Debates of March 28th, 1996

Points Of Order

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the words complained of by the Minister of Finance are clearly unparliamentary and are words that should, therefore, be withdrawn.

I cite in that regard in support of what I said, citation 484 of Beauchesne:

(3) In the House of Commons a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself as a political institution; or-

I draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker.

-to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case;

I submit that this is clearly what the member for Medicine Hat did in a most improper and unacceptable manner.

I further point out that our rules clearly say that when a member of the House states something within his own knowledge as being true or untrue, then that member's word must be accepted. The hon. Minister of Finance made a statement of matters within his own knowledge which, I submit, has to be accepted not just by this House but, in particular, by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

On the clear precedent established in this Chamber over the years, the hon. member for Medicine Hat has used language which is clearly unparliamentary and which, therefore, must be withdrawn by him. Otherwise, he should suffer the appropriate sanction imposed by you, Mr. Speaker.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you have ruled on this matter. You have ruled on the House leader.

[The Speaker]

Please take your seats. On the same point of order, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on what is happening here. I would refer to page 6 of Beauchesne in terms of Speakers' rulings.

Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling that there was not a point of privilege. You then followed that by saying the matter was one of debate and that is where you left it.

The House leader for the Liberal Party has stood in his place and challenged the Speaker on a ruling. According to Beauchesne, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that you are the authority. You are the person elected by the House and once a decision has been made that is the decision of the House.

If the House leader for the Liberal Party wishes to challenge your authority, then he had better do it on that basis and under no other guise.

The decision has been made and it should stand as is.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when you render your decision on this issue there are three points to consider in the matter of the point of order.

As the hon. House leader has indicated, unparliamentary language is a point of order. I could have argued as well that in the case of the hon. member it constituted a point of privilege, but that has been ruled on. But that does not negate the fact that there is an outstanding point of order.

First, it was brought to the attention of the House by the House leader the issue of causing disorder by using unparliamentary language; second, that imputing motive is not correct in any circumstance and; third, an allegation was made whereby the hon. minister was accused of committing something which certainly could be said to have been, at its worst, a criminal act of not paying the taxes of this country.

The combination of all of these things is unacceptable for the Parliament of a modern democracy. I ask Mr. Speaker to rule that this is unparliamentary language under any definition we have and all of the instances that we have had before.

Mr. Speaker has ruled in the past that making fun of another member's use of words in the House has been a point of order and has had to be withdrawn. Alleging that another member of Parliament in the past, for instance, had made untrue statements has been

asked to be withdrawn. Inflammatory language has been asked to be withdrawn. Finally, even members who have seen fit to mimic the voice intonation of others have been asked to be withdrawn.

If all of these things are out of order, surely making that kind of an accusation against the Minister of Finance of this country should be withdrawn.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to-

[Some hon. members]

Sit down.

[The Speaker]

I am going to listen to members on this point of order. I am going to now turn to the hon. member for Medicine Hat on a point of order.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to bring this whole issue to an end, if we could.

I would like to, if I could for a moment, quote from documents that I believe to be true that will give the Chair some understanding of why I used the statements I used when question period was under way. If I might do that, perhaps it will then bring some understanding to members across the way who object to the language that I used.

[The Speaker]

I think we are getting more and more into debating the whole issue rather than sticking to the point of order.

We are in a rather ticklish situation, especially for your Speaker. I have ruled that what the hon. Minister of Finance brought up in the House is not a point of privilege and I want to put that to one side.

I have in front of me now a point of order on what is claimed to be unparliamentary language of one member to another. I have citations from both sides seemingly to support a particular argument.

I think it is regrettable, my colleagues, that in the course of the question period we deviate and we go from the administrative responsibilities of members to delving into areas which are not exclusively in that area. I have asked the House on a number of occasions, both the questioners and the people who are answering the questions, to try to contain their answers so that there is no overflow into matters which are more personal in nature.

I think, at least up to this point, if you would give your Speaker time, I will go back and review not only Hansard , but I will look at it for myself on television. If, as it is claimed but which I did not feel at the time, unparliamentary language was used, if indeed it was used, I ask the House to permit me to at least look at the evidence, to ponder it for a little while and if it is necessary I will come back to the House.

Therefore, on this particular point of order, unless there is more information that you would like to offer for me to consider, I would prefer to take the matter under advisement, reread Hansard , look at the tapes and if it is necessary I will get back to the House. Is that agreeable to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I wonder if the hon. member would be kind enough, if there is information he wants me to have, surely he could inform me privately and I will consider that.

I have another point of order on an entirely different matter from the hon. member for Kootenay East.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answering the question I posed to the Deputy Prime Minister today, she accused me of sexism. I think it is highly unfortunate that on a day like today when the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is coming forward with their violence program that she would do that. She clearly does not understand that shopaholics can also be men.

[The Speaker]

That is a point of debate, not a point of order.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, often in these points of debate, privilege and order there are a number of shots that are sent back and forth across the House. Unfortunately I heard the member for Okanagan-Shuswap refer to our chief government whip as a jackass.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I do not think that is appropriate.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I think we are going back and forth. Your Speaker cannot possibly hear everything that is said during the course of question period or during the course of debate.

I implore you, if words such as the one that was mentioned by the member for Burlington were used, they were surely used out of earshot of your Speaker. Again, I would implore you, do not use that kind of language with one another. All it does is inflame members on both sides.

The point has been made by the member for Burlington. I did not hear the comment. I think we are going to go back and forth today with accusations and counter-accusations which I do not think will be very profitable for any of us.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last campaign a lot was made about the decorum in this House by the third party. I think it is telling that the response of the members opposite when I raised the

point of order with you acknowledges that they knew the member used that word and they continued to use it and that terminology.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would again urge you not to use any language like that, if indeed it was used. It would be unparliamentary and we could not condone that in this House.

Business Of The House

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was starting to wonder if I would have to raise a point of order just to ask the Thursday question. I would like my hon. colleague to tell us if the proposed business warrants our coming back after the Easter break.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the House for the excellent progress it has made with respect to the legislative program in the past several days.

We will continue this afternoon with the list provided by the Minister of Labour last Thursday. There are ongoing discussions that would see us dealing either later this afternoon or tomorrow with third reading of Bill C-13, the witness protection legislation, followed by Bill C-16 respecting contraventions. I believe there is agreement to dispose of Bill C-16 at all stages in this House.

If there is any time left after these two items are completed tomorrow, the government would be prepared to ask the House to adjourn. When we adjourn tomorrow, the House will begin the two week Easter break.

When we come back, on Monday and Tuesday, April 15 and 16, the House will conclude the budget debate. On Wednesday, April 17, we will resume the list we are now working on at the point where we leave off today. If we make even more progress today than I expect, I will be in communication with members opposite with regard to additional business for that week.

In any case, I wish the House to take notice that no later than the Friday of the week of our return it is the intention of the government to commence debate on the legislation implementing the 1996 budget.

Ways And Means

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1996, without amendment.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to repeal certain related acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 5.