Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that Members are not here. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record and then proceed with the point of privilege argument I would like to raise. It is relating, Mr. Speaker, to a number of issues, particularly the matter of a Member's statement and subsequent news articles that were on CJCD and, I believe, CBC. It related to the Member's statement on my absence as Minister of Education, Culture and Employment by Mr. Dent.
I will read his comment: "Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Ordinary Members' Caucus to express concern to the government over the actions of the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Madam Speaker, last Thursday and Friday in this House we discussed the budget of Education, Culture and Employment and we were under the impression on Friday that Mr. Nerysoo would be here on Monday. As a result, we left that department in the middle of the review. Actually, we had only started general comments.
"Madam Speaker, we only learned this morning that Mr. Nerysoo would be away for part of this week. Now, in committee of the whole, we are faced with the decision as to whether to proceed with the departmental review of that budget or to stand the budget down.
"Madam Speaker, our understanding is that the Council of Ministers of Education meeting and Labour Market Ministers meeting in Toronto were not planned at the last minute. The Minister should have been aware of the fact that these meetings were on.
"During the mid-term review, it was pointed out to the Minister in the ordinary Members' report card, that Members particularly felt that Mr. Nerysoo needed to make more of an effort to 'treat Members with respect.' Madam Speaker, leaving in the middle of the budget process without advising this House that he was about to do so or advising Members that he was going to have to be away before we started consideration of this budget, we don't think, shows respect for the Members or the process.
"Madam Speaker, we are concerned that this demonstrates, once again, an example of his cavalier attitude that we commented on following the mid-term review. We would hope, Madam Speaker, that the government will, in future, make sure that Members of this House are advised when Ministers will not be present so that we can plan properly to deal with their budgets in committee of the whole without having to go through the process of standing departments down and skipping around. Thank you, Madam Speaker."
Mr. Speaker, citation 24 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, states: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."
Citation 25: "The Speaker has stated, 'On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is what sets Hon. Members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public does not possess. I suggest that we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view, the parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a Member of the House of Commons."
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the whole matter of privilege is very rarely brought up in legislatures or Parliament and it should be dealt with by motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, in many respects, the criticism that has been made on me has clearly not been dealt with fairly. It has caused me some great concern about my ability to provide advice and, in fact, to conduct business in this House. It seems, despite my best efforts to serve this House and to serve Members fairly and reasonably and with considerable consciousness of their concerns, the honourable Members feel that somehow, I'm not performing my responsibilities properly.
But, I also, Mr. Speaker, want to read citation 28: "...it is clear that many acts which might offend against the law or the moral sense of the community do not involve a Member's capacity to serve the people who have chosen him as their representative nor are they contrary to the usage or derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members. The question arises whether the House, in the exercise of its judicial functions with respect to the conduct of any of its Members, should deprive such Member of any of the safeguards and privileges which every man enjoys in any court of the land."
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, I have been found guilty of something. In fact, the honourable Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake and other Members have suggested that somehow I'm guilty of not advising anyone, this House, my colleagues and other Members. They have found that I was not willing to be present without finding out all the facts about whether I had advised any of my colleagues and this House of my absence.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to now go to citation 59. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, this statement that has been made has somehow been read by the public that I have been irresponsible to this House and I think that is totally unfair. Citation 59: "Traditionally, articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the House have been treated as contempts. Two members of the staff of the House have been dismissed for writing such articles, and in 1873 the House judged an article written by a Member to be a 'scandalous, false and malicious libel upon the honour, integrity and character of this House, and of certain Members thereof, and a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of this House'."
Mr. Speaker, I really think that this whole matter challenges my personal honour, and challenges my character and my integrity in terms of my willingness to carry out the duties as a Member of this House and as a Member of Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, citation 60: "In 1906, Mr. Joseph Ernest Eugene Cinq-Mars, a journalist, was examined at the Bar for an article in the press that the House eventually judged to 'pass the bounds of reasonable criticism and constitute a breach of privileges of the house'."
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that media, CJCD, CBC, News/North and the Yellowknifer have all condemned me as a result of the documents and the statement made in this House.
Mr. Speaker, citation 62, "The Speaker stated: '...in the context of contempt, it seems to me that the amount to contempt, presentations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit'."
Mr. Speaker, I have never lead this House, misinformed or deceitfully worked or provided advice to this House. That, in my view, is incorrect. The suggestion somehow is that I'm deceitful and, in fact, irresponsible. I don't ever believe in the 14.5 years that I've been here, I've ever tried to be deceitful or irresponsible or tried to mislead this House.
I've served this House as a Speaker. Not once did I ever try to misrepresent the people in the House or the people of the Northwest Territories or my constituents. Nor have I tried to lie and mislead the House.
Mr. Speaker, on the matter of reflections on Members, citation 64 "The House has occasionally taken notice of attacks on individual Members. Most notably, in 1880 John Macdonnell, while seated at his desk in the House, referred to a Member, L S Huntingdon, as 'a cheat and a swindler'. Removed from the House, he returned twice more to repeat the charge and finally concluded with a written note to the same effect. For the offence, Mr. Macdonnell was judged guilty of a breach of privilege and was summoned to the Bar to apologize."
Mr. Speaker, personally I have been attacked. I think it is wrong to make the suggestion that somehow I have, in fact, mislead and, in fact, there are allegations that have been made against me that I was not prepared to advise nor inform Members of my absence. I have already tabled in this House the fact that I had advised the Members of this House. If the argument is that I should have provided specific dates, the fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have a forum that we have used traditionally in this House for many years, and that has been to utilize the House Leader as being the person who would represent Cabinet. It is not individuals who would, in fact, represent themselves to the Ordinary Members' Caucus.
The other point that has been a long-standing tradition, and I know my colleague, Mr. Patterson, who was Government Leader, made certain of this even in his time in Cabinet, along with my other colleague, Mr. Ballantyne, who was the House Leader previously, made certain that the process of advising the House was not to request to provide for a request to leave, but rather to provide advice that Members would be absent. That has been a long-standing tradition. In fact, that is the process I have used.
Mr. Speaker, citation 67, a suggestion for in this particular case, which is a case of a newspaper, News/North, in fact, the local media here, the radio stations, "It is always the responsibility of the House to decide if reflections on Members are sufficiently serious to justify action. In 1974 and again in 1976, Members complained about newspaper reports about the Speaker allowed that a prima facie case of privilege existed. After debate, the House declined to refer the matters to the Standing Committee..."
Irrespective of that, Mr. Speaker, I still do believe that what has occurred here is the media has accepted -- accepted! -- a statement as being fact, being true. I think, in my view, that is unfair, there is no justification to the arguments that have been made. If the issue that is before the Members of this House is my character, or for that matter is the report card, then the honourable Members in this House should rise and state that fact. But the simple fact is the issue that was brought to the attention of this House was the matter of the absence of Members from this House. During that day there were two other Members of the Cabinet absent, and not once in the documentation was there mention specifically any issue related to those individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review this particular matter. I would ask you to consider the arguments that have been brought forward and bring back, if you would, a decision on these arguments that I have brought to your attention. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.