Debates of March 18th, 1999

Productivity

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no split. Whether it is the caucus, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister of Industry, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, we all know that our productivity must increase.

This is why we eliminated the deficit. This is why we lowered taxes. This is why we invested in research and development. This is why we cleaned up the mess inherited from the Conservative government.

Francophone Communities

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the separatists decided to boycott the launching of the Year of the Francophonie. A Reformer accuses francophones of being whiners and of getting preferential treatment.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us how the International Year of the Francophonie will help Canada's francophone communities?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the hon. member for Brandon—Souris who, just before oral question period, strongly criticized the disparaging and intolerant comments made by the member for Yellowhead toward the Canadian Francophonie.

As for the Year of the Francophonie, it will be full of events, gatherings and celebrations, beginning with the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, the great train de la Francophonie, which will travel across the country, the first Jeux de la Francophonie for Canadian youth, sponsored by the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française and, of course, this summer's Sommet de la Francophonie, in Moncton, which will welcome 52 heads of state.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the first Premier of our new territory of Nunavut, Mr. Paul Okalik.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I would like to know from the government House leader what the business of the House is for the remainder of this week and for next week.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the business of the House between now and the adjournment at the end of next week for the purpose of the Easter break would be as follows, to the extent that we can determine it accurately at this time.

This afternoon the House shall continue with Bill C-72, the income tax amendments. If we complete debate on that, we will resume Bill C-71, the other budget bill. In any case, tomorrow the House will consider Bill C-67, respecting foreign banks.

On Monday we shall commence with Bill C-68, the youth justice bill. Tuesday we will call report stage of Bill C-27, the fisheries bill. We hope, once that is complete, to resume debate on Bill C-71 and hopefully complete the budget bill.

The time remaining next week will also be used to complete third reading of Bill C-27, the fisheries bill which I discussed moments ago, as well as hopefully the second reading of Bill C-69, the criminal records bill.

Points Of Order

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to a matter that occurred in yesterday's question period, which I did not raise yesterday because I did not hear the remark due to the noise in the House. However, I see that it is reported in Hansard at page 13014. The hon. Minister for International Trade said in speaking of myself: “I think it rings hollow when the member can be so disloyal.”

Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 481 states in part:

—it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member, while speaking, must not:

(e) impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member.

(f) make a personal charge against a Member.

Citation 486(1) reads:

It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether that person is a public officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or to private character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation—

Many hot words have been exchanged between the opposition and that minister in terms of questioning the loyalty of the official opposition. I do not rise on a point of order about ascribing motives to the opposition per se, but the record indicates that the member did specifically say that I as a member of this place was disloyal. I think that is a rather fundamental attack on my integrity as a Canadian and as a member of this place. I therefore rise to ask that the member retract and apologize for these unparliamentary remarks.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I have ever heard a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Today during question period we had hon. members in this House accusing other members of committing criminal acts, such as influence peddling, and yet they rise to talk about imputing motive.

Some of the accusations that were made today are perhaps a thousand times more severe, and would merit the admonition of the Speaker, than something such as questioning whether someone is loyal or disloyal to a particular cause. Language was used today in the House by some hon. members accusing other members of parliament of influence peddling. If it cannot be repeated outside, it should not have been said at all and it should be withdrawn.

[The Speaker]

Yesterday I heard when the word “disloyal” was used in the House. Members will recall that I immediately intervened.

No word in itself is unparliamentary. It depends on how it is used. It depends on the tone. Yesterday in the course of the give and take of question period I thought it was necessary to admonish the hon. member. I did not think at that point that it had reached the point of being unparliamentary.

Even today when another hon. member stood to make a statement, and when we question the loyalty of any one of us, I think it is bad for all of us. I appeal to hon. members. That is why I asked members yesterday to please stay away from terms like disloyalty of one person to an idea or to whatever. All it does is incite us as we go along.

I ask you time and again to be very judicious in your choice of words. I hope this will be the case from here on in. I know that things get heated in here. I understand this place, as you do. There are times when these words go back and forth. It is a matter of seeing if we can conduct our business in an atmosphere which many times becomes poisonous because of the words we use.

