304
- National Defence Act
- Division No. 305
- Railway Safety Act
- Division No. 306
- Division No. 307
Questions On The Order Paper
Routine Proceedings
3:20 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Questions On The Order Paper
Routine Proceedings
3:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
December 7th, 1998 / 3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Nault Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Madam Speaker, just after question period the member for Cumberland—Colchester suggested that I had made some remarks to him that were intimidating. First of all, if it was intended to be that way, Madam Speaker, I can assure you he would not be sitting there today.
The whole objective of my comments of the other day were to make it very clear to him that Mr. Young, the previous minister of human resources, defence and transport, was a very honourable member in this place in the last parliament. He is a very honest individual for whom I have a lot of respect.
I was trying to make it very clear to him that in the way he was posing his question he was suggesting that Mr. Young had somehow done something illegal, that he was crooked, and that it was not something I cherished hearing from members on the opposite side because it is not very honourable.
If my comments suggested in any way to him that I was being intimidating and hurting his work, I want to take this opportunity to apologize because that was not the intent.
The intent was to suggest to the House that when one poses questions one should not pose the kinds of scenarios that he was suggesting toward Mr. Young which would in any way jeopardize his abilities to make a livelihood out there in the workplace now that he is no longer a member of parliament. Those were the reasons why I made those remarks.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Bill Casey Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, there was no misunderstanding of the comments made by the member to me in that confrontation. There was no way to interpret them other than as a threat. He tried to intimidate me. He said that I had better remember that Doug Young has lots of friends and they all have long memories. Just today he said that if he meant it to be a threat I would not be here today.
I would like to put on the record what the member just said in defence of the points he made to me. He said if I was intimidating the member I would know it and I would not be here today. That just happened now.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
The Speaker
I do not want to get into a debate on this issue. As I understand it, and I saw part of it from my office only, what we have here is a member of parliament who stood in his place today on a point of order and said that another hon. member said certain words to him.
The hon. member is here in the House right now. As far as what I could make out, the hon. member had said there was a misunderstanding. I am to be corrected, but if there is a misunderstanding the hon. member apologizes or withdraws. Is that correct?
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
The Speaker
If this is the case where we have one hon. member making an accusation and another hon. member apologizing in the House of Commons, then as far as I am concerned as a matter of privilege this matter is closed.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
An hon. member
On a point of order—
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
The Speaker
I will hear a point of order but not on this matter. Is it on this matter?
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
The Speaker
Order, please.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Greg Thompson Charlotte, NB
If you can't get up on a point of order, what is the sense of being here?
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
The Speaker
I ask the hon. member to put in his earpiece.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Greg Thompson Charlotte, NB
You didn't hear the whole conversation, Mr. Speaker. That is the point I am trying to make.
Points Of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:25 p.m.
The Speaker
Order, please. I have ruled on the particular point of privilege the member has raised. If this is another point of order then I will listen to another point of order. If it is on the same point of order I will not listen to it.