Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1997

Northern Development

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Diamonds are said to be a girl's best friend. However, I am not sure that diamonds will end up being this minister's best friend.

Diamond mining in the Northwest Territories of Canada is an extremely valuable new industry. Can the minister guarantee the House that the jobs in the sorting and the grading sector of this new industry will remain in the Northwest Territories of Canada and not be lost to some offshore cartel?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of the new diamond mines that are being opened in the far north. Indeed, it is a great addition to the economy of the north and for all of Canada.

We have a working committee which has representatives from the federal government and the territorial government focusing on this new and burgeoning aspect of our economy. I look forward to the continuing advice from that committee and to ensuring that Canada does indeed benefit from this great new asset.

Small Business

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification.

The federal government has stated the importance of small business focusing on the needs of rural Canada. How are those issues being addressed in western Canada?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Monsieur le Président, il y a plusieurs programmes qui fonctionnent bien.

One of the better programs is the community futures development program. In the last fiscal year it provided over 2,000 loans, created more than 6,000 jobs and provided information on loans, counselling and business plans to over 250,000 western Canadians. This is a loans program which is operated by local people, many of whom are volunteers. And Mr. Speaker, it works.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Alexander Downer, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canberra, Australia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I have received written notice of two questions of privilege and I have two points of order. I will take them in this order. I will hear from the hon. member for Abitibi and the hon. member for Burin—St. Georges. Then I will hear from the hon. member for Témiscamingue and the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.

Privilege

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, during a vote here in the House of Commons, two members of the Bloc Quebecois indicated to me verbally and by pointing that I should turn around, after I had voted, and look at the opposition visitors' gallery behind me.

I did so and saw two people. One gestured rudely at me and then made another gesture beckoning me to a fight.

During the day I twice intervened in the debate on Bill C-24. My interventions were specifically directed at the people of Abitibi and postal workers.

I will not challenge a union's right to try to protect and promote its members' interests. Last night I told the NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst that I would be intervening today.

My union experience told me I was dealing with two CUPW negotiators, invited by a political party. It is regrettable that because of these gestures—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I am unable to hear the question of privilege. I would like to hear the question of privilege. The hon. member for Abitibi has the floor.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my immediate reaction to the negotiator's actions was to take off my jacket. It is too bad about the union negotiator's colleague, who said and did nothing and got blamed. I am sorry.

In conclusion, I forgive the CUPW negotiator—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

You've got some nerve.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

—for his gestures at my person. Here in the House of Commons we are accustomed to hard-hitting exchanges, but we must treat our political adversaries with respect and dignity.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

I apologize to both national negotiators and, if I have offended certain colleagues opposite, I am sorry.

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

You're late.

[An hon. member]

That is a statement, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

I thank my colleagues.

My dear colleague, that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Burin—St. George's has the floor.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding media reports which I have already sent to you. This refers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is quoted in Canadian Press reports which have been published in several papers referring to possible recommendations from the fisheries and oceans committee. The minister said he would look at them first to see if they are intellectually coherent and not just simply for headline purposes.

As a member of the fisheries and oceans committee, naturally I take issue with the minister's prejudgment of the work of the committee. More importantly I suggest that they constitute an attempt to intimidate the members of the committee, particularly the Liberal members of the committee who form a majority.

The fisheries and oceans committee has just finished a tour of Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec, having had 15 meetings out and about the country and having seen about 4,000 people. I take exception to what the minister said.

Although these statements were made outside of this House, the authorities are clear that any action outside the House which attempts to molest or intimidate members can constitute a contempt of the House even though the events complained about occurred outside this House. There is a longstanding assertion of the privileges of the House against conduct which tends to obstruct members in the execution of their parliamentary duties.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to the 22nd edition of Erskine May, page 127, which clearly states that analogous to molestation of members on account of their behaviour in Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as members. As a matter of fact, as far back as February 26, 1702 the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish libels reflecting upon any member of the House for or relating to his service therein was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House and the member.

So, Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that the minister of fisheries—

[The Speaker]

I do thank the hon. member for bringing up the point. He was kind enough to give me written notice and also send along the article wherein the allegation takes place that he is being intimidated.

I have ruled that this is not a question of privilege. It could be that the member would have a grievance of some sort. I would encourage all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words inside and outside the House.

Points Of Order

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Standing Order 16 of the House of Commons provides that:

16.(1) When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House—

—or make any noise or disturbance.

I would like to correct a number of facts that were just mentioned by the member for Abitibi. Yesterday evening, when we were voting on Bill C-24 at report stage, we witnessed a rather disgraceful scene on the part of a member of this House.

A verbal confrontation took place between a member of Parliament and a spectator in the public gallery. The hon. member even took his jacket off, as he admitted earlier, and challenged the spectator to fight with him. This is totally unacceptable and it is an insult to our whole institution.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I think what the hon. member is referring to is an incident that took place in the House which is regrettable. The hon. members from what I can understand had a joust of words. We have that every day in the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Abitibi on a question of privilege, which I judged not to be a question of privilege, apologized to the House for any actions that he has taken. If this is a continuation of what I judged not to be a question of privilege, then I think it should end here, unless the hon. member has something more that he wants to add. At the end of it all, I think what we want here is decorum in the House.

I will permit the hon. member to terminate with a very few words because I would like to move on to the other point of order.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I quoted Standing Order 16, which deals with the decorum that must prevail.

It seems to me that, in such a deplorable situation, because we did not get the same interpretation of the comments made by the member for Abitibi, it would be normal for the hon. member to apologize, or for the Chair to call him to order.

In this particular case, the member apologized to postal workers, but offered no apologies to the House and to our institution. I would like to see him do just that.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.