Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Arlooktoo. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Speaker's Ruling

Yesterday the Member for Yellowknife South requested whether or not a phrase used in this House was unparliamentary. I would like to make a ruling on that today.

The ruling today concerns a point of order that was raised by the Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Henry, on February 12. The Member, Mr Henry's point of order relates to an incident that occurred in committee of the whole on February 11. During committee of the whole on that date, Mr. Henry, in making comments during discussion on the business incentive policy, stated, and I quote from pages 929 of the unedited Hansard:

"Mr. Kakfwi has said that he believes there is value for it. So there is a cost involved. So whether somebody gets struck off a list, I am not sure what that would achieve. What I am interested in doing is getting a better bang for the buck, getting more money, getting better value, getting more facilities, stretching the dollar that we have."

After Mr. Henry's comments, the Member for Sahtu, the Honourable Steven Kakfwi, during his response to Mr. Henry, indicated the following which is contained on pages 930 of unedited Hansard:

"that they were going to spend their money up here. So they took the initiative, and we are all the happier for it. Bang for the buck - I must remind the Member is not an acceptable phrase, and we should, without great prompting, retract that. It is not an acceptable phrase, and I thought we agreed last year from using that in this Legislature. Thank you."

The chairman of the committee of the whole, Mrs. Groenewegen indicated that, and I quote:

"as the Chairman, I understand in some peoples' minds, this particular saying has quite a negative connotation. The Member for Yellowknife South did explain that he did not feel that the phrase, 'bang for the buck' used in the context he did, was not meant to insult anybody, and in particular, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Henry did indicate that, if Mr. Kakfwi was insulted by the phrase, and he did not want to insult him, he would retract that, but he was not sure what the concern was about that particular phrase."

As indicated, the Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Henry, the next day raised, in formal session, on a point of order, requesting if he should formally apologize for the phrase, "better bang for the buck." In reviewing the Hansards on this point to see if this phrase or any similar phrase had been ruled as unparliamentary, I found the following that are of the same nature:

On November 20, 1995, during the Territorial Leadership Committee, the Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Morin, in his speech, the Premier used the following phrase, "get a better bang for the dollar".

On May 2, 1996, the Member for Keewatin Central, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Todd, in his budget speech, used the following phrase, "more bang for the buck".

Again, on February 19, 1996, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko, in the committee of the whole, used the words "double the bang for the buck".

It is interesting to note that the use of the phrase in this incident was identical to that which occurred on February 11, 1997, where this was a concern. February 19, 1996, was when Mr. Krutko made that comment while Mrs. Groenewegen was the chair in committee of the whole, and Mr. Kakfwi was the Minister being questioned. I noted that the use of the phrase at that time was not questioned by Mr. Kakfwi.

Finally, the phrase was used again on May 16, 1996, by the honourable Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Picco, who used the phrase, "the most bang for the buck". On that occasion, the Member for Sahtu, Mr. Kakfwi, did raise the matter and I quote from pages 447 of the unedited Hansard of May 16, 1996:

"phrases like, 'bang for the buck' are considered to be demeaning and sexist by a good portion of our public. I used it on occasion and other Members of the Legislature have as well, but I think it is time to address it. Perhaps the chair could speak to it at some point and decide whether or not it is an acceptable phrase to use in this Legislature."

Before the chair could rule on Mr. Kakfwi's point, the Member, Mr. Picco, did respond by saying, and I quote the Member's comments:

"Mr. Chairman, I do apologize for the flippant remark if it has offended anyone out there in the listening audience. I think people know that I would not normally try to demean any person by race, creed, colour, sex, or whatever. I apologize for that."

In my extensive review of the use of the phrase, I could not find that it had been ruled as being unparliamentary. I am conscious of the fact that, when ruling language as unparliamentary, you have to consider the context in which it is used. Also, what may be unparliamentary in one jurisdiction, may not be in another. I also considered that words or phrases may have a different connotation and interpretation by one Member and not by another.

I did not hear any arguments during debate on the point of order that would lead me to apply any unparliamentary connotation in the context. The phrase "bang for the buck" was used in this case. Therefore, at this time, I rule that the context used by Mr. Henry on February 11, the phrase "bang for the buck" is not unparliamentary. Thank you.

Item 21, third reading of bills. Mr. Clerk, item 22, orders of the day.