Seconded by Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
This morning the Premier, Mr. Antoine, rose on a point of order. Mr. Antoine indicated that he took offence to the comments made on July 29, 1999, by the Member for Yellowknife North, Mr. Erasmus, and specifically, his reference to "proverbial wooden Indian" made on page 1170 of the unedited Hansard. He noted that he found the comments to be offensive. I allowed debate on the point of order as to assist me in my ruling. Mr. Erasmus was the first to speak on the point of order. He stated that he did not believe the comments were offensive. Mr. Erasmus later explained that the phrase was used to denote not listening and that there was no further intended meaning. The Member for Sahtu, Mr. Kakfwi, in debate, noted that he found that the comment perpetuated stereotyping with racial overtones.
Issues revolving unparliamentary language are always difficult. As Speaker, it is always my hope and desire that all honourable Members respect each other and conduct themselves in a fashion consistent to the dignity of this Assembly. Most of the time, this occurs and debate is productive and vigorous, yet respectful of Members and of the institution. The few cases where I had to rule on issues of unparliamentary language are troubling because regardless of the outcome of the ruling, there is impairment to the respect and harmony of this institution.
Rule 22(k) provides that a Member will be called to order if he uses "abusive or insulting language". Of course, what is abusive or insulting is a highly subjective matter. However, all Members must be careful in listening to debate, it is clear that some Members of this House found those words to be insulting. However, equally important, is the Member's right to speak freely in the House so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other Members.
I note Beauchesne's, citation 69, states:
"It is important to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability to Members of parliament to do their job properly."
Giving full consideration to the explanation for his use of the words provided by the Member, Mr. Erasmus, and bearing in mind every Member's right of freedom of speech, I do not believe that his words "cross the line" and are unparliamentary. I do, however, note that the Member has withdrawn his words. Therefore, I rule that there is no point of order.
Item 21, third reading of bills. Mr. Morin.