In this particular case it was regrettable. I intervened. I judged then and I judge now that it was not an unparliamentary term and that I would let it sit there for that matter. However, I would hope that hon. members would be very reflective on the words and on the tone they use when either questioning or answering questions and even in debate in the House.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear the record. My hon. colleague from Fraser Valley did not accuse any hon. member in this House of influence peddling. He said that there was an appearance that it was close to influence peddling.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in that same train of thought, I noticed during question period today that the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier accused one of my colleagues in the Reform Party of being intolerant. Since he is here in the House, I would ask him to respectfully withdraw that statement.

[The Speaker]

I do not know about the word “intolerant” in and of itself. However, the member is here. He can tell us, if he wishes, what he meant by it and hopefully we can put this matter behind us.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commended the member for Brandon—Souris for his criticism which was directed to the member for Yellowhead for that member's comments about francophones. I will quote the member as he is quoted in an article in the Globe and Mail today. He said:

You sigh and you whine and you snivel, and you get the money...

Mr. Speaker, I do not retract my statement.

[The Speaker]

Now we are getting into a bit of a debate on “he said, I said” and we are going to go around in circles. Once again I appeal to you to be very judicious in your choice of words because words such as “intolerant” and another word that was used today in a quotation, but which I did not find it unparliamentary, the word “bigot”, in this particular context, just serve to inflame us as we go along. God knows, we have enough to be excited about without that.

I appeal to you not to use these types of words and surely not that tone of voice.

Business Of The House

[The Speaker]

Earlier today at about 1.55 p.m. I made the decision that there will be an emergency debate this evening beginning at 8 p.m.

I have a note in my hand from the hon. government whip and the government House leader.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Chair has ruled on this issue and I do not dispute that.

However, in order to accommodate the House, instead of waiting until eight o'clock this evening to commence the debate, and in order to allow more members to participate, I wonder if there would be a disposition to commence the debate immediately after private members' hour so that members can speak either for or against the emergency in question. It would allow more members to speak.

[The Speaker]

I take it that you mean after the late show.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a second issue, but perhaps we could agree to defer or to have the late show some other day so that members, given the importance of this issue, could commence at precisely the end of private members' hour, at or around 6.30 p.m., and we would not have the late show today, because this is an adjournment debate.

[The Speaker]

All we are dealing with here is a motion from one hon. member. He wants to put a motion on the floor that we move up the debate time from 8 p.m. to an earlier time, 6.30 p.m., depending on when we finish private members' hour. It might end earlier. That is why I am saying “earlier”.

I want to understand that everyone else understands.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, so that everyone is clear, I wish to ask the Leader of the Government in the House if he intends to have a motion introduced that no dilatory or other motion may be brought during the debate, and let the debate proceed on automatic pilot, so to speak, this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have clearly understood the question of the hon. member opposite. He is asking us whether a motion not to allow dilatory motions will be introduced. I undertake to have one drafted and submitted to the House within minutes.

Since this is an adjournment debate, very few dilatory motions are possible in any event but, to reassure the House, we can put a motion before the House in the next few minutes anyway.

In reply to his question, we are indeed prepared to do this.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, Private Members' Business today will not take very long. I believe it is Bill S-20.

I think in fairness to members who may have lined up their late show, and particularly given that Private Members' Business is expected not to take very long, we could commence the emergency debate immediately after the late show. Quite a lot of scheduling goes into late shows. I do not know who is on the late show, but in fairness to people who may have scheduled themselves for this, particularly given the fact that Private Members' Business is expected to collapse, we could go straight into the late show after private members' hour and still begin the emergency debate earlier than we normally might have begun it.

[The Speaker]

Let us see what we have here. Permission is being sought by the hon. government House leader to put a motion, and the motion is that we will advance the beginning of the emergency debate which I have ordered from 8 p.m. to immediately after the late show. That is what the motion is.

In reply to the question from our Bloc Quebecois colleague, I think there will be something to add so that other motions are not included in the motion.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, is it also understood then that the late show will be moved up and commence when Private Members' Business collapses, rather than having the House suspended until such time as the late show would regularly commence, so everything will run sequentially without time in between.